Running Head: INTERCULTURAL STUDIES PROJECT PROPOSAL

Project Proposal: An intercultural analysis of learner strategies

Introduction
In this project, we will investigate learner strategies for L2 reading
comprehension and vocabulary acquisition. The aim of the study is to examine 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
learners. Though some debate the use of the term best practices, for the purposes of
this research, best practices are defined as those considered current and most efficacious
in facilitating student success (see, for example, Celce-Murcia, 2001; Richards &
Renandya, 2002; Schwarzer, 2009). We have decided to look at both reading and
vocabulary skills because learners are most often using these skills together in intensive
and extensive reading. We want to investigate learner perceptions of the skills they are
being taught in the ESL environment versus the skills they were taught in their EFL
environment. We hypothesize that the skills taught in the western ESL environment will
be different from those used in the EFL environment because western ESL teaching
utilizes the communicative method, but EFL emphasizes more traditional approaches
such as the grammar-translation method, the direct method, and/or the audio-lingual
method. By investigating the differences and/or similarities among students learning
strategies, we hope to answer the following question: How effective are western learning
strategies (emphasized within the communicative approach for vocabulary acquisition
and reading comprehension) for learners who have not been exposed to these strategies in
their native educational culture? Through this study, we hope to examine the differences

Project Proposal

and issues that arise when L1 Arabic- and Chinese-speaking populations are expected to
utilize western ESL reading strategies that they were not exposed to in their L1 EFL
learning cultures. The implications of this study may shed light on students perceptions
and or abilities to excel as autonomous learners in a learner-centered classroom.
Literature Review Outline
Abbott (2006) focuses on how L2 learning strategies interact with L1 cultural
background to affect test performance. Specifically, this study looks at reading
comprehension items and compared those which elicited bottom-up strategies to those
which elicited top-down strategies to draw implications on whether one type of item
favored Arabic speakers or Mandarin Chinese speakers. This article will help us look at
specific strategies from these two cultures and give us a basis for comparing/contrasting
these two L1s in terms of strategy use, as well as provide a starting-point for probe
development. Additionally, Alsheikh (2011) used empirical results to suggest that there
were significant differences in reading strategies that Arabic speakers used when reading
in the L1 versus reading in the L2. In addition, 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 L1 or in
the L2. In his study, Alsheikh (2011) had 90 participants, 73% of whom were either at the
undergraduate or graduate level 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 Likert scale and then categorized strategies
into three groupings of usage:

Project Proposal

(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)
In addition to these categories from the SORS, Alsheikh (2011) also used two 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. This article will be helpful in giving an understanding of the
metacognitive awareness of reading strategies that we might encounter with our Arabicspeaking participants, as well as allow us a method of pinpointing which strategies are
most used, versus those which are reported. However, there is a gap in knowledge about
whether or not the learning strategies originated from the L1 or L2 in this study and we
hope to shed light on this subject.

Project Proposal

The two studies above are similar because they both investigated Arabic-speaker
strategies, however, not as many studies have been done with Arabic speakers as they
have been done with Chinese speakers. Therefore, if the starting point of these strategies
can be identified with our research, we hope to show whether or not strategies espoused
by the communicative method are helpful for Chinese and Arabic L1 speakers, similar to
familiar L1 strategies, or not useful at all.
Adding to this gap, 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 English as a foreign language students whose L1s were Arabic
and French in Morocco. Mokhtari and Reichards (2004) study contained 350 college
student participants, 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 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 measures the three strategy
categories discusses above in Alsheikhs (2011) study. 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. This article will be useful for guiding our comparison
between L1 and L2 strategies and how they relate to the culture of instruction.

Project Proposal

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 the Confucius school of thought, Hu (2010) highlights the differences
in Chinese culture and western culture and why those cultural differences affect learning
strategies gained through specific cultural pedagogical approaches. 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. Using these studies as a starting point, we
will examine how culture relates directly to learning and learning strategies and why or
why not culture-specific strategies and pedagogy are helpful or harmful. Additionally, Li
& Wang (2010) investigated self-efficacy in terms of reading strategies in the EFL
Chinese classroom. In line with this, they examined the Chinese EFL learning culture and
how it relates to reading strategies and use of those strategies and how well EFL learners
in China believe they can read in the L2. Additionally, Griffiths and Parr (2001) focused
on pedagogical theory in line with language learning strategies in reading. Their findings
pointed toward a discrepancy between strategies that teachers perceive as important and
those learners actually consider important and report using. Specifically, the article
questions: 1) which groups of language-learning strategies are used most frequently by

Project Proposal

students who are speakers of other languages; and 2) what is the correspondence between
teachers beliefs of which strategies their learners use and those strategies that the
learners themselves report using. Considering this information, we hope to investigate
Arabic L1 speakers learning cultures and how those affect their L2 learning strategies and
if the L2 learning culture is affective.
Considering these issues, we have identified some possible instruments in the
following articles. Davis and Bistodeau (1993) used think-aloud protocols to investigate
the differences in L1 and L2 reading among native English and French speakers who
were learning French and English respectively. Based on their findings, they concluded
that L2 learners of both English and French 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. This study will be helpful in modeling our own
think aloud protocols and structuring our data-gathering tools during interviews so that
we can try to examine how culture and reading strategies might be related. We hope to
determine what strategies learners think they use and what strategies teachers think they
use and are most helpful. Additionally, Oxford and Nyikos (1989) conducted a large
study of the variables, which 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, this participant pool does not replicate our participant pool, the study
does make for a good juxtaposition, in terms of culture and learning culture background.
This study also utilized and details SILL (Strategy Inventory for Language Learning) as
its instrument for gathering data in survey form, which could provide information and
insight into creating the survey for our study. Similarly, Oxford and Burry-Stock (1995)

Project Proposal

examined research questions 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). These strategy scales have helped
us to conclude that we can use a strategy scale, but we should also use interviews and
think-aloud protocol to measure factors beyond L2 strategy use, but looks more in-depth
at the connection, if there is one, between learning strategies and culture.
Method
Participants
In this study, the participants will be comprised of students enrolled in an
intermediate reading course at an intensive academic English program (INTO CSU). The
participants are from various ethnolinguistic backgrounds, however, the majority are L1
Chinese speakers and L1 Arabic speakers. There will be approximately 30 participants
ages 18-late 30s. All will have had English instruction, though the amount will depend on
their native countrys requirements for English education.
Materials
Our data will be collected using probes in the form of surveys adapted from
SILLs, consisting of both Likert scale items and open-ended question items and personal
interviews using questions based on the survey and a think-aloud protocol with a short
(1/2 page) reading passage.

Project Proposal

Procedures
Our survey will be available online, through survey monkey, so that participants
may remain anonymous. At the end of this survey, the researchers will ask interview
participants to leave their contact information if they are interested in taking part in an
interview by the researchers to gather further information. Interviews will be live, one
on one, and with volunteer participants only. Part of our interview will use think aloud
protocol wherein they will report the reading strategies they are using while they are
reading a short (1/2-full page) reading passage in order to get a better picture of actual
strategy use as opposed to perceived use. Both data collection instruments will contain
questions about the participants personal and educational history pertaining to language
study and exposure.
Analysis
This study will contain both quantitative and qualitative data. The quantitative
data will come from survey results and will be analyzed using descriptive statistics both
from Survey Monkey and from the researchers as Survey Monkey will not subdivide
results by first language, exposure to English, etc. The qualitative data will be
analyzed/coded by isolating the strategies of critical thinking, guessing from context, and
skimming and scanning. Critical thinking strategies include finding main ideas,
summarizing, and making inferences from a reading. By isolating these strategies
together, we will review the interviews to find patterns of the types of strategies that
students felt that they used in the native country and how well they worked in comparison
to the strategies that are new to them, i.e. have been taught to them here, and how well
they feel these work.

Project Proposal

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.
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.
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.

Project Proposal

10

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.