Reading Performance of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Students: Comparing STEM-Related and STEM-Unrelated Texts

Jerryk Comawas Alico

doi:10.31686/ijier.vol5.iss3.637

Authors

Jerryk Comawas Alico

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31686/ijier.vol5.iss3.637

Keywords:

Reading Performance, Content Familiarity, Reading Interest, Senior High School, STEM

Abstract

This causal-comparative research investigated whether reading comprehension performance differs if students read two different texts one that is related to their chosen field of study while the other is not. It also took interest in determining the influence of demographic and academic profile information on reading comprehension. Thirty students enrolled in the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Strand of the Mindanao State University-Marawi Senior High School took two sets of reading comprehension tests for four times. The first set used texts whose topics are related to STEM while the second set used texts whose topics are taken from other fields of study like social sciences and economics. Findings revealed that in all four sessions of reading comprehension tests, there was a consistent significant difference between the performances of students in STEM-related and STEM-unrelated texts. Specifically, students performed better in test sets that used STEM-related texts. Moreover, there was no difference in the students’ performance when they were classified according to their gender and age. Interestingly, the curriculum they undertook in junior high school mattered in their reading comprehension performance on STEM-unrelated texts, which showed that students who were trained in science high schools performed better than other students did. These findings forward significant pedagogical implications for the effective teaching of English as well as other subject areas to Senior High School students with respect to instructional and reading materials used.

Author Biography

Jerryk Comawas Alico

Faculty, Senior High School
Special Assistant, Office of the Vice President for Planning and Development

References

Aghajani, M., Motahari, M. & Qahraman, V. (2013). The Effect of Text Familiarity and Reading Tasks on ESP Test Performances. Journal of Emerging Trends in Computing and Information Sciences, 4 (3), 296-302.

Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511732935

Alderson, J. C., & Urquhart, A. H. (1983). The effect of student background discipline on comprehension: a pilot study. In A. Hughes, & D. Porter (Eds.).

Alderson, J. C., & Urquhart, A. H. (1985a). The effect of students’ academic discipline on their performance on ESP reading tests. Language Testing, 2, 192-204. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/026553228500200207

Alderson, J. C., & Urquhart, A. H. (1985b). This test is unfair: I’m not an economist. In P. C. Hauptman, R. Le Blanc, & M. B. Wesche (Eds.).

Alexander, P. A., & Jetton, T. L. (2000). Learning from a text: A multidimensional and developmental perspective. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Vol. 3. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Al-Shumaimeri, Y. (2006). The Effects of Content Familiarity and Language Ability on Reading Comprehension Performance of Low- and High-ability Saudi Tertiary Students Studying English as a Foreign Language., Educational Science & Islamic Studies, 18 (2), pp. 1-19.

Anderson, N. J. (2003). “Reading”. Practical English Language Teaching. Ed. D. Nunan. New York: McGraw Hill. pp. 67-86.

Carrell, P. L. (1983). Some issues in studying the role of schemata, or background knowledge, in second language comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 1, 81–92.

Carrell, P. L. (1987). Content and formal schemata in ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 461–481.Carrell, P. L. (1988). Some causes of text-boundedness and schema interference in ESL reading. In P. L. Carrell, J. Devine, & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp. 101–113). New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524513.012

Carrell, P. L., & Eisterhold, J. C. (1983). Schema theory and ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 553–573. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3586613

Erten, I.H. and Razi, S. (2009). “The effects of cultural familiarity on reading scomprehension” in Reading in a Foreign Language, 21 (1), 60-77.

Grabe, W. (1991). Current developments in second language reading research. TESOL Quraterly, 25, 375- 406. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3586977 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3586977

Grabe, W., & Stoller, L. F. (2002). Teaching and researching reading. Harlow: Pearson Education.

Haiduc, L. & Liliana. C. (2011). Reading Science Textbooks: The Role of Metacognition in Reading Comprehension. International Conference on Languages, Literature and Linguistics, IPEDR, 26, 550-555.

Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contributions as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational Research, 60, 549-572. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543060004549

Ketchum, E. M. (2006). The cultural baggage of second language reading: An approach to understanding. Foreign Language Annals, 39, 22–42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2006.tb02247.x

Krapp, A., Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (1992). Interest, learning and development. In A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Lipson, M. Y. (1984). Some unexpected issues in prior knowledge and comprehension. The reading teacher, April, 760-764.

Mandler, J. M. (1984). Stories, scripts, and scenes: Aspects of schema theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Martínez, A.C.L. (2014). Analysis of the Effect of Content Familiarity and Gender on English as a Foreign Language Reading Comprehension by Spanish University Students. Porta Linguarum, 21, 69-84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30827/Digibug.30483

Nassaji, H. (2002). Schema theory and knowledge-based processes in second language reading comprehension: A need for alternative perspectives. Language Learning, 52, 439-481. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00189

Peretz, A. S., & Shoham, M. (1990). Testing reading comprehension in LSP. Reading in a foreign language. 7, 447-55.

Schiefele, U. (1992). Topic interest and levels of text comprehension. In A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Singhal, M. (1998). A comparison of L1 and L2 reading: Cultural differences and schema. The Internet TESL Journal, 4 (10). Retrieved on September 20, 2005, from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Singhal-ReadingL1L2.html

Tabatabaei, O. (2013). The Effect of Content Familiarity and Gender on EFL Learners’ Performance on MC Cloze Test and C-Test. International Journal of English Language Education, 1 (3), 151-171. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5296/ijele.v1i3.3952

Wade, S. E. (1992). How interest affects learning from a text. In A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.