1 Reading strategy awareness of Arabic-speaking medical students studying in English

Diane Malcolm1

Arabian Gulf University1English Language Unit

P.O. Box 26671 Manama, Bahraindiane@agu.edu.bh

Corresponding author: Diane MalcolmTelephone: [973]17239651; Fax: [973]17274028

Abstract

Skilled readers are often characterized as more metacognitively aware than less skilled readers. This questionnaire study of 160 students at a medical university in Bahrain compared reported academic reading strategy use of readers at varying initial English proficiency level and year of study. While all students reported high use of strategies overall, significant differences were found in reported use of metacognitive strategies ingeneral and specific strategies related to translating from English to Arabic. Students oflow initial English proficiency and those in their first year reported translating more, while upper year students translated less and used more metacognitive strategies. Compared to findings in previous studies using the same self-report questionnaire, reported reading strategy use was generally higher and more similar to other academicreaders in an EFL setting than L1 and L2 readers in a US college. Differences in strategies related to translating suggest an area for further investigation.

Keywords

Arabic; Bahrain; Metalinguistic awareness; College students; English as a second language; English for special purposes; Metacognition; Reading strategies; Reading ability.

1. Introduction

While recent reading strategy research has moved away from its

ESL base into EFL settings, much of the focus remains on

comparing reading practices of less versus more proficient

readers. These studies often imply that pedagogic intervention in

English classes can help “correct” poor readers’ strategic

knowledge, enabling them to deal effectively with the academic

reading they will face later. However, what actually happens

outside the English class setting, as students tackle the real

life reading load of their academic major is less studied. The

learners whose reading practices are investigated in this study,

Arabic L1 medical students studying through the medium of English

in a medical college in the Arabian Gulf, have little formal

institutional support for their English needs, with English

instruction limited to the first year. After that, students of

widely varying initial English proficiency are thrown into a sea

of texts, averaging well over 100 pages of specialized medical

reading weekly. In this high-stakes setting, inexperienced

readers are pushed to develop and refine effective strategies for

reading academic texts, particularly the metacognitive strategies

associated with planning, monitoring and evaluating their

reading. In order to gain an understanding of how they cope in

this setting, this study examined the extent of awareness about

reading strategies among these Arab medical students, and how

this relates to initial English language proficiency and on-going

reading experience.

2. Literature Review

2.1 Reading Strategy Research

In L1 reading research, “[t]he ability to use metacognitive skills

effectively is widely recognized as a critical component of skilled

reading” (Grabe, 1991, p. 382). Skilled readers in both L1 and L2

have been characterized as more metacognitively aware, in that

they are better able to think about the reading process and to

draw on the planning, monitoring, goal-setting and assessment

strategies that comprise metacognitive skills (Carrell, Gadjusek

& Wise,1998; Cohen, 1998; Mokhtari, Sheorey & Reichard 2008;

Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995). However, as discussed in

Afflerbach, Pearson & Paris, 2008, reading success depends on

both a command of those reading skills such as vocabulary

recognition and phonological awareness that facilitate rapid

decoding, as well as the strategic ability to solve reading

problems and the knowledge and experience to know when to apply

them. Particularly when L2 reading is considered, research has

addressed the issue of whether reading comprehension difficulties

relate to incomplete or effortful decoding skills due to lack of

language ability rather than lack of strategic awareness. One

focus of studies conducted over the past few decades has been

determining the extent to which second language reading ability

depends on first language reading ability or second language

proficiency (Alderson, 1984; Anderson, 1991; Bernhardt & Kamil,

1995; Carrell, 1991; Clarke, 1980; Lee & Schallert, 1997;

Olshavsky, 1977). These studies have provided evidence that a

low level of familiarity with the second language appears to

“short-circuit” reading ability, forcing readers to a more basic,

word by word approach to decoding text, and disabling the use of

their already developed L1 reading strategies. The exact nature

and extent of L2 knowledge required to permit full and fluent

reading strategy use remain to be determined, but it is clear

that factors other than language proficiency level contribute to

reading success. Bernhardt and Kamil (1995), for example, found

that about half of the variance in reading performance of

English/Spanish L1/2 participants in their study could be

accounted for by L2 knowledge and L1 literacy combined, while the

other 50% could be attributed to other factors. The important

elements of skilful reading include not only the ability to

decode text rapidly, accurately and fluently (at the

orthographic, lexical, structural and textural levels) but also

background and world knowledge or schemata, reading experience,

interest, cognition, motivation, and reading purpose (Grabe &

Stoller, 2003). Other researchers have emphasized the importance

of vocabulary knowledge as a crucial element of effective reading

(e.g. Alderson, 2000; Block 1992; Grabe, 1991; Laufer, 1997;

Nation, 2001; Stanovich, 1980).

2.2. Reading strategy investigations in EFL Settings

Studies of L2 reading strategy use that have proliferated since

the late 1970s have generally

concluded that readers characterized as both successful and less

successful have been shown

to use similar strategies (e.g. Anderson, 1991; Vann & Abraham,

1990) but they may differ in

frequency and variety of strategy use, as well as the ability to

draw on a number of strategies in

an orchestrated manner (Barnett, 1988; Carrell, 1989; Ikeda &

Takeuchi, 2006). Recent

reading strategy investigation in EFL settings such as Japan,

Morocco, China, and Hungary (e.g.

Ikeda & Takeuchi, 2006; Mokhtari & Reichard, 2004; Sheorey &

Baboczky, 2008; Sheorey, Kamimura & Freiermuth, 2008; Upton,

1997; Zhang, 2001) also suggest that more skilled L2 readers seem

to use strategies more frequently, in a more varied and

orchestrated manner than less skilled readers. In one of the few

studies of Arabic-speaking academic readers, Mokhtari and

Reichard (2004) used a questionnaire to compare reported English

reading strategy use of US and Moroccan academic readers, and

found higher overall reported strategy use among Moroccans,

which they related to their multilingual background (Arabic,

Berber, French). They concluded that adults reading academic

materials in English report similar metacognitive awareness of

reading strategies and speculated that any differences between L1

and L2 readers may diminish at higher levels of reading

proficiency. To summarize, much of the research into L2 reading

strategies has concluded that mature readers of academic texts

are generally aware of and report using a variety of strategies,

regardless of language proficiency level. However, less

successful readers may be hampered in their ability to draw on

their strategic knowledge by their limited proficiency in the L2.

2.3. Research tools

A variety of research tools have been employed to capture the

nature of strategic reading, including self-reports of reading

such as “think aloud” protocols (Block, 1986; Upton, 1997)

interviews, logs and journals (Auerbach & Paxton, 1999; Ikeda &

Takeuchi, 2006), and questionnaire data based on self-ratings of

strategy use (e.g. Anderson, 1991; Phakiti, 2003; Sheorey &

Mokhtari, 2001). Results are then correlated with various

measures of reading proficiency, such as test scores (either

standardized tests such as TOEFL or purpose-designed instruments)

or self-rated ability collected through background

questionnaires. The instrument used in this study was the survey

of reading strategies (SORS). This questionnaire was adapted for

use with L2 ESL readers from an instrument designed for measuring

L1 English readers’ awareness of their academic reading

strategies (the Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies

Inventory or MARSI), as detailed in Mokhtari & Sheorey, 2002;

Mokhtari & Reichard, 2004; Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001; Sheorey,

Mokhtari & Reichard, 2008. The 30 item questionnaire consisted

of strategies assigned to three groups: cognitive, metacognitive

and support strategies. The following definitions of these

strategy groups are given in Sheorey & Mokhtari (2001, p. 436).

“Cognitive” strategies are ‘actions or procedures readers use

when working directly with the text’ such as re-reading or

adjusting speed (8 items); “metacognitive” strategies are

‘carefully planned techniques to monitor reading’ such as

previewing and asking yourself questions (13 items), while

“support strategies” include ‘mechanisms to help readers

understand text’ such as highlighting, translating and dictionary

use (9 items). The SORS was chosen for its ease of

administration, for the fact that it had been used in several

previous studies, in comparing both ESL and L1 English students

in academic settings, and because the MARSI, from which it was

adapted, had previously been used with Arabic-speaking students

in an EFL setting.

3. Rationale for the present study and research questions

Reading research in L2 settings has frequently investigated

strategy use of students engaged in language study in a

preparatory year, such as an intensive English program, before

going on to study in their specialized fields. Those studying

for professional aims, such as medicine, in their own countries

may spend their whole academic and professional careers in non-

English settings, and be expected to achieve a high standard of

English reading fluency, even though their initial language

proficiency may be far below that assumed in ESL settings.

Although there have been a few studies of academic reading

strategy use of Arabic-speaking learners in EFL settings (e.g.

Al-Melhi, 1999; Al-Sheikh, 2002), there have been none to my

knowledge specifically addressing the reading practices of a

group of readers with a highly specific goal, such as the Arabic-

speaking medical students in this study. Gaining some insight

into their awareness of academic reading strategies as related to

their developing experience in academic reading and their initial

English language proficiency levels may help us to understand the

process by which they succeed in reading for their medical

studies. Medical students of low initial proficiency and with

less experience of reading academic English may be assumed to

report using metacognitive strategies associated with skillful

reading less often than strategies for decoding text. On the

other hand, those with greater experience and higher initial

English proficiency may report using metacognitive strategies

more often. Based on these assumptions, the following research

questions were formulated:

1. Are there differences in the reported use of academic

reading strategies among Arabic-speaking medical students

studying through the medium of English at different years of

instruction?

2. Do students of low initial English language proficiency

report using different reading strategies than students with

high initial proficiency in English?

3. Methodology

3.1 Study participants

The participants in this study were 108 Arabic-speaking medical

students in their first year of study at a medical university in

Bahrain and 52 in Year Four of their medical programme. The

students came from a variety of countries in the Arab Gulf

region, with the majority being from Bahrain, the kingdom of

Saudi Arabia (KSA), or Kuwait. A smaller number of students came

from Oman, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) or other Arab countries

(Table One).

Female students invariably outnumber male students in any year’s

intake by a 2:1 ratio. Students are selected on the basis of

their grades in high school, as well as their scores on the

medical college admissions test, which comprises an interview and

tests of science and English.

During the first month of the academic year, new students in Year

One took a general proficiency examination (a 120 item TOEFL

practice multiple choice exam, comprising reading, listening, and

structure sections, referred to as TOEFL below). These scores

were used to place students into the initial proficiency groups

reported in Table 3 below.

Year One is considered the pre-medical year, while Years Two to

Four are the pre-clinical years. Instruction in Year One is

mostly lecture based, while a problem-based learning (PBL)

curriculum is followed in the upper years. In the PBL approach,

students spend much of their time in independent study to prepare

and present different aspects of medical problems, carefully

selected and sequenced to cover important aspects of their

medical training. In both phases, the ability to read,

understand and synthesize information from scientific texts

written in English is of vital importance for academic success.

INSERT TABLE 1 HERE

3.2 Psychometric properties of the SORS

The SORS consists of 30 statements with a five part Likert scale

regarding perceived frequency of use. As discussed above, the

SORS was adapted from the metacognitive awareness of reading

strategy inventory (MARSI), which was validated with school and

college students in the US (n= 825) with Cronbach’s alpha

reliability coefficients of .92, .79 and .87 for metacognitive,

cognitive and support subscales respectively (overall reliability

of .93). The adapted scale, the SORS, was tested with 147 ESL

students at a US college with an overall reliability of .89

(Mokhtari & Reichard, 2002; Mokhtari, Sheorey & Reichard, 2008;

Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001).

3.3 Procedure

An Arabic version of the SORS was prepared by a native Arabic-

speaking English instructor, then checked with the English

original through back-translation. Year One students were given

the questionnaire in their regular English classes by their class

instructor and were asked to respond using either the English or

Arabic version. Students were advised to consider the strategies

they used when reading academic material, such as their biology

textbook. Instructors were available to answer questions or

provide clarification during the questionnaire administration.

Questionnaires for Year Four students were given out by the

researcher at the end of a required lecture, with the permission

of the lecturer. Students were given a brief explanation of the

purpose of the questionnaire and advised to think about

strategies they used when reading medical texts. The researcher

was available to answer questions or provide clarification during

this administration. The questionnaire results were tabulated

for individual strategy use, average strategy use in each group

(metacognitive, cognitive and support) and overall strategy use

for all students in each year, and also for groups with low and

high initial English proficiency (as measured by initial TOEFL

scores) for each year. The means for individual strategies,

strategy groups, and overall strategy use were analyzed using

ANOVA, with significance set at p = .01 (to help control for the

expected increase in Type I errors associated with the use of

multiple F-tests). Rank ordering of strategies for different

student groups (categorized according to year, proficiency level

and gender) were analyzed using Spearman rank order correlations.

4. Results

Table 2 presents the results for the first research question: Are

there differences in the reported use of academic reading strategies among Arabic-

speaking medical students studying through the medium of English at different years of

instruction? Results are presented for each of the 30 individual

strategies, strategy groups (metacognitive, cognitive and

support), and overall reported reading strategy use for each

year. Frequency of strategy use was classified as high (3.5 - 5),

medium (2.5 - 3.4) or low (1.0 - 2.4) following the guidelines

developed by Oxford (1990) for the Strategy Inventory for

Language Learning. Average reported strategy use was generally

high. Nineteen of the 30 strategies were in the high use category

for Year One students, and 19 were in the high use category for

Year Four students as well, though not the same 19. As shown in

Table 2, the mean use of individual strategies in Year One ranged

from a high of 4.43 (trying to stay focused, a cognitive strategy) to a

low of 2.75 (critically evaluating text, a metacognitive strategy). The

Year Four students reported using the metacognitive strategy

using text features, such as tables most (4.55), while they reported

translating into Arabic (a support strategy) the least, averaging 2.34.

Average strategy use for the three strategy groups,

metacognitive, cognitive and support, was 3.47, 3.99 and 3.51

respectively for Year One students, and 3.79, 4.12 and 3.35

respectively for Year Four students. Overall reported strategy

use for the two groups was 3.63 for Year One students and 3.74

for Year Four students. Thus, both years reported high use of

all reading strategies. Year Four students reported making

significantly more use of the metacognitive strategies, skimming to

note text characteristics (F[1,158] = 19.51; p < .005), critically evaluating

(F[1, 158] = 18.42; p < .001), and using text features, e.g. tables

(F[1,158] = 9.95; p < .005) than the Year One students, while the

two support strategies relating to translating and thinking about

information in both English and Arabic were reported as being

used more by Year One (F[1,158] = 22.40; p < .001 and F(1,158) =

22.30; p<.001 respectively). Overall, the average reported use

of all metacognitive strategies was significantly greater for

Year Four students than for Year One students (F[1, 158] = 17.46;

p.001).

Table 3 shows the ranking of strategies used most and least by

medical students in the Year One and Year Four groups. Many of

the most used strategies were ranked similarly, with cognitive

strategies in the top five for both years. One support strategy

(underlining, circling information) also appeared in the top five for

each group, while one metacognitive strategy, using text features, such

as tables, was the top-ranked strategy for the Year Four group.

A similar pattern of least used strategies for both years was

found for one metacognitive strategy (confirming predictions, which

was in the bottom 5 for both groups), and two support strategies:

taking notes, and asking myself questions. However, while support

strategies relating to translation (I think about information in both

English and Arabic, and I translate into Arabic) were bottom-ranked for Year

Four students, they were much higher in the rankings of Year One

students. On the other hand, critically evaluating text, and using

INSERT TABLE 2 HERE

typographical features, two metacognitive strategies among the five

least frequently used strategies of Year One students, were

ranked much higher by Year Four students. Regardless of these

slight differences in rankings assigned by members of the two

groups, however, their rankings were highly correlated (rs .731).

Table Four presents results for the second research question: Do

students of low initial English language proficiency report using different reading

strategies than students with high initial proficiency in English? Proficiency

levels were determined according to scores on the

practice TOEFL admissions test, given at the beginning of Year

One. High and low proficiency samples were formed from the top

and bottom 25% of scores in each group. Thus, there were 26

students in each sub-group in Year One, and 12 in Year Four. The

average scores for Year One high and low proficiency students

were 533 (range 490 - 660) versus 362 (range 293 - 393)

respectively, while Year Four high and low proficiency students

had initial (Year One) TOEFL scores averaging 598 (range 560 -

INSERT TABLE 3 HERE

633) versus 390 (range 333 - 413). ANOVA on these scores showed

that there was a highly significant difference between low and

high proficiency groups (F [1,50] =196.32 [Year One]; (F[1,22]

=394.5 [Year Four], both ps < .001). Apart from test scores,

there were a few significant differences in the reported reading

strategy use of low and high proficiency students. For example,

Year One high proficiency students reported adjusting reading rate

more than low proficiency students (F[1,50] =7.89; p<.007), as

well as paying close attention (F[1,50]=6.429; p < .014) while low

proficiency students reported thinking about information in Arabic and

English more (F[1,50] = 13.58; p<.001). The more proficient Year

Four students reported visualizing information more (F[1,22]=6,96;

p<.015), while less proficient students reported translating into

Arabic more ( F[1,22]=6.93; p<.15). The low proficiency students

in Year Four also reported using reference materials such as dictionaries

somewhat more often than their high proficiency peers (F[1,22]=

4.6; p<.055).

INSERT TABLE 4 HERE

Rank order correlations examining the extent to which similar

strategies were used by students of high proficiency versus low

proficiency were rs = .590 and rs = .739 respectively for Years

One and Four, indicating that students in the later year reported

using strategies more similarly, regardless of initial

proficiency level.

As previous studies (e.g. Green & Oxford, 1995; Oxford & Nyikos,

1989; Phakiti, 2003; Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001) have investigated

differences in strategy use between male and female students,

questionnaire results were also analyzed by gender. A detailed

analysis of gender differences has been omitted due to space

limitations, but no significant differences were found between

male and female students, both groups reporting high use of

strategies in general. In addition, although some support

strategies were used more by females than males, including

translating into Arabic, female students also had a lower average TOEFL

score compared to males, and as discussed above, less proficient

students tended to report relying more on translation. Finally,

strategy rankings for males and females were also highly

correlated

(rs .854).

4. Discussion

4.1. Differences in reported reading strategy awareness

4.1.1. Comparison with other SORS studies

In comparison with students’ reported reading strategy awareness

in other studies, the medical students in this study reported

using the 30 strategies of the SORS at a very high level. For

example, they reported using 19 strategies at a high rate (>3.5)

compared to 10 for the ESL students and 8 for the L1 English

students attending a US college described in Sheorey & Mokhtari

(2001). In this aspect, the current participants showed more

similar patterns of strategy usage to the Moroccan students in

Mokhtari & Reichard (2004), 15 of whose reported strategies fell

in the high usage range. When students in Year One and Four are

compared, there is a slight variation in ordering of strategy

use, with the highest strategy use in the cognitive group for

Year One, followed by support strategies, then metacognitive.

Year Four students also reported cognitive strategies first,

followed by metacognitive, then the support strategies group,

which is a similar order to that in the two studies cited.

Overall, strategy use was higher for these medical students,

whether in Year One or Four (3.64 and 3.75 respectively) than for

ESL students in the US (3.36), L1 English students in the US

(3.08) or Moroccan EFL students (3.44).

There are also some differences between the reported reading

strategies of the Arab medical students in this study and those

reported recently for tertiary level students studying through

the medium of English in Hungary and Japan (Sheorey & Baboczky

(2008); Sheorey, Kamimura & Freiermuth (2008)). In both these

studies, the SORS was used to assess reported reading strategy

use. Hungarian students reported using support strategies, such

as circling or underlining text, more frequently than

metacognitive or cognitive strategies. However, the Japanese

students, who were reading English for a specific purpose,

computer science, reported using cognitive and metacognitive

strategies, such as rereading and using prior knowledge, at a

higher rate. Japanese students who were more proficient in

English also differed from the less proficient in reporting

higher frequencies of metacognitive strategies. In this respect

they are more similar to the Arab medical students of this study.

In general, overall reported strategy use for both Japanese and

Hungarian groups was similar. Both groups reported moderate

overall use of the strategic reading behaviors generally

associated with skilled reading. The authors suggest that

increased metacognitive awareness of reading strategies may be a

characteristic of academically advanced (i.e. university level)

students in general, whether reading in L1 or L2. This

assumption may also apply to the medical students in the present

study. Furthermore, medical students are generally characterized

as having heavy reading loads so the amount of reading they must

do may also play a part in their high reported strategy use.

4.1.2 Comparison of Year One and Four students’ reported strategies

While the ranking of reported reading strategies by these Year

One and Year Four students is similar, especially in the top

ranked reported strategies, the two support strategies relating

to translating and thinking about information in English and

Arabic are high in the rankings of Year One students, but drop to

the bottom of the rankings for Year Four students. Given the

importance of translating strategies at the initial stages of

academic reading for these medical students translation would

seem to be an area deserving closer investigation.

Investigations of the use of the L1 when reading an L2 (e.g.

Kern, 1994; Upton, 1997; Upton & Lee-Thompson, 2001) have shown

the importance of translation as a persistent, useful adjunct to

other reading strategies even at more advanced stages of reading

proficiency. Another trend that is apparent is the increased

awareness of metacognitive strategies over the years of study,

particularly critically evaluating, skimming to note text characteristics and using

text features such as tables. Thus, it appears that these students’

ability to plan, monitor, and evaluate their reading increases

with their experience.

Similarities in rankings of reported reading strategies for these

medical students may be attributable to the fact that they are

engaged in the same kind of reading, often using the same texts

and with the same goals. The SORS was designed to measure

academic reading of college students in a variety of materials

and for many different disciplines, whereas the material students

in this study are reading is restricted to the medical genre.

The compensatory nature of discipline-related knowledge to EAP

reading achievement, along with language proficiency, has been

noted in other studies (e.g. Chen & Donin, 1997; Clapham, 2001;

Usó-Joan, 2006). Familiarity with the discipline may well have

enhanced these students’ metacognitive reading awareness,

especially at higher years of study. An examination of their

strategy use when reading different text types might well reveal

greater differences among the more versus less experienced

readers. For example, a recent study comparing strategy use for

different reading purposes (Mokhtari & Reichard, 2008) found that

11th grade L1 English students used reading strategies,

particularly support and metacognitive ones, significantly more

often when reading for academic, rather than leisure purposes.

As a third year student in the present study remarked:

“Really I don’t have problem in reading medical book or scientific book but when I

read other book or newspaper it is difficult for me to understand a lot of word.”

4.2. Differences according to proficiency level

As regards the second research question, whether students of low

initial proficiency report using reading strategies differently

from those with higher initial English proficiency, it appears

that, for this group of medical students, reported use of

strategies is quite similar, apart from those strategies related

to translating. In spite of varying initial English language

proficiency, these students are among the most academically

gifted from their high schools; otherwise they would not be

selected as potential medical college material. Although many

have studied almost exclusively in Arabic prior to joining the

medical school, these students are probably sophisticated readers

of academic material, of a similar content and difficulty level

to that faced in Year One scientific texts. Once the initial

vocabulary problem is overcome, they may be able to utilize many

of the strategies that enabled them to perform so well as readers

in their own language. The fact that all groups are high users

of cognitive strategies, regardless of proficiency level, would

appear to support this conclusion. However, an examination of

their reading strategies in Arabic with similar material would be

needed to verify such a suggestion, by, for example, asking

students to use the SORS to report their strategy use when

reading in their native language (e.g., Al-Sheikh, 2002;

Anderson, 2004; Mokhtari, 2008).

4.3. Further studies

One of the main drawbacks of self-reports of reading strategies,

of course, is that they are simply reports. Further

investigations of actual practices when reading academic material

in English would be necessary in order to confirm if, when, and

how often reported strategies are invoked. For example, a recent

study by Mokhtari (2008), which examined real-time and reported

reading strategy use of tri-literate (French, Arabic, English)

college students reading in the three languages, found mostly

similar patterns of reported strategy use for each language read,

but some discrepancies between the strategies they reported using

on the SORS, and those that were observed when they did real-time

(think aloud) reading tasks. For the Arabic-speaking medical

students of the present study, it appears that bottom-up

strategies relating to translation deserve closer scrutiny since

differences in responses to the items relating to translating and

thinking about content in both languages were among the most

significant findings for medical students in different years.

For English teachers of readers in similar academic settings,

helping students overcome their dependence on laboriously

translating every line of text may be initially more important

than teaching metacognitive strategies that may eventually become

second nature to academic readers, regardless of initial language

proficiency. That is not to say that raising awareness of

reading strategies should be shunned in favour of decoding

activities, simply that different individual learners may need

help with either or both at different times in their reading

development. A number of studies (e.g. Auerbach & Paxton, 1999;

Carrell, Pharis & Liberto, 1989; Kern, 1989) have concluded that

explicit teaching of reading strategies such as semantic mapping,

using prior knowledge or context clues can be helpful. At the

same time, it has been suggested that students below a linguistic

threshold level may need to concentrate on grammar and vocabulary

before focusing on more global strategies (Koda, 2005; Lee and

Schallert, 1997; Usó -Joan, 2006).

5. Conclusion

One of the main goals of reading instruction for all academic

students is to develop their ability to become ‘constructively

responsive’ readers (Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995), able to use

their metacognitive awareness to monitor and overcome the reading

problems they encounter daily. While many tertiary students in

academic settings studying in an L2, such as the medical students

reported on in this study, may already be well on their way to

being fluent and confident readers, others may need some explicit

advising and training on how to enhance their reading skills. As

students progress from English courses to the demands of their

academic major, developing confidence in their ability to tackle

the reading difficulties they encounter will contribute greatly

to their ultimate success. In addition to alerting teachers to

possible gaps in students’ knowledge about how to deal with

academic reading, survey instruments such as the SORS can be

useful as teaching tools, to bring students’ attention to the

different strategies that make up reading ability, and to raise

their awareness of how they read.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Geoff Brindley, Anne Burns, Linda Cupples, and an anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments and suggestions on earlier versions of this paper.References

Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P. D. & Paris, S. 2008. Skills and strategies: Their differences, their

relationships and why it matters. In: Mokhtari, K., Sheorey, R. (Eds.), Reading strategies

of first- and second-language learners: See how they read. Norwood, MA, Christopher-

Gordon. pp. 11 – 24.

Al- Melhi, A. M., 1999. Analysis of Saudi college students’ reported and actual reading strategies along with their metacognitive awareness as they read in English as a Foreign

Language. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Michigan State University.

Al- Sheikh, N. O., 2002. An examination of the metacognitive reading strategies used by native

speakers of Arabic when reading academic texts in Arabic and

English. Unpublished EdD dissertation, Oklahoma State University.

Alderson, J. C., 1984. Reading in a foreign language: A reading problem or a language

problem? In: Alderson,J. C., Urquhart, A. H. (Eds.), Reading in a foreign language. Longman, London, pp. 1 - 24.

Alderson, J. C. 2000. Assessing reading. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Anderson, N. J., 1991. Individual differences in strategy use in L2 reading and testing.

The Modern Language Journal, 75, 460 – 472.

Anderson, N. J., 2004. Metacognitive reading strategy awareness of EFL and ESL learners.

CATESOL Journal, 16, 11 – 27.

Auerbach, E. R. , Paxton, D., 1999. “It’s not the English thing”: Bringing reading research into the ESL Classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 237 – 261.

Barnett, M., 1988. Reading through context: How real and perceived strategy use affects L2

reading comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 72, 150– 162.

Bernhardt, E. , Kamil, M., 1995. Interpreting relationships between L1 and L2 reading:

Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the linguistic interdependence hypotheses.

Applied Linguistics, 12, 206 – 218.

Block, E., 1986. The comprehension strategies of second language readers. TESOL Quarterly,

20, 463 – 494.

Block, E., 1992. See how they read: Comprehension monitoring of L1 and L2 readers. TESOL

Quarterly, 26, 319 – 343.

Carrell, P. L.,1989. Metacognitive awareness and L2 reading. TheModern Language Journal,

73, 121 – 134.

Carrell, P. L.,1991. Second language proficiency: Reading ability or language proficiency?

Applied Linguistics, 12, 159 – 179.

Carrell, P. L., Gadjusek, L. , Wise, T. 1998. Metacognition and EFL/ESL reading.

Instructional Science, 26, 97 – 112.

Carrell, P. L., Pharis, B. G., Liberto, J. C. 1989. Metacognitive strategy training for

ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 647 – 678.

Chen, Q. , Donin, J. 1997. Discourse processing of first and second language biology texts:

Effects of language proficiency and discipline-related knowledge. The Modern

Language Journal, 81, 209 – 227.

Clapham, C. 2001. Discipline specificity and EAP. In: Flowerdew, J., Peacock, N. (Eds.).

Research perspectives on English for academic purposes. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, pp. 84 - 100.

Clarke, M., 1980. The short-circuit hypotheses of ESL reading – or when language

competence interferes with reading performance. The Modern

Language Journal,64, 203 – 209.

Cohen, A., 1998. Strategies in learning and using a second language. Longman, London

Grabe, W., 1991. Current developments in second language reading research. TESOL

Quarterly, 25, 375 – 406.

Grabe, W., Stoller, F., 2003. Teaching and researching reading. Pearson

Education, Harlow, UK.

Green, R. M., Oxford, R., 1995. A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency and

gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 269 – 297.

Ikeda, M., Takeuchi, O., 2006. Clarifying the differences in learning EFL reading strategies.

An analysis of portfolios. System, 34, 384 – 398.

Kern, R. L., 1989. Second language reading strategy instruction:Its effects on comprehension

and word inference ability. The Modern Language Journal, 73, 135 – 149.

Kern, R.L., 1994. The role of mental translation in second language reading. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition, 16, 441 – 461.

Koda, K., 2005. Insights into second language reading: A cross-linguistic approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Laufer, B., 1997. The lexical plight in L2 reading: Words you don’t know, words you think you

know and words you can guess. In: Coady, C., Huckin, T. (Eds.). Second language

vocabulary acquisition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 20 – 34.

Lee, J-W., Schallert, D.L., 1997. The relative contribution of L2 language proficiency and L1 reading ability to L2 reading performance: A test of the threshold hypothesis in an EFL context. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 713 – 731.

Mokhtari, K. 2008. Perceived and real-time use of reading strategies by three proficient triliterate readers: A case study. In: In: Mokhtari, K., Sheorey, R. Reading strategies of

first- and second-language learners: See how they read. Christopher-Gordon Publishers,

Inc., Norwood, MA, pp. 143 – 160.

Mokhtari, K., Reichard, C. A., 2002. Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading

strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 249 – 259.

Mokhtari, K., Reichard, C. A., 2004. Investigating the strategicreading processes of first and

second language readers in different cultural contexts. System, 32, 379 – 394.

Mokhtari, K., Reichard, C. A., 2008. The impact of reading purpose on the use of reading

strategies. In: Mokhtari, K., Sheorey, R. Reading strategies of first- and second- language learners: See how they read. Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc., Norwood,

MA, pp. 85 – 98.

Mokhtari, K., Sheorey, R., 2002. Measuring ESL students’ awareness of reading strategies.

Journal of Developmental Education, 25, 2 – 9.

Nation, P., 2001. Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge.

Olshavsky, J., 1977. Reading as problem-solving: An investigation of strategies. Reading

Research Quarterly, 12, 654 – 674.

Oxford, R., 1990. Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know.

Heinle & Heinle, Boston.

Oxford, R., Nyikos, M., 1989. Variables affecting choice of language learning strategies by

university students. Modern Language Journal, 73, 291 – 300.

Phakiti, A., 2003. A closer look at gender and strategy use in L2 reading. Language Learning,

53, 649 – 702. Pressley, M., Afflerbach, P. , 1995. Verbal Protocols of Reading: the Nature of Constructively Responsive Reading. Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Stanovich, K. E., 1980. Toward an interactive-compensatory modelof individual differences in

the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 32 – 71.

Sheorey, R., Baboczky, E. S., 2008. Metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among

Hungarian college students. In: In: Mokhtari, K., Sheorey,

R. Reading strategies of first- and second-language learners: See how they read. Christopher-

Gordon Publishers, Inc., Norwood, MA, pp. 161 - 174.

Sheorey, R., Kamimura, Y., Freirmuth, M. R., 2008. Reading strategies of the users of English

as a library language: The case of Japanese ESP students. In: Mokhtari, K., Sheorey, R.

Reading strategies of first- and second-language learners: See how they read. Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc., Norwood, MA, pp. 175 -

184.

Sheorey, R., Mokhtari, K. , 2001. Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among native speakers and non-native speakers. System, 29, 431 – 449.

Upton, T. A.,1997. First and second language use in reading comprehension strategies of

Japanese ESL students. TESL – EJ, 3, 1. Retrieved 6/5/2005 from

http://writing.berkley.edu/TESOL-EJ/ej09/a3.html

Upton, T. A., Lee-Thompson, L-C., 2001. The role of the first language in second language

reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 469 – 495.

Usó-Joan, E., 2006. The compensatory nature of discipline-relatedknowledge and English

language proficiency in reading English for academic purposes. The Modern

Language Journal, 90, 210 – 227.

Vann, R. J., Abraham, R. G., 1990. Strategies of unsuccessful language learners.

TESOL Quarterly, 24, 177 – 198.

Zhang, L. J., 2001. Awareness in reading: EFL students’ metacognitive knowledge of

reading strategies in an acquisition-poor environment. Language Awareness, 10,

268 – 288.

Table 1: Demographic Breakdown of Study Participants Year One

Year Four

Country Male Female Total Male Female TotalUAE* --- 3 3 1 3 4Bahrain 10 22 32 7 17 24Kuwait 7 12 19 7 3 10KSA** 18 30 48 4 4 8Oman 1 5 6 2 2 4Other Arab

-- -- -- 2 -- 2

Total 36 72 108 23 29 52*United Arab Emirates ** Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Table 2: Differences in reported reading strategy use by Year

One and Year Four students [ANOVA]Year OneN =108

Year FourN=52

Name Strategy Mean SD Mean

SD F p-value

Meta1 Setting purpose for reading 3.61 0.88 3.69 1.07 0.25 0.613

Meta2 Using prior knowledge 3.74 1.15 3.81 0.97 0.13 0.719

Meta3 Previewing text before reading 3.60 1.26 3.23 1.19 3.14 0.078

Meta4 Checking how text fits purpose 3.28 1.17 3.28 1.01 0.00 0.955

Meta5 Skimming to note text characteristics

3.25 1.42 4.23 1.04 19.51

0.000

Meta6 Deciding what to read 3.64 1.03 3.61 0.95 0.03 0.848

Meta7 Using text features (e.g. tables)

4.06 1.01 4.55 0.69 9.95 0.002

Meta8 Using context clues 3.60 1.01 3.44 0.91 0.92 0.338

Meta9 Using typographical features 3.01 1.19 3.51 1.12 6.35 0.013

Meta10

Critically evaluating 2.75 1.16 3.53 0.89 18.42

0.000

Meta11

Checking understanding new information

3.95 0.98 3.84 0.77 0.48 0.489

Meta12

Guessing text meaning 3.39 1.09 3.25 1.04 0.66 0.417

Meta13

Confirming predictions 3.19 1.23 3.07 1.13 0.34 0.564

Cog1 Reading slowly and carefully 4.10 1.04 4.07 0.85 0.02 0.881

Cog2 Trying to stay focused 4.43 0.76 4.34 0.83 0.45 0.505

Cog3 Adjusting reading rate 3.87 1.05 4.21 0.84 4.11 0.044

Cog4 Paying close attention 4.37 0.78 4.32 0.80 0.11 0.745

Cog5 Pausing and thinking about reading

3.35 1.07 3.38 1.06 0.03 0.856

Cog6 Visualizing information 3.94 1.03 4.01 0.95 0.19 0.661

Cog7 Re-reading difficult text 4.25 0.99 4.34 0.78 0.37 0.543

Cog8 Guessing meaning of difficult words

3.72 0.89 3.86 1.02 0.81 0.368

Sup1 Taking notes 2.99 1.26 3.01 1.14 0.02 0.891

Sup2 Reading aloud difficult text 3.27 1.37 3.34 1.39 0.01 0.770

Sup3 Underlining, circling information

4.19 1.07 4.26 0.88 0.19 0.663

Sup4 Using reference materials (dictionary)

3.69 1.17 3.57 1.16 0.35 0.554

Sup5 Paraphrasing 3.77 1.09 3.76 0.78 0.00 0.960

Sup6 Going back and forth in text 3.59 1.00 3.75 1.04 0.84 0.361

Sup7 Asking myself questions 3.01 1.26 3.09 1.17 0.14 0.711

Sup8 Translating into Arabic 3.35 1.24 2.34 1.29 22.40

0.000

Sup9 Thinking about information in both English and Arabic

3.79 1.05 2.90 1.24 22.30

0.000

MRS Metacognitive reading strategies

3.47 0.46 3.79 0.40 17.46

0.000

CRS Cognitive reading strategies 3.99 0.47 4.12 0.48 2.86 0.093

SRS Support reading strategies 3.51 0.54 3.35 0.53 3.16 0.077

ORS Overall reading strategies 3.63 0.39 3.74 0.36 3.32 0.070

Table 3: Reading strategies reported being used MOST and LEAST by YearOne & Four Students

Year One Year FourName Strategy Name StrategyCog2 Trying to stay focused Meta7 Using text features (e.g. tables)Cog4 Paying close attention Cog2 Trying to stay focusedCog7 Re-reading difficult text Cog7 Re-reading difficult textSup3 Underlining, circling

informationCog4 Paying close attention

Cog1 Reading slowly and carefully Sup3 Underlining, circling informationMeta7 Using text

features(tables)Meta5 Skimming to note text

characteristics

Meta11

Checking understanding Cog3 Adjusting reading rate

Cog6 Visualizing information Cog1 Reading slowly and carefullyCog3 Adjusting reading rate Cog6 Visualizing informationSup9 Thinking in English and

ArabicCog8 Guessing meaning of difficult

wordsSup5 Paraphrasing Meta1

1Checking understanding new information

Meta2 Using prior knowledge Meta2 Using prior knowledgeCog8 Guessing meaning of

difficult wordsSup5 Paraphrasing

Sup4 Using reference materials Sup6 Going back and forth in textMeta6 Deciding what to read Meta1 Setting purpose for readingMeta1 Setting purpose for

readingMeta6 Deciding what to read

Meta7 Using context clues Sup4 Using reference materialsMeta3 Previewing text before

readingMeta10

Critically evaluating text

Sup6 Going back and forth in text

Meta9 Using typographical features

Meta12

Guessing text meaning Meta8 Using context clues

Sup8 Translating into Arabic Cog5 Pausing and thinking about reading

Cog5 Pausing & thinking about reading

Sup2 Reading aloud to understand

Meta4 Checking how text fits purpose

Meta4 Checking how text fits purpose

Sup2 Reading aloud to understand

Meta12

Guessing text meaning

Meta5 Skimming text characteristics

Meta3 Previewing text

Meta13

Confirming predictions Sup7 Asking myself questions

Sup7 Asking myself questions Meta13

Confirming predictions

Meta9 Using typographical features Sup1 Taking notesSup1 Taking notes Sup9 Thinking in English & ArabicMeta10

Critically evaluating Sup8 Translating into Arabic

Table 4: Differences in reported reading strategy use of low and high proficiency students in Years 1 & 4

Year One Year Four

Low[N=26]

High [N=26]

Low[N=12]

High[N=12]

No. Strategy Mean SD Mean SD F Pvalu

e

Mean SD Mean SD F Pvalu

eMeta1 Setting purpose for

reading3.54

0.47

3.69

0.48

0.88

0.548

3.33

1.15

3.25

1.48

0.02

0.879

Meta2 Using prior knowledge 3.58

1.21

4.15

0.97

3.62

0.063

3.25

1.96

2.92

1.08

0.63

0.435

Meta3 Previewing text before reading

3.81

1.33

3.30

0.99

0.99

0.348

4.08

0.99

4.17

1.19

0.03

0.854

Meta4 Checking how text fits purpose

3.46

0.99

3.46

1.14

.000

1.000

4.17

0.72

3.67

1.23

1.48

0.237

Meta5 Skimming to note text characteristics

3.23

1.50

2.92

1.52

0.54

0.467

3.83

1.27

4.08

0.67

0.36

0.552

Meta6 Deciding what to read 3.65

0.80

3.92

0.84

1.38

0.243

3.58

0.51

3.58

1.24

0.00

1.000

Meta7 Using text features (e.g. tables)

3.76

1.14

4.31

0.79

3.91

0.053

4.92

0.29

4.33

0.78

5.93

0.024

Meta8 Using context clues 3.65

0.85

3.73

1.04

0.08

0.771

3.92

0.67

3.92

0.79

0.00

1.000

Meta9 Using typographical features

2.77

1.21

3.54

1.27

4.99

0.030

3.67

0.98

3.42

0.79

0.47

0.501

Meta10

Critically evaluating 2.54

1.10

3.00

0.23

2.14

0.149

3.58

1.16

3.67

1.43

0.02

0.877

Meta11

Checking understanding new information

3.81

0.80

3.85

1.01

0.02

0.880

3.58

1.16

3.42

0.90

0.15

0.699

Meta12

Guessing text meaning 361 1.06

3.15

1.05

2.49

0.121

3.67

0.49

3.08

0.79

4.69

0.042

Meta13

Confirming predictions 3.11

1.24

2.88

1.18

0.47

0.495

3.42

0.97

3.08

1.08

0.61

0.441

Cog1 Reading slowly and carefully

4.08

1.16

3.96

1.04

0.14

0.708

4.42

0.51

3.83

1.11

2.71

0.114

Cog2 Trying to stay focused 4.31

0.88

4.53

0.65

1.15

0.288

4.58

0.51

4.33

0.65

1.09

0.308

Cog3 Adjusting reading rate 3.39

0.97

4.46

0.76

10.12

0.003

4.33

0.65

4.08

0.97

0.53

0.475

Cog4 Paying close attention 4.23

0.71

4.61

0.64

4.22

0.045

4.50

0.52

4.50

0.52

0.00

1.000

Cog5 Pausing and thinking 3.5 1.0 3.3 0.8 0.5 0.4 3.3 1.3 3.7 0.8 0.8 0.3

about reading 3 7 5 5 2 75 3 0 5 7 5 66Cog6 Visualizing information 3.6

91.05

4.19

1.02

3.03

0.088

3.50

0.90

4.42

0.79

6.97

0.015

Cog7 Re-reading difficult text

4.23

0.95

4.46

0.99

0.73

0.395

4.58

0.67

4.42

0.67

0.37

0.548

Cog8 Guessing meaning of difficult words

3.50

0.95

3.73

0.87

0.83

0.366

4.00

0.74

3.67

1.23

0.65

0.430

Sup1 Taking notes 2.96

1.22

2.88

1.31

0.05

0.827

3.08

1.31

3.00

1.13

0.03

0.869

Sup2 Reading aloud difficulttext

2.92

1.44

3.35

1.52

1.06

0.308

3.25

1.54

3.42

1.56

0.07

0.795

Sup3 Underlining, circling information

3.81

1.27

4.46

0.95

4.45

0.040

4.25

0.87

4.25

1.05

0.00

1.000

Sup4 Using reference materials (dictionary)

3.69

1.26

3.19

1.27

2.04

0.159

3.67

0.78

2.83

1.19

4.10

0.055

Sup5 Paraphrasing 3.73

1.22

4.00

1.23

0.63

0.432

3.58

0.90

3.67

0.49

0.08

0.780

Sup6 Going back and forth intext

3.35

1.05

3.31

1.12

0.01

0.899

3.75

1.14

3.50

1.31

0.25

0.623

Sup7 Asking myself questions 2.50

1.14

3.19

1.33

4.07

0.049

3.42

2.26

3.33

0.98

0.04

0.852

Sup8 Translating into Arabic 3.96

1.00

3.00

1.30

8.97

0.004

2.92

1.44

1.58

1.00

6.94

0.015

Sup9 Thinking about information in both English and Arabic

3.88

0.87

3.65

1.20

0.63

0.429

3.50

1.31

2.33

1.07

5.67

0.026

MRS Metacognitive reading strategies

3.54

0.49

3.5 0.51

0.07

0.787

3.76

0.48

3.56

0.43

1.15

0.296

CRS Cognitive reading strategies

4.08

0.41

3.91

0.44

1.94

0.170

4.17

0.31

4.21

0.44

0.07

0.790

SRS Support reading strategies

3.49

0.59

3.46

0.52

0.04

0.847

3.49

0.74

3.09

0.48

2.48

0.130

ORS Overall reading strategies

3.68

0.43

3.60

0.38

0.53

0.471

3.76

0.44

3.57

0.36

0.53

0.471

TOEFL [Year One admission]

362.7

27.63

553.3

4.28

196.3

0.000

390.6

26.01

598.6

25.30

394.5

0.000

TOEFL reading 34 4.28

52 6.92

139.1

0.000

38 3.52

58 3.53

195.1

0.000