Strategies for professional reading in L1 and L2

Abstract

Reading strategies of future professionals, both in native language (L1) and in one or more foreign languages (L2), have been little explored. Findings from research concerning the transfer of L1 reading strategies to the L2 context are contradictory. Our hypothesis is that relative performance in L1 and L2 reading is associated with two key variables involved in successful L2 reading comprehension: L1 reading proficiency and L2 language competency, the latter being the stronger predictor. 39 students were divided into three groups by strength or weakness on each independent variable. Their reading strategies, explored by questionnaire, were compared within and between groups, both in L1 and L2, and were correlated to text recall comprehension scores. Readers strong on both key variables were equally effective in both languages. Strong L1 readers weak in L2 were poor L2 readers but fared better than readers weak on both variables. General reading strategies differentiated efficient readers from poor ones both in L1 and L2, but specific problem-solving strategies were the main obstacle in L2. Comprehending ± the process, or strategic approach employed ± correlated very strongly with comprehension ± the product, or score ± in L2 and fairly strongly in L1. Pedagogical implications suggest individualised reading training in the light of relative difficulties. RE  SUME  StrateÂgies de lecture de praticiens en L1 et L2On a peu explore les strate gies de lecture de futurs praticiens, tant en langue maternelle (L1) que dans une ou plusieurs langues e trangeÁ res (L2). Les re sultats des recherches concernant le transfert des strate gies de lecture en L1 aux strate gies de lecture dans un contexte de L2 sont contradictoires. Notre hypotheÁ se est que la # performance relative en lecture en L1 et en L2 est lie e aÁ deux variables cle s implique es dans une bonne compre hension de la lecture en L2: la productivite de la lecture en L1 et la compe tence langagieÁ re en L2, la seconde e tant le meilleur pre dicteur.On a divise 39 e tudiants en trois groupes en fonction de leur niveau dans chacune des variables inde pendantes. On a compare , au moyen d'un questionnaire, leurs strate gies de lecture intra-et intergroupes, tant en L1 qu'en L2, puis e tudie leurs corre lations avec les re sultats en rappel de compre hension de texte. Les lecteurs forts dans les deux variables cle s ont e te tout aussi efficaces dans les deux langues. Les bons lecteurs en L1 faibles en L2 ont e te lecteurs faibles en L2, mais meilleurs que les lecteurs faibles dans les deux langues. Des strate gies ge ne rales de lecture diffe rencient les lecteurs efficaces de ceux qui ne le sont pas, aussi bien en L1 qu'en L2, mais ce sont des strate gies spe cifiques de re solution de probleÁ me qui constituent l'obstacle principal en L2. La compre hension, en tant que processus ou de marche strate gique mise en oeuvre, est treÁ s fortement corre le e avec la compre hension, en tant que produit ou re sultat, en L2 et ...

Reading Skills and Strategies: Assessing Primary School Students’ Awareness in L1 and EFL Strategy Use

“…The above between-groups results are in line with the findings of previous studies (e.g. Kong 2006;Alsheikh & Mokhtari 2011;Jimenez et al 1996;Zhang 2001;Kolic et al 2006;Taillefer & Pugh 1998;Tsai 2012;Zhang, Gu, & Hu 2008;Lau 2006;Griva et al 2009;Geladari, Griva, & Mastrothanasis 2010) all revealing that more advanced readers use a wider range of strategies. The fact that skilled readers proved to be more flexible in employing strategies compared to less-skilled ones is an indicator of their awareness of using appropriate and effective strategies for reading comprehension purposes.…”

“…This finding is in vein with previous studies investigating reading strategies use in L1 and L2/FL addressed to adults or secondary students (Tsai et al 2010;Davis & Bistodeau 1993;Phakiti 2003;Lee & Schallert 1997;Taillefer & Pugh 1998;Schoonen, Hulstijn & Bossers 1998;Kong 2006;Yamashita 2002).…”

Cross-linguistic Transfer (from L1 to L2, L2 to L1, and L2 to L3) of Reading Strategies in a Multicompetent Mind

“…In literature, there is distinction between the product and process of reading (Bossers, 1991, Sarig 1987, Taillefer and Pugh 1998. By process it is meant various strategies that readers use.…”

Foreign Language Reading and Study Abroad: Cross-Cultural and Cross-Linguistic Questions

“…8 Based on a normal curve, where grades are translated from one country's scale to that of another by means of letter grades corresponding to percentiles: A designates the top 10% of passing grades, B the next 25%, C the following 30%, D the next 25%, E the last 10%, and F failure. 9 See Taillefer (1992), in French, for a complete discussion of criteria considered pertaining to tasks, tests, and texts (validity, reliability, piloting), and shorter descriptions in English in Taillefer (1996) and Taillefer and Pugh (1998). 10 Reading texts: an average of 608 words for the two texts in English and 684 for the two texts in French, 637 for one text across languages and 655 for the other.…”

“…15 In the sample of 12 "hi-hi" and 12 "low-low" students (see note 11), for L1 reading strategies: Student t = 3.74, p = .0011; for English FL reading strategies: t = 7.77, p < .0001. See also Taillefer and Pugh (1998). 16 Questions 7,8,9,10,21,26,31,and 35 were open to such interpretation.…”