This study uses techniques derived from the fields of cognitive psychology and student learning to investigate the approaches to studying of a sample of Hong Kong students and to relate these approaches to the interactive model of second-language reading. The English language ability of the subjects, who were studying in a second language, was compared to measures from the Approaches to Studying Inventory (ASI) and data from student interviews. English language ability was found to be correlated with deep and surface approach scores of the ASI, which determine whether a student sets out to find the global meaning of a piece of reading or tries to memorise items. There was evidence of the subjects adopting a narrow focus in their learning approaches, which is interpreted as evidence for over-reliance on bottom-up processing. The results are seen as offering some support to the short-cut hypothesis of second-language processing.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Biggs, J.B. (1989). Approaches to the enhancement of tertiary teachingHigher Education Research and Development , 8(1), 7-25.
2.
Carrell, P.L. (1988). Some causes of text-boundness and schema interference in ESL reading In P. L. Carrell, J. Devine & D. Eskey (Eds.). Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp. 101-113). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3.
Carrell, P. L., Devine, J. & Eskey, D. (Eds.) (1988). Interactive approaches to second language readingCambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4.
Clarke, M.A. (1980). The short circuit hypothesis of ESL reading - or when language competence interferes with reading performanceModern Language Journal, 64 (2), 203-209.
5.
Cziko, G.A. (1987). Differences in first and second language reading: the use of syntactic, semantic and discourse constraintsCanadian Modern Language Review, 34, 473-489.
6.
Devine, J. (1984). ESL readers' internalized models of the reading process In J. Handscombe, R. A. Orem & B. P. Taylor (Eds.), On TESOL '83 (pp. 95-108). Washington D. C. : TESOL.
7.
Devine, J. (1988). A case study of two readers: models of reading and reading performance In P. Carrell, J. Devine & D. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp. 127-139). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8.
Education Department, Hong Kong. (1989). Report of the working group set up to review language improvement measuresHong Kong: Education Department.
9.
Entwistle, N. & Marton, F. (1984). Changing conceptions of learning and research In F. Marton, D. Hounsell & N. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning (pp. 211-228). Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.
Fillmore, C.J. (1981). Ideal readers and real readers In D. Tannen (Ed.), Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics 1981 (pp. 248-270). Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press.
12.
Goodman, K.S. (1970). Behind the eye: what happens in reading In K. S. Goodman & O. S. Niles (Eds.), Reading: Process and program (pp.3-38). Urbana, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English.
13.
Goodman, K.S. (1967). Reading: a psycholinguistic guessing gameJournal of the Reading Specialist, 6(1), 126-135.
14.
Gow, L. & Kember, D. (1990). Does higher education promote independent learning?Higher Education, 19, 307-322.
15.
Guba, E.G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic enquiriesEducation Communciation and Technology Journal, 29(2), 75-91.
16.
Harper, G. & Kember, D. (1989). Interpretation of factor analyses from the approaches to studying inventoryBritish Journal of Educational Psychology , 59, 66-74.
17.
Harste, J.C. & Burke, C.L. (1977). A new hypothesis for reading teacher research: both teaching and learning of reading are theoretically based In P. D. Person (Ed.), Reading: Theory, research and practice, 26th Yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp.32-40). Clemson, S. C.: National Reading Conference.
18.
Ho, D.Y.F. (1986). Chinese patterns of socialisation: a critical review In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The psychology of the Chinese people.London: Oxford University Press.
19.
Hong Kong Polytechnic (1990). Report by the working party on language Unpublished mimeograph. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Polytechnic.
20.
Hudson, T. (1982). The effects of induced schemata on the "short circuit" in L2 reading: non-decoding factors in L2 reading and performanceLanguage Learning, 32(1), 3-31.
21.
Johnson, R.K., Shek, C.K.W. & Law, E.F.H. (1989). Text processing: investigating L2 strategies and styles In V. Bickley (Ed.), Teaching and learning styles within and across cultures: implications for language pedagogy (pp. 153-166). Hong Kong: Institute of Language in Education.
22.
Kember, D. & Gow, L. (1989). A Model of student approaches to learning encompassing ways to influence and change approachesInstructional Science, 18, 263-288.
23.
Kember, D. & Gow, L. (1990). Cultural specificity of approaches to learningBritish Journal of Educational Psychology , 356-363.
24.
Kember, D. & Gow, L. (1991). A challenge to the anecdotal stereotype of the Asian studentStudies in Higher Education , 16(2 ) 117-128.
25.
Lai, T. ( 1989). Effects of study strategies, orientating aids and concept maps as advance graphic organisers on learning from text. Unpublished Masters degree thesis, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
26.
Laurillard, D. (1984). Learning from problem solving In F. Marton, D. Hounsell & N. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning (pp.124-143). Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.
27.
Marton, F. & Säljö, R. (1976a). On qualitative differences in learning, outcome and process IBritish Journal of Educational Psychology , 46, 4-11.
28.
Marton, F. & Säljö, R. (1976b). On qualitative differences in learning, outcome and process IIBritish Journal of Educational Psychology , 46, 115-127.
29.
Meyer, J.H.F. & Parsons, P. (1989). Approaches to studying and course perceptions using the Lancaster Inventory - a comparative studyStudies in Higher Education, 14 (2), 137-156.
Pask, G. (1976a). Styles and strategies of learningBritish Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 128-148.
33.
Pask, G. (1976b). Conversational techniques in the study and practice of educationBritish Journal of Educational Psychology , 46, 12-25.
34.
Ramsden, P. & Entwistle, N.J. (1981). Effects of academic departments on students' approaches to studyingBritish Journal of Educational Psychology, 51 , 363-383.
35.
Rhodes, L. (1979). Comprehension and predictability: an analysis of beginning reading materials In J. C. Harste & R. F. Crey (Eds.), New perspectives on comprehensionBloomington : Indiana University School of Education.
36.
Rumelhart, D.E. (1977). Toward an interactive model of reading In S. Dornie (Ed.), Attention and performance (pp. 573-603). Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum.
37.
Rumelhart, D.E. (1980). Schemata: the building blocks of cognition In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 33-58). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
38.
Schuell, T.J. (1986). Cognitive conceptions of learningReview of Educational Research, 56(4), 411-436.
39.
Spiro, R.J. (1978). Beyond schema availabilityPaper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference, St. Petersburg, December 1978
40.
Spiro, R.J. (1979). Etiology of reading comprehension style In M. L. Kamil & A. J. Moe (Eds.), Reading research: Studies and applications (pp. 118-122). Cemson, S. C.: National Reading Conference.
41.
SPSS Inc. (1988). SPSS-X Users' GuideChicago : SPSS Inc.
42.
Thomas, P.R. & Bain, J.D. (1984). Contextual differences of learning approaches: the effects of assessmentsHuman Learning , 3, 227-240.
