ALIS Newsletter - August 2013 (Plain Text Version)

Return to Graphical Version

In this issue:
LEADERSHIP UPDATES
•  FROM THE EDITORS
•  FROM THE OUTGOING CHAIR
•  FROM THE CHAIR
ARTICLES
•  DISCOURSE-BASED GRAMMAR AND THE TEACHING OF ACADEMIC READING AND WRITING
•  ACADEMIC READING AND WRITING EXPECTATIONS
•  GRAMMAR NOTICING AND PRODUCTION TASKS FOR ACADEMIC WRITING IN IEP CONTEXTS
ABOUT THIS COMMUNITY
•  INFLUENCING REAL PEOPLE IN THE REAL WORLD
•  MEET RUBA BATAINEH

ACADEMIC READING AND WRITING EXPECTATIONS

Neil J Anderson, Norman W. Evans, & K. James Hartshorn, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, USA

Introduction

Limited research has been conducted to identify learning challenges in a university environment (Chase, Gibson, & Carson, 1994; Shelyakina, 2010). Several publications have identified what international students have to do in their reading and writing in order to be successful (Grabe & Stoller, 2014; Grabe & Zhang, 2013). In particular, Gebhard ( 2010) indicated that international students are often shocked with the amount of reading and writing they are expected to complete. Most international students have never had to read multiple texts, synthesize the information, formulate a personal stance, and then produce a paper that demonstrates their understanding and supports personal opinions. Building on previous research, we wanted to know what expectations faculty have of students enrolled in introductory classes in key majors selected by international students studying in the United States.

Research Questions

We identified the following research questions:

1. What kinds of reading and writing are expected of students in the first semester of coursework in their major of study?
2. How much reading and writing is expected of students in the first semester of coursework in their major of study?
3. How might the amount and types of reading and writing vary across majors?

Survey Methodology

In order to respond to our research questions, we consulted Open Doors (Chow & Bhandari, 2011) to identify the top five majors that attract the largest numbers of international students. These included: (1) Biology, (2) Business, (3) Computer Science, (4) Engineering, and (5) Psychology. We then identified the institutions that enroll the largest number of international students. For this study, we limited our focus to institutions that granted doctorate, master’s, or baccalaureate degrees, selecting10 institutions from each category type. Table 1 summarizes the enrollments of international students in the United States during the 2011–2012 academic year for the three institution types, as well as enrollment in the 30 programs we surveyed.

Table 1. International Student enrollment, 2011–2012

We identified faculty who teach the introductory course in each of the five majors from each of the 30 institutions. We then placed phone calls to those faculty inviting them to respond to an online survey. For the preliminary data reported in this article, the response rate was 95%. The high response rate can be attributed to the initial telephone call to establish the purpose of the study and to elicit support.

Preliminary Results

Prior to the TESOL 2013 convention we had received responses from 42 institutions, including responses from 17 biology programs and 19 business programs. We reported preliminary results from these two majors. One key question elicited respondents’ perceptions of the importance of the four language skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) in the courses they taught. Table 2 reports the faculty rankings of the importance of these language skills for success in the introductory course.

Table 2. Faculty Ranking of the Importance of the Language Skills for Student Success in the Course

(n=42; 1=Not important, 2=Somewhat important, 3=Important, 4=Very important

A Tukey HSD test revealed that while reading and listening were viewed equally as most important, statistically significant differences (p < .05) were observed between these skills and writing, and between writing and speaking. These data indicate the importance that faculty give to a student’s ability to read and listen in order to perform well in the introductory classes in biology and business.

Preliminary Results on Reading Expectations
Table 3 reports responses to the first research question: What kinds of reading are expected of students in the first semester of coursework in their major? We asked faculty to indicate how important various types of reading were to successfully complete the introductory course.

Table 3. Types of Reading Assignments

1=Not part of course, 2=Somewhat important, 3=Important, 4=Very important

There were statistically significant differences between the reading expectations of the business and biology faculty. For example, business faculty placed a higher level of importance on textbooks. The business and biology faculty also differed in terms of the importance of reading magazines, newspapers, lab manuals, and scientific studies.

Table 4 reports the amounts of reading that faculty in biology and business expect of students in the introductory course in each major.

Table 4. Volume of Reading in Pages per Week

t(14.02) = -2.09, p = .055, η²=.14

(Adjusted df due to unequal variance)

There is a statistically significant difference between the volume of reading that biology and business majors are expected to complete weekly. Business majors read approximately 121 pages per week while biology majors read approximately 43.

Preliminary Results on Writing Expectations
Table 5 reports responses to the first research question: What kinds of writing are expected of students in the first semester of coursework in their major of study? We asked faculty to indicate how important a variety of types of writing assignments were to successfully complete the introductory course in the major.

Table 5. Types of Writing Assignments
Importance of Types of Writing Across Majors

1=Not part of course, 2=Somewhat important, 3=Important, 4=Very important

Two differences are reported from this list of writing assignments. Business students do more writing assignments that involve math problems than do biology majors. Biology majors write more lab reports than do business majors.

We also asked the faculty how important writing was on exams that they administer. We gave a variety of writing exam question types and asked for their evaluation of the importance of each writing type by indicating what percentage of exam writing involved each writing type. Table 6 reports the responses to this question, showing no statistically significant differences between biology and business majors.

Table 7 reports how important a variety of writing features are in the material produced by students. There were no statistically significant differences between biology and business majors.

1=Not part of course, 2=Somewhat important, 3=Important, 4=Very important

We were also interested to know whether faculty provide specific feedback on the writing, whether writing assignments could be resubmitted, and whether writing assignments could be hand written. Table 8 reports the results of this portion of the survey, indicating no statistically significant differences between biology and business majors.

Table 9 reports the volume of writing expected of students in each of these majors, showing that business majors write more pages per week than biology majors.

Table 9. Volume of Writing in Pages

t(15) = -.799, p = .437

Implications/Conclusions

These preliminary data suggest that there are some meaningful differences in the reading and writing expectations for biology and business students. This is of importance for applied linguists who can begin conducting additional analyses to determine the linguistic differences between the types of reading and writing assignments that students must complete in these key majors. Our investigation of these differences continues. We have recently completed data collection from 20 different institutions for each of the five majors. We will report in future publications the full data set.

Selected References

Chase, N., Gibson, S., & Carson, J. (1994). An examination of reading demands across four colleges courses. Journal of Developmental Education, 18, 10–14.

Chow, P., & Bhandari, R. (2011). Open doors: Report on international educational exchange. New York, NY: Institute of International Education.

Gebhard, J. G. (2010). What do international students think and feel? Adapting to U.S. college life and culture. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

Grabe, W., & Zhang, C. (2013). Reading and writing together: A critical component of English for academic purposes teaching and learning. TESOL Journal, 4(1), 9–24.

Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (2014). Teaching reading for academic purposes. In M. Celce-Murcia, D. M. Brinton & M. A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (4th ed., pp. 189–205). Boston, MA: National Geographic Learning/Heinle.

Shelyakina, O. (2010). Student perceptions of their ESL training in preparation for university reading tasks (Unpublished master’s thesis). Brigham Young University, Provo, UT.