Peeling EFL readers:
A case study of three graduate students from Thailand

Snea Thinsan, Language Education, Education, Indiana University
April 22, 2002

1. Theoretical background and rationale for this study
            While academic reading is recognized as the most important academic skill for academic achievement (Adamson, 1993), the process of reading in a first or second language is complicated and not yet fully understood (Chun, 2001). Researchers (Car and Levy,1990; Rayner and Pollatsek,1989; Carpenter and Just, 1986; and Van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983) have analyzed the reading process into six skills and knowledge areas: automatic recognition skills; vocabulary/structural knowledge; formal discourse/ structural knowledge; content/ world background; synthesis and evaluation skills; and metacognitive knowledge and skills monitoring (Grabe, 1991). Chun and Plass (1997), as well as Swaffar Arens and Byrnes (1991), regard the reading process as a combination of lower-level processes (i.e. vocabulary and syntactic knowledge and automaticity of text decoding) and higher-level processes (i.e., content schemata, metacognitive knowledge, and use of reading strategies). Interestingly, Laufer and Sim (1985) posit knowledge of vocabulary, subject matter, discourse markers, and syntactic structures in order of decreasing importance.  However, a majority of researchers also believe that an interactive approach to reading, which takes into account the contributions of both lower-level processing skills (identification or decoding) and higher-level comprehension and reasoning skills (interpretation and inferencing), are more acceptable. As Chun and Plass (1997) put,  comprehension results from these interactive variables operating simultaneously rather than sequentially.

 While the scope of research on reading is inevitably intimidating, limited literature on EFL reading in Thailand, meanwhile, suggests serious problems encountered by Thai students at lower level processes.

In a Thai university classroom of English as a foreign language, it is common to see students looking up vocabulary, read slowly and get confused by sophisticated syntax. Many Thai students complain that they spend many hours on reading a chapter in an English textbook. Furthermore, it is sad to hear that they cannot get the gist of what they read. The, they feel too discouraged to continue reading and to seek further information from English texts. (Adunyarittigan , 1996: p. 1)

Adunyarittigan’s claim is not fully supported by empirical research evidence. Indeed, research evidence to identify the reading problems, their causes, and the students’ strategies of and among Thai students, especially graduate students overseas, is evidently rare.  While higher-level skills and knowledge areas have gained enormous research attention for more than two decades and have been the focus of reading instruction in Thai universities, Thai students have been found to possess very limited knowledge about vocabulary, grammar due to their little exposure to English texts before and after their English classes (Wiroonrat & Thinsan, 1999).  These prominent local voices seem to marry happily with Caroll’s notes that problems of reading comprehension arise mainly when texts contain lexical, grammatical, or ideational materials which happen to be outside the reader’s repertory (Caroll, 1972). However, one needs to be aware, while driven by linguistic standpoint, of the effects of prior experience and conceptual development on the reconstruction of meaning (Hall & Ramig, 1978).  

While grammatical knowledge is essential for bottom-up approach to reading instruction, as Chun and Plass (1997) conclude above, many researchers view vocabulary knowledge, in particular, as a critical feature of reading ability. Processing at the word level is theoretically central to successful reading (See Nation, 2001. Coady, 1993; Carr & Levy, 1990; Rayner & Pollatsek, 1989; McKeown & Curtis, 1987); that is, there may be a causal connection between vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension. Likewise, in L2 reading research, Grabe (1991), comments that "virtually all second language reading researchers agree that vocabulary development is a critical component of reading comprehension" (p. 392).

2. Research questions

Informed by the above literature, I was intrigued to know the problems faced by graduate students from Thailand deal with their academic reading. I set out to conduct a pilot study on the perceived reading problems and their causes among Thai students at a Midwestern public university. In such a pilot study, the participants answered a set of questionnaire eliciting data about their demographic information, English learning experience, and their perceptions of own reading problems and causes. Then, semi-structured interviews were conducted to confirm, clarify and triangulate the questionnaire data. The analysis of the data shows that the three participants have varying concerns about their reading problems, with the lower achievers showing stronger concerns about their lower-level skills and knowledge areas, namely vocabulary and structures. However, it was also found that the participants’ perceptions alone did not help me understand the extent to which the lack of knowledge about vocabulary and structures, as claimed strongly by the lower-achievers, affects the participants’ reading comprehension. Therefore, my particular interest for this study was to answer the following questions:

1.      To what extent does the lack of vocabulary and syntactical knowledge affect reading comprehension among the participants through a translation task?

2.      How differently do the participants deal with their reading in an absence of such knowledge?

3. Participants

            Three students were selected from the seven students who returned the initial questionnaire sent to all Thai students at the target university. They represent three levels of proficiency, high, mid, and low, based on their TOEFL scores and their previous English learning achievement records. The tests of academic English vocabulary and structures were also used to confirm the separation of these participants. Corresponding with all such information, the participants’ pseudo names are assigned as follows: High for highest achiever; Mid for medium achiever; and Low for lowest achiever. Please see the table 1.

 

Table 1: The participants

            As can be seen, the three participants showed obviously different levels of proficiency in respective order, except for the structure test, in which Low scored higher than Mid, probably because she is now taking a TOEFL course at the IEP program offered by the target university.

4. Methodology

4.1 Questionnaires, vocabulary and structure tests used in pilot study

            Please access the above tools at the following addresses:

-Initial questionnaire: http://school.discovery.com/quizzes6/grammarworld/IUBss.html
-Academic vocabulary test (Nation, 2001):

            http://school.discovery.com/quizzes6/grammarworld/acadvocab.html

-Academic structure test (compiled from: Rogers, B. (2001). TOEFL Practice Tests. Stamford: Heinle & Heinle/ITP.): http://school.discovery.com/quizzes6/grammarworld/Structures.html

4.2 Text

            The reading text is taken from the above TOEFL Practice Tests. It contains 437 word, comprising 25 sentences. The story is complete in itself, having beginning, middle and end. The 10 multiple-choice questions cover all the aspects of comprehension of the story, as designed by Rogers (2001).

4.3 Think-aloud method

To understand the process of reading, researchers have used think aloud protocol techniquem with Sugirin’s (1999) warnings that “there have been concerns about how the think-aloud procedures are administered” (p.2). Sugirin, therefore, employed other known research techniques such as retellings, a reading comprehension test and in-depth interviews to complement think-aloud tasks in his investigation on the strategies used by 15 third year students at a university in Indonesia. He found that these multi methods were very useful. Adopting the multi-method approach, I used Think-aloud method in a translation task to understand whether and to what extent the lack of knowledge about vocabulary and structures hinders comprehension in the following ways:

(1.) The participants were asked if they had known anything about 'cloud seeding'.
            (The answers were all “NO.”)
(2.) The participants were allowed to see 10 questions about a passage on 'cloud seeding' and asked again if they know the answers to those questions without having to read.
            (All participants answered “NO.”)
(3.) The participants read the passage quietly for the first time. Once they finish the first round of reading, they were asked to stop and retell the story. <It was found that the better one spent less time. but that they all only demonstrated very superficial understanding of the passage—the general topic.> Then, they were allowed to read until they think they understand the text as they would read for a test, but without referring back to the passage. The time was recorded.
(4.) They participants answered the multiple-choice questions. The session was also timed.
(5.) The participants were asked to identify the words they don't know and the subject and main verb of each sentence to see how well they understand the main syntactic feature(s) of each sentence.
(6.) The participants were modeled the thinking aloud method, using a different passage. When the participants felt comfortable, the translation began. The recording started. The researcher jumped in once in a while to ask for clarification of what was happening. (Since the goal was not to observe the natural process, but rather to see the effects between the lack of specific knowledge on comprehension and the participants’ reaction, minimized interruptions were seen as acceptable.>
(7.) The participants were interviewed about their immediate experience and other issues arose from the first interview in the pilot study.

4.4 Analysis of the data

(1.) The questionnaire and interview data, as well as the test results, will be further used to provide thick descriptions of the participants.

(2.) The think-aloud data were transcribed. Then, the transcription was analyzed sentence by sentence to judge the quality of the translation and the strategies used or reactions by the participants. The quality of translation was rated based on the following guideline:

            4 = complete and correct/precise translation
            3 = incomplete, but sensible translation
            2 = incomplete, but partially sensible translation
            1 = incomplete and barely understood translation

The reactions by the participants for each sentence containing at least an unknown word were analyzed within the framework of six skills or knowledge areas.

(3.)  The data were analyzed as appropriate.

5. The data

5.1  To what extent does the lack of vocabulary and syntactical knowledge affect reading comprehension among the participants of three levels of proficiency?

Table 2: Effects of the lack of vocabulary on translation performance and reading test

Note: V+ = There is no unknown word in the sentence.
           V- = There is one unknown word, or more, in the sentence.

Interestingly, the participants demonstrated very good knowledge of the key components of each sentence or main clause--the subject and the main verb. High scored 100 percent; Mid scored 23/25; and Low scored 24/25. The differences among these three participants lie under the circumstance in which High and Mid, respectively, utilized the syntactic knowledge more often and more effectively than Low. Low appeared to either failed to use such knowledge or apply the wrong knowledge, especially in breaking noun phrases, at least in six sentences containing unknown words. (See Table 3 below.)

5.2  How differently do the participants deal with their reading in an absence of vocabulary and syntactic knowledge?

The analysis was broadly guided by the six skills or knowledge areas involved in reading: automatic recognition skills; vocabulary/structural knowledge; formal discourse/ structural knowledge; content/ world background; synthesis and evaluation skills; and metacognitive knowledge and skills monitoring. However, the focus was predominantly on how the participants deal with the lack of vocabulary knowledge because the participants all demonstrated virtually perfect knowledge of the core features of the sentences (subjects and verbs).

Table 3: The participants’ reactions and strategies when they encounter the lack of vocabulary knowledge in each sentence