中英文讀前教材對英語為外語之大學生專業英語閱讀理解之影響

全文

(1)國立台灣師範大學英語學系博士論文 Doctoral Dissertation Department of English National Taiwan Normal University. The Effects of L1/L2 Pre-reading Supports on EFL University Students‘ Content Area Reading Comprehension Performance 中英語讀前教材對英語為外語之大專學生專業英語閱讀理解之影響. 指導教授: 陳秋蘭博士 Advisor: Chiou-lan Chern 研究生:林宜瑄 Student: Yi-hsuan Lin 中華民國一百零四年六月 June, 2015.

(2) 摘要本文旨在探討如何藉由第一語或第二語的讀前素材，增進台灣大學生的英語專業領域閱讀理解，研究對象為 300 名就讀公私立大學主修英文之學生，並以政治學專業知識為施測的素材。為了探討知識程度與英文閱讀程度高低的學生能否受惠於讀前閱讀，所有參與的學生必須完成由政治專業領域專家設計的學科內容知識測驗與全民英檢之閱讀測驗，再依此二分數將學生分成三組，一組學生實施第一語的讀前閱讀素材輔助，另一組學生接受第二語的讀前閱讀素材輔助，最後一組學生為控制組。三組學生皆必須完成專業領域文章閱讀並填答測驗問題。爾後學生根據一份開放性問卷，回應對於不同語言讀前教材的觀感以及對語言的偏好，同時說明他們在閱讀學術英語文章時語言能力與專業知識的運用狀況。透過綜合化量化與質化的研究方法，研究者先採用變異數分析，比較中英文的讀前輔助、政治專業程度高低和英語程度高低等因素，對學生專業閱讀測驗的成績影響，先以量化統計數據呈現學生的實際表現，再分析開放性調查問卷描述的觀點，探討學生對於不同語言的閱讀輔助，以及閱讀時所使用的英語和專業知識。統計結果顯示，分配到實驗組的兩組的學生，顯著表現得比控制組為佳，然而接受中文與英文閱讀輔助兩組之間並沒有顯著差異；另外，統計數據亦顯示，學科背景知識與英文能力對閱讀理解有顯著的影響，具有高學科知識或高英文閱讀能力的學生，對於專業英語閱讀理解的表現較佳。另一方面，質性分析結果顯示，大部分學生認為中文與英文的讀前輔助，對於閱讀理解所造成的影響不同。就讀前的準備階段來說，大學生普遍認為，以中文提供新知比英文更符合閱讀習慣，也認為中文書寫的資料比英文對於理解專業文章更有幫助，其中尤其以英文程度低的學生，更加認為中文的功效大於英文；相較之下，英文程度高的學生並無特別偏愛中文。研究結果顯示量化研究與質化.

(3) 研究的結果不盡相同。而就探討英文程度和學科背景知識對於閱讀專業文章的貢獻來說，參與者普遍認為，專業知識與語言程度兩種因素可以決定英語專業領域文章閱讀理解的成敗，其中之一的知識體系可以彌補另一知識體系的缺失。實務教學方面，就統計數據來說，中英文的輔助效果可相提並論，因此就專業閱讀的目的來說，應該鼓勵大學生設法讀懂學術英語文章。然而質性分析驗證了母語心理層面的優勢不該被忽略，英文專業閱讀應適時以中文輔助。本文發現增進專業知識或增加英語程度，皆可幫助專業英語閱讀的理解，因此學生應精進專業或提升英文程度以改善學術英文閱讀。根據本文發現，作者建議將第二語的學習融入專業學科的學習，另外也建議學科專業教師與語言教師合作教學。再者，針對英語程度較低的大學生，教師有必要增加學生閱讀的自信心，以降低閱讀英文的焦慮。. 關鍵字: 專業閱讀、背景知識、學術英文、基模、專業英語.

(4) ABSTRACT This research initiated an investigation of the effects between the pre-reading inputs from L1 (Chinese) and L2 (English) to clarify how L2 domain-specific reading comprehension for EFL university students could be improved. The participants were 300 university students majoring in English in public or private universities in Taiwan. The materials used were from the specific domain of political science. Focusing on how students of high/low content knowledge in political science and of high/low English reading proficiency might benefit from this intervention, the study recruited the participants to complete two tests: a content knowledge test designed by the field experts and a reading proficiency test from the GEPT reading section. The participants were divided into three pre-reading treatment groups: one read L1, another read L2 pre-reading material, while the other served as a control group. All three groups read a domain-specific article and answered comprehension questions. An open-ended survey questionnaire was then administered to illicit students‘ perceptions toward the effects of and preference for pre-reading inputs in different languages, and how they perceived the importance of linguistic and content knowledge in domain-specific academic reading. This study adopted a mixed-method approach, and the statistical results of the participants‘ actual performances on academic reading were presented first. Analysis of Variance was used to detect the influence of pre-reading treatments, content knowledge levels, and English reading proficiency on the performance of domain-specific reading comprehension. Qualitatively, an open-ended survey questionnaire was designed to collect the students‘ self-reported perceptions toward the effects of, and preference over, pre-reading support in different languages, and also how students utilized content knowledge and reading proficiency. The statistical analysis revealed that the experimental groups performed significantly better than the control group. However, the statistical comparison of the effects between L1 and L2 pre-reading support showed no significant difference on their performances of domain-specific reading comprehension. Also, both content knowledge and L2 reading proficiency exhibited an apparent influence on the results of academic reading comprehension: with more content knowledge or higher.

(5) L2 reading proficiency, the students performed better. The qualitative analyses found that most students considered that pre-reading support in different languages had differential effects on their academic reading comprehension. Feeling more comfortable about acquiring new information in the first language than the second, they rated Chinese to be more beneficial in the pre-reading stage to have helped them understand academic reading text in L2. It was also discovered that the participants with lower L2 proficiency preferred L1 more than L2, while higher proficiency participants showed less preference for L1. These findings were at odds with the quantitative analysis. With regards to the perceived contributions of English proficiency and content knowledge to domain-specific reading, the results demonstrated that the participants believed these two factors might have determined the success of their L2 academic reading comprehension, and one knowledge base could have compensated for the lack of the other. Pedagogically, the results showed that the participants could benefit from two language sources equally. University students should be encouraged to work out the meanings of English academic readings. Also, due attention should be given to the psychological merits of L1, as English domain-specific reading could be improved by providing students with L1 support alongside L2 reading. In addition, it is clearly beneficial to increase students‘ L2 proficiency and enhance their knowledge acquisition in content areas to facilitate academic reading. The present study suggests that L2 reading could be integrated into domain-specific instruction, and the teamwork between educational practitioners of content and language teachers in ESP courses should be considered. For readers with lower English proficiency, teachers need to boost their confidence toward L2 reading and lowering their anxiety in reading.. Key words: domain-specific reading, content knowledge, academic English, schema, ESP.

(6) Table of Contents. CHAPTER ONE. INTRODUCTION .....................................................1. Background and Rationale ..................................................................................... 1 The Importance of L2 Reading for Taiwanese EFL Learners ....................... 3 L2 Reading and Comprehension .................................................................... 4 L1 Use in L2 Learning: Evidence of Facilitation from L1 Literacy .............. 6 Statement of the Problem ............................................................................... 8 Purpose of the Study ...................................................................................... 9 Research Questions ...................................................................................... 10 Significance of the Study ............................................................................. 11 Theoretical Significance ...................................................................... 11 Methodological Significance ............................................................... 12 Pedagogical Significance ..................................................................... 13 Definition of Related Terms ........................................................................ 14 Content Knowledge ............................................................................. 14. CHAPTER TWO. LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................17. Major Reading Theories ...................................................................................... 17 Reading Models ........................................................................................... 18 Summary of Important Theoretical Models of Reading ...................... 18 Content Area Literacy .......................................................................................... 22 L1 Content Area Reading Instruction .......................................................... 22 Reading for Learning: Use Content Knowledge to Support Reading.......... 26 EGP/EAP Instructions ................................................................................. 29 EAP Reading Focus and Corresponding Reading Skills ..................... 31 Identifying Concepts and Key Vocabulary in EAP ............................. 32 L1 Use in English Learning and Teaching .......................................................... 34 Recognition of L1 ........................................................................................ 34 The Presence of L1 in L2 Language Processing .................................. 36 Previous Research on the Effects of L1 on L2 Reading .............................. 37 L1 and L2 Relationships in Reading .................................................... 37 Empirical Studies Testing the L1 and L2 relationships ....................... 40 Schematic Support and Reading Comprehension ................................................ 42 Schema Theory: Assumptions in Reading ................................................... 44 Effects of Schema on Reading Comprehension........................................... 46 Activation of Cultural Schemata .......................................................... 47 Activation of Subject-related Schemata............................................... 47.

(7) External Support for Schema Activation ............................................. 48 How Pre-Reading Activities Related to Learners ........................................ 49 Pre-reading Forms for Conceptual Preparation ................................... 51 Pre-reading Activities/Forms to Activate Content Information........... 52 Comparison of Different Forms of Aids in Empirical Studies .................... 54 Pre-reading Form Applied in the Present Study .................................. 55 Cognitive Elements of L2 Reading ...................................................................... 56 Mental Process Involved in Content Knowledge Activation ....................... 58 Mental Process Involved in Linguistic and Textual Schemata Activation .. 60 Compensatory Nature of Reading Comprehension ..................................... 61 Compensation in L2 Reading............................................................... 62 Compensation between L1 and L2 ...................................................... 65 Assessment of Reading Comprehension .............................................................. 66 Test Formats Used to Assess Reading Comprehension ............................... 66 Employing Open-ended Questions to Measure Domain-specific Reading . 69 Levels of Reading Comprehension: Literal, Inferential and Evaluative .............................................................................................................. 69 Schematic Support in Constructing a Mental Model to Answer Questions.............................................................................................. 71 Using L1 to Test L2 reading ................................................................ 72. CHPATER THREE. RESEARCH METHOD .....................................75. Overview of the Research .................................................................................... 75 Pilot Study.................................................................................................... 76 The Participants ................................................................................................... 77 Measuring Instruments......................................................................................... 78 Measuring Linguistic Proficiency ................................................................ 78 Measuring Content Knowledge in the Domain of Political Science ........... 79 Selecting Reading Text and Developing Comprehension Questions .......... 84 Developing Open-ended Domain-Specific Reading Comprehension Questions.............................................................................................. 86 Writing Answers in Chinese ................................................................ 90 L1/L2 Pre-reading Treatment ...................................................................... 90 Selection of Reading Support ...................................................................... 91 Designing Survey Questionnaire ................................................................. 93 Research Design................................................................................................... 93 Data Collection Procedures.......................................................................... 97 Data Analysis ....................................................................................................... 99 Scoring Procedures ...................................................................................... 99.

(8) Scoring of English Reading Proficiency and Content Knowledge Test .............................................................................................................. 99 Scoring of Short-Answer Domain-specific Reading Comprehension ............................................................................................................ 100 Model Answers and Scoring .............................................................. 101 Analysis of Survey Questions ............................................................ 104. CHAPTER FOUR ANALYSIS AND RESULTS..................................106 Descriptive Data................................................................................................. 106 Demographic Information of the Participants............................................ 106 Descriptive Statistics of Participants‘ Performance on the Measurement Instruments .................................................................. 108 Content Knowledge levels ......................................................................... 109 L2 Reading Proficiency ............................................................................. 111 Performances on Domain-Specific Comprehension Questions ................. 112 Results of the ANOVAs..................................................................................... 113 Analysis of the Survey Questionnaire Data ....................................................... 120 The Importance of Background Knowledge to Academic Reading .......... 122 Analysis of Participants‘ Written Responses to the Importance of Background Knowledge..................................................................... 124 The Importance of English Proficiency to Academic Reading ................. 127 Analysis of Participants‘ Written Responses to the Importance of English Proficiency ............................................................................ 130 The Comparative Importance of Background Knowledge and English Proficiency to Academic Reading ............................................................. 133 Analysis of Participants‘ Written Responses to the Comparative Importance of Background Knowledge and English Proficiency...... 135 The Necessity of Pre-reading Prompts ...................................................... 136 The Perceived Effects of L1/L2 Pre-reading Support................................ 137 Statistical Analysis on Perceived Effects of Pre-reading Input ................. 139 Learners‘ Content Knowledge Levels and Their Preferences for Pre-reading Input ............................................................................... 140 Learners‘ English Proficiency Levels and Their Preferences for Pre-reading Input ............................................................................... 142 Analysis on Written Response for Preferred Language ............................. 144 Participants Preferring L1 Pre-reading Input ..................................... 144 Participants Preferring L2 and Participants with No Special Preferences ......................................................................................... 146 Summary and Conclusion .......................................................................... 148.

(9) Equal Effects of L1 and L2 Pre-reading Support............................... 149 Overwhelming Preference for L1 Pre-reading Input ......................... 149 More Participants in Lower English Reading Proficiency Preferred L1 ............................................................................................................ 149 Significant Effect of Content Knowledge and English Proficiency .. 150 Lower Content Knowledge/Higher English Proficiency Learners Attached More Importance to Background Knowledge .................... 150. CHAPTER FIVE DISSCUSION .........................................................152 Overview of the Study ....................................................................................... 152 Effects of Pre-reading Treatment ....................................................................... 153 Providing pre-reading guidance ................................................................. 153 Confirming top-down reading models ............................................... 154 L1 and L2 Pre-reading Support.................................................................. 157 Clarifying the roles of L1/L2 pre-reading inputs ............................... 158 Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis ............................................. 160 Closing the Gap of Perceived Effects between L1/L2 Pre-reading Input .. 161 L2 Reading Anxiety ........................................................................... 163 Provision of Terminology List with Detailed Explanations before Reading .............................................................................................. 164 Effects of Discipline-related Content Knowledge ............................................. 165 Effects of English Reading Proficiency ..................................................... 168 General Discussion ............................................................................................ 170 General Implications of the Study ..................................................................... 171 Incorporating Content Instruction and Language Instruction .................... 172 Increasing L2 Reading Confidence and Reducing Anxiety....................... 173 Methodological Implications ..................................................................... 174 Limitations and Suggestions .............................................................................. 174. CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSION .........................................................178 REFERENCES .......................................................................................182 APPENDICES ........................................................................................204 APPENDIX A. Research Consent Form ........................................................... 204 APPENDIX B. Authorization Letter from LTTC.............................................. 205 APPENDIX C. Political Knowledge Test ......................................................... 207 APPENDIX D. L1 Reading Support (Terminology Definition List in Chinese) ............................................................................................................................ 215 APPENDIX E. L2 Reading Support (Terminology Definition List in English) 217 APPENDIX F. Domain-Specific Reading Article and Reading Comprehension Questions............................................................................................................ 220.

(10) APPENDIX G. Post-reading Feedback Survey (Experimental Groups) ........... 229 Post-reading Feedback Survey (Control Group) ............................................... 231 APPENDIX H. Major Concepts and Corresponding Questions ........................ 237 APPENDIX I. Model Answers to Reading Comprehension Questions ............ 238 APPENDIX J. Examples of the Participants‘ Answers and Points Awarded (with Translation) ........................................................................................................ 240.

(11) List of Tables Table 1. Summary of Major Reading Theories ........................................................... 20 Table 2. Three-step Lesson Framework for CAR instructions .................................... 24 Table 3. Targeted Elements of General Political Knowledge Test .............................. 81 Table 4. Targeted Elements of Specific Political Knowledge Test (Civic Education) 82 Table 5. Targeted Elements of Specific Political Knowledge (International Relations) .............................................................................................................................. 84 Table 6. Major Concepts and Corresponding Questions ............................................. 87 Table 7. Grid for Types of Questions .......................................................................... 89 Table 8. Statistical Measures Adopted to Answer RQ1, RQ2, and RQ3..................... 94 Table 9. Tasks Completed by Control and Experimental Groups ............................... 97 Table 10. Sequence and Time Allocated to Data Collecting Process .......................... 98 Table 11. Model Answers to Reading Comprehension Questions (Translation) ...... 102 Table 12. Demographics of the Participants .............................................................. 107 Table 13. Performance of English Proficiency (Eng)/Content Knowledge (Cont) Test Based on Individual Class at Six Schools .......................................................... 108 Table 14. Results of the Content Knowledge Test .................................................... 110 Table 15. Results of the GEPT Reading Test ............................................................ 111 Table 16. Mean Scores of Different Question Types in Three Groups of Participants ............................................................................................................................ 113 Table 17. Performance of Domain-specific Reading for Participants in Different Treatment Groups .............................................................................................. 114 Table 18. Results of the One-Way ANOVA Test (Pre-reading Treatment) .............. 114 Table 19. Performance of Domain-specific Reading for H/L Content Knowledge Participants ......................................................................................................... 116 Table 20. Results of the Two-Way ANOVA Test (Content Levels x Treatments) ... 117 Table 21. Performance of Domain-specific Reading for H/L English Proficiency Participants ......................................................................................................... 118 Table 22. Results of the Two-Way ANOVA Test (English levels/Treatments)........ 120 Table 23. Rank Order of Most Frequently Expressed Ideas Related to Language Skills ............................................................................................................................ 131 Table 24. Cross-tabulation of Content High/Low x Preferred Language ................ 141 Table 25. Cross-tabulation of English High/Low x Preferred Language ................. 143 Table 26. Reasons of Why L1 Is Preferred by Lower Proficiency Participants ........ 145.

(12) List of Figures Figure 1.The reading-instructional cycle ..................................................................... 25 Figure 2. Reciprocity between CAR comprehension and knowledge ......................... 28 Figure 3. Group differences in political knowledge levels ........................................ 111 Figure 4. Group differences in English reading proficiency...................................... 112 Figure 5. Differences of means among three pre-reading treatment ......................... 114 Figure 6. Differences of means between H/L content knoweldge groups ................. 117 Figure 7. Differences of means between H/L English proficiency groups ................ 119 Figure 8. Participants‘ responses to the importance of background knowledge in academic reading .............................................................................................. 122 Figure 9. Reasons why background knowledge is important for academic reading . 123 Figure 10. The importance of English proficiency for academic reading ................. 128 Figure 11. Why English proficiency is important for academic reading ................... 129 Figure 12. Comparing the importance of English proficiency and background knowledge in academic reading ....................................................................... 134 Figure 13. Perceptions toward the effects of pre-reading input ................................. 136 Figure 14. Perceptions toward the effects of Chinese/English pre-reading input...... 138 Figure 15. Reasons for preferring Chinese pre-reading material ............................... 138 Figure 16. Preferred pre-reading language input between H/L content knowledge groups ................................................................................................................. 141 Figure 17. Preferred pre-reading language input between H/L English proficiency groups ................................................................................................................. 143 Figure 18. The bilingual model ................................................................................ 159.

(13) CHAPTER ONE. INTRODUCTION. This study was motivated by concerns with how L2 reading for university EFL learners can be better facilitated through the available pre-reading resources. It attempted to add to the scant research that explores how providing information through L1 moderates the readers‘ comprehension of L2 reading in an EFL academic context. An attempt was made in this research to determine how L1 might be utilized to maximize reading comprehension of EFL students. The application of L1 is one of the key issues that have been debated in the area of L2 acquisition for the last few decades. Studies have been conducted in this area with inconclusive results to either support or oppose the use of L1 in EFL classrooms. Nonetheless, the bilingual demands in the EFL context have paved the way for the development of a new territory in language learning and teaching for the inclusion of L1. Following this vein, the present study investigated the influence of L1 supplementary reading on students who had different levels of content knowledge and L2 reading proficiency. Since content background knowledge and L2 English proficiency were major contributors to L2 academic reading at the tertiary level, the interactions between these two variables were explored to identify the effects of L1 pre-reading materials. The present investigation therefore focused on the interface of L1 support and L2 reading to clarify the controversies on the role of L1 use.. Background and Rationale The present study breaks from the traditional ostracism of L1. L1 use in L2 learning is often assumed to be negative and has seldom been considered an option to facilitate the learning of a foreign language, as it is believed that L1 impedes L2 acquisition and processing (e.g., Chaudron, 1988; Ellis, 1984, 2005; Ruiz-Funes, 2002; 1.

(14) Turnbull, 2001). In fact, this general assumption has prevailed for some time, since the proponents contend that English ought to be learned through English, not by the use of L1. Nonetheless, in most EFL contexts around the world, students share the same L1, and the instructors know both the L1 and L2 being taught. The potential benefits of L1 use in the EFL setting, therefore, emerge as a topic worthy of investigation. To counter the unsubstantiated charges in banning L1, the present study explored how L1 use could be a stimulus and an aid in the cognitively demanding task of L2 reading. Reading researchers in the EFL field have long emphasized on finding ways to better facilitate readers‘ L2 comprehension. A pedagogical reason therefore directed the researcher to focus on the pre-reading treatments of L1 to assist students‘ cognitive efforts in comprehending L2 materials read. L2 reading comprehension at the tertiary level is affected by many factors, among which, the interplay of content knowledge and linguistic knowledge is critical. From the cognitive aspect, reading comprehension involves both the higher-level (world or background knowledge) and the lower-level (linguistic knowledge) processing. The former claims that reading is heavily influenced by the top-down model. The reading process requires readers to combine their own background knowledge with the information in a text to comprehend that text. The latter, which is the bottom-up model, suggests a sequential processing of reading, starting from decoding a word. This serial linguistic processing proposed that all phonemic and graphemic information be processed prior to comprehension. The present study positioned itself between the two models to examine the interactions of content and linguistic knowledge. These two factors seemed to become more salient at higher education as they constantly shaped students‘ academic reading. Few EFL students at university levels have developed both the content 2.

(15) knowledge and the L2 linguistic knowledge. This study sought to investigate the effects of L1 on students‘ L2 reading performance when the interactive nature of the content (background) and linguistic knowledge came into play. Since humans learn by moving from the familiar to the unfamiliar, by building new knowledge onto existing knowledge, L1 could serve as a bridge between the known and unknown. The support from L1 could possibly make up for learner‘s deficiencies in either content or L2 linguistic knowledge in reading.. The Importance of L2 Reading for Taiwanese EFL Learners English has always been the primary foreign language on school curricula in Taiwan. From elementary school on, the English curriculum is designed to increase students‘ English competence in four skills, i.e., reading, speaking, writing, and listening. However, for the majority of students in Taiwan, content courses are mainly delivered in Chinese. Instead of being a communicative tool in daily life, English for most students is seen as a required subject to be mastered. Taiwanese students have little opportunity to get in touch with foreigners or use English in social interactions of everyday life, which impedes their skill development. Reading is the most common channel of learning English among the four skills in EFL context. It is not difficult to find non-English major students who read English fluently in their specialized field but lack communicative competence in English. In other words, some students read and fully understand the English materials assigned by the teacher but probably cannot discuss orally or express in writing with equivalent thoroughness. Reading well in English is strongly linked to academic success. In the EFL environment, though English is not spoken outside the classroom, most students learn English through reading textbooks, magazines, or other materials written in 3.

(16) English. Within the tertiary academic contexts, texts written in English are commonly assigned by university instructors as a source for knowledge acquisition. Learning to read in English has naturally become necessary in order to absorb the vast amount of information. As Anderson (1991) pointed out, ―reading is an essential skill for English-as-a-foreign language student... with strengthened reading skills, ESL/EFL readers will make greater progress and attain greater development in all academic areas‖ (p.1) . The skill of reading further engages the students to learn better through reading. To sum up, as Eskey (1986, p.21) claimed, people learn to read, and to read better by reading. L2 reading is the building block for overall English language learning. Reading provides an authentic source of input for learners to advance their L2 proficiency either through conscious or unconscious processes (Elly & Mangubhai, 1983). Reading, therefore, serves the purpose of enabling readers to further their schooling and obtain academic accomplishments. L2 Reading and Comprehension Reading theories have gone through several stages of transition. The traditional view holds that comprehension occurs as a result of automatic and accurate processing at lower level decoding. Comprehension difficulties are mainly attributed to linguistic deficiencies. Readers build comprehension ability by mastering a set of hierarchically sequenced sub-skills. However, current reading theories have gradually come to consider reading as an interactive process in which conceptual understandings at higher levels is equally important. In other words, comprehension is related to both the global and local level processing that a reader employs to construct meaning (e.g., Stanovich, 1980; Van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983). According to Block (1992), the debate on whether reading is a bottom-up 4.

(17) language-based process or a top-down knowledge-based process has subsided. It is no longer problematic to claim that linguistic and background knowledge both influence reading. At higher education levels, the content knowledge acquired through interactions with the surrounding environment such as the academic community forms the background knowledge for L2 academic reading. Linguistic knowledge also plays a role, as Alderson (2000) stated ―the ease with which the language of a particular text can be processed… depend[s] upon the nature of the reader‘s linguistic knowledge‖ (p. 34). In other words, the reader needs to possess both content and L2 linguistic knowledge in order to easily process the text. Academically, language used in context is deemed more essential for students reading texts in a specialized area (Dudley-Evans & St. John, 1998). To comprehend from the top-down perspective, one must go beyond the information that is provided on the text and postulate a connection between the messages on the text. Language users who cannot fill knowledge gaps with missing elements might fail to comprehend the text. Goodman‘s (1970) theory posited reading as a ―psycholinguistic guessing game.‖ The reader produces a hypothesis to either confirm or reject that hypothesis. The activation of the knowledge related to the content is therefore crucial for the reader to make predictions. Breakdowns of text comprehension can be attributed to the lack of higher level background knowledge on content understanding. Apart from the knowledge activation at the higher conceptual level, the accessibility of a text for a reader also depends on the combined contributions of the lower level factors such as the ability to decode. Clarke (1980) has stated that to extract information from authentic L2 materials, L2 proficiency plays a role in rendering a text more or less accessible. Linguistic factors, though present all the time, play a particularly major role in comprehension when content knowledge is inaccessible. Though background knowledge facilitates reading, the facilitating 5.

(18) effects have been confirmed to be varied (e.g., Alderson & Urquhart, 1985; Chen & Graves, 1995). The findings of these studies are inconclusive in how much background knowledge actually contributes to comprehension because constructing meaning from a text requires a complex mix of different abilities. For those who have not acquired sufficient background knowledge or failed to activate the related topical knowledge, the extent to which they rely on the L2 linguistic knowledge might be heavier than those with the activated background knowledge. In this study, the complex nature of L2 reading comprehension was explained in relation to both linguistic knowledge and content knowledge.. L1 Use in L2 Learning: Evidence of Facilitation from L1 Literacy L1 use is frequently discussed as a heated issue in second language acquisition (SLA) research. The strongest form of restriction is to ban L1 based on the principle that learners need to think as much as possible in the target language (TL). According to Cook (2001), the discouragement of L1 in classrooms is due to the fact that L1 use might reduce TL input. As Ellis (1985) puts it, teachers who overuse L1 deprive learners of valuable TL input. Exposing learners to TL input provides a strong reason for the use of L2 at all times. Research has shown that the amount of TL input does indeed make a difference to learners‘ TL development (e.g., Ellis, 1985; Lightbown, 1991). Based on such premises, this research does not undermine the methodologies which put TL at top priority. TL use is usually necessary in multilingual classrooms. The total reliance upon L2, nonetheless, requires several circumstances to be met. For instance, the availability of opportunities for the use of L2 outside of classrooms is crucial. Unfortunately, these opportunities are not characteristic of Taiwanese EFL tertiary education. Additionally, even though the exposure to TL input does improve learning, 6.

(19) some studies also question the quality and modification of the input, and the interactions among students as variables that determine whether the input is actually learned (e.g., Swain, 1985, 1993). In other words, dismissing L1 does not ensure L2 learning; instead, judicious use of L1 could catalyze L2 learning and improve L2 intake. Though the language teaching community is reserved about using L1 in EFL classrooms (e.g., Rolin-Ianziti & Varshney, 2008), a more optimistic version of utilizing L1 is emerging (e.g., Atkinson,1987; Colina, & Garcia, 2009). Both G. W. Cook (2010) and V. J. Cook (2001) claimed that language classes have witnessed a positive change following the recognition that L1 can be seen as a communicative strategy to learning L2. The underlying principle is that while it is important to encourage students to maximize their use of L2, a successful learning does not necessarily require banning L1. Instructors are allowed to be flexible in the approach of teaching. V. J. Cook (1992) insisted that all L2 learners access L1 while processing L2, ―The L1 is present in the L2 learners‘ minds, whether the teacher wants it to be there or not‖ (p.584). In other words, the connection of L1 and L2 is inseparable. The dissenting voice against the mainstream promotion of L2 use is not alone; several studies echo V. J. Cook‘s viewpoint in defense of L1 use. Benefits brought about by L1 use cited in L2 literature include three perspectives: social, cognitive, and affective. The studies conducted from socio-cultural perspective defending L1 as facilitating on the premise that L1 use is a natural and necessary process (e.g., Colina & Garcia, 2009). From the social perspective, students who work collaboratively in a small group experienced higher levels of motivation and L1 was employed as a mediating tool which assisted them to successfully complete difficult tasks. Within a cognitive framework, the empirical research into L2 learning processes also indicated that as learners participate in 7.

(20) cognitively demanding L2 activities, they tended to use more of their L1 (Storch & Wigglesworth, 2003). L1 utilization offers EFL learners the additional cognitive support they need to handle language processing. If the students are restricted solely to the use of the target language, they might not succeed in completing the task at a more complex level. Besides, L1 had also demonstrated its value in creating an access to understanding meaning. Strategies such as translation or code-switching were often utilized in completing tasks (Anton & Decamilla, 1998). Affectively, higher level of motivation was initiated and less anxiety was experienced when students were allowed to use their L1 (e.g., Auerbach, 1993). L1 in fact functions as a scaffold or potential learning resource for students. Widdowson (1978) made an explicit case for using of L1 as an authentic input by stating that ―the principle [to use a language] might be applied to the association of the language being learned with the language the learner already knows…it would seem reasonable to draw upon the learner‘s knowledge of how his own language is used to communicate‖ (p.159). The reincorporation of the student‘s own language in reading enables faster and more efficient absorption of information, which in return, enhances the students‘ engagement in L2 reading and accumulation of information.. Statement of the Problem Based on the above rationale, the researcher found it necessary to explore how English texts, especially academic texts, can be better read by fluent L1 readers through the supplementary materials at the tertiary level in Taiwan. Being able to read is an ability that most adult students have developed in their mother tongue, but the current reading research has not revealed how L2 learners, with several developed knowledge bases and proficient L1 ability, comprehend the L2 text. It can be expected that learners exercise their existing cognitive abilities in the reading process to obtain 8.

(21) L2 reading competence. Research efforts need to investigate the issues pertinent to L1 use in the EFL setting. Keeping this caveat in mind, the study was conducted with two research foci: (1) to explore how EFL learners‘ L1 facilitated L2 reading comprehension, and (2) to explore how EFL readers with different levels of content knowledge and L2 proficiency varied in their reading performance when L1 pre-reading supplementary materials were provided. The study first clarified how L1 supplementary materials would benefit readers. Second, this study intended to take a step further to explore how readers of high/low content knowledge levels and high/low L2 reading proficiencies differ in their performance of L2 domain reading after the inclusion of pre-reading supplementary materials.. Purpose of the Study The students at higher education in Taiwan are constantly confronted with new information in written form in academic learning. Chinese and English are the major sources for the development of content knowledge. At the tertiary level, since the emphasis is on content knowledge, EFL students‘ perception toward English has gone through a fundamental change: English text is no longer merely the object of study. It has shifted from being a TALO (Text as Linguistic Object) to becoming a TAVI (Text as a Vehicle of Information) (Dudley-Evans & St. John, 1998). Readers need to obtain information embedded in the texts. The primary attention is given to the content of the texts which stands in stark contrast with what English texts function at high school level. In such a situation, the preparatory activities for English reading should assist students in comprehending the relevant content information. L1 supplementary materials therefore serve as facilitating devices for the transmission of ideas written in English texts.. 9.

(22) The main purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of L1 pre-reading supplementary materials on L2 reading comprehension. The experimental design compared and explored how pre-reading support in different languages enhanced comprehension of EFL students. Additionally, the present study investigated the interactive effects of students‘ L2 reading proficiency and content knowledge on students‘ reading performance. These two cognitive factors might determine the effects of the employed pre-reading materials. For comprehension performance, the researcher adopted short answer open-ended questions to measure EFL students‘ reading comprehension ability on a specific text.. Research Questions Built upon cognitive reading theories, this study examined the facilitation of L1 on language learners‘ comprehension of an authentic L2 reading text. The results of domain-specific reading comprehension were assessed by a set of open-ended questions. Specifically, this study addressed the following research questions:. 1.. Is there an effect of the pre-reading treatment on the comprehension of L2 domain-specific reading by EFL university students? Is there a difference between the effects of L1/L2 pre-reading treatments?. 2.. Does the effect of L1/L2 pre-reading treatment on the EFL students‘ comprehension of L2 domain-specific reading interact with their level of content knowledge?. 3.. Does the effect of L1/L2 pre-reading treatment on the EFL students‘ comprehension of L2 domain-specific reading interact with their level of L2 reading proficiency?. 4.. In domain-specific reading, how important is content knowledge and 10.

(23) L2 reading proficiency for students? How do students of varying levels of content knowledge and English proficiency perceive the contributions of pre-reading materials in different languages?. Significance of the Study The study could contribute to reading theories, research methods, and instructional pedagogy. The findings of the present research could supply the empirical evidence to clarify the seemingly conflicting views on L1 use, which could enrich reading research in general. Since this investigation focused on integrating readers‘ existing L1 reading abilities to make L2 reading more effective, a new perspective could be provided on L1/L2 relationships. In addition, a cross-disciplinary cooperation was carried out to design the tool to measure students‘ content knowledge and domain-specific reading comprehension. These measurements may provide a more accurate picture on the interactions of the variables in design. This study also provided recommendations regarding the integration of L1 resources into L2 reading in tertiary education, and provided suggestions regarding cooperation and teamwork among disciplinary teachers, language teachers, and students in their mutual efforts to achieve greater academic reading success.. Theoretical Significance Of the studies that explored L1 and L2 relationships, researchers mostly recruited readers whose native language is a cognate of English (e.g., De Groot, & Nas,1991). The majority of cross-language research focuses on members of the same Indo-European family such as Italian, French, Spanish, or German. The learners participating in these studies were studying English in English-speaking countries. Languages from Indo-European families, such as English, differ greatly from 11.

(24) languages from Sino-Tibetan families, such as Chinese. For the cross-language studies that have included participants whose language is very distant from English like Chinese (e.g., Chen & Graves, 1995), the focus was not on the content information provided through the readers‘ L1, but on the information provided in their L2. In the study, the content information was provided in the students‘ L1. The current study examined the relationships between Chinese and English as Chinese is of great distance from L2. Reading, whether in a first or second language context, involves the reader, the text, and the interaction between the reader and the text (Rumelhart, 2004). The present study addresses the reader-text interaction by focusing on readers whose L1 is distant from that of L2. As the present study utilized the readers‘ L1 as a resource for L2 reading, this study therefore might provide explanatory interpretations on L2 reading from both linguistic and cognitive perspectives. More importantly, the purpose was to show the functions of L1 in L2 reading. Interactions between L1 and L2 might occur during L2 reading as learners participated in a cognitively demanding L2 task.. Methodological Significance From a methodological perspective, the present study attempted to solve some of the methodological issues that were associated with measurements. As this study attributed text comprehension difficulties mainly to the lack of content knowledge and L2 proficiency, the conceptual and linguistic knowledge were measured adopting stricter instruments. Most of the ESL/EFL studies exploring students‘ background knowledge tend to focus mainly on cultural issues, such as texts about weddings (Steffensen, Joag-Dev & Anderson, 1979). The assumptions of these studies are that the familiarity or unfamiliarity with a particular type of culture-specific knowledge 12.

(25) may facilitate or impede readers‘ understanding of highly culture-specific texts. For such texts, comprehension difficulty is attributable to cultural differences. The knowledge levels on cultural content are distinguished generally by surveys, self-reports, or questionnaires. For knowledge related to domain-specific content, a reader‘s prior conceptual knowledge gained through academic learning is crucial to reading comprehension. To gauge the embedded domain knowledge possessed by a reader requires a direct measure to assess the construct of that knowledge. In the present study, the conceptual content knowledge would not be incorporated within a larger realm of the competence in language. Instead, it was measured as a separate construct by adopting an instrument developed by experts of that specific field. The present study also utilized the readers‘ L1 literacy in the assessment of L2 reading comprehension on the content-specific text. The participants read the comprehension questions in their L1. At the same time, the participants were given the options to answer the questions in the language they prefer. Integrating L1 into testing might help the researcher measure the students‘ performance more accurately since they were able to understand the questions and write the answers in the language that they feel comfortable with. The students did not have worry about making mistakes in English.. Pedagogical Significance Problems in reading comprehension make up a huge proportion of students‘ academic underperformance. Conceptually, if L1 can provide support to EFL students who are struggling with L2 reading, then it is rewarding for the readers to learn L2 through the assistance of L1. In other words, when the use of L1 becomes additional scaffolding that allows learners to analyze L2 language and work at a higher 13.

(26) conceptual level, then L1 use should be perceived as pedagogically useful. In L2 reading, L1 is often applied as the inner speech in reading process, as suggested by Vygotsky‘s (1987) theory that inner speech is the foundation of thought. L1 in this regards naturally serves as a tool to help students make sense of the structure, content, and meaning of the L2 texts. Since L1 use warrants further investigation, the present study may serve as a practical guide to L2 reading. Solutions to reading problems of academic texts, which are pertinent to EFL university learners, could be offered. Secondly, in tertiary level EFL reading, not enough attention is paid to the reading of specialized content matters. Since most of the second language reading research has a tendency to utilize reading passages taken from literary works that are part of the literary canon, or from the language learning materials that are specially designed for ESL/EFL learners, these studies fail to address the reading needs of the majority of university students. Therefore, reading research that examines reading comprehension of authentic content-specific materials is of timely and practical value, as individuals‘ systematic understanding of a subject matter is the goal of university education. Definition of Related Terms The researcher concludes this section by specifying the definition of knowledge construct applied in the present study, especially the construct of content knowledge, to avoid misunderstanding.. Content Knowledge Content knowledge is a conceptual construct of knowledge concerning information a reader possesses. This is a term widely used in education which refers to the body of information in a given subject or content area, such as science or social studies. Content knowledge generally refers to the concepts, facts, theories, and 14.

(27) principles that are taught and learned in academic courses. The terminology which designates similar conceptual knowledge as content knowledge has proliferated in language learning. It is necessary to clarify the associated terms. From a broader perspective, several labels of conceptual knowledge related to content knowledge are mentioned interchangeably. The commonly used ―prior‖ or ―background‖ knowledge is generally perceived as ―knowledge about events, persons, and the like which provide[s] a conceptual framework for interacting with the world‖ (Marr and Gormley, 1982, p. 90). As the construct of prior or background knowledge refers to tacit and explicit knowledge a person possesses, it is the sum of what an individual knows. Pertinent to prior or background knowledge, content knowledge is represented in the conceptual framework together with its subcategories of domain or discipline knowledge. Domain and disciplinary knowledge represents the knowledge types that are subsumed under content knowledge, yet differ in degrees of specialization. When a concept becomes a part of a specialized field of study, it becomes part of the domain or discipline knowledge. To develop knowledge into a type of competence, an individual has to experience quantitative and qualitative changes in his or her knowledge base. Competent individuals in a discipline demonstrate the expertise in the body of content specific knowledge, and the knowledge base is cohesive and principled. Academic knowledge often derives from a specific discipline. Therefore, as Alexander and Judy (1988) wrote, ―those who know more about a particular domain generally understand better‖ (p. 375). Research on the effects of content area reading, therefore, has to focus on the activation of related content knowledge. Clearly, having content knowledge is an important factor in academic reading (Lin & Chern, 2014). In Chapter One, I have presented the background and rationale behind the research. As explained, the present study was to assess the role of L1 in L2 15.

(28) domain-specific reading. Especially, this study explored the interplay of the two cognitive factors, content knowledge and L2 reading proficiency with the treatment of supplementary materials. To address these research issues, I will review the related literature in more details in the next chapter.. 16.

(29) CHAPTER TWO. LITERATURE REVIEW. The literature review in this chapter includes the following topics. The beginning part covers reading theories in general. Major reading theories, especially the ones that are relevant to the present study, are reviewed. After reviewing the theories in reading, the researcher brings content area reading into focus to reveal what makes reading L2 academic text difficult in the EFL context. The researcher also briefly chronicles the use of L1 in language learning to position the utilization of L1 within a historical framework. A summary of literature pertaining to the use of schematic support for conceptual activation is then provided, including a review on relevant empirical studies exploring the effects of pre-reading support. The benefits of applying different pre-reading formats to increase cognitive processing in L2 reading is then extensively reviewed. To address the cognitive problems encountered by EFL university students when reading academic text, a section of the literature was devoted to reviewing literature on the topic of L2 readers‘ cognitive processing. The assessments for reading comprehension are reviewed in the final section to conclude the chapter.. Major Reading Theories In this section, the focus is on the summary of major reading theories. The following review aims to describe principal theories of reading, and especially the ones that help develop EFL learners‘ abilities in reading academic subject matters. Since reading is a means of gaining information, effective learning depends largely on the ability of learners to read independently and intelligently. Attempts should be made to meet the literacy needs of students. The following literature concerns the recognition of the needs of students in content area reading and discovering ways to 17.

(30) facilitate their literacy learning. Reading Models Reading, whether in L1 or L2, is a skill involving the orchestration of many components in the cognitive processes. As cognitive processes are silent, the internal operations become hard to observe. Reading models, therefore, help explain how texts are constructed when a reader reads with the interaction of these components. A summary of major reading models and theories will be introduced below.. Summary of Important Theoretical Models of Reading Among the reading models that have emerged from cognitive psychology, the first and the most influential is the bottom-up model resulting from information processing. This model was firmly put in place during the 1970s. Several bottom-up theorists, such as Gough (1972), or LaBerge and Samuels (1974), emphasized the ability to decode or put into sound what is seen in a text. The development of cognitive models began with the bottom-up model, followed by the top-down model, and progressed to the interactive model or bottom-up/top-down designs. The top-down model of reading emphasizes what readers bring to the process (Goodman, 1970; Smith, 1982). A reader contrasts what is read with his or her world knowledge to make sense of what is written. In other words, the top-down model focuses on the influence of a reader‘s background knowledge on the meanings constructed. The readers are perceived as active participants who make predictions in order to process information. This view also wielded great influence on second language acquisition in the ‗70s. At the center of top-down processing, schema theory (Anderson, 1985; Anderson & Pearson, 1998; Carrell, 1983; Hudson, 1982) arose to offer guidance for researchers. Schema theory proposed that reading process was conceptually driven. A. 18.

(31) reader made predictions based on higher-level background knowledge, and then looked for input to fit the information into these schemata. The interactive model (Rumelhart & Ortony, 1977; Stanovich, 1980) stresses both top-down and bottom-up skills in which a reader incorporates his/her prior knowledge and linguistic skills to comprehend a text. While still focusing on the reader-text interaction, one dominant theory known as the transactional model proposed by Rosenblatt (1969, 2004) has slightly moved beyond the cognitive perspective by centralizing the momentary interaction between the text and reader within a specific context. Because each reader extracts or evokes unique meanings from the text, every act of reading is therefore a dynamic transaction. According to Rosenblatt‘s transactional model, readers adopt either an aesthetic or efferent stance toward a text. Aesthetic stance is reading for pleasure, while efferent stance is reading to obtain meaning. These two stances taken by readers are not binary, as all reading transactions can be placed on a continuum between efferent and aesthetic. In content area reading, readers mostly adopt an efferent stance when their purpose for reading is to extract and retain information from a reading event. In the ‗90s, more and more researchers shifted away from the cognitive perspective, and attention was placed on sociocultural theories (e.g., Lave & Wenger, 1991). The shift can be attributed to the need to re-examine the general school literacy practices which discriminate against students from different linguistic backgrounds. Adopting Vygotsky‘s (1978) work to frame investigations of literacy, sociocultural theories focus on the role that individuals‘ social and cultural environments play. In the EFL environment, English learning at academic areas appears to link closer to socio-cognitive interactive theory. Socio-cognitive theory offers a relatively balanced view of reading instruction as it posits that an individual's knowledge acquisition can be directly related to the social interactions 19.

(32) and personal experiences as these factors unavoidably shape the students‘ literacy development. From the proposed model of Ruddell and Unrau (2004), the socio-cognitive view explains the various interactive factors affecting students‘ literacy learning. In this model, aside from readers themselves, language development is affected by the teacher, the text, and the classroom environment. Readers draw upon their reservoir of prior beliefs, knowledge, and motivation in learning; teachers also come with a previous set of skills and knowledge. Besides, the learning environment is one of the keys to determining the learning outcome because of its impacts on students‘ motivation to learn (Ruddell & Unrau, 2004, p.1497). The model therefore proposes that teachers should facilitate students‘ independence through fostering a sense of ownership in their learning processes (i.e., meaning-negotiation). The meaning-negotiation among the text, the teacher, and the social interactions in the classroom community defined the learning outcome of EFL learners. The principles of the above-mentioned theories and reading models are tabulated in Table 1. Table 1. Summary of Major Reading Theories Reading. Representing Authors. Principles. Bottom-up. Gough (1972),. Reading proceeds from part to whole. Written text is hierarchically. Model. LaBerge & Samuels. organized (i.e., on the grapho-phonic, morphemic word, sentence. (1974). levels). A reader first processes the smallest linguistic unit and. Theories. compiles the units to comprehend the higher units. Top-down. Goodman (1970),. Reading proceeds from whole to part. Reading is ―a. Model. Smith (1982). psycholinguistic guessing game.‖ Meaning is brought to print, not derived from print. Comprehension relies on readers to take in large chunks of text at a time without attending to separate letters.. 20.

(33) Table 1. (continued) Schema. Bartlett (1932), Carrell. Written text does not carry meaning by itself. Readers. Theory. (1983), Hudson(1982),. construct meaning from their own previously acquired. Rumelhart ( 1980).. knowledge.. Interactive. Rumelhart(2004),. The model recognizes the interaction of bottom-up and. Model. Stanovich (1980). top-down processes simultaneously throughout reading. Reading is a cyclical process during which higher level cognitive and lower level perceptual activities interact with each other.. Transactional. Rosenblatt (2004). All readings of texts are transactions. Experiencing a text can range from the analytical, fact-oriented (the efferent stance). Model. to the synthetical, personally-based (the aesthetic stance). Readers move dynamically back and forth between these two stances. Sociocultural. Lantolf, (2000),. As a theory inspired by Vygotsky, literacy development is. Theory. Vygotsky, (1987),. closely associated with the contexts in which an individual. Wertsch, (1985).. has grown. Individuals bring their experiences to the interpretation of written texts. Social interactions and culturally organized activities are important in psychological development.. Socio-. Ruddell and Unrau. Reading is a meaning construction process with emphasis on. cognitive. (2004). the reader, the text, and the teacher. The reader‘s affective. Model. and cognitive conditions are interrelated, and they play critical roles in the reading process.. 21.

(34) Content Area Literacy In the following section, the relevant theoretical bases regarding content area literacy will be reviewed, and the focus is placed on how established L1 content area reading instructions assist readers in getting through the vast amount of reading materials of content areas. Content area instruction emphasizes ways to help students shine in their specialized areas. At the tertiary level, university curricula deal with academic knowledge. Since the knowledge construct is specialized and information-laden, it can be distant from students‘ everyday lives. Aside from the challenging content, the reading material is oftentimes written in the readers‘ L2, which adds linguistic burden to the learners. In higher education, in addition to English for General Purposes (EGP), English for Academic Purposes (EAP) has also triggered research interests. In this section, relevant literature regarding English education at the tertiary level is reviewed to illustrate the nature of content area reading in the tertiary education of the EFL environment in Taiwan.. L1 Content Area Reading Instruction Students in higher education are expected to have developed predispositions critical for independent learning. One way of promoting self-directed learning is to equip students with adequate content literacy. In L1 reading research, content area reading is usually designed with a primary purpose of helping learners acquire the skills for the acquisition of new knowledge from the materials required in their subjects. The pioneering work in L1 emphasizing reading instruction in content areas was carried out by Herber (1978). Since then, more approaches to improve subject 22.

(35) matter instruction were implemented by teachers. Activities therefore were designed to enable students to engage with and more effectively learn subject matter through reading, writing, and reasoning. Most literature labeled as content area reading (CAR) has discussed the evolving disciplinary literacy that secondary students need to be equipped with for school subjects. CAR is usually put under the framework in teaching students how to read and write the discourses of specific disciplines. Many secondary school teachers have not taken into account the cognitive demands of content learning. As a result, instructors may assign reading, writing, and thinking tasks without considering whether or not the students have the requisite literacy skills to complete the task. CAR framework reinforces reading as a shared responsibility among all instructors (e.g., Bean, 1997). This framework can be described as the result of a recognition that students would benefit from having content area classes that are infused with reading instruction. Based on the principle, the concept of reading to learn (Manzo, Manzo & Thomas, 2009; Richardson & Morgan, 2003; Vacca &Vacca, 1999, 2005) has become popular in content area reading instruction. The instructional framework suggested by Manzo, Manzo & Estes (2001) divides ―reading to learn‖ into three stages, pre-reading (or Into/Before stage), during reading (or Through/During stage), and post-reading (or Beyond/After stage). The principles for CAR were also proposed by several scholars to facilitate the active engagement of students. All these frameworks of instruction aim to develop content area knowledge together with reading skills. Most of the proposed frameworks that seem to fit lessons in an instructional setting are the before, during, and after reading practices. Table 2 illustrates the lesson frameworks for the basic three-step instructional procedures, as these frameworks have in common a pre-reading phase, a during-reading phase, and an after-reading phase: 23.

(36) Table 2. Three-step Lesson Framework for CAR instructions Authors. Three stages. Before. During. IF Herber (1978) Instructional Framework. ARC Vaughan & Estes (1986). PAR Richardson & Morgan (2003). MAX Forget (2004). Preparation (Make connections, Expanding vocabulary,. Anticipation (Predicting the kinds of information to. Preparation (Determine and build prior knowledge). Motivation (Helping students to strive for success, reducing. Establishing context, Building anticipation, Establishing purpose, Motivating interests). appear). Guidance (Supporting prediction, Supporting reading,. Realization (Interacts with new information). Supporting writing, Supporting reasoning) After. Independence (Applying content, Applying processes, Assessing content, Assessing processes). Contemplation (Pull information together). anxiety over possible failures). Assistance (Read purposefully to develop. Acquisition (Threat-free opportunity to interact with. comprehension). text). Reflection (Critical thinking skills). EXtension (Higher order thinking). Source: Restructured from Huang, S, C (2004), p. 48; Richardson, J.S., & Morgan, R.F. (2003). The three-step framework is used to assist students in content area reading. In pre-reading stage, the framework is applied to activate existing knowledge, thereby creating a mental structure to which new text can be attached. In during-reading stage, the understanding is strengthened as students interact with the text. In after-reading stage, the framework assists students to incorporate what they have just read into their core knowledge. Clearly, content area reading is a complex set of processes that works most efficiently when all three steps are taken care of. However, when the three. 24.

(37) steps were compared, pre-reading was rated as highly-beneficial by reading professors in Gee and Rakow‘s (1987) large survey. In this survey, the university reading specialists were asked what can be provided to help students comprehend given texts and develop good reading habits when teaching the content of a specific discipline. Some pre-reading methods were even ranked suitable for all students, texts, and teaching styles. Pre-reading stage consists of strategies for students to get ready before reading, so the students could enter the page with an appropriate mindset. This phase is therefore a transition to prepare readers for the right orientation (Manzo, Manzo & Estes, 2001). When putting reading into a cycle of the three steps, it is recommended that the pre-reading stage be emphasized as shown on Figure 1. Before the actual act of reading a text begins, pre-reading assistance could make the process of reading more comprehensible in the later stages.. Follow-up activities. Prepare to read (prereading). (after-reading). Reading guidance (during-reading). Figure 1.The reading-instructional cycle In the tertiary level at Taiwanese universities, quite a few empirical studies also focused on pre-reading activities which directed at helping learners engage in the 25.

(38) reading process. For the studies which facilitated the content understanding of the text, Chen and Graves (1995) tested four pre-reading conditions. They provided a preview, background knowledge, a combination of preview and background knowledge, and no pre-reading activity to explore the effects of pre-reading. It was found that providing a preview is the most effective pre-reading activity. The value of pre-reading tasks has been proven since any types of pre-reading activity could lead to a better comprehension than without a pre-reading activity. Huang, Cheng and Chern (2006) extended this line of research to Taiwanese students with specialized academic needs. Three mini-EAP reading lessons were designed in the pre-reading phase to facilitate the subject matter texts: vocabulary list, case study, and self-appraisal. The study included learners‘ motivational characteristics in response to the pre-reading materials. It was found that learners with lower motivation disliked having the case study as a pre-reading support. From the above-mentioned pre-reading designs in the Taiwanese university context, the following conclusion can be drawn: successful pre-reading activities are usually student-centered.. Reading for Learning: Use Content Knowledge to Support Reading Given that the relationship between academic achievement and content knowledge is closely connected, Marzano (2004) suggests if any intervention is to occur, enhancing readers‘ knowledge should be a top consideration to support students‘ academic achievement. Adequate use of discipline-based information not only provides a context to process and apply students‘ emerging L2 literacy skills, but also enhances students‘ disciplinary conceptual understanding which paves the way for their future learning and career. The enhancement of content knowledge is necessary in academic reading (Lin & Chern, 2014). In preparing readers in their subject area reading, providing them with a high level of subject knowledge could improve 26.

(39) reading comprehension. In reading, there has been a strong emphasis on activating or building prior knowledge to facilitate comprehension. Alexandar and his colleagues suggested that nothing exerts a more powerful influence over what students understand and remember from reading a text than their existing knowledge (Alexander, Kulikowich, & Jetton,1994). Prior knowledge has constantly been shown to make a great impact on text comprehension, as students with more knowledge can assimilate more additional information. The issues of using prior knowledge will be discussed separately in the subsequent literature review. The strong relationship between knowledge and reading comprehension indicates that new information not connected to existing knowledge is likely to be forgotten. Human beings are hard-wired to learn new things based on the old. The existing background knowledge needs to be activated for reading. According to Marzano (2004), background knowledge can be built through direct or indirect experiences. Direct experiences come from field trips, labs, simulations, or guest speakers. For indirect experience, teachers could provide students with the relevant information in print. Instructors need to decide if students need additional background information about the topic of the text they will be reading. It is important to ensure that students can make sense of the content even when the text may seem challenging to the novice readers. Providing relevant information in print, therefore, serves the functions of building a readers‘ content knowledge for novice readers. Both literacy educators and the content area instructors could support students in building as well as in activating relevant background knowledge. Reading should be placed in a meaningful knowledge-building and knowledge-activating context that fuels the comprehension of content messages. 27.