Lugemisstrateegiate kasutus akadeemilises õppes
Abstract
Artikkel käsitleb lugemist eesti keeles emakeelena ja teise keelena ülikooliõpingute kontekstis. Uurimuse eesmärk oli välja selgitada, missuguseid strateegiaid üliõpilased enese hinnangul kasutavad õppeülesannete täitmiseks vajalike tekstide lugemisel eesti keeles ning missuguseid teksti mõistmise raskusi nad seejuures teadvustavad. 80 Tartu Ülikooli eesti ja muu emakeelega üliõpilast 27 erialalt täitsid küsimustiku, millega kogutud andmeid analüüsiti nii emakeelest kui ka õppeastmest lähtuvalt. Tulemused näitasid, et 1) üliõpilased on eesmärgipärased ja teksti üksikasjadesse süüvivad lugejad; 2) emakeel mõjutab lugemist nõudva ülesande täitmise kiirust ja tundmatute sõnadega tegelemise viisi; 3) taustteadmised on teksti mõistmisel olulisel kohal sõltumata emakeelest ja õppeastmest.
***
The use of reading strategies in academic studies
The aim of the study was to ascertain the difficulties students encounter when reading Estonian texts for academic purposes, in order to support them in their studies. 80 native and non-native students from the University of Tartu (Estonia) from 27 programs participated in the study. Data was gathered using a 5-point Likert-type scale questionnaire and analyzed by the following subgroups: L1, L2, BA (years 1–3) and MA (years 4–5).
As regards the reading strategy students used, both L1 and L2 students strategically plan their reading by thinking carefully about the task and using support strategies. Compared to L1 readers, the L2 group more frequently uses different strategies, and they can be characterized as more careful readers on both a local and a global level. Finding out the meaning of unknown words was the most commonly used strategy for both L1 and L2 students, which indicates problems with word recognition processes. However, while L2 readers mostly do so using a dictionary, the L1 readers tend to rely on guessing the meaning using context or background knowledge. Compared to L2 students, L1s tend to be better at expeditious reading.
The top perceived reading difficulties were related to background knowledge (e.g. complicated topic, insufficiency of required knowledge) and vocabulary (struggling with unknown words). In the former, about half of respondents in all subgroups (L1, L2 and years 1 to 5) reported having difficulties. In word recognition, the difficulties were experienced more often by L2 students and BA students.
The results suggest that, in addition to Estonian language courses for academic purposes, more attention should be paid to developing students’ academic reading skills in various specialised courses by providing the background knowledge needed to understand texts and supporting them in interpreting complicated texts.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Ackerman, Rakefet, Tirza Lauterman 2012. Taking reading comprehension exams on screen or on paper? A metacognitive analysis of learning texts under time pressure. – Computers in Human Behavior 28 (5), 1816–1828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.04.023
Ackerman, Rakefet, Tirza Lauterman 2014. Overcoming screen inferiority in learning and calibration. – Computers in Human Behavior 35, 455–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.046
Alderson, Charles 2000. Assessing Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511732935
Alderson, Charles 1984. Reading in a foreign language: A reading problem or a language problem? – J. C. Alderson, A. H. Urquhart (Eds.), Reading in a Foreign Language. London: Longman, 1–24.
Bax, Steven 2013. Students’ cognitive processes during IELTS reading test: Evidence from eye-tracking. ELT Research Papers 13-06. London: British Council.
Bernhardt, Elizabeth, Michael Kamil 1995. Interpreting relationships between L1 and L2 reading: Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the linguistic interdependence hypotheses. – Applied Linguistics 16 (1), 15–34. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.1.15
Bialystok, Ellen, Gigi Luk, Ernest Kwan 2005. Bilingualism, biliteracy, and learning to read: Interactions among languages and writing systems. – Scientific Studies of Reading 9 (1), 43–61. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0901_4
Bråten, Ivar, Helge Strømsø 2003. A longitudinal think-aloud study of spontaneous strategic processing during the reading of multiple expository texts. – Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal 16 (3), 195–218. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022895207490
Cobb, Tom, Marlise Horst 2001. Reading academic English: Carrying learners across the lexical threshold. – J. Flowerdew, M. Peacock (Eds.), Research Perspectives on English for Academic Purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 315–329.
Cohen, Andrew 2006. The coming age of research on test-taking strategies. – Language Assessment Quartery 3 (4), 307–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434300701333129
Cromley, Jennifer, Theodore Wills 2016. Flexible strategy use by students who learn much versus little from text: Transition within think-aloud protocol. – Journal of Research in Reading 39 (1), 50–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12026
Ehala, Martin, Krista Kerge, Kersti Lepajõe, Kadri Sõrmus 2010. Kõrgkoolide üliõpilaste eesti keele oskuse tase. Uuringukokkuvõte. Tartu Ülikool.
Ehala, Martin, Krista Kerge, Kersti Lepajõe, Kadri Sõrmus 2015. Kõrgkoolide üliõpilaste eesti keele oskuse tase. Kordusuuring. Uuringu kokkuvõte. Tartu Ülikool.
EKÕTEK = Eesti keel kõrghariduse ja teaduse keelena. Uuringu sisuaruanne. Tallinna Ülikool, 2013. http://dspace.ut.ee/handle/10062/40694
Grabe, William 2009. Reading in a Second Language. Moving from Theory to Practice. Cambridge Applied Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.
Han, Feifei 2015. Word recognition research in foreign language reading. – University of Sydney Papers in TESOL 10, 57–91.
Hellekjær, Glenn Ole 2009. Academic English reading proficiency at the university level: A Norwegian case study. – Reading in a Foreign Language 21 (2), 198–222.
Hermida, Julian 2009. The importance of teaching academic reading skills in first-year university courses. – The International Journal of Research and Review 3, 20–30. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1419247
Hirsjärvi, Sirkka, Pirkko Remes, Paula Sajavaara 2005. Uuri ja kirjuta. Tallinn: Kirjastus Medicina.
Jeon, Eun Hee, Junko Yamashita 2014. L2 reading comprehension and its correlates: A metaanalysis. – Language Learning 64 (1), 160–212. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12034
Jordan, Robert R.1997. English for Academic Purposes: A Guide and Resource Book for Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511733062
Khalifa, Hanan, Cyril Weir 2009. Examining Reading. Research and practice in assessing second language reading. Studies in Language Testing 29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kikerpill, Tiina 2012. Enesevaatlus lugemistesti valiidsuse uurimisel [‘Self-observation in validating reading test’]. – Eesti ja soome-ugri keeleteaduse ajakiri / Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics 3 (2), 79−112.
Kikerpill, Tiina, Ülle Türk 2013. Tekstisisesed seosed eesti keele kui teise keele lugemistestis: mõõtmisvahendi valiidsus [‘Testing understanding text cohesion and coherence in Estonian as a second language: the validity of different task types’]. – Lähivõrdlusi. Lähivertailuja 23, 122−147. https://doi.org/10.5128/LV23.05
Kintsch, Walter 1988. The role of knowledge in discourse processing: A construction-integration model. – Psychological Review 95, 163–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163
Krishnan, Sarojani Devi 2010. Validating Aspects of a Model of Academic Reading. University of Bedfordshire. http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?did=1&uin=uk.bl.ethos.575513 (27.7.2017).
Kong, Ailing 2006. Connections between L1 and L2 readings: Reading strategies used by four Chinese adult readers. – The Reading Matrix 6 (2), 19–45.
Koda, Keiko 2004. Insights into Second Language Reading. A Cross-linguistic Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mangen, Anne, Bente Walgermo, Kolbjørn Brønnick 2013. Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. – International Journal of Educational Research 58, 61–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2012.12.002
McNamara, Danielle, Joe Magliano 2009. Toward a comprehensive model of comprehension. – Brian Ross (Ser. Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation 51. Burlington: Academic Press, 297–384.
Metslang, Helena, Anastassia Šmõreitšik 2012. Muukeelse tudengi keeleline toimetulek ja vajadused ülikoolis. Tallinna Ülikool. http://hdl.handle.net/10062/40754
Mizrachi, Diane 2015. Undergraduates’ academic reading format preferences and behaviors. – The Journal of Academic Librarianship 41 (3), 301–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.03.009
Nassaji, Hossein 2014. The role and importance of lower-level processes in second language reading. – Language Teaching 47 (1), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444813000396
Nation, Paul 2006. How large vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? – The Canadian Modern Language Review 63 (1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.63.1.59
Phakiti, Aek 2003. A closer look at the relationship of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use to EFL reading achievement test performance. – Language Testing 20 (1), 26–56. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532203lt243oa
Puksand, Helin 2010. Tekstid, mida loevad teismelised. Teismeliste lugemisharjumuste kasutamine koolis. – Krista Kerge (Toim.), Tekstiuurimus ja kool. Tallinn: Tallinna Ülikooli Kirjastus, 20–35.
Rapp, David, Paul van den Broek, Kristen McMaster, Panayiota Kendeou, Christine Espin 2007. Higher-order comprehension processes in struggling readers: A perspective for research and intervention. – Scientific Studies of Reading 11 (4), 289–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430701530417
Sheorey, Ravi, Kouider Mokhtari 2001. Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among native and non-native readers. – System 29, 431–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00039-2
Soodla, Piret, Eve Kikas 2014. Lugemisoskuse ja -motivatsiooni seosed õpetajate kasvatusstiilidega esimeses klassis [‘Relations of reading skills and motivation with teaching styles in first grade’]. – Eesti Haridusteaduste Ajakiri 2 (1), 67–95. https://doi.org/10.12697/eha.2014.2.1.04
Taboada, Ana, John Guthrie 2006. Contribution of student questioning and prior knowledge to construction of knowledge from reading information text. – Journal of Literacy Research 38 (1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15548430jlr3801_1
Taraban, Roman, Marcel Kerr, Kimberly Rynearson 2004. Analytic and pragmatic factors in college students’ metacognitive reading strategies. – Reading Psychology 25 (2), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710490435547
Urquhart, Alexander, Cyril Weir 1998. Reading in a Second Language: Process, Product and Practice. New York: Longman.
Uibu, Krista, Mairi Männamaa 2014. Õpetamistegevused ja õpilaste tekstimõistmine üleminekul esimesest kooliastmest teise astmesse [‘Teaching practices and text comprehension in students during the transition from the first to second stage of school’]. – Eesti Haridusteaduste Ajakiri 2 (1), 96–131. https://doi.org/10.12697/eha.2014.2.1.05
van Gelderen, Amos, Rob Schoonen, Kees de Glopper, Jan Hulstijn, Annegien Simis, Patrick Snellings, Marie Stevenson 2004. Linguistic knowledge, processing speed, and metacognitive knowledge in first- and second-language reading comprehension: A componential analysis. – Journal of Educational Psychology 96 (1), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.19
Weir, Cyril, Roger Hawkey, Anthony Green, Aylin Ünaldi, Sarojani Devi 2012. The relationship between the academic reading construct as measured by IELTS and the reading experiences of students in their first year of study at a British University. – Lynda Taylor, Cyril J Weir (Eds.), IELTS Collected Papers 2. Research in reading and listening assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 37–119.
Weir, Cyril, Yang Huizhong, Jin Yan (Eds.) 2000. An empirical investigation of the componentiality of L2 reading in English for Academic Purposes. Studies in Language Testing 12. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walter, Catherine 2007. First- to second language reading comprehension: not transfer, but access. – International Journal of Applied Linguistics 17 (1), 14–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2007.00131.x
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5128/LV27.04
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2017 Tiina Kikerpill
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
ISSN 1736-9290 (print)
ISSN 2228-3854 (online)
DOI https://doi.org/10.5128/LV.1736-9290