Careful and expeditious reading: processes and problems
Careful reading involves recognizing vocabulary, grasping sentence structure, accurately interpreting explicit meanings, and drawing propositional inferences This process occurs both locally, within individual sentences, and globally, encompassing the entire text.
Recent studies, including those by Cohen and Upton (2006), Rosenfeld et al (2004), and Hawkey (2006), along with feedback from our pilot study questionnaire, suggest that careful reading is insufficient for the students involved in our research.
Khalifa and Weir (forthcoming) highlight a major limitation in many process-based and earlier componential models of reading, as noted in their literature review They argue that these models predominantly focus on a careful reading approach and fail to consider the diverse purposes for which reading is conducted Supporting this viewpoint, they reference Hoover and Tunmer (1993), who introduced the concept of the simple view of reading.
Careful comprehension involves extracting complete meanings from material, rather than just main ideas or specific details (p 8) Rayner and Pollatsek (1989, p 439) emphasize that their analysis of the reading process primarily targets skilled adult readers engaging with textbook material They acknowledge that careful reading models provide limited insights into how proficient readers manage other reading strategies, such as skimming for gist (Rayner and Pollatsek 1989, pp 477-478) Consequently, many reading models do not accurately reflect the processing experiences of skilled readers in real-world reading scenarios.
Academic reading for our target students necessitates both expeditious and careful reading (Weir, 1983) Urquhart and Weir (1998) define "expeditious reading" as the ability to quickly and selectively process texts to extract relevant information for specific purposes This concept encompasses various reading types, abilities, micro-skills, and strategies, highlighting the confusion in terminology and conceptualization within the literature (Urquhart and Weir, ibid) Furthermore, Weir et al (2000) differentiate between skills, which are subconscious linguistic processes, and strategies, which are conscious and purposeful approaches to reading.
Expeditious reading for new university students encompasses techniques such as skimming, search reading, and scanning Skimming is defined as the process of reading to grasp the overall gist or main idea of a text, while intentionally avoiding detailed information According to Urquhart and Weir (1998), skimming is characterized by selective reading, where certain sections are omitted or minimally attended to, and the reader aims to construct a macrostructure based on limited details, ultimately focusing on the discourse topic.
For Urquhart and Weir (1998) search readinginvolves locating information on predetermined topics The reader wants information to answer set questions or to provide data for example in completing written assignments
Unlike skimming, which involves a general overview, this method focuses on extracting information based on specific predetermined topics, allowing the reader to bypass the need for understanding the overarching structure of the entire text.
Urquhart and Weir argue that expeditious reading differs from careful reading in that it does not strictly adhere to the linearity of the text Instead, readers sample various elements, such as keywords, topic sentences, or key paragraphs, to extract relevant information on a specific topic or to construct an overall understanding of the text, similar to skimming This reading process can be top-down, where the reader determines what to sample, or bottom-up, focusing on the selected portions of the text.
Scanning is a selective reading technique aimed at achieving specific goals, such as locating a number in a directory or identifying a particular author's name This method focuses on dismissing any text that does not contain the pre-selected symbols or keywords It often involves searching for specific words, phrases, figures, percentages, names, dates of events, or items in an index at the local word level.
(1980) defines it as involving recognition and matching.
The various types of reading outlined in the matrix are not limited to specific text formats; students engage in scanning, skimming, or careful reading of books, journals, newspapers, and websites based on their purposes rather than the text type To effectively understand the nature and challenges of students' academic reading across different courses, it is essential to include all reading sources, both digital and print, as highlighted by Levine et al (2000).
There is evidence that L1 as well as L2 academic readers have problems (e.g Weir 1983; Urquhart and Weir
Many universities provide support programs for both L1 and L2 students, yet research highlights significant differences in the challenges they encounter (Cohen and Upton 2006; Tercanlioglu 2004) Tercanlioglu notes that L1 students often employ metacognitive strategies more effectively during academic reading, while ESL students may focus much of their cognitive resources on decoding text Metacognitive strategies, as defined in educational psychology, involve conscious control over cognitive processes in learning, including planning approaches to tasks, monitoring comprehension, and evaluating progress (Livingston 1997).
Models of reading
Our study examines the connections between the academic reading construct, as assessed by IELTS, and first-year students' reading experiences at a British university This exploration has led us to analyze various aspects of reading, including types, levels, strategies, skills, and metacognition To frame our research effectively, it is essential to consider academic reading models that clarify the relationships between these key constructs An appropriate model will help us identify the best combinations of processes, skills, and strategies tailored to different reading types and purposes, ultimately enhancing comprehension of diverse texts.
Reading models in literature are often classified under broad labels, and a concise review of these classifications is beneficial for shaping the model proposed in this study However, it's important to note that these labels and constructs frequently overlap and lack consistent usage.
The development of a model for academic reading among new students requires an understanding of the componentiality of reading As Weir et al (2000) inquire, reading can indeed be deconstructed into specific skills and strategies for effective teaching and assessment Research by Weir and Porter (1994) identifies various models of reading, including unitary, bi-divisible, and multi-divisible constructs Empirical studies, such as those by Lunzer et al (1979), Rosenshine (1980), and Carver (1992), support the single factor hypothesis of reading ability Additionally, Schedl et al (1996) in their TOEFL research affirm the existence of a general reading ability and the uni-dimensional nature of the TOEFL Reading test, while acknowledging a potential secondary factor related to text content or position.
Weir et al (2000) argue that the uni-componential perspective on reading stems from product-based studies using factor analysis, which often oversimplifies the complexity of reading skills by grouping them into a single ability This method may overlook nuanced differences across related reading processes, leading to the misconception that reading is a singular skill rather than a multifaceted activity In contrast, more process-oriented research indicates that reading encompasses multiple dimensions, as highlighted by bi-divisible views such as those from Carver (1992) and Guthrie and Kirsch (1987), which identify reading competence and vocabulary as distinct yet interrelated components Additionally, the Schedl et al model of the TOEFL reading test supports this bi-dimensional perspective, further emphasizing the need to recognize the diverse skills and strategies involved in reading.
Componential models of reading, which emphasize two dimensions, seem less aligned with recent advancements in applied linguistics compared to conceptual multi-dimensional models The emphasis is now on identifying the communicative needs of ESOL learners and users to support transnational education and employment mobility This shift has led to a greater focus on defining and assessing language proficiency levels, as highlighted by frameworks such as the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe, 2001).
Current trends in language assessment reject models that rely on a limited number of broad sub-components Coady’s three-component model emphasizes conceptual ability, language proficiency, and background knowledge, while Bernhardt’s model integrates language, literacy, and knowledge with a focus on process-based approaches and metacognitive strategies like goal-setting and comprehension monitoring In today’s landscape, there is a growing demand for evidence-based validation of multi-skill language assessments, necessitating a comprehensive description of reading skills in multi-componential terms relevant to the target language domain.
Reading is a complex construct that involves a variety of skills applied at both local and global levels, as indicated by the matrix Grabe and Stoller emphasize the importance of understanding these operationalized skills for effective reading comprehension.
In the study of reading processes, researchers classify them into lower-level and higher-level processes Lower-level processes encompass word recognition, syntactic parsing, semantic proposition formation, and working memory activation In contrast, higher-level processes involve creating a text model for comprehension, developing a situation model for reader interpretation, utilizing background knowledge, making inferences, and employing executive control processes akin to metacognitive strategies Understanding these processes is crucial for developing effective models for assessing university students' reading Bottom-up models analyze text hierarchically, starting from the smallest linguistic units and building up to sentence and text levels Conversely, top-down processing relies on general and domain-specific knowledge to help readers predict the meaning of text, sentences, and words.
Hybrid reading models effectively combine the insights of both bottom-up and top-down approaches The interactive reading model, initially proposed by McCormick in 1988 and further advanced by Kintsch in 2004 through his construction-integration model, highlights the reader-driven and intentional nature of reading Additionally, Stanovich's interactive-compensatory model from 2000 recognizes the significant role of the reader, suggesting that a reader's weaknesses in certain skills can be compensated for by their strengths in others.
A preliminary pilot questionnaire conducted among students indicates that they perceive academic reading as a multi-faceted activity The findings reveal that a significant challenge for students is managing a substantial reading workload while under time constraints While students acknowledge the importance of effective reading processes, strategies, and skills, there is limited evidence of their consistent application of optimal reading techniques.
Based on theoretical and empirical research in reading models, our study suggests the development of a multi-dimensional dynamic model of reading This model will incorporate both global and local reading levels, alongside metacognitive strategies, skills, and processes essential for comprehending texts from diverse sources and for various purposes.
The reading model developed must align with the IELTS Test Reading Module, which suggests a multi-dimensional approach despite awarding a single band score The IELTS Handbook for 2005 indicates that test-takers engage with various task types, such as completing notes, summaries, and interpreting diagrams, flow-charts, and tables based on the reading material Candidates are required to extract information, identify authors' viewpoints, and summarize sections of text from diverse sources like magazines, journals, and books Although only one band score is provided, it reflects the assessment of multiple reading skills, underscoring the complexity of reading proficiency evaluation.
Alderson (2000) highlights challenges in testing various reading skills due to their complex nature In contrast, Weir & Porter (1994) argue that with precise terminology and suitable methodologies, testers can better define the skills being assessed This perspective is supported by a growing body of literature, including works by Bachman et al (1988), Teasdale (1989), Lumley (1993), Weakley (1993), and Buck and Tatsuoka (1998) Additionally, Khalifa and Weir (forthcoming) note that the DIALANG project has led Alderson and his team to recognize that individual test items can now be linked to specific reading skills.
Koda (2005) emphasizes the significance of identifying specific components that contribute to reading ability, despite Alderson’s (2000) earlier reservations A componential approach grounded in a solid processing theory offers valuable insights into the essential aspects of reading ability that need focus, aiming to create a more accurate construct of reading for assessment purposes.
Oakhill and Garnham (1988) question the value of comprehension tests for diagnostic assessment without a theoretical foundation, highlighting a research focus on product rather than process in reading Similarly, Khalifa and Weir emphasize the historical absence of a serious effort to connect reading components to a model of reading ability, attributing this to a preference for posterior statistical analysis over an a priori approach that considers the theoretical basis and contextual validity of tests before administration.
Context validity
Weir’s (2005) test validation model posits that cognitive processing is inherently influenced by contextual factors The concept of context validity in Weir’s model connects the characteristics of a task to the language present in the text, highlighting its importance for successful task completion.
To draw meaningful conclusions about real-world task performance from test task results, it is crucial to define both the target reading activities and the test tasks in relation to cognitive processes and contextual factors.
Construct an organised representation of a single text
Construct an organised representation across texts Text structure knowledge:
Integrating new information Enriching the proposition
General knowledge of the world Topic knowledge
Meaning representation of text(s) so far Inferencing
Establishing propositional meaning at clause and sentence level
Selecting appropriate type of reading:
Search for main ideas and important detail
Bachman and Palmer (1996) emphasize that situational and interactional authenticities are critical for evaluating the effectiveness of test tasks, paralleling Weir's concepts of contextual and cognitive validities While achieving full situational authenticity in language assessments is often impractical due to testing constraints, it is crucial for test contextual features to mirror relevant aspects of the target reading activity The extensive literature on textual parameters contributing to text complexity is vast, and this article will briefly explore these parameters before pinpointing those that are particularly useful for our study.
Bachman et al (1988, 1995) conducted studies comparing various textual properties such as text nature, length, vocabulary, grammar, cohesion, and rhetorical organization Freedle and Kostin (1993, 1997) analyzed reading comprehension item difficulty, focusing on vocabulary, coherence, and segment length Fortus et al (1998) examined factors like grammatical complexity, abstractness, and rhetorical structure that influence reading comprehension difficulty Enright et al (2000) identified key textual features, categorizing them into grammatical/discourse and pragmatic/rhetorical elements, to enhance test text operationalization.
In their 2004 study, key features for text analysis include text source, authenticity, discourse type, domain, topic, content nature, length, vocabulary, and grammar Khalifa and Weir (forthcoming) propose that the linguistic demands of reading tasks can be understood through various factors, such as lexical and structural resources, discourse mode, functional resources, content knowledge, and the dynamics of writer-reader relationships.
Text linguistics identifies key factors that influence text complexity, impacting how easily a text can be processed Readability formulas like Dale and Chall and Flesch, which analyze word and sentence length alongside vocabulary choice, serve as foundational tools despite criticisms regarding their inadequacy in fully capturing textual complexity Masi (2002) emphasizes the importance of incorporating additional semantic and syntactic elements, such as structural embedding, content, reader background knowledge, and text genre, to develop a more accurate measure of complexity However, these factors are often challenging to quantify using automated methods.
The analysis identified key features beneficial for evaluating texts in testing scenarios, focusing on criteria that enable quick and clear assessments by judges, ensuring high consensus The developed 'contextual parameters analysis scheme' incorporates specific parameters likely to influence reading test performance, as illustrated in Figure 2.
! Text length ! Task Input & Output
Figure 2: Context validity parameters addressed in this study
Using this framework as our informing source, we will explore salient parameters of context validity in terms of task settingand task linguistic demands(input and output).
Alderson (1996) and Nuttall (1996) emphasize the necessity of long texts for candidates to effectively skim for main ideas, scan for specific information, and make relevance judgments while distinguishing between primary points and secondary details Additionally, Alderson et al (2004) highlight that the Council of Europe Framework of Reference lacks clear distinctions between long and short texts, leaving ambiguity regarding the appropriate length and time constraints needed to successfully demonstrate skimming, scanning, and relevance judgments in academic reading.
Shorter texts, like those found in the IELTS exam, may lead candidates to focus on word-level processing instead of text-level comprehension due to the manageable memory load However, the pressure of time constraints could counteract this tendency This phenomenon will be explored in the following studies.
Various researchers, including Perera (1984), Urquhart (1984), Weir (1993), Alderson (1996), Nuttall (1996), and Shiotsu (2003), have highlighted key linguistic challenges within texts They emphasize that structural, lexical, and conceptual complexities significantly affect reading comprehension and fluency.
The rise of computer-assisted analysis of large language corpora has enabled the development and validation of language tests through the use of word lists Academic word lists, which highlight terms more frequently used in academic contexts, are especially beneficial for IELTS, particularly those that encompass sub-technical vocabulary across various disciplines It is essential for IELTS materials to incorporate these academic words as found in university-level texts.
Research by Alderson and Clapham (1992) highlighted a significant connection between grammar tests and the IELTS reading component, leading to the removal of the grammar test from IELTS assessments Additionally, Shiotsu (2003) identified syntactic knowledge as a key factor influencing reading test performance among Japanese undergraduates Further analysis by Shiotsu and Weir (2007) employed structural equation modeling to reveal that syntactic knowledge is more crucial than lexical knowledge in explaining variations in reading test outcomes across diverse language backgrounds.
Texts with simpler grammar are generally easier to understand than those with more complex structures Berman (1984) explored how intricate sentence constructions can lead to greater processing difficulties This indicates that an effective assessment of academic reading should consider the syntactic characteristics commonly found in academic literature.
The impact of cohesive devices on comprehension is nuanced Alderson (2000) suggests that when readers are familiar with a topic, the absence of cohesive devices does not significantly hinder understanding However, Goldman and Rakestraw (2000) argue that explicit cohesive devices are crucial for creating textual coherence, while Ehrlich (1991) points out that their absence can impair text recall and reflect a less effective mental representation.
Urquhart (1984) and Barnett (1989) emphasize the importance of considering rhetorical features alongside sentence-level attributes when assessing text difficulty, a perspective supported by research Studies by Meyer & Freedle (1984), Carrell (1984), and Goh (1990) demonstrate that variations in rhetorical organization significantly impact text processing, with problem-solution, comparison, and causation structures enhancing recall compared to classification or description formats Koda (2005) highlights the positive effects of improved text structure and explicit coherence training on comprehension and memory Additionally, Freedle (1997) notes that texts perceived as coherent lead to easier comprehension of main ideas Consequently, rhetorical features should be integral to the selection of texts for academic reading assessments.
Introduction
The pilot questionnaire, detailed in Appendix 1, underwent multiple iterations and included biodata as well as responses to 13 open-ended questions In its final form, it was distributed in April 2006, yielding 77 responses The data collected from this questionnaire aimed to guide subsequent data collection strategies and content, specifically for the IELTS Academic Reading Project's online structured survey conducted from June 1 to October 31, 2006.
The piloting operation gathered a diverse sample of University of Bedfordshire students, including undergraduates and postgraduates across various years and backgrounds This opportunistic approach yielded valuable insights into students' reading sources, purposes, strategies, experiences, and challenges Key lessons were identified regarding the content, design, wording, and administration of the Academic Reading Project's online structured questionnaire, which will be discussed in section 6 of this report.
The responses to the open-ended questionnaire were analyzed qualitatively, utilizing keyword and topic counts, with direct quotations appropriately indicated The findings are summarized using descriptive statistics to highlight key insights.
Key points from the analysis of all pilot questionnaire responses are now summarised.
Reading source types
Books continue to be the primary resource for students' academic reading, while journals also play a significant role, with many students completing approximately half of their academic reading online Insights from the pilot study reveal notable comparisons between the use of books and online information sources.
! books offer a wider range of sources and more to understand
! print sources may provide deeper information
! print materials tend to be first choice
! online (OL) sources may be for interest but not suitable for assignments
! OL reading complements, follows up print reading
! The Web with its wide range of information, can offer explanations, clarifications, of questions raised from reading of books
! useful and convenient to have some journals online, but often limited access
! prefer to print out OL information (2), less comfortable reading from screen
! “don’t use OL so much because can’t scribble, highlight, take notes so conveniently”;
! online sources less reliable, credible than books, journals
The pilot questionnaire data provide further evidence that assignment reading is a multi-source task 34% of our
In an analysis of 65 responses regarding source utilization for an assignment, it was found that participants cited between 10 to 19 sources, with a balanced distribution among books, journal articles, and websites Notably, books emerged as the primary source of reading, surpassing the other two categories in frequency.
Students often do not have complete control over their reading choices for courses, as highlighted in Table 2, which summarizes the responses from the pilot sample regarding their decision-making process for selecting reading materials.
Decision sources N % lecturers, tutors (and peers (3)) 19 25% course, module, lecture reading lists 34 44% own methods and strategies, i.e.,: library searches and book, journal analyses 34 44%
(incl scanning for relevance, importance etc 10) online searches 11 14%
Table 2: Student decision influences for their reading
Most of the sample students (77%) did not distinguish between their approaches to reading from different information sources In the 17 responses who did distinguish, however, the following points were made.
Reading approaches
The core of our research project revolves around students' responses to the instruction, "When you have decided what to read, describe how you read it." Analyzing 78 responses reveals that most students employ specific strategies to determine their reading focus based on the assignment and required materials This insight highlights the importance of understanding how students approach their reading tasks.
Reading Approach n scan 15 skim 13 notes 19 important, main, relevant (points) 11 highlight, bullets 13 abstract 5 index 2
Table 3: Strategies adopted to read assignment information
Students often struggle to differentiate between "scanning," which involves locating specific information, and "skimming," which focuses on grasping the general gist or impression Both strategies are essential for effectively reading assignments Common reading actions associated with student assignments typically include these two approaches.
! “Run through to see if suitable for me,(then) read properly”, read cited parts again
! “Read only sub-titles and main issues”
! “headings, bullet points then, if they are worthy, read the whole article”
! read relevant sections + skim others
! read chosen area, sub-heads, relevant information
Note here the students’ reference mainly to expeditious rather than careful reading These responses, central to our research, inform and are pursued in, the online questionnaire
Most of the sample students (77%) did not distinguish between their approaches to reading from different information sources In the 17 responses which did distinguish, however, the following points were made:
! locate relevant material using title (2), index (2), chapter titles (2), summary
! since articles are shorter, browse-reading most relevant sections
! highlight (2) then go back over (2)
! read books more thoroughly (2), articles selectively
! read whole articles (2), books selectively (2)
! skim books, but articles require more thought, processing
! reading approach depends on prior knowledge rather than materials type
Again some of these approaches are the focus of further attention in the online questionnaire
In a survey of 70 students regarding their reading approaches for assignments versus examinations, 48% (34 respondents) indicated that their strategies were the same Those who reported differing approaches highlighted various strategies and challenges, which align with our research on reading purposes and difficulties, particularly in the context of the IELTS exam Notably, students in the pilot study mentioned the importance of both efficient and thorough reading techniques.
! “exams require triggers with which you apply theory to questions”
! not everything selected for exams is in books, easy to find most you need on Net
! reading for exams requires more depth (4), more thorough readings (2) critical evidential approach (2), more breadth or topic coverage (6), less detail (2); more specificity, detail (2); more reading to clarify problem topics (2)
! reading for exams is already identified, involves only reading specified chapters and handouts, preparing and memorising (2) for predicted exam questions, essays (4)
! more hard work, tension with exams;
! in exams read everything through, then start exam
! assignment reading takes more time, read twice (2), use more sources (3)
! more variety, less detail (3), more detail (1), more specific (1), more general (3) , more depth so more time to master
! need to read and make notes from selected relevant material (5)
! need to read in order to apply examples
Reading problems
The open-ended pilot questionnaire explored the challenges faced by students in their academic reading, with 58% of the respondents highlighting various issues, as summarized in Table 4.
Difficulty area n hard text (18) theory, concepts (7) 25 jargon, technical language 12 locating required info 7 time, info overload 6
Very closely related are thepressuresidentified by 61% of the sample with regard to the academic reading, as shown in Table 5:
Pressure area n time, reading load 15 difficulty of understanding 11 searching for required info 5 exam success 4
Perceptions of successful reading
A successful university reader is characterized by various perceptions of academic reading, as highlighted by a recent study An analysis of 72 responses revealed 81 distinct features that define effective reading strategies among students, providing valuable insights into the qualities that contribute to academic success.
Characteristics n % reading with understanding 28 39 reading all that you need to read 19 26% wide reading 13 18% regular, voluntary reading 9 13% reading and remembering 6 8% reading with other specific micro-skills i.e selecting (2), 6 8%
“rooting out”, expressing in own words, avoiding over-detailed simplifying
Interesting verbatim responses included these:
! “Someone who understands what’s what and achieves most of the reading suggested and completes some off their own bat”
! “selective reader using appropriate techniques with the context and time framework”
! “has no difficulty reading books, articles, not only course books but other fields, can skim text and know gist, figure out context and meaning without looking up words”
! “enjoys and engages in study reading on a regular basis”
! “can organise reading, understand, to represent in their minds corresponding to author’s”
Understanding first-year university students' perceptions of successful reading practices is crucial for analyzing their reading needs and assessment methods Insights gathered from the pilot study participants will guide the development of the main questionnaire in Study 2.
Some general conclusions from the open-ended pilot questionnaire
A pilot study reveals that reading is a significant concern for students, particularly those in the EL1 majority, who struggle with heavy reading loads under time constraints While they recognize the importance of effective reading processes, strategies, and skills, there is limited evidence of their consistent application of optimal reading techniques Despite having valuable insights into what constitutes good academic reading, students often fail to implement these strategies systematically.
The research rationale is strengthened by insights gathered from the open-ended pilot questionnaire Although an opportunity sample was utilized, the data collected proved valuable in guiding subsequent phases of the IELTS process.
The Academic Reading Project utilized student responses and insights from our literature review to shape the content and phrasing of the descriptive categories in the final structured questionnaire.
In May and June 2006, a final version of a structured questionnaire was distributed to both home and international undergraduate and postgraduate students at the University of Bedfordshire, with an online option available Upon the students' return in September 2006, we specifically targeted former first-year students transitioning to their second year, particularly in subject areas that had previously yielded low response rates, considering them as first-year students for our analysis.
The student population was sampled opportunistically due to the project team's lack of authority and resources for a stratified random sample An experimental research design, which controls variables and establishes experimental and control groups, would not have aligned with the study's objectives The following sections will detail the sample's characteristics and analyze the responses of various student sub-groups using descriptive and some inferential statistical methods to support the claims made.
From June 1 to October 1, 2006, a total of 766 students participated in a questionnaire, with 434 responding online and 332 via hard copy This response rate is deemed sufficient for the questionnaire's intended purpose and data collection methods At that time, the University of Luton, which officially became the University of Bedfordshire in September 2006, had a total student population of 16,150, including 6,550 first-year and 4,400 second-year students.
The study aimed to gather insights from students about their academic reading experiences and challenges through a questionnaire This tool focused on profiling students' reading purposes, strategies, and difficulties, allowing for an analysis of the relationship between these factors and the academic reading construct assessed by the IELTS reading module The questionnaire can be found in Appendix 2 of this report.
The survey encompasses a diverse group of participants, including home and international students, as well as undergraduates and postgraduates in their first and second years at the University, spanning various fields of study Second-year students were included to assess potential changes in experiences during their university journey Key variables from the responses are cross-tabulated to provide insights that address the primary questions of this study.
This article analyzes reading challenges faced by students learning English as an Additional Language (EAL) compared to those who speak English as their first language (EL1), as well as differences between Year 1 and Year 2 students.
Gender, age, regional background
Table 7 summarises basic information on the Study 2 survey student sample in terms of gender, age and regional background
Table 7: Gender, age and regional distribution of the questionnaire respondents
The sample consists of a significantly higher percentage of female students, with a distribution of 70% female to 30% male, mirroring the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) data from the 2003/04 academic year, which reported 58% of undergraduate students as women In our study, Year 1 students show a gender distribution of 69.9% female to 30.1% male, while Year 2 students reflect a similar trend at 71.2% female to 28.8% male The participant age distribution is well-balanced across four groups, predominantly featuring younger students aged 18-22, which aligns with the study's focus on first-year students, while also including valuable sub-samples from the older age ranges of 23-29, 30-39, and 40+ The age ranges for both Year 1 and Year 2 students in the questionnaire sample are nearly identical.
The study's sample population consists of both British and non-British students, highlighting that academic reading challenges impact individuals from diverse backgrounds Among the 62.5% of respondents who are non-British, approximately 72% originate from non-European countries, while 28% are from Europe These findings align closely with HESA statistics, which indicate that 64% of non-British university students in the UK come from non-European nations, with 36.4% hailing from Europe.
Academic stage
As Table 8 indicates, 84.4% of the Study 2 sample are undergraduates, across years one to three of their studies
Table 8: Level and stage of studies of the questionnaire respondents
The majority of respondents (67.7%) in our study are Year 1 students, while over 30% are in their second year Analyzing the differences between Year 1 and Year 2 students may reveal valuable insights into the evolution of their academic reading as they gain experience and face changing reading requirements.
English language status (gender, regional background, academic stage)
The language background variable is a central focus of this research, as highlighted in our project aims and literature review In the Study 2 questionnaire, the sample population represents 43 languages, with English (38.9%) and Chinese (38.4%) being the most prevalent, while other European languages account for 14.2% The first and second-year student groups show a balanced distribution of first languages, predominantly featuring English L1 (36.5% in year 1 and 44.8% in year 2) and Chinese L1 (36.5% in year 1 and 33.5% in year 2).
Among the EAL students, a significant majority of 310 (66.5%) hail from outside the UK, while 130 (27.9%) are from Europe and 26 (5.6%) are UK residents In the EL1 group of 298 students, 261 (87.6%) are UK nationals, with five students from Europe and 32 (10.7%) coming from outside both the UK and Europe.
A significant portion of EAL students in our sample, 66.2% (n = 310), are aged between 18 and 22, indicating a trend towards younger individuals pursuing postgraduate studies in Britain Both EAL and EL1 sub-groups show a high percentage of students at the undergraduate level, with 81.9% and 88.2% respectively Additionally, a notable number of students in both groups are in their first year at the University, with 70.1% of EAL and 64% of EL1 students Our analysis will further explore the differences between undergraduate and postgraduate students, particularly in terms of academic reading sources, purposes, strategies, and challenges.
Subject areas
The student sample encompasses a wide range of subject areas, as illustrated in Table 9, which compares the EAL and EL1 sub-groups Notably, Business and Finance emerge as the primary subjects of focus for EAL students.
Advertising, Marketing, and Public Relations, along with Language and Communication in EFL and TEFL, are pursued by over 15% of students Among our EL1 students, the predominant field of study is Education, representing 22.4% of the subgroup, followed by Social Sciences and Social Work at 14.2%, and Sport and Exercise Science at 10.5% Table 9 provides a detailed analysis of the subject areas within our population sample, focusing on the EAL and EL1 sub-groups.
Subjects EAL EL1 Subjects EAL EL1 n % n % n % n %
Advertising, Mktg, PR 94 20.4 12 4.1 Language, Comm., (T)EFL 71 15.4 7 2.4
Biology, Biomed Sc 9 2 4 1.4 Leis., Tourism, Sports Mgt 11 2.4 3 1.0
Education Studies 5 1.1 66 22.4 Soc Sciences, Soc Work 7 1.5 42 14.2
Table 9: Subjects studied by the EAL and EL1 questionnaires respondent groups
The distribution of subject areas is relatively balanced between the first and second year groups, with Year 1 having larger cohorts in advertising, marketing, PR, and HRM, while Year 2 sees a slight increase in students focusing on language and communication, including EFL and TEFL, as well as Media Arts.
A survey of 766 students reveals that their subject areas closely align with the broader UK student population, as reported in HESA figures from 2005 The data shows that 22% of students are focused on medical and related fields, 17% on education, language, and communication, 13% on business and administration, 11% on mathematics and the physical and biological sciences, and 14% on engineering and technology, which includes 6% specializing in computer science.
IELTS Test Reading Module scores
Figure 3 summarises the scores awarded to the 301 of our sample population who had taken the IELTS test:
The analysis reveals that the mode band score for the IELTS Reading Module is 6.0, awarded to 41.2% of the sample, while the global average score in 2002 was 5.79 According to the IELTS Annual Report from 2003, a minimum score of Band 6 in each module is commonly required for university entrance, with an overall Band 6 score recognized as a standard qualification for undergraduate studies Band 6 is defined as a "Competent User," indicating a generally effective command of the language, despite some inaccuracies and misunderstandings, and the ability to use fairly complex language in familiar situations This definition will guide our exploration of the reading approaches and challenges faced by the student sample population.
The students scoring 5 or 5.5 on IELTS in our sample were in a Foundation programme for overseas students, which prepares them for entry to certificated degree courses.
In our sample, the most common IELTS band score was 6.5, achieved by 21.6% of respondents, closely followed by a score of 5.5 at 18.9% A 6.5 band score is frequently recognized as suitable for admission to graduate programs, although there is significant variation in IELTS cut-off scores depending on the university, field of study, and academic level Overall, our respondent sample aligns closely with the typical distribution of IELTS band scores.
The IELTS reading band scores for Year 1 and Year 2 students show no significant differences, as illustrated in Figure 4 The most prevalent score is 6.0, followed by 6.5 and 5.5, which are the next most common scores among respondents.
Figure 4: Year 1 and Year 2 IELTS Reading Test bandscores
The IELTS reading score averages of our undergraduate and postgraduate sub-groups were 6.14 and 6.19 respectively.
The questionnaire Likert scale Items
Our analysis of the questionnaire responses utilized a 5-point Likert scale to assess agreement levels, ranging from "definitely disagree" to "definitely agree," with a neutral option included The mode was employed to identify the most frequent responses, reflecting the overall tendency of participants' opinions Additionally, summing the "definitely agree" and "mostly agree" selections provided insight into the strength of agreement or disagreement among respondents Group differences were explored using analysis of variance.
Sources of academic reading information
Section 2 of the questionnaire gathers data from students regarding the variety of information sources used in their courses, with a focus on the EAL and EL1 sub-groups Table 10 highlights the significance of different academic reading materials, including books, journal articles, reports, the Internet, newspapers, and magazines, as indicated by student responses The notation "D" signifies the "definitely agree" category on the Likert scale, while "D & M" combines the "definitely agree" and "mainly agree" responses Additionally, rank orders (r/o) of the strengths of reading agreement are provided in parentheses.
Table 10: Sources of information across EAL and EL1 questionnaire respondent groups
In terms of the measurement of responses, the order of importance for sources is as follows: 1) books, 2) Internet sites, 3) journals, 4) reports, 5) newspapers, and 6) magazines Based on insights from the pilot questionnaire, the main questionnaire includes a question about the amount of reading participants do online versus in print Table 11 presents a summary of responses from both EAL and EL1 participants.
Amount of Reading done online
Table 11: EAL and EL1 group online reading source proportions
EAL students engage in online reading significantly more than their EL1 peers, with 30.3% of EAL students reporting that they read 41-60% of their material online In contrast, only 23.8% of EL1 students read a similar amount online, while 30.7% of them read just 0-20% online.
Cross-tabulated data indicates a strong consensus between first and second year students regarding the significance of reading sources; however, there is a notable difference, with nearly 11% fewer Year 2 students affirming the importance of Internet sources in their coursework Table 12 provides a summary of the perceptions of reading sources among these two groups.
Table 12: Year 1 and Year 2 group online reading source proportions
The diverse range of academic reading sources and the significant influence of online platforms on contemporary university students highlight important considerations for pre-university reading assessments like IELTS Notably, a substantial 83.5% of graduate participants acknowledged the importance of journal articles in their courses, in contrast to 70.7% of undergraduates Additionally, a higher percentage of the postgraduate group, 75.6%, recognized the value of reports in their academic studies.
Students’ course reading purposes and how they read for their assignments
This research focuses on the reading experiences of first-year students at a British university, specifically examining the purposes behind their reading, with an emphasis on how they approach reading for their assignments.
This article explores the differences in perceived reading purposes between EAL (English as an Additional Language) and EL1 (English as a First Language) students in their academic courses If disparities are found in how these two groups approach reading tasks, it may suggest that their varying levels of target language reading proficiency influence their objectives Conversely, if no significant differences are observed, it could indicate that both EAL and EL1 students share similar reading purposes regardless of their language background Additionally, factors such as the specific field of study or year of study may play a more crucial role in shaping students' reading purposes.
Section 3 of the Study 2 questionnaire focuses on the importance of various reading purposes in the course It includes four statements categorized as strategic, global, and expeditious reading Table 13 presents a summary of student responses, differentiating between EAL and EL1 sub-groups and utilizing the same analytical categories as Table 11 The numbering of the reading purposes corresponds to the original questionnaire provided in Appendix 2.
The following purposes for reading D (r/o) D&M (r/o) D (r/o) D&M (r/o) are important on my course:
15.Searching texts to find information 55.8% (1) 87.7% (1) 77.9% (1) 95.6% (2) for assignments and exams
16 Basic comprehension of main ideas 35.5%* (4) 79.6% (3) 57.9% *(3) 90.1% (4)
17 Understand meaning of text as a whole; 37.4% (3) 80.7% (2) 53.9% (4) 97.5% (1) how main ideas and details relate to each other and author’s purpose
18 Integrating information from different 40.5% (2) 78.6% (4) 70.4% (2) 91.1% (3) texts for use in assignments, exams
Table 13: Responses on the importance of reading purposes across EAL and EL1 groups
An analysis of Likert scale responses from 468 EAL students and 298 EL1 students reveals that all four reading purposes are deemed important, with similar rankings across both groups Notably, searching for required information is identified as the most significant reading purpose overall However, a significant difference (p