ESP Instruction: Traditional vs. Eclectic Method in Relation to Reading Comprehension of Iranian Agriculture Students

Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice

مقاله 7، دوره 2، شماره 4، مرداد 2009، صفحه 159-193   

نوع مقاله: Research Paper

نویسندگان

Sima Modirkhameneh؛ Mir Hosein Kashef^*

University of Urmia

چکیده

This study aimed at finding out the effect of two different methods of ESP instruction, namely, the traditional grammar translation method and an eclectic method on improving university students' reading comprehension ability. The main assumption was that compared to the Grammar-Translation which is probably not an efficient method, an eclectic method that focuses on improving reading comprehension ability of the university students through the use of some necessary strategies and skills, as proposed by Brown (2003), seems to be more effective.The participants, within the age range of 18-24, included 72 male and female Agriculture students who were semi-randomly assigned to two experimental groups (i.e. eclectic vs. traditional) each consisting of 36 learners. Following a pre-test, treatment (15 weeks, 2 sessions per week), and a post-test, the obtained data was analyzed using two-way ANOVA to examine the effects of the independent variables, while taking gender as a moderator variable. The results of the analysis showed that the eclectic method was significantly more effective compared to the traditional one in improving reading comprehension ability of the students, while gender did not turn out to have any significant effect on the students' reading comprehension. The findings are discussed in relation to effective reading comprehension instruction through the use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies in ESP teaching contexts.
 
 
 
 

کلیدواژه‌ها

ESP Instruction؛ Traditional method؛ Eclectic Method؛ reading comprehension

مراجع

Brown, J. D. (1995a). The elements of language curriculum: A systematic approach to program development. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Brown, J. D. (1995b). Language program evaluation: Decisions, problems, and solutions. In W. Grabe (Ed.), Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 15, 227–248. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Brown, J. D. (2003). Creating a complete language-testing program. In C. A. Coombe, & N. J. Hubley (Eds.), Assessment practices (pp. 9–23). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

Carrell, P. L. (1996). L2 reading strategy training: what is the role of metacognition? Paper presented at the 30th TESOL Annual Convention, Chicago, IL, 26–30 March.

Carrell, P. L. (1998). Can reading strategies be successfully taught? The Language Teacher (online), 22/3, 55 paragraphs. Available: http://langue.hyper.chubu.ac.jp./jalt/pub/tlt/98/mar/carrell.html

Chastain, K., (1988). Developing second language skills: Theory and practice. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.

Dehieb-Henia, N. (2003). Evaluating the effectiveness of metacognitive strategy training for reading research articles in an ESP context. Journal of English for Specific Purposes, 22, 387–417.

Dudley-Evans, T., & St John, M. (1998). Developments in English for Specific Purposes. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Edwards, N. (2000). Language for business: effective needs assessment, syllabus design and materials preparation in a practical ESP case study. English for Specific Purposes, 19, 291–296.

Fiorito, L. (2005). How is English for specific purposes different from English as a second language, also known as general English? Teacher articles, using English.com

Flowerdew, L., (2005). Integrating traditional and critical approaches to syllabus design. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4, 135-147.

Flowerdew, J., Peacock, M., (2001). Research Perspectives on English for Academic Purposes. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

Fuertes-Olivera, P. A., Gomez-Martinez, S. (2004). Empirical assessment of some learning factors affecting Spanish students of business English. Journal of English for Specific Purposes, 23, 163-180.

Gatehouse, K. (2001). Key Issues in English for Specific Purposes (ESP) Curriculum Development. The Internet TESL Journal, 7, 10.

Golinkoff, R. M. (1975). A comparison of reading comprehension processes in good and poor comprehenders. Reading Research Quarterly, 11, 623–659.

Hauptman, P.C. (2000). Some hypotheses on the nature of difficulty and ease in second language reading: an application of schema theory. Foreign Language Annals, 33, 622–631.

Hayati, A.M. (2008). Teaching English for Special Purposes in Iran: Problems and suggestions. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 7, 149-165

Huang, S.-C. (2006). Reading English for academic purposes –What situational factors may motivate learners to read? System, 34, 371–383.

Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1987). English for Specific Purposes. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Pearson, P. D., & Fielding, L. (1991). Comprehension instruction. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Vol. II (pp. 815–860). New York: Longman.

Robinson, P. (1991). ESP today. London: Prentice Hall.