Investigating the strategic reading processes of first and second language readers in two different cultural contexts

SYSTEM System 32 (2004) 379–394 www.elsevier.com/locate/system

Investigating the strategic reading processes of first and second language readers in two different cultural contexts Kouider Mokhtari a

a,*

, Carla Reichard

b

Department of Teacher Education, School of Education and Allied Professions, Miami University, Oxford, OH 45056, USA b Institutional Research, Miami University, Oxford, OH 45056, USA

Received 26 September 2003; received in revised form 29 March 2004; accepted 5 April 2004

Abstract This study investigated whether significant differences exist between first and second language readers in their metacognitive awareness and perceived use of specific strategies when reading for academic purposes in English. Three hundred and fifty college students (141 US and 209 Moroccan) completed an instrument designed to measure their metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. The results revealed that despite the fact that the two student groups had been schooled in significantly different socio-cultural environments, they reported remarkably similar patterns of strategy awareness and reported usage when reading academic materials in English. Where differences were found, Moroccan students reported using certain types of strategies more often than did their American counterparts. These findings help to explain some of the differences and similarities between second language readers and those reading in their first language, which have only been seen in terms of deficiencies but not in other, presumably more beneficial or even neutral ways. Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Reading strategies; Metacognition; First and second language readers; Cognitive processes in reading; College students as readers

*

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-513-529-6443; fax: +1-513-529-4931. E-mail address: [email protected] (K. Mokhtari).

0346-251X/$ - see front matter Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.system.2004.04.005

380

K. Mokhtari, C. Reichard / System 32 (2004) 379–394

1. Introduction There is a generally accepted reality among first and second language reading researchers and practitioners that students who must study in a second or foreign language are almost always at a disadvantage, particularly in the areas of reading and writing. The portrayal of English language learners as ‘‘at-risk’’ learners with ‘‘bundles of problems’’ has been well documented in national surveys of academic achievement (e.g., Applebee et al., 1987; Mullis et al., 1993), and actively encouraged by a tradition of research, which involves a persistent search for disabling attributes of non-mainstream learners (e.g., Carson, 1992; Field and Aebersold, 1990). This type of research has successfully promoted lasting misconceptions of such learners as ‘marginalized’ and less able learners whose ‘‘cultures place different emphasis and value on various cognitive abilities’’ (Field and Aebersold, 1990, p. 39). Examples of such misconceptions include claims that in some cultures, such as Morocco and Western Samoa, the cognitive and analytical skills and strategies required in reading comprehension are not promoted because ‘‘rote memorization and oral memorization constitute reading instruction’’ (Field and Aebersold, 1990, p. 41). These misconceptions, which are unfortunately quite common among some educators, have important practical implications for the way educators interact with these learners. A more constructive type of second language research, initiated by a few research teams (e.g., Jimenez, 1997; Jimenez et al., 1995, 1996; Sheorey and Mokhtari, 2001), encourages a search for a more accurate and complete characterization of second language readers and a search for ‘‘enabling, rather than disabling, attributes of nonmainstream populations’’ (Jimenez et al., 1995, p. 68). A particularly unique characteristic of this type of research is that it takes into account not just the product of comprehension (how readers perform on given comprehension tasks), but also the cognitive processes involved while reading which are typically not able to be detected through traditional reading tests. For example, in two studies aimed at describing and understanding the metacognitive knowledge and strategic reading processes of proficient and less proficient bilingual readers, Jimenez et al. (1995, 1996) reported that proficient biliterate readers (in English and Spanish), like expert monolingual readers, demonstrated remarkable strategic abilities when reading. Indeed, many biliterate and multi-literate readers, who are proficient English readers, possess a qualitatively unique fund of strategic knowledge and skills that is invoked when dealing with diverse textual materials. In a small case study, Jimenez et al. (1995) showed how one excellent Spanish– English bilingual reader invoked similar strategies for successfully identifying words and comprehending text in both languages. Evidence from a larger-scale study by Jimenez et al. (1996) found that successful (Latina/o) bilingual readers possess an enhanced awareness of the relationship between their two languages, and that this awareness leads them to successfully use the bilingual strategies of searching for cognates and using them as a source of knowledge, actively using prior knowledge, and translating. These results indicate that expert biliterate readers make use of what they know in one language in order to make meaning in the second language. Un-

K. Mokhtari, C. Reichard / System 32 (2004) 379–394

381

fortunately, too often, these readers are discounted as inconsistencies or exceptions to the general trend. Research addressing metacognitive awareness and use of reading strategies by first and second language readers of English has shown that important reading strategies which deal with planning, controlling, and evaluating one’s understanding (e.g., setting purpose for reading, prediction, summarization, questioning, use of text structural features, self-monitoring, etc.) are widely used by first and second language readers (Sheorey and Mokhtari, 2001). In addition, the supply of strategies used by proficient bilingual and biliterate readers often includes some strategies (e.g., code mixing, translation, use of cognates) that may be unique and particularly useful to reading in a second language (Jimenez et al., 1995, 1996). For instance, in a study that examined the reading strategies used by 20 Chinese proficient college students when reading easy and difficult texts in English and Chinese, Feng and Mokhtari (1998) found that readers invoked a wide-ranging supply of strategies while reading in English and in Chinese; however, a majority of the strategies used when reading were used more frequently in English than in Chinese. In addition, more strategies were used when the subjects read difficult texts than when they read easy texts. In a more recent study aimed at examining differences in the metacognitive awareness and perceived use of reading strategies among 105 United States (US) and English as a Second language (ESL) university students in the US, Sheorey and Mokhtari (2001) found that both US and ESL students demonstrated a high level of awareness of various reading strategies. They also found that US female students reported a significantly higher usage of reading strategies than did their male counterparts, and that the use of reading strategies was associated with higher levels of reading ability for both groups of students. These findings are consistent with earlier studies (e.g., Calero-Breckheimer and Goetz, 1993; Jimenez, 1997; Jimenez et al., 1995, 1996) whose research has focused on how bilingualism and biliteracy in English and Spanish affect metacognition. In one study, Jimenez et al. (1995) focused on understanding what eight bilingual Latina/o sixth and seventh grade students in the US knew about their reading processes and use of their reading strategies across two languages, how they used certain strategies while reading, and under what conditions they invoked such strategies. For comparative purposes, they included a smaller sample of three monolingual Anglo students considered to be successful English readers, and three bilingual Latino/a students considered to be marginally successful English readers. Using mixed methodologies (namely, think-alouds, interviews, a measure of prior knowledge, and passage recalls), they compared the types of strategies that both successful and less successful readers used in their English reading. Their research has several important findings. First, successful bilingual readers ‘‘tended to have a unitary view of reading; that is, they recognized the many similarities between reading in Spanish and English’’ (Garcia et al., 1998, p. 202). Second, virtually all of the successful bilingual readers demonstrated awareness of several strategies, with some limited actual use of certain strategies (namely use of cognates, code-switching, and translation) that are quite unique to their bilingual status. Finally, the successful bilingual readers were aware of the ‘‘transference of knowledge’’ across languages. In other words, they

382

K. Mokhtari, C. Reichard / System 32 (2004) 379–394

‘‘knew that information and strategies learned or acquired in one language could be used to comprehend text written in another language’’ (Garcia et al., 1998, p. 204). On the other hand, the less successful bilingual readers were found to not have a unitary view of reading. Rather, they ‘‘believed that the two languages were more different than similar and that knowledge of one was not useful for reading the others’’ (p. 211). In addition, because they saw the two languages as unconnected, they did not believe it was worthwhile to invoke strategies such as searching for cognates, code mixing, and translation. Garcia and her colleagues concluded that ‘‘heightened metacognitive awareness as applied to reading is not an automatic outcome of children’s bilingualism or bilingual education’’ (p. 213). In other words, the less successful students, who are often unaware of their own cognitive processes, must be helped to acquire and use the reading strategies that have been found to be successful. Space does not permit an extensive synthesis of this distinctive line of research; however, we refer the reader to Garcia et al. (1998) for an excellent review of the historical attitudes towards bilingualism in the US and the different types of research conducted on bilingual children’s metacognitive and metalinguistic awareness. Despite the rapidly expanding research base on various aspects of second and foreign language reading, a limited amount of research work has focused on documenting the types of metacognitive reading strategies proficient native and nonnative readers use while reading in English. In addition, virtually no research currently exists which investigates the metacognitive awareness and use of reading strategies by proficient college readers studying in different social, cultural, and linguistic contexts. Most of the research available has tended to focus on monolingual and bilingual children with similar backgrounds on specific metacognitive knowledge, metalinguistic skills, and reading performance. With few exceptions, most of the research on the reading strategies of first and second language readers has dealt with students at lower levels of proficiency or those studying at the secondary school or in pre-university programs – see August and Hakuta (1997) and Snow et al. (1998) for an extensive review and discussion of these lines of research. However, it is important to note that while the lines of research such as the above have not addressed metacognitive reading among students varying in cultural, linguistic, and educational backgrounds, they have contributed a great deal to our understanding of how bilingualism and biliteracy influence metacognition and reading development. The research work that serves as the focus of the present study is informed by these research efforts, but focuses more specifically on understanding the differences in metacognitive awareness and perceived use of reading strategies by proficient college students studying in two culturally and linguistically different environments, namely the US and Morocco. 1.1. Aims of the present study This study is part of a series of investigations aimed at understanding differences in metacognitive awareness and perceived strategy by proficient US college students who are native speakers of English and Moroccan college students who are native

K. Mokhtari, C. Reichard / System 32 (2004) 379–394

383

speakers of Arabic and French, but speak English as a foreign language. One of the unique features of the present study is that while both Moroccan and US students were comparable in reading ability, they were students studying in two significantly different instructional contexts: the US students were studying in an American university, while the Moroccan students were studying in a Moroccan university. A second distinctive characteristic of the present study is that one of the student groups (Moroccan students) was triliterate; that is, they speak and regularly use three languages (namely, Arabic, French, and English) – two of which differ significantly in terms of direction, orthography, lexicon, and syntax. A third strength of the present study is that the data were collected in the cultural context of the two student populations involved. The main objective of the present research is to explore the question of whether significant differences exist between Moroccan and US students in their metacognitive awareness and perceived use of specific reading strategies when reading in English. The underlying reason in undertaking this cross-cultural study is that the reading potential of multilingual and multi-literate students is often underestimated and mistakenly perceived as a problem among literacy educators, and that careful study of the metacognitive knowledge and strategies of these readers reveals that strategic reading can be associated with all learners, including those often labeled as disadvantaged, marginalized, and at-risk.

2. Method 2.1. Subjects The subjects in this study consisted of 350 college students (209 Moroccan and 141 US). The students, who were predominantly undergraduate freshmen and sophomores, were admitted to their respective universities for full-time academic study, representing majors in the social sciences and humanities. Background information collected during the course of the study indicated that, for the most part, Moroccan and US students share similar characteristics relative to age (Moroccan mean age ¼ 21.64; US mean age ¼ 20.81), level of education (i.e., college freshmen), language of instruction (i.e., English), and gender distribution (Moroccan 45% males vs. 55% females; US 56% males vs. 44% females). However, the instructional setting in which the study took place differs in important ways. 2.2. Instructional/research setting The subjects were studying in two different instructional settings (Morocco and US), which represent significantly different societies and cultures. The place of instruction is significant in this study, particularly with respect to the language of the students’ initial literacy acquisition and to the instructional practices used in teaching children to read. Unlike the US, which is essentially a monolingual society, Morocco is a multilingual country in which three primary language systems coexist: Arabic,

384

K. Mokhtari, C. Reichard / System 32 (2004) 379–394

Berber, and French. Languages such as English, Spanish, Russian, German, and other world languages are learned as foreign languages. The degree of multilingualism is often determined by the students’ level of education, ethnic background, and place of origin. For example, educated Moroccans often use Arabic and French, while Arabic and Berber are typically used interchangeably in many rural areas. Consistent with established educational policies, all Moroccan children acquire initial literacy in Arabic, and subsequently in French, which begins about third grade. Unlike Roman alphabets, such those used in English and French, the written Arabic differs in terms of script and direction (Arabic is read from right to left; English and French are read from left to right), orthography (Arabic has 28 letters; English has 26), lexicon, and syntax. However, despite such differences, research has shown that the literacy skills and strategies acquired in a first language transfer into second or third literacies across language systems with similar orthographies such as Spanish and English (e.g., Anderson, 1991; Jimenez et al., 1995, 1996; Pardon et al., 1986; Calero-Breckheimer and Goetz, 1993) as well as across languages with radically different orthographies, such as Arabic, Berber, and French (e.g., Wagner, 1993) or Chinese and English (e.g., Feng and Mokhtari, 1998). Research has shown that literacy is characterized in different ways in different socio-cultural contexts. Whereas in the Western World, literacy is seen within the context of formal schooling, in societies such as Morocco, ‘‘formal schooling is only one factor that imparts literacy in society’’ (Wagner, 1993, p. 12). According to Wagner, who has spent over 10 years studying literacy in Morocco, to be fully understood and appreciated, literacy within the Moroccan context must be viewed within a much broader perspective, which includes the ‘‘skills, knowledge, and beliefs about literacy’’ acquired in and out of school. This view of literacy takes into account factors that are important in understanding literacy including age, gender, language background, and the environment in which literacy operates. However, it is important to note that while the theoretical foundations and instructional approaches used in teaching reading may be similar in some ways in both instructional settings, the US students who study in American educational institutions have two clear advantages over Moroccan students who study in Moroccan institutions. First, US students have much easier access to educational resources (e.g., libraries) than do their student counterparts in Moroccan institutions. Second, whereas both US and Moroccan students were studying academic subjects using the same language (i.e., English), it is considered a native language for the American students, but a foreign language for the Moroccan students. 2.3. Data collection 2.3.1. Archival records Data collection records indicate that the Moroccan students had studied English as a Foreign Language for approximately five years, and had a demonstrated level of English proficiency considered by the admitting university to be sufficient to pursue university-level course work without any language-related restrictions (generally equivalent to a score of 500–550 on the TOEFL test). Similarly, the American stu-

K. Mokhtari, C. Reichard / System 32 (2004) 379–394

385

dents had to submit documentation (e.g., ACT scores [mean ¼ 22]) establishing a level of reading proficiency considered by the admitting university to be sufficient for successful academic study. Reading ability was further determined by having the students rate themselves as readers in English on a scale from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). The ratings were used to form a student profile with respect to their overall perceived English reading ability. The results indicated that both Moroccan and US students gave themselves an above average rating (Moroccan mean rating ¼ 3.6, SD ¼ 0.80; US mean rating ¼ 3.4, SD ¼ 0.68). 2.3.2. Assessment of metacognitive awareness of reading strategies The students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies was assessed through the use of the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies inventory (MARSI) (Mokhtari and Reichard, 2002), which was designed for measuring adolescent and adult students’ awareness and use of reading strategies while reading academic or school-related materials. The MARSI instrument (see appendix) measures three broad categories of strategies including: (1) Global Reading Strategies (GLOB), which can be thought of as generalized or global reading strategies aimed at setting the stage for the reading act (e.g., setting purpose for reading, previewing text content, predicting what the text is about, etc.); (2) Problem-Solving Strategies (PROB), which are localized, focused problem-solving or repair strategies used when problems develop in understanding textual information (e.g., checking one’s understanding upon encountering conflicting information, re-reading for better understanding, etc.); and (3) Support Reading Strategies (SUP), which involve using the support mechanisms or tools aimed at sustaining responsiveness to reading (e.g., use of reference materials like dictionaries and other support systems). These three classes of strategies interact with and support each other when used in the process of constructing meaning from text. The 30-item instrument was validated using large subject populations representing students with equivalent reading abilities ranging from middle school to college. The internal consistency reliability coefficients for its three documented subscales (Global, Problem-Solving, and Support Reading strategies) ranged from 0.89 to 0.93 and reliability for the total sample was 0.93, indicating a reasonably dependable measure of metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. A complete description of MARSI, including its psychometric properties as well as its theoretical and research foundations, can be found in Mokhtari and Reichard (2002). 2.3.3. Procedures The MARSI instrument was administered to the subjects in a similar way in Morocco and in the US It was administered during a regular class period, with the help of the classroom instructors who were familiar with the overall objective of the research project. After a brief overview of the purpose of the study, a description of the instrument, and an explanation of the steps involved in completing it, the students were instructed to read each of the 30 statements in the MARSI inventory, and circle the number which best described their perceived use of the strategies described in the statements using a Likert scale ranging from 1 (I never or almost never use this

386

K. Mokhtari, C. Reichard / System 32 (2004) 379–394

strategy) to 5 (I always or almost always use this strategy). The students were also advised to work at their own pace and reminded to keep in mind reading academic or school-related materials (such as textbooks) while responding to the strategy statements. Finally, they were told that there were no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ responses to the statements and that they could take as much time as they needed to complete the inventory. On the average, the US students completed it in 12 min, while it took the Moroccan students nearly 15 min.

3. Results The results obtained are presented in Tables 1 and 2. Table 1 contains data pertaining to the research question: Are there any significant differences between Moroccan and US students in the strategies they reported using while reading in English? An omnibus MANOVA was used to determine whether there were overall differences between Moroccan and US students on some strategies. All four MANOVA tests (Wilks’ Lambda, Pillai’s Trace, Hotelling-Lawley Trace and Roy’s Greatest Root) were equal to (4.73, 3), which gives a probability of 0.003 that the difference is due to chance. Following procedures outlined in Stevens (1992), we set the overall alpha level at 0.05, and the alpha level for subsequent univariate tests at 0.003, to control the experimentwise error rate. Note that since there are only two groups, no further post-hoc comparisons are needed. Table 1 shows that all of the subscales (Global, Problem-Solving and Support strategy categories) and fourteen of the individual strategies showed significant differences between US and Moroccan students. In all but two strategies, Moroccan students reported greater strategy use than US students. US students were more likely to use text features such as tables (GLOB7) and were more likely to report visualizing the information read (PROB6). As Table 1 shows, for US students, the means of individual strategy use ranged from a high of 4.04 (going back and forth in the text) to a low of 2.18 (guessing meaning of unknown words), with an overall reported strategy usage mean of 3.25 (SD ¼ 0.49). For Moroccan students, the means of individual strategy usage ranged from a high of 4.46 (using context clues) to a low of 2.63 (determining what to read; visualizing information read), with an overall reported strategy mean of 3.44 (SD ¼ 0.49). A closer examination of Table 1 shows that for US students, 8 of the 30 strategies reported (27%) fell in the high usage category (mean of 3.5 or higher), two strategies (7%) fell in the low usage category (mean below 2.4), while the remaining 20 strategies (66%) had means between 2.5 and 3.49 indicating medium usage of these strategies. For Moroccan students, 15 of the 30 (50%) strategies reported fell in the high usage category, while the remaining 15 strategies (50%) had means in the medium use range. None of the strategies had mean values below 2.50 (low usage). Table 2 compares the strategies used by US and Moroccan students in order from most to least used. The top five and bottom five for each group are highlighted. For the most part, US and Moroccan students agreed on the relative usage of individual strategies, but there were a few noticeable differences, including visualizing infor-

Table 1 Differences in metacognitive awareness of reading strategies by US and Moroccan students Name

Strategy

US (n ¼ 141)

Moroccan (n ¼ 209)

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

t (348)

p-Value

Setting purpose for reading Using prior knowledge Previewing text before reading Checking how text content fits purpose Skimming to note text characteristics Determining what to read Using text features (e.g., tables) Using context clues Using typographical aids (e.g., italics) Critically evaluating what is read Resolving conflicting information Predicting or guessing text meaning Confirming predictions

3.58 3.38 3.08 2.89 3.93 2.94 3.35 3.95 2.84 2.94 3.22 3.31 2.70

0.91 0.95 1.07 1.08 1.04 1.07 1.19 0.98 0.98 0.95 1.36 0.99 1.13

3.70 4.24 3.66 2.74 4.32 2.63 2.67 4.46 2.72 3.13 3.18 3.95 3.13

1.25 1.05 1.26 1.33 1.04 1.29 1.49 0.90 1.18 1.10 1.55 0.98 1.19

0.02 58.13 18.82 1.08 6.86 3.12 9.00 23.47 0.35 2.85 0.38 33.54 11.38

0.877 0.000 0.000 0.298 0.009 0.079 0.003 0.000 0.557 0.092 0.536 0.000 0.001

PROB1 PROB2 PROB3 PROB4 PROB5 PROB6 PROB7 PROB8

Reading slowly and carefully Trying to stay focused on reading Adjusting reading rate Paying close attention to reading Pausing and thinking about reading Visualizing information read Re-reading for better understanding Guessing meaning of unknown words

3.49 3.91 2.30 3.31 2.84 3.88 2.98 2.18

0.93 1.07 1.12 1.00 1.02 1.01 1.23 1.11

3.48 3.67 3.01 3.53 3.62 2.63 4.07 2.97

1.26 1.29 1.38 1.14 1.15 1.33 1.03 1.25

0.42 0.98 26.62 5.42 39.37 60.08 63.72 35.50

0.515 0.323 0.000 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

SUP1 SUP2 SUP3 SUP4 SUP5 SUP6

Taking notes while reading Reading aloud when text becomes hard Summarizing text information Discussing reading with others Underlining information in text Using reference materials

3.33 3.60 2.95 3.09 3.25 3.25

0.87 1.09 1.27 1.07 1.04 0.93

3.23 4.27 2.74 3.28 3.49 3.68

1.33 0.93 1.28 1.38 1.30 1.11

0.27 26.87 1.77 0.99 3.28 15.16

0.600 0.000 0.184 0.321 0.071 0.000

K. Mokhtari, C. Reichard / System 32 (2004) 379–394

GLOB1 GLOB2 GLOB3 GLOB4 GLOB5 GLOB6 GLOB7 GLOB8 GLOB9 GLOB10 GLOB11 GLOB12 GLOB13

387

388

Name

Strategy

US (n ¼ 141)

Moroccan (n ¼ 209)

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

t (348)

p-Value

SUP7 SUP8 SUP9

Paraphrasing for better understanding Going back and forth in text Asking oneself questions

3.81 4.04 3.31

0.97 0.86 1.24

3.68 4.13 4.15

1.21 1.00 1.06

0.63 1.56 40.01

0.427 0.213 0.000

GLOB PROB SUP ORS

Global Reading Strategies Problem-Solving Strategies Support Reading Strategies Overall Reading Strategies

3.23 3.10 3.39 3.25

0.52 0.60 0.68 0.49

3.39 3.34 3.59 3.44

0.49 0.64 0.59 0.49

8.72 12.89 10.21

0.003 0.000 0.001

K. Mokhtari, C. Reichard / System 32 (2004) 379–394

Table 1 (continued)

Table 2 Reading strategies reported being used MOST and LEAST by US and Moroccan students US students (n ¼ 141)

Moroccan students (n ¼ 209) Name

Strategy

Going back and forth in text Using context clues Skimming to note text characteristics Trying to stay focused on reading Visualizing information read

GLOB8 GLOB5 SUP2 GLOB2 SUP9

Using context clues Skimming to note text characteristics Reading aloud when text becomes hard Using prior knowledge Asking oneself questions

SUP7 SUP2 GLOB1 PROB1 GLOB2 GLOB7 SUP1 GLOB12 PROB4 SUP9 SUP5 SUP6 GLOB11 SUP4 GLOB3 PROB7 SUP3 GLOB6 GLOB10 GLOB4

Paraphrasing for better understanding Reading aloud when text becomes hard Setting purpose for reading Reading slowly and carefully Using prior knowledge Using text features (e.g., tables) Taking notes while reading Predicting or guessing text meaning Paying close attention to reading Asking oneself questions Underlining information in text Using reference materials Resolving conflicting information Discussing reading with others Previewing text before reading Re-reading for better understanding Summarizing text information Determining what to read Critically evaluating what is read Checking how text content fits purpose

SUP8 PROB7 GLOB12 GLOB1 SUP6 SUP7 PROB2 GLOB3 PROB5 PROB4 SUP5 PROB1 SUP4 SUP1 GLOB11 GLOB13 GLOB10 PROB3 PROB8 SUP3

Going back and forth in text Re-reading for better understanding Predicting or guessing text meaning Setting purpose for reading Using reference materials Paraphrasing for better understanding Trying to stay focused on reading Previewing text before reading Pausing and thinking about reading Paying close attention to reading Underlining information in text Reading slowly and carefully Discussing reading with others Taking notes while reading Resolving conflicting information Confirming predictions Critically evaluating what is read Adjusting reading rate Guessing meaning of unknown words Summarizing text information

GLOB9 PROB5 GLOB13 PROB3 PROB8

Using typographical aids (e.g., italics) Pausing and thinking about reading Confirming predictions Adjusting reading rate Guessing meaning of unknown words

GLOB4 GLOB9 GLOB7 PROB6 GLOB6

Checking how text content fits purpose Using typographical aids (e.g., italics) Using text features (e.g., tables) Visualizing information read Determining what to read

389

Strategy

SUP8 GLOB8 GLOB5 PROB2 PROB6

K. Mokhtari, C. Reichard / System 32 (2004) 379–394

Name

390

K. Mokhtari, C. Reichard / System 32 (2004) 379–394

mation (PROB6), using text features such as tables (GLOB7), and pausing to think about reading (PROB5). Both the lowest five and highest five categories showed a mix of global, problem solving, and support strategies.

4. Discussion In this study, native speakers of English (in US) and proficient multilingual speakers of English (Moroccan) completed a 30-item scale of metacognitive awareness of various reading strategies when reading in English. The data, which were collected in the cultural contexts of the two groups involved, revealed that despite the fact that the two student groups have been schooled in significantly different socio-cultural environments (namely US and Morocco), they exhibited remarkably similar patterns of strategy awareness and reported usage when reading college-level materials in English. Where differences were found, Moroccan students reported using certain types of strategies more often than did their American counterparts. 4.1. Overall reported strategy usage

Mean Strategy Use

The data obtained concerning overall strategy use (see Table 1 and Fig. 1) show that both US and Moroccan students demonstrated a moderate to high awareness level of reading strategies despite the differences found between the two groups, with the Moroccan students reporting a slightly higher overall usage level than US students. The similarities in overall reported strategy use between the two groups are quite intriguing in light of the fact that for the Moroccan students, strategy use pertains to English, their third language of instruction. One possible explanation is that these readers are presumably skilled readers as indicated by their ratings of their

3.7 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.1 3 2.9 2.8

US Moroccan

GLOB

PROB

SUP

ALL

Strategy Categories Fig. 1. Mean reported strategy use by US and Moroccan students.

K. Mokhtari, C. Reichard / System 32 (2004) 379–394

391

ability to read in English [94% of Moroccan students (88% of US students) rated their ability to read as ‘‘good’’ or ‘‘excellent’’]. This explanation appears to be consistent with prior research, which has shown that good readers, regardless of native language background, do invoke effective reading strategies to solve reading comprehension difficulties (Jimenez et al., 1995, 1996; Sheorey and Mokhtari, 2001). Although it is difficult to determine to which language or languages (first, second, or third language) such strategies could be attributed, the reading skills and strategies multi-literate readers possess have been shown to be transferable from one language to another. In fact, such a transfer has been shown to occur not only across languages that share a similar script such as English and Spanish (e.g., Jimenez et al., 1996), but also across languages that have radically different orthographies such as Arabic and French (e.g., Wagner, 1993) or English and Chinese (e.g., Feng and Mokhtari, 1998). 4.2. Strategy use preferences An examination of the type of strategies reported used by the subjects (see Tables 1 and 2) shows that despite the mean usage differences noted, both groups of students reported invoking a moderate to high strategy awareness level with a clear preference for using problem-solving strategies, followed by support strategies, and global reading strategies. Within these strategy use patterns, two strategy usage differences between the two groups of students are especially worth highlighting. First, the Moroccan subjects reported a significantly higher level of strategy use on most of the strategies than US students. Several of these appear to be fairly critical when reading for understanding, including ‘‘predicting text meaning’’, ‘‘paying close attention to reading’’, and ‘‘re-reading for better understanding’’. Second, the only strategies which the US students reported using significantly more than Moroccans were visual features such as ‘‘using text features such as tables’’, and ‘‘visualizing information read’’. Note that text-based or support strategies such as using typographical aids and other text features fell in the bottom five strategies used by Moroccan students (see Table 2). One possible explanation for the low reported usage of these strategies may have something to do with differences in the way US and Moroccan textbooks are written. Textbooks produced in the US are more likely than Moroccan textbooks to use features such as italics, bold face, and tables as a way of organizing and presenting information. In most cases, the organizational structure of Moroccan textbooks is not as obvious to the reader; such textbooks are often not nearly as reader-friendly in terms of organization and presentation as US textbooks. Consequently, Moroccan students may not allocate much attention to using textual features. The main findings of this study are important in several ways. First, the data available help dispel the myth that second and foreign language readers are often ‘‘at-risk’’ of failure when studying in a second or foreign language. The finding that many of the problem-solving strategies associated with skilled reading are commonly invoked uniformly by native and non-native speakers of English is evidently inconsistent with claims that students in some societies and cultures, such as Morocco

392

K. Mokhtari, C. Reichard / System 32 (2004) 379–394

and Western Samoa, are at a disadvantage in reading because their societies fail to promote logical and cognitive skills and strategies (see especially Field and Aebersold, 1990). Such claims are unsubstantiated and sadly disappointing, especially in light of what we know about the complex relationships among language, literacy, and culture in general, in societies as complex socially, culturally, and linguistically as Morocco or Western Samoa. These speculations are inconsistent with prior research work in this area. For instance, in his extensive research about literacy, culture, and societal change in Morocco, Wagner (1993) found that the development of metacognitive beliefs about reading and reading strategies (e.g., acquiring concepts about print such as directionality, structural features of text, and metacognitive aspects of text-processing strategies) appears to occur at the same time that children receive instruction in reading. His analyses of French literacy acquisition among Moroccan school children showed that readers who perform better in first literacy tend to have an easier time acquiring a second literacy, whether this literacy is in a second language (for Moroccan Arabic speakers) or a third language (for Berber speakers). According to Wagner (1993), Arabic literacy skills explained nearly 50% of the total variance in French literacy acquisition among Moroccan school children. Such a relationship between first (Arabic) and second (French) literacy, in the case of Moroccan students, increased with time, as magnitude in proficiency was gained in each literacy. Wagner also found that ‘‘cognitive ability was related to Arabic literacy, but much less so to French literacy, a result that supports the hypothesis that, independent of overall intellectual ability, first literacy learning has a direct impact on second literacy learning’’ (p. 181). Second, the findings from this study support the prevailing view that second language readers need to be considered distinctive and different from first language readers. Indeed, the data indicate that second language readers do differ in some important ways from first language readers and that ways of thinking about literacy differ appreciably across cultures. However, the differences between first language readers and those reading in their second language have not been considered in a sensible fashion. In other words, such differences have only been seen in terms of deficiencies but not in other, presumably more beneficial or even neutral ways. In a thought-provoking article on ‘new directions in reading research’, Bernhardt (2003), a leading researcher in second language reading, argues convincingly that ‘‘reading research has been marked historically by the overgeneralization that first language and second language are essentially the same’’ (p. 112). She challenges the ‘sameness’ claim made by researchers (e.g., Fitzgerald, 2003) arguing that first and second language reading research is almost exclusively ‘English-language based’, a reality promoted by ‘‘an overwhelmingly English speaking North American/British/ Australian literacy industry that drives teacher education policy and academic publishing certainly plays a role’’ (p. 113). Bernhardt insists that second language readers cannot be accurately and completely defined as readers reading in a second language, and the fact that these readers come to the process of second language reading with different social, cultural, and linguistic peculiarities must be taken into consideration if we are to develop a more complete and useful theory of reading.

K. Mokhtari, C. Reichard / System 32 (2004) 379–394

393

According to Bernhardt, the existing theories and models of reading are lacking because they are designed for native speakers and do not account adequately for the multifaceted nature of second language reading. Third, the data available can also be interpreted to mean that second language readers, such as the ones used in the present study, are not at all different from first language readers. Given that both groups of students are considered proficient college readers in English, it makes sense that both would use sophisticated reading strategies to comprehend academic texts. However, the similarities between the groups do not imply that these second language readers do not have any difficulties studying in English. Finally, the findings seem to indicate that metacognitive awareness of a range of strategies when reading in English is similar in adults with high levels of competence in reading – whether English is first (or only) language or a second (or third) language. This finding is intriguing in light of the role of metacognition in reading. It points to a broader theoretical question that has been assumed but left largely unexamined in this research project. In other words, why were there not major differences in metacognitive strategy awareness and reported strategy use between the two groups of readers? If proficient first and second language readers invoke the same suite of strategies when reading in English, what linguistic or cognitive mechanisms account for such similarities? One speculation is that major differences in metacognitive awareness of strategies when reading in English simply wash out at high levels of reading proficiency. A limited amount of research work has focused on documenting the development of metacognitive awareness in relation to reading ability in first and second languages. Although prior research has established a link between the development of metacognitive beliefs and reading development (Wagner, 1993), it is unclear whether differences in metacognitive awareness and strategy use vary as a function of reading ability levels. In other words, do major differences in metacognitive awareness and use of reading strategies weaken out at higher levels of reading ability? This is a thought-provoking question that should be subjected to systematic research.

References Anderson, N., 1991. Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing. Modern Language Journal 72, 150–162. Applebee, A.N., Langer, J.A., Mullis, I.V.S., 1987. The Nations’ Report Card: Learning to be Literate in America: Reading. Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ. August, D., Hakuta, K., 1997. Improving Schooling for Language-minority Children: A Research Agenda. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. Bernhardt, E., 2003. New directions in research. Reading Research Quarterly 38 (1), 112–117. Calero-Breckheimer, A., Goetz, E.T., 1993. Reading strategies of biliterate children for English and Spanish texts. Reading Psychology 14 (3), 177–204. Carson, J.G., 1992. Becoming biliterate: first language influences. Journal of Second Language Writing 1, 37–60. Feng, X., Mokhtari, K., 1998. Strategy use by native speakers of Chinese reading easy and difficult texts in English and Chinese. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching 8, 19–40.

394

K. Mokhtari, C. Reichard / System 32 (2004) 379–394

Field, M.L., Aebersold, J.A., 1990. Cultural attitudes toward reading: implications for teachers of ESL/ bilingual readers. Journal of Reading 33, 406–410. Fitzgerald, J., 2003. Multilingual reading theory. Reading Research Quarterly 38, 118–122. Garcia, G.E., Jimenez, R.T., Pearson, P.D., 1998. Metacognition, childhood bilingualism, and reading. In: Hacker, D., Dunlowsky, J., Graesser, A. (Eds.), Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. Jimenez, R., 1997. The strategic reading abilities and potential of five low-literacy Latina/o readers in middle school. Reading Research Quarterly 32 (3), 224–243. Jimenez, R., Garcia, G., Pearson, P., 1995. Three children, two languages, and strategic reading: case studies in bilingual/monolingual reading. American Educational Research Journal 32 (1), 67–97. Jimenez, R., Garcia, G., Pearson, P., 1996. The reading strategies of bilingual Latina/o students who are successful English readers: opportunities and obstacles. Reading Research Quarterly 31, 90–112. Mokhtari, K., Reichard, C., 2002. Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology 94 (2), 249–259. Mullis, I.V.S., Campbell, J.R., Farstrup, A.E., 1993. NAEP 1992 Reading Report Card for the Nation and the States. (Report #23-ST06). Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ. Pardon, Y.N., Knight, S.L., Waxman, H.C., 1986. Analyzing bilingual and monolingual students’ perceptions of their reading strategies. The Reading Teacher 39 (5), 430–433. Sheorey, R., Mokhtari, K., 2001. Coping with academic materials: differences in the reading strategies of native and non-native readers. System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics 29 (4), 431–449. Snow, C.E., Burns, M.S., Griffin, P., 1998. Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. Stevens, J., 1992. Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences, second ed. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. Wagner, D., 1993. Literacy, Culture, and Development: Becoming Literate in Morocco. Cambridge University Press, Boston, MA.