European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 7, Number 3 (2009)

Cross Linguistic Transfer between L1 and L2 Texts: Learning Strategies Used by Bilingual Malay Tertiary Learners
Radha Nambiar School of Language Studies and Linguistics, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 Bangi Malaysia Tel: 603-89216538, 012-6140391 Abstract This paper investigates the learning strategies used by proficient bilingual Malaysian tertiary learners to read Bahasa Melayu (L1) and English (L2) texts to examine if there is cross linguistic transfer between the ability to read in Bahasa Melayu and in English. Using think aloud protocols, retrospective recalls and reading passages in the L1 and L2 the study analyzed the strategies used by a group of ethnic Malay learners, proficient in Bahasa Melayu and English, to describe the similarities and differences in strategies used by these learners to construct meaning from these passages for the purpose of identifying the main ideas in the passages. The findings indicate that learners do not use similar strategies to help them comprehend the two passages. While the learners in this study were able to read the L1 passage easily, they had difficulty with the L2 passage. The complexity of the L2 passage proved to be an obstacle for some learners who may need to use more strategies with more frequency to help them comprehend the passage.

Keywords: Cross linguistic transfer, Learning strategies, Think Aloud Protocol, Reading, Bilingualism

1. Introduction
The reading process is a private, individual process wherein a learner creates meaning from a written text (Sarig 1987, Anderson 1991). Huey (1908) described the reading process as the most remarkable specific performance that civilization has learned in all its history (6). Ironically, a century later researchers are still seeking a comprehensive understanding of what readers do to make sense of a text. This is largely because the mental processes involved in reading and making meaning of a text are generally inaccessible for observation and attempts to uncover these processes have been unconnected and conducted individually in different parts of the world. Much reading research has focused on identifying lists of strategies employed by readers usually via survey instruments. Valuable though these are, they do not present an accurate picture of the actual processes the reader uses when making sense of a text. Research has also focused on identifying what the learners think they do when reading using surveys, questionnaires and inventories (Grabe 1991, Block 1991). Then there are studies that investigate what learners do i.e. strategies they use to help them in their reading (Chamot, Kupper & Impink-Hernandez 1988). Finally, there are studies that try to attain some balance in perspective and link what strategies learners use with learner factors like learning style, aptitude, age, gender background knowledge and learning environment to understand how a learner processes a text (Afflerbach 1990, Barnett 1988, Carrell 1983). In Malaysia, much of the work done in reading research has also centered on identifying the reading perception and habits of learners in schools and universities (Pandian 1997, Sarjit Kaur & Salasiah Che Lah 1999, Ganakumaran, Koo & Shahizah 2003). These have provided invaluable 114

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 7, Number 3 (2009) insights into the nature of the reading process in Malaysia but there remains a lot to be done to help uncover the actual processes and strategies the learners employ in their attempt to construct meaning from a text. There is still a need to look into the specific strategies learners are employing to help them with their reading. This is because understanding the strategies readers use provides insight into the nature of the reading process (Pressley & Afflerbach 1995, van Dijk & Kintsch 1983). Because of difficulties in understanding what the comprehension process involves, the role of the L1 in helping to understand the L2 is largely left unexplored. Upton (1997) reminds us we know very little about how L2 readers might use their L1 and their L2 to help them comprehend what they are reading (8). In spite of this, it is becoming increasingly clear that learners do use their L1 to help them comprehend when they read in the L2 as emphasized by many researchers (Cook 1992, Kern 2000, Koda 1993, Bernhardt & Kamil 1995, Pang 2004).

2. Previous Research
Much reading research has focused on examining how a native language learner reads in English. This is evident when one peruses the literature on L2 reading (Weber 1991, Garcia 2000, Bernhardt 2005). Reading in an L2 is considered a very complex activity because of the different conditions that influence how learners learn to read in the L2. At the same time, it is often assumed that L2 readers have at their disposal their L1 and may use this as a strategy to help them in their reading. Alderson (1984) raised an interesting question when he asked whether reading difficulty was a reading problem or a language problem. He was questioning why learners who are proficient in the L1 find it difficult to read in the L2. The assumption is that reading skills and abilities should transfer from the L1 to the L2 and he proposed that a language threshold needs to be crossed before L1 learners can read in the L2. This suggests that in second language reading, knowledge of the second language is a more important factor than first language reading abilities (Alderson 2000:23). Cummins (1979, 1981) tells us that proficiency needs to be seen from two facets - basic interpersonal communication skills (BIC) and cognitive/academic language proficiency (CALP). He contends that if the academic language proficiency base is strong learners who read in the L2 can draw on this to help them. This suggests that once reading ability is acquired in the first language it is available for the L2. This universalist position is supported by many studies that claim that experience with either language is capable of promoting the proficiency that underlies the development of academic skills in both language (Cummins 1981:33). Cummins (1979) does qualify his universalist stance when working with L2 learners and states it is academic language skills rather than communication skills that enable the threshold hypothesis to work. He says that learners have to attain a threshold of L2 competence before they can become proficient L2 readers. It is only when learners have reached a certain level of proficiency in the L2, can the learners apply the reading skills developed in the L1 successfully. This finding is also reflected in later studies like Alderson (2000) and Bernhardt & Kamil (1995). Bernhardt & Kamil (1995) in their survey of studies on L1 and L2 reading found that while L1 literacy is a strong predictor of L2 reading, it is L2 linguistic knowledge that accounts for success in L2 reading. They claim the question is not whether reading in the L2 is a language problem or a reading problem. Instead, the question is how much L2 knowledge an L2 reader should have to utilize L1 knowledge to read an L2 text. Research on second language reading has also shown that highly proficient bilinguals can actually read less efficiently in the L2 even past the threshold level. Sometimes learners who read in two languages will find themselves using different strategies to read the two texts and this means transferring L1 strategies to read an L2 text is not significant here (Taylor & Taylor 1983, Bernhardt 1987). For learners to use different processing strategies there must be a difference between the two languages and this could be in the orthographic systems (Pang 2004). 115

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 7, Number 3 (2009) The studies discussed here have pointed to the need for bilingual learners to cross a threshold level before they can read proficiently in the L1 and L2; the need to examine the strategy use of learners for L1 and L2 texts; and the need to look at the orthographic systems of the two languages to examine similarities and differences. Hence, it is clear that transferring abilities from the L1 to the L2 is not as clear cut and simple as it is made out to be. There are a host of variables that impact the reading process and these are equally important when we consider cross transfer between two languages. This paper posits that one such variable is the use of appropriate learning strategies to enable a learner to read more efficiently Urquhart & Weir 1998). When learners employ suitable strategies effectively they are able to read and understand texts much more efficiently (Nambiar 2005). It is an accepted fact that learners come with a host of strategies that help them to function as active and effective learners (Cohen 1998). Learning strategies have been identified as one set of strategies that a learner can exploit to help make learning easier, faster and more enjoyable (Oxford 1990). The most commonly used taxonomy of learning strategies is that of Oxford (1990) where strategies are clustered into 6 groups memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, social and affective groups. Oxford (1990) states that memory strategies are techniques used to store, retrieve and move information from fact to skill level for use by learners and examples of this would be to form word groups of nouns, or verbs and to create a semantic map to show how words relate to each other. Cognitive strategies are used to aid in the manipulation of target language or task and range from reasoning to analyzing and summarizing. Compensation strategies are behaviours that enable the use of new language to help compensate for inadequate repertoire of grammar and vocabulary and enable learners to produce spoken or written expression in a new languae without complete knowledge. Metacognitive strategies are behaviours that coordinate the learning process by centering, arranging, planning and evaluating learning to help a learner gain control over his learning. Affective strategies are techniques that control the emotions, attitudes, motivations and values which influence learning. Social strategies are actions that involve communicating with other people to improve language skills. Each of these strategy groups was further divided into different sub strategies to be used by learners in varied ways to help them in the completion of a task. In this study this taxonomy was employed to understand how learners process two texts -one in their L1 (Bahasa Melayu) and the other in their L2 (English) The Malaysian Scenario Malaysia practises a bilingual education system with Bahasa Melayu and English serving as mediums of instruction in all levels of education primary to tertiary. Learners, hence find they have to read in both languages. This is further compounded by the fact that most reference texts are in English for many disciplines. What this means is that we have Malaysian learners, who are supposed to be proficient in both languages (although their levels of proficiency may vary). Hence it is common to find learners who are proficient in both languages but have difficulty in reading academic texts in one or both languages. We generally assume that if learners can read in the L1 they can automatically read in the L2 also. If there indeed is a transfer of strategies between the L1 and the L2, we need to understand what kinds of strategies are common and different when learners read texts in the L1 and L2. We need to examine if English skills do predict Bahasa Melayu reading, and whether Bahasa Melayu skills predict English reading. To quote Alderson (2000), The question is whether the ability to read transfers across languages: is a good first-language reader also a good second-language reader?

3. Scope of the Research

The study investigated the learning strategies used by Malay learners to read 2 reading passages one written in Bahasa Melayu or their L1 and one written in English, their L2. Specifically, the study sets 116

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 7, Number 3 (2009) out to describe the similarities and differences in strategies used by these learners to construct meaning from these texts to identify the main ideas in the text. The following questions were asked: 1. What are the learning strategies used by bilingual Malay learners to read a text written in Bahasa Melayu, their L1? 2. What are the learning strategies used by bilingual Malay learners to read an expository text written in English, their L2? 3. Are there any similarities and differences in the learning strategies used by these learners to read the two texts? Participants This qualitative study was limited to bilingual Malay undergraduates, majoring in English Language Studies in the National University of Malaysia in Malaysia, who have to read academic texts of the expository kind for their coursework. These undergraduates were selected based on their SPM (GCE O Level) English and Bahasa Melayu grades and the Malaysian University Entrance Test (MUET) Bands. The MUET is an entrance test that all learners have to sit for before gaining entrance to university. Learners are graded according to their ability to read, write, listen in and speak English and are given bands with Band 1 indicating low ability and Band 6 a high ability. Hence 6 learners who had an A1 or A2 for English and Bahasa Melayu for the SPM and MUET Bands of 4 or 5 were selected as samples for the study. These learners were informed what their role would be and they all volunteered to participate in the data collection. Instruments Two reading passages related to language study - one in English and one in Bahasa Melayu were selected. Both passages were around 1100 words and were of similar levels of difficulty. The thinkaloud protocol, as it is used in this study involves the learners completing the reading and verbalizing their thought processes simultaneously. The think aloud was done during the process of reading so as to ensure the learners were not retrospecting or trying to remember what they did (Cavalcanti 1983). In addition the texts were marked with dots at the end of every paragraph and the learners were gently reminded to think aloud their strategies when they came to these dots. The learners were also told that they could stop at any other point in the text to think aloud if they wanted to. It is evident that think-aloud protocols cannot capture all the strategies a reader uses to help her in the processing of a text. Think-alouds are useful in that they provide revealing information about the strategies a reader uses and to quote from Afflerbach (2000), they serve the reading research enterprise well (175). Retrospective recalls were used and learners were asked questions to clarify any doubts and uncertainties that were detected during the think aloud protocol. The retrospective recalls enabled the learners to clarify their think aloud protocols and helped support the information in the protocols. In some cases these recalls provided much needed detail to the think-aloud information and enabled the researcher to interpret the strategy moves of the reader.

4. Research Method
The study was conducted with the learners individually in the researchers room and each session lasted between 2 to 3 hours. Since the learners were known to the researcher and were familiar with the venue it was considered an ideal location. The learners were familiar with the think aloud protocol because they were trained to use the protocol in a reading course taught by the researcher. Learners began with the Bahasa Melayu passage and were asked to read, comprehend and pick out the main ideas in the passage. The learners were given the option of using their L1 or L2 to help them in their understanding. While reading, they were asked to think-aloud and talk about how they understood the 117

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 7, Number 3 (2009) text and selected points to help in their understanding. This entire process was tape-recorded and then repeated with the English passage. When the learners had finished reading both the passages they were asked a couple of questions to clarify uncertainties that were detected during the think aloud session. For instance, a learner who was seen underlining or writing notes on the text during the reading was asked to explain this action. This sort of retrospective recall was interesting because it revealed strategies that were not evident in the think aloud protocols. The entire process was tape-recorded and the protocols transcribed verbatim later. Recordings were transcribed verbatim and careful attention was paid to preserve the natural speech. As such, the learners language was transcribed as it was spoken without any attempt to make grammatical changes of any sort. These transcripts were then analyzed for instances of strategy use using classifications like cognitive, metacognitive, memory, compensation, social and affective strategy groupings (Oxford 1990). This enabled the researcher to identify strategy use for individual learners and also see which classification group the learners were using frequently. This meant that the researcher could tell what strategies are used and identify similarities and differences between the learners use of strategies. The texts were examined for evidence of highlighting, underlining, note taking and any other form of emphasis. This was then compared to the learners transcript to check for accuracy of reporting. The data obtained from the retrospective recalls were used to further understand and explain why the learner used certain strategies. In addition, these recalls offer unique insights into learners minds and enabled the researcher to read their minds. For instance, it was found that some learners underlined or highlighted some sentences in the text when they were reading. When they were asked to explain their action they claimed they simply underlined what they thought was important and it was not necessarily a main point.

5. Results and Discussion

Strategies used by Malay Learners to Read their Bahasa Melayu (L1) Texts Table 1 below shows the frequency of use of strategies by learners to read and understand an expository text written in Bahasa Melayu or the L1. The last column of the table shows the total number of learners who used a particular strategy with the frequency of use in brackets
Table 1:
Strategy

Strategies used by learners to read an L1 text

Learner M1 1 M2 M3 M4 1 M5 1 1 M6 Total 3(3) 1(1) 0 0 0 5(16) 3(6) 2(2) 0 1(1) 0 1(1) 2(3) 1(4) 1(1) 1(3) 0

Memory Structured Reviewing Cognitive Practising naturalistically Cognitive Use dictionary Cognitive Analyze expressions Cognitive Take notes Cognitive Summarize Cognitive Use emphasis techniques Compensation Guessing Compensation Avoid communication Compensation Going by the sound Metacognitive Overview and link with known material Metacognitive Make a deliberate attempt to pay attention Metacognitive Plan for the task Metacognitive Evaluating progress Affective Use laughter to relax Affective Saying or writing positive statements Social Asking questions for clarification

2 1

3 4 1 1

3 1 1

1 2 4 1 3 1

118

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 7, Number 3 (2009) The cognitive strategy of summarizing was used by most (5) of the learners in that they generally read and summarized paragraphs and sections of the passage effortlessly. They claimed this was the best way to read L1 texts because the language is very berbunga- bunga or flowery so the text is actually quite easy to understand. What the learners were suggesting was that it was easy to identify important ideas in L1 texts because most of the text is devoted to examples, to describe one or two main ideas. For instance M1 said, Para 1 I label as sejarah Bahasa Melayu sejak kemasukan Islam (history of Bahasa Melayu from the beginning of Islam) The next paragraph I label as peranan sarjana (the role of scholars) M2 also says, The fifth paragraph in the dasar pendidikan kebangsaan is one of the reasonsit was the medium of instruction. Basically what the learners were doing was to sum up paragraphs in one or two lines. The cognitive strategy of using emphasis was also frequently used by the learners in particular the strategy of underlining to indicate main ideas. I underline because I think that is the point, says M3. The memory strategy of structured reviewing was used by the learners to help them identify important points which they later used to help them summarize sections of the passage. M4 says she needs to read the text twice to look for important points. The metacognitive strategy of planning was used by the learners to help them organize how they were going to perform the task. M4 begins with the metacognitive strategy of planning and says she needs to read for general idea first. The cognitive strategy of practicing naturalistically was employed by one learner, who incidentally was the same learner who used this strategy for the L2 text. According to her when she reads out aloud she finds she can understand the text better. It can be said that the learners generally did not exploit the strategies for their reading of the L1 text and they claim this was because they did not need to use so many strategies to read and understand the text. They mostly used the summarizing strategy because this was the fastest way to comprehend texts written in the L1.M3 for instance, breezed through the text and did not linger on it very long. She claims the text is about the development of Bahasa Melayu as a language of knowledge and is able to locate the details, which talk about what helps it grow as the language of knowledge. She says, Reading a BM text is different from reading an English text. English text has point, elaboration and then example. BM there is one point and all examples. M5 says she finds BM texts easier to read the meaning is easier for me. Language is easier to understand for me. M6 also finds BM texts faster to read and understand even though the writers use a flowery style. It is obvious that familiarity in the L1 was a factor that influenced the efficiency with which the learners read and understood the text. With the exception of one learner M4, the rest of the learners were able to identify what was important in the L1 text effortlessly. M4 does say she is more comfortable reading L2 texts and finds it challenging to read L1 texts. She says, I find reading BM text very slow. She herself cannot understand why she has a mental block with L1 texts but does say she is working to improve her understanding of L1 text. Strategies used by Malay learners to read English (L2 texts) Table 2 shows the frequency of use of strategies by the learners to help them read the expository text written in English or the L2. The last column of the table shows the total number of learners who used a particular strategy and the frequency of use is indicated in brackets.

119

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 7, Number 3 (2009)

Table 2:
Strategy

Strategies used by learners to read L2 text

Learner M1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 3 2 1 2 M2 2 M3 3 M4 M5 3 1 M6 1 1 Total 5(10) 1(1) 2(2) 1(1) 0 2(4) 4(5) 1(1) 3(5) 0 1(3) 6(9) 6(14) 4(10) 3(6) 1(1) 1(2)

Memory Structured Reviewing Cognitive Practising naturalistically Cognitive Use dictionary Cognitive Analyze expressions Cognitive Take notes Cognitive Summarize Cognitive Use emphasis techniques Compensation Guessing Compensation Avoid communication Compensation Going by the sound Metacognitive Overview and link with known material Metacognitive Make a deliberate attempt to pay attention Metacognitive Plan for the task Metacognitive Evaluating progress Affective Use laughter to relax Affective Saying or writing positive statements Social Asking questions for clarification

2 1 3 1

2 4 1 1

1 4 4 4 2

1 2 1

1 2

The table shows that it was the metacognitive strategies that were popular with the learners in that they all used these, especially the strategy of paying attention, planning for the task and four of the learners used the strategy of evaluating progress. M2 finds focusing on the title important because I know what the text is about then I can identify the point in the text. He uses the metacognitive strategy of planning by paying focusing on the title and subheadings. He makes a conscious effort to identify paragraphs that he thinks are important. I think the third paragraph is very important because the writer is somewhat or rather trying to summarize the meaning. He claims he reads section by section not paragraph by paragraph keeping the title in mind In this way he is able to understand the text is about the objectives of SLA where the writer provides explanation with examples. M5 also displays the metacognitive strategy of paying attention by focusing on subheadings, words the second time I read I pay attention to subheadings, words.... The learners made it a point to focus on the title of the text, sub headings and other details to help them create a mental outline of the text before they read. In doing this, perhaps they were making the text more familiar and hence more manageable. It could also be they found the text organization challenging enough for them to want to have an idea of what was in the text to enable them to read better. M1 consciously uses the metacognitive strategy of planning throughout the reading of the text. When he had read halfway through he says, After I identify the internal factors, I label the two paragraphs above as external factors and the two paragraphs below as internal factors. This sort of planning is a step towards developing an understanding of text structure and what is important in the text. M3 also used the strategy when she systematically arranges how she is going to locate the points in the text. I go straight to the examples and I know the point is before the example something to do with the point. The metacognitive strategy of evaluating was employed by the learners to monitor their progress in the text to ensure they were in control of their learning. M3 says, Ok beginning was easy a bitthe middle was confusing the examples was easy to understand The cognitive strategy of using emphasis techniques was also employed by 4 of the learners and once again they used this strategy to help them create a structure of the text. In underlining, making notes, identifying unfamiliar words by circling them and placing a star next to them, these 120

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 7, Number 3 (2009) learners were attempting to select ideas they thought were important to help them understand the text and summarize it. M5 for instance, admits, I underline what is importantI feel I need to see the point I will mark it so I can relate later idea to it In addition, the learners also used the memory strategy of structured reviewing to help them understand the information in the text. Most of them it was found would stop halfway through the reading of the text and go back to read from the beginning to see if they were comprehending the text correctly. To quote from M3 The first reading is to identify the important things.ideasthe second reading is to see if I am correct. By going back and forth in the text the learners were helping to build their knowledge of the text to help in their summaries. The compensation strategy of avoiding communication and the affective strategy of using laughter to relax were used by 3 of the learners when they came across sections of the text they did not understand and were not sure how to interpret. M2 employs the strategy when he encounters difficulties in sections of the text, I think.Im not so sure coz I dont understand this section In the same way M5 says, I dont really understand this maybe I try to get back to it later Some of the strategies were only employed by 2 of the learners and these were the cognitive strategies of using dictionaries and summarizing. The learners did not have any serious difficulty with the vocabulary in the text and this could be because they were already in their second year and were familiar with the kinds of texts they had to read for the study. Hence it can be assumed that most of the learners had no real problems with the reading of the text. Then there were strategies that were only employed once by the learners like the cognitive strategies of analyzing expressions and practicing naturalistically; the metacognitive strategy of overviewing and linking with known material, the affective strategy of saying or writing positive statements and the social strategy of asking questions. There were also a number of strategies that were not employed by the learners like the cognitive strategy of taking notes and the compensation strategies of guessing and going by the sound. Similarities and differences in the strategies used by Malay learners to read Bahasa Melayu (L1) and English texts (L2) Table 3 below shows the various strategies used by the Malay learners to read the L1 and L2 texts. The table shows the number of learners who used each strategy for the L1 and the L2 text and the number in brackets indicate the total number of times the strategy was used by the learners.

121

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 7, Number 3 (2009)

Table 3:
Strategy

Strategies used by learners to read L1 and L2 Texts

Text L1 Text 3(3) 1(1) 0 0 0 5(15) 3(6) 2(2) 0 1(1) 0 1(1) 2(3) 1(4) 1(1) 1(3) 0 L2 Text 5(10) 1(1) 2(2) 1(1) 0 2(4) 4(5) 1(1) 3(5) 0 1(3) 6(9) 6(14) 4(10) 3(6) 1(1) 1(2)

Memory Structured Reviewing Cognitive Practising naturalistically Cognitive Use dictionary Cognitive Analyze expressions Cognitive Take notes Cognitive Summarize Cognitive Use emphasis techniques Compensation Guessing Compensation Avoid communication Compensation Going by the sound Metacognitive Overview and link with known material Metacognitive Make a deliberate attempt to pay attention Metacognitive Plan for the task Metacognitive Evaluating progress in activity Affective Use laughter to relax Affective Saying or writing positive statements Social Asking questions for clarification

It can be seen that the memory strategy of structured reviewing was more popular with the L2 text in that 5 learners used it while only 3 learners used the strategy for the L1 text. As explained by the learners the L1 text was mostly elaboration and examples of one or two points so they did not see the need to have to review their understanding of what they had read. The L2 text, on the other hand was divided into a number of sections and there were different ideas to consider for each section. Hence they found it necessary to constantly to review their understanding and relate it to the title of the text. The cognitive strategy of practising naturalistically was employed by one learner and she used the strategy to teach herself. She felt by reading aloud she was making the text familiar and thus more manageable. The use of dictionaries was also not popular with the learners for the L1 text as none of them employed this strategy while 2 of them used dictionaries to understand unfamiliar words in the L2 text. Once again this is probably related to the fact they find the Bahasa Melayu text easier to read and were not hampered by a lack of vocabulary. Since they had no difficulty with vocabulary none of the learners used the cognitive strategy of analyzing expressions while one learner used the text for the L2 text. Even then this learner used the strategy inaccurately because he analyzed the expression Finally, the learners possess to mean the word finally indicated this was the last point in the text. Instead the writer uses the word to show the last point in an argument and not in the text. The cognitive strategies that were popular with the learners for the L1 text was the summarizing strategy. As indicated by the learners in their verbal reports they found it easier to summarize at the end of one or two paragraphs in the L1 text. In this way they were able to relate the content in the paragraphs to the main points of the L1 text. This did not transfer to the L2 text because only 2 learners used this strategy of summarizing. The compensation strategies were also not very popular with the learners to read both texts. From the metacognitive strategy group the paying attention and planning for learning were used by all the learners for the L2 text while the evaluating progress strategy was used by 4 of the learners. In comparison only one learner used the paying attention strategy while 2 learners used the planning strategy to read the L1 text. The metacognitive strategy of overviewing and linking with known material was not used by the learners for the L1 text at all. Since the learners found the L1 text fairly easy to read because they recognized the structure of these texts they did not find the need to associate information in the text with what they already knew and therefore did not have to check to see if they understood the text correctly. 122

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 7, Number 3 (2009) More learners tended to use strategies to help them cope with the L2 text rather than the L1 text. As the table above indicates various strategies were employed 21 times for the L1 text while they were employed 41 times for the L2 text. A look at the number in brackets in the table reveals the frequency of use of each strategy by the learners who did employ the strategy. As expected, the memory strategy of structured reviewing was not very popular with the L1 text but was used as many as ten times by the 5 learners who did use the strategy. As explained the learners did not see the need to review what they were reading and understanding in the L1 text because of the elaborations while for the L2 text they needed to constantly keep reviewing to see if they were building a clear picture of the information in the text. The cognitive strategy of using emphasis was also popular and used often by the learners to help them with the cognitive strategy of summarizing for the L1 text. The metacognitive strategies were also not frequently employed for the L1 text while all the learners used them frequently to help them make sense of the L2 text. It is also clear that the learners were less confident when reading the L2 text because they display more affective strategies to help them overcome their nervousness when reading the text. Obviously the L1 text was familiar as the learners are used to reading in the L1 and using the L2 for reading is something which the learners only do in language classes so it is not that familiar. Learners are therefore more comfortable when they have to read a text in the L1.

6. Summary and Concluding Remarks

The learners in this study had no real difficulty reading and understanding the L1 text and were successful in their attempts to identify main ideas in the text. Similarly, the learners were also able to read the L2 text and identify main ideas in the text. What was interesting was that they did not use similar strategies to help them comprehend the two texts. This is in contrast to the findings of Sarig (1987), and Tang (1997) who posit that readers use similar strategies frequently in both languages. Learners tend to use metacognitive strategies when reading the L2 text to help them focus on the task by planning for it and paying attention to what was important to help them build structure of the text. This was not the case with the L1 text that was processed quickly with a minimal number of strategies as shown in Table 3. This could suggest that the L1 texts are generally familiar to the learners in that they are aware of the text structure and conceptual knowledge in these texts. Hence, learners need to become familiar with text structure and vocabulary knowledge in L2 texts to help them process these texts easier. Interestingly even though the learners were given the freedom to process the L1 text in the language it was written in many of them actually chose to use the L2 to process the text. In addition, when they were reading the L2 text they used the L2 in their think-aloud protocols. It would therefore appear that the L2, in this case English was the preferred language to indicate their strategy use. These learners were much more comfortable using the L2 to explain their strategy use and this is mainly because they were ESL students. Nambiar (2005) discusses this phenomenon and states ESL learners prefer to use English in their verbal reports even when they had a choice of which language to think in. It is clear that in a bilingual education system both languages should be given equal importance. In Malaysia, the teaching of Bahasa Melayu and English should be parallel in that the instructors involved should realize their learners already come with a language at their disposal whether it is Bahasa Melayu or English. Cook (1992: 584) states The L1 is present in the L2 learners minds, whether the teacher wants it to be there or not. The L2 knowledge that is being created in them is connected in all sorts of ways with their L1 knowledge. The smart thing to do would be to reap the benefits of this to help learners. The literature on transfer of strategies when learners read L1 and L2 texts is still unclear in that some researchers claim there are similarities while others claim there are differences in strategy use. Since the study focused on good learners in that they were proficient in both languages of the texts, the 123

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 7, Number 3 (2009) findings are only applicable to this group of learners. There might be differences if the learners were of a lower level of proficiency as the language of the texts may be a problem (Nambiar 2005). What is clear is that for bilinguals, reading cannot be a monolingual event because they have access to another language to help them understand a text. What is not clear still is whether readers who are proficient in both languages will read equally efficiently in both and comprehend information in texts successfully. While the learners in this study were able to read the L1 texts easily, they had difficulty with the L2 texts. Obviously, L1 texts are not a problem for them because these are the kinds of texts they are comfortable with and used to reading right from school. The complexity of the L2 texts easily becomes an obstacle for some learners who may need to use more strategies with more frequency to help them comprehend the texts. It is apparent that learners need to be instructed how to read and comprehend L2 texts taking into account the text type, text organization, text content, text readability (Alderson 2000).

References
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Afflerbach,P., 1990. The influence of prior knowledge on expert readers main construction strategies. Reading Research Quarterly 25, pp. 31-46. Alderson, C.J. & Urquhart S., 1984. Reading in a foreign language. New York : Longman Alderson, C.J., 2000. Assessing reading. Cambridge: CUP Anderson, N., (1999). Exploring second language reading: Issues and strategies. Boston: Heinle and Heinle. Barnett, M., 1988. Reading through context: how real and perceived strategy use affects L2 comprehension. The Modern Language Journal 72, pp. 150-162. Bernhardt, E. B., 1987. Cognitive processes in L2: An examination of reading behaviours. In J. Lantolf & A. Labarca (Eds.) Delaware Symposia on Language Studies: Research in second language acquisition the classroom setting. Norwood Ablex Bernhardt, E. B., (2005). Progress and procrastination in second language reading. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, pp. 133-150. Block, E., 1986. The comprehension strategies of second language readers. TESOL Quarterly 20/3, pp. 463-94 Carrel, P., 1991. Second language reading: Reading ability of language proficiency? Applied Linguistics 12/2, pp. 159-79 Cavalcanti, M., 1983. The pragmatics of Fl reader- text interaction. Key lexical items as a source of potential reading problems. PhD Thesis. Lancaster University,UK. Clarke, M., 1979. Reading in Spanish and English: evidence from adult ESL students. Language Learning, 29, pp. 121-50. Cook, V.J., 1992. Evidence for multicompetence. Language Learning, 42,pp. 557-591. Cummins, J., 1979. Cognitive/academic language proficiency. Linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism 19 pp. 197205. Fitzgerald, J., 1995. English as second language learners cognitive reading processes: A review of research in the United States. Review of Educational Research 65(2), pp. 145-190. Grabe, W., & Stoller, F., (2002). Teaching and researching reading. Harlow: Pearson Education. Huey, E.B., 1908. The psychology and pedagogy of reading. New York: Macmillan Kern, R., 2000. Literacy and language teaching. Oxford OUP Koda, K., (2005). Insights into second language reading: A cross-linguistic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

[14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

124

European Journal of Social Sciences Volume 7, Number 3 (2009) [19] Mah, S. F., 1999. The language learning strategies of Malaysian undergraduates from national primary schools and national type (Chinese) primary schools for completing selected ESL classroom activities. MA Thesis, University Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi. Nambiar, R., 1996. Learning Strategies Monograph Series Fakulti Pengajian Bahasa Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi. Nambiar , R., 2005. Language learning and language use strategies for academic literacy: Towards a theoretical and pedagogical model of language learning. Unpublished Phd Thesis Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi. Oxford, R. L., 1990. Language learning strategies: what every teacher should know, New York: Newbury House Harper Collins Pandian, A., 1997. Reading in Malaysia. Bangi:Penerbit UKM Pang, S.H., 2004. Cross linguistic transfer of reading skills in bilingual children. Unpublished PhD thesis. Stanford University. Pressley, M & Afflerbach, P., 1995. Verbal Protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, Erlbaum. Sarig, G., 1987. High level reading in the first and foreign language: Some comparative process data. In J. Devine, P.L.Carrell, & D.Eskey (Eds.) Research in reading in English as a second language. Washington:TESOL Sarjit Kaur & Salasiah Che Lah, 1998. Language learning strategies of Malay university students: An exploratory study. Paper presented at the 2nd MICELT. Universiti Putra Malaysia, 18-20 May. Tang, H., 1997. The relationship between reading comprehension processes in L1 and L2 reading. Reading Psychology 18, pp. 249-301. Taylor, I & Taylor, M., 1983. The psychology of reading. New York: Academic Press. Upton, T., 1997. First and Second language use in reading comprehension strategies of Japanese ESL students. TESL EJ Vol 3 No 1 Weber, R.M, 1984. Reading: United States. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 4, pp. 111123.

[20] [21]

[22] [23] [24] [25] [26]

[27]

[28] [29] [30] [31]

125