reading comprehension problems faced by undergraduates in selected colleges of uaeu and the...
TRANSCRIPT
Reading Comprehension Problems Faced by Undergraduates in Selected Colleges of UAEU and the
Strategies Used to Solve Them
Dr Martin J. EndleyDepartment of Linguistics
United Arab Emirates UniversityUAEU
Background
Success in reading related to frequent and varied use of reading strategies (Anderson, 2002; Block, 1992; Mokhtari, 2008; Mokhtari & Reichard, 2004; Phakiti, 2003; Pressley & Gaskins, 2006; Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001)
Good readers have awareness of and capacity to control strategies which they deliberately employ with the aim of facilitating and enhancing reading comprehension (Baker, 2002, 2008; Erler & Finkbainer, 2007; Pressley, 2002)
Background
Studies conducted with
L1 Arabic university students in other middle east countries (e.g. Malcolm 2009; Sobhani, 2013)
L1 Arabic university students in ESL context (e.g. Alsheikh & Mokhtari 2011)
L1 Arabic pre-university students (e.g. Alsheikh, 2014; Elhoweris et al., 2011)
Little research undertaken on reading strategies employed by students engaged in academic study at tertiary level within the UAE
Background
Endley (forthcoming)
(a) undergraduate students in the Gulf region have relatively high metacognitive awareness of reading strategies
(b) these students display a preference for using problem-solving strategies to overcome comprehension difficulties, rather than global reading strategies or support reading strategies
Both these findings are consistent with those reported in a number of other studies undertaken in recent years
The Present Study
Investigation into contextualized reading strategy use and individual learner differences
Procedure: Reading comprehension task and concurrent think-aloud protocol
Variables: Correlations between reading strategy use anda) Language proficiencyb) Genderc) Academic discipline
The UAEU Context
National university of UAE
Established in 1976
Nine colleges, each subdivided into several departments
Language of instruction: English
Predominantly (circa 95%) UAE nationals
Internal 70/30% female/male demographic
Gender-segregated
Research Questions
1. What are the primary comprehension problems encountered by UAEU students when reading academic texts in English?
2. What reading strategies do UAEU students actually employ in order to solve their reading problems?
3. To what extent can the demographic variables of English language proficiency, gender and academic discipline be used to reliably predict UAEU students’ use of reading strategies in English?
Participants
L1 Arabic undergraduates (n=12) (9 female, 3 male), 18 – 23 years, studying in various colleges at UAEU
Stage 1: Pre-test Stage 2: 1st Concurrent think-aloud protocol & semi-structured interviewStage 3: 2nd Concurrent think-aloud protocol & semi-structured interview
MaterialsReading passages selected from IELTS practice exams
Reading #1 “Light Pollution”
Flesch Reading Ease Rating 60.5; Flesch-Kinkaid Level 9.945 sentences, divided into 10 paragraphsTotal word count = 913 (average sentence length 20 words)
Reading #2 “Investigating Children’s Language”
Flesch Reading Ease Rating 38.9; Flesch-Kinkaid Level 1339 sentences, divided into 8 paragraphsTotal word count = 870 (average sentence length 22 words)
Texts followed by questions adapted from same IELTS source
Coding of StrategiesStrategies initially encoded using SORS (Mokhtari & Sheorey, 2002):
Global strategies: “intentional, carefully planned techniques by which learners monitor or manage their reading” (Mokhtari & Sheorey, 2002, p. 4)
Problem-solving strategies: “localized, focused techniques used when problems develop in understanding textual information” (Mokhtari & Sheorey, 2002, p. 4)
Support strategies: “basic support mechanisms” (Mokhtari & Sheorey, 2002, p. 4) used by the reader to aid comprehension of the text
NB. Cohen’s kappa of .84 obtained, indicating that the inter-rater reliability was acceptable
Overall strategy use for Reading #1
Overall strategy use reflected tendency to favour problem-solving and support strategies, rather than global strategies
Partially consistent with findings of several recent studies of perceived metacognitive awareness/use of reading strategies with participants from various L1 backgrounds and socio-cultural contexts:
• Botswana (Magogwe, 2013)• Iran (Tabatabaei & Assari, 2011)• Morocco (Mokhtari & Reichard, 2004) • Turkey (Temur & Bahar, 2011; Yuksel & Yuksel, 2012)• UAE (Endley, forthcoming)
Above found tendency to favour problem-solving strategies
Overall strategy use for Reading #1
Global Problem Support0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Most frequently used strategies for Reading #1
Underlining/c
irclin
g
Re-read
ing
Closer a
ttention
Paraphras
ing
Consulting d
ictionary
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Overall strategy use for Reading #2
Use of problem-solving and support strategies broadly similar to Reading #1
Use of global strategies showed a further decline
Overall strategy use for Reading #2
Global Problem Support0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Most frequently used strategies for Reading #2
Underlining/c
irclin
g
Closer a
ttention
Re-read
ing
Paraphras
ing
Consulting d
ictionary
01020304050607080
Summary of Findings
RQ1. What are the primary comprehension problems encountered by UAEU students when reading academic texts in English?
All participants had difficulty with some low frequency vocabulary (paradigms, unobtrusive etc.)
LPR particular problem with word recognition, inefficient parsing, & building meaning (reflected in ineffective paraphrasing)
Summary of FindingsRQ2. What reading strategies do UAEU students actually employ in order to solve their reading problems?
General tendency for all participants to favour problem-solving and support strategies, rather than global strategies
• Most frequently employed strategies either problem-solving or support strategies (i.e., underlining/circling, re-reading, paying closer attention, paraphrasing, consulting dictionary)
• Overall few global strategies employed (esp. Reading #2)
Summary of FindingsRQ3. To what extent can the demographic variables of English language proficiency, gender and academic discipline be used to reliably predict UAEU students’ use of reading strategies in English?
• Global strategies were least frequently used, but HPR made greater use of these than LPR
• LPR used more problem-solving & support strategies, than HPR (esp. underlining/circling)
Strategy use of high vs. low proficiency readers (Readings #1 and #2 combined)
Global Problem Support0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
HighLow
Most frequently used strategies (Readings #1 and #2 combined)
Re-read
ing
Closer a
ttention
Underlining/c
irclin
g
Consulting d
ictionary
Paraphras
ing0
102030405060708090
HPRLPR
Summary of FindingsRQ3. To what extent can the demographic variables of English language proficiency, gender and academic discipline be used to reliably predict UAEU students’ use of reading strategies in English?
LPR participants
a) Focused attention at word level, failed to build words into higher-level meaning
b) Parsed complex grammar inefficiently
c) Employed dictionary inconsistently & ineffectively
Focusing attention at word level, failure to build words into higher-level meaning
“...overly bright security lights can actually force neighbours to close the shutters, which means that if any criminal activity does occur on the street, no one will see it”Participant #5: ‹‹What he trying to say (…) the pollution of light makes easy to find who do the crime››
Participant #3 (in interview): ‹‹I try to thinking (...) I just focus on hard words and lose the meaning of the sentence (...) I forget what the paragraph about››
Inefficient parsing of complex grammar
“Migrating birds, confused by lights on skyscrapers, broadcast towers and lighthouses, are injured”
Participant #5: ‹‹broadcast towers and lighthouses are injured››
Inconsistent & Ineffective Use of Dictionary
Often apparently satisfied with the first definition found; did not consider definition in context of the passage, e.g.
“. . . the observers and their equipment are unobtrusive”Participant #4: ‹‹ok (..) not clear (…) or something like that››
“. . . the results provide evidence that supports or falsifies the original hypothesis”Participant #6: ‹‹it means (..) to fake››
“. . . two main research paradigms are found”Participant #3: ‹‹I don’t know this word›› [Did not consult dictionary; in interview unable to say what it meant or provide any synonym]
Limitations
Data reflects text processing operations employed by twelve individual readers in one specific reading situation
Different readers & different texts may have produced different strategies