The Use of Research Articles in an ESP Course for Engineering Undergraduates : An Investigation into the Effectiveness of a Genre-Specific Rhetorical Approach

The Use of Research Articles in an ESP Course for Engineering Undergraduates : An

Investigation into the Effectiveness of a Genre‑Specific Rhetorical Approach

journal or

publication title

福井大学大学院工学研究科研究報告

volume 67

year 2019‑02‑01

URL http://hdl.handle.net/10098/10591

TheUseofResearchArticlesinanESPCourseforEngineeringUndergraduates

‐AnInvestigationintotheEffectivenessofaGenre‑SpecificRhetoricalApproach‐

MasayoKANNO*andHisaoTAOKA*

(ReceivedFebruary1,2019)

Researcharticles(RAs)areoftenthemainreadingmaterialforEnglishforSpecificPurposes (ESP)courseswithinengineering.Assuch,effectivereadingofthematerialisimportantto

student'sfuture.Fifty‑sixJapanesesecond‑yearengineeringundergraduatesweredividedintotwo groups.OnlyonegroupwasgiveninstructionontherhetoricalfeaturesofRAs.Theresults

showedthattheinterventiongroupperformedslightlybetteronthepost‑readingcomprehension testthanthecontrolgroup.Additionally,theinterventiongroupreportedsignificantlymore frequentuseofreadingstrategies,whichshowedapositivecorrelationwiththeirpost‑testscores.

Follow‑upinterviewsrevealedthattheawarenessonthetextstructurehelpedtheintervention grouptoreadinastrategicmanner,however,theyalsoexposedaweakreader'sstruggles.This paperconcludeswithadiscussionofpedagogicalimplicationsofintroducingRAsinanESP classroom.

KeyWords:EnglishforSpecificPurposes,Genre‑BasedInstruction, forEngineeringStudents,MaterialsDevelopment

ReadingStrategies,English

1.Introduction

ThedevelopmentofaneffectiveESPprogrammeisan importantissueinuniversitycurriculumdevelopment.

Commerciallyproducedtextbooksarewidelyusedin ESPclassrooms.Theyofferorganisedteachingmaterials

andastructuredsyllabusfocusingoninforminglearners aboutlanguagefeaturesandprovidingactivitiesto practicethem.However,thecontentsmaynotbe relevanttoalearnergroupwhomajorinacertain

academicdisciplineandtheymaynotreflectlearners' needs[1].

ThisstudyexaminestheuseofRAsinanESPcourse.

RAscanbeaneffectivereadingmaterialastheyoffer up‑to‑datetechnicalknowledgeaswellasrelevant

vocabulary.Nevertheless,potentialpitfallscouldbethe difficultiesthatderivefromtheirlengthandspecific contentsespeciallyforlearnersatbeginnerandlower‑

intermediatelevels.Toaddressthisconcern,thisstudy explorestheimpactofinstructionthataimedtoenhance learners'awarenessofrhetoricalfeaturesofRAs.It

hypothesisesthatagenre‑specificrhetoricalapproach cangetthestudentsfamiliarisedwiththestructureof RAsandhelpenhancetheirreadingperformance.

First,thispaperreviewsrelevantliteratureandraises researchquestions.Next,itpresentsthemethodologyof thisstudy,includingadescriptionofclassroommaterials aswellasthethreeinstrumentsadministeredfordata collection.Itthenpresentstheresultsofthestatistical analysis,whichisfollowedbydiscussionwiththe interpretationofthequalitativedatathataddressesthe researchquestions.Finally,thispaperconcludesby pointingoutlimitationsandpedagogicalimplications withpossibledirectionsforfutureresearch.

2.BackgroundoftheStudy

*ElectricalandElectronicsEngineeringCourse, GraduateSchoolofEngineering

2.1ESPCourseDevelopment

InordertoexplorebetterESPlearningandteaching

practice,severalneedsanalyseshavebeenconductedin engineering‑relatedfields.Theresultsrevealedacertain typeoftasksthatwasrequiredtocarryoutinan engineeringworkplace.Thesetasksinvolvereading technicaldocuments,manualsandRAs[2]一[4].

Needsanalysisalsospecifiedthetypesofreading skillsandactivitiesthatneedtobeincorporatedinto

66

classroomtasks.Engineeringstudentstendtoperceive thattheylackskillssuchasskimming,scanningand

summarizingtexts[5]andreadinglong,complexand specializedtexts【61,andtheypreferredup‑to‑date, unsimplifiedandsubject‑specifictexts[7][8].Theseresults

suggestedtheincreasingdemandforaspecifically designedESPcourse.Theyalsoindicatedtheneedfor collaborationbetweensubjectteachersandEnglish languageteacherstointegratetheexpertiseinsubject contentsintolanguageteaching[7]。

RAscanbeasuitablereadingmaterialforanESP classroom.Theyofferstate‑of‑the‑artinfbrmation,which arerelevanttoacertainlearnergroupwhobelongstoa

specificengineeringfield.Asanincreasingnumberof researchersofmultiplenationalitiesarecontributingthe creationofprofessionalknowledge【91‑【lll,RAswouldbe theprimarysourceofinformationinanacademiccontext, wherestudentsarerequiredtoreadandwriteabouttheir research.

However,thelengthandthecontentsofRAstendto

poseadifficulty,especiallyforlearnerswithweak readingskills.IthasbeenarguedthatESPcoursesare onlysuitableforlearnerswhohavealreadyreachedthe intermediatelevelofEnglishlanguageproficiencyl61.

Thus,thereisaneedtoaddresstheseconcerns.

2.2TextualPropertiesofResearchArticles

Swales[9][lo]fbcusedonagenre‑specificrhetorical structureofRAsinordertohelpteachandlearn

academicandresearchEnglish.Heanalysedtextual propertiesofRAintroductionsanddevelopedtheCreate aResearchSpace(CARS)model(Fig.1).Inthismodel, atextsegmentthatperformsacommunicativefunctionis recognizedasa"move".Itcontributestoaccountforthe rhetoricalmovementinRAintroductionswithsome obligatoryoroptional"steps".TheCARSmodelhas playedaremarkableroleinconnectingtheareaof languagepedagogyandapplieddiscourseanalysis[ll].

Kanoksilapathamll21specificallyanalysedthe textualorganizationofRAsinthedomainof

engineering.SheexpandedtheCARSmodeland addedthreemovestoeachofMethods,Resultsand Discussionsections(Move4‑12inTablel).This modelofferedthoroughunderstandingofrhetorical organizationofpublishedRAs,whichwouldhelp raiseengineeringstudents'awarenessofthe

genre‑specificstructureandpossiblyfacilitatereading comprehension.

[Passible.recyclingof inc爬asi叫 塁1yspecific t叩IC5】

StepIAlndicatingagap

or

St叩IBAddillgt̀,whatISkn{}wn

Step2(⑪ptioral]PresentingP⑪5itivojustif五c乱tlou

A・f̀,己'C̲i',T['SC'1''"9"ノ̀',acse'"、 ℃々,7た(cit三董電i鳳》重1、聾,鳳》、、il)畳c)   ゆ

S【  ,且({,1,li  乙 重《,r)r}ピ、■111{,し1翼1cii18聾,rc、CI1【rc、c三lrc聖1dc、cril,ti、rc且), ■1卍{,r PurP{,swcly

Sτep2.(̀⊃pτ 且̀}n三、lll,re5elln■ 、gR(之s̀⊃rh》 ・p̀xhcscs s【cP3(く ⊃ptii川 乙山1)ehnitii》nalclarihca【iolls sヒcp4〔 ⊂,Pヒi⊂,11a且,sし1置11冨11ariz重11S冒盲1ct}1⊂》《ls SτepS〔P置SF",Ann〔 川 重wingprinciP乙11〔 川!αD置ncs S【cP6〔PIS}うMatingtlicvaluc>r:hc聾)resentrrsrarch

Srep7(PISF)Outliningthestruc[urcof[hcpaExr

●s竃 ￠1,、2‑4乙 、rじlt鳳,竃く,ltl》,吐,匪、竃i{♪軍1.亀且匪)u巳t爲sfi、じdi巳1艦畳、撃ir̀,rJcr{,丘 くκ̀ur‑

rcnccthanthr藍,重11cr、

°'Pi〜F:Pm卜

.ih!cin鳴{imcficldc,hiltunlikch・iǹ}thcrs MovclL・,crah'i.shirrg̀'鮮'」"o':1閣{citationsrcquircd)

pia

Topicgeneralizationsofincreasingspecificity

↓

MovoユF̲.rtu',li.sノ,加 再 α 癖̀'re{citationsPossible〕

V旧

Fig.lTheCARSmodelfbrRAintroductions[10]

TablelMovesidentifiedintheMethods,theResultsand theDiscussionsections

Methods Move4:Describingprocedures

Move5:Featuringothermethodologicalissues Move6:Reportingandconsolidatingfindings Results Move7:S㎜ 血gproced皿es

Move8:Reportingresuhs

Move9:Commentingresults

Discussion Move10:Reviewingthepresentstudy Move11:Consolidatingresults

Move12:Statinglimitationsandfutureresearch

2.3ReadingStrategies

Agrowingnumberofstudieshavebeenconductedto exploretheimpactofstrategicreadingskillsonsecond language(L2)learners'readingperformance.Thislineof researchemploysaquestionnairewhichmeasures

learners'strategyusewhenreadinganL2textinthe hopeofmakingthemconsciousabouttheirownreading process.Severalquestionnaireshavebeendevelopedto assessstrategicL2reading[13]'[15]basedonfirstlanguage (L1)readingliterature[16].Theseinvolvestrategiesused byskilledLlreadersbefore,duringandafterreading.

WhileL2readingstrategyquestionnairesdonot

generallyspecifythegenreofreadingmaterials, MokhtariandSheorey[17]developedaquestionnairethat

specificallyfocusedonL2readingstrategieson academicmaterials.TheSurveyofReadingStrategies

(SORS)involves30items,whicharedividedintothree subscales:globalreadingstrategies,problem‑solving strategies,andsupportreadingstrategies.Globalreading strategiesrefertostrategiesthatareorientedtowardsa globalanalysisofatext,problem‑solvingstrategiesaim tosolveproblemswhenatextbecomesdifficult,and

supportreadingstrategiesuseoutsidereferencematerials assupportivetools.

PreviousstudieswhichutilisedtheSORShaveshown someconsistencyinL21earners'readingstrategyuse.In astudywithuniversityundergraduates,Alhaqbaniand Riazi[18]reportedthatleam[ers'awarenessofglobaland

problem‑solvingstrategieswassignificantlycorrelated withtheirself‑ratedL2readingability,whereassupport readingstrategieshadnocorrelation.Thiswasinline withthefindingsbySheoreyandMokhtari[19],which impliedthatsupportreadingstrategieswereusedmore bylearnerswithlowerself‑ratedreadingabilityinorder tocompensatetheirlackofL2proficiency.Hong‑Nam andPagel201alsoconfirmedtheseresults,inthat,

self‑ratedadvancedstudentsreportedmorefrequentuse ofglobalandproblem‑solvingstrategies.Thesefindings needfurtherinvestigationinthecontextofanESP readingclassroom.

2.4Genre‑SpecificInstructionontheTextStructure ofRAs

TheCARSmodel[lo][12]couldbeincorporatedinto

ESPcourseinstruction.Theframeworkhasbeen commonlyusedasaneffectivemodelforwritingRA introductionsacrossmanydisciplinesincluding engineering‑relatedfields【211.Itcouldworkasan instructionalframeworkforEnglishlanguageteachers tofamiliariselearnerswiththetargetdiscourse[22].The awarenessofgenre‑specifictextstmcturescouldalso helpleam[ersbuildconfidencewhentheyreadRAs[23].

Littleresearchhasbeendoneintotheeffectivenessof textstructureinstructiononL21earners'reading

performance.InthecontextofLIreadingclassrooms, suchinstructionhasbeenwidelyreportedtobeeffective infacilitatingreadingcomprehension[24].Withregardto aninvestigationintoL2readers,acasestudyindicateda

possibilitythatlanguageteacherscouldfacilitatereading comprehensionthroughtheexplorationofgenre‑specific

featuresofRAs[25].However,therehasbeenverylittle researchconductedintothespecificimpactofsuch instructioninanESPcontextusingRAs.Thus,this presentstudywasanattempttofillthisgap.

2.5ResearchQuestions

1.Doesgenre‑specificinstructiononthetextualstructure ofRAshaveapositiveimpactonlearners'reading

performance?

2.Doestheinstructionfacilitatelearners'self‑reported readingstrategyuseonRAs?

3.Isthereanyrelationshipbetweenreadingperformance andself‑reportedreadingstrategyuse?

3.Methodology

3.1Participants

Atotalof56second‑yearundergraduateswhowere takingacompulsoryESPcourseparticipatedinthis study.Theyweredividedintotwogroupsandtaughtthe samecontentsindifferentclassrooms.Accordingtoa backgroundquestionnaire,whichwasadministeredprior todatacollection,allparticipantswereJapanese nationalsandtheirself‑evaluatedEnglishreadingskills werebeginnertolower‑intermediate.Thequestionnaire furtherindicatedthattheyhadlittleexperiencewith real‑lifeEnglishtextsotherthanlanguagelearning materials.Thewholeclassroomatmospherecouldbe viewedasunmotivatedoruninterested,whichisoften describedasatypicallearningcontextinuniversity Englishlanguageclassrooms[26].

3.2ClassroomMaterials

Classroomreadingmaterialswerechosenfroma

journalissuedbytheInternationalCouncilonLarge

ノ

ElectricSystems(CIGRE)whichisaglobalorganization inthefieldofpowersystems.Thejournalaimstokeep

Table2RAsusedinESPclasses

Class2 TB579"GreenFieldNetwork,DesigningFutureNetworks IgnoringExistingConstraint"(2014)

Class3 TB598"GuidelinesfortheManagementofRiskAssociated withSevereClimaticEventsandClimateChangeonOverload Lines"(2015)

Class4 TB583"GuidefortheconversionofexistingAClinestoDC operation"(2014)

Class5 TB601̀て}uidefbrtherrnalcalculationsofoverheadlines"

(2015)

68

engineersinformedabouttheresultsorprogressofthe workperformedbythestudycommittees.Table2shows thetitlesofRAsusedinthefourreadingclassesfrom Class2toClass5.

Readingtasksweregiveninaseparateworksheet(Fig.

2).Comprehensionquestionswerecreatedwithregardto themovesintheCARSmodel.Theyaskedthestudents' understandingoftherhetoricalmovementinRA

introductions,methods,resultsanddiscussions.Some questionscouldbeusedasgenericquestionsforallRAs,

suchas"Whatistheproblem?"and"Whatarethevalues andoutcomesofthisstudy?",whichwereaccompanied bytext‑specificquestionsaccordingtothecontentsof theRAs.

一

軋'1」%1}駄L・1由lI.. 「

H..」 ・III忌」1哩1幽:s副 ・1:1‑II隔11L.1・」 ト…m;III劇1・ ¶‑

1

.1;:rlll,叩.lll、1...〈 節)

抽 、y.k,II蝿,:ryY、1.旨...1、 、。.」(陶 備 う

.III,II.暫、、̲.,.、1...II̲..II̲h美 ど)

圃L【聖 【L■IN【酔書帽■口llL【幽h唱 帽IIY■ 画■r唖竜昌一̀【

K、'..1㌧ ・Ih、

K、JI.1!L'IIII隣 ・唱1・:II瓦'II、L

NL甘 ヨLlI哨'「.1干 ・1'..、llIhl=:'・lllh㍉h、1」'匡1「11・ ¶詫lI¶ 唱' hIl、.・L'1

h'II・IF‑・'七1

二Mr:IrJJ.m」kIII目III闇L 旨 うトlh iI

旦1、 ・司 ㌔{自LIIh・ 血軌{・Wt'

〈9

..1.°.:lII..1...'

rl間1:,'1

'且・、ll‑・‑1‑一 ・・. 〈 り

卜II卜」r:く'㍗

〜、、r..̲L廼)

唱剛.」hト 祀已い1已 」lI引lhげIIll口埴

、II冑1㎝ し ㌃.1

て㊥

て琶)

㌦.III臨

Fig.2Readingcomprehensionworksheet

3.3AssessmentMaterials

Threeinstrumentswereemployedinapplicationofa mixedmethodsapproach.Quantitativedatawas collectedusingpre‑andpost‑readingcomprehension testsandareadingstrategyquestionnaire.Qualitative datawascollectedfromfollow‑upinterviews.

3.3.1Pre‑andPost‑ReadingComprehensionTests Theparticipants'readingperformancewasmeasured bypre‑andpost‑readingtests.Bothtestsalsoutilised RAsinthesamejournalofpowersystems(Table3).

Similartotheworksheetpreparedfortheclassroomuse, readingtaskswerecreatedtoaskstudents'understanding oftherhetoricalstructureoftheRAs.Theparticipants wereallowedtouseadictionaryduringthetests.The maximumscoreswere20andtestingtimewas30 minutesforbothpre‑andpost‑tests.

Table3RAsusedinpre‑andpost‑tests

Pre‑test TB523"SystemComplexityandDynamicPerformance"

(2013)

Post‑test TB557"MarketDesignforLargeScaleIntegrationof IntermittentRenewableEnergySources"(2013)

3.3.2ReadingStrategyQuestionnaire

Areadingstrategyquestionnairebasedonthe SORS[17]wasadministeredtoassesstheparticipants' awarenessandperceiveduseofreadingstrategies(Table 4).Itutilised5‑pointLikert‑typescalerangingfroml(I neveroralmostneverdothis)to5(Ialwaysoralmost alwaysdothis)toratehowfrequentlyeachstrategywas used.Theresponsesforthe30itemswerecountedusing scoringguidelinesandtheaveragesforallandforeach subscale,global(GLOB),problem‑solving(PROB)and supportreadingstrategies(SUP),werecalculated.The overallreliability(Cronbach'salpha)ofthequestionnaire was.89.Thisindicatedtheinstrument'sreasonable

degreeofconsistencyinmeasuringtheparticipants' readingstrategyawareness.Thealphavaluesforthe subscaleswere.81forGLOB,.77forPROB,and.67for SUP.

3.3.3Follow‑Uplnterviews

Semi‑structuredinterviewswereconductedtoexplore thestudents'perceptionsonthereadingmaterialsandthe genre‑basedinstruction.Theyaskedthefc)llowingitems basedonthepreviousstudythatinvestigatedtheeffects

Table41temsinthereadingstrategyquestionnaire

Readingstrategyitem Subscale

11haveapurposeinmindwhenIread.

21takenoteswhilereadingtohelpmeunderstandwhatIread.

31thinkaboutwhatIalreadyknowtohelpmeunderstandwhatIread.

41takeanoverallviewofthetexttoseewhatitisaboutbeforereadingit.

5Whentextbecomesdifficult,Ireadaloudtomyselftohelpmeunderstand whatIread.

61thinkaboutwhetherthecontentofthetextfitmyreadingpurpose.

71readslowlyandcarefullytomakesureIunderstandwhatIamreading.

81reviewthetextfffstbynotingitscharacteristicslikelengthand gItrytorefocuswhenIloseconcentration.

101underlineorc廿cle血formation血thetexttohelpmerememberit.

111adjustmyreadingspeedaccordingtowhatIamreading.

12Whcnreading,Idccidcwhattoreadck>sclyandwhattoignore.

131usercfcrcnccmaterials(c.g.adictionary)tohelpmeunderstandwhatI 14Whentextbecomesdifficuk,IpaycloserattentiontowhatIamreading.

151usetablesandfiguresintexttoincreasemyunderstanding.

161stopfromtimetotimeandthinkaboutwhatIamreading.

171usecontextcluestohelpmebetterunderstandwhatIamreading.

181paraphrase(reslalcideasinmyownwords)tobcilcrunderstandwhatI 191trytopictureorvisualizeinformationtohelprememberwhatIread 201usetextstructureshkehead血gsandparagraphstoidentifykey 211criticallyanalyzeandevaluatetheinformationpresentedinthetext.

221gobackandfblth血thetextto丘1drelationshipsamongideas血it.

231checkmyunderstandingwhenIcomeacrossnewinfarmation.

241trytoguesswhatthecontentofthetextisaboutwhenIread.

25Whentextbecomesdifficuk,Ire‑readittoincreasemyunderstanding.

261askmyselfquestionsandbytoanswerthemasIread.

271checktoseeifmyguessesaboutthetextarerightorwrong.

2KWhenIread,Iguessthemeaningofunknownwordsorphrases.

29Whenreading,ItranslatefromEnglishintomynativelanguage.

30WhcnreadingIthinkaboutinformationinbothP,nglishandmymolhcr tongue.

GLOB SUP GLOB GLOB SUP GLOB ..

GLOB ..

SUP PROI3 GLOB

SUP ..

GLOB PROI3 GI,OI3

SiJP ..

GLOB GLOB SUP GI,OI3 GLOB

..

SUP GLOB PROI3

SUP SiJP

ofthegenre‑basedreadinginstruction.

(1)Whatdidyoudofirstwhenyouweregiventhe text?

(2)Whatpercentageofthetextdoyouthinkyou understood?

(3)Whatwerethemostdifficultaspects?

(4)Whatdidyoudowhenyoufoundadifficult sentence?

(5)Doyouthinkyouhavelearnedanythingthrough thiscourse?

(6)Doyouthinkyouhaveappliedwhatyoulearned tohelpyoureadthetext?Whatarethethingsyoudo nowthatyoudidn'tdobefore?

(7)Arethereanykindsofreadingstrategiesthatyou thinkyouneedtoimprove?

(8)Howdoyouevaluateyouroverallreadingskills?

3.4Procedure

ThedatawascollectedintheESPcourseoversix weeks(Class1‑6).InClass1,pre‑readingtestwas conducted.Class2throughClasssweredevotedto readingpracticeusingfourdifferentRAs.Onlyone groupwasgiventhegenre‑basedinstruction.The

interventiongroup(n=26)receivedinstructionatthe beginningofthefourclasses.Thecontrolgroup(n30) receivednoinstructiononthetextstructureofRAs.In Class6,thepost‑readingtestandthereadingstrategy questionnairewereadministered.Twelvestudentsinthe interventiongroupandnineinthecontrolgroup

participatedinafollow‑upinterviewaftercompletingthe post‑testandthequestionnaire.

3.5DataAnalysis

Datafromthereadingstrategyquestionnaireandpre‑

andpost‑readingtestswasanalysedusingdescriptive statistics,t‑testsandcorrelationcoefficients.Toexamine theimpactofthegenre‑specificinstructiononreading performance,pre‑andpost‑readingtestscoreswere investigated.Then,similarprocedureswerecarriedout todeterminewhethertherewasanysignificanceinthe differencesinself‑reportedstrategyuse.Finally,a correlationanalysiswasconductedforeachparticipant inordertoexploretherelationshipbetweenself‑reported strategyuseandreadingperformance.

Theinterviewtranscriptswereanalysedqualitatively inordertoenhancetheunderstandingofquantitative results.Someitemsofthereadingstrategyquestionnaire werealsoinvestigatedqualitativelyforthemeanings.

Thishelpedunderstandthephenomenoninthespecific contextofthispresentstudyandcapturethestudents' complexmentalprocesses.

4.Results

Thequantitativedataobtainedfromthepre‑andpost‑

readingtestsandthereadingstrategyquestionnairewas statisticallyanalysedwithregardtothethreeresearch questions.Theresultsshowedthedifferencesbetween theintervention(lnt)andcontrol(Ctrl)groupsinterms ofthepre‑andpost‑readingtestperfc)rmanceand self‑reportedstrategyuse.Theyalsosuggestedthe correlationsbetweenself‑reportedstrategyuseandthe performanceonthepost‑readingtest.

4.1PerformanceontheReadingTests

Tablesshowsthedescriptivestatisticsforthemean scoresonthepre‑andpost‑readingtests.Whilethe meanpre‑testscoreoftheinterventiongroup(M=7.74) wasO.71pointslowerthanthatofthecontrolgroup (M=8.45),themeanpost‑testscoreoftheintervention group(M11.77)washigherthanthatofthecontrol

70

group(M=10.83)byO.94points.Thepairedtwo‑sample t‑testindicatedthatbothgroupsincreasedthescores fromthepre‑testtothepost‑testwithagreatstatistical

significance(p<.001).

TablesDescriptivestatisticsforpre‑andpost‑reading tests

thanthecontrolgroup.Specifically,twoitems(#1&#9) showedagreatsignificantdifferenceinthemeansofthe frequencyinreportedstrategyuse(p<.01).

Table6Descriptivestatisticsforthereadingstrategy questionnaire

Group Mcan SD lstatistic)Significance

Group .N TestM血 ㎞ ㎜MaximwuMeanMeanGa血SDSi蝉cance

Int 26Yro‑tcst Post‑test

02

14 18

7.74 1/.77

3.48 p<.001 4.2

Overall30items

Int Ctrl

3.02 2.74

0.47 0.66

1.766 p<.OS

4.04 Ctrl 30Pre‑test

Post‑test

02

16 18

8.45

10.83 2.38

4.24 p<.00/

4.44

Globalreading strategies

Int Ctrl

2.99 2.68

0.54 0.69

1.822 p<.OS

Problem‑solving strategics

Int Ctrl

3.15 a.s

O.Efi O.81

1.738 p<.OS

20.0 Supportreading

shateges

Int Ctrl

2.94 2.77

0.44 0.69

1.120

15.0

①﹂O⇔o咬目轟①︼≧

10.0

/

/

group

Control group

Table7Strategiesshowedasignificantdifferenceinuse betweentwogroups

item#

(subscalc) ReadingStratee,̲y GroupMean tstatistic) ^{Si即i価 一SD} cancc

5.0 #1

(GLOB)

IhaveapurposeinmindwhenIread.

血1 1

C

3.12 2.43

1.05 092

2.545y<.Ol

o.o

PretestPost‑test Fig.3Meanscoresofpre‑andpost‑test

#9 (PROB)

ItrytorefocuswhenIloseconcentration

皿1 1

C

3.62 2.93

1.11 096

2.414p<.01

‡‡101underl血eorch℃leinformation血thetexttoInt (SiJP)h・]pm・ ・em・曲 ・・辻・C仕1

3.85 3,03

1.17 1.45

2.248ノ ァ<.05

AsshowninFig.3,theinterventiongroup

demonstratedagreaterincreasethanthecontrolgroupby 1.66points.However,theresultsoftheindependent two‑samplet‑testshowednosignificantdifferencein gainscoresbetweenthetwogroups.Thedifferencein thepost‑testscoresalsodidnotreachstatistical

significance.

$C11]adjustmyrcadmgspccdaccordingtowhatInt (PROB)lam「cading.Ctrl

3.38 2.60

139 1.31

2.137y<.OS

#171usecontextcluestohelpmebetter (GLOB)understandwhatlamreading.

Irn ctrl

3.35 2.77

1.00 1.26

1.857p<.OS

#31thinkaboutwhatIakeadyknowtohelpmeInt understandwhatIread.

(GLOB) ^Ctrl

3.27 2.77

LOfi 1.05

1.744p<.OS

#12Wh・n・e・d血9 ,ldecid・wh・tt・ ・ead・1・・elyI・t (GLOB)andwhatt°ign°re.Ctrl

3.5 2.93

1.28 1.18

1.692∫7<.05

#ZSWhentextbecomesdifficult ,Ire‑readitto (PROB)h・ ・ea・e町 皿d…t・nd面9・

Irn Ctr1

3.77 3.30

0.97 1.07

1.677ノ ァ<.05

4.2ReadingStrategyUse

Table6showsdescriptivestatisticsforthescoreson thereadingstrategyquestionnaire.Themeansindicate thattheinterventiongroupreportedhigherfrequency (M==3.02;2.99;3.15)inuseofstrategiesthanthecontrol group(M==2.74;2.68;2.80)forallthreesubscales.The independenttwo‑samplet‑testrevealedthatthese

differenceswerestatisticallysignificant(p<.OS)except forsupportreadingstrategies.

Eachindividualthirtyiteminthequestionnairewas investigatedforthedifferencesinmeansbetweenthe twogroups.Table7showseightitemswithahigh absolutevalueoft‑statistics,whichindicated

significantlymorefrequentusebytheinterventiongroup

4.3CorrelationsbetweentheStrategyUseandthe PerformanceonthePost‑Test

Correlationcoefficientswerecalculatedinorderto investigatethedegreeofassociationbetween

self‑reportedstrategyuseandreadingtestperformance.

Table8andgdemonstrateremarkabledifferences betweenthetwogroups,inwhichonestar*attached indicatesp<.OSandtwostars**indicatep<.Ol.Table 8showsthatinterventiongroupreportedsignificantly higherfrequencyinoveralluseofthestrategiesthanthe controlgroup.Tablegindicatesthatdifferentreading strategyitemsmarkedasignificantcorrelationbetween thetwogroups.Thepost‑testscoresoftheintervention groupshowedasignificantpositivecorrelationwiththe

useofsevenitems(#4,#8,#‑‑,#12,#25&#30)anda significantnegativecorrelationwithoneitem(#6).Of theseitems,#8,#‑‑and#30indicatedagreatstatistical

significanceatp<.Ol.Incontrast,thepost‑testscoresof thecontrolgroupcorrelatedwithadifferentitem(#28).

Table8Correlationsbetweenpost‑testscoresandthe frequencyinuseofstrategies

Group N All GLOBPROBSUP

Int zc 035* 02fi 033 034*

Ctrl 30 0.14 0.14 0.05 o.is

TablegSignificantcorrelationsbetweenpost‑testscores andfrequencyinuseofindividualstrategyitems

Group #4 #6 #s #ii #12 #Zs #Zs #30

Int 0.44*‑0.41*0.52**0.55**0.41*0.38*0.1E 0.48**

Ctrl 0.11 一〇.22 0.10 一v .oz 0.25 一〇.73 03fi*0.03

Thedegreeofassociationbetweenscoregainsand self‑reportedreadingstrategyusewasfurtherexamined.

Table10indicatesthatthesamebutfeweritemsshowed asignificantpositivecorrelationwithscoregainsofthe interventiongroup(#4,#6,#‑‑,#12&#30)with#‑‑

showedagreatstatisticalsignificanceatp<.01.With regardtothecontrolgroup,adifferentitem(#1)was revealedtohaveasignificantnegativecorrelationwith

scoregains.

Table10Correlationsbetweenscoregainsandthe frequencyofstrategyuse

GroupAllGLO13PROI3SUYIf] 114 11fi NllN12ff30

IntO.210.140.210.240.130.38*‑0.36*0.48**0.44*0.34*

Ctrl‑0.09‑0.13‑0.090.00‑0.39*0.03‑0.20‑0./8‑0.03‑0.03

5.Discussion

Inthissection,theresultsarediscussedwiththe interpretationofthequalitativedata.Thethreeresearch questionsareansweredwiththeanalysisofthe

transcribeddatafromthefollow‑upinterviewsaswellas themeaningofreadingstrategyitemsthatshoweda

statisticalsignificance.Theinterviewextractsarean EnglishtranslationfromtheoriginalJapanese,whichare accompaniedbytheinterviewee'spre‑andpost‑test

scoresindicatedinparentheses.

5.1ResearchQuestionl

Thefirstresearchquestionaskedwhetherinstruction onrhetoricalfeaturesofRAsimprovedreading

performance.Thequantitativeanalysisofthepre‑and post‑testindicatedapositiveimpact,however,therewas nostatisticallysignificantdifferencesinthe

improvementbetweenthetwogroups(Table5).This generallysupportedtheliteraturethatreportedthe effectivenessoftextstructureinstructioninLIandL2 contexts[24][25],butnotatasignificantlevel.

Thefbllow‑upinterviewsimpliedtheeffectivenessof theinstruction.Onestudentintheinterventiongroup demonstratedhisownstrategytomakesenseoftheRA asameaningfultext:

First,Ireadthetitleandsubtitles.Next,Ioverviewed thewholetext,picturesandimages.ThenIstartedto read.(lnt3:Pre3/Post12)

Incontrast,astudentinthecontrolgrouprevealedhis tacticsmainlytohuntforanswerstothecomprehension questionsregardlessofthewholemeaningofthetext:

Ididn'tevenreadthetitle.Afterreadingthequestions, ItriedtoidentifythepartswhereIcouldfindthe answers.Ifocusedonconjunctions,suchas"however", inordertofigureoutthecontextandtotellwherethe importantpartwas.(Ctrl4:Pre5/Post5)

Thegenre‑specificinstructioncouldhaveraised learners'awarenessofthetextstructureofRAs,which possiblyhelpedthemcapturetheorganisationofthetext andreadinameaningfulway.

5.2ResearchQuestion2

Withregardtothesecondresearchquestion,the resultsrevealedsignificantlymorefrequentuseofglobal andproblem‑solvingstrategiesbytheinterventiongroup

(Table6).Thisalsoechoedwiththeprevious

studies[18]'[20],whichcouldsuggestthattheintervention

groupgainedacertainlevelofconfidencewhenreading RAs[23]。

Strategyitems#1and#9thatshowedagreatstatistical significance(Table7)impliedapositivein刊uenceofthe instruction.Thestrategy#1referstopurposefulreading and#9involveseffortstokeepconcentration,bothof whichwouldrequireaspecificreadinggoal.The

genre‑specificinstructioncouldpossiblyenhance

72

learners'awarenessandsensitivitywhentheyread RAs[22].

Thesewereillustratedinthefbllow‑upinterviews.A studentintheinterventiongroupsharedhisstrategiesto readthetextpurposefullythatenabledhimtodecide wheretoreadclosely:

IreadthetitleandthenmovedontotheIntroduction _,

becauseIknewtheIntroductioncontainedkey

informationforthewholetext.Ipaidlessattentionto theDescriptionsectionasitscontentsareoftentoo muchindetail(lnt16:Pre6/Post18)

Studentsinthecontrolgroupseemtohavestruggled fromdevelopingownreadingstrategies.Withoutexplicit explanationofthegenre‑specifictextstructure,they reliedonthecomprehensionquestionsasaclue:

Istartedtoreadthetextwithoutreadingthetitle, becauseIknewthepatternofthequestions.Ireferred tothetexttoidentifyinformationthatwasaskedinthe questions.Ifoundthatthereareimportantcontentsat thebeginningandthelastpartsofthetext.(Ctrlll:Pre O/Post‑‑)

Thesesuggestedthatthestudents'enhancedawareness oftherhetoricalorganizationofRAscouldhelpthem readRAswithconfidence.

thecontrolgrouptendedtofocusondetailedelements ratherthantheoverallmeaningofthetext.

Theinterviewwithastudentintheinterventiongroup raisedanimportantissueabouttheeffectivenessofthe genre‑specificinstructionaswellasthereadingpractice usingRAs.Hispost‑testscorefellremarkablyfroml4to 7.Intheinterview,herepeatedlyself‑evaluatedhisL2 proficiencyasverylowandmentionedhisstruggles throughoutthereadingprocess:

Ireadthetitleandoverviewedthestructureofthetext toseeifthisRAwasstructuredinthesamewayas whatweweretaughtinclass....IthinkIcould roughlytellthecontextflowofthetextusing

conjunctionsasaclue,butIwasnotsureifIwason therighttrack.Iusedadictionaryonlyonceortwiceas Iknewusingadictionarydidn'thelpmeanyway.

Thereweresomanyunknownwords.Fromthe

beginning,Idon'tdeservetoreadthistypeoftexts.

(lntl:Pre14/Post7)

Theresultsindicatedthatthegenre‑specificinstruction couldsuccessfullyenhancethestudents'strategic reading.However,theinstructionwouldhavelittle impactonthosewhoperceivedtheirL2proficiencyas verylow,whichwassuggestedintheliterature[6].

6.Conclusion

5.3ResearchQuestion3

Theresultsfromthecorrelationanalysisrevealedthat thestudentswhoobtainedahighscoreonthepost‑test readthetextstrategicallydrawingontherhetorical knowledgegainedthroughtheinstruction(Table8).

Thesestudentsoverviewedthetext(#4&#8)and decidedwheretoreadclosely(#‑‑,#12&#25)(Table9

&lob.

Apositivecorrelationwiththestrategy#30indicated thatsuchstudentsthoughtaboutthemeaningofthetext.

Thiswouldberelatedtoanegativecorrelationwith#6 whichreferstothebehaviourthatconsciouslyconsiders whetherthetextfitsthepurposeofreading.Thisimplied thattheyreadtheRAnotexclusivelyfortransferring informationfromthetexttotheanswersheetbutfor understandingthemeaningtoacertainextent.

Incontrast,thecontrolgroupshowedapositive correlationwith#28,takingaguessofthemeaningof wordsorphrases.Thiscouldimplythathighscorersin

ThispaperhasexploredtheuseofRAsinanESP coursewithaninvestigationintotheeffectivenessof

genre‑specificinstructiononleamersラreading performance.Thefindingsemphasisedthatraised awarenessoftherhetoricalfeaturesofRAscouldgive learnersconfidenceinreadingthetextsinameaningful way.Thiswouldpossiblyhelpenhancetheirreading

performance.Nevertheless,attentionshouldbepaidto learnerswhohavenotobtainedacertainlevelofL2

proficiency.AlackofL2knowledgecouldhinderthe effectivenessoftheuseofRAsasaclassroomreading material.

Thereareseverallimitationsofthisstudy.First,the samplesizeissmallasthisstudywasconductedinareal classroomsetting.Next,theone‑shotself‑report

questionnairewouldhavebeeninsufficienttoaddressthe actualuseofreadingstrategies.Finally,thestandardised assessmentstyleofpre‑andpost‑readingtestsmight havebeeninadequatetomeasurethestudents'reading

performance,inthatthetextscouldbereadfor assessmentnotforacademicreadingpurposes.Thus, theseissuesneedtobeaddressedbyfutureresearch.

Notwithstanding,therearetwopedagogical

implicationsdrawnfromthisstudy.Firstly,RAscouldbe usedasaneffectivereadingmaterialinuniversityESP classrooms.Thetextsdidposeachallengeforthe

studentswhotendedtoshowunmotivatedor

uninterestedattitudestowardsEnglishlanguagelearning.

However,theywerecapableenoughtohandlethe readingtasks.

Secondly,supplementalactivitieswouldbepreferable inordertoaddressweakreaders'struggles.Activities

suchasvocabularypreviewandreviewcouldenhance theirknowledgeofsubjectspecifictermsaswellas generalacademicvocabulary.Hopefully,engineering

studentswillhaveapositiveperceptiontowards academicreadingandspendmoretimereading

subject‑relatedprofessionaltextssoastoexpandtheir engineeringexpertise.

7.References

[1]B.Tomlinson:LanguageTeaching,45(02),143‑179 (2012).

[2]C.Kaewpet:Englishforspecificpurposes,28(4), 266‑278(2009).

[3]E.Kaneko,W.Rozycki,&T.Orr:Professional CommunicationConference,2009.IPCC2009.

IEEEInternational,1‑6(2009).

[4]P.SpenceandG.Z.Liu:EnglishforSpecific Purposes,32(2),97‑109(2013).

[5]R.M.PritchardandA.Nasr:EnglishforSpecific Purposes,23(4),425‑445(2004).

[6]K.Rajprasit,P.PratoomratandT.Wang:English LanguageTeaching,8(3),111‑120(2015).

[7]M.R.AtaiandL.Shoja:RELCJournal,42(3), 305‑323(2011).

[8]A.ClementandT.Murugavel:Englishlanguage teaching,8(2),116‑125(2015).

[9]J.Swales:Genreanalysis:Englishinacademicand researchsettings.CambridgeUniversityPress

(1990).

[10]J.Swales:Researchgenres:Explorationand applications.CambridgeUniversityPress(2004).

[11]J.Flowerdew:JournalofEnglishforAcademic Purposes,19,102‑112(2015).

[12]B.Kanoksilapatham:EnglishforSpecific

Purposes,37,74‑86(2015).

[13]A.Phakiti:LanguageTesting,25(2),237‑272 (2008).

[14]M.H.Chou:ReadingResearchQuarterly,48(2), 175‑197(2013).

[15]L.Zhang,C.C.GohandA.J.Kunnan:Language AssessmentQuarterly,11(1),76‑102(2014).

[16]M.PressleyandP.Afflerbach:Verbalprotocolsof reading:Thenatureofconstructivelyresponsive reading.Routledge(1995).

[17]K.MokhtariandR.Sheorey:Journalof

DevelopmentalEducation,25(3),2‑‑‑(2002).

[18]A.AlhagbaniandM.Riazi:ReadinginaForeign Language,24(2)(2012).

[19]R.A.SheoreyandK.Mokhtari:System,29(4), 431‑449(2001).

[20]K.Hong‑NamandL.Page:ReadingPsychology, 35(3),195‑220(2014).

[21]L.L.KhawandW.W.Tan:IEEETransactionson ProfessionalCommunication,61(2),133‑150 (2018).

[22]A.Cheng:JournalofEnglishforAcademic Purposes,19,125‑136(2015).

[23]S.Hyon:EnglishforSpecificPurposes,20,417‑438 (2001).

[24]M.Hebert,J.J.Bohaty,J.R.NelsonandJ.Brown:

JournalofEducationalPsychology,108(5),609‑629 (2016).

[25]1.Kuzborska:JournalofEnglishforAcademic Purposes,20,149‑161(2015).

[26]K.SakuiandN.Cowie:ELTjournal,66(2), 205‑213(2011).