中英文讀前教材對英語為外語之大學生專業英語閱讀理解之影響

Abstract

本文旨在探討如何藉由第一語或第二語的讀前素材，增進台灣大學生的英語專業領域閱讀理解，研究對象為300名就讀公私立大學主修英文之學生，並以政治學專業知識為施測的素材。為了探討知識程度與英文閱讀程度高低的學生能否受惠於讀前閱讀，所有參與的學生必須完成由政治專業領域專家設計的學科內容知識測驗與全民英檢之閱讀測驗，再依此二分數將學生分成三組，一組學生實施第一語的讀前閱讀素材輔助，另一組學生接受第二語的讀前閱讀素材輔助，最後一組學生為控制組。三組學生皆必須完成專業領域文章閱讀並填答測驗問題。爾後學生根據一份開放性問卷，回應對於不同語言讀前教材的觀感以及對語言的偏好，同時說明他們在閱讀學術英語文章時語言能力與專業知識的運用狀況。 透過綜合化量化與質化的研究方法，研究者先採用變異數分析，比較中英文的讀前輔助、政治專業程度高低和英語程度高低等因素，對學生專業閱讀測驗的成績影響，先以量化統計數據呈現學生的實際表現，再分析開放性調查問卷描述的觀點，探討學生對於不同語言的閱讀輔助，以及閱讀時所使用的英語和專業知識。 統計結果顯示，分配到實驗組的兩組的學生，顯著表現得比控制組為佳，然而接受中文與英文閱讀輔助兩組之間並沒有顯著差異；另外，統計數據亦顯示，學科背景知識與英文能力對閱讀理解有顯著的影響，具有高學科知識或高英文閱讀能力的學生，對於專業英語閱讀理解的表現較佳。 另一方面，質性分析結果顯示，大部分學生認為中文與英文的讀前輔助，對於閱讀理解所造成的影響不同。就讀前的準備階段來說，大學生普遍認為，以中文提供新知比英文更符合閱讀習慣，也認為中文書寫的資料比英文對於理解專業文章更有幫助，其中尤其以英文程度低的學生，更加認為中文的功效大於英文；相較之下，英文程度高的學生並無特別偏愛中文。研究結果顯示量化研究與質化研究的結果不盡相同。而就探討英文程度和學科背景知識對於閱讀專業文章的貢獻來說，參與者普遍認為，專業知識與語言程度兩種因素可以決定英語專業領域文章閱讀理解的成敗，其中之一的知識體系可以彌補另一知識體系的缺失。 實務教學方面，就統計數據來說，中英文的輔助效果可相提並論，因此就專業閱讀的目的來說，應該鼓勵大學生設法讀懂學術英語文章。然而質性分析驗證了母語心理層面的優勢不該被忽略，英文專業閱讀應適時以中文輔助。本文發現增進專業知識或增加英語程度，皆可幫助專業英語閱讀的理解，因此學生應精進專業或提升英文程度以改善學術英文閱讀。根據本文發現，作者建議將第二語的學習融入專業學科的學習，另外也建議學科專業教師與語言教師合作教學。再者，針對英語程度較低的大學生，教師有必要增加學生閱讀的自信心，以降低閱讀英文的焦慮。This research initiated an investigation of the effects between the pre-reading inputs from L1 (Chinese) and L2 (English) to clarify how L2 domain-specific reading comprehension for EFL university students could be improved. The participants were 300 university students majoring in English in public or private universities in Taiwan. The materials used were from the specific domain of political science. Focusing on how students of high/low content knowledge in political science and of high/low English reading proficiency might benefit from this intervention, the study recruited the participants to complete two tests: a content knowledge test designed by the field experts and a reading proficiency test from the GEPT reading section. The participants were divided into three pre-reading treatment groups: one read L1, another read L2 pre-reading material, while the other served as a control group. All three groups read a domain-specific article and answered comprehension questions. An open-ended survey questionnaire was then administered to illicit students’ perceptions toward the effects of and preference for pre-reading inputs in different languages, and how they perceived the importance of linguistic and content knowledge in domain-specific academic reading. This study adopted a mixed-method approach, and the statistical results of the participants’ actual performances on academic reading were presented first. Analysis of Variance was used to detect the influence of pre-reading treatments, content knowledge levels, and English reading proficiency on the performance of domain-specific reading comprehension. Qualitatively, an open-ended survey questionnaire was designed to collect the students’ self-reported perceptions toward the effects of, and preference over, pre-reading support in different languages, and also how students utilized content knowledge and reading proficiency. The statistical analysis revealed that the experimental groups performed significantly better than the control group. However, the statistical comparison of the effects between L1 and L2 pre-reading support showed no significant difference on their performances of domain-specific reading comprehension. Also, both content knowledge and L2 reading proficiency exhibited an apparent influence on the results of academic reading comprehension: with more content knowledge or higher L2 reading proficiency, the students performed better. The qualitative analyses found that most students considered that pre-reading support in different languages had differential effects on their academic reading comprehension. Feeling more comfortable about acquiring new information in the first language than the second, they rated Chinese to be more beneficial in the pre-reading stage to have helped them understand academic reading text in L2. It was also discovered that the participants with lower L2 proficiency preferred L1 more than L2, while higher proficiency participants showed less preference for L1. These findings were at odds with the quantitative analysis. With regards to the perceived contributions of English proficiency and content knowledge to domain-specific reading, the results demonstrated that the participants believed these two factors might have determined the success of their L2 academic reading comprehension, and one knowledge base could have compensated for the lack of the other. Pedagogically, the results showed that the participants could benefit from two language sources equally. University students should be encouraged to work out the meanings of English academic readings. Also, due attention should be given to the psychological merits of L1, as English domain-specific reading could be improved by providing students with L1 support alongside L2 reading. In addition, it is clearly beneficial to increase students’ L2 proficiency and enhance their knowledge acquisition in content areas to facilitate academic reading. The present study suggests that L2 reading could be integrated into domain-specific instruction, and the teamwork between educational practitioners of content and language teachers in ESP courses should be considered. For readers with lower English proficiency, teachers need to boost their confidence toward L2 reading and lowering their anxiety in reading.