Researchers always compared the difference between good readers and poor readers and demonstrated the advantages of good readers. Rumelhart (1980) stated that good readers understood texts by constructing meaning and integrating information from the text with relevant information from their background knowledge. Blanton (1984) pointed out
that skilled readers knew how to outline, paraphrase, summarize, and critique written materials. Readers with well-developed conceptual knowledge on the topic of a reading selection comprehended and remembered its information better than readers without any foreknowledge. Also, Li and Mundy (1996) brought up that good readers had better
awareness and control of their cognitive activities in reading, and they were also capable of verbalizing the process in English. Good readers were able to vary their reading strategies according to their understanding of the material. According to Shih (1992), successful readers were more aware of their purpose for reading and adjusted their reading process accordingly. Sheorey and Mokhtari (2001) and Mokhtari and Reichard (2004) revealed good readers with different native language backgrounds invoked effective reading strategies to solve reading comprehension difficulties. Grabe (1991) suggested that good readers employed a wide range of strategies in order to read more efficiently.
Nambiar-Gopal (2005) expressed that good reading includes the ability to synthesize and critically evaluate a text. Block (1986) also indicated that, when reading a text, successful L2 readers were able to apply personal and general knowledge for association purposes. Uhlir (2003) noted that the activeness of learners helped them to be successful readers. In addition, active learners utilized metacognitive knowledge for a better
understanding of the text. According to Adams (1980), skilled readers could verify the importance of information in the content. They added the less important ideas in proper relation to the central theme which were constructed around the central ideas.
On the other hand, Duffy and Roehler (1987) brought up that poor readers often ignored reading difficulties they were confronted with. Poor readers were not involved enough with the reading process, did not check regularly for comprehension, and took little action when the reading process was at a deadlock. According to Baker and Brown (1984), poor readers often had insufficient knowledge of strategies, and they did not use them appropriately in the reading process. Nevertheless, Brown, Campione, and Day (1981) indicated that poor readers could be trained in active processing strategies in order to improve their reading comprehension. Dhieb-Henia (2003) conducted a study and proved that metacognitive strategies were trainable. Uhlir (2003) indicated that good readers could regulate their knowledge according to diverse reading tasks, check their comprehension, and make use of various strategies when failing to comprehend the content. However, low-level readers often failed to do so because they were short of knowledge and lacked an understanding of reading strategies. Blanton (1984) brought up that unskilled readers could not paraphrase or summarize the text, argue for or against the author’s viewpoints, state the purpose of the reading, or manipulate the text effectively. 曹逢甫 (2004) brought up why university students were not able to read the texts of academic textbooks or journals after six-year English learning. First, high school teachers did not instruct them to be able to read by themselves; thus, extensive reading would not be a habit to them. Then, the lack of extensive reading would keep their vocabulary knowledge insufficient.
Many important elements in academic reading, such as metacognitive strategy application and a strong guessing capability, are usually used by readers with higher English proficiency. A reader with a lower English proficiency often has a much harder time in guessing unknown words accurately and applying metacognitive strategies
appropriately. Thus, poor readers should read more and more to train their reading ability.
The act of reading would enhance readers’ vocabulary and the effectiveness at using contextual clues to guess the meaning of new academic words. Furthermore, it would increase their skill at applying suitable metacognitive strategies.
Based on the literature review, this study would examine what reading difficulties the non-English major graduate students encountered and the possible causes that resulted in these difficulties and it would focus more on the application of metacognitive strategies rather than other reading strategies. Furthermore, this study would also investigate whether instructors, who had more experience toward academic English reading, had various viewpoints from inexperienced academic readers, graduates. The experienced academic readers would give some recommendations for the graduates in future academic English reading.
CHAPTER 3 Methodology
Subjects
A total of 161 subjects participated in this study, including 141 graduate students and 20 instructors from non-English major institutes. Among these, 12 graduate students and 2 instructors did not complete the surveys. Therefore, 147 surveys were available to be analyzed, including 129 graduate students and 18 instructors. The graduate participants included 80 male and 49 female graduates. Of the surveyed non-English major graduates in Pingtung city, 36 majored in Marketing and Logistics Management, 12 majored in
Business Administration, 1 majored in Real Estate Management, and 7 majored in International Business. In Kaohsiung city, 22 of the surveyed graduates majored in Risk Management and Insurance, 14 majored in Construction Engineering, and 2 majored in Civil and Disaster Engineering. In Taipei city, 7 of the graduates majored in Construction Engineering, 7 majored in Environment Engineering, and 16 majored in Civil Engineering or Civil and Disaster Prevention Engineering. In Hsinchu city, 5 graduate participants majored in Civil Engineering. The backgrounds of graduate subjects were shown in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1