行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫 成果報告
科技大學學生的英文閱讀焦慮和其與閱讀策略運用及閱讀 能力的關係
研究成果報告(精簡版)
計 畫 類 別 ： 個別型
計 畫 編 號 ： NSC 96-2411-H-011-007-
執 行 期 間 ： 96 年 08 月 01 日至 97 年 10 月 30 日 執 行 單 位 ： 國立臺灣科技大學應用外語系
計 畫 主 持 人 ： 田曉萍
計畫參與人員： 碩士班研究生-兼任助理人員：胡皓霆 碩士班研究生-兼任助理人員：吳有明
報 告 附 件 ： 出席國際會議研究心得報告及發表論文
處 理 方 式 ： 本計畫涉及專利或其他智慧財產權，2 年後可公開查詢
中 華 民 國 98 年 01 月 22 日
行政院國家科學委員會補助專題研究計畫 行政院國家科學委員會補助專題研究計畫 行政院國家科學委員會補助專題研究計畫
行政院國家科學委員會補助專題研究計畫 成果報告成果報告成果報告 成果報告
科技大學學生的英文閱讀焦慮和其與閱讀策略運用及閱讀能力的關係 科技大學學生的英文閱讀焦慮和其與閱讀策略運用及閱讀能力的關係 科技大學學生的英文閱讀焦慮和其與閱讀策略運用及閱讀能力的關係 科技大學學生的英文閱讀焦慮和其與閱讀策略運用及閱讀能力的關係 計畫類別：個別型計畫 □ 整合型計畫
計畫編號：NSC 96－2411－H－011－007－
執行期間：96 年 8 月 1 日至 97 年 10 月 30 日
計畫主持人：田曉萍 共同主持人：
計畫參與人員：
成果報告類型(依經費核定清單規定繳交)：精簡報告 □完整報告
本成果報告包括以下應繳交之附件：
□赴國外出差或研習心得報告一份
□赴大陸地區出差或研習心得報告一份
出席國際學術會議心得報告及發表之論文各一份
□國際合作研究計畫國外研究報告書一份
處理方式：除產學合作研究計畫、提升產業技術及人才培育研究計畫、
列管計畫及下列情形者外，得立即公開查詢
涉及專利或其他智慧財產權，□一年二年後可公開查詢
執行單位：國立台灣科技大學應用外語系 中 華 民 國 98 年 1 月 20 日
Introduction
The role played by affective factors in language learning has been recognized and discussed a lot for its potential in limiting language learners’ ability to utilize language input (Krashen, 1985) and therefore diminishing their learning achievement (Gardner, 1985; Gardner
& MacIntyre, 1992; 1993a; Skehan, 1989, 1991; Spolsky, 1989). Among the various factors, anxiety was found to strongly correlate with measures of achievement (MacIntyre & Gardner, 1994b). Although anxiety is not always viewed as a negative influence in learning (MacIntyre, 1990), researchers and educators in the area of foreign language learning have acknowledged the existence of a specific type of anxiety associated with learning a foreign language and investigated its potential detrimental effect on language learning and performance. Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope (1986) defined this type of anxiety as “a distinct complex of
self-perceptions, beliefs, feelings, and behaviors related to classroom language learning arising from the uniqueness of the language learning process” (p. 128) and developed the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale to measure such type of anxiety. However, academic attention to the impact of foreign language anxiety has centered on the skills of listening and speaking (Aida, 1994; Horwitz et al., 1986; Kim, 2000; Young, 1991), the two skills generally believed to be most anxiety-provoking in learning a new language.
Saito, Horwitz, and Garza (1999) proposed that reading in a foreign language could also cause a significant level of anxiety for learners due to factors such as unfamiliar writing systems and cultural contents, and they demonstrated that such anxiety, though related to the more general type of language learning anxiety, actually existed as a separate construct. The instrument used in their study, the Foreign Language Reading Anxiety Scale, was adopted in many subsequent research studies as a reliable measure of anxiety experienced in reading in a foreign language.
Since foreign language reading anxiety was established as a construct distinguishable from general foreign language learning anxiety, several studies have been conducted to explore its impact on reading and relationship with other related factors. Saito et al. (1999) studied students learning French, Japanese, and Russian, and found that while levels of general foreign language learning anxiety did not vary according to target language, levels of foreign language reading anxiety varied by target language, probably due to factors related to specific writing systems. In addition, the students’ grades were found to decrease as their anxiety levels increase.
Other studies also found similar negative relationship between reading anxiety and the outcome of reading. Sellers (1998; 2000) studied Spanish learners’ general foreign language anxiety and reading anxiety, and investigated the relationship between the two types of anxiety and reading outcome as measured by a written recall and a multiple-choice test. Results of her study showed that students with higher levels of anxiety recalled less content of the reading material. As for the type of information recalled, students with higher levels of reading anxiety
were found to report less important information, while those with higher levels of general foreign language anxiety were found to recall less supporting information from the passage.
Hsu (2004) explored the effects of text difficulty and reading time on recall of reading materials among students with different anxiety levels. Results of her study indicated that reading anxiety did not affect the total number of ideas recalled from the more difficult text but negatively impacted recall of the easier text. Regarding the type of information recalled, a significant difference was reported in recall of minor details from the easier text among
students of different reading anxiety levels. Results on the other variable, time limit, showed no significant effect on the total number of ideas recalled among students with different anxiety levels.
Using anxometers from MacIntyre and Gardner’s (1991b) study, Zhang (2003) studied the effect of three reading modes, silent reading, oral reading, and reading aloud in class, on students’ anxiety levels and reading comprehension. Two anxometers were given out to students in each of the three reading modes, one before reading and one after, to measure their decline of anxiety after finishing the reading activity. Results showed that oral reading to oneself produced the highest level of anxiety and resulted in poorest comprehension. Silent reading, on the other hand, evoked the lowest level of anxiety and led to better comprehension.
The studies above were generally concerned with the relationship between foreign language reading anxiety and the outcome of reading, usually measured by multiple choice comprehension tests or written recalls. Only one study (Sellers, 1998) tried to tap into the reading process by using think-aloud interviews to examine students’ use of reading strategies during the reading process. As recognized in related literature (Paris & Winograd, 1990), students’ use of reading strategies during the reading process plays a crucial role in reading comprehension, and students at different levels of reading proficiency display very different patterns of reading strategy use (Baker & Brown, 1984; Paris & Jacobs, 1984; Paris et al., 1990;
Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995; Snow et al., 1998; Tian, 2004). Considering the gap in existing literature and the significant role of reading strategies in comprehension, it seems a meaningful effort to explore the relationship between foreign language reading anxiety and readers’ use of strategies during the process or even the relationship among anxiety, strategy use, and reading proficiency. Therefore, the present study was devised to shed initial light on the
interrelationship among the three variables. Hopefully this study can help paint a more complete picture about anxiety and foreign language reading and assist reading instructors to consider the task of lowering reading anxiety and improving comprehension from another perspective.
Method 1. Participants
211 students from a university in Northern Taiwan participated in the study. These
students were all non-English-majors in their second to fourth years in the university.
Demographic data of the participants are shown in the table below.
Table 1: Demographic Data of Participants
Gender Age Major
Male 163
(77.3%)
Under 20 19 (9%)
College of Engineering
144 (68.3%)
Female 48
(22.7%)
20-25 175
(82.9%)
College of Management
64 (30.3%)
26-30 17
(8.1%)
College of Design
3 (1.4%)
Total 211 (100%) 211 (100%) 211 (100%)
2. Materials
Materials used to collect data for the present study include three questionnaires, a reading test, and a reading passage.
The three questionnaires are: (1) Background Questionnaire developed by the researcher, (2) Foreign Language Reading Anxiety Scale (FLRAS) developed by Saito, Horwitz, and Garza (1999), and (3) Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS) developed by Mokhtari & Shoerey (2002). Details of the questionnaires are presented below:
The Background Questionnaire: This includes mainly questions to collect demographic information about the participants and their reading habits.
FLRAS: This was used as an instrument to assess participants’ anxiety level in reading English.
The questionnaire includes 20 items with 5-point Likert-type scales to elicit students’ response to statements regarding perception of reading and feelings experienced in reading English.
Higher scores on this questionnaire indicate higher anxiety levels in reading English. To avoid problems in comprehending the statements or further anxiety caused by reading in English, the present study adopted the Chinese version of the FLRAS used in Huang (2001) with slight modification (see Appendix B). Reliability of the original questionnaire was evidenced by an internal consistency of 0.86 (Cronbach’s alpha) in Saito et al.’s (1999) study. The Chinese version of the FLRAS shows an internal consistency of 0.85 in Huang (2001) and 0.86 in the present study.
SORS: The present study adopted the SORS out of a possible selection of instruments to elicit readers’ use of strategies because the survey was developed particularly for adolescent and adult ESL/EFL learners in reading of academic materials, which adequately fits the participants and the purpose of the current study. The SORS is a 30-item survey with 5-point Likert-type
scales to investigate respondents’ awareness and perceived use of reading strategies in academic settings.
Strategies in the SORS are divided into three broad categories—Global Strategies, Problem-Solving Strategies, and Support Strategies. Global Strategies include 13 items and refer to intentional moves adopted to set the purpose for the reading, such as previewing the text and checking how text content fits the purpose of reading. Problem-Solving Strategies include 8 items and focus on actions taken to conquer problems encountered in the reading process, such as adjusting reading speed and guessing the meaning of unknown words. The last category, Support Strategies, consists of 9 items and refers to the use of basic mechanisms or tools to sustain the reading process, such as underlining texts or using reference materials.
To facilitate understanding and to ensure better data quality, the researcher adopted the
Chinese version of the SORS as used in Wu(2005) with slight modification to obtain data about participants’ awareness and perceived use of strategies in reading academic materials.
Reliability of the original questionnaire was reported to be 0.89 (Cronbach’s alpha) by
Mokhtari & Sheorey (2002). Responses to the SORS by participants in the present study show a slightly higher internal consistency index of 0.9.
In addition to the questionnaires, a reading test and a reading passage were also used in the data-collection procedure as discussed below.
Reading comprehension test
The reading test was administered to assess the reading proficiency of the participants.
Considering the level of the general student body, the researcher decided to use the
Intermediate Level of the General English Proficiency Test for the purpose. The GEPT is a 5-level test developed by the Language Teaching and Testing Center in Taiwan to measure the general English proficiency of learners. The test includes all four skills and has been widely used by educational and non-educational institutions in Taiwan as an index of English
proficiency. According to the official test bulletin, test-takers who pass the Intermediate Level of the test are considered to have the English proficiency of senior high school graduates in Taiwan. For this study, since the participants are non-majors in their second to fourth years, the researcher decided to use the Reading Comprehension section of an Intermediate Level test.
Reading passage
A reading text was used in the second phase of the data collection, as discussed in detail in the procedure section. The main purpose of using the passage was to elicit the participants’
actual reading behavior when encountering academic texts. To serve the purpose, the
researcher selected a text with a structure similar to most textbooks used in academic contexts.
Since most of the participants came from the school of engineering, a text somewhat related to the field was used. The chosen text was taken from a book on innovative ways of applying
robotics in educational settings. The entire chapter was provided to the selected participants, though they were not required to finish the entire chapter.
3. Procedure
Data collection procedure of the study includes two phases. The first phase includes all participants, and the second phase includes selected participants only based on their responses to the FLRAS. For the first phase, all participants were administered the Background
Questionnaire, FLRAS, and SORS. Before administering the questionnaires, the researcher explained to the participants the purpose and nature of the study and informed them that their response would not affect their course grades in any way. The GEPT reading test was given a few weeks later.
In order to compare the differences of high and low-anxiety readers, after the completed questionnaires were collected, the researcher invited ten participants to participate in the second phase of data collection. These ten participants were selected based on their scores on the FLRAS. Five participants with the highest scores on FLRAS were considered high-anxiety readers, and another five with the lowest scores on FLRAS were viewed as low-anxiety readers.
The ten participants were invited to meet with the researcher individually for the second phase of the study. Due to scheduling difficulty, only eight were able to show up for the task.
For each session, the researcher briefly explained the purpose and procedure of the study and obtained the participant’s permission for audio- and video-recording of the process. Each participant was first introduced to the idea of thinking aloud and then went through a brief think-aloud training session. The training mainly consisted of oral explanation, listening to a demonstration tape, practicing think-aloud on a short passage, and questions and answers.
When the participant seemed to have a better grasp of the idea of thinking aloud and felt more comfortable with the procedure, the researcher would give the participant a copy of the text and then began recording. All participants were told beforehand to bring any reference materials or tools they use when reading academic texts. Dictionaries, pens, rulers, and scrap papers were also provided by the researcher. All participants were instructed to read in any way they were used to and were informed that there was no need to finish the given text. Each participant was allowed approximately 30 minutes for the think-aloud task. Following the think-aloud task, each participant was invited to talk about their reading behavior,
comprehension of the text just read, perception of reading English academic texts, sources of reading anxiety and problems, and expected assistance.
Results and Discussion
Results of the study are as follows:
1. Reading anxiety
Results from the FLRAS show a mean score of 62.85, or 3.14 per item, suggesting that the
participants did experience a moderate level of anxiety in reading English. One possible reason the anxiety level was not as high as expected was that these participants were registered, during the entire period of the study, in reading-based courses instructed by the researcher. Reading and instruction of reading strategies were regular activities conducted in these courses, which might have helped reduced their reading anxiety to a certain extent.
Table 2: FLRAS Scores No. of
items
Min. Max. M SD M (item)
20 33 90 62.88 11.04 3.14
Examination of the participants’ responses to individual items on the FLRAS reveals that besides experiencing apprehension about comprehension, the participants’ negative feelings often arose from unfamiliar topics and difficult words and grammar in reading materials.
2. Use of reading strategies
Responses to the SORS averaged 3.29 per item. Mean scores of the three sub-categories of strategies (see Table 3) show that the participants tended to use problem-solving strategies most frequently, and support strategies least frequently.
Table 3: SORS Scores
No. of items M SD M (item)
Overall 30 98.69 15.05 3.29
Global 13 42.49 7.20 3.27
Problem
solving 8 27.86 4.94 3.48
Support 9 28.33 4.97 3.15
3. Relationship among reading anxiety, reading strategy use, and reading proficiency Two statistical procedures were applied to investigate the relationship among these three variables—correlation analysis and multiple regression. Table 4 presents the correlation matrix of the three variables.
Table 4: Correlation Among Reading Anxiety, Strategy Use, and Proficiency
FLRAS SORS GEPT
FLRAS --
SORS -.248** --
GEPT -.490** -.249** --
Results of correlation analysis show that reading anxiety is negatively correlated with both strategy use and reading proficiency, with a stronger negative correlation with reading
proficiency. In other words, the higher the anxiety level, the lower frequency of strategy use, and the lower the proficiency. Regarding the detailed relationship of reading anxiety and use of the three categories of strategies (see Table 5 ), it seems that reading anxiety has the strongest negative correlation with the use of global strategies; i.e., the higher reading anxiety level the reader experiences, the less able s/he is to establish a purpose of reading or check
comprehension.
Table 5: Correlation Between Reading Anxiety and Three Subcategories of Strategies
FLRAS SORS—
Overall
SORS—
GLOB
SORS—
PROB
SORS—
SUP
FLRAS --
SORS--Overall -.248** --
SORS--GLOB -.333** .924** --
SORS--PROB -.215** .868** .722** --
SORS--SUP -.053 .825** .630** .588** --
In addition to correlation analysis, multiple regression analysis was conducted to explore the relationship among the three variables and see how reading anxiety and strategy use affect the participants’ reading proficiency. Results show that both FLRAS and SORS scores are significant predictors of the dependent variable, GEPT scores, and that together, FLRAS scores and SORS scores account for about 25% of the variance in GEPT scores. The following regression equation summarizes the relationship among the three variables.
GEPT=-.457FLRAS+.136SORS+15.83
In addition, FLRAS scores are a better predictor variable than SORS scores on GEPT scores; in other words, compared with reading strategy use, the participants’ reading anxiety is more able to account for variance in their reading proficiency.
4. Comparison of high-anxiety and low-anxiety readers (integrate quantitative and qualitative data)
To investigate the differences between high- and low-anxiety readers in terms of their reading process, sources of anxiety and expected assistance, comparisons were made based on both quantitative data (response to SORS) and qualitative data (think-aloud and interview protocols). The high and low-anxiety readers were defined based on their scores on FLRAS.
Those scoring one standard deviation or more above the mean were considered high-anxiety readers, and those scoring one standard deviation or more below the mean were grouped as low-anxiety readers.
Table 6: FLRAS Scores of High and Low-Anxiety Readers
N % Min. Max. M SD
HAR 32 15.2 74 90 79.78 4.35
LAR 31 14.7 33 51 44.58 4.24
The following presents SORS and GEPT scores of the two groups of participants.
Table 7: Reading Proficiency and Strategy Use of the High and Low-Anxiety Readers
HAR LAR
M SD M SD t P
SORS 91.13 18.34 100.97 14.05 -2.386 .020*
Global 38.44 7.91 45.45 14.05 -3.825 .000*
Problem
Solving 25.59 6.13 27.90 4.83 -1.659 .102
Support 27.09 5.83 27.61 4.97 -.308 .706
GEPT 11.84 2.94 6.13 2.98 -7.67 .000*
As shown in Table7, a significant difference exists in the use of overall reading strategies and global strategies by the two groups of readers; in other words, the low-anxiety readers tended to use reading strategies, or more specifically, global strategies, more often than the high-anxiety readers. Data of strategy use in the other two sub-categories also show more frequent uses by the low-anxiety readers, which echoes results of the correlation analysis reported earlier, although the differences did not reach a level of statistical significance. Data on the use of individual strategies also show significant differences on a total of 12 strategies (8 in the category of global strategies, 2 in problem-solving strategies, and the other 2 in support strategies). The following table summarizes data from the two groups of students on the 12 strategies.
Table 8: Strategies with Significant Differences Between the High and Low-Anxiety Readers
HAR LAR
M SD M SD t P
GLOB1 Setting purpose for
reading 2.59 88 3.71 .78 -5.33 .000*
GLOB2 Using background
knowledge 3.41 1.04 4.13 .50 -3.525 .001*
GLOB3 Previewing text 2.84 .92 3.68 .94 -3.549 .001*
GLOB6 Determining what
to read closely 2.41 1.10 3.42 1.09 -3.668 .001*
GLOB8 Using context
clues 3.19 .93 3.87 1.06 -2.726 .008*
GLOB10 Analyzing and
evaluating text 2.06 .91 2.52 .89 -1.996 .050*
GLOB11 Checking
comprehension2.91 2.84 .88 3.29 .86 -2.027 .047*
GLOB13 Confirming
predictions 2.91 .86 3.39 .88 -2.195 .032*
PROB3 Adjusting reading
rate 3.19 1.12 3.87 .76 -2.838 .006*
PROB8 Guessing meaning
of unknown words 2.91 1.15 3.94 1.09 -3.645 .001*
SUP2
Reading aloud for better
understanding
2.53 1.22 3.23 1.18 -2.303 .025*
SUP8 Translating from
English to Chinese 3.78 1.01 2.65 1.28 3.923 .000*
From the table above, it is apparent that the low-anxiety readers were more able to engage in purposeful reading, to interact with the text, and were more responsive to problems that arose in the reading process.
Think-aloud data collected from the eight selected high and low-anxiety readers were also analyzed to facilitate comparison of these two types of readers. The main purpose of the think-aloud task was to check whether differences revealed in the participants’ actual reading behavior are consistent with those emerged from their reported use of strategies; therefore, the collected think-aloud data were coded based on relevant strategies in SORS. The table below presents demographic data of the eight selected participants.
Table 9: Demographic Data of the Selected Participants
HAR LAR
Gender Male 3 4
Female 1 0
Age 20-25 4 4
Major College of Engineering 3 3 College of Management 1 1
Detailed examination of the reading behavior as demonstrated by selected high- and low-anxiety readers in the think-aloud task reveals the following differences:
Table 10: Differences Between the Selected High and Low-Anxiety Readers LAR
#1
LAR
#2
LAR
#3
LAR
#4
HAR
#1
HAR
#2
HAR
#3
HAR
#4 Preview text to get general
idea or assess difficulty level (GLOB3)
Guess vocabulary meaning from context (PROB8)
Look up unknown words (SUP4)
1 2 3
Skip to important parts (GLOB6)
4
Form/check hypothesis (GLOB13)
5
1=almost never, 2=even looked up proper names; 3=looked up vocabulary right away and spelled out every word; 4=read only formula and figures; 5=frequently went back and forth to check consistency of content.
Table 10 above indicates that the reading behavior demonstrated by the selected high and low-anxiety readers generally confirms quantitative results about the differences between these two types of readers—low-anxiety readers engaged in purposeful and strategic reading, while high-anxiety readers rarely took an active approach to reading. The following discusses the revealed patterns of differences.
(1) Ways of approaching the reading task
An apparent difference emerged from the think-aloud protocols was the way these two types of readers approached the reading task. The low-anxiety readers would flip through the pages first, scanning titles, subtitles, and figures, to develop a general idea about the text and to assess the difficulty level before they actually began reading. In addition, they tended to read the text in a more efficient way—assessing from time to time which part of the text to read carefully and which part may be skipped, which echoes the significant differences found on the use of two global strategies (GLOB 3 and GLOB 6). This type of reading behavior enabled them to have a clearer picture of the main ideas of the text and cover a larger portion of the text within the allotted time (LAR covered 7.5 pages and HAR 3.4 pages on average), since in order to approach the text this way, the readers need to constantly bear in mind the “big picture”, the main message of the text, and be well aware of the structure of writing. Although two of the high-anxiety readers also skipped parts of the text to look for “key information”, they made it clear that they were looking for formulas or theorems to read and memorize, as many science-majors often do when reading textbooks, instead of trying to grasp the main idea of the reading.
The high-anxiety readers, on the other hand, tended to be in a hurry to delve into the text before assessing the reading task first, and were more willing to read in a linear fashion by following the order of the text. It seems that these readers were more attentive to detailed information presented in the text and less willing to step back and think about what they read.
They were therefore more likely to get swamped by minor details in the text before the “big picture” could finally emerge.
(2) Treatment of vocabulary
Another difference reflected in the think-aloud data was the way these two types of readers dealt with unfamiliar words in the text. As shown in Table 10, the low-anxiety readers made frequent attempts to guess the meanings of unfamiliar words from context or other clues, while most of the high-anxiety readers disrupted their reading process often by using the dictionary.
Although almost all of the selected participants used the dictionary (electronic or paper-based) during the reading process, a difference was observed not in the frequency of dictionary use but in the way they looked up new words. The low-anxiety readers rarely looked up the words right way, and they tended to look up only the words they considered necessary for
comprehension. For example, LAR#3 only looked up four words in the entire reading process.
HAR#1, on the other hand, looked up every new word he encountered, even proper names, and HAR#3 always turned to the dictionary immediately after he came across a new word. What’s worth mentioning is that HAR#3 voiced his problem with pronouncing new words in the reading process. When he tried to look up a word, he’d just spell out the word instead of pronouncing the word. This lack of knowledge on sound-spelling correspondence might have seriously limited his vocabulary development and led to over-reliance on the dictionary.
(3) Forming and checking of hypothesis
The third difference revealed from the data was in confirming hypothesis about the text.
The selected low-anxiety readers demonstrated a high frequency of forming and checking hypotheses during the reading process, indicating an active approach to comprehending text information. In particular, LAR#3 frequently flipped back and forth during the reading process to check consistency of content and predict what type of information would appear next. By contrast, only one high-anxiety reader made predictions about the text.
In addition to the think-aloud data, the participants’ interview responses also helped shed some light on the differences between these two types of readers in terms of their approaches to and concerns about reading. The following discusses some major themes emerged from the interview data.
(1) Both high and low-anxiety readers expressed concerns about their decoding skills.
Despite their discrepancies in anxiety level and reading proficiency, both groups of
participants attributed their negative feelings about reading to their lack of vocabulary and poor
grammar. They seemed to be under the impression that if their vocabulary and grammar knowledge could be significantly enhanced, their difficulty in reading would be greatly reduced, and their anxiety about reading would in turn be lessened considerably.
(2) Both types of readers attributed their anxiety in part to factors related to reading materials and purpose of reading.
The two types of readers pointed to lack of interest in the topics of reading as an additional cause of anxiety. They generally considered reading materials assigned in academic courses as unappealing and not motivating. When asked about what types of materials would appeal to them, they referred to readings more related to daily lives or their personal interest. Since the selected participants were from the schools of engineering and management, they probably encountered more technical terms or reading materials that may not immediately relate to their everyday life. They also mentioned that since academic reading is usually for the purpose of passing tests, it was naturally accompanied by more negative feelings.
(3) The high-anxiety readers preferred a passive approach to solving problems with vocabulary and grammar, while the low-anxiety readers saw the value in extensive reading.
When the researcher followed the participants’ expressed concern with decoding skills with questions about perceived effective ways to address the concern, their answers diverged. The high-anxiety readers proposed more mechanical ways of vocabulary development, such as memorizing words from a vocabulary book or carrying flashcards wherever they go. They also preferred going to a cram school because the instructors would provide them with vocabulary lists to memorize and grammar rules with exercises to learn and practice. The solutions proposed by the low-anxiety readers were somewhat more active and constructive, such as learning new words from extensive reading and using various mnemonic devices. They also emphasized developing and individualizing reading strategies through extensive reading. The low-anxiety readers seemed to be more aware of the need to take an active stance to solving problems in decoding and appreciate the value of finding an appropriate reading pattern for individuals. In other words, the low-anxiety readers tended to view reading as an individual and more strategy-based behavior rather than a general and skill-based behavior.
(4) The low-anxiety readers reported distaste to explicit teaching of grammar and sentence structures.
Regarding reading instruction, despite their concern in decoding skills, the low-anxiety readers expressed their dislike in explicit analysis of grammar and sentence structures by the teacher during the reading process because it would destroy any fun left in reading. They preferred activities that focus on “reading for meaning” instead of “reading to learn English”.
In other words, for these readers, reading should not taught as a grammar exercise but as a
pathway to gaining knowledge or perspective on a wider array of world issues.
Conclusion
The current study was designed to investigate foreign language reading anxiety and its relationship with use of reading strategies and reading proficiency, and to compare the differences between the high and low-anxiety readers in their strategy use and perception on reading anxiety. The study uses both quantitative and qualitative data to examine the three variables involved. Major findings about the three main variables include: (1) The participants experienced a moderate level of anxiety in reading academic materials in English; (2) the participants used problem-solving strategies most frequently and support reading strategies least frequently; (3) reading anxiety correlates negatively with use of strategies in all subcategories, especially with global reading strategies; (4) reading anxiety correlates negatively with both strategy use and proficiency, but a stronger relationship was found with proficiency; and (5) reading anxiety is a better predictor than strategy use in accounting for variances in reading proficiency. Regarding the comparison of high and low-anxiety readers, significant differences were found in the subcategory of global reading strategies. Strategy use questionnaire, think-aloud and interview responses reveal that although both high and
low-anxiety readers attributed their anxiety to deficiency in decoding skills, the high-anxiety readers tended to be less goal-oriented when approaching a reading text. They also tended to be less active in dealing with reading difficulties and anxiety. The low-anxiety readers, on the other hand, appeared to be more active and strategic not only in the reading process but also in attempting to improve reading proficiency in general. Such patterns are generally consistent with the differences identified in the literature between proficient and less proficient readers.
Based on the results of the current study, several implications can be derived about reading instruction. First, instructors need to find ways to motivate their students and reduce anxiety in reading. They can either introduce materials related to students’ real life experiences or encourage students to bring in materials related to their personal interest to share with their peers. They may also try to include a broader scope of topics in the reading materials in a course.
Second, as mentioned by some of the participants, instructors need to focus more on meaning-based reading activities, such as reading to get the main idea only, instead of
transferring reading into a language exercise and analyzing every single bit of language in the text. This, nevertheless, does not mean that students should be instructed to ignore fundamental decoding skills. Rather, instructors may encourage the students to focus on getting the main message during their reading, and then come back to talk about specific words or sentence structures or follow up with some input-processing activities as suggested by Han (2003).
Third, instructors need to teach students reading strategies. Since results of the study show that reading anxiety correlated negatively with frequency of strategy use, instructors need to
explicitly introduce students to relevant reading strategies and, more importantly, provide ample opportunities for students to practice applying the strategies in reading so that they can develop the most productive pattern of strategy use for themselves during reading.
In addition, instructors may use the think-aloud or similar procedures to share their own reading process with the students or encourage more proficient readers to share their thinking processes with others. Doing so will enable the students, particularly the less proficient ones, to see how others construct meaning from a text. More importantly, students will realize that there is no single best way to approach a reading text; that there is no best model to imitate when it comes to reading. They might therefore become more aware of the need to monitor
comprehension in their own reading process and to develop flexibility in selecting strategies to deal with problems in the reading process.
Finally, instructors may include teaching of sound-spelling correspondence if the students are having difficulty in that aspect. Although knowledge of sound-spelling correspondence is often considered basics that should be addressed only in the very beginning stages of reading instruction, it is not unusual to find college EFL students who lack such knowledge. Deficiency in this aspect often obstructs their reading fluency and limits their vocabulary development, which in turn hampers comprehension and prevents them from reading more. If the students are reluctant to read, then there is very little chance for them to discover or optimize their pattern of strategy use, and their negative feelings toward reading are likely to remain.
References
Aida, Y. (1994). Examination of Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope’s construct of foreign language anxiety: The case of students of Japanese. Modern Language Journal, 78, 155-168.
Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In R. Barr, M.
L., Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp.
353-394). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Hsu, Y. C. (2004). A study on junior college students’ reading anxiety in English.
Unpublished mater’s thesis, National Chung Cheng University, Chiayi, Taiwan.
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125-132.
Huang, H. Y. (2001). Chinese university foreign language students’ anxiety about reading in English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Washington State University.
Kim, J. H. (2000). Foreign language listening anxiety: A study of Korean students
learning English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1989). Anxiety and second langauge learning:
Toward a theoretical clarification. Language Learning, 32, 251-275.
Matsuda, S., & Gobel, P. (2001). Quiet apprehension: reading and classroom
anxieties. JALT Journal, 23, 227-247.
Matsuda, S., & Gobel, P. (2004). Anxiety and predictors of performance in the foreign language classroom. System, 32, 21-36.
Miholic, V. (1994). An inventory to pique students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Reading, 38, 84-86.
Mokhtari, K., & Sheorey, R. (2002). Measuring ESL students’ awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Developmental Education, 25(3),2-10.
Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students’ metacognitive
awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249-259.
Paris, S. G., & Jacobs, J. E. (1984). The benefits of informed instruction for children’s reading awareness and comprehension skills. Child Development, 55, 2083-2093.
Paris, S. G., Wasik, B. A., & Turner, J. C. (1990). The development of strategic
readers. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of Reading Research (2nd ed., pp. 609-640).
New York, NY: Longman.
Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1990). How metacognition can promote academic
learning and instruction. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 15-51). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pereira-Laird, J. A., & Deane, F. P. (1997). Development and validation of a
self-report measure of reading strategy use. Reading Psychology: An International Journal, 18, 185-235.
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Saito, Y., Horwitz, E. K., & Garza, T. (1999). Foreign language reading anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 83(2), 203-218.
Schmitt, M. C. (1990). A questionnaire to measure children’s awareness of strategic reading processes. The Reading Teacher, 43, 454-461.
Sellers, V. D. (1998). On the relationship between anxiety and reading in Spanish as a foreign language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Penn State University.
Sellers, V. D. (2000). Anxiety and reading comprehension in Spanish as a foreign language. Foreign Language Annals, 33(3), 512-521.
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, p. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Tian, S. P. (2004). Metacognitive awareness and strategy use of proficient and less
proficient Taiwanese EFL readers. Studies in English Language and Literature, 13, 53-64.
Young, D. J. (1991). Creating a low-anxiety classroom environment: What does language anxiety research suggest? Modern Language Journal, 75, 426-437.
Zhang, L. Z. (2003). Effects of three reading modes on Taiwanese junior high school
EFL readers’ anxiety and reading comprehension. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Appendix A 基本資料基本資料 基本資料基本資料
1. 姓名：
2. 學號：
3. 科系：
4. 性別： 男 女 5. 年齡：
6. 已學習英文：
6 年或 6 年以下
7-10 年
10 年以上
7. 請問您每週閱讀英文的時間大約是：
每週少於 5 小時 每週 5-10 小時 每週 10-15 小時 每週 15 小時以上
8. 除了課堂英文教材和作業外，請問您通常還會閱讀哪些課外英文讀物？
我通常不太閱讀課外英文讀物 我通常會閱讀下列讀物（可複選）
英語雜誌（例如：空中英語教室、讀者文摘英文版等）
英語報紙（例如：China Post、Taipei Times 等）
短文或小說
其他（請略述）_______________________
9. 請問您曾通過何種英文檢測？
全民英檢 初級 中級 中高級 高級 TOEFL（托福） 紙筆測驗 分數 _______
電腦化測驗 分數 _______
網路化測驗（新制） 分數 _______
TOEIC（多益） 分數 _______
IELTS（雅思） 分數 _______
其他 ___________ 分數 _______
Appendix B 英文閱讀問卷 英文閱讀問卷 英文閱讀問卷 英文閱讀問卷
問卷作答說明：
一、本量表共 20 題，是為了瞭解您對英文閱讀的感受對英文閱讀的感受對英文閱讀的感受對英文閱讀的感受。
二、請於讀完每題敘述之後，勾選一個勾選一個勾選一個勾選一個最符合您對英文閱讀感受程度的答案（非常同意非常同意非常同意非常同意、
大致同大致同
大致同大致同意意意意、沒有意沒有意沒有意沒有意見見見、不太同意見 不太同意不太同意或非常不同意不太同意 非常不同意非常不同意非常不同意））））。謝謝您！
非 大 沒 不 非 常 致 有 太 常 同 同 意 同 不
意 意 見 意 同 意
1 在閱讀英文中，當不確定是否讀懂時，我會感到懊惱。 □ □ □ □ □
2 我在閱讀英文時，雖然懂得單字的意思，但還是不太了
解作者在說什麼。
□ □ □ □ □
3 我在閱讀英文時，會因為弄不清楚文章的意思，而記不
得在讀什麼。
□ □ □ □ □
4 不管什麼時候，我一看到整頁的英文就會覺得心慌。 □ □ □ □ □
5 我在閱讀不熟悉的英文題材時，會覺得緊張。 □ □ □ □ □
6 我在閱讀英文時，每當遇到不懂的文法時，就會感到懊
惱。
□ □ □ □ □
7 我在閱讀英文時，只要有一個單字的意思不清楚，就會
緊張和困惑。
□ □ □ □ □
8 在閱讀英文當中，遇到不會唸的單字時，我會感到不安。 □ □ □ □ □
9 在閱讀英文時，我經常逐字逐字地翻譯。 □ □ □ □ □
10 當我讀完那些陌生的英文字母和符號時，我很難記得讀 過什麼。
□ □ □ □ □
11 為了閱讀英文，我得學習所有新的單字，這使我感到擔 憂。
□ □ □ □ □
12 我喜愛閱讀英文。 □ □ □ □ □
13 我在閱讀英文時，覺得滿有自信的。 □ □ □ □ □
14 一旦習慣了，英文閱讀就不那麼難了。 □ □ □ □ □
15 我覺得學習英文最難的部份是學習閱讀。 □ □ □ □ □
16 比起同時要學英文口語及閱讀，我更樂於只學英文口語 就好。
□ □ □ □ □
17 我不介意默讀，但要我大聲朗讀英文會令我覺得不自在。 □ □ □ □ □
18 我對我目前已經達到的英文閱讀能力感到滿意。 □ □ □ □ □
19 英美文化及思想對我而言似乎很陌生。 □ □ □ □ □
20 要閱讀英文，必須知道很多英美歷史及文化。 □ □ □ □ □
Appendix C
閱讀策略使用量表 閱讀策略使用量表閱讀策略使用量表 閱讀策略使用量表 作答說明：
一、本量表共 30 題，是為了瞭解您在閱讀學校的英文學習教材學校的英文學習教材學校的英文學習教材學校的英文學習教材（例如閱讀英文課本上的
作業、準備英文考試，以及閱讀英文學術期刊等等）所使用的各種閱讀策略，並不並不並不並不
包括休閒性的英文報章雜誌 包括休閒性的英文報章雜誌 包括休閒性的英文報章雜誌 包括休閒性的英文報章雜誌。
二、每個題目均有五種不同等級的程度，分別代表的意義如下：
「從未如此」：我從未或幾乎不曾使用此種閱讀策略。
「偶爾如此」：我偶爾使用此種閱讀策略。
「有時如此」：我有時候會使用此種閱讀策略（大約一半的時候）。
「時常如此」：我時常使用此種閱讀策略。
「總是如此」：我總是或幾乎都是使用此種閱讀策略。
三、 請於讀完每題敘述之後，勾選一個勾選一個勾選一個最符合您閱讀策略使用程度的答案，答案並無對勾選一個
錯之分。謝謝您！ 從 偶 有 時 總 未 爾 時 常 是 如 如 如 如 如
此 此 此 此 此
1 當我在閱讀英文的時候，我很清楚知道閱讀的目的。 □ □ □ □ □
2 在閱讀英文的時候，我會一邊做筆記，來幫助我了解文
章的內容。
□ □ □ □ □
3 在閱讀英文的時候，我會利用既有的知識，來幫助我了
解文章的內容。
□ □ □ □ □
4 在閱讀英文之前，我會先瀏覽一下整篇文章，來了解它
在講什麼。
□ □ □ □ □
5 當英文文章難度增加時，我會念出聲音，來幫助我了解
文章的內容。
□ □ □ □ □
6 在閱讀英文的時候，我會思考文章的內容跟我閱讀的目
的是否相符。
□ □ □ □ □
7 在閱讀英文的時候，我會讀得慢一點、仔細一點，來確
認我了解自己所讀的內容。
□ □ □ □ □
8 在閱讀英文文章之前，我會先留意文章的長度和組織。 □ □ □ □ □
9 當我分心的時候，我會試著回到前面的段落，重新再讀一遍。 □ □ □ □ □ 10 在閱讀英文的時候，我會一邊劃線或圈出重點來幫助記憶。 □ □ □ □ □
11 我會根據閱讀的內容來調整閱讀的速度。 □ □ □ □ □ 12 在閱讀英文的時候，我會判斷哪些部份要讀仔細一點，
以及哪些部份可以省略不讀。
□ □ □ □ □
13 在閱讀英文的時候，我會使用字典這類的工具書來幫助 我了解文章內容。
□ □ □ □ □
14 當英文文章難度增加時，我會讀得更仔細。 □ □ □ □ □
15 在閱讀英文的時候，我會利用文章中的圖表及圖片來增 加對文章的理解。
□ □ □ □ □
16 在閱讀英文的時候，我有時會停下來想一想正在讀的內 容。
□ □ □ □ □
17 在閱讀英文的時候，我會利用上下文所提供的線索，來 幫助我了解文章的內容。
□ □ □ □ □
18 在閱讀英文的時候，我會把文章內容改寫成自己的話，
來幫助我的理解。
□ □ □ □ □
19 在閱讀英文的時候，我會想像文章內容的畫面來幫助記 憶。
□ □ □ □ □
20 在閱讀英文的時候，我會利用粗體字或斜體字這類字體 特徵，來找出文章的重點。
□ □ □ □ □
21 在閱讀英文的時候，我會用批判性的角度來分析評斷文 章中所呈現的資訊。
□ □ □ □ □
22 在閱讀英文的時候，我會來回尋找文章中各個論點之間 的關聯性。
□ □ □ □ □
23 在閱讀英文的時候，若文章當中出現新的資訊，我會確 認看看是否真的了解。
□ □ □ □ □
24 在閱讀英文的時候，我會試著猜測文章的內容。 □ □ □ □ □
25 當英文文章難度提高時，我會重讀一遍，來增加對文章 的了解。
□ □ □ □ □
26 在閱讀英文的時候，我會先問自己一些問題，然後想從 文章中找到答案。
□ □ □ □ □
27 我會確認我對文章的猜測是否正確。 □ □ □ □ □
28 在閱讀英文的時候，我會試著猜測不認識的單字或片語 的意思。
□ □ □ □ □
29 在閱讀英文的時候，我會把英文翻譯成中文。 □ □ □ □ □
30 在閱讀英文的時候，我會想到相關的中英文資訊。 □ □ □ □ □
出席國際學術會議心得報告 出席國際學術會議心得報告 出席國際學術會議心得報告 出席國際學術會議心得報告
計畫編號 96-2411-H-011-007
計畫名稱 科技大學學生的英文閱讀焦慮和其與閱讀策略運用及閱讀能力的關係
出國人員姓名
服務機關及職稱 田曉萍；國立台灣科技大學應用外語系助理教授
會議時間地點 97 年 8 月 20 日 97 年 8 月 22 日;夏威夷大學
會議名稱 The 13th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics 第 13 屆泛太平洋應用語言學協會大會
發表論文題目 Rethinking Foreign Language Reading: Anxiety, Strategy Use, and Proficiency
一、參加會議經過
會議於 8 月 20 日早晨於夏威夷大學的韓國研究中心一樓舉行開幕典禮，在大會代表 幽默的致詞中接開序幕。個別論文發表隨即於該中心的ㄧ、二樓同時展開，海報展式也 於一樓同時進行。論文發表持續進行至第三天(8 月 22 日)的中午結束，其中並於第二天 的晚上舉行晚宴歡迎與會學者。整個三天的會議，在韓國研究中心優美的建築和夏威夷 溫暖的氣候中，於溫馨，舒適的氣氛下順利完成。雖然該會議的規模並不如某些學術機 構動輒近千人參加的年會般龐大，但正由於場地的集中和溫馨的氣氛，使與會人士得有 充分交流的機會，因此正能達到學習學術新知和人際交流的效用。
二、與會心得
雖然該會議規模不算大，但發表論文的領域廣泛，包含聽、說、讀、寫四個技巧的 教學， 語料庫應用，文化和語言學習的關係，文學運用於英語教學，和種族性別對語言 的影響等各大主題，光是與個人所發表論文主題「語言學習焦慮」相關的就有數篇。由 所發表論文的分布當中，略可看出目前英語教學相關研究中對於文化，英語作為國際語 言，和焦慮等相關議題研究的重視。另與會學者大部分來自日、韓兩國（因該學會為日、
韓學者主持），僅少部分來自其他國家，因此較屬區域性質。若能增加其他國家的與會學
者人數，則學術交流上的收穫會更大。或者將會議主題限定在某幾個特定的研究範圍，
每個範圍的論文篇數得以增加，則能有更深入觀摩和交流的機會，學術價值會更高。
