台灣研究生英語學術期刊閱讀歷程

Abstract

由於英語已經成為在科學和學術研究領域主要的全球性語言，因此在學術研究跟未來專業領域的成功上，學生需要足夠的英語能力，尤其是學生的學術英語閱讀能力更是重要。在學術英語閱讀的研究領域方面，許多研究已經調查了閱讀策略的使用與閱讀理解能力之間的關係，亦或是利用問卷調查來探究高閱讀能力者跟低閱讀能力者在閱讀一般或是學術文章時，所使用閱讀策略之差異情形。

然而，很少的學術研究探索研究生在閱讀英語學術期刊文章時所使用的特定閱讀策略。再者，由於不同領域在英語學術期刊文章上的差異，不同領域的研究生，例如人文社會領域或是科學工程學領域，在閱讀英語學術期刊文章時，或許會使用不同的閱讀策略，但是很少的研究有關注此一議題。因此，本研究旨在探查台灣研究生在閱讀英語學術期刊文章時所使用的閱讀策略，並探索研究生的英語閱讀能力跟閱讀策略使用之間的相關性以及調查人文社會領域或是工程工程學領域的研究生，在閱讀英語學術期刊文章時，所使用閱讀策略之差異性。

本研究採用定量研究方法，透過線上問卷來調查研究生英語學術期刊閱讀策略之使用情形，該問卷包含了個人基本資料跟改編的閱讀策略調查問卷(改編自Mokhtari and Sheorey (2002)閱讀策略問卷)。本研究收集了三百五十份問卷，其中包括一百五十八位人文社會領域跟一百九十二位科學工程學領域的研究生，所收集的資料將透過量化的分析。首先利用描述性統計來調查閱讀策略使用的頻率跟模式。再者，採用多元線性迴歸分析(MANOVA)跟區別分析法(one way discriminant analyses)來調查高閱讀能力者跟低閱讀能力者在閱讀學術文章時所使用閱讀策略之差異情形，並進一步探究人文社會領域跟科學工程學領域閱讀策略使用上的差異。

本研究的結果如下。第一、台灣的研究生使用較多的整體閱讀策略(Global reading strategies)，其次為問題解決策略(Problem Solving Strategies)及支持策略(Support Strategies)。整體閱讀策略使用最多的原因，是因為英語學術期刊文章屬於高結構性的文章體裁，而整體閱讀策略能夠監控跟管理閱讀者的formal基模和content基模，幫助研究生理解英語學術期刊文章。第二、由於閱讀策略使用受研究生學術英語閱讀能力的影響，高閱讀能力者跟低閱讀能力者在閱讀策略使用上有所差異，整體閱讀策略是區辨高閱讀能力者跟低閱讀能力者的關鍵因素。跟低閱讀能力者相比，高閱讀能力者使用較多的整體閱讀策略，因此，適切的使用整體閱讀策略，能夠幫助研究生有效的成功理解英語學術期刊文章。第三、由於人文社會領域和科學工程學領域的英語學術期刊文章有類似的組織架構，因此人文社會領域和科學工程學領域的研究生在閱讀策略的使用類別上並無顯著的差異。雖然在閱讀策略類別的使用上並無顯著的差異情形，然而，七個個別的閱讀策略可以顯著的區辨出人文社會領域和科學工程學領域的研究生在閱讀策略上使用的差異，其中包含兩個科學工程學領域傾向的閱讀策略和五個人文社會領域傾向的閱讀策略。

總結而言，具備整體閱讀策略的使用能力能夠幫助研究生理解英語學術期刊文章。再者，由於不同領域的學術英語期刊文章文本特性的影響，有些閱讀策略是屬於科學工程學領域傾向，有些則是屬於人文社會領域傾向。因此，學術英語閱讀課程的設計除了著重於發展學術英語閱讀者的後設認知閱讀策略跟對文本特性的覺察之外，還要讓學術英語閱讀者練習閱讀策略該如何使用跟閱讀策略使用的適切時機。

Since English has become the primary global language of science and scholarship, adequate competence in English is thus needed for students’ academic studies and future professional success, especially their ability of reading English for academic purposes (EAP). In EAP reading research, many studies have investigated the association between reading strategies use and reading comprehension and have explored the differences in EAP reading strategy use between proficient and less-proficient readers through self-reported questionnaires when students read general or academic materials.

However, little research has explored specific reading strategies that graduate students use to comprehend academic research articles. In addition, due to disciplinary differences in research articles, different reading strategies might be employed by graduate students of different disciplines, such as those majoring in Humanity and Social Science versus those in Science and Engineering. Few studies have compared disciplinary-specific strategies used by Humanity and Social Science majors with those used by Science and Engineering majors when reading academic research articles. Thus, the present study examined what reading strategies employed by Taiwanese graduate students in general and explored the association between self-reported English reading proficiency and students’ reading strategy use. In addition, this study investigated the disciplinary difference in reading strategy use between Humanity and Social Science majors and Science and Engineering majors.

This study adopted quantitative research methodology. The data were collected through an online academic reading strategies survey which includes Background Information Questionnaire and modified Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS, adapted from Mokhtari and Sheorey, 2002). The online academic reading strategies survey was administered to 350 graduate students who are 158 Humanity and Social Science majors and 192 Science and Engineering majors respectively. The data were analyzed with quantitative techniques. The descriptive statistics were reported to examine the patterns and frequency of reading strategy use when Taiwanese graduate students read academic research articles. Next, multiple analyses of variance (MANOVA) and one way discriminant analyses were performed to explore the differences in reading strategy category and individual reading strategy not only between more proficient and less proficient EAP readers but also between Humanity and Social Science majors and Science and Engineering majors.

The results of the study suggested that Taiwanese graduate students used Global Strategies (GLOB) more frequently, sequentially followed by Problem Solving Strategies (PROB) and Support Strategies (SUP). That’s because GLOB was used to monitor and manage formal schemata and content schemata for comprehending the highly structured academic research articles. As for the influence of EAP reading proficiency on reading strategy use, the use preference order was different between the more- and the less-proficient EAP readers. GLOB was an indicator to discriminate the more proficient EAP readers from the less proficient ones, which implied that the ability to employ appropriate metacognitive reading strategies could contribute to the effective and successful reading. Moreover, due to the similar standard organization of academic research articles found in both Humanity and Social Science fields and Science and Engineering fields, graduate students’ different majors had no significant influence on the use of overall reading strategies. However, it was found that seven individual reading strategies could distinguish Humanity and Social Science majors from Science and Engineering majors, which involved two Science and Engineering majors-oriented reading strategies and five Humanity and Social Science majors-oriented reading strategies.

To conclude, the ability of employing GLOB is helpful for graduate students to comprehend academic research articles. Moreover, given the influence of the text characteristics of academic research articles in different disciplines, some reading strategies are Science and Engineering majors-oriented or Humanity and Social Science majors-oriented. Therefore, EAP reading course could be designed not only to develop EAP readers’ awareness of metacognitive strategies and the text characteristics but also to practice how and when to use reading strategy appropriately.