1

Intercultural Studies

A pilot intercultural study of Arabic L1 learner reading strategies

Angela Sharpe
Moriah M. Kent
Colorado State University

Intercultural Studies
Introduction
In this pilot project, we will investigate learner strategies for L2 reading
comprehension and vocabulary acquisition. The aim of this study focuses on examining
reading and vocabulary learning strategies emphasized in the communicative language
teaching approach, a pedagogical approach commonly associated with western best
teaching practices, which may be new and unfamiliar to many English as a second
language (ESL) learners. We believe that, because the communicative approach
emphasizes both linguistic and communicative competencies through top-down and
bottom-up processes, the strategies employed in this teaching approach may present
challenges for learners who come from a primarily linguistic-centered learning culture
that draws on more traditional methodologies such as grammar-translation, the Direct
Method, etc. (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011). For this study, we have decided to
look at both reading and vocabulary skills since learners are most often learning these
skills in tandem through intensive and extensive reading. We want to investigate learner
perceptions of the skills they are being taught in a communicative academic ESL
environment versus the skills they were taught to learn English in their academic EFL
environments. By investigating the differences or similarities among students learning
strategies, we hope to answer the following question:
How effective are western ESL learning strategies (emphasized within the

communicative approach for vocabulary acquisition and reading comprehension)

for learners who may not have been exposed to these strategies in their native
EFL educational culture?

Intercultural Studies
Through this study, we hope to examine the differences and issues that arise when L1
Arabic-speaking students are expected to utilize western ESL reading and vocabulary
strategies that they may not have been exposed to in their L1 EFL learning culture. The

implications of this study may shed light on students perceptions and/or abilities to excel
as autonomous learners in an ESL communicative, learner-centered classroom.
Literature Review Outline
Research done in the area of L1 and L2 reading strategies and culture has been
done with only some studies looking at Arabic L1 speakers, but much research and
instrument development has been done to operationalize the assessment of reading
strategy development and usage. For instance, Davis and Bistodeau (1993) used a thinkaloud protocol to investigate the differences in L1 and L2 reading among native English
and French speakers who were learning French and English respectively. For their read
aloud protocol, Davis and Bistodeau (1993) used two newspaper articles (both in English
and in French, but with the same topic). The methodology involved asking the
participants to read both the text in their L1 and their L2 and to think aloud by
reporting the content of their immediate awareness (Davis & Bistodeau, 1993, p. 460).
Davis and Bistodeau (1993) then coded the read aloud results, making note that mental
operations that are automated [in the L1] are not likely to be part of the content of
immediate awareness, or the awareness learners have of their own cognitive processes
while reading in their L1; however, the strategies employed in their L2 most likely would
become more salient and obvious to the learner after engagement in the L1 protocol and
would thereby be more easily vocalized during the L2 think aloud protocol (p. 460).
Based on their findings, they concluded that L2 learners of both English and French

Intercultural Studies

tended to draw upon bottom-up strategies more frequently. But they also explained that
the language-learning culture could have had a significant effect on their results, stating
that the components of the foreign language itself (in particular, vocabulary) have a
powerful impact upon psychological processing during L2 reading (p. 468). This study
highlighted that there is a need for further research into the field of culturally-encoded
perceptions of reading affect behaviors in terms of learning strategies (p. 469).
Therefore, in our research, we hope to determine what strategies learners think they use
and what strategies teachers think they use and are most helpful through a similar readaloud protocol, as well as which strategies were learned in the L1 EFL instructional
environment and if they have or have not been carried over into the ESL environment.
Abbott (2006) focused on how L2 learning strategies interacted with L1 cultural
backgrounds to affect test performance. Specifically, Abbott (2006) looked at reading
comprehension items and compared those which elicited bottom-up strategies to those
which elicited top-down strategies to draw implications as to whether one type of item
favored Arabic speakers or Mandarin speakers based on their learning culture and
linguistic background. Using the Canadian Language Benchmarks Assessment (CLBA),
Abbott (2006) compared the results of part II (a read aloud protocol) of this assessment,
which are items [that] follow four passages that represent four different genres and range
in length from 251 547 words (p.647). Using these passages, each participant in the
study was:
provided with a chance to practice his/her verbal reporting skills with four or
more comprehension questions. The verbal reports were conducted individually in
the students language of choice (i.e., either his/her L1, English or both

Intercultural Studies

languages). Each participant reported in detail what he/she was thinking and what
information he/she was attending to when answering each question. If the
participants remained silent for more than 5 seconds, they were reminded to keep
talking (p. 647-648).
Essentially, Abbott (2006) outlined a read aloud protocol format that we have adapted in
designing a read aloud protocol to look at specific strategies from L1 Arabic speaking
students. Abbotts (2006) findings indicated that top-down strategies generally favored
L1 Arabic speakers, which implies that the bottom-up strategies of morphology, scanning,
synonyms/paraphrasing, etc. pose more problems for L1 Arabic speakers than other topdown strategies such as skimming, making connections, inferencing, etc.
In terms of instruments for assessing vocabulary and reading strategies and their
EFL or ESL origins, Mokhtari and Reichard (2004) conducted a study wherein they
investigated whether or not learners reading strategies in their L1 were different or
similar in their L2 by comparing the strategies used by native English speakers from the
US with strategies used by EFL students whose L1s were Arabic and French in Morocco.
Mokhtari and Reichards (2004) study contained 350 college students, 209 of whom were
Moroccan and 141 were from the United States, both groups were studying in their native
countries at the time of the study. According to the article, the authors used the
Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory (MARSI), which was designed
for measuring adolescent and adult students awareness and use of reading strategies
while reading academic or school-related materials (Mokhtari & Reichard, 2004, p.385).
The MARSI probe measured three strategy categories:

Intercultural Studies

(1) the Global Reading Strategies, which can be thought of as generalized []

strategies aimed at setting the stage for the reading act; (2) the Problem Solving
Reading Strategies, which are localized, focused on problem-solving or repair
strategies used when problems develop in understanding textual information; and
(3) the Support Reading Strategies, which provide the support mechanisms or
tools aimed at sustaining responsiveness to reading. (as cited in Mokhtari &
Shoery, 2002)
Using this probe, Mokhtari and Reichard (2004) found that when comparing English L1
speakers and Moroccan English L2 learners, their learning strategies were similar, even
though they came from different learning cultures and environments. These results
seemed to point to the idea that learning strategies across L1s and L2s may be similar.
This study highlights a disagreement about where strategies may originate and if
strategies are learned culturally, a gap that Alsheikh (2011) attempted to address.
Alsheikh (2011) examined only Arabic L1 speakers and used empirical results to
suggest that there are indeed significant differences in reading strategies that Arabic
speakers use when reading in the L1 versus reading in the L2. Alsheikh (2011)
investigated perceived strategy use versus actual strategy use and found that L1 Arabic
speakers tended to use a higher amount of metacognitive reading strategies when reading
in English (though he did not identify whether the learning strategies originated from
instruction in the EFL or in the ESL environment). In his study, Alsheikh (2011) had 90
participants, 73% of whom were either undergraduates or graduates attending universities
in the US. Alsheikh (2011) had his participants complete a Survey of Reading
Strategies (SORS) adopted from Mokhtari and Sheorey (2002) that utilized a 5-point

Intercultural Studies

Likert scale and then categorized strategies into the three groupings of usage mentioned
above. In addition to these categories from the SORS, Alsheikh (2011) also used two read
aloud protocols that included reading passages, both in Arabic and English, and data
analysis using, The Constant Comparative Analysis, an analytical schemeused to
identify the reading strategies and extract instances of strategies used (p. 153). Alsheikh
(2011) found four main results from the research, which included: (1) participants
indicated that when reading, they employed all of the strategies outlined in the SORS; (2)
there were significant differences in strategy use between English and Arabic; (3) but the
strategies used by a particular learner seemed to be preferred by that learner in both
languages; and (4) there was significant difference between participants reported use of
strategies and their actual, statistical usage of strategies. While Alsheikhs (2011) findings
support the idea that L1 Arabic speakers seem to have more success with top-down
learning strategies, as stated above, Alsheikh (2011) did not identify if the learning
strategies originated from the EFL instructional environment or the ESL learning culture
in his study, thereby further highlighting the question of whether or not certain strategies
are culturally or linguistically influenced, as in Abbots (2006) study.
Turning to the work that has been done on L1 Mandarin learners, considering the
use of teaching methods for L2 strategy usage and language learning behavior, Hu (2010)
examined Chinese EFL classrooms and the use (or failure) of the communicative
language teaching approach in those classrooms based on traditional Chinese learning
culture. This is important because the communicative method is largely thought to be a
western pedagogical method and therefore, effective and in line with current best
practices. Citing examples from Chinese language that reflect Chinese pedagogy such as

Intercultural Studies

the Confucius school of thought, Hu (2010) highlighted the differences in Chinese culture
and western culture and how those cultural differences affect learning strategies gained
through specific culturally influenced pedagogical approaches. An example Hu (2010)
identified are the top-down strategies used in the communicative method, such as reading
for overall meaning (or the main idea); this strategy, Hu (2010) explains, is:
counter [to] traditional teaching practice[s in China where] intensive reading is
integrated into all stages of learningThere is a keen interest in an exact
understanding of every word, a low tolerance for ambiguity, and a focus on
discrete grammar points and specific syntactical constructions (p. 79).
In addition, Oxford (2003) cited the need for more qualitative research on the above
aspects of language learning as there has been a tradition and tendency in the past to look
at characteristics of individuals in groups without focusing on the highly personal and or
social interactions and relationships among people in L2 learning.
Additionally, Li and Wang (2010) investigated self-efficacy in terms of reading
strategies in the EFL Chinese classroom. Using two questionnaires and statistical analysis
(SPSS and MANOVA), they examined the Chinese EFL learning culture and how it
related to reading strategies, usage of those strategies, and how well EFL learners in
China believed they could read in the L2 (English). Li and Wang (2010) found that
reading strategy usage correlated with students perceptions of high or low self-efficacy
and that Chinese L1 English learners felt that they could complete L2 tasks adequately.
This study implied that the cultivation of learners reading self-efficacy and the
development of their reading strategies should be emphasized [in instruction to]
contribute successful[ly to] reading comprehension and reader autonomy (Li & Wang,

Intercultural Studies

2010, p. 154). In terms of our target participants, this research supports the idea that
reading strategies that learners are unfamiliar with should be paid close attention to in the
ESL classroom because they relate directly to a learners ability to be able to function
productively and autonomously in an ESL, communicative, learner-centered instructional
environment.
In another study by Griffiths and Parr (2001), who focused on pedagogical theory
in line with language learning strategies in reading, found a discrepancy between
strategies that teachers perceive as important and those strategies that learners consider
important and thereby report using. Another study by Li and Wang (2010) questioned: 1)
which groups of language-learning strategies are used most frequently by students who
are speakers of other languages; and 2) what is the correspondence between reading selfefficacy and strategy usage? In answer to their first question, they found that three groups
of language-learning strategies were salient: metacognitive, cognitive and social/affective
(Li & Wang, 2010, p.144). In regards to their second question, they found that a
significant positive relationship was found between [these two factors and] highly selfefficacious learners reported more use of reading strategies (Li & Wang, 2010, p. 153154). This indicates that learners who use reading strategies in the L2 also show more
belief in themselves as L2 readers, possibly positively contributing to their abilities to
succeed as autonomous learners in the L2 environment.
Oxford and Nyikos (1989) conducted a large study of the variables that affect a
language learners choice of learning strategies. The participants in the study were
foreign language learners at a university in the United States. Although our participant
pool does not reflect their participant pool, their study makes for a good juxtaposition in

Intercultural Studies

10

terms of culture and learning-culture background. This study also utilized the SILL
(Strategy Inventory for Language Learning) as its instrument for gathering data in survey
form. The SILL was developed as part of a longitudinal research study by Oxford (1986)
with the objective of quantitatively measuring language learning strategy use after formal
language training. The study was funded by the U.S. Army Research Institute for the
Behavioral and Social Sciences and utilized Army linguists as participants. The SILL
correlates cognitive, personality, and motivational variables as predictors of L2
performance, L2 proficiency, and language learning developments, either positive or
negative, after formal language training. The instrument was found to have very high
reliability and validity coefficients. As a whole, the survey has an internal consistency
reliability of .95 and content validity of .98. Using the SILL, Oxford and Burry-Stock
(1995) examined research questions that focused on an in-depth analysis of the
advantages and disadvantages of using strategy scales in assessing language-learning
strategies. Although the research in this article is of a quantitative design, the article
contains interesting implications for research and instruction. For example, the authors
argue for the development of a strategy assessment instrument, which measures factors
beyond cognitive and metacognitive variables as language learning, more than any other
discipline, is an adventure of the whole person (p. 18). This learning strategy scale, in
addition to the other surveys and protocols outlined above, have helped us to conclude
that using a strategy scale in survey form, interviews, and think-aloud protocols will help
measure factors beyond L2 strategy use and allow us to look more in-depth at the
connection (if there is one) between learning strategies and culture.

11

Intercultural Studies
Method
Materials

Data gathering for this study has two parts. In part I, we collected data using an
adapted form of the SILL. We added a beginning section to the SILL to collect individual
data such as native country, gender, first language, years studying English and selfperceptions and learning goals. Our SILL utilized a 5-point Likert scale that asked
participants to read each statement and checkhow TRUE the statement is for you. 1 =
never or almost true of you, 2 = usually not true of you, 3 = somewhat true of you, 4 =
usually true of you, 5 = always or almost always true of you. We chose to use a 5-point
Likert scale because both the SORS and the SILL included a 5-point scale. Our adapted
SILL contained 10 background information questions, 30 adapted SILL questions and 2
personal information questions that were optional. Within the SILL, we had four sections
(A, B, C and D). Section A contained questions that probed for background knowledge
and how participants activate their learning schemata. Section B focused on strategies
emphasized in the communicative approach and whether or not participants use those.
Section C targeted learning skills students may have already automatized in their EFL
environment. Section D had questions that pertained to participants learning culture and
focused on what they were taught when they were learning English in their native
countries.
Although we were not able to collect data for part II of our research, we
developed both an interview (with open-ended question items that were informed by
questions based on the SILL survey) and a think-aloud protocol with a 1 page reading

Intercultural Studies

12

passage. (See Appendix A for our adapted SILL, Appendix B for our interview, and
Appendix C for our read aloud protocol).
The interview questions we developed are aimed at probing students perceived
strategies and usage of those strategies before the read aloud protocol. Example items
from the questionnaire include:
1. Describe the strategies you use for reading in English and learning new words.
2. Describe the strategies that you were taught in your native country for reading and
learning new words in English.
3. When you learned English in your Native country, which skill did you focus the
most attention (circle all that are true for you): reading writing speaking listening
We designed these questions to be open-ended so that if learners are unsure of how to
answer, we can follow-up with more direct questions such as:
1. Is it helpful for you to translate new English words into your native language?
2. Do you use a dictionary to learn new words? What type of dictionary do you use
(learner, bilingual, translation, English-only, etc.)?
3. Do you guess from context? Did you learn this skill in your home country? Were
you taught that skill here in the US or another English-speaking country?
In this manner, we hope to elicit more detailed, thoughtful answers from participants
regarding their reading strategies and from where they learned those strategies.
Our read aloud protocol is an English non-fiction article that was chosen based on
its length and reading level. It is 502 words (slightly less than Abbotts (2006) longest
protocol), so it should be manageable and provide ample opportunity for participants to
draw upon and report on their reading and vocabulary strategy usage. When run through
the VocabProfiler on Lextutor, our passage entitled Making Mistakes has a vocabulary
level of 94% (from the 1K, 2K and Academic Word List). We chose this reading passage

Intercultural Studies

13

with a percentage less than Nations (2001) recommendation of 98% to aid in the process
of eliciting the usage of reading strategies for our participants.
Participants
In this pilot study, we were able to conduct part I of our intercultural data
gathering in the form of our adapted SILL survey. The participants comprised students
enrolled in intermediate reading courses at an intensive academic English program in the
Midwest United States. There were 30 participants (23 male and 7 female) ages 18 44.The participants included 27 L1 Arabic speakers, 1 Korean, 1 Chinese and 1
Cantonese speaker. For the purposes of this study, however, the 3 non-L1 Arabic
participants were excluded from the data because we aim to analyze only L1 Arabic
speakers, leaving us with 27 L1 Arabic participants (20 male and 7 female). All
participants indicated that they had studied English (in total) for 1 13 years and had
lived in the US, UK and/or Australia for a duration of 1 month to two years during their
study of English.
Procedures
Our adapted SILL survey was available online, through SurveyMonkey.com. We
were able to ask students to participate in the survey through their teachers who offered
extra credit for students if they answered our questions. Students who did not wish to
participate in the survey were given other opportunities in class to earn extra credit.
Participants were able to remain anonymous, unless they provided their information
(name and email) to allow the researchers to contact them after the survey to participate
in part II. We allowed the survey to be completed online for a span of two weeks. After
collecting the data, the researchers used descriptive statistics as well as coding for

Intercultural Studies

14

answers to open-ended questions such as How good of a language learner do you think
you are and why? For instance, to code those answers, the researchers agreed on four
categories (poor, average, good and very good) based on the answers and coded the
responses together according to those categories.
When we are able to conduct interviews and administer the read aloud protocol,
interviews will be live and one-on-one and with volunteer participants from the survey
only. Interviews will both record and takes notes during the interview and protocol. The
interview will be conducted in a small room on the campus of the participants academic
English program. We estimate that the interview will take approximately 30 minutes. The
researchers plan to conduct interviews with participants and then analyze the results
together to help with norming coding (as we did in the survey). For the read aloud
protocol, we plan to allocate 15-20 minutes immediately after the interview. Mirroring
the protocols above, we will ask students to read the passage out loud and talk about the
strategies that think they are using. If students are silent for more than 5 seconds, we will
remind them to keep thinking aloud. After we collect interview and read aloud protocol
data, we will code and analyze the data together and compare the students reported
strategy usage to their strategy usage during the protocol. The qualitative data that we
hope to collect in the future through part II will be analyzed/coded by isolating bottom-up
and top-down reading strategies, such as activating background knowledge/schemata,
finding main ideas, summarizing, and making inferences, connections, affixation,
morphology, skimming/scanning, and making predictions from a reading. By identifying
these strategies, we will code the interviews in order to find isolated patterns of the types
of strategies that students felt that they used in their native country and how well they

15

Intercultural Studies
worked in comparison to the strategies that are new to them, (i.e. have been taught to

them in the U.S.), and how well they feel these work. We will examine the data in terms
of the origin (EFL or ESL) that students reported they learned strategies and if they used
them when reading aloud in the ESL environment or not. We hope to get a better
understanding of the strategies learners fall back on when pressured to read in the L2 and
that they are actually observed utilizing during the read aloud protocol.
Finally, we believe that a third part may be necessary in the future to follow-up
with interview/protocol participants after analyzing the data, however, without having
conducted part II, we do not currently have a clear picture of whether or not that will be
necessary for our purposes.
Results
Since we were only able to gather data from part I, our results contain the
quantitative data set from the adapted SILL survey results that were analyzed using
descriptive statistics from SurveyMonkey.com. In addition to collecting mean and
standard deviation information, we chose to also include median information because of
the overall uniformity in the descriptive statistics. (To see the median, mean, and standard
deviation for each item in the survey, see Appendix D for the complete chart showing the
descriptive statistics). The standard deviations indicated that participants answered each
item fairly consistently (with a SD from .94 1.53). The overall mean for the SILL was
3.4, indicating that most answers fell into the somewhat true of me range, which does
not indicate significant usage or rejection of any one strategy. Due to this, we believe it
will be more beneficial to revise the 5-point Likert scale to a 4-point Likert scale in order
to force participants to give a more clearly defined answer or to rewrite the items to elicit

Intercultural Studies

16

more specific information. A revision of item C22, for example, might ask participants if
they seek out opportunities to read specific types of texts in English rather than simple I
look for opportunities to read as much as possible in English. For the purposes of
informing strategy use, a revised version of this item could help us to glean better insights
as to what types of reading learners are doing outside of class and whether they
participate in extensive and/or intensive reading activities of their own motivation. In
addition, it would be beneficial to know more about learners personal relationship and
history with reading to assess the value that their culture places on reading and reading
various types of texts to try to find out if that contributes to L1 Arabic learning culture in
the ESL environment.
The mean response for all questions except for A4 indicated that participants
reported that their strategies and skill usage according to the items in the SILL were
somewhat true or usually true of them. Item A4 asked participants if they use flash cards
as a strategy for learning vocabulary words, a strategy taught in the western learning
environment. This was the only strategy that participants marked usually not true of me
(indicated by the median of 2.5). Either, students do not prefer to use this strategy
because it requires writing, time, and organizational skills or it is a strategy that they have
never explicitly been encouraged to utilize and is therefore one valued in the ESL
environment that may pose a challenge for learners.
In our background questions, we asked participants to report on how good of a
language learner they think they are and why. We received mixed results for this question,
which indicates that it was poorly written and needs to be revised. Out of 26 answers,
five responses were incoherent and were therefore struck from the data. From the

Intercultural Studies

17

remaining 21 responses, we were able to identify four categories (poor, average, good,
and very good) that learners identified themselves as. The results can be considered
evenly distributed across the four categories with 19% indicating poor, 29% average,
24% good, and 29% very good. This data may indicate that participants have varying
self-perceptions of their language learning abilities. In a second part of our background
questions section, we asked participants to indicate how proficient they want to become
in English and why. Upon analyzing the answers, we realized that participants more often
indicated their reason for learning English rather than their desired proficiency level.
Therefore, this question will need to be revised to help elicit the information we are
trying to collect. However, we were able to code three types of responses, which fell into
reasons for learning English and that we classified as the following: to be like a native
speaker, instrumental reasons, and integrative reasons. We termed the categories
according to Ortegas (2009) definitions of instrumental and integrative motivations and
orientations for language learning. Instrumental motivations and orientations in our data
included responses such as, I want to speak English fluently. Because most oil
companies in my country required good level at English for their employees. Integrative
motivations and orientations in our data included responses such as, I hope my English
will be more perfect because I want my communication with America people so easy.
Of the total 27 responses we received to this question, we had to strike three because they
were unintelligible. From the total data, we found that 43% of participants desired a
native-like proficiency, while 39% sought English proficiency for instrumental reasons,
and 22% reported wanting to be proficient in English for integrative reasons. We feel that
these categories may shed light on L1 Arabic speakers motivations, which may relate to

18

Intercultural Studies
their usage of strategies and therefore their self-efficacy in reading as well as their

utilization and willingness to implement communicative language learning strategies that

may be new and unfamiliar to them in the ESL environment.
Implications and Conclusion
As this was a pilot study, we found no significant statistical
implications. However, this process highlighted discrepancies in our
instruments that affected our ability to draw wider implications. We do
feel that a more explicit approach to strategy teaching and
development could help learners who struggle with bottom-up
processes. For example, in our results section we found that L1 Arabic
speakers do not make extensive us of flashcards as a strategy for
vocabulary acquisition. We classified flashcards as a type of bottom-up
strategy where learners are memorizing/practicing words in isolation
rather than in a larger context, which would represent top-down
processing. As stated above and in previous research, L1 Arabic
speakers have shown a pattern of struggling with bottom-up processes
and we think our data may reaffirm these findings as well as help
illuminate the implication for a focus on bottom-up strategy usage for
reading comprehension and vocabulary acquisition (development) for
L1 Arabic learners in their ESL environments.
This pilot study highlighted the need for more research into
culturally influenced learning strategies as well as dichotomies
between perceived use and actual use of strategies taught in the EFL

Intercultural Studies

19

versus the ESL environment. Our study has drawn attention to the
need for extensive revision of our instruments so as to better elicit
more informative and clear-cut results from our data. We also hope to
administer the interviews and read aloud protocol to craft a clearer
understanding of where L1 Arabic speakers reading and vocabulary
strategies originate. We want to identify whether or not some
strategies were first encountered in the ESL environment and if so,
then how efficiently are those strategies taught and used by L1 Arabic
students. Though our data is currently inconclusive, we feel that our
future revised instruments and part II of our methodology will help
shed light on the issues described throughout our research.

20

Intercultural Studies

References
Abbott, M.L. (2006). ESL reading strategies: Differences in Arabic and Mandarin speaker
test performance. Language Learning 56 (4) 655-670.
Alsheikh, N.O. (2011). An examination of the metacognitive reading strategies used by
native speakers of Arabic when reading in English and Arabic. English Language
Teaching 4 (2) 151-160.
Celce-Murcia, M. (Eds.). (2001). Teaching English as a second or a foreign language (3rd
ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Davis, J. N. & Bistodeau, L. (1993). Do L1 and L2 reading differ? Evidence from think
aloud protocols. The Modern Language Journal 77 (4) 459-472.
Griffiths, C., & Parr, J. M. (2001). Language-learning strategies: Theory and perception.
ELT journal, 55(3), 247-254.
Hu, W. (2010). Communicative language teaching in the Chinese environment. US-China
Education Review 7 (6) 78-82.
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques and principles in language
teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Li, Y. & Wang, C. (2010). An empirical study of reading self-efficacy and the use of
reading strategies in the Chines EFL context. Asian EFL Journal 12 (2) 144-162.
Mokhtari, K. & Reichard, C. (2004). Investigating the strategic reading processes of first
and second language readers in two different cultural contexts. System 32, 379394.

Intercultural Studies

21

Nation, I.S.P. (2001) Learning vocabulary in another language. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. London, UK: Hodder
Education, An Hatchette UK Company.
Oxford, R., & Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables affecting choice of language learning
strategies by university students. The modern language journal, 73(3), 291-300.
Oxford, R. L. (2003). Language learning styles and strategies: Concepts and
relationships. IRAL, 41(4), 271-278.
Oxford, R. L., & Burry-Stock, J. A. (1995). Assessing the use of language learning
strategies worldwide with the ESL/EFL version of the Strategy Inventory for
Language Learning (SILL). System, 23(1), 1-23.
Richards, J.C. & Renandya, W.A. (Eds.). (2002). Methodology in language teaching: An
anthology of current practice. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge
University Press.
Schwarzer, D. (2009) Best practices for teaching the whole adult ESL learner. New
Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 121, 25-33.

22

Intercultural Studies

Appendix A
Survey and adapted SILL survey
Background questions
1. Are you male or female? _________________________________________________
2. What is your native country?______________________________________________
3. How old are you?_______________________________________________________
4. How many years have you studied English (in total)?___________________________
5. What is your first language?_______________________________________________
6. Do you speak any other language that are not your first language or English?
________________________________________________________________
7. Where have you lived where English is the most common language spoken? (Example:
USA, Canada, Great Britain, New Zealand, or Australia).__________________________
8. How long have you lived in a country where English is the most common language
spoken?_______________________________________________________________
9. How good of a language learner do you think you are, and why?
______________________________________________________________________
10. How proficient do you want to become in English, and why?
__________________________________________________________________
This portion of the survey will ask you about your reading strategies.
SILL
11. Please read each statement and check the box of the response (1,2,3,4, or 5) that tells
how TRUE the statement is for you.
1 = Never or almost never true of you
2 = Usually not true of you
3 = Somewhat true of you
4 = Usually true of you
5 = Always or almost always true of you
Prompt
A1. I think of relationships between what I already
know and new things I learn in English.
A2. I use new English words in a sentence so that I
can remember them.
A3. I translate new English words into my native
language to understand new words better.
A4. I use flashcards to remember new English
words.

Intercultural Studies

A5. I remember new English words or phrases by

remembering their location of where I first learned
them. (in a book, on the board, or on a sign, etc.)
B6. I say or write new English words several times.
B7. I read for pleasure in English.
B8. I take notes in class in English.
B9. I first skim an English reading or passage (read
over quickly) then I go back and read more
carefully.
B10. I look for words in my native language that
are similar to new English words.
B11. I try to find patterns when I am learning new
English words or phrases.
B12. I find the meaning of English words by
dividing it into parts that I understand.
B13. I try not to translate word for word when I am
reading in English.
B14. I use affixes to help me understand the
meaning and part of speech of English words.
B15. I make summaries of information that I hear
or read in English.
C16. To understand English words, I guess the
meaning from the context where the word appears.
C17. I read in English without looking up every
new word in a dictionary.
C18. If I cannot think of an English word, I use a
word or phrase that means the same thing.
C19. I read for pleasure in my native language.
C20. I notice my mistakes in English and I
use that information to help me improve.

23

Intercultural Studies

C21. Using a dictionary is the best way for me to

learn new English words.
C22. I look for opportunities to read as much as
possible in English.
C23. Reading in English is a good way to learn
about culture.
D24. I was taught to use the parts of English
words to understand meaning when I was learning
English in my native country.
D25. I used an English learner dictionary in my
native country when I was learning English.
D26. I was taught to use the context (whole
sentence) in order to guess the meaning of a new
English word when I was learning English in my
native country.
D27. I was taught to translate new English words
into my native language when I was learning
English in my native country.
D28. In my native country, I read books in English
in my English classes.
D29. I feel that my listening and speaking skills are
better than my reading and writing skills.
D30. I feel that my reading and writing skills are
better than my listening and speaking skills.
If you would like to further participate in this study,
please leave the following information:
Interview?
12. Your name (*this is optional):
13. Your email address where you can be reached:
Thank you for participating on our survey! You are helping us in our research!

24

25

Intercultural Studies

Appendix B
Interview Questions on Reading Strategies
1. Describe the strategies you use for reading in English and learning new words.

2. Describe the strategies that you were taught in your native country for reading and
learning new words in English.

3. Describe a strategy that you find most helpful when reading and learning new words in
English.

4. How were you taught to read in English in your native country?

5.

Is it helpful for you to translate new English words into your native language?

If so, where did you learn this strategy?

6. What does it mean to guess the meaning of a word from context, and do you guess
meaning from context?

7. Do you use a dictionary to learn new words? What type of dictionary do you use (learner,
bilingual, translation, English-only, etc.)?

Intercultural Studies

26

8. When you learned English in your Native country, which skill did you focus the most
attention(circle all that are true for you): reading writing speaking
listening

9. How were you taught to guess meaning from context in your native country?

10. Does the ability to memorize long passages or phrases in English mean a person is good
at learning languages, why or why not?

27

Intercultural Studies

Appendix C
Read Aloud Protocol Passage
Learning from Mistakes
By Sarina Tomel HR Business Partner; C&R Self Coach; Speaker

Once we master the lesson of learning from failure, we can persevere and come
back stronger, more tolerant and disciplined, more successful, more flexible, more willing
to take risks and be open-minded, and happier as a result of these experiences! So how
exactly do we get to this place? First, it's important to understand the difference between
a Perfectionist and an Optimalist, so you can change your approach to life to get more out
of it and embrace life's lessons.
As described by Tal Ben-Shahar, Ph.D., author of "The Pursuit of Perfect", a
Perfectionist is a person who tends to focus on the outcome with goals that may be overly
ambitious and unobtainable. This type of person is also afraid of failure, less of a risk
taker, and often sees experiences as black-and-white: success or failure. While the
Optimalist focuses on the journey and the results. This type of person also accepts failure
and sees it as feedback, takes risks and steps outside his/her comfort zone. Most
importantly, she or he can find value or a lesson and happiness in less-than-perfect
performance.
Five Ways to Embrace Life's Lessons and Become More Optimalist!
1-Step outside your comfort zone to learn and develop as an individual person on many
levels.
2-Take a risk- try a different approach or a new activity.
3-Recognize what the experience has to offer and what lessons you can take from it.
4-Interact with others who encourage and motivate you while you are working on a new
goal or activity.
5-Use a perceived failure to motivate you to learn and improve so that you can become
more successful next time.
Trust the process of learning from failure by embracing the unknown, the journey
and the challenges along the way. Lessons you learn in school, relationships, or career,
can transfer into other areas of your life and even bring a new enriched perspective you
never even had!
Forget the shame that comes with failure -- you are human and everyone fails at
something. Occasionally, we may fail many times in the same area before improving and
getting back on track. Confession: I've made many mistakes and failed many times in my
life, and I'm even a recovering Perfectionist! I'm still learning every day. Believe it or not,
I've become more relaxed about certain things being good enough and not perfect. This is
all part of the journey, and it's not just the end result that matters.
By making it a regular practice of approaching life in a more Optimalist way, we
will learn to become more understanding with ourselves and others. Finally, we will also
recognize that failure and mistakes are part of life and we can and will move past them in
a positive and more enlightened way. Tal Ben-Shahar shows us this by taking the
approach to reject the all-or-nothing thinking of the Perfectionist, and instead take the

28

Intercultural Studies
idea of an Optimalist- that we can learn to accept our failures along with our successes
and lead much happier lives!
Appendix D
Chart showing adapted SILL descriptive statistics
SILL Prompt
A1.
A2.
A3.
A4.
A5.
B6.
B7.
B8.
B9.
B10.
B11.
B12.
B13.
B14.
B15.
C16.
C17.
C18.
C19.
C20.
C21.
C22.
C23.
D24.
D25
D26.
D27.
D28.
D29.
D30.

Median
4
4
4
2.5
3
4
3
4
4
4
3.5
4
3
4
3.5
4
3
4
3.5
4
3
3
4
4
3.5
3
3
3
3.5
3

Mean
3.73
3.95
3.55
2.64
3.32
3.95
3.38
3.77
3.59
3.64
3.68
3.73
3.18
3.59
3.18
3.77
3.18
3.52
3.36
3.82
3.27
3.50
3.81
3.55
3.09
3.14
3.05
3.18
3.27
3.10

Standard Deviation
1.14
.98
1.47
1.26
1.10
1.11
1.17
1.04
1.27
1.23
1.22
1.25
1.47
1.27
1.27
1.13
1.15
1.14
1.37
1.23
1.25
.94
1.10
1.12
1.31
1.18
1.40
1.53
1.35
1.27

Intercultural Studies

29