非英語系研究生對於專業領域英文閱讀之困難與後設認知策略應用研究-比較教授與研究生的觀點差異

全文

(1)國立屏東商業技術學院應用外語系(所) 碩士論文非英語系研究生對於專業領域英文閱讀之困難與後設認知策略應用研究 -比較教授與研究生的觀點差異 The Differential Viewpoints on Reading Difficulties and Metacognitive Strategies Application Toward Academic English Reading Between Non-English Major Graduates and Instructors 指導教授：謝良足研究生：. 黃俊瑋. 中華民國九十五年六月.

(2) The Differential Viewpoints on Reading Difficulties and Metacognitive Strategies Application Toward Academic English Reading Between Non-English Major Graduates and Instructors Advisor: By:. Dr. Liang-Tsu Hsieh Chun-Wei Huang. A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Program of Applied Foreign Languages In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Master of Arts National Pingtung Institute of Commerce. Pingtung, Taiwan, R.O.C. June, 2007.

(3) 摘要以往的研究專注於探討非英語系學生於專業科目英文閱讀之閱讀困難及策略應用，以求提升學生的閱讀理解能力℃。然而，大多研究均從學生身上蒐集資料，而忽略了擁有更成熟專業科目英文閱讀經驗的教授們。因此，本研究著重於同時從教授以及學生身上蒐集資料來了解雙方是否有不同的觀點。此外，本研究亦比較不同學院之間的研究生是否有不同的的閱讀困難或後設認知策略應用的喜好。本研究對非英語系的 129 位研究生以及 18 位教授作問卷蒐集，並對 18 位研究生及 8 位教授做深入訪談。經由問卷及訪談，結果顯示： (1) 專業字彙是導致研究生專業科目英文閱讀困難的主要原因。學生經常誤解了各個專業字彙的實際意涵，而無法了解正確的句意。 (2) 教授們認為研究生們應擷取並運用更多的背景知識來理解專業科目英文文章。 (3) 對於後設認知閱讀策略應用來說，研究生最常運用的策略是尋求外在工具的協助，而教授們最建議的策略則是著重於能夠有效的解決閱讀困難。此外，有關自我檢測閱讀能力的策略應用，則較少被教授及學生們所重視。 (4) 大部分教授們建議研究生除了直接翻譯手上的文章外，亦可尋求相關的文獻來深入了解閱讀文章的議題。 (5) 比起管理學院的研究生，工學院的研究生們有較多的英文專業期刊以供閱讀。總括來說，研究生們需應用更多的閱讀策略來代替過度依賴的字典及翻譯軟體。此外，學校及系上可提供更多的專業期刊資源以供學生閱讀、檢索。而學生們於. i.

(4) 進入研究所之前，可修習學校開設的相關專業科目英文閱讀課程，並在閱讀專業科目英文文章時多多應用有效的資源及閱讀策略。. 關鍵字：專業閱讀，基模理論，後設認知策略. ii.

(5) Abstract Previous studies have investigated many reading difficulties encountered in academic English reading and addressed various strategies meant to increase the comprehension of the readers. However, most studies collected data only from students and ignored the viewpoints of their instructors, who were certainly more experienced on the subject. Thus, this study aimed to investigate reading difficulties and the metacognitive strategies that should be used in academic English reading from the viewpoints of both instructors and graduate students. In addition, this study also compared the viewpoints of graduate students from different majors. In total, 129 non-English major graduate students and 18 instructors were surveyed and 18 graduate students as well as 8 instructors were interviewed. The results showed that (1) academic vocabulary was the main reading problem encountered by non-English major graduate students. Readers often misunderstood the proper implications of academic vocabulary and thereby failed to fully comprehend the text. (2) Instructors believed that graduates had to acquire and apply more content schemata to their academic English reading. (3) As for metacognitive strategies, support reading strategies were the most popular strategies among graduate students whereas problem solving strategies were the most recommended by instructors. Self-evaluation strategies were not as emphasized as other strategies. (4) Instructors recommended that graduates consulted references to get more information on the issue at. iii.

(6) hand rather than merely to interpret the article. (5) Graduates majoring in engineering had more access to sufficient academic materials, courtesy of their departments or schools, than those majoring in management. To sum up, this study found that graduate students should apply more reading strategies to academic English reading to replace the usage of electronic interpretations. Moreover, schools or departments should supply more resources for graduates to have at hand. Graduate students should also take related courses in order to enhance their academic English reading proficiency before entering graduate level courses. Furthermore, students should be wise in utilizing appropriate strategies and resources to solve their academic reading problems.. Key Words: academic reading, schema theory, metacognitive strategy. Acknowledgements First of all, I would like to appreciate my advisor, professor Liang-Tsu Hsieh. She encouraged me, supported me, and spent lots of time guiding my research. I learned how to. iv.

(7) write a valuable thesis owing to her assistance. In addition, I also express my appreciation to my committee members, professor Shih-Chung Lin and professor Jong-Shing Liang. They offered me the best suggestions to improve the quality of my thesis. Besides, I wish to thank my friends, Min-Yu Huang, Minnie Liu, Morgan Wu, Meng-Han Tsai, and the classmates in Teacher Education Program. They accompanied and supported me all the time. Finally, I would like to extend my greatest gratitude to my family. Without their support, I would not be so confident to complete this thesis. I would like to dedicate my thesis to all of them.. v.

(8) Table of Contents Abstract (Chinese)……………………………………………………………………….…. i Abstract…………..……………………………………………………………………...…iii Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………….…...v Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………..…vi Figues………………………………………………………………………………………ix Tables……………………………………………………………………………………..…x CHAPTER 1………………………………………………………………………………...1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………1 Background of the Study……………………...………………………………….1 Purpose of the Study……………...…...….…………...………….………………2 Research Questions………………...…...….…………………….………………3 Significance of the Study………………………………………………………...4 Limitations of the Study…...………………...…………….………………5 Definitions of Terms…………...…...…...….…………………….………………6 CHAPTER 2……………………………………………………………………………...8 Literature Review……………….……………………………………………………8 .. Reading and Academic Reading.…...…...….…………………….………………8 Content Schemata………….……………….….……….……….………………11 Formal Schemata…………………………………………….………….………14 Linguistic Factors………………………………………………………...…..…20 Metacognitive Strategies………………………….….……….……...…………25 Successful Readers……………….……………….….……….……...…………28. CHAPTER 3………………………………………………………..……………………...32 Methodology……………….……………………………………………………32 Subjects……………….….……….……............................................…………32 vi.

(9) Instruments……………….….……….……............................................………38 Procedures……………….….……….……............................................………43 Data Analysis……………….….……….…….........................................………45 CHAPTER 4………………………………………………………………..……………...47 Results and Discussion……………….………………………………………………47 Introduction…………….…………………………………………………………47 Reading Difficulties Which non-English Major Graduate Students Encountered……………………......……………………………………………47 The Factors Causing Difficulties in Academic English Reading for non-English Major Graduate Students.….…..…………………………….....…58 Metacognitive Strategies Non-English Major Graduate Students Preferred........70 The Differential Viewpoints Toward Academic English Reading Between Non-English Major Graduate Students and Instructors………….....…..............84 Professors’ Recommendations for Graduate Students to Read Academic English Articles…..………………………………………….…...........…......…91 Differential Reading Strategies and Difficulties among Graduate Students Majoring in Different Fields…………………..………….……………………..97 Summary of the Findings…………..…………………………………………100 CHAPTER 5………………………………………………………………..…………….101 Conclusions, Implications, and Suggestions……………….……………………….101 Conclusions of This Study……………………………………………..…..…..101 Implications of This Study…………………………………………………….103 Limitations of This Study and Suggestions for Future Studies………...…104 References……………………………………..…………………………………………107 Appendices….…………………………………………...………………………………117 Appendix A: Survey for Graduates …………………………………………...…………117 vii.

(10) Appendix B: Survey for Instructors ……………………………....…………..…………121 Appendix C: Interview Questions for Graduates………………………………………125 Appendix D: Interview Questions for Instructors……………………..…………………127 Appendix E: A Translation Example of Graduates’ Interviews……………...………..…128 Appendix F: A Translation Example of Instructors’ Interviews……..………...…………131 Appendix G: The Output of SPSS Analysis …………………………………......………137. viii.

(11) Figures Figure 2.1 Oxford’s (1990) Category of Learning Strategies……..…..…………………..26. ix.

(12) Tables Table 2.1 Swale’s Model of an Introduction………………………………………………18 Table 3.1 Backgrounds and Grouping of Graduate Subjects……………………………...33 Table 3.2 The Background Information of Interviewed Graduates………………………..36 Table 3.3 The Background Information of Interviewed Instructors……………………….37 Table 3.4 The Cronbach’s Alpha Before and after Elimination ..…………………............42 Table 4.1 Graduates’ Viewpoints Toward Category 1: Personal Background…..…………50 Table 4.2 Graduates’ Viewpoints Toward Category 2: Vocabulary. ……………………..52. Table 4.3 Graduates’ Viewpoints Toward Category 3: Grammar……………….................53 Table 4.4 Graduates’ Viewpoints Toward Category 4: Formal Schemata ……………...…56 Table 4.5 Graduates’ Viewpoints Toward Category 5: Content Schemata……………..….57 Table 4.6 Instructors’ Viewpoints Toward Category 1: Personal Background ………........60 Table 4.7 Instructors’ Viewpoints Toward Category 2: Vocabulary……………………….62 Table 4.8 Instructors’ Viewpoints Toward Category 3: Grammar………………...……….64 Table 4.9 Instructors’ Viewpoints Toward Category 4: Formal Schemata………...………67 Table 4.10 Instructors’ Viewpoints Toward Category 5: Content Schemata………………69 Table 4.11 Graduates’ Viewpoints Toward Category 6: Global Reading Strategies………72 Table 4.12 Instructors’ Viewpoints Toward Category 6: Global Reading Strategies……...74 Table 4.13 Graduates’ Viewpoints Toward Category 7: Problem Solving Strategies…......75 Table 4.14 Instructors’ Viewpoints Toward Category 7: Problem Solving Strategies…….76 Table 4.15 Graduates’ Viewpoints Toward Category 8: Support Reading Strategies…..…78 Table 4.16 Graduates’ Viewpoints Toward Category 8: Support Reading Strategies…..…79 Table 4.17 Graduates’ Viewpoints Toward Category 9: Self-evaluation Strategies…….…81 Table 4.18 Graduates’ Viewpoints Toward Category 9: Self-evaluation Strategies..…...…82 Table 4.19 The Mean and Standard Deviation of Metacognitive Strategies on Graduates’ Survey………………………………………………………………………….83 x.

(13) Table 4.20 The Independence-sample t-test by Categories…...…………………………...85 Table 4.21 The Independence-sample t-test of Significant Items………………................89 Table 4.22 One-way ANOVA of Item 4, 10, and 27…………………………………….....98 Table 4.23 The Comparison of Item 4 among Groups (Tukey Post-hoc Test).…………...98 Table 4.24 The Comparison of Item 10 among Groups (Tukey Post-hoc Test)....………..99 Table 4.25 The Comparison of Item 27 among Groups (Tukey Post-hoc Test)...………...99. xi.

(14) CHAPTER 1 Introduction Background of the Study Throughout the academic career, graduate students have to read a vast number of academic texts, as required by both the course curriculum and for their own independent research as well. Academic studies and journals around the world are mostly published in English. Thus, academic reading in English plays a significant role for graduate students in Taiwan. Furthermore, compared to those who major in English, graduate students who major in other fields have more difficulties reading academic English materials. Most graduate professors adopt academic English textbooks at school; however, they usually teach and discuss these texts in Chinese. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the students to figure out the structure of the academic content and vocabulary by themselves. If they have a good proficiency in general English reading, graduate students are more capable of solving problems found in their academic English reading. On the other hand, if the student is already poor in general English reading, then specific elements occurring in academic reading is likely to seriously frustrate him/her and hinder his/her comprehension. 鄭景庭 and 張庭芳 (2005) proved that graduate students who have a major other than English have problems reading academic journals in English. The main factors that caused reading difficulty were the student’s insufficient vocabulary and background. 1.

(15) knowledge on the content. 徐憶萍 and 陳詩雯 (2005) also proved that a lack of prior knowledge blocked undergraduates’ comprehension in academic English reading. This study will reveal what further factors trigger non-English major graduate students’ comprehension on academic English reading. Moreover, the viewpoints of professors were not emphasized on these two studies. Many professors might have different viewpoints toward academic English reading and it is likely that these instructors would have more experience with the subject at hand. They have already experienced what graduates will experience. They know how and why graduates have difficulties in academic English reading. Hence, this study will also gather information from these instructors to make comparisons with that of students. Purpose of the Study Most graduates in Taiwan begin to learn English when they are in junior high school. Therefore, by the time they have become graduate students they will have been studying English for ten or more years. In the 1990s, English teaching in Taiwan’s high schools focused on reading and writing, rather than on oral communication skills. Nevertheless, many graduates with more than ten years of English learning experience still do not have sufficient proficiency to read academic materials fluently in English. Thus, this study firstly attempts to demonstrate graduates’ personal background toward English reading. In addition, this study will reveal which factors influence graduates more seriously according. 2.

(16) to their own viewpoints. The categorized factors include vocabulary, grammar knowledge, content schemata, formal schemata, and metacognitive reading strategies. Furthermore, the professors may have more insights and ideas about why students have problems in reading academic English articles. Thus, this study will address the different viewpoints between graduates and instructors toward this subject. Every reader has different reading strategies for his/her own reading. The best cognitive strategy for one graduate may not be the best strategy for another. That is why this study investigates what metacognitive strategies graduates prefer above all other reading strategies. Besides, graduates who major in different fields might have different needs for English reading. Thus, this study compares the data of surveys and interviews between graduates from different academic fields to explore how and why they have different English reading difficulties. Research Questions According to the purpose of this study, six research questions are addressed below: 1. What reading difficulties do non-English major graduate students encounter? 2. What causes difficulties in academic English reading for non-English major graduate students? 3. What metacognitive strategies do non-English major graduate students prefer to use when reading academic English materials?. 3.

(17) 4. What are the differential viewpoints toward academic English reading between non-English major graduate students and instructors? 5. What recommendations do professors make for non-English major graduate students’ reading academic English articles? 6. Do non-English major graduate students who major in different fields apply different reading strategies and have different reading difficulties? Significance of the Study 鄭景庭 and 張晴芳 (2005) indicated that non-English major graduate students in Taiwan had some difficulties in reading academic English journals. Their study revealed that graduates have problems in reading academic materials due to insufficient vocabulary and a lack of grammar knowledge. A similar study conducted by 徐憶萍 and 陳詩雯 (2005) also indicated that the problems found in undergraduate students’ academic English reading resulted from a deficiency of vocabulary as well as a lack of prior knowledge on the subject matter. However, previous studies rarely collected data from the instructors whereas professors might have more first-hand experience in dealing with the many difficulties that students encounter regarding academic English reading. Instructors might have different viewpoints toward students’ English reading difficulties and make some useful recommendations for them. Therefore, in order to get more viewpoints of instructors, this study also surveys and interviews the professors who find themselves dealing with. 4.

(18) these very issues from day to day. Many suggestions from the instructors of various fields will be beneficial for graduates to improve their efficiency in academic English reading. Furthermore, different majors have different demands for English reading. Thus, this study also attempts to reveal whether students with different majors have significantly different reading metacognitive strategies and difficulties. Limitations of the Study This study compared the reading difficulties and metacognitve strategy applications among graduates with different majors. In addition to graduates’ majors, subjects’ English proficiency level and academic performance might also result into their reading difficulties or application of metacognitive strategies. However, subjects’ English proficiency level and academic performance were not addressed in this study. Therefore, the primary limitation of this study was not to take into account subjects’ English proficiency level and academic performance which might correlate to non-English major graduates’ academic English reading would influence non-English major graduates’ academic English reading. The other limitation was related to the interview questions. Interview question one referred to how much time graduate students spent on English learning and how much time instructors suggested graduate students spending on English learning. However, no English learners exactly tracked how much time they spent on English learning. Thus, the researcher failed to get a definite answer to this question.. 5.

(19) Definition of Terms The terms defined in this study include (1) academic reading, (2) schema theory, (3) metacognition, (4) metacognitive strategies. Academic Reading Academic reading is the reading of texts related to specific professions. Readers usually need sufficient background knowledge to comprehend academic texts. Schema Theory Schema theory contains both content schemata and formal schemata. Content schemata refer to the reader’s background knowledge of the content which is beneficial, if not essential, for comprehension. Readers need to connect the new material to their own existing cognitive system in order to comprehend the text. On the other hand, formal schemata refer to a reader’s understanding of the structure of the text rather than the content itself. Metacognition Metacognition refers to the readers’ cognition of their own reading process and the self-control mechanisms they use to monitor and enhance comprehension. Readers are supposed to be aware of the reading process and apply suitable strategies to different kinds of reading tasks.. 6.

(20) Metacognitive Strategies in Reading Mecognitive strategies were used for learners to work on the mental process in reading, to monitor the reading process, and to evaluate their reading ability. Metacognitive strategies in reading involved global reading strategies, problem solving strategies, support reading strategies, and self-evaluation strategies. Global solving strategies refer to the strategies used for global analysis of the content. Problem solving strategies are strategies utilized to solve problems when encountering difficult texts. Support reading strategies involved strategies to apply outside material or practical strategies. Self-evaluation strategies refer to strategies applied to check readers’ own performances or success after reading.. 7.

(21) CHAPTER 2 Literature Review Reading and Academic Reading Reading is a complex process that enables readers to receive information from the writers. The reader identifies the symbols, from them understands the appropriate meaning of every single word in each sentence, and thereby comprehends the whole text to get the information from the author. Dubin, Eskey and Grabe (1986) illustrated that various definitions have attempted to explain what reading is and considerable research efforts recommended some methods for readers to increase their reading efficiency; nevertheless, we did not get a completely valid explanation for what reading process is. Carrell and Eisterhold (1983) indicated that reading is a process to receive new information to interact with internally activated knowledge. What we previously knew, how we allowed the text to develop, and how we refined the new knowledge will influence our capability to understand a new text. Goodman (1967) emphasized that readers have to constantly form hypotheses, test predictions, and use their background knowledge of the world and of the language itself in order to construct meaning from the content. Clarke and Silberstein (1977) brought up that second language reading is an active process to comprehend text by utilizing the reader’s own background knowledge as well as applying appropriate strategies. Mitchell (1892) identified reading is to construct a meaningful interpretation of the written. 8.

(22) message basing on the information demonstrated by the writer. Hammadou (1991) demonstrated that reading comprehension involves the combination of the reader’s prior knowledge, language proficiency and metacognitive strategies. Cheng (1995) expressed that reading involved three categories of knowledge, including linguistic knowledge, rhetorical structure knowledge, and background knowledge. Basically, linguistic knowledge is a combination of both vocabulary and grammar knowledge. Rhetorical structure and background knowledge are related to schema theory. All three categories of knowledge were discussed in this study, with the addition of metacognitive knowledge as well. Various definitions and descriptions were illustrated for reading. However, Nambiar-Gopal (2005) mentioned that every single text has the same purpose - leading people to acquire new information from the author. This purpose is extremely significant in academic reading. 許蔚農 (2000) emphasized academic English learning is part of overall English learning. Academic English and general English should not be excessively distinguished. The objective of academic English teaching is to lead students to use English not only in academic fields but also in daily lives. 吳庶任 (2004) stated that academic English learning, including academic reading, involves the development of both language ability and professional skills. However, Uso-Juan (2006) emphasized that academic texts are hard to be understood effectively. Shih (1992) expressed that the new and unfamiliar information in academic content is the main difficulty to readers. According. 9.

(23) to Li and Mundy (1996), readers should utilize a series of metacognitive strategies to comprehend academic texts, which is a very deliberate, demanding, and complex process. Every text, academic or otherwise, was subjectively demonstrated by its author. Academic writers had their own individual viewpoints related to the topics they write about and they gave critiques on previous literature to illustrate their personal thinking on the subject. Even though researchers had their own individual opinions on various issues, they were still required to follow the regular systems and forms to illustrate their viewpoints on academic texts. These regular styles, like APA style, required writers to demonstrate their thinking and research clearly and orderly. A thesis writer had to introduce his/her study abstractly; then they would mention related studies that they had reviewed before the actual writing of their study had begun. Next, they would show the results and form an appropriate conclusion. Readers could get the writer’s references and appendices in the final pages. Thus, one reader who was familiar with this formal schema could get the information he/she needed according to the order. On the other hand, one reader who did not know the formal schema of academic reading might fail to get the important or necessary information after reading the entire contents in detail. 鄭景庭 and 張晴芳 (2005) investigated the difficulties that non-English major graduates might encounter. They collected data for their study through surveys and interviews. The results showed that a deficiency of vocabulary and grammatical knowledge. 10.

(24) were the primary factors that led to difficulties in reading academic English materials. 徐憶萍 and 陳詩雯 (2005) conducted a similar study. Instead, they had undergraduates as their subjects. This study indicated that a lack of prior knowledge on the subject was the key factor that triggered comprehension problems for undergraduates. This study suggested extensive reading to train the reader’s reading proficiency. Li and Mundy (1996) brought up that some strategies students applied to ESL academic reading were transferred from their native language reading strategies, such as the strategies related to background knowledge application. They also found that some strategies learned in English classes might not be adequate or applicable for L2 academic reading. Thus, they suggested that instructors should encourage students to employ a wide range of different reading strategies when reading various different materials. Content Schemata Content schema was one problem which seriously hindered many graduates’ academic reading comprehension. Carrell (1987) defined content schemata as “the knowledge, which a reader brought to a text, relative to the content domain of the text” (p. 461). According to Steffensen, Joag-dev, and Anderson (1979), background knowledge about the content of a discourse profoundly affected the manner the discourse would be comprehended, learned, and remembered. Douglas (2000) emphasized that content schemata is necessary and integral to the concept for specific language purpose. Carroll. 11.

(25) and Eisterhold (1983) demonstrated that efficient comprehension involved the ability to relate the textual material to one’s internal knowledge. In academic reading, graduate students have to utilize a great deal of background knowledge to comprehend texts before digesting the information. However, it is hard for graduate studnets to learn sufficient background knowledge. They constantly encounter new information and new academic vocabulary throughout the reading process. Understanding of unfamiliar academic vocabulary seriously influences a non-English major graduate’s reading comprehension. Understanding a new academic word is not the same as understanding a general English word. If a Chinese reader reads a general word like “camera,” they can look it up in any English-Chinese dictionary to learn what it is. By checking the dictionary, they immediately know what “camera” means, what shape it is, and what function it has because they have already had the background knowledge of a camera. However, when non-English graduate students encounter some fresh and unfamiliar academic vocabulary, to learn its meaning is not so simple. Checking an English-Chinese dictionary is most likely to be inadequate. The students might still get confused about its exact meaning unless they have already acquired adequate background knowledge of the content. For instance, if one graduate majoring in chemistry reads the word “antinomy” in an academic text, and he/she proceeds to check an English-Chinese dictionary and then finds “銻”(［ti］). To know the Chinese meaning of “銻” does not mean the reader understands its. 12.

(26) use in English. He/She might be still confused about the meaning, characteristics, and function of antinomy as used in the text if the reader has not already possessed relevant knowledge of the content. Cheng (1995) suggested that learners should get familiar with the terminology in their academic fields. Terminology refers to the technical terms of a particular subject. Graduate students need background knowledge in order to figure out the implications of the numerous and various technical terms they will encounter in academic reading. Nambiar-Gopal (2005) stated that academic reading did not only require readers to identify main points and understand unfamiliar words. The learners had to apply their own schemata or background knowledge to comprehend the text and that was the main difficulty. Smith (1982) emphasized the importance of prior knowledge in reading. He indicated that readers had to relate new information found in texts to the knowledge they had already possessed. Accordingly, graduates especially require the prior knowledge for their academic reading comprehension. During their university education, graduate students in Taiwan have learned information specific to their field for four years already, so they are supposed to have acquired basic knowledge of their academic fields. However, graduate students still encounter many problems due to specific information they lack. Thus, it is important for graduates to know how to recognize the new information they read and how to merge it into their existing cognitive concepts. Cheng (1995) described that some problems in academic reading resulted from a lack of training in reading in their own specialized areas. He stated that in order to comprehend a 13.

(27) complex academic text, readers had to utilize grammar knowledge as well as understood the ideas embedded in the text. According to Alderson and Urquhart (1998), background knowledge strongly affected performance on tests for academic reading comprehension. In their research, graduates from different majors with the same English proficiency performed differently. Their performance was influenced by the contents of each test. Readers with specific background knowledge performed better on the test related to their majors. Alderson and Urquhart stated that background knowledge was even more important than linguistic proficiency in the reading of academic English texts. Alderson and Urquhart (1983), Chen and Donin (1997), and Tan (1990) all brought up that students could understand texts more thoroughly when the content was related to their specific field of expertise. It is important to note that all these studies demonstrated that academic reading require a great amount of background knowledge for comprehension. Formal Schemata In addition to content schemata, formal schemata might influence a reader’s comprehension as well. 謝良足 (1996) stated formal schemata are the knowledge relative to the formal, rhetorical organizational structures of different types of texts. 謝良足 (1996) expressed that “comprehension is determined not only by the local effects of statement or paragraphs, but also by the overall rhetorical organization of a text” (p. 232). She examined the effects of both formal schemata and content schemata in the comprehension of reading. 14.

(28) stories. She concluded that both content and formal schemata influenced reading comprehension and indicated that the order of the text mattered more than content of the text in reading, which was contradictory to Carrell’s study (1987). However, both researchers indicated that the influence of both content and formal schemata could never be ignored in reading comprehension. 林清華 and 孔慧珠 (2000) claimed that text-structure knowledge could lead readers to understand the relationships between main ideas and details. Even though 143 university subjects from engineering department were able to catch the supporting ideas, they failed to organize the whole article by discovering the framework and missed the central message. 吳美貞 (2005) conducted another study to examine difficulties that graduates might encounter when developing their academic proficiency. She stated that graduates were not good at synthesizing the information they read. Some graduates check all unfamiliar vocabulary and every sentence or phrase to make sure they do not lose any information from the text. In the process, they usually forget what they read in previous pages, and they continue to lose more and more of the newly learned information with each page. Nambiar-Gopal(2005) encouraged readers to view a text as a whole picture instead of a series of main ideas. Learners need to pick out the main ideas in the text and relate them to the central theme in the overall body of text. Kaplan (1966) illustrated the structure of the English paragraph. Usually, a topic statement starts the English paragraph, followed by a series of subdivisions to support the. 15.

(29) statement. Then, more instances and illustrations are used to develop the central idea and relate it to other ideas that support or disagree with the issue at hand. 劉賢軒 (2003, 2004) conducted two studies to compare the structure of abstracts written by Taiwanese Ph.D. students and international scholars. In academic writing, there are certain formats for abstracts writing . He indicated abstracts written by both Taiwanese Ph.D. students and international scholars included two components: the results and the conclusions. However, some differences still existed between the abstracts. First, more than 80 % of international scholars mentioned the background and purpose of the study in their abstracts; on the contrary, around half of Taiwanese Ph. D. writers did that. Moreover, 60 % of international scholars stated the methods in abstracts whereas only 30 % of Taiwanese Ph. D. writers mentioned the methods. 劉賢軒 imputed the insufficient contextualization of students’ abstracts to their academic immaturity and English proficiency. He made a conclusion that the abstracts from international scholars were the summary of the whole thesis and involved background, purpose, method, result, and conclusion. On the other hand, Taiwanese writers paid more attention to the demonstration of the results. Cremmins (1982) defined that abstracts should be “an abbreviated, accurate representation of the contents of a document” (p. 3). Cremmins also emphasized that a good abstract should be well structured, concise as well as coherent. An abstract should. 16.

(30) involve purposes, methodology, results, and conclusions of the study. 郭志華 (1993) recommended that the structure of an abstract is “problem - approach - results - conclusion” (p. 234-235). Heyland (2000) noted that an academic abstract should contain five elements: introduction, purpose, method, product, and conclusion. Readers can understand the general idea of a study by reading its abstract in order to select the proper research for their needs. Moriarty (1997) demonstrated three criteria for the content and structure of journal abstracts. These criteria might be beneficial for academic writers to write the abstracts, as well as helpful for academic readers to read the abstracts. The first criteria required authors to show the importance of their research. The second criteria required them to display the innovation of their work. The last criteria requested authors to show their findings completely. The criteria suggested writers how to write as well as recommended readers how to read the abstracts in order to select the studies they need. However, different academic articles in different fields might apply different structural patterns to their abstracts. 劉賢軒 (2004) concluded that graduates should get familiar with different types of abstracts in order to read them and write them efficiently. Kwan (2006) conducted another study to discover the structures of literature reviews as well as introductions in academic studies. She concluded that the structures of literature reviews and introductions were similar but not exactly the same. Some studies gave literature reviews in chapter one, and used the introduction to locate the problem and inform the. 17.

(31) reader the purpose of the study. Swales developed CARS model to describe the typical structure of an introduction (as shown in Table 2.1).. Table 2.1 Swale’s Model of an Introduction (1990:41) Move 1. Establishing a territory. Step 1. Claiming certainly and/or. Step 2. Making topic generalizations and/or. Step 3. Reviewing items of previous research. Move 2. Establishing a niche. Step 1. Counter-claiming. Step 2. Indicating a gap. Step 3. Question-raising. Step 4. Continuing a tradition. Move 3. Occupying the niche. Step 1A. Outlining purpose. Step 1B. Announcing present research. Step 2. Announcing principal findings. Step 3. Indicating research article(RA) structure. 18.

(32) However, recently some new elements have been added into the introduction, such as the definition of terms. Kwan (2006) collected 20 doctoral theses to examine Swale’s model and concluded the third move was weakly offered by the writers. She further illustrated that both introductions and literature reviews could provide advance organizers and justify the themes for the study. In addition, Kwan (2006) indicated that the genre of literature review is “a sophisticated rhetorical exposition that serves to delineate the complex conceptual and theoretical contours of a thesis, and in a small number of cases to prepare the ground for specific methodological aspects of the writer’s research study” (p. 51). Hart (1998, 2001) provided some guidelines for writers to write literature reviews and these points could also help readers to read the reviews. At first, a literature review should contain information of previous works that relate to the study and a rough breakdown of their contents. Thereby, a literature review might prevent writers from duplicating a study that other researchers have already done. Third, a literature review should assist researchers to overcome the flaws found in previous studies. Fourth, researchers should demonstrate their advanced design of the study. These suggestions for academic writers could also be utilized for readers in their academic reading. Carrell (1987) suggested that ESL reading teachers have to teach students how to recognize and to use the high-level rhetorical organization of text to facilitate. 19.

(33) comprehension and recall. Kwan (2006) stated that all academic studies follow “Introduction-Literature review-Method-Result-Discussion” (ILrMRD) format for demonstration. The regulation of this format helps graduate students to search out the information they need more effectively. Linguistic Factors Among all abilities, fundamental English reading ability is fundamental for readers to read all kinds of English texts, including academic texts. 許蔚農 (2003) revealed that the reading problems of non-English major students usually resulted from the lack of vocabulary and grammar knowledge. Even though students might know a sentence consisted of subjects, verbs, and objectives, they just could not figure out the parts of speech in the sentence when they were reading. As to vocabulary, if students only memorize one meaning of each word, they would not be able to make the whole sentence in sense. 周碩貴 and 吳庶任 (2004) suggested high school students, before entering university, have to learn English by themselves in addition to the learning in regular English classes. Without acquiring sufficient vocabulary, they would encounter a great amount of difficulties in reading academic English textbooks. Uso-Juan (2006) emphasized that linguistic proficiency was one fundamental element significantly influenced academic reading performance while the other one was discipline-related knowledge. Cheng (1995) demonstrated that reading covers three categories of knowledge – linguistic knowledge,. 20.

(34) knowledge about rhetorical structure, and background knowledge. Fundamental linguistic knowledge is necessary for academic reading, and grammar and vocabulary knowledge are two of the central factors covered within linguistic knowledge. Readers usually get more confused with long or complex sentences rather than short or simple sentences due to grammatical problems. Cohen, Glasman, Rosenbaum-Cohen, Ferrara, and Fine (1988) illustrated that “heavy noun phrases, in various syntactic functions not only caused difficulties for informants, but were among the few structures that were predictably problematic for students” (p. 158). Eskey (1973) also expressed that non-native students would have more problems identifying the meaning of complex structure in reading. In academic reading, readers more or less encounter unfamiliar vocabulary on a regular basis. This unfamiliar vocabulary might be some general words that readers have yet to encounter, or could also be some academic terms the readers have not yet learned. Cheng (1995) indicated that readers had difficulty in the overall understanding of an academic text when they encountered unknown words during the reading process. The reason for this was that a great amount of words in academic texts were related to professional knowledge in specific fields. Academic texts always involve a great amount of technical terms. Technical terms are an inevitable part of the reading process for graduate students. Mudraya (2006) emphasized that the characteristics of technical words are lacking exact synonyms and do. 21.

(35) no appear frequently in texts. On the contrary, non-technical terms do have synonyms and frequently occur in all kinds of texts. Nevertheless, the functions of some vocabulary are neither technical nor completely general. Baker (1988:91) explained that such a term “covers a whole range of items that are neither highly technical nor specific to a certain field of knowledge nor obviously general in the sense of being everyday words which are not used in a distinctive way in specialized texts.” Mudraya (2006) defined these words as sub-technical vocabulary. Both technical and sub-technical terms require reader’s content schemata in order to fully comprehend the applications of specific words. Cohen et al. (1988) indicated the non-technical words might also convey some technical meaning in academic texts. Thus, readers had to expand upon the meaning of every word when reading academic texts. When readers checked the dictionary for comprehension, they had to remember that meaning is flexible. It is up to the reader to adopt a meaning suitable to the content. Cheng (1995) pointed out that vocabulary annoyed readers’ academic study, and understanding unknown words was the most difficult part in academic reading: “The nature of their academic studies required them not only to know the words with common meaning but also with specialized meaning in their particular areas. In some extent, the more they know about their subject area, the less difficulties they would have with their subject terminology.” (p. 14) Some scholars researched the words most used in academic texts and made corpus. Coxhead (2000) created a new academic word list (AWL) by collecting 414 academic texts. 22.

(36) from more than 400 authors. The texts involved four sub-corpora: arts, commerce, law, and science. Mudraya (2006) built another corpus—Student Engineering English Corpus (SEEC) for engineering readers. SEEC was built according to 13 English engineering textbooks. Those corpora are beneficial for academic readers and show the meaning of words that most appear in academic texts. 游淑儀, 張瑞華, and 蘇秀妹 (2004) stated it is necessary for academic reader to choose some specific academic vocabulary to learn. Moreover, students in different levels should have different objectives to learn vocabulary. When facing a new word they have not yet encountered in their studies again and again, readers are suggested to guess the meaning of the unfamiliar word. While it is good for readers when they guess correctly, it may also confuse them when they guess incorrectly. Especially, readers with poor language proficiency also usually have poor guessing capabilities. 周碩貴 and 吳庶任 (2005) indicated that guessing the meanings of unfamiliar vocabulary was an required ability for reading and that it could increase readers’ vocabulary knowledge. Nevertheless, incorrect guessing might make readers memorize the wrong meaning if the guessing was not corrected. They recommended readers not to guess every new vocabulary immediately. Readers could skip unfamiliar vocabulary and keep reading to gain more information before guessing. Alderson (1984) indicated that second language readers rely heavily on vocabulary knowledge. A lack of vocabulary knowledge is the first problem readers have to overcome. 23.

(37) for comprehension. Readers are often recommended to guess the meaning of unfamiliar vocabulary by applying clues found within the text. Kruse (1979) illustrated that for English native speakers, guessing was the most common method to handle unfamiliar words. Kruse indicated that only knowing the meaning of enough words in a sentence could lead to full comprehension and suggested readers to guess at the unknown words. Block (1992) brought up that competent readers can skip the unknown words and utilize context clues to guess unknown words without losing an overall comprehension. 陳秋蘭 (1992) encouraged readers to make use of available clues to predict the meaning of unknown words instead of using dictionaries. Sprenge (1975) argued that Taiwanese students focused on learning grammar and vocabulary from their junior high school education; however, they still did not have enough vocabulary for English reading. Most Taiwanese students preferred consulting a dictionary to find the meaning of unfamiliar words, even though many scholars suggested that this step was not necessary for comprehension. Chinese L2 readers often used dictionaries, and this kind of reader focused more on details than overall comprehension. Nambiar-Gopal (2005) expressed that readers heavily relied on dictionaries because they were not confident without it. Li and Munby (1996) emphasized that some readers would feel insecure without dictionary. They guessed specific words that frequently appear in the text but still referred to the dictionary after guessing in order to confirm the guessing was accurate.. 24.

(38) Guessing the correct meaning of a word is more difficult for low-proficiency readers. Particularly if the context is more complex, then guessing would become a much more difficult process. Thus, readers with low language proficiency should not make unnecessary guessing. Graduates with poor language proficiency can apply other strategies or tools to comprehend the academic texts, and thereby increase their proficiency continuously. On the other hand, graduates with good language proficiency should be confident to predict the meaning of unknown words. Metacognitive Strategies Readers always apply specific strategies to assist reading efficiency. After reading plenty of academic articles, graduates learn or develop some strategies. The strategies which are positive to reading efficiency should be used frequently. Brown (1980) stated that metacognitive theory focused on a reader’s awareness of their own reading strategies and reading processes. Oxford (1990) stated “metacognitive strategies are actions which go beyond purely cognitive devices, and which provide a way for learners to coordinate their own learning process” (p. 136). Flavell (1976) defined metacognition as “one’s own knowledge concerning one’s own cognitive process and products or anything related to them” (p. 322). Wade, Trathen, and Schraw (1990) referred metacognitive awareness to readers’ reflections on how they plan, monitor, evaluate, and utilize information available to them as they make sense of what they read. Oxford (1990) drew a diagram to categorize all learning strategies. All strategies were firstly divided into two parts: direct and indirect 25.

(39) strategies. Direct strategies include memory strategies, cognitive strategies, and compensation strategies. On the other hand, indirect strategies included metacognitive strategies, affective strategies, and social strategies (as shown in Figure 2.1).. memory strategies Direct. cognitive strategies compensation strategies. Learning Strategies metacognitive strategies Indirect. affective strategies social strategies. Figure 2.1 Oxford’s (1990) Category of Learning Strategies (p.16) Actually there is not a perfect reading strategy suitable for any readers. According to Cheng (1995), teachers should suggest that students apply numerous different strategies depending on the task at hand. Li and Munby (1996) supported this idea and demonstrated that good readers were capable of applying different strategies for various reading assignments and purposes. Garcia, Jimenez, and Pearson (1998) also stressed the importance of metacognitive awareness in reading. They proved that less successful students became more successful 26.

(40) when they were aware of their cognitive strategies. Nambiar-Gopal (2005) suggested academic readers should apply metacognitive strategies and recommended discussing the contents after gleaned information critically and synthesizing information both benefit comprehension. Paris and Jacobs (1984) showed that skilled readers often engaged in deliberate activities that required thorough thinking, flexible strategies, and periodic self-monitoring. They thought about the topic, looked forward and backward in the passage, and checked their own understanding as they read. On the other hand, beginning readers or poor readers did not recruit nor use these skills. Sheorey and Mokhtari (2001) argued that a number of factors might influence the application of readers’ metacognitive strategies. Those factors include previous experience, beliefs, culture-specific instructional practices, and L2 proficiency. Ironically, readers with low L2 proficiency might be also poor in metacognitive strategies applications and for that reason have a very difficult time using them to improve comprehension. Carrell (1983) showed that successful reading strategy application depended on whether or not the strategy was used metacognitively; poor readers might have enough cognitive strategies but failed to use them metacognitively. Mokhtari and Reichard (2004) developed Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory (MARSI) to assess readers’ metacognitive awareness. They categorized metacognitive strategies into three categories: global reading strategies,. 27.

(41) problem solving strategies, and support reading strategies. Strategies applied for global analysis of texts were categorized into global reading strategies. Strategies to be applied when encountering difficult parts in a text were categorized into problem solving strategies. Strategies relating to applying outside materials or other practical strategies were sorted into support reading strategies. However, MARSI did not cover the strategies of self-evaluation, another category of metacognitive strategies demonstrated by Oxford (1990). The items listed in the survey of this study involved all four categories of metacognitive strategies. Paris and Jacobs (1984) stated that skilled readers applied flexible strategies and self-monitor periodically. Pressley and Afflerbach (1995) expressed that skilled readers were aware of what they were reading and know why they were reading. On the contrary, Mokhtari and Reichard (2002) concluded that unskilled readers could not apply metacognitive strategies effectively. Unskilled readers less self-monitored their reading and considered reading as a decoding process rather than a meaning-getting process. Successful Readers Researchers always compared the difference between good readers and poor readers and demonstrated the advantages of good readers. Rumelhart (1980) stated that good readers understood texts by constructing meaning and integrating information from the text with relevant information from their background knowledge. Blanton (1984) pointed out. 28.

(42) that skilled readers knew how to outline, paraphrase, summarize, and critique written materials. Readers with well-developed conceptual knowledge on the topic of a reading selection comprehended and remembered its information better than readers without any foreknowledge. Also, Li and Mundy (1996) brought up that good readers had better awareness and control of their cognitive activities in reading, and they were also capable of verbalizing the process in English. Good readers were able to vary their reading strategies according to their understanding of the material. According to Shih (1992), successful readers were more aware of their purpose for reading and adjusted their reading process accordingly. Sheorey and Mokhtari (2001) and Mokhtari and Reichard (2004) revealed good readers with different native language backgrounds invoked effective reading strategies to solve reading comprehension difficulties. Grabe (1991) suggested that good readers employed a wide range of strategies in order to read more efficiently. Nambiar-Gopal (2005) expressed that good reading includes the ability to synthesize and critically evaluate a text. Block (1986) also indicated that, when reading a text, successful L2 readers were able to apply personal and general knowledge for association purposes. Uhlir (2003) noted that the activeness of learners helped them to be successful readers. In addition, active learners utilized metacognitive knowledge for a better understanding of the text. According to Adams (1980), skilled readers could verify the importance of information in the content. They added the less important ideas in proper relation to the central theme which were constructed around the central ideas. 29.

(43) On the other hand, Duffy and Roehler (1987) brought up that poor readers often ignored reading difficulties they were confronted with. Poor readers were not involved enough with the reading process, did not check regularly for comprehension, and took little action when the reading process was at a deadlock. According to Baker and Brown (1984), poor readers often had insufficient knowledge of strategies, and they did not use them appropriately in the reading process. Nevertheless, Brown, Campione, and Day (1981) indicated that poor readers could be trained in active processing strategies in order to improve their reading comprehension. Dhieb-Henia (2003) conducted a study and proved that metacognitive strategies were trainable. Uhlir (2003) indicated that good readers could regulate their knowledge according to diverse reading tasks, check their comprehension, and make use of various strategies when failing to comprehend the content. However, low-level readers often failed to do so because they were short of knowledge and lacked an understanding of reading strategies. Blanton (1984) brought up that unskilled readers could not paraphrase or summarize the text, argue for or against the author’s viewpoints, state the purpose of the reading, or manipulate the text effectively. 曹逢甫 (2004) brought up why university students were not able to read the texts of academic textbooks or journals after six-year English learning. First, high school teachers did not instruct them to be able to read by themselves; thus, extensive reading would not be a habit to them. Then, the lack of extensive reading would keep their vocabulary knowledge insufficient.. 30.

(44) Many important elements in academic reading, such as metacognitive strategy application and a strong guessing capability, are usually used by readers with higher English proficiency. A reader with a lower English proficiency often has a much harder time in guessing unknown words accurately and applying metacognitive strategies appropriately. Thus, poor readers should read more and more to train their reading ability. The act of reading would enhance readers’ vocabulary and the effectiveness at using contextual clues to guess the meaning of new academic words. Furthermore, it would increase their skill at applying suitable metacognitive strategies. Based on the literature review, this study would examine what reading difficulties the non-English major graduate students encountered and the possible causes that resulted in these difficulties and it would focus more on the application of metacognitive strategies rather than other reading strategies. Furthermore, this study would also investigate whether instructors, who had more experience toward academic English reading, had various viewpoints from inexperienced academic readers, graduates. The experienced academic readers would give some recommendations for the graduates in future academic English reading.. 31.

(45) CHAPTER 3 Methodology Subjects A total of 161 subjects participated in this study, including 141 graduate students and 20 instructors from non-English major institutes. Among these, 12 graduate students and 2 instructors did not complete the surveys. Therefore, 147 surveys were available to be analyzed, including 129 graduate students and 18 instructors. The graduate participants included 80 male and 49 female graduates. Of the surveyed non-English major graduates in Pingtung city, 36 majored in Marketing and Logistics Management, 12 majored in Business Administration, 1 majored in Real Estate Management, and 7 majored in International Business. In Kaohsiung city, 22 of the surveyed graduates majored in Risk Management and Insurance, 14 majored in Construction Engineering, and 2 majored in Civil and Disaster Engineering. In Taipei city, 7 of the graduates majored in Construction Engineering, 7 majored in Environment Engineering, and 16 majored in Civil Engineering or Civil and Disaster Prevention Engineering. In Hsinchu city, 5 graduate participants majored in Civil Engineering. The backgrounds of graduate subjects were shown in Table 3.1.. 32.

(46) Table 3.1 Backgrounds and Grouping of Graduate Subjects Pingtung City Marketing and Logistics Management. 36. Real Estate Management. 1. Business Administration. 12. International Trade. 7. Kaohsiung City. Hsinchu City. 22. Construction Engineering. 14. Group 2 (Commerce) 29 7. 2. 16. 5. Group 3 (Engineering) 51. 38. 30. 5. 129. Environment Engineering. 7. Civil Engineering /Civil Engineering and Disaster Presentation Engineering 56. GROUPING Group 1 (Management) 49. Risk Management and Insurance. Total. Taipei City. The subjects were studied from four different regions across Taiwan for the purpose of insuring broader and more accurate findings. This study included graduate students in both southern and northern Taiwan and also covered students in both urban and suburban universities. One hundred and six graduates were between the ages of 20 and 25, 22 of the graduates aged from 25 to 30, and one graduate was in the 30 to 35 years old range. With regard to their length of graduate study, 75 graduates were in the first year of their graduate education, 40 graduates were in their second year, 4 graduates were in their third year, and the last 10 graduates had been studying in their graduate institute for four or more than four years.. 33.

(47) All of the graduate students were categorized into three groups to compare their differences in academic English reading strategies. The first group was the Management Group. This group comprised of graduate students majoring in Marketing and Logistics Management, Real Estate Management, and Business Administration. The second group was the Commerce Group, which consisted of graduate students from International Trade Institute and Risk Management and Insurance Institute. The third group was the Engineering Group and was composed of graduate students from Construction Engineering, Environment Engineering, Civil Engineering, and Civil and Disaster Engineering. The grouping was shown in Table 3.1. The grouping of this study was based on the categorization systems used by the universities. For instance, according to the school system of universities, Risk Management and Insurance was associated with the College of Finance and Banking, rather than being associated with the College of Management. Thus, graduates of Risk Management and Insurance were categorized into the Commerce Group. For the same reason, graduates from Business Administration were categorized into the Management Group rather than the Commerce Group for this study. For the graduate participants at National Pingtung Intitute of Commerce (NPIC), the researcher contacted with their professors in advance and delivered surveys after their class or during their break time. After graduates had completed the surveys, the researcher. 34.

(48) randomly chose one to four graduates for in-depth interviews. Before each of these interviews, the researcher required the interviewee’s approval to record the interlocution of the interview. If the interviewee refused to have tape recording, the researcher wrote down the interlocution by hand and noted any key point. The researcher randomly selected one to four graduates for in-depth interview from each participated class. In total, 19 graduates were interviewed. In Pingtung city, 4 graduates from Marketing and Logistics Management, 3 graduates from International Business, and 3 graduates from Business Administration agreed to undergo the interview process. In Kaohsiung city, 4 graduates who majored in Construction Engineering, 3 graduates who majored in Risk Management and Insurance, and 1 graduate who majored in Civil and Disaster Prevention Engineering were interviewed. In Taipei city, 1 graduate from Civil and Disaster Prevention was interviewed. Their background information were shown in Table 3.2. 35.

(49) Table 3.2 The Background Information of Interviewed Graduates Major. Gender. Graduate A. Marketing and Logistics Management. Female. Graduate B. Marketing and Logistics Management. Female. Graduate C. Marketing and Logistics Management. Female. Graduate D. Marketing and Logistics Management. Male. Graduate E. Business Administration. Male. Graduate F. Business Administration. Male. Graduate G. Business Administration. Male. Graduate H. International Trade. Male. Graduate I. International Trade. Male. Graduate J. International Trade. Female. Graduate K. Risk Management and Insurance. Male. Graduate L. Risk Management and Insurance. Male. Graduate M. Risk Management and Insurance. Male. Graduate N. Construction Engineering. Male. Graduate O. Construction Engineering. Male. Graduate P. Construction Engineering. Male. Graduate Q. Construction Engineering. Female. Graduate R. Construction Engineering. Male. Graduate S. Civil Engineering and Disaster Presentation Engineering. Male. In addition to graduates’ survey, 18 instructors’ surveys were collected to compare instructors’ viewpoints with that of graduates’. Ten of the 18 instructors taught in graduate schools in Pingtung city, including 2 from Marketing and Logistics Management, 3 from Finance and Banking, 4 from Real Estate Management, and 1 from Information Management Graduate Institute. In addition, the other 8 instructors taught in Kaohsiung city, including 3 instructors from Construction Engineering, 1 from Finance, 1 from Education, 36.

(50) and 3 from Risk Management and Insurance Graduate Institute. The background information was shown in Table 3.3.. Table 3.3 The Background Information of Interviewed Instructors Institute/Department. Gender. Instructor A. Real Estate. Male. Instructor B. Real Estate. Female. Instructor C. Real Estate. Male. Instructor D. Real Estate. Male. Instructor E. Marketing and Logistics Management. Male. Instructor F. International Trade. Female. Instructor G. Risk Management and Insurance. Male. Instructor H. Risk Management and Insurance. Female. Instructor I. Construction Engineering. Male. Instructor J. Construction Engineering. Male. The researcher firstly e-mailed to the professors to request their agreements to participate in this study. However, the researcher began to make phone calls instead of e-mails to enhance the efficiency. Every instructor that accepted being surveyed was also asked to take part in the interview process. Unfortunately, due to the heavy teaching load and busy schedules, only 8 of the 18 instructors underwent the in-depth interview process after being surveyed. In addition to the 8 instructors, two more instructors who were not surveyed accepted the interview. One instructor accepted being interviewed but refused to do the survey because he believed the interview could convey enough information. The 37.

(51) other instructor typed out her responses to the interview questions and sent them to the researcher by e-mail, but gave no response to the requirement of survey. Instruments The instruments used for this research included two surveys as well as interview questions. Before collecting the data, the researcher required two English-major professors to review the Chinese surveys and one English major professor to examine the Chinese interview questions to give suggestions to establish expert validity. The instruments included two surveys in Chinese version. One was used to investigate the viewpoints of graduates and the other was used to investigate the viewpoints of instructors who taught non-English major graduates. The student and teacher surveys were similar in many ways, but not identical. Each survey included nine different categories. Some items related to metacognitive strategies were adopted from Mokhtari and Reichard’s survey (2004).Category one was designed to explore graduate students’ personal background. Category two was provided to explore the importance of vocabulary knowledge in academic English reading. Category three was used to investigate the significance of grammar knowledge in academic English reading. Categories four and five revolved around the subject of schema theory. Category four was designed to explore the significance of formal schemata while Category five was set to study the subject of content schemata.. 38.