CHAPTER 4 RESULTS
4.4 Research Question 4: How well do FD/FI Learners perceive the effectiveness of the
5.1.1 The Effects of RSI on Students’ Reading Comprehension
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION
This chapter contains three parts: (1) discussion of major findings; (2) pedagogical implications that come along with the results, and (3) limitations of this study and suggestions for future studies.
5.1. Discussion of Major Findings
This section shows the results of the present study. First, the researcher examines the performance of FD/FI groups before and after RSI. Second, the results of the global & local reading strategy use before & after RSI based on the Reading Strategy Questionnaire (Questionnaire I) will be clarified. Third, the researcher talks about the FD/FI Learners’ performance in the respective reading comprehension question types. In the final part is an interpretation of the participants’ responses to RSI based on the results of the Students’ Responses to RSI (Questionnaire II).
5.1.1. The Effects of RSI on Students’ Reading Comprehension
A paired samples t-test was administered to check if there is any difference in the pre-test and post-test for both groups. As indicated in Table 4.1, there were significant differences in the use of global and local reading strategies between the FD group and the FI group. It is manifested that reading strategy instruction (RSI) on the global & local strategies proved effective in the reading comprehension for
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
both FD and FI groups. Such results are contrary to Wei’s study (2007) that “the FID [FI/FD] cognitive style has very low correlation to reading comprehension abilities” (p. ii).
So far, it is hard for this researcher to compare the results of this study with those of other studies on something closely approximate to global and local reading strategies but different in their categorization. Basically, however, all of the studies show the effectiveness of RSI on reading comprehension. The most remarkable studies are those conducted by Yang (2005), Yang (2007) and Chen (2009), in which the participants who were taught reading strategies performed remarkably better than those who were not taught on the reading strategies.
To illustrate, in Yang’s (2005) study, eighty 11th-grade senior high school students majoring in liberal arts were evenly divided into the experimental group and the control group. The control group was taught in traditional teaching methods.
The experimental group who was then separated into high proficiency group and low proficiency group, was taught with reading strategies, a kind of metadiscourse schema including “textual metadiscourse (logical connective, frame marker, attributor, code glosses, and topicalizer), and interpersonal metadiscourse (hedge, emphatics, attitude markers, and relational markers)” (p.109). The results showed that there was a significant difference in the post-test between the experimental and control groups. In addition, “there were significant differences for the high- and low proficiency groups in the experimental group after the metadiscourse instruction, and the high proficiency group gained more benefit from the instruction of metadiscourse schema than the low proficiency group” (p. xvi).
In Yeh’s study (2006), seventy-six 8th-grade junior high students were divided into the control and experimental groups. Six strategies, i.e., making predictions,
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
skimming for the main idea, scanning for important information making inferences, guessing the meanings of unfamiliar words from context, and self-monitoring were given to all the participants in the experimental group. The results indicated that
“there was a significant difference in the reading performance between the control and experimental groups” (p. xi). Instructed by reading strategies, the experimental group had significant improvement in reading comprehension. The reading strategy instruction facilitated the participants in comprehending main idea, detail, inference and word-guessing question type.
In Chen’s (2009) study, seventy-five 9th-grade junior high students were divided into the control and experimental groups. Contextual inference reading strategies using five types of contextual clues－synonym, definition, contrast, explanation, and mood or tone, were given to the participants in the experimental group. The results showed that “the two groups’ scores of the post-reading comprehension tests showed significant difference, indicating participants who were instructed with CIS performed better in the reading comprehension than those who didn’t” (p. x).
Based on the results in Table 4.2, the mean scores of FD in the pre-test and post-test were 61.63 and 68.13 (+ 6.50), and those of FI group in the pre-test and post-test were 58.42 and 67.91 (+ 9.49). The results indicated that both FD and FI groups made improvements but the FD group outperformed the FI group. However, the learners in the FI group made more significant progress than those in the FD group. Obviously, our global and local reading strategy instruction (RSI) programs were especially beneficial to the FI learners. It makes sense that the FI learners having preferences for seeking details could benefit more from the instruction of twenty-four local reading strategies, and thus performed better than those FD
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
learners in the post-test.
However, the overall performance in the post-test was not so high as expected. This can be explained for the reasons below. One, repeated exposure of these reading strategies was inadequate. Chen (2009) claimed that students should have sufficient practices to get used to these strategies. Since the students in this study were under the pressure of taking a variety of subject matter courses and numerous exams as well, they lacked constant practice in these reading strategies.
As a result, they were still subject to trial and errors while taking simulated and formal reading comprehension tests.
Another possible reason is that they may not have a large size of vocabulary, according to Chen (2009). Some students once mentioned in the opened-questions of Questionnaire II that reading strategies may not be workable if they did not have strong vocabulary power, adding, “over three unknown words in a sentence will pose a threat to my reading.” Simply put, reading strategies, either global or local, would not function well unless students are well equipped with the fundamental vocabulary capability.
5.1.2. The Effects of RSI on Students’ Reading Strategy Use before and after RSI The researcher begins to discuss the frequently used global and local reading strategies by the FD and FI groups. Table 4.9 shows that the “same” and “different”
frequently used global and local reading strategies by the FD/FI groups before and after RSI.
However, the sameness between the FD group and the FI group in the frequent use of the global and local reading strategies is not to be further discussed.
The difference between the FD group and the FI group in the frequent use of the
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
global and local reading strategies before and after RSI is our focus below.
The contrast between Table 4.11 (A) and Table 4.11 (B) bears two important meanings for us. One, we can conclude with certainty that the FD/FI learners with different learning styles had different tendencies/preferences in the use of global and local reading strategies, especially in the local strategy use. Such finding is consistent with Wei’s (2007) research that “readers with different Field-independence/ dependence (FID) degree” (p. ii) apply various learning strategies in reading processes. The other is that after reading strategy instruction, the items of “different” frequently used global and local reading strategies become fewer. That is to say, our reading strategy instruction has aroused learners’
awareness of reading strategy use and shortened the differences between FD and FI groups, making the FD learners pay more attention to the local reading strategies, and the FI learner, the global reading strategies.
The conclusion of such a complementary nature echoes the studies of Liao (2007) and Musser (n.d.) that teachers should be cognitively flexible and adaptive so as to stretch different instructions to satisfy students of different FD/FI learning styles. In this study, the researcher listed all the global and local reading strategies in Chapter Two. To some extent, such a list broadens teachers’ cognitive scope and students’ as well in adapting themselves to answering reading comprehension questions.
Such a conclusion also conforms to Brown’s proposal (1980) that “the ideal language learner” (p.93) would be cognitively flexible to taking advantage of both FI and FD styles. That is, FD learners can jump across their boundary taking advantage of the FI learners’ analytic perspectives, and the FI learners, capitalizing on the FD learners’ holistic perspectives. The global and local reading strategy
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
program intended to make the cross use of the strengths of FD and FI learning styles for each single learner has “diversified” learners’ learning strategies (Witkin, et. al. 1977, p. 53)
After the general discussion of the frequently used global and local reading strategies by the FD and FI groups, we will move on to the contrast between FD and FI groups in the use of different global and local reading strategy in a more significant way. Thus, we can evaluate the effectiveness of RSI and further prove if our reading strategy program is successful.
A comparison was made between Table 4.8 (A) and Table 4.8 (B). The differences between the FD and FI groups lie more in local reading strategy use.
The result echoes Zhang’s study (2006) that both groups focus more on local reading strategy use, but the FI learners have more strategy use than the FD learners in detailed information processing (p. 34).
To detail the differences between FD and FI in the use of global and local reading strategies, this researcher goes a step further to analyze Table 4.8 (B). In Table 4.8 (B), the discrimination between FD and FI groups appears not only in the use of the global reading strategies but also in the use of the local reading strategies.
In the use of the global reading strategies, the FD group pays attention to “how to conclude the text,” but the FI group focuses on “the writing purpose,” “style/tone,”
and “the possible sources of the text.” In the use of the local reading strategies, the FD group pays attention to “comparison or contrast,” “the positive degree, the comparative degree, and the superlative degree,” “illustrative, distractive, and explicative,” while the FI group focuses on “spatial order,” “concessive,”
“stylistic,” “inversion,” and “emphatic.” Such differences demonstrate a fact－the FD and FI groups with different learning styles are “virtually” different. That is, the
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
FD learners are more global/whole/holistic, and the FI learners are more analytic/serial/detailed as we discussed in the dichotomy of the FD/FI learners’
characteristics (see Table 2.1).
These findings can be interpreted in two ways. One, the global reading strategies seemed easier for both FD and FI learners to acquire in the duration of the 18-week RSI, since the number of the global reading strategies (16 Items) instructed in RSI are fewer than that of the local ones (24 Items). Relatively, the local reading strategies were more difficult for both FD and FI learners to use, probably because of the longer time span they had to pick them up. It is therefore acceptable that the conspicuous differences occurred in local reading strategy use.
The other, due to the conspicuous differences in the use of local strategies by FD and FI groups, we have come to understand the real operation of students applying the local strategies in the reading comprehension and thus come up with a better solution to the possible complexities and problems that may ensue in the instruction on the use of local strategies in the future. To go further, we proceed to the discussion of students’ performance in each question type.
5.1.3. Students’ Performance in Each Question Type
Based on the results of Table 4.16, both FD and FI groups made much progress in each question type after RSI, indicating that reading strategy instruction program substantially contributed to the FD and FI learners’ advancements.
On the whole, the FD group and the FI group with different learning styles achieved different learning outcomes in different question types, and the results generally agree with Wang’s (2004) study that the analytic/serial learning-style participants (the FI learners) were good at answering the detailed (local) question types, while the global/whole/holistic learning-style participants (the FD learners)
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
were good at answering “the main idea” or “the style/tone” (global) question type (pp.35-36). However, neither in the pre-test nor in the post-test did both groups perform well in answering “style/tone” question type. These results are in substantially agreement with Lu’s (2002) analysis on the reading comprehension tests from 1995 to 2001, in which the passing rate of the “style/tone” question type for the high proficiency group is 39.9% and that for the low proficiency group is 19% (pp.78-80).
One possible explanation for these encouraging results is that RSI did work effects on the FD and FI learners’ global and local reading strategy use. By comparing Table 4.11 (A) with Table 4.11 (B), we found special meanings for implications. For global reading strategies, there was no “different” frequently used global reading strategy for the FD group after RSI [see Table 4.11 (B)]. For local reading strategies, the FD and FI learners with different learning styles “indeed”
displayed different preferences for using strategies either before or after RSI. Take Table 4.11 (A) for instance. The FD group just paid attention to only one strategy, say, Item 15 “condition”; however, the FI group focuses on other strategies, say, Item 17 “comparison-contrast,” Item 19 “the positive, the comparative, and the superlative degree,” Item 21 “defining,” Item 25 “ illustrative, distractive, and explicative”, and Item 32 “bold word.” Again, take Table 4.11 (B) for example. The FD group just paid attention to Item 25 “illustrative, distractive, and explicative,”
and Item 26 “logical order/ the order of the importance”; however, the FI group focuses on other strategies, say, Item 21 “defining and explicative,” and Item 32
“bold word.”
We can conclude with certainty that the FD and FI learners with different learning styles pay close to different global and local reading strategies after our
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
instruction. Simply put, the FD learners lay more emphasis on getting the “whole”
ideas or concepts, while the FI learners put stress on more “detailed” information.
Therefore, it is acceptable that there was much progress in the performance of the global and local question types for both FD and FI groups in the post-test.
Possible explanation for these inconspicuous progressions or some little regressions could be that regardless of FD/FI different learning styles, question types, such as style/tone, writing purpose, inference or reference, are difficult for most students. It stands to reason that most learners with different FD/FI learning styles do not perform so well in these question types.
5.1.4. Students’ Feedbacks on the Effect of RSI
After a closer examination of the participant’ responses to Questionnaire II, significant conclusions are drawn. They are as follows:
First and foremost, as indicated in Table 4.17, far more half of the participants (72%) made positive comments on RSI, regarding RSI as a practical and feasible reading strategy training program. Such a result should suffice to claim that the global and local reading strategies planned in RSI are effective and efficient in enhancing and elevating learners’ reading comprehension. In the present research, the participants were encouraged to use global and local reading strategies as possible as they could, and to apply them in the reading comprehension tests of JCEE to succeed. The more practice they do, the more they are familiar with these reading strategies. These reading strategies help them focus their attention, get the gist or the main idea of a text more quickly, and most importantly, answer reading test questions items accurately.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
After discussing the participants’ responses to the effects of RSI on reading comprehension, we will continue to talk about the most and least beneficial global and local reading strategies used by the FD and FI groups after RSI.
Table 4.25 and Table 4.26 display the most and least beneficial global and local reading strategies used by the FD and FI groups after RSI.
The most beneficial reading strategies, they claimed, are the test items frequently occurring in the reading comprehension test of JCEE exam. Familiarity with such recursive reading strategies is a guarantee for good testing skills, which ensure good scores. And good scores reinforce their recognition of the positive effects of our RSI.
The least beneficial reading strategies, they claimed, are the test items which do not frequently occur in the reading comprehension test of JCEE exam. For instance, Items 3 “title, subtitle, figure, and table,” accounting for 1.7 % and Item 33 “reference,” accounting for 1.7 %, seldom occurred in the reading test (see Table 3.6). In fact, only a figure attached to a reading passage about the spider’s web structure appeared in 100 DRT (Department Required Test). In addition, these strategies may also be the most difficult reading strategies (see Table 4.29), e.g., Item 2 “the coherence of paragraphs,” Item 6 “the topic sentences and the closing sentences in the main paragraph,” Item 8 “textual cohesion, i.e., the cohesion of the preceding or the next sentences,” Item 13 “additive,” Item 20 “concessive,“ Item 29
“stylistic,” Item 30 “inversion,” Item 33 “reference,” and Item 35 “the specific details and substantial evidence.” Since they are either so difficult, or seldom occurred in the reading test, learners deemed those items unimportant.
After concluding the most and the least beneficial global/local reading strategies, we will move on to the most difficult and the easiest global/local reading
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
strategies. Table 4.27 and Table 4.28 display six of the most difficult and the easiest global and local reading strategies by the FD and FI groups after RSI.
The most difficult global/local reading strategies in this study (see Table 4.23) are worthy of further exploration since they may provide in-depth messages and profound implications for language learning and teaching. Among the forty reading strategies in total, six global and six local reading strategies were considered the most difficult. The six global reading strategies are as follows: “the coherence of paragraphs (52%),” “the topic sentences and the closing sentences in the main paragraph (44%),” “the possible development patterns of the supporting sentences (paragraph development) (37%),” “textual cohesion, i.e., the cohesion of the preceding or the next sentences (43%),” “the specific details and substantial evidence (41%),” “style/tone (47%).” Another six local reading strategies are
“additive (36%),” “concessive (43%),” “logical order/ the order of the importance (36%),” “stylistic (41%),” “inversion (45%),” and “reference (36%).” A good understanding of all these can be beneficial to our future learning and teaching.
Though less than 50% of participants think of these global and local reading strategies above as “most difficult,” the percentage is still high. Possible reasons for the claimed “most difficult” reading strategies are as follows. One, such strategies require learners not only to understand the literal meanings of words, phrases, and grammar, but also to comprehend the whole text. Another, such strategies need students to have a better command of the usage of the words, particularly the polysomy, several meanings for one word. The other, such strategies need students to make out the word’s extended meanings in the context. To conclude, to master
Though less than 50% of participants think of these global and local reading strategies above as “most difficult,” the percentage is still high. Possible reasons for the claimed “most difficult” reading strategies are as follows. One, such strategies require learners not only to understand the literal meanings of words, phrases, and grammar, but also to comprehend the whole text. Another, such strategies need students to have a better command of the usage of the words, particularly the polysomy, several meanings for one word. The other, such strategies need students to make out the word’s extended meanings in the context. To conclude, to master