Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Saudi technical college students and an English for Specific
Purposes textbook:
A cloze test based linguistic analysis
Abdullah Mohammed Almatrafi
Bachelor of English Language, King Saud University
Master of Applied Linguistics, The University of Newcastle,
Australia
Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy in Education
Faculty of Education and Arts
The University of Newcastle, Australia
July 2018
i
STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY
I hereby certify that the work embodied in the thesis is my own work, conducted under
normal supervision. The thesis contains no material which has been accepted, or is being
examined, for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary
institution and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, contains no material previously
published or written by another person, except where due reference has been made. I give
consent to the final version of my thesis being made available worldwide when deposited in
the University’s Digital Repository, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968 and
any approved embargo.
Signature:
Date: 20 July 2018
ii
DEDICATION
To the soul of my mother, may Allah bless her soul with mercy.
To my father, who has supported me with the university fees and life expenses, with his
love and patience, and with his prayers day and night.
To my wife Dr. Nouf Albadi,
and my daughter Sadeem and my son Abdulmohsen, with all my love.
To all my sisters and brothers for their endless encouragement, support
and continuous prayers, I give my thanks.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In the Name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful
Firstly, I thank Allah Almighty for giving me strength, patience, and time to accomplish my
thesis. As our Prophet Mohammed (Peace be upon Him) said: “He will not be thankful to
Allah, he who would not be thankful to people.” Therefore, I would like to extend my deep
appreciation to those who have helped and supported me throughout my PhD journey.
I would like to express my deepest gratitude and appreciation to my principal supervisor,
Associate Professor, Dr. John Mitchell O’Toole, whose expertise, opinions, support,
guidance, assistance and input contributed substantially to the production of this thesis.
Without his continuous support and guidance, and assistance, this project would not have been
completed. Mitch is more than a supervisor; he is family and an ongoing source of inspiration.
I also wish to thank my co-supervisors. Dr. Jean Harkins, from the Department of Linguistics,
provided much needed inspiration and support that had a real impact on the timely completion
of this thesis. Dr. Rachel Burke’s generous humanity, words of encouragement and support
have enlightened my PhD journey. A special thanks should also go to Mr. Richard Laugesen:
without his behind-the-scenes support while using thinkliteracy software, my data collection
would have been much more complicated. His interactions, patience and quick reply to any
enquiry facilitated the work of this research project.
I express particular appreciation of the help provided by Prof. Lucy Johnston in approving a
fee waiver for the final semester of my study.
iv
A special note of appreciation is extended to my wife Dr. Nouf Albadi for her love, patience,
thoughtfulness, understanding, encouragement and unceasing support. Thanks for all the
sacrifices that you have endured during the past years.
To my beloved children Sadeem and Abdulmohsen: I will not even try to think of words to
thank you because I will not succeed or even achieve something to say. May Allah protect
you and help you to reach your own successes.
A very special warm appreciation and thanks goes to my all my sisters and brothers, who
stood by me and gave me all the support I needed during my PhD journey.
I extend my sincere appreciation and gratitude to my best friends Mr. Abdulaziz Al-Hedaithi
Dr. Nasser Al-Asmari and Dr. Suhai Shafea for their assistance, advice, encouragement and
unlimited help during my PhD journey.
I would like to extend my thanks to Mr. Abdulaziz Al-Harthy, Mr. Omar Al-Harbi, and to all
my colleagues in the English Language Centre, Jeddah College of Technology for their support
and participation in this research. I am really grateful to my colleagues from all other different
Technical Colleges around the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for their help and participation as
well as all students who have generously participated in this research.
v
Perfection is beyond our reach,
but if we chase after it,
we can hope to catch excellence.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Statement of Originality .......................................................................................................... i
Dedication .............................................................................................................................. ii
Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................. iii
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................. vi
List of Figures ....................................................................................................................... xi
List of Tables ....................................................................................................................... xii
List of Abbreviations .......................................................................................................... xiv
Abstract ................................................................................................................................ xv
Chapter 1: Introduction .................................................................................................. 1
1.1 A personal reflection .................................................................................................. 2
1.2 Development of education in Saudi Arabia ............................................................... 6
1.3 English in the Saudi education system..................................................................... 12
1.4 Training of EFL Teachers in Saudi Arabia .............................................................. 16
1.5 Technical and vocational education in Saudi Arabia ............................................... 21
1.6 Role of education in the nation’s future ................................................................... 26
1.7 Focus and significance of this study ........................................................................ 34
1.8 Summary and thesis structure .................................................................................. 37
Chapter 2: Literature Review ...................................................................................... 41
2.1 Overview .................................................................................................................. 41
vii
2.2 English language issues in science and technical education .................................... 43
2.3 Learning EFL in the Saudi context .......................................................................... 49
2.3.1 Individual factors in EFL learning ....................................................................... 53
2.3.2 EFL teaching methods and delivery .................................................................... 58
2.3.3 English for special purposes (ESP) in the Saudi context ..................................... 61
2.4 Reading and readability ........................................................................................... 65
2.4.1 Measuring readability levels ................................................................................ 68
2.4.2 Measuring readability via cloze testing................................................................ 70
2.4.3 Scoring methods and related controversies .......................................................... 73
2.4.4 Discovering who has trouble with what ............................................................... 76
2.4.5 Online evaluation of textbook readability............................................................ 79
2.5 Summary .................................................................................................................. 80
Chapter 3: Methodology ............................................................................................... 81
3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 81
3.2 Research questions ................................................................................................... 82
3.3 Study design ............................................................................................................. 83
3.4 Research instruments ............................................................................................... 84
3.4.1 Readability comparison ....................................................................................... 84
3.4.2 Cloze Test............................................................................................................. 88
3.4.2.1 How can we identify specific difficulties? ................................................... 88
3.4.2.2 Generating cloze items ................................................................................. 88
3.4.2.3 Classifying cloze items ................................................................................ 88
3.4.3 Student questionnaire ........................................................................................... 92
viii
3.4.4 Teacher questionnaire .......................................................................................... 93
3.5 Data collection ......................................................................................................... 93
3.5.1 Participants ........................................................................................................... 93
3.5.2 Thinkliteracy online platform .............................................................................. 99
3.6 Validity and reliability ........................................................................................... 102
3.7 Summary ................................................................................................................ 103
Chapter 4: Results ....................................................................................................... 105
4.1 Readability comparison ......................................................................................... 106
4.2 Results from thinkliteracy ...................................................................................... 108
4.2.1 Descriptive statistics .......................................................................................... 108
4.3 SPSS DATA........................................................................................................... 115
4.3.1 Descriptive statistics .......................................................................................... 115
4.3.2 Overall language difficulties (compared with backgrounds) ............................. 116
4.4 Problems with specific features ............................................................................. 118
4.5 Student survey results ............................................................................................ 119
4.5.1 Students’ demographic survey ........................................................................... 119
4.5.2 Survey of student opinion .................................................................................. 122
4.6 Who is having trouble with what? ......................................................................... 124
4.7 Teacher survey results............................................................................................ 132
4.8 Summary ................................................................................................................ 136
Chapter 5: Discussion.................................................................................................. 139
5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 139
ix
5.2 Methodological issues ............................................................................................ 140
5.2.1 Readability ......................................................................................................... 140
5.2.2 Cloze test ............................................................................................................ 142
5.2.3 Demographic Information .................................................................................. 142
5.2.4 Cloze test differences ......................................................................................... 144
5.2.5 Categorization .................................................................................................... 146
5.2.6 Thinkliteracy ...................................................................................................... 147
5.2.7 SPSS ................................................................................................................... 147
5.3 Attitudinal issues .................................................................................................... 147
5.3.1 Student and teacher attitudes to EFL ................................................................. 148
5.4 Language issues ..................................................................................................... 150
5.4.1 Technical textbook reading difficulties ............................................................. 150
5.4.2 Who is having trouble with what? ..................................................................... 154
5.4.3 Difficulties across groups .................................................................................. 155
Chapter 6: Conclusions ............................................................................................... 157
6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 157
6.2 Contributions of the study ...................................................................................... 160
6.2.1 Methodological contributions ............................................................................ 160
6.2.2 Linguistic contributions ..................................................................................... 160
6.2.3 Pedagogical contributions .................................................................................. 161
6.3 Limitations of the study ......................................................................................... 163
6.4 Recommendations of the study .............................................................................. 164
6.5 Final remarks ......................................................................................................... 164
x
Bibliography ..................................................................................................................... 167
Appendices ........................................................................................................................ 201
Appendix 1 ......................................................................................................................... 201
Appendix 2: Readability assessment ................................................................................. 207
Appendix 3: Approvals ...................................................................................................... 208
Appendix 4: Thinkliteracy package ................................................................................... 210
Appendix 5: Students’ survey ............................................................................................ 216
Appendix 6: Teachers’ survey ........................................................................................... 229
Appendix 7: Language features ......................................................................................... 240
Appendix 8 ......................................................................................................................... 265
Appendix 9: Students in labs ............................................................................................. 267
Appendix 10: Students’ reading interest ............................................................................ 273
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1. Location of participating colleges. ...........................................................95
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 Political, economic and government events.............................................. 8
Table 1.2 TVTC Institutes: 2017 statistics................................................................ 22
Table 3.1 Connection between the research questions that guided this investigation
and the various phases that comprised it...................................................
85
Table 3.2 Student sample from participating colleges............................................... 96
Table 3.3 Participating departments......................................................................... 97
Table 3.4 Participating teachers............................................................................... 98
Table 4.1 Readability indices ...................................................................................... 107
Table 4.2 Overall thinkliteracy output: Participants and readability......................... 108
Table 4.3 Overall student difficulties........................................................................... 109
Table 4.4 Descriptive analysis of the cloze test results................................................ 110
Table 4.5 Demographic variables (students)............................................................... 111
Table 4.6 Thinkliteracy output for students’ survey Likert item 112
Table 4.7 Thinkliteracy output for teachers’ survey Likert items................................ 113
Table 4.8 Thinkliteracy teachers’ demographics......................................................... 114
Table 4.9 Number of participating students who completed cloze test and survey..... 115
Table 4.10 Number of participating teachers.............................................................. 116
Table 4.11 Overall cloze test scores (reliability) ........................................................ 117
Table 4.12 Overall participating department results................................................... 117
Table 4.13 Language features (where the subtest results were sufficiently reliable
for discussion) ..........................................................................................
118
xiii
Table 4.14 Students’ demographic survey (where the difference between
distributions is sufficiently significant for discussion) ..............................
121
Table 4.15 Student responses to Likert items, where significance is less than 0.05.... 123
Table 4.16 Who is having trouble with what? (Contrasts that do not achieve
statistical significance are shaded.) ..............................................................
125
Table 4.17 Demographic items with subtest results (where the differences in
background data are sufficiently significant for discussion) ........................
126
Table 4.18 Interaction of students’ attitudes and performance on specific language
features (1): only statistically significant results...........................................
129
Table 4.19 Interaction of students’ attitudes and performance on specific language
features (2): only statistically significant results..........................................
131
Table 4.20 Teachers’ survey Likert items (1) .............................................................. 134
Table 4.21 Teachers’ survey Likert items (2) .............................................................. 135
Table 4.22 Teachers’ demographic survey items......................................................... 136
xiv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ALM Audio-Lingual Method ANOVA Analysis of Variance BAM Bilingual Approach Method CAM Communicative Approach Method CMR Component model of reading CPH Critical Period Hypothesis EAP English for Academic Purposes EFL English as a Foreign Language EOP Educational Opportunity Program ESL English as a Second Language ESP English for Special Purpose GCC Gulf Cooperation Council GTM Grammar Translation Method H Hijri: Migration of Prophet Mohammed, Peace Be upon Him IELTS International English Language Testing System KACST King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology KAUST KSA
King Abdullah University of Science and Technology Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
L1 First Language L2 Second Language M Mean MBRF Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum Foundation MC Multiple choice MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology N Number of participants NTP National Transformation Program 2020 SD Standard Deviation SEM Structural Equation Modeling Sig Significance SLA Second Language Acquisition SMEA Small and Medium Enterprises Authority (Saudi insititution) SPSS SR
Statistical Package for Social Sciences Saudi Riyal
TOEFL Test of English as a Foreign Language TVTC Technical and Vocational Training Corporation UNDP United Nations Development Programme
xv
ABSTRACT
Technical Colleges aim to prepare their students for relatively direct entry into the labour
market. For many contexts, this requires access to resources in both English and the local
language. Saudi Vision 2030 aims to localize employment, which will further increase the
demand for English among technical graduates. However, students in such programs have
apparent difficulty in reading their Technical English textbooks. This study particularly
focused on access to the current mandatory English for Specific Purposes textbook by 280
students from six Saudi technical colleges. A 50-item cloze test provides details of access,
contextualized by the responses to separate surveys of students and their technical college
lecturers. Close analysis of student errors on the cloze test revealed a particular pattern of
difficulty with the language of the ESP textbook from which the test was constructed. The
study used online surveys to expose student and teacher attitudes to the mandatory technical
English textbooks provided within the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Initial findings suggested
that the ESP text appeared to be easier than other texts in English that such students might read.
However, the difficulties that these students experienced with that text are sufficient to suggest
that the national aim of preparing a local technical workforce that is ready to meet the needs of
emerging economic changes may be problematic. This study suggests that there is a need for
intensive ESP training for teachers, which may lead to more appropriate methods of teaching
English in similar contexts. It also suggests some features of textbooks designed specifically
for Arab learners that may be more suitable for technical college students.
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
This study examines issues of comprehensibility of Technical English instructional
materials for Arabic-speaking learners in technical colleges in Saudi Arabia. Language
learning is not usually considered to be an important part of technical and vocational
education, and students who choose to study technical subjects generally do not see
themselves as having a gift for languages. However, the global dominance of major world
languages, particularly English, has made some knowledge of the language that they are
likely to encounter in their work a requirement for technical workforces throughout the
world. The rapid growth of English for Special Purposes (ESP) from its inception in the
1960s into one of the most prominent areas within the teaching of English as a Foreign
Language (EFL) is a product of this imperative. However, it is probably fair to say that the
practical impetus behind ESP, and the urgency of its mission, have left it relatively under-
researched in comparison with other areas of second and foreign language learning. The
specific aims of ESP, with its focus on subject-specific language rather than overall
language proficiency, have also somewhat limited its attraction for researchers interested
in theories of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) and in the teaching and learning of
English as a second or foreign language (ESL/EFL).
The use of a mandatory Technical English textbook in technical colleges in Saudi Arabia
provides an opportunity to begin to redress this imbalance. The research reported here
attempts a direct, empirical investigation of learners' ability to read and learn from this
book. Two hundred and eighty students in their second year of study at six different
technical colleges in six cities in Saudi Arabia completed a 50-item cloze test and an on-
line questionnaire comprising basic demographic questions plus a 10-item, 6-point Likert
scale, survey of their attitudes to and subjective experiences of learning Technical English.
2
The 36 teachers of these students also completed an online survey about their experience
and views of teaching Technical English. An innovative analysis was applied to the cloze
test results to measure the relationship between student errors and specific linguistic
features of the text. Findings revealed that even though this ESP textbook was relatively
easy to read compared with other English texts that students at this level might read,
nevertheless their overall mean cloze score of 38.3% indicated frustration in their ability to
comprehend it. The linguistic analysis indicate that these students experienced difficulty
with both vocabulary and grammar but had less difficulty with nouns than with other
linguistic categories, particularly prepositions. These findings, together with the student
and teacher questionnaire data, have implications for both textbook design and teacher
preparation for ESP in technical and vocational education.
This first chapter provides the background to the research, including the broader context of
education in Saudi Arabia. It describes the place of English and of technical education now
and into the future and then moves on to the focus and significance of the present study.
1.1 A personal reflection
This research and the questions it addresses have their origins in the writer’s personal and
professional experience, as an English teacher with more than two decades of teaching
experience in Saudi Arabia at the College of Technology in Jeddah and in a public high
school. In the year 1412 H (according to the Islamic Calendar that is officially used in Saudi
Arabia dating from the migration of Prophet Mohammed, Peace Be upon Him, from
Makkah to Madinah), corresponding to 1992 AD, under the international Gregorian
calendar, I graduated from the College of Education at King Saud University in Abha.
During my four years of study there, 82 of the compulsory 128 credit hours consisted of
the subjects of linguistics and English literature.
3
At that time, English native speakers taught the majority of the courses, with more than
50% of those staff members being from various English-speaking countries. Beside my
English subjects, I studied additional elective courses, such as Arabic, Religion, Pedagogy,
Educational Psychology, History, Geography, Mathematics, Science, and Teaching
Methodology. During the last semester of the fourth year, all students were required to
teach in either an intermediate or secondary school for a whole semester. We were
supervised both by the permanent English teachers at the school and by an adviser from the
Department of Education and Methodology who visited the school once a week to observe
our teaching.
After graduating from university, I immediately got a chance to teach at a high school in
Jeddah, starting in 1413 H (1993 AD). Over the following eight years, I recognized the
challenge that English as a foreign language (EFL) posed to students in our Arabic-
speaking society as many of them freely expressed such opinions to me. I have not
perceived much of a positive attitude towards learning English from the majority of my
students throughout all my years of teaching. Some of the students were interested in
English as a language but they considered the four 45-minute periods per week insufficient
time for them to learn and practice it, and they also complained of their lack of exposure to
English outside the classroom.
In 1420 H (2000 AD), I moved from secondary school to post-secondary teaching at the
College of Technology in Jeddah and continued there until late 1428 H (2007). The
following year, I left for Australia to study a Master’s course at the University of Newcastle,
and I completed my Master’s degree in Applied Linguistics in 1430 H (July 2009). I then
returned to the College of Technology with a clearer insight, gained from my experience
over the previous two years, into some of the reasons why Arab students have great
4
difficulty reading English, both their general English and English for Special Purposes
(ESP) textbooks.
At the college, my colleagues and I discussed the disparity of the high academic level of
the ESP textbooks and the low level of literacy that our students had, and the fact that
teaching from these ‘inaccessible’ textbooks was mandatory, dictated to us by the national
Curriculum Department from their headquarters in Riyadh. As English teachers, we were
not allowed to choose what we considered to be suitable textbooks for our students; we also
agreed that the language in the textbooks should be designed specifically to meet the level
of our students. Most of the existing English textbooks were designed either for first
language speakers or for contexts where English is taught as a second language (ESL).
Previously, before studying for my Master’s degree, I had faced many challenges engaging
my students in the EFL classroom and tried several strategies to overcome these difficulties.
Teaching English sometimes was very frustrating to me. I was concerned about the
students’ lack of motivation, their insufficient language background and poor reading skills.
These inter-related problems seemed due to their lack of background exposure to English
and to problems with particular English-learning skills. Our students at that time typically
started learning English when they were 13 years old. Students at this age are almost adult
and it is well established in the research that adults face difficulties learning a second
language (Ellis, 2015)
During my Master’s, I studied a course called Language Testing. It was at that time that I
first learned about a procedure that helps to measure the difficulties of any text, called a
cloze test. I also studied another course that focused on ESP and curriculum design. In
another course, on second language acquisition, I learned about the Critical Period
Hypothesis (CPH) (Krashen, Long, & Scarcella, 1979; Lenneberg, 1967), which suggests
5
that adult learners are able to acquire grammar but have more difficulty in acquiring
accurate pronunciation due to the physiological aging process. This may be why adults
often face difficulty in their attempts to acquire native-like fluency when learning a foreign
language, and why children by contrast seem to acquire languages faster and more easily.
Since our technical college students start learning English far beyond the critical period,
we reasoned that perhaps age of exposure to English may be a reason for their generally
weak level of proficiency despite 6 years of EFL learning. In this study, a cloze test will be
applied and constructed from the mandatory textbook to investigate common difficulties
that technical college students face to explore this issue (see Section 1.5).
The cloze test format is useful to ESP designers and teachers, and indeed anyone who is
concerned about the level of difficulty of any text, in any field, because it is based on
samples of authentic text. For example, my wife was working on her own PhD project,
which involved the application of the cloze test to Arabic language instructional text for
Physics, which provided the inspiration to pursue my own investigation. She greatly
encouraged me to pursue my educational journey in this field, as a possible way to
overcome the difficulties in teaching that many teachers and I had observed as issues in
students’ understanding of their textbooks.
I therefore re-joined the University of Newcastle to do my PhD. I specifically chose the
cloze test as a tool to measure the language difficulties faced by learners in ESP technical
textbooks that are taught in Technical and Vocational Training Corporation (TVTC)
Institutes in Saudi Arabia. This approach was particularly inspired by the findings of
Zangmo, Laugesen, O’Toole and Gyeltshen (2018) in Bhutan, where English is similarly
foreign to the local students. The reasons for my confidence that this cloze test procedure
would help me to identify the language features that cause difficulties to our Saudi students
6
studying Technical English at Technical Colleges will be discussed thoroughly in Chapter
2 (Literature Review).
Observations and reflections across more than two decades of English teaching in
secondary schools and technical colleges in Saudi Arabia suggest that our students would
be able to learn English more easily if there was a greater focus on the language problems
in academic textbooks as a means of solving some of the barriers to language learning in
general. One of the problems is infrequent reading, which may have a negative influence
on language learning. A 2016 study described in the Khaleej Times suggested that Arabic
speakers do not read as often, or as widely, as might be expected. Arab respondents reported
that they read for an average of only 35 hours a year, of which 15 hours are allocated to
reading that relates to work or studies and 20 hours allocated to free-time reading. Arab
individuals also reported reading an average of 16 books annually, of which seven books
are related to work or school and nine books for a hobby. This indication of low Arab
involvement in reading was based on an online study conducted by the Mohammed Bin
Rashid Al Maktoum Foundation (MBRF) and the United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP), which involved around 148,000 respondents from 22 different Arabic-speaking
countries (Zakaria, 2016). Courses in Saudi Arabia rest on mandatory textbooks, the
reading of which assumes consequent importance and this led me to focus specifically on
reading issues in this study.
1.2 Development of education in Saudi Arabia
The Arabian Peninsula is located in the Middle East and was historically very poor. There
were different regions ruled by various people. In 1932, King Abdulaziz Al Saud unified
the bulk of the peninsula under the name Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, with Arabic as the
official language of the country. Saudi Arabia is the 14th largest nation in the world,
7
occupying more than two million square kilometers in area, and is one of the largest
countries in the Arab world. The Kingdom is bordered by the Red Sea on the west, the
Arabian Gulf, Qatar, the Emirates and Oman on the east, Kuwait, Iraq and Jordan to the
north, and Yemen to the south. The table below sets out a timeline of the major political,
economic and/or government events relevant to education in the recent history of Saudi
Arabia. These events are important to understanding the context of this thesis, and many
will be described in more detail in Table 1.1 (below).
The discovery of oil in 1938 rapidly changed life in the Kingdom. King Abdulaziz was
keen to improve the living standards of the Saudi people throughout the Kingdom. The
changes that he implemented were launched across all parts of the country and affected
many different aspects of life, such as health, education, the economy, society,
transportation, and many other fields. The economy and consequent quality of life within
the Kingdom remain dependent on oil production but King Abdulaziz and his successors
also realised how important education was (Siddiqui, 1998).
The system of government in Saudi Arabia is founded upon consultation through the Majlis
Ash-Shura (the Shura Council), which has similar functions to parliaments in other
countries. When King Abdulaziz arrived in Mecca in 1924, prior to unification, he called
for the application of a Shura foundation as the basis of governance. He wanted to establish
an Islamic Shura state by applying an Islamic Shariah according to the Qur'an and authentic
Sunnah (Prophet Mohammad peace be upon Him and his deeds and teachings). The year
1927 is considered to be the actual founding date of the Majlis Ash-Shura during the reign
of King Abdulaziz Al Saud.
8
Table 1.1
Political, economic and government events
Date Event Implications
1744 Emirate of Deriyah established by Prince Mohammed bin Saud
First Saudi State established by Al-Saud dynasty in Deriyah, near Riyadh
1865 Ottomans capture part of Saudi state Ottoman Period; rule from Turkey
1818 Foundation of Second Saudi State by Prince Turkey bin Abdullah Al-Saud
Second Saudi State established in Riyadh
1891 Ottomans capture Riyadh; Al-Saud family in exile in Kuwait
Najd region ruled by others
1902 Abdulaziz Al-Saud and 40 followers retake Riyadh
Najd region again ruled by Al-Saud dynasty; the Third Saudi State in Riyadh
1925 Directorate of Knowledge established The first formal educational system
1926 Imam Abdulaziz Al-Saud retakes Hijaz region (Makkah, Jeddah, Almadinah)
Imam Abdulaziz Al-Saud becomes the King of Hijaz and Sultan of Najd
1927 King Abdulaziz established in Makkah The first Saudi Parliament: Majlis Ash-Shura
1927 Decree issued to establish the Council for Knowledge
Education system in Hijaz Region
1930 Imam Abdulaziz Al-Saud retakes Jazan region
Unification of most of Arabian Peninsula
1932 Foundation of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; Government of Hejaz and Najd officially became the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and Imam Abdulaziz became King Abdulaziz
Independence: on 17/6/1351 H (September 23, 1932); the Saudi National Day
‘Katateeb system of education: informal mosque-based education.
1938 Discovery of petroleum deposits Economic growth
1945 King Abdulaziz Al-Saud and U.S.President Franklin D. Roosevelt meet
Increasing awareness of world affairs
1951 A royal decree by King Saud bin Abdulaziz in 1371 H
Ministry of Knowledge established:
‘Katateeb replaced by formal education.
1960 Royal decree by King Faisal bin Abdulaziz in 1380 H
General Presidency for Girls Education:
Establishment of parallel formal education system for girls.
1975 Royal decree by King Khaled in 1395 H
To establish the Ministry of Higher Education (universities)
1980 Royal decree issued by King Khaled bin Abdulaziz, under the umbrella of the Ministry of Labor in 1400 H
Establishing the General Organisation for Technical Education and Vocational Training (GOTEVOT)
1992 Decree by King Fahd bin Abdulaziz in 1412 H
To modernize the Majlis Ash-Shura
9
2000 Decree by King Fahd bin Abdulaziz in 1421H
To modernize all primary (founding) laws in Saudi Arabia
2002 Royal decree by King Fahad in 1423 H
Merged Girls’ Education with Ministry of Knowledge
2007 Approval to change GOTEVOT in 1428 H New name is the Technical and Vocational Training Corporation (TVTC)
2011 Royal decree in 1432 H that universities must limit their enrolment to 55%; TVTC should get 25%
Previously, Universities enrolled around 90%; TVTC only enrolled 5%
2013 Royal decree by King Abdullah in 1434 H To give women 20% representation in the Majlis Ash-Shura, the total number for all members reached 150
2015 Royal decree by King Abdullah in 1436 H Merged Ministry of Education and Ministry of Higher Education
2016 Approval for TVTC in 1437 H TVTC placed under the Ministry of Education
2016 Saudi Vision 2030approved by King Salman in 1437 H
The Fourth Saudi State
TVTC plans to increase the number of students from 104,432 in 2016, to 950,000 by 2020
In November 2000, the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, King Fahd bin Abdulaziz,
issued decrees to modernize all primary laws in Saudi Arabia: the Basic Law of
Governance, the Provincial Council’s Law, and the modification of the Majlis Ash-Shura
Law. The new Majlis Ash-Shura was considered to be a vast improvement on what had
already existed. The new Majlis Ash-Shura Council, which consisted of a speaker and 90
members, was expected to cope with the rapid developments within the country. The
Council went on to further expand its membership to 150, in addition to the speaker, 20%
of them being women (The Shura Council, 2016).
The Saudi nation, officially named the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, consists of 13 regions,
with each one consisting of many small cities and towns. Riyadh is the capital of Saudi
Arabia and is located in the center of the Kingdom. The population of Saudi Arabia is
currently over 33 million with nearly eight million people living in the capital city. The
10
Riyadh region includes 19 governorates and covers an area of about 412,000 square
kilometers (General Authority for Statistics, KSA, n.d; Ministry of Interior, KSA 2016).
Petroleum was first discovered in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1938. The Kingdom was
one of the founding members of OPEC, is the second largest member country; owns 18%
of the world’s oil reserves and is the largest exporter of oil (OPEC, 2016). Apart from
petroleum, the Kingdom has other natural resources: natural gas, iron ore, gold and copper.
In March 2017, the Saudis reported that they had significantly lowered their daily oil
production to about 10.01 million barrels a day.
Saudis had many different occupations before the discovery of oil. While many worked on
farms in the south, some were shepherds taking care of their herds of sheep and camels,
and some were sailors and traders. They were self-sufficient in all aspects of their life. The
country’s economy grew rapidly after the discovery of oil and many Saudis were less
involved in both their previous and emerging occupations, with the result that millions of
non-Saudi people came to the country seeking to fill the job vacancies that had now become
available. As a result, the Kingdom has become reliant on foreign labor from many different
countries. The unemployment rate of Saudi citizens was about 12.3% (Dudley, 2016) and
the number of non-Saudis was around 13 million by 2017. These numbers were the basis
for the new Saudi Vision 2030, which will be discussed in detail later in this chapter.
Since the unification of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1932, the education system in the
country has undergone significant reform and change. The early system (called ‘Katateeb)
focused basically on Islamic studies—the Hadeeth (the Prophet’s sayings) and the Arabic
language (Hamdan, 2005). In 1925, the Directorate of Knowledge was established and this
provided the cornerstone of boys’ education in the country. Two years later, a decision was
made to establish the first Council for Knowledge, which aimed to develop the educational
11
system in the Hijaz Region (Makkah, Jeddah, Almadinah and Taif). The Directorate of
Knowledge started with only four schools and by 1370 H (1950) the number had increased
to 323 schools (Al-Alwani, 2005; Ministry of Education, KSA 2017).
King Saud Bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud issued a decree in 1951 to change the Directorate of
Knowledge to the Ministry of Knowledge. The first Minister was Prince Fahd Bin
Abdulaziz Al-Saud. The role of the new Ministry of Knowledge was to monitor and plan
education in primary, intermediate and secondary schools for boys only (Al-Jabber, 2004).
A few years later, another royal decree was issued by King Faisal Bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud
in 1960 to establish the General Presidency for Girls’ Education. The new Presidency had
the role of running 15 elementary schools and one female teachers’ Intermediate Institute.
As education progressed, a royal decree was issued in 2002 to merge the General
Presidency for Girls’ Education with the Ministry of Knowledge (Ministry of Education,
KSA 2018).
Two different Ministries initially ran the education systems in Saudi Arabia. The first was
the Ministry of Education, which was established in 1951, and the second was the Ministry
of Higher Education, which was established in 1975 in order to implement the Kingdom’s
policy on Higher Education. In 1980, the General Organisation for Technical and
Vocational Training was created. Each of these institutions operated separately (TVTC,
2017). The initial focus of the Saudi government was general education, and higher
education in particular. A few new universities and applied colleges were initially opened
under the higher education umbrella but the number of higher education institutions grew
to currently 29 government universities (KSU, 2018), more than 10 private universities and
41 private colleges. The Ministry of Higher Education and the Ministry of Education
12
merged in 2015 to become the Ministry of Education, which now runs all education in
Saudi Arabia from early childhood to university (Ministry of Education, KSA 2017).
Education from primary level to high school is free to every citizen and resident, and higher
education is free for all citizens at government universities (Abdel Wassie, 1970; Al-
Qahtani, 2015). Separate schools exist for girls and boys (Al-Amri, 2011). The
establishment of the first secondary school for boys was in 1926, at which time the students
had to study Arabic and Religion. A few years later other subjects including Science,
Mathematics, History, Geography, Social Sciences and English were introduced. When
these schools were first established, Saudi students typically had to spend five years in
secondary school, but the system was changed in 1958 to just three years (Abdulsalam,
2009). Private schools started to appear in the 1970s.
The development of educational institutions has been remarkable: the Ministry of
Education in 2012 was responsible for over 35,000 schools with roughly 5,500,000 students
of both genders. (Makhdoom, 2012).
1.3 English in the Saudi education system
The Saudi Arabian educational system consists of three school-level stages: primary
(Grades 1 to 6); intermediate (Grades 7, 8 and 9); and secondary (Grades 10, 11 and 12).
Students in grade 10 are required to study both literary and scientific subjects but in grade
11 and 12, they must choose either the scientific, the literary or administrative stream (Al-
Badi, Harkins & O’Toole, 2018). There are universities located in most cities of the
Kingdom (Ministry of Higher Education, KSA n.d.). These universities provide Saudi
students with free education for Saudi and they also receive a monthly allowance of 1000
Saudi Riyals ($US 270), as do students at technical colleges. There are private universities
in all major cities and they accept non-Saudis, as well as some Saudi students. The Saudi
13
government may sometimes offer scholarships to these private universities but Saudi
students are otherwise self-funding.
Saudi Arabia also offers technical and vocational education, run by the Technical and
Vocational Training Corporation (TVTC). Although higher education is provided free of
charge to Saudi citizens, not all high school graduates are offered places at university or
other colleges (including Military and Technical Colleges). In 2007, 91% of high school
graduates were admitted to universities (Arab News, 2015); but, due to the larger number
of high school graduates in 2008, only 86% could be offered places (Al-Shammri, 2008).
As the number of universities around the Kingdom has increased, the number of students
in TVTC Institutes has decreased.
All levels of education are provided free to Saudi citizens, and the centralized curriculum
is supported by mandated textbooks. These books are provided free through schools, but
post-secondary students are expected to purchase them. Contemporary Saudi teaching is
based on them with examinations set at the institutional level based on the mandatory texts.
Arabic, the language of the Holy Qur’an is the medium of instruction in all Saudi public
schools and most colleges. Arabic is the language of the Holy Qur’an and exists in a formal
written form. The local dialects differ from the prestige dialect of religious and formal use
‘diglossia’ (Abu-Rabia, 2000). Although the English language has long been taught as a
subject, it was not initially recognized as important in the Saudi education system. In 1927,
the Directorate of Education introduced English as a Foreign Language (EFL) from grade
7 onward (Al-Seghayer, 2005). Due to increasing awareness of the importance of English
language teaching, the Ministry of Education introduced the teaching of English to grade 4
students from 2005.
14
In Saudi Arabia there are 34 weeks in the academic year, divided into two semesters; each
semester therefore consists of 17 weeks, plus two weeks of examinations at the end of each
semester. English is taught for two periods a week in elementary schools, with each period
lasting 45 minutes (Al-Fotais, 2012). At intermediate and secondary levels in public
schools, English is taught for four periods a week with each class period also lasting 45
minutes. In private and international schools, however, although the class period is still 45
minutes, more English classes are offered, along with many classes across different subject
disciplines actually being taught in English (Abdan, 1991; Mahboob & Elyas, 2014). As
can be seen, there is a great disparity in students’ exposure to English between public and
private schools, and private international schools, both in relation to the amount of time
spent learning English and in relation to opportunities students have to hear and use English
via subject discipline instruction in English (Khan, 2011).
Although English has been taught in the Saudi educational system for a long time, students’
ability in English is of a generally poor standard (Al-Nasser, 2015; Al-Roomy, 2013).
Parents are concerned that the current methods of teaching and learning English do not
yield satisfactory results, in that students at the end of their studies lack even a minimum
ability to communicate in English. Teachers and educators claim that there are many
students experiencing difficulty in the area of learning of English as a foreign language (Al-
Abdali, 2010; Elyas & Picard, 2010).
The Ministry of Education acknowledges that most Saudi students who graduate from
public secondary schools lack confidence in mastering English, even though they have
received over 700 teaching hours of EFL for about nine years of their schooling. This may
be due to limited opportunities for students to speak English (despite it being taught from
Grade 4) and curriculum and teaching methods that may not be suitable for the students’
15
academic levels (Abu-Ghararah, 1990; Al-Hazmi, 2015). Contemporary English teaching
in Saudi Arabia has much in common with other Saudi teaching: both teaching and
examination are textbook-based.
The current English texts and teaching contexts seem to have proved insufficient to develop
students’ proficiency and confidence in learning English. In 2013, the Ministry of
Education stated that students who complete their schooling in Saudi Arabia’s public
schools should be able to use English in real life. Unfortunately, however, very large
numbers of high school students graduate with only a slight knowledge of English. To meet
these ambitious goals would require the exploration and development of English programs
to better meet the needs of these students (Al-Hamlan, 2013; Al-Otaibi, 2004; Nather,
2014). The Ministry of Education has set out the following specific aims of English
teaching.
1. To enable students to learn the basics of the four language skills (listening,
speaking, reading, and writing).
2. To develop students’ awareness how important English language is for
international communication.
3. To enhance students’ positive attitudes towards learning English.
4. To enable students to learn and acquire the basic linguistic competence
required in different life situations.
5. To enable students to acquire the necessary linguistic competence
required in different professions.
6. To develop students’ awareness of the cultural, economic, religious and
social issues of society.
7. To prepare them to participate in it.
8. To develop the linguistic competence that enables future students to
present and explain Islamic concepts and issues.
16
9. To participate in spreading Islam.
10. To enable students to linguistically benefit from English-speaking
nations, which will enhance the concepts of international co-operation
such that they will develop understanding and respect for cultural
differences between nations.
11. To provide students with the linguistic basis that will enable them to
participate in transferring other nations’ scientific and technological
advances so that they can enhance the progress of this nation (Tatweer &
Ministry of Education, KSA 2013).
Teachers play a very significant role in teaching EFL effectively, both in Saudi Arabia
generally and in TVTC colleges particularly. Since the Saudi education system has
expanded so rapidly, many students are the first members of their family to learn English.
This can pose quite a challenge for their teachers because students cannot get any help at
home but depend on their EFL teachers with high hopes. Therefore, it becomes vital that
teachers make conscious and constant efforts to facilitate effective teaching-learning
relationships. Difficulties occur, but professional EFL teachers are able to solve classroom
problems directly and cope with difficult situations, although they encounter some
difficulties in classroom management (Al-Ahdal, 2014).
1.4 Training of EFL Teachers in Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia relies on many foreign companies to support its rapid economic development
and so learning English has important economic value (Al-Haq & Smadi, 1996; Mahboob
& Elyas, 2014). However, learning English as a foreign language has not been a definite
path to achieve success and English instructors have not seemed able to provide suitable
learning strategies to motivate Saudi students (Al-Qahtani, 2015; Al-Rabai, 2014; Al-
Zahrani, 2016). Students might be better motivated if they associate learning English more
clearly with economic benefit.
17
Student success at the summative examinations that characterize the elementary,
intermediate, secondary, and higher education levels of the Saudi educational system seems
to rely on rote learning and memorization with little focus on teaching students to think
critically and logically and to depend on teachers transmitting communicatively relevant
knowledge (Al-Seghayer, 2011; Hamdan, 2014; Krieger, 2007).
Such ineffective teaching pedagogy may relate to differences among the teacher training
colleges in Saudi Arabia. All locally trained EFL teachers are graduates of four-year
programs but some graduate from Colleges of Education and others from Colleges of Arts.
Colleges of Arts offer Bachelor’s degrees in English language, literature and translation.
Colleges of Education prepare their students to teach by offering courses that cover content,
teaching methods, psychology, sociology and teaching practice. The Colleges of Arts,
which also prepare their students to be English-Arabic translators, do not provide many
practical experiences in effectively delivering content knowledge to their students.
Dr. Khaled Al-Awad, Deputy Minister for Education, has noted that over the last few
decades, the Saudi government had recruited a great number of non-Saudi elementary
school English teachers from countries such as Egypt, Jordan, and Bangladesh and
provided intensive training for Saudi teachers to improve English teaching standards at
intermediate and secondary levels. The introduction of English from grade 4 at 5,837
primary schools across the country was not expected to be at the expense of other subjects
such as Arabic and Islamic sciences (Arab News, 2003, June 18).
However, the lack of exposure of Saudi students to English practice both at and beyond
their schools, has apparently impeded their ability to write English. Lack of undergraduate
exposure to the English language, in spite of eight years of English learning in schools and
three years at the English department of the university, may contribute to specific four-year
18
Bachelor student difficulties. in fact, this is due to the fact that in teaching languages, both
Arabic and English, the old-fashioned styles are still used focusing on the form and
grammar with lack of emphasis on "functional language skills" so students , though they
may command the language reasonably still fail to produce successful work. Writing
argumentative and narrative text types, in tasks such as formal letters, reports, lesson plans
and translations based on an Arabic text, reveal problems in discourse organization,
paragraphing and cohesion (Al-Hazmi & Schofield, 2007).
Qualified local EFL teachers are now graduating from Saudi universities in expanded
numbers, fulfilling Al-Hazmi’s (2003) suggestion that “the ideal would be to Saudize all
EFL teachers’ posts at the basic education level and have a comprehensive pre- and in-
service master plan at the national level” (p. 342). However, he suggested that even limited
implementation via the local education departments scattered throughout the Kingdom
would require a level of development that was not then present. He thought that supervisors
and EFL teachers lacked the knowledge, language proficiency, and ability in teaching
English as a foreign language required to undertake the task of developing a Saudi-trained
EFL teacher workforce.
Some researchers claim that, despite the expansion in the training of local Saudi EFL
teachers, the education that they are receiving is inadequate to prepare their students to
learn English effectively (Al-Seghayer, 2014a).
More recent research suggests that contemporary teachers still receive inadequate
preparation for helping their students to learn English effectively (Al-Seghayer, 2014a).
Prospective teachers should have more exposure to the target language and more practice.
That will help them and enrich them for better teaching methods. Access to continuing
professional development and support in delivering new curricula may lead to a higher
19
level of teacher competence and as such have a positive impact on students’ academic
performance (Al-Rabai, 2016; Al-Seghayer, 2014a; Javid, Farooq, & Gulzar, 2012).
Reports that some Saudi students, when seeking to enroll at universities outside Saudi
Arabia, and after studying English for at least six years, were embarrassed about their poor
performance upon sitting the prerequisite TOEFL or IELTS exams lend support to these
ideas. Their poor marks caused Saudi students to feel ashamed about their level of English
and frustrated regarding the importance of being appropriately skilled in English (Al-
Abdali, 2010). Some of these students have recognized, and blamed, the deficits of the
Saudi curriculum, their EFL teachers’ qualifications and teaching methods for their poor
English skills. Some Saudi engineering students indicated that they learned only the basics
of grammar and a very limited range of vocabulary in their home country; therefore they
arrived in America with few English skills, and consequently it was much harder for them
to understand the lectures (Unruh & Obeidat, 2015).
Advanced English language learners from other backgrounds express the need for extra
time to read when given reading tasks or tests, and they often face challenges in
understanding what they are listening to during lectures and discussions. Furthermore, they
often struggle to express their personal fears and apprehensions regarding English language
use inside and outside of classes (Dao, Donghyuck, & Chang, 2007).
Teachers need to use a variety of strategies creatively, in order to engage students in the
lesson content and encourage learning English as a foreign language. An atmosphere of
caring and appreciation of student effort and achievements in a ‘fun’ learning environment
seems to be important for Saudi students. It is especially important that EFL teachers
emphasize the importance of using the target language of English both inside and outside
the classroom (Moskovsky, Alrabai, Paolini, and Ratcheva 2013). The proposed
20
establishment of a National EFL Curriculum Center in Saudi Arabia draws much of this
together.
First, it should draft a comprehensive and detailed K–12 standards document.
Second, it should establish certain standards for students at all levels, and
these standards should be structured into strands so that word
knowledge, listening, speaking, reading, and writing are included.
Third, each standard should have indicators that define students’ progress in
meeting the standards that are set for each school level.
Fourth, the curriculum should provide a detailed outline of the language
skills students should attain by the end of each grade; concurrently,
there should be exit-level performance indicators.
Fifth, teachers should be given the freedom to navigate within the established
curriculum’s standards by designing their activities and class materials
according to their students’ needs, interests, capabilities, and
knowledge.
Finally, principles for language learning and teaching, choice of materials,
assessment procedures, and teaching resources should be stipulated
and maintained (Al-Seghayer, 2014b, p.24).
Barriers to such progress include class size and teacher professional development. The large
number of students in each class makes EFL teaching challenging because it means less
individual interaction between the teachers and their students, and less time to cover the
required syllabus (Al-Asmari, 2015; Al-Mohanna, 2010; Al-Rabai, 2011; Al-Shehri, 2004;
Liton, 2013). EFL teachers generally lack a solid grounding in linguistics and normally
focus more on getting their students to pass their exams (Al-Asmari & Khan, 2014; Al-
Nasser, 2015). Traditional pedagogical approaches that depend on memorisation or
textbooks will not develop or encourage creativity or independent thinking (Mohan &
Slater, 2005; Rugh, 2002). A focus on fostering collaboration may be more effective (Al-
Hazmi, 2003). This suggests a great need for on-going professional development.
21
1.5 Technical and vocational education in Saudi Arabia
Education in Saudi Arabia currently belongs to two different organisations: the Ministry of
Education runs education programs from kindergarten through to elementary, intermediate,
high school and university. The other educational organisation in Saudi Arabia is the
Technical and Vocational Training Corporation (TVTC), which runs technical institutes as
well as technical colleges around the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia since it was established in
1980 with its headquarters in Riyadh, as mentioned in Table 1.1. The TVTC previously ran
and supervised many institutes, growing to 39 technical institutes and 17 technical colleges
by 2004 (Bosbait & Wilson, 2005). While the TVTC was moved in 2016 to be under the
umbrella of the Ministry of Education, it still operates as a separate entity within that
ministry, independent in budget, recruitment and other operational matters. Currently, the
TVTC runs 51 technical colleges that offer diplomas solely for boys and 36 technical
colleges that offer diplomas solely for girls, as shown in Table 1.2 (below).
In the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, technical and vocational training appeared early under a
number of umbrellas: the Ministry of Education operated secondary schools (industrial,
agricultural and commercial); the Ministry of Labor ran Vocational Training Centers, and
the Ministry of Municipalities ran Assistant Institutes. In 1980, a royal decree on
10/08/1400 H, stipulated the establishment of the TVTC and gave notice to gather all the
technical institutes and vocational training centers under the TVTC. The TVTC aimed to
develop all of its programs to meet the educational needs of the country and to improve
human resources to meet the needs of the labor market. In 1982, recognizing the necessity
for technical training persuaded the TVTC to create higher education in this field (TVTC,
2017).
22
Table 1.2
TVTC Institutes: 2017 statistics
Colleges/Institutes Number of Institutes
Number of Students
Technical Colleges (Bachelor programs) 13 2,808
Technical Colleges for boys, including
international technical colleges 51 113,835
Technical Colleges for girls, including
international technical colleges 36 21,549
Strategic Partnerships Institutes 24 9,943
Technical Secondary Institutes 66 18,157
Technical Institutes in Prisons 33 4,992
Technical Military Institutes 3 1,412
Private Institutes 195 6,418
Total 421 179,114
Since 1982, the TVTC shoulders all responsibility for the running of vocational education
in Saudi Arabia including its department of curricula which is responsible for choosing the
textbooks that should be used in all TVTC institutes. Aside from matters of the curriculum,
the TVTC gives all its technical colleges freedom to run their own programs according to
the needs of a fluctuating labor market. In the TVTC, training programs are implemented
according to three vocational levels: vocational and industrial training (Levels 2 & 3) and
technical training (Level 4). These three levels reflect the various outputs of the TVTC. In
addition, there are links between the specialisations of these levels that help make
maximum use of the existing capabilities.
23
As the TVTC aims to serve the labor market and society, the Corporation has established
different types of technical colleges, for example, colleges specialising in communication,
agriculture, tourism, and so forth. The benefits of specialisation include creating harmony
between the labor market and the colleges, and minimising the gap between the training
programs offered by the TVTC and the needs of the labor market. It also helps to create
unity across the curriculum, clarifies the qualifications and requirements of the delivered
training programs, and ensures reliance on integrated principles and professional standards
as prepared by specialists in the labor market.
The colleges of technology in Saudi Arabia aim to provide Saudi students at the post-
secondary level with vocational and technical training in various subjects (majors) in the
fields of Engineering, Industry and Commerce, Technical Inspector, and Agricultural and
Vocational Training. When students join a college, they study courses such as the Arabic
language, Islamic Studies, Mathematics, Physics, Industrial Safety and English in term 1.
In Terms 2 and 3, they study another two English courses as well as their major subjects.
Each English course is nearly four hours of face-to-face classes per week every term.
English is compulsory for all students in TVTC colleges, with each course consisting of
two 100-minute classes per week. Diploma students study only three different courses, and
a general English course followed by two ESP courses. The courses are strongly textbook-
based and the textbooks used are compulsory resources for teaching English in all of the
51 TVTC institutes. Teachers have no part in choosing the textbook, as mentioned
previously, nor are they able to change the text for one that they might consider more
appropriate for their students.
A technical diploma is two and a half years long. Each student spends four semesters at
their college and in their final fifth semester they must attend a work-integrated training
24
course in their particular field. The colleges offered trimester programs until 2017, when
they moved to the semester system, based on the Saudi Vision 2030 (see Section 1.8). The
time allocations for courses and classes remains unchanged.
The objectives of the TVTC are to prepare and train individuals in both technical and
vocational fields, as described on the TVTC’s English language website:
a) To create a scientific base of technical manpower that can easily deal
with the rapid developments in technology.
b) To provide opportunities for individuals who desire to learn a
profession or continue training to the highest level.
c) To develop the skills of technicians and update their professional
information on a continuing basis.
d) To emphasize the importance of handicrafts and vocational work and
their role in the prosperity of Saudi society. (TVTC, 2017)
From these objectives, it is clear that the TVTC’s programs aim to supply the local labor
market with well-trained technicians and specialists.
The Ministry of Education recently announced (in 2018) that all Saudi universities around
the Kingdom would accept 95% of secondary graduates, despite a royal decree four years
earlier setting a ceiling of 70%. The Arab News (2015) reported the royal decree as follows:
The royal decree has approved the Afaq Project, a strategic plan for higher
education in the Kingdom, which stipulates universities must limit their
enrolment to 55 percent from high schools, and 15 percent from
community colleges, a local publication reported recently. It also states
25
that the Technical and Vocational Training Corporation TVTC should
accommodate at least 25 percent of high school graduates. The remaining
5 percent of students should be accepted by other higher education
institutions or proceed directly to work. (Arab News, 2015)
However, at the time of writing TVTC institutes are only receiving 5% of high school
graduates, with the majority of high school graduates preferring to attend university. This
percentage reveals a clear deviation away from the aims of the Afaq Project, and high school
graduates continue to study their higher education at universities around the kingdom that
do not meet the needs of the Saudi labor market. The report by contrast mentioned that 90%
of graduates from all TVTC colleges and institutes are employed directly, with graduates
sometimes receiving offers before graduation. The report further highlighted that all Saudi
universities should reduce the number of new students who have just graduated from high
school by 40%, while TVTC institutes should increase their enrolment by three times. This
means that TVTC technical colleges around the country would enroll more than 170,000
students annually, while Saudi universities should enroll about 225,000 students by 2019.
However, the TVTC currently enrols 110,000 trainees across 50 technical colleges and 72
across secondary industrial institutes. Consequently, the TVTC is working to increase the
capacity of its technical colleges to accommodate more than 300,000 students (Arab News,
2015).
According to the report, most Saudi students prefer to go to university, and the universities,
of course, will offer places to the students who have better high school results (or GPA).
Consequently, the TVTC colleges provide places for the remaining students with lower
school results. This creates a problem for the TVTC colleges in that most of their students
have a low GPA and their academic skills are weak in both English language knowledge
26
and overall knowledge. This may impact their motivation, if technical education was not
their preferred option.
Another issue for EFL teachers working in TVTC is the large number of students in their
classes: approximately 40-50 students for one teacher in each classroom. Coupled with the
fact that the classrooms have few teaching facilities such as overhead projectors and
audiovisual equipment, this adds to the burden of the teachers’ role in EFL classrooms in
TVTC colleges. Furthermore, most of the EFL teachers have minimal computer skills and
that severely limits their ability to teach or receive on-going professional development.
A small number of EFL teachers in TVTC colleges are proficient in technology while the
rest are not, leaving them needing but unable to receive professional development in
technology. Such a dilemma places an obligation on these teachers, if they want to become
proficient in technology, to gain this knowledge in their own time. This results in less
capable English language teaching. Additionally, the universities seem to be unable to fill
the gap of the continuing shortage in the number of EFL teachers.
English is a subsidiary subject in TVTC programs: all other subjects being designed and
delivered in Arabic. Students must go through three levels of English in order to graduate.
The introductory English course is set to suit beginners’ level and taught to all new entrants
according to their specialization. In the next two courses, students study ESP related to their
field of interest. These courses are selected to match the student’s major and range from
pre-intermediate to intermediate levels.
1.6 Role of education in the nation’s future
April 25th, 2016, will be remembered as a unique day in Saudi Arabia and might even be
considered to mark the birth of a new Saudi Arabia. On that day, under the chairmanship
of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, King Salman, the Council of Ministers
27
approved Saudi Arabia's Vision 2030, drafted by the Council of Economic and
Development Affairs as a new start for a bright future without oil.
Vision 2030 aims to build a bright future for the country and relies on three pillars to
address its particular competitive advantages of holding leading positions in all fields. First,
the Vision will reaffirm the role of Saudi Arabia in leading the heart of Arab and Islamic
worlds; second, it will create a much more diverse and sustainable economy; and third, it
will encourage the Kingdom to benefit from its strategic location to play an essential part
in connecting Africa, Asia and Europe.
The Vision has three themes: a vibrant society, a thriving economy, and forward-looking
nation. The first theme aims to build a solid foundation for economic growth. The second
theme is an education system that is aligned with market needs to create job opportunities.
The third theme focuses on a high-performing government. Each participant of this Vision,
Saudi citizens, the private sector and the non-profit sector, will be expected to play a part
to shoulder some responsibility and take initiative in facing related challenges and seizing
opportunities.
The Saudi Vision 2030 is a blueprint for economic and developmental action in Saudi
Arabia. The Council of Economic and Development Affairs developed a well-planned
model that aims to translate the Vision through several implementation programs. Several
committees will be set up to support the launch, monitoring and evaluation of these
programs.
The Saudi Vision 2030 sets out the following aims (Saudi Vision 2030, n.d.):
• Support women’s contributions to the labor market.
• A new start for a bright future less dependent on oil.
28
• Increase the number of Saudi employees, especially in the private
sectors, and reduce the number of foreign workers.
• Increase the number of pilgrims and visitors to 30 million.
• Saudi Aramco IPO—up to 5% of Saudi Aramco.
• Privatization of government assets.
• Encourage the private sector to invest in health care, municipal
services, housing, finance and energy.
• Increase investment in mining.
• The defense sector should be sourced locally by 2030.
• Develop a local renewable energy industry.
• Other investments in the stock markets.
Following the approval of the Saudi Vision 2030, the Saudi Cabinet approved the National
Transformation Program 2020 (NTP) which was set up to comment on government changes
and the role that Aramco (the Saudi national oil corporation) could play in the new Saudi
Vision to reduce the country’s reliance on oil. It also lays out the intention of the Vision for
Saudi Arabia to expand the economy by inspiring greater involvement of the private sector
and reduce the amount of public spending, and to establish competitive new industries that
will provide new job opportunities for the Saudi people. Saudi oil wealth meant that much
of the economy depended on migrant labor, but the Saudi Vision focuses on replacing this
with Saudi citizens by 2020.
The National Transformation Plan articulates the following aims (NTP 2020, 2017):
• To cut the Kingdom’s dependence on sale of hydrocarbons by 2020
through the development of non-oil sectors;
• To increase the Kingdom’s overall non-oil government revenue;
• To increase the private sector’s contribution; and
• To raise the Kingdom’s share of non-oil exports in non-oil products.
29
In order to achieve the 2030 Vision, the NTP has announced that 24 different government
institutions need to participate. The Council of Economic and Development Affairs has
focused on the following objectives for the first phase of the NTP to be fulfilled by 2020:
• Create around half a million job opportunities.
• The private sector should effectively fund 40% of the cost of the NTP.
• Reduce subsidies for water and electricity.
• Increase non-oil products exports.
• Increase gas production.
• Oversee the mining sector’s contribution.
• Increase private and public sectors, especially in less-developed
regions.
• Increase pharmaceutical manufacturing.
• Increase investment in tourism.
• Increase the number of students in non-government higher education
institutes. (NTP 2020, 2017)
The Ministry of Education expects to spend more than SR 24 billion ($US 6.5 billion) on
stimulating new initiatives over the next four years. The Saudi Ministry of Education is
aiming to encourage the private sector to participate by investing in public education.
Some of the predominant themes of the Saudi Vision involve the creation of a new
sustainable economy for the benefit of all Saudi citizens. The government is keenly aware
that to achieve its goals, it is dependent on the moral and physical support of its citizens,
being that the family unit is an essential component of building the ideal society that would
provide for the Kingdom’s needs in all aspects. Moreover, since the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia is the heart of the Muslim world, the government is ruled by its conviction that
Islamic principles and values should control family relations. The Ministry of Education
30
has an important role in achieving this Saudi Vision by encouraging greater participation
of parents in the education process.
In a statement on Al-Arabiya television news, Dr. Ahmed Al-Issa, the Saudi Education
Minister said:
The plan focuses on a comprehensive package to develop the educational
environment, and to keep up with other development plans, at the
forefront, there are [plans for] comprehensive modernization of the
curriculum and teachers’ performance and on the improvement of the
school environment to stimulate development and creativity. The plan
will focus on developing teaching methods and improving the capabilities
of teachers. Women teachers, many of whom live and work in remote
areas, will receive more government assistance. (Al- Arabiya, 2016)
Saudi parents’ involvement in the education process will help them develop their children’s
ability and connection to education. In contributing to the fulfilment of the Saudi Vision
2030, and the NTP, families are ensuring that not only their children’s future but also their
own future will be cared for. The Ministry of Education aims to instill constitutional moral
beliefs in Saudi children from an early age by reshaping and developing the educational
system.
The Irtiqa'a program (roughly translatable in English as 'evolution') is a new concept
created by the Ministry of Education to give families a significant role in their children’s
education through measurable targets. Parents are required to engage in their children’s
education in order to lead them to success. By 2020, the goal of Irtiqa'a is that 80% of
parents will participate in their children’s school activities. The Ministry of Education
31
intends to coordinate with private and non-profit sectors to generate innovative educational
programs. It also aims to build on this academic partnership with all stakeholders (NTP
2020, 2017).
Technical education is integral to achieving this national vision. As mentioned previously,
some primary goals of the Saudi Vision 2030 are to create a sustainable economy for the
future and to support women Saudis entering the labor market. Responding to the demands
of these goals will likely pose great challenges for the TVTC in meeting labor market needs
and improving human resource development standards that will underpin the creation of
new job vacancies for Saudis. In 2016, there were 104,432 students in TVTC institutes. In
his response to Saudi Vision 2030, Dr. Ahmed Alfhaid, TVTC Governor, stated that they
plan to increase the number of students by at least nine times, and that the TVTC should
reach 950,000 students of both genders by 2020.
In order to increase human resources in Saudi Arabia, the TVTC will take productive steps
to achieve higher work ethics to increase productivity. The TVTC’s goal is to increase the
employment rate for TVTC graduates to 90% within six months of graduation. It also aims
to increase the number of colleges and institutions by 80% and to work towards enrolling
up to 12.5% of high school graduates in such institutes. As mentioned previously, the field
of technical training typically attracts a much smaller number of high school graduates.
In order to encourage students to enroll at TVTC colleges, and taking into account the large
distances that some students need to travel, the TVTC has opened a number of branches in
the regions (see Table 1.2). This will provide easier access to a college or branch for high
school graduates and will potentially increase the number of students in all institutes.
Furthermore, it will increase the number of technical colleges that offer Bachelor’s degrees
from eight to more than 13 colleges in 2017/2018.
32
A further initiative that the TVTC embarked on was to begin parallel education programs
that allow access for students who are currently undertaking employment to join one of the
technical colleges in either a Diploma or Bachelor program. Colleges conduct these parallel
programs in the evening from 4:00 pm until around 10:00 pm. In 2017, there were 1,325
students enrolled in parallel Bachelor programs and 894 in Diploma programs. (TVTC,
2017).
All these changes aim to reform and develop the educational environment, and modernize
the curriculum and teachers’ performance, developing teaching methods and preparing
capable and qualified teachers for the EFL sector.
To achieve this vision, His Royal Highness Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman bin
Abdulaziz, who is behind the modernizing reforms in Saudi Arabia, on his first official tour
to a few countries in March and April 2018, including Egypt, the United Kingdom, the
United States of America, France and Spain, signed many agreements and initiatives.
During his visit to the United States of America, the Saudi Crown Prince signed 18
agreements with many high-ranking universities and famous companies. During his visit
to Boston, MA, the Crown Prince focused on expanding ties between the private sector and
academia in the two countries. One of the Crown Prince’s visits took place at Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT) as part of an ongoing collaboration between King Abdulaziz
City for Science and Technology (KACST), King Abdullah University of Science and
Technology (KAUST) and the General Authority of Small and Medium Enterprises
(SMEA). The agreements included:
• A collaborative agreement between Saudi Aramco and MIT focused
on global energy, climate, environmental sciences, and the
transformation and sustainable development of the energy sector. This
33
was signed by Amin Nasser, CEO of Saudi Aramco and L. Rafael Reif,
MIT President.
• Extension of the Ibn Khaldun Fellowship program at MIT with the
support of KACST. The program brings postdoctoral Saudi women
scientists and engineers to MIT to conduct research and advance as
leaders in their respective fields. This was signed by Dr. Turki Al Saud,
President of KACST and L. Rafael Reif, MIT President.
• A collaborative agreement between SABIC Innovations (Saudi
Arabia) and MIT that focuses on the design and testing of a novel
reactor for the pyrolysis and combustion of methane. This was signed
by L. Rafael Reif, MIT President and Dr. Fahad AlSherehy, Vice-
President of SABIC Innovations.
• A collaborative agreement between KACST and MIT to further
support the Center of Complex Engineering Systems to advance
interdisciplinary research in complex engineering systems, such as air
and rail transportation systems, urban development, and improvements
to the electrical grid and water distribution networks. This was signed
by Dr. Turki Al Saud, President of KACST, and L. Rafael Reif, MIT
President.
• A collaborative agreement between KACST and Brigham and
Women’s Hospital for the Center of Excellence for Biomedicine to
focus on three key medical research projects. This was signed by Dr.
Turki AlSaud, President of KACST, and Erinn Crane, Senior
Agreement Advisor and Contracts Team Leader at Brigham and
Women’s Hospital.
• A collaborative agreement between KAUST, Research Products
Development Company RPDC, and Saudi VAX. This agreement will
establish a Saudi Vaccine and Bio-Manufacturing Centre at KAUST.
The Prince’s visit aimed to promote access for American companies to open branches in
the Kingdom and also provide local jobs for Saudi citizens, in order to encourage the
34
sharing of technology and knowledge between the two countries. Those agreements will
lead to thousands of jobs being created in the technology industries.
During his visit, His Royal Highness Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman signed with
Soft Bank Corporation to build the world’s largest solar power installation in the kingdom.
The solar project is estimated to cost $200 billion to 2030 and ultimately produce 200
gigawatts of power. In France, Saudi Aramco, the largest oil company in the world, will
sign eight deals worth about $10 billion with French firms. Moreover, during his visit to
France, the Crown Prince signed more than a dozen memorandums of understanding in
tourism, energy and transportation. In Britain, the agreements included health, investment,
innovation and energy sectors (Wald, 2018; KAUST News, 2018; Saudi Gazette, 2018;
Saudi Press Agency, 2018).
1.7 Focus and significance of this study
Notwithstanding the hopeful prospects outlined above, many studies show a critical
shortfall in the achievement and progress of Saudi students in reading and comprehension
abilities. In particular, reading seems to cause real difficulties for Saudi students. One of
the important features of technical and science texts in English is the richness of the words
and terms they use (Wellington & Osborne, 2001). However, many teachers have observed
how difficult to read and understand some of these texts are for their students (Herman &
Wardrip, 2012).
Analyses done by some scholars regarding student achievement in English show that when
students are weak in the English language in general, their results in relation to subject-
specific content are also low. This can be traced directly to the comprehension capability
of the learner. Readability is the crucial correlation between reading level ability and text
difficulty. When the latter exceeds the former, the text becomes unreadable to them and the
35
student fails to comprehend it (Westwood, 2008). According to Al‐Jarf (2007), basal (or
grade-level) readers are used extensively in teaching English in Saudi public schools. This
practice allows learners to read before leading them to comprehension, but that next step –
comprehension – may not happen. Additionally, for most Saudi students, English is
restricted to the classroom and occasional interactions with foreigners.
The Saudi context is characterized by traditional teaching that rests on a mandatory
textbook. The ease with which students access that text is thus of great importance, and
knowledge about the particular difficulties that they may experience would be useful to
teachers, textbook designers and curriculum developers. For these reasons, the present
study undertakes a detailed examination of the comprehensibility of a particular mandatory
ESP textbook for the learners in technical colleges who are required to study it. Vision 2030
is driving the present and continuing expansion of the technical education sector and,
consequently, the level of student access to the mandatory English textbook will become
increasingly important.
This is the first study to explore the level of readability of technical English textbooks
taught in TVTC institutes in Saudi Arabia and focuses on recognizing and understanding
the causes of student language difficulties. This study aims to:
1. Investigate the readability of a range of texts that Saudi technical
students are expected to read in their Technical textbooks.
2. Identify the language features that are causing most difficulty for
these Saudi technical students in comprehending the language of their
ESP textbooks.
3. Suggest reasons for why these features might cause difficulty for
these students.
36
4. Suggest possible fruitful teaching and learning strategies that might
help in overcoming these difficulties.
This study may also contribute to improving teaching methods and curriculum design by
showing the importance of researching the student experience with the language of
instruction. Moreover, this study will fill a gap in research into the impact of specialist
language on student levels of achievement in science-based technical courses. The recent
changes in Saudi Arabia generally and in the TVTC particularly strongly motivate this
investigation into the use and development of technical English textbooks. The results may
also be of interest more widely, as many countries face the same challenges in preparing
their workforce for participation in a global economy ever more strongly dominated by
science and technology.
Many researchers and educators have worked on textbook evaluation, and there have been
related studies on English textbooks in Saudi Arabia and some other countries, to be
discussed further in the next chapter. These studies examined English language textbooks
for different levels and different ages (Al-Amri, 2008; Al-Hamlan, 2013; Al-Saif, 2005;
Al-Sowat, 2012; Faruk, 2015; Habtoor, 2012; Rahman, 2012). Most of these evaluations
were based on checklists distributed among EFL teachers to evaluate the suitability of the
textbook in terms of its components, content, practicality, presentation, language, topics,
organization, basic language skills and the sub-skills of grammar and vocabulary, activities,
sociocultural contexts and skills development. The little work that has happened beyond
such checklists has used readability formulas to yield a broad indication of appropriate text
level. There is ample scope to extend this to investigating the difficulties particular features
of textbook language cause for student readers, particularly in the sciences. The proposed
expansion of the TVTC in the Kingdom makes this work urgent as well as interesting.
37
1.8 Summary and thesis structure
Technical and vocational education has an important role to play in support of the aims of
Saudi Vision 2030 to achieve greater development and progress in all aspects of life in
Saudi Arabia.
Subject-specific terminology in science and technology is almost always based on English,
so there is an increasing need for a greater emphasis on teaching the English required for
student success in science and technology curricula. Saudi Vision 2030 promotes national
self-reliance by reducing foreign labor and it is anticipated that many Western
manufacturers will start manufacturing within the Kingdom. English is expected to be the
dominant language in such areas, as it already is in the petroleum industry sector. Moreover,
the number of pilgrims visiting the Holy places of Makkah and Madinah from every part
of the world is expected to reach 30 million, so requiring new hotels and a new train from
Makkah to Madinah. Such expansion will require a large workforce and offer thousands of
opportunities for well-trained citizens to benefit from these new vacancies. Proficiency in
English is one of the primary conditions among the hiring requirements for such vacancies
because of its role as an international lingua franca (Saudi Vision 2030, n.d.).
As an EFL teacher with some experiential understanding of the Saudi educational system,
and the classroom and learning context, I have observed the challenges that English as a
foreign language poses for our students. They typically have much trouble in developing
the many skills required in English, especially reading. Most of the component courses of
the majors taught at the TVTC colleges use many English expressions and idioms. This
highlights for me the necessity of facilitating in students an appreciation of English and of
investigating the difficulties that they often struggle with in gaining the scientific
knowledge they need. This study will shed light on the students’ reading difficulties in
38
relation to the demands of the ESP curriculum and the textbooks, and determine what
language features cause reading difficulties for TVTC students in their ESP courses. The
broader goal is to make an evidence-based contribution to developing appropriate teaching
strategies and continuous training opportunities for EFT teachers at TVTC colleges (Al-
Hazmi, 2015; Elyas & Picard, 2010).
A recognition of the importance of well-designed, appropriate ESP textbooks and well-
prepared staff members at TVTC institutes formed the foundation stone for the research
questions to be explored in the following chapters. These questions, presented in full in
Section 3.2, address the readability level of the ESP textbook for the participating students;
the specific language features associated with reading difficulty indicated by their cloze test
results; other factors influencing their English learning, and the preparation and skills of
their EFL teachers.
• Chapter Two will shed light on the existing research literature examining EFL
reading in general, and the issues and factors impacting adult EFL learners in
Saudi Arabia more specifically. This discussion of existing research will
identify the gap filled by the current study and its importance in contributing to
understandings of Saudi student engagement with the English language
contained within technical textbooks.
• Chapter Three provides an overview of the research methodology, study
design, research instruments, procedures and analysis adopted for this original
investigation.
• Chapter Four gives details of the results of the data collection and analysis of
the cloze test and survey data.
39
• Chapter Five is a fuller discussion of the results, including some
methodological issues, the connections between cloze test and survey data, and
the patterns of student language difficulty that the analysis revealed, all
considered in the context of the existing research literature.
• Chapter Six provides a synthesis of the findings on each of the Research
Questions, and presents recommendations for education policy and for future
research on this important topic.
40
41
Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.1 Overview
The purpose of this chapter is to review the research literature across several areas relevant to
the aims of this study described above, in order to pinpoint specific gaps in knowledge that can
be posed as research questions to be addressed, and to consider what methods are likely to be
most suitable for finding answers to them. First, the literature on language and issues of
comprehension in science and technical education is examined to see what has emerged from
previous research. Next, studies on the challenges of learning English in non-English speaking
countries are considered, with particular attention to the challenges facing Arab EFL learners.
The literature on ESP teaching and textbooks is reviewed in order to relate this to the Saudi
Technical English context. Another major body of relevant research is the literature on reading
comprehension and the measurement of readability. This leads into a review of research on
cloze testing as a method of measuring learner difficulty in accessing meaning from text, in
order to assess its suitability for the purposes of this study.
Globally, English is recognized as a modern lingua franca (Al-Hazmi, 2003; Al-Hazmi, Black,
& McNaught, 2013) and is the most widely spoken language throughout the world. The
Statistics Portal (n.d.) noted that there are approximately 1,500 million people around the world
who speak English; with a mere 375 million of these being native speakers. English is the
official language, or one of the official languages, in many countries, and it is the international
language of science, research, medicine, aviation, economics, computing, communications and
politics. In other words, English seems to be the universal language of almost all subject fields.
Most students learn English in the hope of enhancing their job prospects in their home country,
while most firms also encourage their existing staff to enhance their skills in English. English
is crucial for people who travel to Western countries in order to pursue study, receive medical
42
treatment, or get a job. Owing to developments in technology, the English language has become
the world’s most important communication tool, with the teaching of English as a foreign
language being a crucial, albeit challenging, part of it (Khan, 2011).
Human language has developed in a form that allows communication among people through
the use of a code that is learnable and which can be maintained for a lifetime (Kuhl, 2004). In
Saudi Arabia, it is notable that while English is considered to be a foreign language rather than
a second language, it is nonetheless recognized as an essential prerequisite for education and
communication. The terms ‘English as a second language’ (ESL) and ‘English as a foreign
language’ (EFL) are often perceived as similar because both terms depict the learning of a new
language beside the mother tongue. There is, however, a big difference between these two
expressions: English may be a ‘second language’ for those living in a country where English
is the main language and English is not their mother tongue, for instance, the United States,
Australia or the United Kingdom. Such people are classified as ESL learners in that they are
learning English in an English-speaking environment. They can listen, speak and have
exposure to the language everywhere. On the other hand, EFL learners are those who have
limited chances to be encounter and practice the target language as they live in countries where
English is not commonly spoken, for instance countries of the Middle East North Africa
(MENA) region (Ardi, 2016; Cheng, Klinger, & Zheng, 2007; Mpepo, 1998; Riley & Harsch,
1999).
English language skills are required for a person to understand the meaning of written English
texts of various styles, each produced by different groups of people for communication among
themselves and each being characteristic of that group. When such groups share common
interests and produce language that shares common functions, the language style (register or
jargon) that develops will have common features. Such specialized technical language is taught
43
in language classes throughout the world as English for Special Purposes (ESP), covering
diverse subjects such as Medicine, Science, Technology and Engineering. This thesis focuses
on the language of ESP texts for TVTC students in Saudi Arabia. The language of science, in
particular, has long been recognized as a potential barrier to student understanding, and so this
study will build on the existing literature on scientific language.
2.2 English language issues in science and technical education
The ability to use language is pertinent to learning any subject, and as such, students should be
instructed in how to use correct grammar in sentences and how to spell and punctuate for
effective written communication. Students need instruction in how to express themselves
verbally and how to develop their skills in reading. The specific terminology that characterizes
science has led to a focus on its specialized language and a growing emphasis on teaching the
scientific style in the classroom. The intersection of science and language is a crucial issue in
the current academic era for scientists, writers and educators, as they strive to make the
scientific style of English more accessible, both for native speakers of English and non-native
speakers.
A native speaker selects the style they need to communicate with a group of people from a
range of styles making up the prestige dialect, usually understanding what is relayed even if
they are not group members, although they may have difficulty in generating that style
(O’Toole& Schefter, 2008). Those who are not native speakers may need to consider the
specialist language style used by particular groups more closely in order to understand it.
Scientists form one such group, and science can be considered to be a culture with its own
language (Gee, 2004, 2009; Roth & Lawless, 2002) that has evolved from everyday language
to meet the functions of the scientific method and to communicate scientific arguments and
theories (Halliday & Martin, 1993). Language comprises vocabulary, semantics and syntax,
44
permitting scientists to employ specific semiotic and cognitive processes in order to develop
scientific theories, adopt critical stances in reading, evaluate scientific arguments, write new
knowledge, undertake scientific inquiries and develop understanding (Yore & Treagust, 2006).
The science taught in schools draws from actual science and its language shares to varying
degrees the properties of professional scientific discourse, such as informational density,
technicality, abstraction and authoritativeness (Fang, Lamme, & Pringle, 2005).
Both spoken and written language are necessary for understanding the field of science, and its
proper use enables learners to communicate their inquiries, procedures and understanding. The
global arena calls for ‘literacy’ in both discipline and language. Recent decades have seen
major consensus on the importance of language components of scientific literacy in particular
(Blank, Brewer, Lee, Luykx, Barker, Slingsby, Hollweg, Comfort, & Bybee, 2003; Hand, Yore,
Jagger, & Prain, 2010; Lee & Luykx, 2003; Lemke, 1998; Roberts, 2007), as well as on the
nature of literacy and its components (Marshall, Scheppler, & Palmisano, 2003; Mayer, 2002;
Roberts, 2007).
There is emerging consensus that a particular focus of instruction in the science classroom
should be on the four language skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing and the
importance of a greater variety of language tasks so as to increase understanding both in the
fields of science and language arts (Blank et al., 2003; Lee & Luykx, 2003).
If students are to become proficient in the ‘doing’, ‘talking’, ‘reading’ and
‘writing’ of science, it is important to mix up and combine in different
canonical ways, verbal discourse, mathematical expression, graphical/visual
representation and motor operations (Lemke, 1998, p. 87).
45
A recent analysis of 2294 publications in the five most prestigious research journals in science
education indicated that ‘scientific literacy’ represents an area of considerable interest, rising
from a rank of 3 to 1 across the journals between the two 5-year spans of the survey but that it
is also quite contested within this corpus. Application issues (recently labelled ‘disciplinary
literacy’) seem less apparent than might have been expected and of apparently declining
interest. Engagement with science seems of rising interest. Concern for access to science (with
which this thesis will be most closely concerned) seems to be strongest across the decade
(O’Toole, Freestone, McKoy & Duckworth, 2018).
As a factor in improving scientific literacy, reading has been identified as an important skill
that enriches readers with a great depth of knowledge. The field of science places much
importance on the value of reading, with some scientists averaging around 553 hours of reading
per year, equating to around 23% of their total working time. Engineers typically engage in
some 280 hours of reading per year, while medical professionals average 598 hours. Scientists
normally read more than the average person and if we count writing and speaking, scientists
could spend an average of 58% of their total working hours communicating (Tenopir & King,
2004).
In addition to this, the skills involved in reading and writing are interrelated with science in
that both are inextricably related to the nature and fabric of science, and by extension, to
learning the subject. Without these two particular skills, science and effective science learning
(i.e., observation, measurement and experiment) would be negated and could potentially lead
to the destruction of this field and effective learning of it (Norris & Phillips, 2003, p. 226).
Other related studies have found that the language of academic subjects, including the scientific
language used in schools, differs from students’ daily language so making it less accessible to
students (Fang et al., 2005; Schleppegrell, 2004). The differences between written and spoken
46
language are beyond the scope of this review, but the centrality of written language and hence
the skills of reading and writing in successful science communication are reflected throughout
the literature on scientific language and science literacy.
It is important, therefore, that education and training institutions be aware that young students
studying science are mostly disconnected from specialist scientific discourse outside the
classroom and that they need scientific instruction and terminology within the classroom to be
presented to them in clear and understandable language (O’Toole& Schefter, 2008). To this
end, reading is an acquired and essential skill and an effective way to let learners experience
fluent communication of different styles and modalities beyond the limits of the classroom
(Norris & Phillips, 2003). It has been argued that modern western science is dependent on
understanding written texts, and having the ability to read and write scientific language is
considered to form the core of scientific literacy (Wellington & Osborne, 2001).
The need to locate language and discourse along a continuum has also been stressed, where
one end of the continuum is formed by psychological explanations and biological cognitive
mechanisms that assist in the understanding of individuals. To this end, language and discourse
are deemed to provide a window to perception. At the opposite end of the continuum are
anthropological explanations and cultural mechanisms that assist in understanding individuals
in society (Duschl, 2004). In this regard, language and discourse are deemed to be tools used
for achievement, cultural capital and the social construction, representation, and dissemination
of knowledge (Yore & Treagust, 2006).
The literature on reading comprehension and text readability measurement discussed below
(section 2.5) indicates considerable research interest in student ability to read and comprehend
ESP technical and scientific instructional textbooks. Researchers have concentrated in
particular on the different ability levels among students that affect comprehension and the
47
ability to engage with various texts. It is recognized that text is not confined to just words,
sentences and paragraphs but that these serve as a foundation for purposeful readers to create
deeper meaning (O'Toole & King, 2010). Thus, although reading may appear to be just a simple
decoding process and many teachers believe that subject-specific texts are easily readable
(Norris & Phillips, 2003), reading science with full understanding calls for the involvement of
more complex mental activities (Phillips & Norris, 2009).
Saudi EFL students are typically poor in reading general English texts and this could stem from
students’ reading habits. Al-Qahtani (2016) found that student lack of exposure to the English
language, poor teaching methods and teacher training programs, little focus on reading skills,
and experienced many other problems. Other recent studies of Saudi students’ reading
problems conducted in different areas around the country concluded that one of the problems
that EFL learners face is having an insufficient vocabulary caused by such poor reading habits,
both in their mother tongue and the target language (Al-Badi, 2015; Al-Qahtani, 2016; Ansari,
2012; Babaiba, 2015). If scientific and technical reading is indeed more demanding than
general reading, the problems will be compounded for these learners.
Students studying in scientific and technical departments in general have difficulty reading
English scientific or technical texts, and EFL learners have particular difficulty, resulting in
slow reading and poor comprehension (Al-Qahtani, 2016). These problems are largely caused
by the writing style of the scientific or technical texts. While people may like to read what they
enjoy, when faced with a scientific or technical text they may skip the technical words
altogether just to get to the formulas. Scientific and technical texts tend not to inspire readers
(Collier & Toomey, 1997).
The richness of the words and terms used in English technical and scientific text is a notable
feature of such texts (Wellington & Osborne, 2001). The complex linguistic style used in such
48
textbooks includes passive forms, idioms, long sentences, and technical terms, making
scientific and technical writing generally less accessible to all. Reading scientific or technical
texts is necessary for success in completing required learning activities and tasks. When
reading a story, novel or poetry, on the other hand, the reader does not have to struggle with
the technical vocabulary, graphs, charts and other complex language that is found in scientific
and technical texts.
Extensive use of the passive voice, long sentences with multisyllabic Latinate words, and the
long paragraphs in technical and scientific texts have been identified as some of the factors that
cause reading difficulties (Carraway, 2006; Dawson, 2007; Eunson, 2007). Another
grammatical factor is that the use of prepositions “that lead into subordinate phrases makes the
intended meaning of the sentence unclear” (Van Way III, 2007, p. 260). Such difficulties will
result in readers, especially EFL readers, struggling to understand the content of the text.
Another critical issue is the technical vocabulary, and for many learners this problem is made
worse by the different majors and fields they are studying, as the technical terms they read in
more generalist language texts may not be the ones relevant to their area of study (Collier &
Toomey, 1997). For example, the mandatory technical textbook that Saudi EFL technical
students study was designed for Engines & Vehicles students, but it is taught to all other
departments. Students from the other disciplines may find it hard to understand the technical
words there. The Saudi Technical students from different disciplines therefore struggle to read
and understand examples from that textbook drawn from an unfamiliar discipline. For students
majoring in agriculture or commerce, for example, it may be pointless to struggle with reading
about a car assembly line or an electrical wiring diagram. Students confronted with difficulties
of these kinds might well agree with the somewhat hyperbolic assertion that “Reading a
scientific or technical text has been described as equal as going to war” (Latour, 1987, p. 61).
49
Several themes for the present study emerge from the literature on scientific and technical
literacy reviewed here. The importance of reading skills to learning in science and technology
is clear, and some language features and other challenges facing learners in these areas have
been identified. This suggests that it will be useful to investigate whether the Technical English
learning materials for Saudi technical college students present challenges to reading
comprehension similar to those found in other studies of scientific language. Are specific
features of technical writing such as specialist vocabulary, sentence length and complexity
causing difficulty for these learners? Are other factors in the mandated textbook and the
learning context affecting these students' ability to read and understand this material? These
points will be taken up in the formulation of this study's research questions.
2.3 Learning EFL in the Saudi context
Research on scientific literacy in English has considered the challenges it poses for both native
and non-native speakers. However, the issues go well beyond the complexity of specialized
language terminology and structure for non-native speakers. In a global context where the
English language has become vital for individuals in countries that seek to participate actively
in the global economy, and who require access to information and knowledge for educational,
social and economic development (Burns & Richards, 2009), it is necessary to consider what
insights for this study emerge from the research on EFL teaching and learning.
English has an important function in its role as an international language in the Gulf region
countries (i.e. the members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, or GCC).
English can be considered a truly international language used for
communication amongst people from various cultures in the GCC,
particularly as the expatriate population outnumbers the local population in
most of the GCC countries (Ali, 2009, p. 35).
50
For this reason, Saudi students seek to learn English to improve their employability and chance
of finding work in the Saudi private sector where foreign workers currently outnumber Saudis.
Employers value the ability of potential employees to have a minimum of two languages
including their mother tongue, in order that they can communicate proficiently with people
around the world (Al-Jughaiman & Grigorenko, 2013). Other important factors contributing to
the prestige and attractiveness of potential employees includes proficiency in English, and a
degree from a native English-speaking Western country (Bowen, 2013). This has to
considerable scholarly interest in the Saudi context, particularly as the Kingdom began to
respond to the changing circumstances of globalization (Moskovsky & Picard, 2018).
However, the situation of technical education in the recent context of Vision 2030 remains
under-researched.
As previously mentioned, English in Saudi Arabia is a foreign language that individuals learn
in addition to their first language, and English is also the dominant foreign language taught in
classrooms. Learning another language other than the mother tongue needs to occur both inside
and outside the classroom if it is to be successful (Scholl & Hornberger, 2008). Despite
widespread agreement on these principles among contemporary Arabic speakers, many
intrinsic and extrinsic factors operate to discourage and frustrate their attempts to achieve
success in EFL learning. It will be useful here to review relevant research on factors in the EFL
learning context; individual learner factors such as motivation; and factors arising from EFL
teaching methods and delivery.
The introductory chapter pointed to research on EFL in Saudi Arabia that suggests many
students face difficulties learning English at all education levels, including technical colleges
(Khan, 2011). Foreign languages are taught in many schools as part of the educational
curriculum, and textbooks are often locally published; for instance, English is taught in Saudi
51
Arabia with Saudi textbooks and guidelines. While English remains very foreign to the general
Saudi population, there is recognition that English is now taught all over the world so that its
learners can have closer relationships with other nations. In this sense, in Saudi Arabia and in
other Arab countries, teaching and learning English is essential, as it is an important tool of
communication and a potential medium of instruction in some science subjects (Al-Zahrani,
2016). It is already the medium of instruction in all Saudi medical schools because of its
worldwide use among medical professionals.
Since reading is one the most important pillars to learning a language, scholars suggest that
learners who encounter difficulties with reading – whether in the L1 or L2 – face challenges in
learning a second language (Brown, 2013; Cain, 2003; Cheng et al.; O’Toole, & King, 2010;
Al-Qahtani, 2016; Al-Shumaimeri, 2011; Babaiba, 2015). With the new Saudi Vision’s aim to
reform the educational system and to develop all curricula, including English in general and
ESP in particular, reading will play an important role in ensuring EFL learners have the
proficiency to communicate with expatriates when foreign companies open their branches in
the kingdom.
However, Saudi Arabia remains a strongly monolingual society throughout most of the
country. In such a context, some people may believe that learning another language is too hard
and beyond their ability, especially those who started learning another language in adolescence
or later. Some scholars suggest that when children are not exposed to another language early
in life, they will have greater difficulties in learning another language in later life (Critical
Period Hypothesis CPH: Lenneberg, 1967; Gee, 2004). Such beliefs could make students fear
learning English and ESP in particular, although the education system is responding to this
concern by gradually introducing English at earlier stages of education.
52
Several studies have demonstrated the influence of the mother tongue on learning EFL (Abbad,
1988; Platt, Platt, & Richards, 1992; Wahba, 1998). Such studies focused on learners of
different language backgrounds to examine the difficulties they face when learning EFL. Issues
in speaking and writing in Sudanese EFL learning become evident in ‘free composition’, with
apparent errors in verb phrases and noun phrases (Wahba, 1998). A related problem observed
among Arab learners in EFL contexts is the inability to communicate freely in the target
language, due perhaps to the language teaching methods and the learning environment
(Rababah, 2002). Other difficulties faced by second language (L2) learners more generally
stem from the interference of the first language (L1) phonology, vocabulary and grammar on
the L2. In other words, such learners employ the formal elements of the L1 in the L2 context,
so resulting in L2 errors, as the structures of both languages vary.
In contrast to this view, earlier studies have indicated the usefulness of the L1 in EFL contexts
(Beardsmore, 1982), and this view is still advanced today (Saito, & Ebsworth, 2004; Khan,
2011; Khresheh, 2012). For learners from a predominantly monolingual background, both the
comfort level and the cognitive advantage of being able to use the L1 as a tool for building
understanding of the L2 may contribute more to FL learning than interference from the L1
impedes it.
EFL/ESL learners may demonstrate extreme difficulty, as in the case of Indian undergraduate
students who failed to produce even one English sentence that was devoid of grammatical
errors. This may have been due to the fact that they had studied their subjects only to get good
grades in their examinations rather than to develop communication skills in actual life
circumstances (Kannan, 2009).
Another factor in the EFL learning context that negatively influences learner competence is the
lack of opportunities to practise, communicate and read in English in daily life (Al-Nasser,
53
2015; Nouraldeen & Elyas, 2014). A foreign language learnt in this situation is specified as a
language learnt only during formal education (Oxford & Shearin, 1994). Realistically, in a
foreign language learning context, there are few opportunities for learners to employ the target
language outside the classroom because the language is not the language of everyday
communication. Much more input and language use in the classroom are essential when a target
language is seldom used outside it (Berns, 1990; Suryati, 2013).
2.3.1 Individual factors in EFL learning
The attributes of individual learners have received much attention in EFL research, perhaps
reflecting a hope that the attributes of individuals may be more easily modifiable than the
learning environment in a non-English speaking country. Individual differences in ability,
learner attitudes and expectations, and motivation have all been the focus of previous work.
Success in EFL learning may be influenced to some extent by other abilities, particularly those
in the first language. The overall proficiency of students in L1 has been shown to positively
influence English learning in L2 (Al-Hawsawi, 2014; Al-Rabai, 2016). Such studies
investigated causality factors related to continuing unsatisfactory English language proficiency
among Saudi students, including that of a lack of general reading ability and reading
comprehension. Such problems are clearly apparent in the technical colleges, as high-achieving
school graduates enrol in university while those with overall low levels go to the technical
colleges. They face difficulties not only in EFL but in other courses as well.
Another aspect of students’ expectations and the resultant effect on the learning of English
involved the preferred teaching method of Saudi EFL learners (Moores-Abdool, Yahya, &
Unzueta, 2011). This study indicated that 66% of Saudi students at a university in Canada
favored being taught English through the Arabic language rather than the English language.
Such a result may be indicative of preferred language learning styles according to students’
54
previous experiences in their native country, particularly in predominantly monolingual
societies. Saito and Ebsworth (2004) found that Japanese learners also preferred to be taught
English through their mother tongue. Such research has important implications for studies
conducted in the Saudi context, as local EFL learners may likewise prefer to be taught using
their first language. Accordingly, the survey instrument used in this study included attention to
medium of instruction; these findings will be discussed in chapter four.
Another factor found to influence learner ability is that of learner attitudes in terms of their
overall belief towards the language, and toward particular skills such as reading or writing.
Recent studies by Abu-Melhim (2009) and Al-Nooh & Mosson-McPherson (2013) have found
that students display both positive and negative attitudes toward reading, and recommend that
teachers strive to nurture the positive ones by providing new and valuable strategies that
contribute to their students’ learning.
Poor vocabulary knowledge in the L2 is also thought to negatively influence learners’ ability
in EFL. As a result, Saudi high school students graduating from high school enter universities
or colleges with little knowledge of English (Nather, 2014), especially in comparison to
expected levels of fluency (Al-Omrani, 2008). Increased reading has the potential to boost
vocabulary in both first and second languages.
Individual learners' reading habits are as a likely factor in their EFL achievement. Despite
general recognition that reading is an important skill that enriches reader knowledge, it is found
that reading generally in the Arab world is a problematic issue in that reading is not an
established and consistent habit among the population. Some research has attributed this to a
lack of emphasis on the importance of reading in the education system, as well as a widespread
lack of school resources and supports to encourage good reading habits, such as suitable age-
appropriate books in school libraries and engaging textbooks for students (Zakaria, 2016).
55
There are few public libraries or general book stores around the country thus contributing to
students’ predominantly negative attitudes towards reading in general and the learning of L2
specifically (Al-Nafisah & Al-Shorman, 2011). Several studies have documented weakness in
L2 reading among Saudi students, asserting that Saudi students demonstrate a less than
adequate amount of time to read a passage in L2, in comparison to their reading of the same
passage in L1 (Al-Nasser, 2015; Al-Shumaimeri, 2003, 2011; Musa, 2010; Saadi, 2012; Yones,
2001). These researchers unanimously associate this weakness with a poor standard of English
teaching. These criticisms regarding Saudi EFL students’ reading abilities prompted this
investigation into a specific cohort of learners: those attending technical colleges.
Visual and auditory learning styles seem characteristic of Arab learners and this seems
associated with issues of reading motivation and difficulties in learning another language. This
has been suggested as a reason for Saudi students’ lack of desire to read. Visual learners are
distinguished from auditory learners in their propensity to learn through sight and visualisation
while auditory learners are more receptive to learning through auditory means such as listening
and verbalisation (Hamdan, 2015). A common factor between the two types of learning styles
however is that neither group likes the act of reading and writing (Murray & Christison, 2011).
Saudi students demonstrated a preference for the aural modality, therefore a
higher level of lectures among Saudi students than the other nationalities
would be appropriate to support their expressed learning preferences
(Sywelem, Al-Harbi, Fathema, & Witte, 2012, p. 21).
The final major individual factor in learning a second/foreign language to be considered here
is motivation, which has attracted extensive attention in both ESL and EFL research. L2
motivation has been defined as the effort that learners place on their learning of L2 because of
their need to learn it (Ellis, 1994). Motivation is important in assisting L2 learners to give their
56
all when learning the target language. It is also needed to assist them in applying and persisting
in their efforts during the learning process, to last over a long period. The power of motivation,
therefore, as a key element in L2 learning, reveals the seriousness that a lack of sufficient
motivation can have, in that it can lead to the failure of even talented individuals who can fall
short of achieving their long-term learning goals. Researchers stress the importance of
encouraging motivation, such as using methods/strategies that promote learners’ motivation in
the L2 classroom (Al-Rabai, 2010; Moskovsky et al., 2013).
Over the past five decades or so, many studies have examined motivation in relation to
language teaching and learning. The role of motivation in language learning was pioneered by
Gardner and his peers and later inspired one of the leading theories in the field, the Social-
Psychological Theory.
… second language learning plays an important role as mediator between
distinct ethnolinguistic communities, therefore the motivation to learn the
language of the other community [is] a primary force responsible for
enhancing or hindering intercultural communication and affiliation (Gardner
& Lambert, 1972, p. 67, as cited by Dörnyei, 2005).
More importantly, the Social-Psychological Theory is based on the premise that the attitudes
of learners greatly influence their success or failure in learning the target language. In this
theory, motivation consists of three elements: motivational intensity, inclination towards
learning the language, and attitude towards learning the language. The language learner who
is motivated to learn the language will display all of the above three components (Gardner,
1985).
57
Several difficulties regularly faced by second language learners can limit their motivation, for
example, difficulties related to L2 phonology, vocabulary and grammar owing to the
interference of L1 habits, particularly for older learners (Beardsmore, 1982). In addition, L2
errors and mistakes have to be differentiated according to contrast between competence and
performance as the former indicates gaps in the knowledge of the learner, because of his
ignorance of what is correct, whereas the latter indicates lapses in performance, occurring in a
specific instance when the learner cannot perform what he/she already knows (Ellis, 1997).
Both of these can deplete motivation, if learners become frustrated by the struggle to
communicate when they lack L2 knowledge, or discouraged when their performance falls short
of their own knowledge. Such difficulties will be considered in collecting data on EFL learners'
experiences in this study.
In addition to motivation, other possible factors affecting an individual’s success in learning
include achievement, intelligence, language aptitude, situational anxiety, and individual
differences such as personality and attitude to learning. Environmental factors such as formal
or informal contextual influences may also play a role in language acquisition (Gardner, 1985).
Formal contexts would occur in any situation in which the learner receives explicit training in
a second language (Ellis, 1997; Von Wörde, 2003), as in the predominantly classroom-based
EFL learning in Saudi Arabia, discussed in the preceding section. Overall, the literature
supports the conjecture that motivation and attitude work together to ensure learners’
successful acquisition of a second language (Al-Othman & Shuqair, 2013).
The importance of motivation in the field of education and L2 learning in particular has
prompted considerable interest in its role among Arab learners of English. A study conducted
in the United Arab Emirates to identify levels of motivation among a sample group of teachers
and students showed a greater level of instrumental motivation than of integrative motivation
58
in their teaching and learning of English (Qashoa, 2006). On the other hand, work on the level
of motivation and attitude towards learning the English language in the Philippines, indicated
a positive attitude towards learning the English language as an EFL (Alaga, 2016). The few
studies of the role of motivation in L2 learning of English in Saudi Arabia appear to suggest a
similarly positive student attitude (Al-Rabai, 2014; Assulaimani, 2015).
In relation to intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, both types have been shown to be related to
successful L2 achievement. In Korean EFL learners, the relationships among L2 achievement,
motivation, self-confidence and motivation types were investigated using structural equation
modelling (SEM). The findings of the study indicated that intrinsic motivation does lead to L2
achievement (Pae, 2008). In a similar study of Chinese EFL learners, it was found that learners
possessing high intrinsic motivation were higher achievers than those with lower intrinsic
motivation, and that autonomous extrinsic motivation had a positive correlation with intrinsic
motivation and achievement in English (Wang, 2008). On the other hand, Wang's results
revealed that controlled extrinsic motivation had a negative correlation. The findings of similar
studies in Saudi Araba, Iran and China, indicated that students only wanted to pass exams and
were not interested in developing long-term English language skills (Al-Mutairi, 2008; Hayati,
2008; Pan, & Newfields, 2012; Stoneman, 2006). Such an anomaly suggests that students’
superficial and perhaps controlled extrinsic motivation for learning English as a second
language to get a good grade negatively affected their ability to acquire communicative fluency
(Kannan, 2009).
2.3.2 EFL teaching methods and delivery
The above sections have touched upon contextual and individual factors related to EFL
teaching, including classroom-based instruction and limited exposure to English outside class,
learner expectations of teachers, and individual learning styles and preferences. Both
59
researchers and observers have pointed to many factors in teaching delivery that may contribute
to the poor competency of Saudi EFL learners, such as poor teaching methods and the teachers’
insufficient command of English, inadequate teaching and learning facilities, and a poor
curriculum and syllabus, as well as cultural factors. Such cultural factors may include social
resistance to the public use of English, a lack of local exposure to the language, a high level of
respect for the teacher role and a low tolerance for public error.
Comparably, a recent study of non-native English-speaking teachers teaching EFL in China
revealed that language proficiency and teaching skills were the two major abilities needed in a
competent EFL teacher, regardless of native or non-native speaker status (Zhang & Zhan,
2014). Research in the Saudi context, introduced in 1.3 and 1.4 above, suggests that similar
issues regarding teaching quality and approaches are evident in the EFL sector.
Until recently in Saudi Arabia, as in most formal education systems, traditional methods
dominated foreign language teaching and learning, sometimes referred to as the grammar
translation method (GTM). This method was proposed in Germany towards the end of the 18th
century, and then it later proliferated to other parts of the world (Khan, 2011). Such traditional
methods primarily focus on reproducing the basic grammar and vocabulary of written texts in
L2 and are therefore limited in effectiveness in producing fluency. This method can be effective
for high-achieving and motivated students; however, it does not produce communicative
competence. Nevertheless, traditional methods continue to play an important role in L2
learning, as they produce fundamental literacy in the L2 for highly motivated students
(Assalahi, 2013; Chang, 2011).
Students of English in Arab countries often face problems in their learning of the particular
language skills needed in relation to listening, speaking, reading and writing (Khan, 2011),
with writing and speaking being identified as the most problematic and hence the target of most
60
research (Al-Asmari & Khan, 2014; Al-Haq, 1982; Ansari, 2012; Assalahi, 2013; Harrison,
Prator, & Tucker, 1975). Students from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and several other Arab
countries encountered difficulties in all of the language skills required in their learning of a
foreign language such as English. The poor output of most Arab students when it came to
engaging with the English language may be due to ineffective principles in curriculum design
and conceptualization, a lack of appropriate approaches used in the classrooms and slow
progress in students’ communication skills (Suleiman, 1983).
Saudi EFL teachers also use a range of other methods, such as the audio-lingual method (ALM)
(Chastain & Woerdehoff, 1968) or communicative approach (CAM) ( Anderson, 1993), as well
as the bilingual approach (BAM) (Strong, 1988) and grammar translation (GTM) (Watanabe,
1996). The majority of teachers currently advocate for the situational approach, with only a
few teachers continuing to follow more traditional methods (Khan, 2011). EFL teachers in
Saudi Arabia are generally local teachers or Arab teachers from other countries who
communicate with their students in the Arabic language, which assists in delivering and
conveying the teaching techniques effectively (Al-Hazmi & Schofield, 2007).
In summary, the major challenges and difficulties confronting EFL learners in Saudi Arabia
are shown to be as follows. First, mother tongue interference is a major barrier for the Arab
learner of English. Second, cultural factors also play a crucial role in learning the English
language (Al-Nasser, 2015; Al-Rabai, 2016). The education system with its policies,
curriculum and syllabus is deeply entrenched in the values and propagation of Islam and
Islamic living. Third, EFL teachers in Saudi Arabia have not received enough formal training
in linguistics. In their teaching processes, therefore, teachers focus mainly on getting their
students to pass exams rather than on their level of fluency in spoken English. Fourth, the
curriculum and syllabus may not apply modern teaching approaches such as the teaching of
61
life skills but rather center around the concept of EFL as a mere subject to be passed (Al-Asmari
& Khan, 2014; Al-Asmari, 2015; Al-Nasser, 2015).
While these key themes and issues emerge strongly from the literature, there is relatively little
empirical evidence linking them directly with student performance in EFL language skills,
whether in reading, writing, listening, or speaking. A consideration in designing the present
study was the gathering of data that may permit some correlations to be made between
Technical English learners' reading performance and the influences of contextual and
individual factors, and factors relating to curriculum and teaching delivery.
2.3.3 English for special purposes (ESP) in the Saudi context
In the field of English language teaching, the curriculum plays an important role in the delivery
of a range of programs, including specialist programs such as ESP. The field of ESP includes
two sub-streams known as English for Academic Purposes (EAP) and English for Occupational
Purposes (EOP) (Al-Amin & Ahmed, 2012, Belcher, 2006). ESP is distinct from general
English teaching in that it is focused on specific topics or disciplines. English for Specific
Purposes courses have their own methodology, based on studies across varying disciplines,
including applied linguistics (Bojović, 2015).
ESP has been variously defined. For instance, Mackay (1978) defined ESP as the teaching of
English for the purpose of utility, while Munby (1981) referred to ESP courses as having a
syllabus and materials designed according to predetermined requirements based on an analysis
of learners’ specific communication needs and Javid (2015) identified its importance for
specific occupations in pre-occupational and/or post-academic settings.
The specialized nature of ESP courses in comparison with ordinary English language courses
has also been highlighted. First, ESP courses are designed to meet the requirements of specific
62
groups of people specializing in a particular field of (often scientific) knowledge such as
engineering or medicine. Second, they often incorporate learners’ personal and academic
details such as their age and level of schooling or training, and professional career goals, in
order to personalize the course objectives. Third, ESP courses also include the teaching of
specialized vocabulary, which differs from ordinary vocabulary in that it is technical in nature
and is especially selected to meet the needs of the ESP learners’ particular field - for example,
the technical term ophthalmologist rather than 'eye doctor' in a medical field. Fourth, the form
and style of English taught in an ESP course is different from that typically taught in a general
English language course in that it incorporates and favours the teaching of the passive and
imperative to meet the highly technical nature of the specialized field of the ESP learner. For
example, while the active expression the optometrist examined the retina would be taught in a
general English course, in an ESP course the passive construction such as the retina was
examined (by the optometrist) might receive more attention in teaching. Last, the construction
of an ESP course is functional and specific in terms of the purpose-appropriate methodology
needed to ensure the fulfilment of particular specialisation outcomes and the teaching of
particular communicative skills and activities (Ahmed, 2014; Al-Amin & Ahmed, 2012;
Dudley-Evans, 2001; Robinson, 1980).
ESP courses are, or should be, based on the analysis of the communicative needs of learners
(obtained from the target situation) and a complete analysis of their entire language needs,
attitudes and interests.
In the framework of the communicative approach, which emphasizes teaching communicative
ability via real-life tasks, ESP is described as an instruction-based approach that is built on the
actual and immediate needs of learners in real-life task performances, distinct from passing an
English class/exam (Smoak, 2003). In other words, ESP should be based on learner needs and
63
task-oriented. However, this definition lacks an explanation of the type of real-life tasks
required, whether social or occupational. Orr (2001) on the other hand, identified these tasks
in his definition of ESP. He referred to it as English language instruction designed to satisfy
the distinct learning needs of a particular learner or group of learners, within a certain period
of time, for whom general English instruction is not sufficient.
This definition stresses another particular feature of ESP, namely the timeframe of the courses.
ESP is also defined as a learning/teaching process that is focused towards specific objectives
over a specific time period. More often than not, the instruction entails orienting to particular
spoken and written English that is unfamiliar to the average speaker but is needed to conduct
specific tasks in academia or work. ESP courses are “devised on the basis of the specific work-
related or academic needs of the learners, and the courses offer descriptions of language use in
the disciplines or occupations they serve.” (Basturkmen, 2003, p. 49). Another important
feature of ESP courses is a focus on prioritizing the most important elements in actual language
situations that particular English language learners are expected to face (Master, 2005).
These definitions of ESP are mostly in agreement. However, the nature and role of the common
core (i.e., the foundational set of language items that are usable in all situations) of ESP courses
is one area of disagreement (Flowerdew, 1990). There is no clear consensus on the extent of
basic English language proficiency that ESP learners need to support their more specialized
learning of English. Some consider that students do not have to be highly proficient in English,
citing this as an advantage of ESP. The ability of ESP courses to focus on a wide variety of
language specializations according to the required specialized language field is a widely
recognized advantage. However, ESP courses can be practical and economical when they focus
on common needs among different target groups, which suggests greater focus on a ‘common
core’ (Basturkmen, 2003).
64
ESP, as previously mentioned, can be divided into EOP and EAP. EOP is related to the work
or profession of students who need a specific level of English proficiency at work to indicate
good work performance (Kim, 2008). EAP refers to teaching English with the specific aim of
assisting learners to study, carry out research and/or teach a language (Flowerdew & Peacock,
2001) and to communicate effectively in their academic surroundings (Todd, 2003).
Generally speaking, ESP is known as a learner-centered method used in EFL teaching. ESP is
in much contemporary demand in the Saudi Arabian context. Its practical focus is attractive for
the purposes of workforce development, providing Saudis with the skills to fill positions
currently held by foreigners. Most EFL teachers and students in all different majors realise that
ESP courses can be the better option because they prepare learners with necessary information
in their major subjects as well as linguistic competence, thus reflecting the principle of content-
integrated language learning, where the learning of content and of language can be mutually
reinforcing.
For Saudi learners and policymakers, the idea that ESP learning does not require learners to
become highly proficient in general English is also attractive. The achievement of full L2
proficiency seems very difficult for Saudi students, and is generally considered an area of weak
outcomes in Saudi education. An easier target of limited, subject-specific English language
knowledge appears more attainable. It is also clear that different professions may require
different emphases and language skills: for example, speaking and listening skills will
obviously be important for those preparing to work in the tourist industry, while science and
technology require more advanced reading skills but may or may not require writing, and are
less likely to require listening and speaking.
ESP specialists and educators in Saudi Arabia believe that ESP books and the teaching
materials used in ESP contexts should acknowledge the language difficulties and level of Saudi
65
students in order to achieve better outcomes (Ahmed, 2014). One area of special importance in
this is text readability.
2.4 Reading and readability
Among educators and other professionals, both reading skills and the readability of texts are
seen as important, particularly in practical contexts such as written instructions for patients,
notifications for employees concerning health and safety industrial issues, and explanatory
leaflets concerning social security rights and benefits. However, such materials are often too
difficult for the general population to comprehend, even in populations with relatively high
levels of general literacy. The point made by Norris and Phillips (2003) in relation to scientific
literacy applies more broadly to all complex texts: there is a very widespread misconception
that reading is a simple matter of decoding, from print into speech, and that anyone with basic
literacy skills can read any text aloud and thereby understand it. This 'simple view of reading'
ignores important variables such as vocabulary knowledge, motivation and the cultural
background of the reader (Duke & Pearson, 2002). However, many theoretical and practical
approaches to improving reading comprehension are still based on the idea that the
information-processing aspect of reading can be explained in simple ways as the product of
decoding and listening (Gough & Tunmer, 1986).
Much EFL research recognizes that vocabulary knowledge and motivation, as well as the
quality and quantity of students’ reading, will contribute to their reading achievement. The
theoretical focus in SLA on a detailed examination of each of the four major language skills
separately has strengthened the research evidence that skill in speaking is not automatically
transferrable into writing, reading is not automatically transferrable into speaking, and reading
aloud is no guarantee of comprehension. Even the technologies that now enable computers to
66
convert voice to text and vice versa have taken considerable time and research effort to develop
and those automated processes can occur without any element of comprehension.
In EFL, therefore, the relation between reader and text is understood as involving cognitive
and psychological processes, both of which are also strongly influenced by environmental
factors. The significance of psychological and environmental factors in reading is now more
widely recognized by educators and researchers. The component model of reading (CMR)
identifies the reading component that is the source of reading difficulty and targets instruction
at that component (Berninger & Amtmann, 2003). CMR offers a framework for teachers and
psychologists to navigate their courses via different assessment formats and to determine
remedial strategies for classroom use. In Saudi Arabia, EFL teachers and researchers generally
agree on both the importance of the reading skill in EFL learning, and on the need to develop
specific cognitive and linguistic subskills that enable learners to succeed in it. The importance
of reading is also highlighted as the main hope for most Saudi EFL learners to overcome the
problem of limited exposure to English outside the classroom. It has also been observed that
EFL Teachers in Saudi Arabia tend to focus less on the reading–writing association (Al-Malki
& Soomro, 2017; Al-Omrani, 2014).
Educators have recognized the significance of the psychological and environmental factors in
the development of reading skills for some years (Berninger & Amtmann, 2003). In this regard,
researchers have concentrated on the various levels of students’ ability to understand a text,
and the type of text being employed. Contrary to the common understanding of ‘text' in terms
of its syntactical and grammatical components, in a learner-centered approach text should also
be appreciated on a deeper level as the essential foundation upon which complex meaning can
be extracted by careful readers (O’Toole & King, 2010). While readability level calculated
purely on measurements such as word and sentence length can indicate problems with a
67
necessary skill, it falls short in itself of enabling readers to comprehend and use a written text.
Texts of different subject disciplines, such as Science or Math, entail an increased cognitive
load and function (Phillips & Norris, 2009). It will therefore be important in this study to
examine cognitive, environmental and affective elements as well as text readability level in
shaping the reading behaviors of EFL learners in TVTC institutes.
Beyond textbooks and other printed learning material, the internet technology revolution is
considered to be useful and valuable in the integration of local cultural elements within EFL
contexts (Al-Jarf, 2004). Mobile technology for example, allows students to interact in a range
of locations and contexts. Young students have developed extensive social communities
outside the classroom that can be harnessed for contextually-based out-of-class EFL activities
(Kolb, 2008). Adapting social networking for different purposes in the EFL context may be a
very beneficial tool for EFL learners (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007). Its usefulness lies
in its ability to engender interaction and communication with others through a range of different
social networking applications such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and the educational
software program, Edmodo (Veletsianos & Navarrete, 2012). The use of such applications by
EFL learners will encourage them to read and write while interacting with others.
In a recent study conducted in Saudi Arabia, which asked college students what online
applications they found both attractive and helpful for improving their English, Shafea (2017)
found that more than 60% of the participants preferred reading short tweets and that they also
found this beneficial for their English learning. This suggests the benefit to Saudi EFL learners
of using online applications for its ability to connect students’ interests such as sports, art, cars,
games or music through short tweets, to enable them to more easily learn their target language
in an interesting and engaging way, as opposed to traditional non-online methods. Al-Shehri,
(2011) indicated that using Facebook through smart devices (e.g., smart phones and tablets)
68
could help learners by providing them with useful learning opportunities via collaborative
activities using such social media networks.
Overall, research suggests EFL learners gain many benefits from using media and computer
communications in developing their English-language abilities. The opportunity that
technology affords for learners to interact directly with native speakers is great. EFL learners
in this way are able to overcome any lack of self-confidence and go on to develop greater levels
of language proficiency (Ortega, 2014). Technology offers unlimited free sources of
collaborative language learning for both teachers and students, which may be its most valuable
contribution (Gencilter, 2009; Salaberry, 2001). While these new technologies increase access
to audio and video communication, it is notable that many of them rely heavily on the users’
reading skills, to navigate programs and websites and to access content from them.
2.4.1 Measuring readability levels
With the diversification of text types with which 21st century learners are engaging,
understanding readability gains increasing importance. The curriculum forms the basis for
structuring and delivering knowledge to learners, and it is important that the language level of
the instructional materials for its delivery be pitched correctly according to the learner
audience. For this reason, it is important for curriculum designers, as well as teachers, to be
able to test and examine the readability of any text that they would use. This is accessible
through a variety of methods. For example, using Microsoft Word, it is possible to estimate a
text’s readability by generating a preliminary text analysis to show the number of characters,
words, sentences and paragraphs in a targeted passage. It is also able to provide the percentage
of use of the passive voice in that text and its Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch/Kincaid grade
level (O’Toole & King, 2010).
69
The Flesch Reading Ease Readability Formula, developed in 1948, is one of the oldest and
most precise readability formulas. It is a simple and accurate approach that is best used with
school texts, although it can be used to measure the difficulty of any reading passage in English.
The Flesch Grade Level Readability Test, developed by Rudolph Flesch and John P. Kincaid,
improves upon the earlier Readability Formula. It is generally known as the Flesch-Kincaid
Grade Level Readability Test, but is also known by other names, such as the Flesch-Kincaid
Index, the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Score, and so on (Readability Formulas, n.d.).
The Gunning Fog Index Readability Formula is known as the FOG Index. Robert Gunning
observed that most secondary school graduates were unable to read effectively. He found that
many reading problems were due to lack of clarity in written material and in 1952 published a
book, The Technique of Clear Writing, introducing the Fog Index to simplify the typical writing
used in newspapers and business documents that he considered were unnecessarily complex
and 'foggy' for readers (Gunning, 1952, 1969; Readability Formulas, n.d.).
Building on this idea, the SMOG Readability Formula (Maginnis, 1982; Wang, Miller, Schmitt,
& Wen, 2013) is another commonly used approach to measuring a text’s readability. It
comprises a simple method, based on polysyllabic words, that a person can use to determine
the reading level of any text - namely, that to read at or above a grade level, the reader should
understand over 90% of the targeted text (Hunter College, n.d.). An alternative readability test
measurement approach is the Coleman-Liau Index, which was developed by linguists Meri
Coleman and T. L. Liau originally to help the U.S. educational system to standardize the
readability of all textbooks used in public schools. Unlike most of the other methods, the
Coleman-Liau Index depends on letter characters rather than syllables in a word. Rather than
focusing on syllable, word and sentence length, the Index is based on the view that
computerized tests understand characters more efficiently and accurately than counting
70
syllables and sentence length and therefore there is no need to count syllables (Readability
Formulas, n.d.).
Another testing approach is the Automated Readability Index, which was developed by Dr.
Gordon A. Eckstrand and Dr. Ross L. Morgan between 1964 and 1966 to produce an easy,
automated method to evaluate a text’s readability. This index is very similar to other indices
that measure readability (Smith & Senter, 1967). The present study employed this approach to
measure English texts from two different sources that Saudi students were very likely to read,
for the purpose of comparison with their ESP textbook.
These readability formulas cannot recognise differences in specialist language styles (Kaldor
& Rochecouste, 2002), and it has been suggested that a better alternative would be to utilize a
specific website dedicated solely to measuring readability (Anderson, 2003). This line of
thinking has shaped the present study’s methodology and the adoption of the thinkliteracy
software for conducting the data collection and initial stages of analysis, as explained at the
end of this section and in the next chapter.
2.4.2 Measuring readability via cloze testing
In the past forty years, research in the field of L2 testing has been investigating the
characteristics of cloze tests in measuring comprehension by readers. The origin of the cloze
test can be traced back to the quantification of intelligence by Ebinghaus and Minkus in the
latter part of the 19th century, reintroduced in the 1950s prior to proliferating in the 1970s
(O’Toole, Cheng, & O’Toole, 2015). A cloze test assesses readers’ comprehension of a written
passage of text and is implemented primarily through the careful deletion of certain words in
the chosen passage. This method was initially proposed to assess the comprehension ability of
native speakers in their L1. Later, cloze tests began to be used in studies on L2 learners
(Watanabe & Koyama, 2008).
71
cloze tests were formally introduced by Taylor in 1953 as a means of directly gauging L1
readers’ comprehension level under different contextual conditions (Taylor, 1953). Cloze tests
purportedly provide an accurate indication of the general readability of a text and the ease with
which an individual understands it. cloze testing is adapted from Gestalt psychology whereby
appreciation of the text as a whole comes about after the process of fitting the parts together.
This process has been called ‘clozure’ (with the ‘z’ introduced as an attempt to distinguish this
from the broader terminology relating to emotional or psychological closure), and is now the
defining term for the group of techniques related to this process that originated from Taylor’s
work (1953).
The cloze test has several advantages, as attested in the literature, the primary one being its
proven effectiveness over time to assess specific difficulties in learners’ reading
comprehension (Brown, 2002; Oller & Jonz, 1994; Spolsky, 2000; Stansfield, 2008). This is
due to the test’s utilization of the text itself as a means of directly testing readers’
comprehension. Another advantage of the cloze test is that it can be used in different formats
(Miller, DeWitt, McCleeary, & O'Keefe, 2009; Schmitt & Sha, 2009; Sharp, 2009). Such uses
include its ability to test proficiency (Keshavarz & Salimi, 2007) and collocational knowledge,
among others. Ease of construction and scoring contribute to the wide use of cloze testing. In
addition, due to the easily adaptable nature of cloze testing as an assessment instrument to
measure a variety of abilities, it is also used as a measurement tool for problems in
second/foreign language settings (Sadeghi, 2014).
A further benefit of cloze tests that appeals to many instructors and scholars is that these tests
can be developed from authentic text sources, and the scoring is relatively objective. As
mentioned previously, cloze tests also have the advantage of being easily adapted to explore
various other areas of L2 proficiency such as reader fluency (Ferrara, 2005; Yovanoff,
72
Duesbery, Alonzo, & Tindal, 2005). Cloze procedures have now become so widely used and
valued that whole markets around computerized “cloze makers” have been created (Holmes,
1996).
From their original creation and implementation as previously described, the cloze test is now
being utilized as a functional tool for measuring L2 reading comprehension proficiency using
various deletion procedures that involve the careful deletion of certain words in particular
written passages according to the text’s word length. In this process, random words are
typically deleted in the second sentence of each passage through to the deletion of every fifth,
seventh, ninth, eleventh or thirteenth word, until the required number of words (often 50) has
been deleted (Gunning, 2002; Oller & Jonz, 1994; Riley, 1978). The target group of L2 reader
test takers then attempts to replace the deleted words after which an average can be taken of
the correct responses of the group. The results of this procedure then enable an estimate of that
group’s difficulties in comprehending the chosen text.
It has been found that the overall score from cloze procedures developed according to the points
made above is helpful in assessing the readability level of chosen passages (Bormuth, 1965a),
while categorization of the deleted words aids in determining particular difficulties that the
learners are experiencing (O’Toole, Cheng & O’Toole, 2015).
The nature of the cloze test itself is that it is generally independent, requiring test respondents
to complete text gaps by themselves. The effectiveness of the cloze assessment lies in the
difficulty of the reading passage source and/or the test responder’s reading ability, and is
approximated by the extent to which they are able to accurately reproduce the original
'wholeness' (i.e. ‘gestalt’) of the passage, occasioned through the deletion process. For all these
reasons, the cloze test has been found overall to be a useful tool in discovering and measuring
reading comprehension (Kobayashi, 2002a; Oller & Jonz, 1994; Robinson, 1981).
73
The ease with which cloze tests can be developed from authentic texts combined with their
potential focus continues to make them attractive to instructors and researchers. Several cloze
versions have been utilized to examine a range of topics, such as reader fluency (Ferrara, 2005;
Yovanoff et al., 2005), bilingualism and critical thinking (Albert, Albert, & Radsma, 2002),
and brain activity underpinning linguistic processing (Duarte-Expósito, Nieto-Barco, de Vega-
Rodriguez, & Barroso-Ribal, 2004). Furthermore, cloze procedures are commonplace in the
market for computerized cloze makers (Holmes, 1996), but a consensus regarding their
widespread use is still elusive owing to various controversies.
2.4.3 Scoring methods and related controversies
As previously discussed, cloze tests have been found to be effective in estimating the
readability of a certain text of particular target reader groups with scoring methods involving
the calculation of the average of correct responses from these groups. The use of the average
method to assess reader group responses then enables researchers, instructors and materials
developers to search for and connect reader group scores with suitable texts to reading
comprehension levels based on test responses. This enables an assessment of reading
proficiency through the process of categorizing target reader group percentages and linking
them with associated different levels of reading proficiency. Such categorization of reading
proficiency levels can then give some indication of text specific difficulties at each level.
However, the approach has not been without controversy. In the middle of the last century, the
re-emergence of deletion-based methods was accompanied by a controversy that seems to
permeate cloze testing even today (Brown, 2013; Chen, 2004; Kobayashi, 2002a, 2002b, 2004;
Spolsky, 2000; Stansfield, 2008; Watanabe and Koyama, 2008). Most of the debate and
controversy have surrounded sampling and scoring (Oller & Jonz, 1994; Spolsky, 2000;
Stansfield, 2008). While either of these issues could potentially have serious impact on the
74
results from testing, when studied individually they have been more recently found to be less
of a cause for concern than previously thought.
Contrary to a great deal of the literature, and teacher practice, this more recent work suggested
that conceptual scoring of student attempts to repair the mutilated passage disproportionally
advantaged the more adept respondents, rather than providing the expected support for the less
able readers (O’Toole & King, 2011). Another study indicated that the sensitivity of the cloze
procedure to sampling error is somewhat complex. The differential difficulty of specific
language features for particular groups of students had been demonstrated earlier and this
leveraged the expected non-statistically significant difference in language features sampled by
the successive tests into a statistically significant difference in exact replacement mean cloze
score (O’Toole & King, 2010). Both of these discoveries represent a correction to previous
research to which contemporary research is beginning to respond.
This work was based on manual coding of write-in answer sheets completed by students
attempting various 50 item cloze tests. This coding distinguished between exact replacement
of the word deleted to form the gap in the cloze test, entry of a conceptually equivalent
synonym, clear error and defeated non-attempts represented by strings of unfilled gaps at the
end of a student answer sheet. Such coding was necessary to identify patterns of clear error
which could be used to suggest differential patterns of student difficulty with the specialist
style of English used in science resources. However, as Taylor had earlier recognized, it is
tedious and introduces threats to the reliability of the coding process. Both O’Toole and King
papers (2010 and 2011) relied on re-analysis of the data supporting O’Toole (1998) but other
work (O’Toole & O’Toole, 2004) involved further manual coding and this reinforced
recognition of the tedium involved in ensuring reliability. Work on automating the coding
process resulted in a web package mounted on thinkliteracy.com.
75
One of the tests used in O’Toole and King (2010) was used as the basis of the thinkliteracy.com
multiple-choice format cloze test, the results of which have been compared with the
performance of the same group of students on the ‘write-in’ version (Zangmo et al., 2018).
This study indicated that the overall difference in student scores on the two forms of the test
was not statistically significant and that both forms of the test identified the same set of
language features. This means that thinkliteracy.com can be used with confidence that the
literacy tests are functionally equivalent to those used in previous research and that tedious
manual coding will no longer be necessary.
Differing methods and patterns in selecting items for deletion can indeed yield different scores
for the same passage of text. However, provided that the rationale for the selected method is
clearly stated, and that it is used consistently across all text passages and respondent groups
within a particular study or set of studies, appropriate standards of reliability can be achieved.
The present study will use a precise and consistent deletion method to produce a machine-
scored cloze test based on a passage from the mandatory textbook, as described in the next
chapter.
Cloze averages can be used to indicate three different levels of reading comprehension. These
are the ‘independent’ level, for material intended for use without support from the instructor;
the ‘instructional’ level where some support is needed to achieve understanding; and
‘frustration' level where the reader struggles or is unable to extract meaning from the text. For
example, based on extensive comparison between cloze and other measures of
comprehensibility, Oller and Jonz (1994) suggest a group mean cloze of 53%, scored by exact
replacement, as representative of the lower level of independent access. In this categorization,
below 43% indicates frustration; 44% to 52% represents the instructional level; and a mean
76
cloze score above 53% suggests that the particular group of students could read the passage
independently.
2.4.4 Discovering who has trouble with what
The present study's approach to cloze test construction is based on a two-stage classification of
language features, where items are categorized by their dictionary category and re-categorized
according to the functional categories that are a characteristic feature of the style. This multi-
level approach was adopted by other prior studies (e.g., Härnqvist, Christianson, Ridings, &
Tingsell, 2003; O’Toole & Schefter, 2008). Its application in the first cloze test used in O’Toole
and King (2010) is described below.
The dictionary categories are formed by the traditional parts of speech; namely, noun, pronoun,
adjective, article, verb, adverb, conjunction and preposition. While recognizing that these
categories are not without controversy in modern linguistic science, they are well enough
established to be applied in this context (Crystal, 2000). The functional categorization was
developed by taking into account a number of factors. Technicality represents words with
specific meanings to the target style (Herbert, 1965; Martin, 1993). Grammatical metaphor,
where a word of one dictionary category is used as a member of another (Halliday & Martin,
2003). Word stacks, which build as a group of adjectives or metaphorical adjectives modify a
final noun (Strevens, 1977; Trimble, 1985). Voice, which includes agentless passives (Cooray,
1965; Kess, 1993). Finally, cohesion, which refers to the repetitive and referral strategies that
link paragraphs within a text (Connor & Johns, 1990; Halliday & Hasan, 1967). The category
of technicality can be further divided into technical, semi-technical, formal and general content
words that may apply across several dictionary categories. Verb forms acting as nouns, verbs
acting as adjectives, nouns acting as adjectives, adverbs acting as adjectives, and adverbs acting
as conjunctions all provide examples of grammatical metaphor. Word stacks can possess two,
77
three, four, five or more adjectives that precede their nouns. The voice of verbs may be active,
passive or stative, while cohesion may be referential, explicit, conjunctive or repetitive.
Test constructors have used such two-stage categorizations to encourage pedagogical change
in classrooms. The categories need to be subtle enough to effectively target areas of reading
difficulty, but non-language-trained instructors also need to be able to recognise the features
that students are expected to access. This is more possible with familiar categories, or when
using readily accessible resources. While traditional grammar elicits strong passions (Bruton-
Simmonds, 2003; Crystal, 1987), retaining traditional categories is consequently useful.
Nonetheless, it remains true that dictionaries are word-based and not concerned with features
above the sentence level, which could be a weakness in developing reading comprehension.
Functional categories can counter this weakness by providing a description of language
features at the level of the full text, and by providing a framework that works at exposing the
difficulties experienced by various groups, while explaining why such difficulties arise. This
in turn can to enable the analysis used by change agents to connect with the experiences of
subject specialists who are not language specialists, at the level of secondary schools. In
Halliday’s later work, he proposed a more illuminative model of systemic lexico-grammar
(Christie & Derewianka, 2008) that may not be easily accessed by specialist teachers without
language training.
In order to apply a cloze test to a selected passage, it is recommended that the deletion be of
about 50 words (Oller & Jonz, 1994). Others have argued that it is sufficient only to delete 30
items (Bachman, 1985). It has been suggested that deletion should be of every fifth word
consistently (Alderson, 1979), and the cloze test should not include any punctuation or
apostrophe in the word replaced (Robinson, 1981).
78
Many studies have been dedicated to examining cloze tests in the field of language testing, with
some of them focusing on specific linguistic and textual factors that could influence cloze item
issues. For example, while test constructors in Japan consistently uses cloze testing of multiple-
choice (MC) cloze items, there have been instances, as referred to below, where specific
linguistic and textual factors have compromised the results. The potential of these factors to
influence MC cloze items, however, has overall been largely ignored. A recent study to
determine whether MC cloze tests form a dependable measure tested whether language and
textual factors were influencing the multiple-choice MC cloze test scores. The study used two
passages and 50 MC cloze items with a group of ESL students at a university in Japan. The
results indicated that while the items used in the passage varied in difficulty, it was found that
MC cloze tests are a dependable form of assessment dependent on careful text selection
(Kumazawa, 2016).
In a related study about the dependability of MC cloze testing, conducted in Iran, the findings
indicated that the cloze test is an effective measure that assists in enhancing EFL/ESL learners’
proficiency level in the target language. The study examined the relationship between the
collocational competence of EFL Iranian university students and their performance, as well as
measuring their overall language proficiency. The findings also indicated that cloze tests can
be useful in gauging the different skills and components of the students’ language proficiency
(Keshavarz & Salimi, 2007). They also added to the evidence that the cloze test is a useful tool
to measure readability of a chosen text especially in science and technical texts, hence its
adoption in this study. The more fine-grained analysis of cloze test takers’ errors in terms of
grammatical and functional categories has great potential to reveal which learners are having
difficulty with which language features.
79
2.4.5 Online evaluation of textbook readability
Another area of academic research in exploring the causes of L2 learners’ reading
comprehension difficulties in Arab countries, and Saudi Arabia particularly, involves the
examination and evaluation of textbooks. In an education system where a single mandatory
textbook is used to deliver the prescribed curriculum at each level of study, and where that
textbook is often the only tool by which most students access subject knowledge outside the
classroom, textbook quality is rightly seen as crucial. Many such studies apply research
methodologies that depend only on checklists distributed among EFL teachers to evaluate the
textbooks being used (Al-Saif, 2005; Faruk, 2015; Habtoor, 2012). Such checklist studies can
lack rigour and specificity, and rarely if ever attempt to link teacher responses with their
students' actual achievement. To the best of this researcher’s knowledge, no study has been
conducted to evaluate and investigate the readability of English textbooks in Saudi Arabia
using cloze tests as a research method; let alone to link such empirical test results with student
and teacher attitudes, perceptions and experience of using the textbook in question.
Due to the proven efficacy of the cloze test as a tool for measuring the readability of any text,
it is considered an essential asset to any curriculum designer or teacher. The cloze test can be
applied manually or by using technology. The use of software facilitates and helps researchers
to apply the cloze test easily and accurately. In this study, this researcher relied on and benefited
from the thinkliteracy software package to produce accurate, reliable and quick results
(https://app.thinkliteracy.com/about). The software saves time in that the researcher does not
have to be present in fieldwork as it is a global platform and easily accessed online.
Researchers, curriculum designers and teachers can benefit from this software to create cloze
tests. The thinkliteracy software and its use in this study will be more fully discussed in Chapter
3. For the present, it is noteworthy that this study is the first to apply this innovative and
80
efficient online platform for the analysis of reading performance and textbook readability with
Arab EFL learners.
2.5 Summary
English is an important, international and global language, and language is an important tool
that allows people to communicate. Understanding the language used in textbooks will help
students attain a better understanding of the presented knowledge and better achievement. In
Saudi Arabia, English is a foreign language: it is not spoken by everyone in the country and is
normally used in very limited contexts. Therefore, learning English presents a great challenge
to most Saudi students. Since the ability to communicate in English is necessary for improving
students’ future career prospects it is most important that students achieve a high standard of
communicative fluency in English. Due to the limited use of English in Saudi Arabia in contrast
to the predominance of the English language in textbooks and the high level of academic
terminology used, our students face difficulties in acquiring most of these primary skills. This
study's focus on the skill of reading, in particular the reading ability of students studying ESP
courses at technical colleges in Saudi Arabia, is well situated within the context of recent
research on scientific and technical literacy, and on the challenges of EFL and ESP in non-
English speaking countries throughout the world.
The study further aims to investigate what language features can cause difficulties for the
students. Such an investigation will help course designers and educators understand the
difficulties and the language features with which EFL students may struggle. Readability
formulas may help to uncover some of these difficulties and cloze tests can shed light on the
language features that are most challenging to these EFL learners, both as a group and
individually.
81
Chapter 3: Methodology
3.1 Introduction
The researcher is a staff member of the English language center at the Jeddah College of
Technology, a component of the Saudi Technical and Vocational Training Corporation TVTC.
As mentioned in the introductory chapter, English in TVTC colleges is compulsory for all
students, with each course consisting of two 100-minute classes per week. Based on his
teaching at TVTC colleges, the researcher has noticed many problems and barriers that cause
his students to struggle with learning English. Reading is well recognized as one of the main
skills to learn any language and this is even more important when a mandatory textbook is
involved. The readability of a range of texts that Saudi technical students are expected to read
is the primary concern of this investigation, which also aims to identify the language features
that cause the most difficulty for Saudi technical students in comprehending the language of
their ESP textbooks. These concerns led to the research questions set out in the next section.
This study attempts to answer those research questions through an approach that seeks to
“explain the causes of changes in social facts, primarily through objective measurement and
quantitative analysis” (Firestone, 1987, p. 16). Quantitative researchers use numbers to study
a phenomenon or occurrence (Szyjka, 2012). A researcher aims to quantify participant
responses then understand them to make a right decision (Arghode, 2012). The numbers will
be generated from participant responses to survey instruments and student use of a cloze test
that is designed to analyze the language of passage from a mandatory textbook, Technical
English 2 (Bonamy, 2011). Technical English 2 is the second of a two-level series that has been
designed for students in technical or vocational education. These textbooks cover the language
and skills needed by technical students to read, write and communicate successfully in all
technical majors. Technical English 2 was designed for students who have completed Level 1
82
or who already have an elementary, basic knowledge of general English. Its mandatory status
indicates that the textbook is considered appropriate for a pre-intermediate ESP course. It is
especially designed for readers based on the Common European Framework (CEF level A2).
The actual passage on which the cloze test is based is included in Appendix 1. The connection
between the research questions, methods chosen and data analysis is described in Table 3.1
below.
This research was carried out under University of Newcastle ethics approval for Human
Research (Approval Number H-2016-0303) and from participating colleges in Saudi Arabia.
Appendix 3 contains all relevant approval documents.
The cloze test (Appendix 1) provides quantitative data in the form of overall test scores and
scores on the component language feature sub-tests. The surveys (Appendices 5 and 6) provide
quantitative data based on participant responses to demographic and Likert format items. The
existence of all three sets of quantitative data allows triangulation between student achievement
and teacher and student perceptions.
The selected passage was taken from an English technical textbook. The Technical English
series of which the textbook forms a part, supports a four-level course designed for students in
Technical or Vocational education.
3.2 Research questions
A review of the literature and an understanding of the contemporary situation in Saudi Arabia
(especially post Vision 2030) leads to recognition of the importance of student access to
mandatory ESP textbooks in technical training contexts. This suggests the need to investigate
the readability of a range of texts that Saudi technical students are expected to read, including
a mandatory textbook. This should make it possible to identify the language features that are
83
causing most difficulty for these Saudi technical students and suggest reasons for why these
features might cause difficulty for these students. It may then be possible to suggest fruitful
teaching and learning strategies that might help in overcoming these difficulties.
This leads to the following Research Questions for the present study.
1. To what extent do the language demands of ESP texts used by Saudi technical
students differ from those that they might encounter in their other readings in
English?
2. What are the language features that cause the most difficulty for participating
Saudi technical students in comprehending the language of their ESP
textbooks?
3. What are the social and pedagogical factors that may impact Saudi students’
English learning at these colleges?
4. Are EFL teachers in TVTC colleges confident in teaching ESP technical
courses to their students?
3.3 Study design
A particular passage was chosen from an English textbook known as Technical English 2
(Bonamy, 2011, p. 29) was chosen as a typical sample of the text with high potential student
motivation across different technical majors and a cloze test was constructed to identify
potential student difficulties with its language features. Deleting one word in five from the
passage produced a multiple-choice cloze test and the students chose one answer from five
possible choices in order to fill in the blank of the deleted word. The overall cloze score is
useful both in determining the readability level of the passage and the language feature sub-
tests serve as an aid to determining what words or categories of words are causing the main
difficulties for the students.
84
As mentioned earlier in the introduction chapter, students in Saudi Arabia currently begin
learning English as EFL only in Year Four, when they are ten years old or above. This study
focuses particularly on technical English and it will investigate what causes students to struggle
in reading and understanding any technical text. Table 3.1 sets out the connections between the
Research Questions and data sources, methods and results.
3.4 Research instruments
3.4.1 Readability comparison
Many studies of the reading difficulties of Saudi students have been based on surveys asking
teachers and students about their opinions and sometimes asking the students to evaluate
themselves regarding their reading levels. Unfortunately, reading in general is not popular in
Saudi Arabia. Students generally only read their school or college textbooks and nothing else.
Reading is not common in the community, and Saudis apparently rarely read for pleasure (Al-
Qahtani, 2016). This may be changing with the more common use of social media.
This study focusses on the language of a mandatory text dealing with technical language but
the preliminary question of the relative difficulty of that text, compared to other texts that these
students may be reading, deserves attention.
85
Table 3.1
Connection between the research questions that guided this investigation and the various phases that comprised it
Research questions Source of data Type of data Specific data Analysis Results 1. To what extent do the language
demands of ESP texts used by Saudi technical students differ from those that they might encounter in their other readings in English?
Selected passages from: • Technical
English 2 • Saudi Gazette • Arsenal FC
Website
• instructional text • news report • sports report
Readability of text sample based on analysis detail at right.
1. Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease
2. Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level
3. Gunning Fog Score 4. SMOG Index 5. Coleman Liau Index 6. Automated
Readability Index
Table 4.1
2. What are the language features
that cause the most difficulty for participating Saudi technical students in comprehending the language of their ESP textbooks?
Online cloze test: 50 items
Cloze responses raw data n=313 Cloze responses cleaned data n=280
Cloze language feature sub-test results for all features Cloze language feature sub-tests: Lexical items: 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 20, 22, 25, 29, 32, 34, 36, 37, 38, 40, 43, 45, 47, 48, 49, and 50. Grammatical items: 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 33, 31, 33, 35, 39, 41, 42, 44, and 46).
Errors /50 & sub-tests (n=280x50) by: 1. Part of speech
category 2. Functional category 3. Technicality
category Errors /25 (n=280x50) by: Distractor category Correlation of cloze score
Table 4.13 Table 4.14 Table 4.15 Table 4.16
86
7. with survey responses (SPSS)
3. What are the social and pedagogical factors that may impact Saudi students’ English learning at these colleges?
Student survey: 20 items
Survey responses raw data n=293
All items Descriptive statistics (thinkliteracy)
Table 4.5 Table 4.6
Teacher survey: 20 items
Teacher survey n=36
Student survey clean data n= 280 Teacher survey clean data n=36
All Likert items Correlation of cloze score
with survey responses (SPSS)
Table 4.15 Table 4.16 Table 4.17 Table 4.18 Table 4.19
4. Are EFL EFL teachers in TVTC
colleges confident in teaching ESP technical courses to their students?
Teacher survey: 20 items
16 Likert scale 4 demographic
Survey responses n=36
Teacher survey: All Likert Items
Descriptive statistics (SPSS)
Table 4.20 Table 4.21 Table 4.22
87
Consequently, the study began with a readability survey of a range of English sources that
TVTC students might be expected to read (Phase 1). The sample passages (see Appendix 2)
were chosen because they represented likely sources that the target student could be expected
to access. Each of the passages was around 15 lines long and their readability was estimated
through the application of a range of readability formulas to ten sentences from each. Although
such formulas are too crude to identify specific differences in specialist language styles (Kaldor
& Rochecouste, 2002; O’Toole, 1996), they are commonly used to indicate comparative
readability.
Passages from three different sources were selected as representative of texts that the students
at the focus of this study might plausibly be expected to read. The mandatory ESP textbook
was one of the sources used, including the representative passage from this text that was
subsequently used as the basis of the cloze test developed in Phase 2 of this study. The other
passages were drawn from the Saudi Gazette, an English language Saudi Newspaper, and from
the website of a famous English football club called Arsenal. These sources (see Appendices 1
and 2) were chosen because they sampled the plausible range of Saudi TVTC student reading:
a mandatory text, a popular newspaper and a popular website. The readability of these three
sources was estimated by applying the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Grade
Level, Gunning Fog Score, SMOG Index, Coleman-Liau Index and Automated Readability
Index formulas (Gunning, 1969; Readability Formulas, n.d.; Stevens, Stevens, & Stevens,
1992). As indicated in Chapter 2, a variety of formulas have been suggested for quantitative
estimation of text readability. Most rest on various combinations of counts for lengths of the
words and sentences in the passage and yield variously differing estimates of text readability
(O’Toole, 2004). Consequently, the three selected passages were examined by six commonly-
used formulas in order to arrive at an average readability for comparison purposes.
88
3.4.2 Cloze Test
3.4.2.1 How can we identify specific difficulties?
The passage drawn from the mandatory textbook during Phase 1 was used as the basis of the
cloze test developed in Phase 2. This particular passage, which deals with assembling a motor
car, was chosen because of its probable use at the time of data collection and because of its
attraction for the target audience. Young TVTC students often love cars and a reasonable
degree of both background knowledge and intrinsic motivation to read might be anticipated.
3.4.2.2 Generating cloze items
Cloze tests can be built by deleting words in a number of patterns. Regular deletion of 50 words
at the rate of one word in five is a common practice that produces a test that is long enough to
allow close analysis of student errors but short enough for practical use in classroom contexts.
Manual analysis of student responses to such a test is onerous and prone to problems with intra-
and inter-rater reliability. Machine-marked multiple-choice cloze tests overcome both of these
problems to produce a test that has been shown to be effectively equivalent to a “write-in” form
(Zangmo et al., 2018). Therefore, a one-in-five deletion pattern was used to produce a multiple-
choice cloze test from the chosen passage (see Appendix 1).
3.4.2.3 Classifying cloze items
Each word deleted to form a cloze item was classified into both dictionary and functional
grammar categories (Härnqvist et al., 2003; O’Toole& King, 2010). These categories provided
“sub-tests” made up of those items so classified, which allowed the researcher to recognise
student difficulty with specific features of the language of the mandatory technical English
textbook.
Appendix 1 contains both the passage and classification of deletions. Such classification of
language features has been discussed previously (see Section 2.8.7). The classifications for the
89
deleted items were classified based on their dictionary category and then reclassified according
to the functional categories. Such an approach will help to indicate student difficulties with
specific language features of this passage and suggest wider difficulties that these students may
face in reading English (O’Toole & King, 2010; O’Toole, Cheng, & O’Toole, 2015).
The dictionary categories incorporate the traditional parts of speech: nouns, pronouns,
adjectives, articles, verbs, adverbs, conjunctions and prepositions (Crystal, 2000). The
functional categories relevant to this study relate to technicality - words with special meanings
(Halliday & Martin, 2014; Martin, 2013; Wignel, 2005). Technicality can be further divided
into sub-categories: technical, semi-technical, general and cohesive. Voice refers to the verb,
whether it is active (the subject is the agent) or passive where the agent that is hidden in a
passive construction (Douglas, 2011; Tarone, Dwyer, Gillette, & Icke, 1998).
Cohesion relates to the coherence of a text and can be conveyed via repetition of different
words, reference, which links paragraphs together, and qualifiers, which are usually
words or phrases that precede an adjective or adverb to increase or decrease the quality
indicated by the word it describes (Cain, 2003; Connor & Johns, 1990; Halliday & Hasan,
1967).
The deleted word, its classification and the distractors that were used to form the multiple-
choice test for this study. The categories can be summarized as follows. Thirteen nouns were
deleted from the passage, of which three were technical, four were semi-technical, four were
general, and two of the deleted nouns served a cohesive function. There were also 5 verbs, 3
auxiliaries, 9 articles, 3 conjunctions, 3 adjectives, 2 pronouns, 8 prepositions and 4 adverbs
deleted from the passage (see Appendix 1).
90
One of the strengths of such cloze test-based research is that the regular deletion of words
captures readers’ correct or incorrect responses for both lexical and grammatical items. For
example, in the selected text on “Assembling a Car”, the 50 cloze items include technical terms
such as wiring (item 27), semi-technical terms such as panel (item 25) and ordinary nouns like
parts (item 23), along with other items that require grammatical knowledge, such as articles
(the, item 4), prepositions (along, item 21), and verb forms (transported, item 3). The present
study is probably the first to attempt a more systematic approach to assessing the relative
impact on understanding of the English text of the readers’ lexical knowledge (i.e. vocabulary)
versus their grammatical knowledge by distinguishing between the types of distractors from
which respondents must choose. Consequently, this distinction will be discussed at greater
length at this point.
This was done by designing two different categories of distractors, Lexical and Grammatical,
with 20 items allocated to each category. Each cloze test item presents four distractors in
addition to the correct response. For the Lexical category, distractors are identical in
grammatical form to the target item, e.g. for the passive verb form transported (item 3), the
distractors are all verbs in participle form (bought, inserted, sold, translated). Items of this type
require readers to supply the correct answer from their lexical knowledge, independent of the
grammatical form of the word. For the Grammatical category, the distractors are similar or
identical in lexical to the target item, but differ in grammatical form, e.g. for the participle
welded (item 8), the distractors are different forms of the same lexical item (welds, weld,
welder, welding). Moreover, distractors of the grammatical type may be from the same word
class as the target, or they may be a different part of speech. In item 8, the verb form welded
functions as past participle in a passive construction (the parts are welded), although this same
form can also function as past tense in other contexts. Among the distractors, welds can be the
present tense of the same verb, or the plural of the noun weld; weld can function as a noun or
91
the base form of the verb; welder can only be a noun; and welding can function as present
progressive or adjective. To choose the correct response (welded) requires the reader to access
grammatical knowledge of the correct form of the word in its grammatical context within the
text.
In designing this aspect of the cloze test, the 50 item numbers were first randomly allocated to
the Lexical or Grammatical distractor type, using the randomizer at www.random.org (based
on atmospheric noise). This resulted in the following distribution:
Lexical items: (2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 20, 22, 25, 29, 32, 34, 36, 37, 38, 40, 43, 45, 47, 48, 49, and 50).
Grammatical items: (1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 33, 31, 33, 35, 39, 41, 42, 44, and 46).
Distractors were then assigned to each item based on the principles outlined above. An
interesting challenge in assigning distractors was the fact that the definite article (the) occurred
eight times among the random deletions (items 4, 5, 12, 13, 22, 28, 36, 40). Such a high
incidence is, nonetheless, not unexpected in a cohesive text of this genre, which is heavy in
noun phrases with referents established earlier in the text. The randomization procedure
described above assigned items 4, 12, 22, and 36 to the Lexical category, and 5, 13, 23, and 40
to the Grammatical category. The contrast between Lexical and Grammatical distractor sets for
the same target item can be seen by comparing these. For example, the Grammatical distractors
for item 4 are different in grammatical function (personal pronoun them, adverb there,
demonstrative these, personal pronoun they) from the target (definite article the); but they are
conceptually similar in that all refer to known or previously established referents. The Lexical
distractors for item 5, on the other hand, are grammatically similar to the target in that all of
92
them (another, its, same, some) can pre-modify a noun, but they differ in lexical meaning (see
Appendix 1).
Subsequent analysis was restricted to language sub-tests that exhibited reliabilities greater than
0.5 (Cronbach’s α) in Phase 3 of the study (following Fraser, 1974; Hinton, McMurray, &
Brownlow, 2004; Kehoe, 1999). This may be the most fine-grained approach to cloze test
construction attempted to date, with its inbuilt subtests for part of speech, discourse function,
technicality, and distractor category. These subtests were all designed to address Research
Questions 2.
3.4.3 Student questionnaire
An on-line survey of student responses was prepared. The survey contained both demographic
and opinion questions on a six-point Likert scale (Anderson & Bourke, 2000). In this part of
the present study, information was sought on factors that might influence students' EFL reading
performance, to address Research Questions 2 and 3.The student survey (and subsequent
teacher survey) was then sent for evaluation to two English teachers at Jeddah College of
Technology, one teacher at Abha College of Technology and one at Onaizah College of
Technology.
The teachers were asked to add or delete whatever they thought was necessary, which they
subsequently did. Piloting both student and teacher material was valuable as it gave the
researcher an opportunity to modify the survey and resolve any issues before distributing it to
a potentially critical audience.
The student online survey was about students’ attitudes toward learning English and reading
English texts, and their opinions about curriculums, teaching methods and the importance of
English in their life.
93
3.4.4 Teacher questionnaire
An online survey of teacher responses was also prepared. The survey contained both
demographic and opinion questions on a six-point Likert scale (Anderson & Bourke, 2000).
Piloting the teacher material was valuable as it gave the researcher an opportunity to modify
the surveys and resolve any issues before distributing them to a potentially critical audience.
The reviewers of the draft survey made some valuable suggestions, which were incorporated
into the survey before the final teacher survey was distributed to 36 EFL teachers at the English
Language Centre at the Jeddah College of Technology and other colleges around the Kingdom.
The final teacher survey included 20 items. There were 16 items seeking the teachers’ opinions
regarding teaching English for specific purposes in relation to proficiency, teaching methods,
teaching materials, textbooks and the students’ English proficiency, training and student
attitudes by using a six-point Likert scale (see Appendix 6). The last four items consisted of
demographic information about the teachers: nationality, teaching experience, highest degree
and current college of employment.
The use of questionnaires is a vital method used in foreign or second language research that
enables the collection of specific information. The study participants completed the student
survey at the same time as the cloze test was conducted in the computer labs in the technical
colleges during class hours (see Appendix 8). Teacher survey questions 1–16 were designed to
seek answers to Research Questions 4, and the four demographic questions to capture other
factors that might influence teachers' views.
3.5 Data collection
3.5.1 Participants
The thinkliteracy-mounted cloze test and survey were trialed in Newcastle city, where 16
people at Newcastle University from Saudi Arabia completed the test and survey. This pilot
94
resulted in a few structural changes before a wider pilot was undertaken in Saudi Arabia, where
a colleague at the Jeddah College of Technology ran the on-line instruments in a computer
laboratory with a class of 34 EFL students. The pilot went smoothly and the students did not
face any problems logging in and completing both components of the study instrument.
At this phase, the cloze test and student and teacher surveys were presented to the participants
online in English, through the thinkliteracy.com website. The students were also given a hard
copy of the survey translated into Arabic to help them understand and answer the online English
survey. The cloze test was only provided in English.
The technical textbook from which the cloze test was built is mandated for third-semester
students in Jeddah College of Technology in Saudi Arabia but it is used every semester as the
various technical programs roll through their five semesters. The nominally first semester
normally begins in September, and this study was applied in November therefore most of the
participating Semester 3 students had not yet studied the passage by the time the researcher
began his data collection.
Before the study could be conducted, permission had to be obtained from the participating
TVTC institutes. The researcher sent a formal request to the head of the English Language
Centre at Jeddah College of Technology and others, asking them to grant permission for
teachers and students to participate in the project. The targeted participants were also formally
invited and provided with information statements about the objectives and methods of the
study. All potentially participating teachers and students were enrolled in the thinkliteracy.com
website.
95
Figure 3.1. Location of participating colleges.
The students involved in this study were Saudi and non-Saudi technical students at different
technical colleges (see : Jeddah College of Technology (Western region), Riyadh College of
Technology (the Capital City), Abha College of Technology (Southern region), Onaizah
College of Technology (Central region), Jazan College of Technology (Southern region) and
Almithnib College of Technology (Central region). The colleges were selected based on their
locations in order to get a representative sample from across Saudi Arabia.
96
Table 3.2
Student sample from participating colleges
No Participating Colleges Students Valid Percent
1 Jeddah College of Technology 161 57.50%
2 Riyadh College of Technology 34 12.14%
3 Abha College of Technology 35 12.50%
4 Onaizah College of Technology 33 11.78%
5 Jazan College of Technology 8 2.85%
6 Almithnib College of Technology 9 3.21%
Total 280 100%
These colleges were chosen because of their location and consequent contextual diversity.
Riyadh was chosen because it is the capital city of Saudi Arabia and it is the largest technical
college in the kingdom. The majority of participants were from Jeddah technical college, where
the researcher works. It is also the second largest technical college. Jeddah is the main gate for
the Two Holy Mosques (Makkah and Madinah), where millions of international Muslims visit
every year. Most of the major companies have their headquarters or big branches in this city.
Abha was chosen as many tourists visit this city during summer because of its pleasant
environment. The other three technical colleges were chosen from different regions in order to
sample student populations from cities of a variety of sizes.
The participating departments were Power and Electrical Technology, Production Technology,
Civil and Architectural Technology, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Technology and
Engines and Vehicles Technology. These disciplines are not all available in all colleges (Table
3.3).
97
Table 3.3
Participating departments
No Department Students Proportion of Sample
1 Engines & Vehicles 56 20.00%
2 Electrical & Power 94 33.57%
3 Refrigeration & Air-conditioning 21 7.50%
4 Civil & Architecture 81 28.93%
5 Production 28 10.00%
Total 280 100.00%
Students from the various departments have separate ESP classes, although all classes at the
same level use the same mandatory textbook. The student numbers in Table 3.3 reflect different
enrolments in the various departments at the particular colleges. These various sample sizes
may have an impact on the overall generalizability of the results but they do reflect actual group
sizes and so should be useful in the context from which they are drawn.
Participants were recruited at their college during the usual lectures. Altogether, data was
collected from over 300 students (n = 313). Some participants were excluded from the final
sample for a variety of reasons, including failure to complete both the survey and cloze test.
There were 34 incomplete responses. The final total number of participants at both tests was
over 250 students (n = 280).All of them had studied English for at least ten years, averaging
four classes a week. The students were of different ages and from different social and regional
backgrounds; they were studying different levels of degree (diploma / Bachelor) and varied in
their level of English proficiency. Diploma students enroll at any technical college that exists
in his city immediately when they graduate from a high school, while bachelor students enroll
after they have graduated from any technical college and re-enrolled in any technical college
98
providing bachelor programme. To re-enroll for the bachelor degree, a student should have (at
least 400 TOEFL grade or equivalent.
In this study, all participating students were male for two reasons. Firstly, these disciplines are
only offered in male technical colleges. Secondly, based on gender segregation in the Saudi
educational system, it was not possible for the male researcher to get access to female technical
colleges.
A total of 36 EFL staff members participated in this study. They were from different colleges
in different cities (see Table 3.4). The participating teachers were all male with different
qualifications. Fifteen teachers had BA degrees, twenty had MA degrees and one had a PhD.
Thirty-four teachers were Saudi nationals, one was Jordanian, and another was Indian. They
all teach general and technical English (ESP) at their colleges.
Table 3.4
Participating teachers
No City Participants Valid Percent Survey Reliability Cronbach’s α
1 Jeddah 21 58.3%
0.645
2 Riyadh 4 11.1%
3 Onaizah 2 5.6%
4 Almithnib 3 8.3%
5 Abha 2 5.6%
6 Other 4 11.1%
Total 36 100%
This study mainly focused on the Jeddah College of Technology, which is the second largest
technical college in Saudi Arabia with around 6000 students. Most of the participants (57.50%)
99
were students at this college. The targeted participants were diploma students in their second
year (n = 224). They had studied two English courses before this course. In addition, 56
bachelor-level students participated in this study. These students were older than the diploma-
level students and had a higher level of English as mentioned previously a minimum TOEFL
grade should be 400, and previously studied five ESP courses.
3.5.2 Thinkliteracy online platform
Subsequent phases of this research used the thinkliteracy software package
(https://app.thinkliteracy.com/). Thinkliteracy (O’Toole& Tiny Rock Pty Ltd 2016) was
originally designed to automate the kind of close analysis of cloze test results that will be used
in Phase 4 of this study, before being expanded to process a variety of question formats. The
software is confidential, and it was not possible to identify any person from his answers. All
data is securely stored at the University of Newcastle and only accessed by the researcher and
the supervisor. The data is stored in accordance with the Australian Code for the Responsible
Conduct of Research, and is used in this thesis. The thinkliteracy web application, database,
and files are hosted from a single server located in a secure data center in Sydney. The server
is solely managed by Tiny Rock Pty Ltd on infrastructure leased from Amazon Web Services.
Participants were provided with information (via an “Information Statement for the Research
Project”) about the project when they first logged on to the website. This provided details such
as the progress and importance of the research, and also informed participants of their right to
choose whether to participate in this test or not (see Appendix 3). By accessing the package,
perusing the Information Statement and then clicking on “Begin”, participating students and
teachers gave their consent to participate in this study. Participants could withdraw at any time
without giving a reason within a single timetabled class session.
100
The software package presents the cloze test in a single page and when students complete the
cloze test they click to go to the survey, where the survey items also appear on a single page.
The software package allows the use of multiple question formats and the categorization of
both items and student responses. For example, multiple-choice cloze items can be classified
as indicated by Item Category (see Appendix 1), and student responses to them can be recorded
as indicated by the Grammar/Lexical distractor column. In this investigation, the cloze test and
survey functions were used to mount the cloze test and two surveys, one for participating
teachers and the other for participating students. The items were categorized within the
package, so that detailed reports could be automatically produced. The package indicates the
difficulties that students might face in a similar passage. If, for example, a student is unable to
identify the correct option for more than half of the items representing a particular feature, the
software reports that the student faces difficulty with that feature. If more than half the class
has such a problem with a feature, the package reports a class difficulty with that feature.
Student participants accessed the cloze test and chose one word from the five options according
to their understanding of the passage. As soon as they finished the cloze test, they continued to
the second page of the site, which contained the student survey. Teacher participants accessed
the survey designed for them separately through the thinkliteracy package. Participant survey
responses were tallied for each possible answer.
The software provides rapid feedback with some detailed analysis for the cloze test and the
surveys. Each student participant immediately received an individual report on the completed
cloze test. The report indicated correct and incorrect responses and specified the language
features causing difficulty for the particular student. For example, the report might indicate that
the student has issues with articles, nouns, adjectives and cohesive devices. Functional
categorization also included grammatical operators, which link phrases or sentences together
101
grammatically (e.g. conjunctions, which link phrases or sentences, and auxiliaries within verb
phrases). Six of the items also included initial capitalization, in an attempt to throw some light
on student recognition of punctuation conventions in written English.
The software also provides descriptive statistics regarding group performance. Showing the
number of students in a group; the sum of their scores; the variance and standard deviation of
the distribution of their scores; the minimum and maximum scores of members of the group;
the mean, mode and median of the distribution of their scores; and the quartile boundaries
within that distribution. Each group distribution can be shown in a histogram with another mark
shown for all classes together. The software also reports the number of students who chose
each multiple-choice option. For example, the correct replacement for the first deletion in the
cloze test could be “d: are” and the package might report that 76 students chose this option (out
of 313). Being able to peruse such results quickly, a researcher could note, for example, that a
particular group of students has difficulties with auxiliaries, particularly in passive
constructions.
The participant survey responses are linked (via an anonymous participant password) to their
cloze test results. The package provides similar data for Likert- format items and descriptive
statistics for demographic survey items. Downloading such data allows the two sets of data to
be compared.
The initial thinkliteracy reports were examined, and then the data was loaded into Excel, from
where it was transferred into SPSS for more sophisticated analysis. In this study, the
thinkliteracy data was offloaded as two CSV files for each institution. The institution
administrator was the person responsible for ensuring that the data was used in accordance with
local ethical standards.
102
The files were labelled Student Test Results and Student Question Responses. Student Test
Results is a summary of participant characteristics: names, codes, class details, test details and
so on. Student Question Responses holds actual response data, which can be matched back to
the participant characteristics through the presence of a unique multi-digit identifier.
The data emerges as a set of characters (numerals and letters) arranged in columns and rows.
The first row of the two output files functions as column headings. The data dumped is highly
redundant. This is deliberate and allows multiple ways for the administrator to locate and
manipulate individual class and test results from large amounts of institutional data.
The researcher cleaned the data, once it was exported from thinkliteracy. This involved deleting
incomplete data, which usually involved cases where the student had completed the cloze test
but not the survey. This reduced the study sample from 313 to 280.
3.6 Validity and reliability
This study rests on two different procedures: cloze testing and opinion surveying. These two
instruments are valid if they can measure what they are designed for and reliable (consistent)
if they can produce the same data under the same conditions (Bryman, 2012; Creswell, 2012;
Johnson & Christensen, 2012). In order to have a reliable and valid cloze test, it is important to
know how well a chosen passage could fit the targeted participants. It was also desirable to
compare the reliability of existing readability formulas in relation to each other and to the
results of cloze testing.
The literature suggests that, notwithstanding the enduring controversy recognized in Chapter
2, cloze testing appears to be valid under the four conventional criteria: inability to fill the gaps
in authentic text left by the deletions seems connected with difficulties in reading such text and
this suggests face validity. The use of authentic text in studies such as this suggests content
103
validity. cloze tests produce similar readability scores to less authentic formulas, which
suggests criterion validity. Different specialist communities appear to communicate in
particular ways and the specifics of these differences can be recognized in the patterns of cloze
test item deletion. The cloze test appears sufficiently valid for the present purposes to allow
useful discussion of its results.
Regarding reliability, there is sufficient evidence in the literature that whatever a cloze test is
measuring, it does so consistently (Somers & Wild, 2000). The actual cloze text used in this
study had a reliability of 0.874 (Cronbach’s α).
Both surveys used in this study were piloted before use and submitted to peer review (Bryman,
2012; Muijs, 2010) before the questionnaires were distributed to the participants. Both
instruments were restructured and revised for improved clarity and intelligibility, based on the
informed feedback and comments received (Bryman, 2012; Fraser, 1974; Johnson &
Christensen, 2012; Muijs, 2010). The Cronbach’s α reliability for the teachers’ survey was
0.645 and 0.694 for the students’ survey. In this study, any scales with Cronbach’s αabove 0.5
were considered reliable enough to permit discussion (Hinton et al., 2004 ; Kehoe, 1999).
3.7 Summary
This chapter explains the methodology employed for this study and the decision to use the cloze
test and the online survey to investigate the difficulties of the language features that the students
in the technical colleges might face. Sampling procedures and recruiting for both participants
were described. The data collection used in this study for both the cloze test and online surveys
was done by using thinkliteracy.com. The data analysis began via thinkliteracy.com and
continued more deeply using SPSS 24. The following chapter describes the results of the cloze
test as well as the online surveys for students and teachers.
104
105
Chapter 4: Results
This chapter will begin with the results of the comparative estimates of the readability of the
three passages that the Saudi technical students at the heart of the study might be expected to
read. It will then set out the results of the cloze test based on a passage from the mandatory
ESP textbook included in that comparison and interactions between those results and student
and teacher responses to their respective surveys. Discussion of the impact of these results on
issues of substantial local and international interest will comprise the chapter that follows.
The three passages compared came from the mandatory textbook (Bonamy 2011, p. 29), the
Arsenal football club website (Arsenal FC, 2017), and the Saudi Gazette, an English-language
newspaper published in Saudi Arabia (Saudi Gazette, 2017). Each passage was subjected to six
formulas and the readability estimate for each was derived according to its own terms.
Surprisingly, the textbook yielded the lowest readability estimate, suggesting that it would be
relatively easy to read.
The results of the cloze test based on the mandatory textbook suggested that the passage might
be considerably more difficult for these technical students than the formulas predicted, falling
into the cloze “frustration” level although the students were more than five years older than the
level suggested by the formulas. Close analysis of student errors indicated practically
significant difficulty with both lexical and functional features of the text on which the test was
based.
The teacher survey was critical of both the textbook and of the students with whom they
attempted to use it. The student survey suggested that, notwithstanding the difficulty suggested
by these results, these technical students are motivated to learn, and that they realise the
importance of using English.
106
4.1 Readability comparison
A passage from the mandatory ESP textbook used for the cloze test in this study was assessed
using six different formulas in order to provide a comprehensive estimate of the readability of
each passage. Two more passages were also examined to measure their readability, one from
the Saudi Gazette, a local daily newspaper available online, and the other from the website of
Arsenal Football Club. This investigation was the first step in Phase One.
Table 4.1 shows the readability results for the mandatory ESP textbook and the two additional
texts that could plausibly form part of the reading repertoire of participating students. It appears
that the technical text is the easiest of these three passages, regardless of the readability formula
applied (excepting Coleman-Liau). It is worth recalling that these formulas are normed against
different populations (see Chapter 2) and that their function in the present study is
predominantly comparative. Each of the formulas provides some suggestion that allows the
indices to be transformed into a learner age or school grade. The various formulas were
interpreted according to their own terms to yield the approximate age estimate appearing as the
final row on Table 4.1. For example, the readability formulas suggest that the technical
textbook should be easily understood by 12- to 13-year-olds. The Arsenal text should be easily
understood by 15- to 16-year-olds. However, the Saudi Gazette text may require 20- to 21-
year-old readers.
107
Table 4.1
Readability indices
No READABILITY INDICES
Unit Technical textbook
Arsenal F.C. website
Saudi Gazette website
1 Flesch Reading Ease
Hard: 0 – 100: Easy
eg., 70-80 = Gr 7
74.4 62.9 41.1
2 Flesch Kincaid Grade Level
US school grade 6.1 9.6 14.1
3 Gunning Fog Score
US school grade 8.1 12.8 17.8
4 SMOG Index US school grade 5.9 9.5 12.9
5 Coleman Liau Index
US school grade 10.3 9.3 12.9
6 Automated Readability Index
US school grade 6 8.9 14.8
Suitable age for the text Approximation 12 to 13 15 to 16 20 to 21
108
4.2 Results from thinkliteracy
Readers will recall that thinkliteracy is a web package that affords easy and safe access to both
researcher and participants. The study participants attempted the cloze test, student survey and
teacher survey on the same day.
In looking at the immediate feedback from the software, the researcher noticed that two
students obtained the same score (42/50) but the software indicated that one of them had
difficulty with pronouns, semi-technical words and verb active voice, causing a loss of 8 marks
from the possible score of 50. There was no such pattern of error in the results of the second
student. Such information could be very useful in guiding the first student towards
improvement and urging the second student to generally take more care.
4.2.1 Descriptive statistics
The thinkliteracy statistics are presented in Table 4.2, which shows that 313 students attempted
the cloze test, and 36 teachers and 293 students attempted the survey. The average mark for the
313 students who completed the cloze test was 17/50, but only 293 students attempted the
survey that followed the cloze test. This was the basis of the data cleaning prior to more detailed
analysis.
Table 4.2
Overall thinkliteracy output: Participants and readability
Average mark 17/50
Participants Students cloze test 313
Participants Students Survey 293
Participants Teachers 36
Readers will recall that the package indicated difficulty if more than half of the group were
unable to correctly answer more than half of the items representing a particular feature. Table
109
4.3 shows that this group of 313 students had palpable difficulty with items in all dictionary
categories, which contributed to their difficulty with the grammatical functions of these words.
Table 4.4 provides a descriptive analysis the raw cloze test results.
Table 4.3
Overall student difficulties
Class Difficulty
Dictionary
article - noun - pronoun adjective - verb - adverb conjunction - preposition - auxiliary
Functional
Technical - semi-technical - passive voice - cohesive device - lexical distractor - grammatical distractor - grammar function - active - general - qualifier
110
Table 4.4
Descriptive analysis of the cloze test results
Statistic This cloze test
Number of participants 313
Standard deviation (/50) 8.78
Mean (/50)
Arithmetic average of scores
17.10
Mode (/50)
Most common score
12
Median (/50)
Middle most score
15
Q1: The first quartile (/50):
The score of students at the top of the lowest 25% of student scores.
11
Q2: The second quartile (/50): The median of the distribution 15
Q3: The third quartile (/50):
The student score at the bottom of the highest scoring 25% of scores
21
111
Table 4.5
Demographic variables (students)
No Variable Answers Number of Participants
Percentage %
Total
1
City
Jeddah Abha Riyadh Onaizah Almithnib Jazan
164 37 35 35 9 8
56.94 % 12.84 % 12.15 % 12.15 % 3.12 % 2.77 %
288 2
Prior knowledge
Yes No
115 174
39.40 % 60.60 %
289
3 Department
Vehicles Electrical Refrigeration Civil Production
56 96 22 83 30
19.51 % 33.44 % 7.66 %
28.91 % 10.45 %
287 4 Nationality Saudi
Not Saudi 273 18
93.80 % 6.20 %
291
5 Study abroad Yes No
66 223
22.83 % 77.17 %
289
6
Father’s education
Informal school Less than secondary Secondary School Diploma Bachelor Postgraduate
41 59 77 36 62 17
14.04 % 20.20 % 26.36 % 12.32 % 21.23 % 16.09 %
292 7
Mother’s education
Informal school Less than secondary Secondary School Diploma Bachelor Postgraduate
52 79 74 25 47 15
17.80 % 27.05 % 25.34 % 8.56 %
16.09 % 5.13 %
292 8 Like Major Yes
No 267 23
92.07 % 7.93 %
290
9
Student age
20-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 40+
245 23 7 7 4
85.67 % 8.05 % 2.44 % 2.44 % 1.40 %
286 10 Level of Program Diploma
Bachelor 228 57
80.00 % 20.00 %
285
112
Table 4.5 shows raw data from the first ten demographic items in the students’ survey. Table
4.6 shows Items 11–20 in the students’ survey, concerning their attitude to learning English
and the English language generally, such as whether they liked English, the importance of
English, and their desire to learn it. Appendix 5 contains the complete questionnaire.
Table 4.6
Thinkliteracy output for students’ survey Likert items
No
Variable
Number of Students
Raw n
Strongly agree
Agree Little agree
Little disagree
Disagree Strongly disagree
11 I like learning English
287 141 77 33 15 6 15 49.12% 26.83% 11.50% 05.22% 02.09% 05.22%
12 English will help me in my major
287 150 85 18 13 6 15 52.26% 29.61% 06.27% 04.52% 02.09% 05.22%
13 English will help me to find a job easily
285 170 70 20 8 3 14 60.28% 24.56% 07.02% 02.83% 01.52% 04.91%
14 English is important 287 145 78 22 19 7 16 50.52% 27.17% 07.66% 06.62% 02.43% 05.61%
15 I understand my English teacher
284 72 101 63 15 15 18 25.35% 35.56% 22.18% 05.28% 05.28% 06.33%
16 Class hours are suitable
287 79 104 39 32 14 19 27.52% 36.24% 13.56% 11.15% 04.88% 06.62%
17 English teacher only speaks English
288 59 94 61 29 17 28 20.49% 32.63% 21.18% 10.07% 05.90% 09.72%
18 I usually use English Outside classes
288 44 66 75 44 26 33 15.28% 22.92% 26.04% 15.28% 09.28% 11.46%
19 Understand what I read
288 46 69 85 43 23 22 15.98% 23.96% 29.51% 14.93% 07.98% 07.64%
20 I read English easily 294 39 78 83 40 28 26 13.27% 26.63% 28.23% 13.60% 09.52% 08.84%
Table 4.7 shows the first 16 Likert items in the teachers’ survey, which sought their opinion
about their students’ level and ability, their motivation to learn English, their views about the
curriculum, and their perceived needs from their institution. Appendix 6 contains the complete
teacher questionnaire.
113
Table 4.7
Thinkliteracy output for teachers’ survey Likert items
Table 4.8 shows the last four items of demographic information for the participating teachers
concerning their nationality, their experience (the number of years of teaching English), and
No Variable
Strongly agree
Agree Little agree
Little disagree
Disagree Strongly disagree
1 We have the best students
2 0 6 5 12 11 05.55% 00.00% 16.67% 13.89% 33.33% 30.56%
2 Placement test is good
11 17 1 4 2 1 30.56% 47.22% 02.78% 11.11% 05.55% 02.78%
3 Students face difficulties
13 18 2 1 2 0 36.11% 50 % 05.55% 02.78% 05.55% 00.00%
4 Class hours suitable
5 13 8 0 5 5 13.89% 36.11% 22.22% 00.00% 13.89% 13.89%
5 Students E. is Important
1 7 10 6 10 2 02.78% 19.44% 27.78% 16.67% 27.78% 05.55%
6 Suitable Textbooks
1 9 7 9 7 3 02.78% 25 % 19.44% 25 % 19.44% 08.33%
7 Easy textbooks
5 8 11 5 7 0 13.89% 22.22% 30.55 % 13.89% 19.44% 0 %
8 I use two methods
8 18 10 0 0 0 22.22% 50 % 27.78% 0 % 0 % 0 %
9 Grouping students
9 13 10 1 3 0 25 % 36.11% 27.78% 02.78% 08.33% 00.00%
10 I use extra curricula
6 17 8 1 3 1 16.67% 47.22% 22.22% 02.78% 08.33% 02.78%
11 ESP text too hard
5 19 5 3 3 1 13.89% 52.78% 13.89% 08.33% 08.33% 02.78%
12 Students read E. easily
0 1 5 9 18 3 0 % 02.78% 13.89% 25 % 50 % 08.33%
13 I encourage my students
9 14 8 4 1 0 25 % 38.89% 22.22% 11.11% 02.78% 0 %
14 TVTC supports teachers
0 14 11 4 3 4 00.00% 38.89% 30.55 % 11.11% 08.33% 11.11%
15 Teachers need ESP training
24 11 1 0 0 0 66.67% 30.55 % 02.78% 0 % 0 % 0 %
16 I use Blackboard
2 12 8 3 6 5 05.55% 33.33% 22.22% 08.33% 16.67% 13.89%
114
their level of qualification. In this regard, 15 teachers had a Bachelor’s degree, 20 had a
Master’s degree, and there was only one with a PhD. The last item identified their colleges.
Table 4.8
Thinkliteracy teachers’ demographics
Q: 17 Q: 18 Q: 19 Q: 20
Nationality Experience Qualification College
Saudi non years n % Degree n % city n %
34 2 6-10 1 2.8 PhD 1 2.8 Jeddah 21 58.3
94.5% 5.5% 11-15 6 16.6 Master 20 55.6 Riyadh 4 11.1
16-20 20 55.7 Bachel
or 15 41.6
Abha 2 5.6
20-25 6 16.6 36 100 Onaizah 2 5.6
26-30 2 5.5 Almithni
b
3
8.3
30+ 1 2,8
Total
36
100 %
Other 4 11.1
Total 36 100%
115
4.3 SPSS DATA
Two hundred and eighty students completed both the cloze test and the survey. That group of
students forms the sample for the substantial analysis at the core of this study. The cleaned data
was uploaded into the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS24) after checking in Excel.
Data cleaning was necessary to allow clear comparisons of cloze tests results between
identifiable participant groups. Excluded student participants were distributed across the
sample in proportion to college participation, so removal of their data had little effect on general
discussion.
4.3.1 Descriptive statistics
Table 4.9 shows the distribution of students who completed both cloze test and survey among
the participating colleges. Jeddah College of Technology is the second largest Technical
College in Saudi Arabia and it provided 57.5% of the student participants making up this
reduced sample. The table also shows that colleges from three other cities provided almost an
equal percentage of participating students (12.50%).
Table 4.9
Number of participating students who completed cloze test and survey
City
Number of Students
Percentage of Sample (%)
Jeddah 161 57.50 %
Jazan 8 2.85 %
Riyadh 34 12.14 %
Onaizah 33 11.78 %
Almithnib 9 3.21 %
Abha 35 12.50 %
Total 280 100%
116
Table 4.10 shows the distribution of participating teachers who completed the online survey:
58.3% of the teachers were from Jeddah College of Technology.
English is an independent centre within the Jeddah College, while in most of the other technical
colleges, English is not a department but a subject taught under the umbrella of the General
Studies Department. The non-participation of teachers from Jazan was regrettable.
Table 4.10
Number of participating teachers
College Teachers Percentage %
Jeddah College of Technology 21 58.30 %
Riyadh College of Technology 4 11.10 %
Abha College of Technology 2 5.60 %
Onaizah College of Technology 2 5.60 %
Almithnib College of Technology 3 8.30 %
Other Colleges 4 11.10 %
Total 36 100 %
4.3.2 Overall language difficulties (compared with backgrounds)
Please note that the thinkliteracy scores presented previously were from a possible total of 50,
while the SPSS syntax produced percentage results (%). Table 4.11 indicates that the
calculation of the overall difficulty for the 280 participating students revealed a mean of (M =
35.83%, SD = 17.46). Cronbach’s α suggested that the test was adequately reliable (α = 0.874).
This result indicated that approaching one third of the items were correctly answered, implying
that these students could not correctly replace almost two thirds of the deleted words. This
suggests that this passage puts these students near the boundary between reading frustration
and potential instruction. Although this is a cause for concern, the actual pattern of difficulty
that these students are experiencing may be more useful to those responsible for guiding them
117
through the book from which the passage is taken. The language feature subtests may provide
this information.
Table 4.11
Overall cloze test scores (reliability)
No of Items Reliability Mean % Std. Deviation Cronbach's Alpha
50 0.874 35.83% 17.46 0.874
Table 4.12 shows that the students from the Electrical and Power department seemed to have
less difficulty than students from other departments. Although the chosen passage in this study
was about car manufacturing, the Engine and Vehicle students seemed to have the greatest
overall difficulty. The differences between these means are statistically significant (p = 0.035,
< 0.05) and the phenomenon will be discussed in more detail in the next chapter.
Table 4.12
Overall participating department results
Department
Mean
(%)
Std.
Deviation
Students
(n)
% n Sig.
Engines & Vehicles 30.03 13.578 56 20.00
0.035 Electrical & Power 39.46 19.89 94 33.57
Refrigeration & Air-
Conditioning
35.61 16.47 21 7.50
Civil & Architecture 35.62 17.54 81 28.92
Production 36.00 13.58 28 10.00
Total 35.83 17.46 280 100
118
4.4 Problems with specific features
SPSS enabled closer analysis of cloze test responses according to part of speech and functional
categories (O’Toole & King, 2010). Every dictionary category was linked to its functional
grammar counterpart. For example, nouns were classified as (Technical, Semi-Technical
General and Cohesion). The multiple-choice questions consisted of the exact deleted word plus
four different distractors: 25 grammar distractors and 25 lexical distractors (Härnqvist et al.,
2003).
Table 4.13 shows the results for the language features subtest based on dictionary categories
as well as functional categories. Discussion is restricted to only those language features where
the subtest reliability (Cronbach’s α) is greater than 0.5. This does not mean that the discarded
data implies a lack of difficulty for those features, but merely that this study does not provide
evidence for that difficulty. For the whole table see Appendix 7.
Table 4.13
Language features (where the subtest results were sufficiently reliable for discussion)
Language Feature
Mean
Correct
(%)
Standard
Deviation
Cloze test
(Mean=35.83%, Reliability = 0.874)
No. of
items
No. of
participants
Subtest
Reliability
Noun 40.46 21.79 13 280 0.679
Article 35.63 22.57 9 280 0.581
Preposition 34.24 21.99 8 280 0.509
Initial capital 39.59 26.71 7 280 0.636
Grammatical operator 35.63 22.57 9 280 0.581
Cohesion 37.27 19.59 19 280 0.739
Lexical distractor 36.81 19.83 25 280 0.804
Grammar distractor 34.85 17.02 25 280 0.735
119
These raw results from reliable sub-tests suggest that this group of technical students
experience a slight difference in difficulty between grammatical and lexical distractors (less
than 2%). These students appear to be having the greatest level of difficulty with the
prepositions in this passage from their mandatory ESP textbook, being only able to correctly
identify around a third of correct possibilities for words of this class. Somewhat surprisingly,
they had less difficulty with the nouns, being able to correctly identify almost a half of the
correct possibilities. However, these numbers are all low and leave little room for complacency.
The overall cloze score is at the frustration level: these students are finding this passage difficult
to read.
4.5 Student survey results
The on-line student survey consists of two parts. Results from students who did not complete
the survey were removed when the data was cleaned but students whose results were retained
may not have answered every question on the survey. The first part (items 1-10) provides
demographic information regarding the student sample and the second part (items 11–20) uses
Likert items to elicit opinions of members of that sample.
The correlations between measures of student achievement (i.e. the cloze scores) and affective
measures (i.e. the questionnaire answers) are a major contribution of this thesis and so this
chapter will provide more explanatory detail of them than may be usual in a chapter of results.
The discussion chapter will deal with deeper interactions and implications.
4.5.1 Students’ demographic survey
The data from the student survey of the reduced 280 student sample yielded a reliability of
0.694 (Cronbach’s α). Table 4.14 shows the mean scores of participants from different cities,
with different prior knowledge, departments, ages, and program levels. These are the
120
background variables which produced significant differences at the conventional level
(p<0.05).
The range of means and level of significance are highest for student age, city and level of
program. A small number of students in their early thirties, a much greater number of students
from Jeddah and those enrolled in the more advanced Bachelor’s program are apparently able
to read this sample from the mandatory textbook more easily. Department of enrolment also
made a significant difference, with students in the Electrical program apparently having most
ease of access (39.46% correct cloze entries) and prior knowledge had a surprisingly negative
impact (students without prior access to the text scoring more than 5% more than those who
did). We should recall that all of these numbers are low.
121
Table 4.14
Students’ demographic survey (where the difference between distributions is sufficiently
significant for discussion)
Q. No
Background Variable Mean cloze
Standard Deviation
Mean range
n n (%)
Sig. (Mean range)
1
City
Jeddah
Abha
Riyadh
Onaizah
Almithnib
Jazan
40.17
32.62
28.94
29.33
30.22
25.00
18.62
14.61
17.97
7.56
13.28
11.00
15.17
161
35
34
33
9
8
57.50
12.50
12.14
11.78
3.21
2.85
0.000
2
Prior knowledge
Yes No
32.40 38.02
14.79 18.68
5.62
109 171
38.92 61.08
0.008
3
Department
Vehicles
Electrical
Refrigeration
Architecture
Production
30.03
39.46
35.61
35.62
36.00
13.57
19.89
16.47
17.54
13.58
9.43
56
94
21
81
28
20.00
33.57
7.50
28.92
10.00
0.035
9
Student age
20-25
26-30
31-35
36-40
40+
34.57
45.45
50.66
33.66
42.00
16.38
21.61
25.85
16.60
29.59
17
243
22
6
6
3
86.78
7.85
2.14
2.14
1.07
0.012
10 Level of Program
Diploma Bachelor
32.83 47.85
15.90 18.40
15.02
224 56
80 % 20 %
0.000
122
4.5.2 Survey of student opinion
The student survey contained 10, six-point Likert scale items (strongly agree, agree, little
agree, little disagree, disagree, strongly disagree), concerning student attitudes, motivation
and desire to learn English in general and ESP courses in particular. Following initial analysis,
the researcher decided to clarify discussion by combining responses into two categories.
In Table 4.15, Agree (for Item 11: Number = 245, Mean = 35.45, Standard Deviation = 17.17)
combines Strongly agree (N = 139), Agree (N = 76), Little agree (N = 30) and Disagree (N =
35) combines Strongly disagree (N = 14), Disagree (N = 6), Little disagree (N = 15). Table
4.15 associates the mean cloze test results for the groups of students responding in a particular
way to individual items on the questionnaire. For example, 87.5% of these technical students
agreed that they liked learning English (Item 11). Those students scored a mean cloze total of
35.45%. On the other hand, 12.5% did not agree that they liked learning English and that group
of students scored a mean cloze total of 26.34%. The difference between student groups
choosing the six un-combined component options was statistically significant at the
conventional level (p = 0.001), making the results robust enough to permit discussion. The total
number of students was 280, given by the sum of the number of students agreeing and those
not agreeing to the item in question (Item 11: 245 + 35 = 280). For the whole table see Appendix
4.
The importance of English and the use of the language for employment (Items 13 and 14)
represent the two strongest areas of agreement on Table 4.15, indicating that these students are
aware of the importance of their ESP courses to their career and to their specific major. The
strongest disagreement concerns reading, with nearly one-third of these students indicating
awareness of their general difficulty with EFL reading comprehension (Items 19 and 20). A
123
quarter of the sample report that their teacher does not always speak English in the ESP class
(Item 17), which may have some influence.
Table 4.15
Student responses to Likert items, where significance is less than 0.05
No
Variable Agree
Disagree Sig
Strongly
agree
Agree Little agree
Strongly disagree
Disagree Little disagre
e
11
Like learning English
N M SD
245 35.45 17.17
139 38.93 18.50
76 37.21 17.44
30 30.21 15.56
14 23.42 6.44
6 30.66 6.53
15 24.93 7.36
N M SD
35 26.34 6.78
0.001
Combined % 87.5% 12.5% 12
English help major
N M SD
247 34.33 16.29
146 39.08 18.39
83 34.14 16.21
18 29.77 14.82
12 24.66 9.99
6 37.66 29.75
15 29.06 6.36
N M SD
33 30.46 15.37
0.009
Combined % 88.21% 11.79% 13
English help job
N M SD
256 37.68 19.11
170 37.41 17.49
68 34.29 16.42
18 41.33 23.43
8 20.00 6.23
3 24.00 8.00
13 28.15 10.18
N M SD
24 24.05 8.14
0.014
Combined % 91.43% 8.57% 14
English is important
N M SD
239 34.96 15.73
141 39.90 18.61
77 34.80 17.07
21 30.19 11.50
19 25.36 14.26
6 25.00 3.74
16 28.87 9.74
N M SD
41 26.41 9.25
0.00
Combined % 85.36% 14.64%
15
Understand English teacher
N M SD
232 37.11 18.04
72 40.36 20.16
99 36.26 17.11
61 34.72 16.86
14 29.71 15.18
15 31.06 14.67
19 28.31 7.21
N M SD
48 29.69 12.35
0.041
Combined % 82.86% 17.14% 17
Teacher only speaks English
N M SD
210 37.35 17.66
59 35.86 16.11
93 39.33 19.84
58 36.86 17.03
25 28.48 12.03
17 31.29 14.31
28 31.35 16.16
N M SD
70 30.37 14.17
0.43
Combined % 75% 25% 19
Understand what I read
N M SD
192 39.81 18.98
45 43.15 18.84
67 39.22 20.71
80 37.07 17.40
43 27.72 11.34
22 28.90 10.06
23 29.13 8.19
N M SD
88 28.58 9.86
0.00
Combined % 68.57% 31.43% 20
Read English easily
N M SD
191 38.77 17.98
35 40.17 17.32
74 44.48 20.97
82 31.65 15.64
39 31.02 12.78
25 32.56 13.81
25 28.64 9.34
N M SD
89 32.86 12.65
0.00
Combined % 68.21% 31.79%
124
Students who appear more confident in their reading seem to score more highly on the cloze
task, almost all reaching the conventional instructional level. This indicates a degree of
accuracy in these students’ self-perception, as those expressing greater reading ease and
comprehension also exhibit better ESP reading performance. Cloze scores moving towards
instructional level are also associated with items 15 and 17, i.e. the teacher's use of English and
understanding the teacher; and with item 13, indicating that better reading performance is
associated with some level of extrinsic motivation. The observation that those students whose
scores indicate greater reading difficulty also suggest that they have trouble reading English
text (Item 20) supports this.
4.6 Who is having trouble with what?
Table 4.14 set out the mean total cloze scores for groups of students who specified particular
background features, in the order of the questionnaire items that yielded the data. Table 4.16
indicates the statistical significance of differences between these groups of students on
particular language feature sub-tests, with the background variables presented in order of
impact on mean total cloze score. For example, the table below indicates that city (F = 6.055,
Sig = 0.000), level (F = 42.537, Sig = 0.000) and program of enrolment (F = 2.562, Sig = 0.039)
made a statistically significant difference to student scores on the sub-test dealing with nouns
(overall mean score 40.46%) but that prior knowledge (Sig = 0.236) and age (Sig = 0.103) did
not.
Table 4.16 shows statistically significant differences in regard to demographic categories and
most of the sub-features. It echoes Table 4.13 in suggesting that these students have less
difficulty with nouns than other features. Students seem to experience greater difficulty with
prepositions followed by grammar distractors. Age, prior knowledge, and department do not
show significant differences between some of the analysed language features.
125
Table 4.16
Who is having trouble with what? (Contrasts that do not achieve statistical significance are
shaded.)
Language
Features
Mean
%
City Level of
Program
Department Prior
Knowledge
Age
Noun 40.46 F= 6.055
Sig =0.000
F = 42.537
Sig =0.000
F= 2.562
Sig=0.039
F= 1.409
Sig=0.236
F = 1.943
Sig =0.103
Article 35.63 F = 3.407
Sig =0.005
F = 28.615
Sig = 0.000
F = 2.624
Sig = 0.035
F = 7.396
Sig = 0.007
F = 2.625
Sig =0 .035
Preposition 34.24 F = 4.125
Sig =0.001
F = 15.783
Sig = 0.000
F = 1.515
Sig =0.198
F = 4.596
Sig = 0.033
F = 2.568
Sig =0.038
Grammatical
Operator
35.63 F = 3.407
Sig = 0.005
F = 28.615
Sig = 0.000
F = 2.624
Sig = 0.035
F = 7.396
Sig = 0.007
F = 2.625
Sig =0 .035
Cohesion 37.27 F = 4.045
Sig = 0.001
F = 23.573
Sig = 0.000
F = 2.664
Sig =0 .033
F = 5.542
Sig = 0.019
F = 2.142
Sig =0 .076
Lexical
Distractor
36.81 F = 4.685
Sig = 0.000
F = 38.604
Sig = 0.000
F = 1.927
Sig = 0.106
F = 5.748
Sig =0.017
F = 2.647
Sig =0 .034
Grammar
Distractor
34.85 F = 4.949
Sig = 0.000
F = 27.593
Sig = 0.000
F = 3.267
Sig = 0.012
F = 6.991
Sig = 0.009
F = 3.671
Sig =0 .006
Initial
Capital
39.59 F = 2.678
Sig = 0.022
F = 21.329
Sig = 0.000
F = 3.093
Sig = 0.016
F = 3.419
Sig = 0.066
F = .830
Sig =0 .507
Most of the demographic variables show significant differences between cloze scores (except
for parents' education and whether the student likes their major). Location and level of program
on language feature apparently influence subtest performance across all language features,
while prior knowledge and age do not as significantly influence performance on nouns and
initial capitals. Students across all departments have trouble with prepositions. These factors
are shown in more detail in Table 4.17.
126
Table 4.17 Demographic items with subtest results (where the differences in background data are sufficiently significant for discussion)
Background Variable Noun Article Preposition Grammatical Operator
Cohesion
Lexical Distractor
Grammar Distractor
Initial Capital
Overall Signif.
Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean City
Jeddah Abha Riyadh Onaizah Almithnib Jazan
46.24 28.84 31.44 34.26 28.20 34.28
40.02 22.22 29.41 28.61 37.03 30.79
39.05 23.43 25.73 27.27 27.77 31.07
40.02 22.22 29.41 28.61 37.03 30.79
41.48 25.00 30.34 31.57 31.57 34.28
41.41 25.50 29.76 29.33 30.66 33.71
38.93 24.50 28.11 29.33 29.77 31.54
43.30 23.21 31.09 33.76 50.79 37.14
0.000 Sig .000 .005 .001 .005 .001 .000 .000 .022
Prior knowledge
Yes No
38.53 41.70
31.09 38.53
30.73 36.47
31.09 38.53
33.84 39.45
33.28 39.06
31.52 36.98
35.91 41.93
0.008
Sig .236 .007 .033 .007 .019 .017 .009 .066 Department
Vehicles Electrical Refrigeration Architecture Production
34.89 45.41 43.22 39.22 36.53
28.57 38.88 30.15 36.35 40.87
27.90 36.30 33.92 35.80 35.71
28.57 38.88 30.15 36.35 40.87
30.63 40.03 32.83 39.37 38.53
31.92 40.76 34.09 36.19 37.14
28.14 38.17 37.14 35.06 34.85
33.67 41.94 25.85 41.79 47.44
0.035 Sig .039 .035 .198 .035 .033 .106 .012 .016
Student age
20-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 40+
39.34 49.65 53.84 34.61 48.71
34.24 45.95 55.55 33.33 37.03
32.71 44.31 45.83 37.50 54.16
34.24 45.95 55.55 33.33 37.03
36.10 47.12 47.36 35.08 43.85
35.60 45.45 55.33 35.33 37.33
33.54 45.45 46.00 32.00 46.66
38.68 48.70 42.85 35.71 47.61
0.012 Sig .103 .035 .038 .035 .076 .034 .006 .507
Level of Program
Diploma Bachelor
36.50 56.31
32.19 49.40
31.69 44.41
32.19 49.40
34.53 48.21
33.35 50.64
32.30 45.07
36.03 53.82
0.000
Sig 0.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
127
Table 4.17 illustrates subtest results with respect to student demographic data. For example, it
shows that college of enrolment makes a statistically significant difference to student
performance on the sub-test for nouns (p = 0.000), with students from Jeddah College being
able to identify the correct entry for a gap representing a noun in almost half (46.24%) of the
deletions so classified. These students also faced less difficulty with other language features,
possibly due to the presence of an independent English Language Centre within this college.
Such contextual differences will be discussed further in the next chapter.
“Overall Significant” on Table 4.17 refers to the interaction between all of the variables in the
block of data, while ‘Sig’ refers to the difference between means on a single language feature.
The differences between distributions within the data are not sufficiently significant to discuss
prior knowledge of nouns and initial capitals; the impact of department of enrolment on
prepositions and lexical distractors; and of student age on nouns, cohesion and initial
capitalization.
Table 4.17 also shows that students who have not previously studied the text achieved more
highly than those who did. This may reflect the difficulty that these students experience with
this text but it is remains surprising. The Electrical and Power department generally attracts
higher achieving students and so their relative success is less surprising. Students in the
diploma department have less difficulty with all categories and the age of the students shows a
significant difference between all groups. The next chapter will deal with these issues in more
detail. Other noticeable trends are the weaker performance by Engines & Vehicles students
across all language features despite the selected passage having the most direct relevance to
their area of study. Performance by Electrical and Power students was strongest across six of
the eight significant language features. Weaker performance by the older 36–40 age group
appears across all language features. Interestingly, in the two categories where overall
128
performance was weakest across the entire sample (prepositions and grammar distractors), the
small over-40 age group performed best. The youngest group performed best only on initial
capitals, while the 31–35 group showed the strongest performance on five of the eight language
features. Bachelor level students performed better across all language features; as might be
expected in view of their having studied more English in their program. This may provide some
evidence for the efficacy of more EFL instruction. These tendencies will be further discussed
in Chapter 5.
Tables 4.18 and 4.19 show the interactions between students' responses to the affective items
on the student survey and their cloze scores for each of the language features, where
significance exceeded the conventional level. For example, 245 students agreed that they liked
learning English (Item 11) and this group obtained a mean total cloze score of 42.51% on the
noun sub-test, while the 35 students who indicated that they did not like learning English scored
a mean total on nouns of 26.15%. The same 245 students who like learning English obtained a
mean total cloze score of 37.05% on the article sub-test, as opposed to their 35 counterparts
who scored 25.71%. The shaded areas indicate distributions where the difference between
means did not reach conventional levels of significance.
Both tables show the expected trends of better performance on the subtest for nouns than other
features, and weaker performance on prepositions and grammatical distractors but the detailed
interactions between subtest scores and individual affective items are worth noting in more
detail. Of the ten affective items on the student survey, eight yielded significant correlations
with language categories. Nouns, cohesion and lexical distractors are associated with mean
scores around 43% but the means for the rest of the categories are below that criterion for text
frustration level. These results also show a clear difficulty with most of the grammar
distractors.
129
Table 4.18
Interaction of students’ attitudes and performance on specific language features (1): only statistically significant results
Feature Response 11-ILike Learning
English
12- English helps Major 13- English helps Job 14- English is Important
N M S.D N M S.D N M S.D N M S.D
1 Noun Agree 245 42.51 21.98 247 41.57 22.07 256 41.70 21.88 239 42.61 21.73
Disagree 35 26.15 13.73 33 32.16 17.77 24 27.24 15.87 41 27.95 17.77
2 Article Agree 245 37.05 23.25 247 36.70 22.91 256 36.71 22.95 239 37.00 23.45
Disagree 35 25.71 13.68 33 27.60 18.24 24 24.07 13.77 41 27.64 14.29
3 Preposition Agree 245 35.71 22.54 256 35.05 22.44 239 35.51 22.71
Disagree 35 23.92 14.01 24 25.52 14.02 41 26.82 15.45
4 Grammatical
Operator
Agree 245 37.05 23.25 247 36.70 22.91 256 36.71 22.95 239 37.00 23.45
Disagree 35 25.71 13.68 33 27.60 18.24 24 24.07 13.77 41 27.64 14.29
5 Cohesion Agree 245 38.81 20.18 247 38.14 19.81 256 38.24 19.92 239 38.86 20.23
Disagree 35 26.46 9.59 33 30.78 16.80 24 26.97 11.74 41 27.98 11.85
6 Lexical
Distractor
Agree 245 38.62 20.31 247 37.91 20.18 256 37.90 20.19 239 38.62 20.62
Disagree 35 24.11 8.86 33 28.60 14.83 24 25.16 9.76 41 26.24 11.86
7 Grammar
Distractor
Agree 245 36.04 17.60 256 35.81 17.17 239 36.18 17.17
Disagree 35 26.51 8.57 24 24.66 11.35 41 27.12 13.95
130
Table 4.18 shows the interactions for the first four affective items. Item 11 (whether the
respondent likes learning English) can be taken as reflecting intrinsic motivation, and the next
three items are more indicative of extrinsic motivation. Notably, for item 11, subtest scores
associated with Agree responses are well over 10 points higher than for Disagree responses
across all language features; for some features the gap is even wider. This suggests that
intrinsically motivated students, who say they like learning English, are experiencing less
reading difficulty than those who don’t enjoy learning English. Agreement on this item is
associated with scores indicating less frustration when reading nouns, grammatical operators,
and cohesive devices, although these respondents may still encounter frustration with other
language features. Similar although somewhat less strong trends can be observed in the
interactions of the three extrinsic motivation items, particularly with nouns and cohesive
devices, but less so with grammatical operators. Whether motivation is helping with
performance, or better performance is assisting learner motivation, will be discussed in the next
chapter.
Table 4.19 shows the interactions for the four remaining affective items with performance on
language feature subtests. Items 15 and 17 reflect teaching delivery variables: whether students
say they can understand their English teacher, and whether the teacher speaks only English in
the class. For both of these items, subtest scores reflect less frustration with nouns, cohesion,
and lexical distractors than with other features, and Agree responses are associated with higher
subtest scores than Disagree responses, for all language features where significance exceed the
conventional level.
131
Table 4.19 Interaction of students’ attitudes and performance on specific language features (2): only statistically significant results Feature Response 15 - I understand my
English Teachers 17- My teacher only speaks English
19 – I understand what I read
20 – I read English easily
N M S.D N M S.D N M S.D N M S.D 1 Noun Agree 232 41.90 22.42 210 42.63 22.44 192 44.43 22.67 191 42.44 22.76
Disagree 48 33.49 16.79 70 33.95 18.35 88 31.81 16.86 89 36.21 18.99 2 Article Agree 210 37.19 23.60 192 38.54 24.40 191 37.63 24.46
Disagree 70 30.95 18.52 88 29.29 16.34 89 31.33 17.21 3 Preposition Agree 23
2 35.6
6 22.38 210 35.95 22.75 192 38.08 24.40 191 37.56 23.10
Disagree 48 27.34
18.71 70 29.10 18.76 88 29.29 16.34 89 27.10 17.49
4 Grammatical Operator
Agree 232
36.44
23.60 210 37.19 23.60 192 38.54 24.40 191 37.63 24.46
Disagree 48 31.71
16.36 70 30.95 18.52 88 29.29 16.34 89 27.10 17.49
5 Cohesion Agree 232
38.95
20.15 210 38.99 20.14 192 41.03 23.10 191 40.17 21.15
Disagree 48 29.16
14.23 70 32.10 16.98 88 29.06 11.78 89 31.04 13.92
6 Lexical Distractor
Agree 232
38.31
20.78 210 39.12 20.48 192 40.43 21.59 191 39.24 21.80
Disagree 48 29.58
12.14 70 29.88 15.96 88 28.90 12.06 89 31.59 13.43
7 Grammar Distractor
Agree 210 37.19 23.60 192 38.06 18.32 191 37.13 18.17 Disagree 70 30.95 18.52 88 27.86 10.95 89 29.97 13.07
8 Initial Capital
Agree 232
41.31
27.60 192 42.48 24.40 191 42.25 28.41
Disagree 48 31.25
20.12 88 33.27 20.96 89 33.86 21.68
132
Items 19 and 20 on Table 4.19 reflect individual student self-evaluations of their reading
comprehension, and ease of reading English. Here the interactions are noticeably stronger.
Agree responses to these items are associated with subtest scores above 37% for every single
language feature, for both items. This may indicate that students who are more confident in
their reading performance are actually performing significantly better across all language
features, encountering relatively little frustration, and are doing especially well with nouns,
cohesion, lexical distractors, and initial capitals. Correspondingly, students who disagree that
they understand what they read and find reading English easy have subtest scores indicating
frustration with all language features. All of these interactions suggest that these learners have
a reasonable awareness of whether they are or are not struggling with their EFL reading.
All of these interactions between affective variables and language feature sub-test scores reveal
interesting trends and correlations, which deserve further consideration of possible reasons for
them, and their implications for ESP textbooks and instruction. The purpose in this chapter was
simply to present the results, and the following chapter will take up the points that merit further
discussion.
4.7 Teacher survey results
The teachers’ online survey contained 20 items. The first 16 items were on a six-point Likert
scale dealing with the teachers’ opinions about their students’ level, their attitudes, motivation,
and their desire to learn English in general and ESP courses in particular, and the teachers’
training, their needs, and the teaching methods they used. After analysis, it was decided to
clarify discussion by combining variations in agreement and disagreement to (agree),
(disagree) and (ambivalent): 1 = (strongly agree, agree); 2 = (strongly disagree, disagree); and
3 = (little agree, little disagree). The last four survey items asked for demographic information
133
on teacher nationality, years of teaching experience, qualifications and the city where they
teach.
Tables 4.20 and 4.21 show analysis of the results from Likert items 1 - 16 from the teachers’
survey (see Appendix 6). Their responses reflect the attitudes of these ESP teachers towards
their students; the curriculum under which they teach; the teaching methods that they use; their
college and the degree of support that they experience from it. For example, Table 4.20 shows
that 2 of these 36 teachers (5.5%) agreed that their college recruited the best students, 11 were
ambivalent (30.6%) and 23 of the 36 (63.9%) did not agree.
Most of these teachers seem to support placement tests and their responses suggest
dissatisfaction with the quality of the students entering their programs. There seems to be broad
acceptance of the time available for English instruction but less agreement concerning student
recognition of the importance of English. The contrast between teacher and student notions of
student perceptions of the importance of English will be discussed further in the next chapter.
Most of the teachers claimed to use multiple teaching methods, although the actual approaches
are not clear from the survey results, and there was considerable ambivalence concerning the
mandatory textbook and the ease of student access to it.
Table 4.21 indicates that most of these teachers asserted that they normally divide their classes
into groups within which they encourage their students to speak English. Extracurricular
activities, which may include social media such as the Arsenal website that provided one of the
comparative texts for the present study, also seem common. The vast majority of these teachers
appear to desire access to ESP courses in English-speaking countries. However, they were more
ambivalent in their responses to current ESP texts, the ease with which their students might
read English, or whether the TVTC supports EFL teachers in teaching ESP.
134
Table 4.20
Teachers’ survey Likert items (1)
No Variable Mea
n
Std.
Dvn.
# Strongl
y agree
Agr
ee
Little
agree
Little
disagre
e
Disagr
ee
Strongly
disagree
1
College has
best students
2.38 1.37 n
%
2
5.5
---- 6
16.7
5
13.9
12
33.3
11
30.6
Combined % 5.5 30.6 63.9
2
Placement
test
4.77 1.31 n
%
11
30.6
17
47.2
1
2.8
4
11.1
2
5.5
1
2.8
Combined % 77.8 13.9 8.3
3
Students have
trouble
5.08 1.02 n
%
13
36.2
18
50.0
2
5.5
1
2.8
2
5.5
----
Combined % 80.6 8.3 5,5
4
Class hours
are suitable
3.94 1.67 n
%
5
13.9
13
36.1
8
22.2
5
13.9
---- 5
13.9
Combined % 50.0 36.1 13.9
5
Importance
of English
3.36 1.31 n
%
1
2.8
7
19.4
10
27.8
6
16.7
10
27,8
2
2,5
Combined % 22.2 44.5 30.3
6
Textbooks
are suitable
3.41 1.36 n
%
1
2.8
9
25.0
7
19.4
9
25.50
7
19.4
3
8.3
Combined % 27.8 44.9 27.7
7
Technical
textbooks are
easy
3.97 1.31 n
%
5
13.9
8
22.2
11
30.6
5
13.9
7
19.4
---
Combined % 36.1 44.5 19.4
8
Two teaching
methods
4.94 .714 n
%
8
22.2
18
50.0
10
27.8
--- --- ---
Combined % 72.2 27.8 ------
135
Table 4.21
Teachers’ survey Likert items (2)
No Variable Mea
n
Std.
Dvn.
# Strongl
y agree
Agr
ee
Little
agree
Little
disagre
e
Disagr
ee
Strongly
disagree
9
Grouping
students
4.66 1.14 n
%
9
25.0
13
36.1
10
27.8
1
2.8
3
8.3
Combined % 61.1 30.6 8.3
10
Extra
curricula
activity
4.52 1.23 n
%
6
16.7
17
47.2
8
22.2
1
2.8
3
8.3
1
2.8
Combined % 63.9 25.0 11.1
11
ESP text too
hard
4.47 1.25 n
%
5
13.9
19
52.8
5
13.9
3
8.3
3
8.3
1
2.8
Combined % 13.1 36.8 25.4
12
Students read
English easily
2.52 .94 n
%
1
2.8
5
13.9
9
25.0
18
50.0
3
8.3
Combined % 2.8 38.9 58.3
13
Encourage
students
4.72 1.05 n
%
9
25.0
14
38.9
8
22.2
4
11.1
1
2.8
Combined % 63.9 33.3 2.8
14
TVTC
supports
3.77 1.35 n
%
14
38.9
11
30.6
4
11.1
3
8.3
4
11.1
Combined % 38.9 41.7 19.4
15
Need ESP
training
5.63 .54 n
%
24
66.7
11
30.6
1
2.8
Combined % 97.3 2.8
16
Blackboard
assignment
3.61 1.57 n
%
2
5.5
12
33.4
8
22.2
3
8.3
6
16.7
5
13.9
Combined % 38.9 30.5 30.6
136
Table 4.22 shows the last four items in the teachers’ survey. These items sought demographic
information about the participating teachers.
Table 4.22
Teachers’ demographic survey items
Q. 17 Q. 18 Q. 19 Q. 20
Nationality Experience Qualification College
Saudi Non Years n % Degree n % City n %
34 2 6-10 1 02.80 PhD 1 02.80 Jeddah 21 58.30
94.50%
5.50% 11-15 6 16.60 Master 20 55.60 Riyadh 4 11.10
16-20 20 55.70 Bachelor 15 41.60 Abha 2 05.60
20-25 6 16.60 Total 36 100 Onaizah 2 05.60
26-30 2 05.50 Almithnib 3 08.30
30+ 1 02,80 Other 4 11.10
Total 36 100 Total 36 100%
The table shows that most of the participant teachers are Saudis, more than half have a Master’s
degree and more than 15 years of teaching experience, and the majority of the participants
(58.3%) teach at Jeddah College of Technology. The data for this table was drawn from SPSS
but it is identical to Table 4.8, which was drawn from thinkliteracy. This is a comforting
confirmation of the functional equivalence of the two packages.
4.8 Summary
This chapter has presented analysis of the data emerging from the four phases of this
investigation. Application of a range of readability formulas to a sample text from the
137
mandatory textbook appeared to indicate that it would be accessible to the post-secondary
technical students participating in this study but their subsequent scores on a cloze test built on
that same passage do not support this suggestion. The text might be more difficult than may
have been anticipated. Student difficulties seem to have been associated with their age,
program, course and college. Enrolment, sociocultural and curriculum issues may play a part
in differing degrees of student difficulty. The actual language features causing problems for
these technical students go beyond the issues of technicality that are often the focus of ESP
practice. There may be an imbalance between discipline and functional literacy in ESP courses.
The broader analysis provided by thinkliteracy revealed features of student and class difficulty
obvious from neither immediate experience nor the more detailed SPSS analysis. There may
be a place for such automated cloze analysis before more focused investigation of student
difficulties.
138
139
Chapter 5: Discussion
5.1 Introduction
The previous chapter presented the analysis and findings of the collected data, the cloze test,
and the students’ and teachers’ online surveys used in the four phases of this study. The first
phase of the study compared the accessibility of a number of passages that young Saudi adults
might be expected to read, through the application of multiple readability formulas (Research
Question 1). The second phase involved closer analysis of one of the passages, construction of
the cloze test and categorization of the deleted items and the third phase consisted of student
completion of the cloze test via thinkliteracy and preliminary analysis (Research Questions 2
& 3). The fourth phase involved a deeper look at the cloze data and analysis of the survey
results via SPSS (Research Questions 3 & 4).
This chapter will discuss connections between the results of the various phases, methodological
issues raised by the study and connections between these results and the existing literature. It
will review the study findings of student and teacher attitudes towards English as a Foreign
Language (EFL) in Technical and Vocational Training Corporation (TVTC) colleges in Saudi
Arabia and examine relationships between the student cloze results, the student and teacher
survey responses and the demographic data. In addition, it will illuminate patterns of difficulty
with particular language features that seem to characterize TVTC students from different levels
and majors and consider whether the different groups within the student sample have similar
or different degrees of difficulty. This discussion will provide a basis for the conclusion
chapter, which offers recommendations for implementation.
140
5.2 Methodological issues
As mentioned previously (see Chapter 3), this study aimed to measure the comprehension and
reading difficulties of Saudi students studying ESP at TVTC colleges in Saudi Arabia. The
cloze test was chosen for this study because of its wide use as a method of investigating the
language features that cause difficulties in reading comprehension and its direct applicability
to specific language styles (see Chapter 2). This study builds on previous research and goes
deeper to investigate and diagnose the specific difficulties that the students in the TVTC
colleges might face in their EFL classes.
5.2.1 Readability
The “zone of proximal development” (Vygotsky, 1978) suggests that people learn best if a task
is just beyond their current ability, and when we consider technical reading the range of good
and appropriate texts where learners can succeed without assistance appears very limited. Texts
that have been written with complex language can easily lead to frustration, especially if no
appropriate teaching is available. The chosen text for this study was taken from Technical
English 2 (Bonamy, 2011), a Level 2 ESP textbook which achieved mandatory status in the
Saudi context. This text had been previously assessed as readable on the basis of measures that
have been successfully used for a long time in American education research (DuBay, 2004).
Teachers and educators find these measures a useful tool in the search for better texts that fit
the knowledge level of their students.
The results of the readability tests carried out as Phase 1 of this study (see Table 4.1) suggest
that the ESP passage was the easiest among the selected passages, and that it is a suitable text
for readers aged 12 to 13 years. This was somewhat surprising, given the generally accepted
difficulty of technical texts indicated by the wider literature. However, this particular textbook
is a British resource that was designed and produced for readers at the A2 level of the Common
European Framework and is considered relatively easy to understand at that level. It is slightly
141
surprising, therefore, that the students did not do very well based on the results of the cloze test
even though the text was judged ‘readable’ according to the readability formulas. On the other
hand, the orthography differs substantially from Arabic orthography, and this may partly
explain the difficulties experienced with this relatively accessible text by the students in this
study.
Technical textbooks are designed to give students the chance to learn and practice the English
they will need in the workplace. In the Saudi Arabian context, although the textbooks may
initially seem appropriate for the level of the students at the colleges (and as the readability
results also suggest), it often becomes clear to the teachers that the students do not understand
them and cannot benefit from them. Previous teaching experience suggested that this technical
textbook would be too hard for these students and the results presented in the previous chapter
support this. Consequently, teachers may find matching the textbook to the level of their
students problematic. Teacher responses to the survey used in this study suggest such difficulty.
There may be a need for something even simpler for the students at this level. In these
circumstances, it would seem that choosing a different kind of ESP textbook could more closely
meet the needs of these technical EFL students. Such findings support what Dudley-Evans
when he states that the main objective of EFL teaching is to focus on “what learners need to
do with English, which of the skills they need to master and how well, and what genres they
need to learn” (Dudley-Evans, 2001, p. 131).
The fact that readability assessed by common formulas suggested little difficulty yet the
students did poorly suggest raises broader issues about readability measures.
142
5.2.2 Cloze test
Readability formulas have been claimed to be too crude to recognize differences in specialist
language styles (O’Toole, 1996). The cloze test was used in this study, first, because it is
considered to be a valid measuring tool that has been broadly used in many studies of reading
comprehension (Bachman, 1985; Brown, 2002; Greene & Benjamin, 2001; Oller & Jonz, 1994;
Sasaki, 2000), and second, because the test can reveal more specific information about reading
difficulties than formula-based estimates of text readability. In contrast to the results of the
readability formulas, the cloze test showed that this text is at frustration level for this particular
group of students (see Section 4.3.1, Table 4.11), with a mean of 35.83%, below a widely used
conventional threshold of 43%, (Oller & Jonz, 1994, p. 6).
5.2.3 Demographic Information
Location, prior knowledge of English, department, age and program level produced
significantly different cloze scores among the study participants (see Table 4.14). The results
indicate a clear difference between colleges. Since Jeddah College of Technology is the second
largest college in Saudi Arabia and is the researcher’s place of work so, unsurprisingly, it
provided the majority of study participants (57.50%). However, the differences between results
from specific colleges are not just due to numbers.
There is differential development in the various regions of Saudi Arabia and this means that
students have different levels of opportunity. This could have a greater impact on student
performance than cohort size. The mean total cloze score for the 161 ESP students from Jeddah
College is 40.17% and the mean for the 8 students from Jazan is 25.00%. One might expect
that a smaller college might mean smaller classes and consequently more personal attention in
ESP classes. This would make the higher performance of students form the larger college
surprising. However, there were a similarly small number of students at Almithnib (9) and they
performed better (mean of 30.22%). On the other hand, the larger colleges may be better
143
resourced, which could explain the high performance of the students from Jeddah. However,
there were 35 students from Abha (mean total cloze score of 32.62%) and 34 (28.94%) from
Riyadh, which is the largest and most well-resourced Saudi technical college. Something more
subtle than cohort size and institutional resourcing seems to be playing a part.
The 35 students from Abha produced a low mean cloze score that fell within the frustration
level, the 34 from Riyadh produced an even lower score, and the 33 students from Onaizah
produced a mean score falling between the other two (m = 29.33%). However, Abha students
seem to be doing slightly better than the other colleges, perhaps because there are fewer chances
for recruitment in the private sector in its southern region than in Riyadh, the capital city.
Students in the capital are encouraged to study hard so they can realise their parents’ dream
and go to university, rather than taking a less prestigious technical pathway. Such economic
and social factors are likely to influence the motivation of students who attend technical
colleges and this contributes to the difference between the scores of students from different
regions of Saudi Arabia.
The small class sizes in the smaller colleges might be expected to produce higher scores,
because of the closer connection between teachers and students, but students in these areas are
reluctant to choose the technical departments because they will not be able to get jobs in their
region with a technical qualification. In small cities like Jazan and Almithnib, the overall
number of students attending college is about 800 but there are less than 200 students in the
technical departments. Students prefer the business and administration departments because
they believe it will be easy to get a job in the government sector. Consequently, there is a
shortage of local workers in skilled and semi-skilled occupations.
Social restrictions on female employment and lack of desire among Saudi youth
to undertake vocational training has forced the Kingdom to utilize foreign
144
workers to fill the shortage of health care workers (Malecki & Ewers, 2007, p.
475).
Vision 2030 is intended to reverse that situation. Sometimes the students realise the importance
of English if they want to get a job with the big companies. However, most of the big companies
are in the major cities, such as Riyadh and Jeddah, and in the Western Province where most of
the oil companies are based, which may produce more motivated students in the larger colleges
located there. The recent expansion of the two Holy Mosques, the completion of the expansion
of the new International Airport and the development of King Abdullah Economic City in
North Jeddah, will provide thousands of new job opportunities for Saudis in larger cities. Prince
Sultan bin Salman, President of the Saudi Commission for Tourism and Antiquities, cited in
(Arab News, 2014), stated that Jeddah would be one of the top global tourism destinations and
commercial capital within a few years. He said it was likely to become one of the most
important and attractive cities in the Middle East. It is very important, therefore, to bring in and
localize international technology to give youth the opportunity to participate in such new
developments.
5.2.4 Cloze test differences
The findings presented in the last chapter indicated a significant difference between students
who had prior knowledge of the cloze passage and those who did not. In this instance, the
students who had not previously studied the passage scored much better. A possible
explanation for this surprising result could be that students reading a text for the first time take
the task seriously and challenge themselves to prove that they are able and motivated to read
and understand the text. On the other hand, students with prior knowledge of the text may be
over-confident and that may explain their poor results. An earlier study in Taiwan supports this
possibility: learners were too confident when they chose verbs and were not aware of errors
145
(Wang, 2012). It is clear that being familiar with the meaning of any word can make a reader
over-confident when they meet the word in a new context. This is one of the sources of student
difficulty with semi-technical words in scientific and technical contexts.
All students throughout each TVTC college study the same ESP textbooks through similar
courses, regardless of their discipline and the department within which they are enrolled. As
mentioned in Chapter 3, there are five different departments. The same teacher may teach one
group from Engines and Vehicles and another group from Electrical & Power with the same
textbook, although they may vary the way that they present the material. The cloze results
presented in Chapter 4 show that students from the Electrical and Power department have better
results (m = 39.46%) than Engines and Vehicles department students (m = 30.03). Students
from the Engines and Vehicles department should presumably have less difficulty with this
cloze test, because the base passage discusses car assembly, but this was not the case. This
probably reflects general student motivation and language ability. Electrical and Power is
usually the first choice for students on enrolment at a technical college and students in that
department are usually the most motivated. Therefore, the students from the Engines &
Vehicles department are likely to be less motivated to do well because they are not studying
the discipline of their first choice. The interaction of student motivation and cloze test results
in this study was discussed following Table 4.18. Students expressing opinions consistent with
intrinsic motivation performed most highly on the cloze test.
The cloze results in relation to student age contradict the theories of many SLA scholars
(Carroll, 2008; Hakuta, Bialystok, & Wiley, 2003; Koosha, Ketabi, & Kassaian, 2011;
Lenneberg, 1967; Romero, 2014), who are of the view that it is easier to learn an L2 at a
younger age, and therefore older students could not perform as well as younger ones (see
Section 2.3). However, older learners developed better learning strategies. There is a need for
146
more language learning cognitive strategies when students become older and FL proficiency
increases (Mayo & Lecumberri, 2003). It is particularly interesting that in this study it was the
students in their early thirties who performed most highly (see Table 4.14). This may also be a
motivation effect as such students often have family responsibilities and sharp extrinsic
motivation to improve their English for employment purposes.
5.2.5 Categorization
Cloze test items can be categorized so that the particular features can be identified (O’Toole et
al., 2015) and such categorization has proved to be quite illuminative (O’Toole et al., 2015;
O’Toole& King, 2010; O’Toole& Schefter, 2008). As mentioned earlier, the focus of this study
is to investigate more thoroughly the features of the language in the ESP texts used by TVTC
colleges that cause difficulty students for the students who are their intended audience (see
Chapter 1). Phase 2 of this study involved placing each of the items deleted from the text into
two different groups: dictionary categories and functional categories (see Appendix 1).
While English is one of the few literate languages where grammar may not be explicitly taught,
a study such as this requires a readily accessible nomenclature for word categories. It is more
widely considered to be important that learners of any language can distinguish the part of
speech of a word and know its function in the sentence. Consequently, EFL teachers can find
their L2 colleagues and students more receptive to explicit grammar than they might expect
from experience with English as L1. Sometimes the first language can help learners because
they already have developed the skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing in L1. They
often start reading the targeted language very early in the learning process while native
speakers of any language already have attempted several years communicating in their
language before they may be asked to read texts. Thus, native speakers still have to learn the
processing, principles of cohesion and coherence and any linguistic competences for a text
147
while L2 learners are familiar with these skills (Beinborn, Zesch, & Gurevych, 2014). This
interaction of need and pressure supports the use of readily understood dictionary categories
and more powerful functional categories, in describing the results of this study.
5.2.6 Thinkliteracy
Phase 4 involved use of the thinkliteracy.com web package to investigate student difficulty
with the language features so categorized. As mentioned in Section 4.2, thinkliteracy results
showed that two students with the same score of (42/50) had distinct patterns of difficulty with
the text, which would not have been apparent without use of the error coding under item
categorization described above.
The overall difficulties exposed by the software show that the average mark for the participants
was 17/50. This poor result was expected based on the students’ low level in English (see
Section 1.14). The package provided preliminary analysis of the test and survey data (see
Tables 4.3 and 4.4), while automating coding and recording that are often a very onerous
feature of such work.
5.2.7 SPSS
The SPSS package allowed fuller investigation of the levels of difficulty among the students,
producing more sophisticated results and correlating these with survey data. The actual number
of the students was (n = 280) from six technical colleges around the Kingdom, more than half
from Jeddah College, as shown in Table 4.9. The number of teachers who participated in the
study are given in Table 4.10, the highest number again being from Jeddah College.
5.3 Attitudinal issues
Teachers search for texts that best fit the knowledge level of their students (Beinborn et al.,
2014) but teachers at the TVTC colleges do not have the freedom to choose a textbook that
they think is suitable for the level of their students. As mentioned earlier (see Section 1.1), all
148
EFL textbooks are determined by the Curriculum Department at their headquarters in Riyadh.
The results of this study and the wider literature both indicate that the mandated textbooks are
above the level of the students as these textbooks (Al-Hazmi, 2015; Elyas & Picard, 2010;
Khan, 2011).
The results of the teacher survey (see Tables 4.20 and 4.21) show that the majority of teachers
consider that the mandated ESP textbook is too hard for their students, only 11% think it is not
hard and only 28% of participating teachers agreed that the technical textbooks are appropriate
for their students (see Table 4.20). The students’ cloze test result (see Table 4.11) confirmed
this teacher perception of student difficulty with the textbook, indicating access at frustration
level. These findings are unsurprising, given that the technical textbook was not designed
specifically to meet the students’ level or needs in Saudi Arabia. The teachers are familiar with
the level of their students, and they would prefer to have a role in selecting the textbooks that
they think meet their students’ level.
5.3.1 Student and teacher attitudes to EFL
This section discusses the attitudes of both students and teachers at TVTC institutes towards
EFL learning. Such attitudes could affect the learning process either positively or negatively.
The student and teacher surveys investigated student attitudes toward their teachers and the
strategies teachers apply in the classrooms. More than half of the students agreed that they
could understand their teachers when they explain the lessons in English during the two classes
they learn English (see Table 4.15). The experienced teachers can easily attract their students
by using different methods that suit their students, teaching two groups from two different
departments with different methods according to the needs of each class (e.g., Electrical &
Power vs. Engines & Vehicles).
149
EFL teachers should focus on the importance of giving EFL learners opportunities to
communicate in the targeted language (Ellis, 2008). More than half of the students agreed that
their teachers only speak English in class, which suggests that the teachers are already using
one of the most appropriate and effective approaches to support and encourage students to learn
English. The students seem to be motivated and the majority are happy with what their teachers
do during the classes: students will love the language when they love the method their teachers
use (Sessa, 2005). Of course, learners may desire to present a favorable image of themselves
as students, but the anonymous on-line nature of the student survey provides some confidence
in the genuine nature of the student responses to it. Teachers did not have access to the student
survey and student responses were not identifiable.
EFL teachers realise that their students’ level is weak; more than 63% of participants disagree
that their students are the best. Their responses suggest support for placement tests for new
students who intend to attend the technical colleges, with a guaranteed place for students
scoring an average or above average mark. Currently, there is no placement test and this
probably in part explains teacher perceptions of why the student language level is low. The
cloze results indicate student reading at frustration level and this supports teacher perceptions.
More than 80% of the teachers have a strong belief that their students face difficulties in
learning English, despite that fact that most students started learning English in grade 4. The
students’ responses were similar to their teachers; they recognize that their level is low in
English, and this could be for many reasons - such as their previous background, few
opportunities for exposure to the target language, the difficulties that they encounter in their
ESP courses. Many researchers agree that the students’ poor results in EFL are mainly due to
the traditional approach used in the schools (Al-Kahtany, Faruk, & Al Zumor, 2016; Khan,
2011; Rahman & Al-Haisoni, 2013). Teachers indicated that they did not think that their
150
students understood the importance of English (Table 4.20) but responses to the student survey
suggested that many of them understood both the importance of the language in general and its
usefulness in the Kingdom’s changing economic circumstances (Table 4.15). This suggests a
fruitful context for Saudi Vision 2030, particularly if teachers can take advantage of this
unexpected encouragement from their students.
Most of the participating students and teachers agree that the students understand their EFL
teachers when they only speak English inside the classrooms. They think that the number of
hours they spend every week studying ESP is suitable and enough for them to learn English.
This agreement from students and teachers could be due to the methods that the teachers apply
during the English classes and motivation. Nearly 72% of EFL teachers said that they use more
than two methods in class (see Section 4.7, Table 4.20).
The government has taken many steps to present English as medium of instruction in the
technical sector and higher education by creating language labs, focusing on teacher training
simultaneously with curriculum (Al-Asmari, 2015). However, more than 95% of teachers
believe that there is a need for ESP training (see Table 4.21). Such training will provide them
with the necessary skills to teach ESP and encourage them to learn to use technology; however,
less than half of the teachers agreed that the TVTC helps and supports teachers by providing
training.
5.4 Language issues
5.4.1 Technical textbook reading difficulties
EFL learners in Arab countries are generally poor readers and encounter difficulties in most
texts (Mourtaga, 2006). Generally speaking, if Arab EFL learners are asked why they find
English a difficult language to read and understand they answer that it is because most of the
words in the texts are new and they do not know their meaning. This bears out the view that
151
“vocabulary appears to be a critical predictor of the early development of reading
comprehension skills in both L1 and L2 learners” (Lervåg & Aukrust, 2010, p. 1).
Phonological, morphological, syntactic and semantic clues will help EFL learners to
understand what they read. However, it seems to be hard for many EFL learners to combine
these tasks and the results could be as said that “the harder we try to look, the less we may see”
(Smith, 1988, p. 71).
As mentioned in Chapter 3 (see Section 3.7), this study only discusses sub-tests with
reliabilities greater than 0.5 (Cronbach’s α) for language feature categories. As described in
Chapter 4 (Table 4.11), the overall students mean total cloze score was at frustration level (m
= 35.83%). The reliability for many of the subtest items was less than 0.5, which could be due
to the low numbers of items in some features (e.g., whether a verb is passive or active, the tense
of the verb, if it is regular or irregular) and so these features will not be discussed.
It appears that the students have less trouble with nouns than other language categories, with a
mean of 40.46% (Table 4.13). This result could be due to the method of teaching that most of
the teachers use with a new passage. For example, using the Communicative Approach,
teachers and educators are advised to point out new words and list them and convey their
meaning in English before starting on a new text whereas in the Grammar Translation Method,
new words are translated directly into the students’ mother tongue. In both cases, this often
results in a focus on nouns, which in turn may partly explain the relatively stronger student
performance in this category.
However, a cloze score of 40% suggests that these students were unable to correctly identify
the replacement for 60% of the deletions categorized as ‘noun’. It is not that nouns are
unimportant, rather these results suggest that they may not be causing as much trouble as other
language features, perhaps because they are being emphasized in classwork. Continued
152
emphasis on such obvious features of technical language, joined by increased attention to less
obvious features, such as prepositions, may yield substantial increases in student access to
technical text such as that from which this cloze test was built.
Learning L2 forms is not easy due to the influence of L1 processing routines. Researchers such
as Saigh and Schmitt suggested that “vocabulary material designers and instructors should
provide more direct exercises and instruction that help L2 learners in their acquisition of form”
(2012, p. 32). In relation to L1 influence, Tables 4.18 and 4.19 show, for example, that the
Saudi students surveyed in this study experience problems with initial capitals, which do not
appear in L1. They have also difficulties in L2 prepositions because Arabic prepositions differ
from English. These findings agreed with those of a study conducted in Saudi Arabia showing
that Saudi students face difficulties in L1 prepositions (Al-Badi, O’Toole, & Harkins, 2017).
The cloze test results suggest that the students in this study have great trouble with prepositions
(m = 34.24). It is a fact that the English language has more prepositions than other languages,
and each one has different meanings. Although English prepositions are very commonly used,
they are very difficult for Arab learners of English (Tahaineh, 2014). “Anybody who has taught
advanced foreign learners of English is aware that these little abstract, chaotic functions of the
prepositions remain a stumbling block long after mastery of essentials has been achieved”
(Kreidler, 1966, p. 119).
Student performance on prepositions in this study indicated that they could identify the correct
preposition to fill a deletion in about one third of the deletions so classified. That means that
they could not do so for two thirds of those deletions. Incomprehension or misunderstanding
of prepositions in technical text can have very serious consequences when, for example, a
technician attempts to fit a part ‘underneath’ another when ‘under’ was written in the
instruction sheet.
153
Such results indicate that teachers pay more attention to vocabulary than grammar or
punctuation while teaching reading passages. Although the students did better in nouns than
other categories, the results are still poor and confirm previous research conducted about Arab
students’ reading difficulties. For example, Palestinian students stated that most of the words
in the study reading passage were new and sometimes hard (Mourtaga, 2006).
However, “technicality” does not actually appear on Table 4.16 and that is strange. Appendix
1, shows that there are only three items in this sample, which produced very low reliability.
Therefore, it may be that if there were more technical words in the text sample more difficulties
may become apparent. The fact that there are only three clearly technical words is probably a
product of the process that led to a text readability score that is lower than it was for other
passages the students might read. This result might indicate that the more technical words, the
harder the text will be. These results agreed with findings that indicate that student face
difficulties with nouns and technicality (O’Toole & O’Toole, 2004). The students’ difficulties
with verbs, prepositions and cohesive devices could result from the fact that TVTC teachers
are content specialists rather than ESP trained.
The findings showed a very small (1.90%), if statistically significant difference between the
equal number of items with lexical (m = 36.81%) and grammatical distractors (m = 34.85%),
on the highly reliable sub-tests (Table 4.13). These results of the study challenge indications
from the literature, which show that EFL learners face difficulties if the L1 structure is absent;
for example, the apostrophe causes difficulties for L2 learners who are unfamiliar with its use,
and that will reflect a gap in the L2 learner’s knowledge (Ellis, 1997). Similarly, the active and
passive voice might also be expected to cause difficulties. For example, item number two in
the passage was shop, a semi-technical noun used as a lexical distractor. (The distractors were
line, place, store, truck). An example of a grammar distractor was welded, a past participle
154
used in the passive. The distractors were welds, weld, welder, welding). As mentioned above,
the results show only a very small difference between those two distractors. In the case of the
grammar distractor welded, the literature suggests that this item would be easier for the students
because the context requires the past participle, not the present tense form (welds). However,
if the problems are grammatical, then they should have had more trouble choosing the correct
form. The difficulties may be overstated in the literature.
In the cloze procedure used in this study, seven of the deleted items begin a sentence, and the
researcher deliberately capitalized the correct multiple-choice item to provide a clue to the
correct answer. It was expected that such a hint would help readers to choose the correct seven
capitalized items, but as we see the mean for the initial capitals (m = 39.59), less than half of
the choices were correct. For example, the deleted number 32 was (First), and the other four
choices were (fast, firs, fist, frost: see Appendix 1). These results agree with the literature that
recognizes the big influence of L1 on learning L2. Arabic does not have a capitalization system
that could be a reason for the low score relating to lack of recognition of the significance in
variation in the options. Punctuation in a language is an important device that facilitates reading
and makes written text easier and understandable (Al-Amin & Ahmed, 2012). Unfortunately,
it appears that the students are not aware of punctuation or they do not pay much attention to
it. The clear influence of L1 in learning L2 was investigated by Elkiliç, Han, and Aydin (2009)
who stated that a learners’ mother tongue interferes with the acquisition of an L2, suggesting
that interference of L1 would be a major barrier for the Arab learner towards English (Al-
Nasser, 2015).
5.4.2 Who is having trouble with what?
The results obtained from interaction between survey and cloze data reveal that the students in
Saudi technical colleges clearly have difficulties with many subtest categories; leveraged by
155
demographic factors (see Table 4.16). Nouns in the passage show a clear significance with
cities, department, and the level of program. It seems that the students face greater difficulty
with the dictionary category of noun, article and preposition than related functional categories,
such as technicality, semi-technicality or qualifier. This could be due to the small number of
technical lexes in the passage. The researcher expected to find more difficulties in the subtest
items, however, their reliabilities were less than (p>.05) – possibly due to small numbers in
each category, as mentioned above. The results also suggest that there is a significant difference
between cities in relation to difficulties in all of these language features.
Motivation, enthusiasm and desire play a major role in student achievement. There are
differences not only between colleges but between different departments as well. If most of the
students who join the technical colleges are not sufficiently satisfied or proud to be in the
vocational sectors, their performance might be expected to be low. Students in the big cities
are likely to be more motivated and achieve better due to the better job opportunities than
students in the small cities who have fewer opportunities. Furthermore, these students realise
that their country is depending on the Saudi youth, as the government intends to reduce the
number of non-Saudi employees in the private sector to achieve one of the Saudi Visions 2030
goals (see Chapter 1.)
5.4.3 Difficulties across groups
The results suggest that the participating students from the six technical colleges in this study
have a positive attitude towards English language. More than 75% of the students positively
agreed that EFL would help them in their majors to understand the technical expressions and
idioms that they may face in their major courses. Their positive answers conflict with their
cloze results, however, which indicated that they are reading at frustration level. The reasons
for this discrepancy are not clear. It could be the curriculum, learning environment, teaching
156
method or the teachers. As Baheej (2015) noted, a British Council seminar in Beirut in 2012,
highlighted the importance of studying the specific linguistic and cultural requirements of EFL
learners in different areas to develop an appropriate curriculum that would match with their
specific needs. As mentioned earlier (Section 1.5), one of the general objectives of the Ministry
of Education for teaching EFL in Saudi Arabia is to develop positive attitudes among the
students towards learning English student’s positive attitudes towards learning English
(Rahman & Al-Haisoni, 2013). These results suggest that such attempts can begin from a
positive base.
According to the SPSS analysis, the language of the passage on which the cloze test was based
had difficulties that did not allow the students easy access as they attempted to read it. The
students are aware that English is very important for them, not only at college but outside the
colleges as well, as knowledge of English is one of the main conditions for getting work in
addition to the degree they are studying. Their responses agreed with Rahman & Al-Haisoni
(2013) who stated: “The students have realised that English is no longer a language to pass in
the examination, but an important subject for higher education, international communication
and business and trade” (p. 114).
157
Chapter 6: Conclusions
6.1 Introduction
This study aimed to identify the language features that cause particular difficulty for EFL
students at Saudi technical colleges through a cloze analysis of their ability to comprehend a
typical text used in the colleges, contextualized through investigation of student and teacher
attitudes.
Research Question 1: To what extent do the language demands of ESP texts used by Saudi
technical students differ from those that they might encounter in their other readings in
English?
A variety of readability formulas indicated that the ESP passage was easier than some other
relevant reading passages and suggested that it was an appropriate text for L1 readers aged 12
to 13 years. This was in marked contrast with the wider literature, and results from the
subsequent phases of this study, both of which indicate that mandated textbooks used in the
technical colleges in Saudi Arabia are above the reading level of their students. The formulas
served a useful and illuminative initial comparative role in this study but their limitation to
surface features of the text, rather than sensitivity to interactions between the text and the
reader, make them an unsure guide for pedagogical decisions outside the context within which
they were developed. They are a crude measure, and crude measures can be useful, but they
are unreliable if more subtle decisions are required.
The cloze procedure produces tests that rest on the interaction of text and reader. The test used
in this study was sufficiently reliable to warrant further discussion and the participating
students were able to identify the correct alternative for just over one third of the deleted items
in the cloze test but were unable to do so for almost two thirds of the items. This suggests that
158
these students were nearing the boundary between frustration and potential instruction when
they attempted to read this particular passage. Such use of the cloze procedure is preferable to
readability formulas because it rests on reader attempts to access particular text, rather than
only on numerical description of the text itself. However, it does not identify particular
language difficulties. Identification of categories among the words deleted to form a cloze test
is able to do this.
Research Question 2: What are the language features that cause the most difficulty for
participating Saudi technical students in comprehending the language of their ESP textbooks?
This question was investigated through language feature subtests based on dictionary and
functional categorization of items deleted from the cloze test described above. Analysis
indicated that these students had most difficulty in correctly identifying replacements for
deletions from the ESP passage categorized as prepositions. This feature was followed in
difficulty by articles and grammatical operators and then by cohesive markers, initial capitals
and nouns. These features represent a mix of lexical and functional categories and this is borne
out by the fact that there was little difference in the difficulties apparent in these student results
comparing performance on items with lexical and grammatical distractors.
Research Question 3: What are the social and pedagogical factors that may impact
Saudi students’ English learning at these colleges?
Consideration of both survey and test results suggests that student age, college and program of
enrolment all have an impact on overall cloze score. Students in their early thirties, students
enrolled in the more advanced Bachelor program, students from Jeddah, students studying
within the Electrical and Power departments and students who had not previously worked on
the text material all apparently had easier access to the text than their counterparts from other
demographic groups.
159
If we consider the language feature sub-tests, it appears that location (in favor of students from
Jeddah) and level of program (in favor of the Bachelor cohort) influence student performance
across all language features, while prior knowledge (in favor of novelty) and age (in favor of
older students) do not as significantly influence performance on nouns and initial capitals.
Students across all departments seem to have trouble with prepositions.
Responses from participating students suggest that they understand their teachers when they
explain lessons and that their teachers only speak English in class. More than half of the
participants agreed that they read English easily or understand what they read. There is a
substantial difference between the impression produced by the survey and cloze results.
Although the majority of students expressed positive attitudes to learning English and to the
role of English in their lives, indicating generally optimistic attitudes to English learning on
the student survey, their cloze results indicated they were operating at the frustration level.
Research Question 4: Are EFL teachers in TVTC colleges confident in teaching ESP technical
courses to their students?
Most of the experienced ESP teachers participating in this study expressed dissatisfaction with
the quality of the students entering their programs and supported the introduction of pre-
enrolment placement tests. Teachers and students seemed to agree that their departmental
programs allocated adequate time for English study but teachers seemed unaware of student
recognition of the importance of English. Teachers expressed differing views concerning the
mandatory textbook and the ease of student access to it, which mirrored the ambivalent student
response. Most of the teachers claimed to use multiple teaching methods, although the actual
approaches are not clear from the survey results.
160
6.2 Contributions of the study
This study contributes to resolution of methodological, linguistic and pedagogical issues. The
project made novel use of an automated approach to cloze testing. It dealt directly with
consideration of the balance between grammatical and lexical issues in EFL reading and
explored the interaction between performance and teacher/student attitudes in a particular
educational location.
6.2.1 Methodological contributions
Readability is a notoriously fraught topic that sits at the intersection between psychology,
pedagogy and linguistics. The commonplace observations that some texts are easier to read
than others; some readers have more difficulty than others; and that difficulties in reading can
have substantial real-world consequences, all make readability issues of considerable academic
and pragmatic interest.
Readability formulas are easy to use but contradictions such as those emerging from this thesis
make such use problematic. Cloze testing has also been controversial but the interaction that it
allows between reader and text continues to make it attractive to teachers and researchers.
Unfortunately, marking and coding of cloze test results is very laborious and time-consuming.
The package used in this project allows marking, coding and scoring to happen much more
conveniently and its capacity to group deletions allows the generation of much richer data on
student reading difficulty. Thinkliteracy also automates initial analysis of the data and this
proved particularly illuminating in the present project. The approach adopted here seems easily
applied to much larger projects.
6.2.2 Linguistic contributions
The balance between lexical and grammatical issues in language is of enduring interest. The
package explored this issue in two ways. First, categorizing some items as ‘lexical’ and others
161
as ‘grammatical’. Second, providing equal numbers of ‘lexical’ and ‘grammatical’ distractors
for the multiple-choice cloze items. This provided data on the relative impact of the two
language components. The difference between student difficulties experienced with the two
types of distractors was minimal; and both types of cloze item caused difficulty for these EFL
learners attempting to use a supposedly appropriate ESP textbook. This provides empirical
support for the equivalent importance of both aspects of language.
6.2.3 Pedagogical contributions
An important contribution of the study is to identify the language features that the students
have difficulty with in the ESP mandatory course taught in TVTCs colleges. Identifying
potential or likely linguistic challenges is the first step for EFL educators planning to
adequately meet learner needs. This is particularly important in the context of this study, where
TVTC EFL teachers have expressed ambivalent levels of confidence in their ability to carry
out their roles. The findings of this study will therefore contribute important understandings
about how to better prepare and assist TVTC EFL learners.
There is a well-recognized need for hundreds of thousands of TVTCs graduates to replace the
existing of millions of non-Saudi technical workers. The results of this study suggest that both
teachers and students consider that the current technical textbook is not entirely suitable as they
prepare to meet this need. The current textbook is not designed for the particular cultural and
linguistic context of Arab EFL students and it seems too hard for these students to read. Like
many such resources, it comprises relevant reading passages followed by a range of language
exercises designed to support class work that both clarifies and extends the language of the
passage. The impact of prior knowledge on student access to the base passage for the cloze test
seems particularly interesting: students with no prior access to the passage significantly out-
162
performed those who had used the passage (and presumably its accompanying exercises) in
class (Table 4.14). This supports teacher and student negative responses to this textbook.
A tailored, purpose-designed, context-dependent textbook seems essential in order to realise
the goals of greater English language proficiency, as articulated in the 2030 Vision. Such a
textbook should be designed specifically for Saudi students in order to support them with the
particular challenges they face in engaging with English text, as suggested by this study. A
resource such as thinkliteracy.com could assist in this task. As described earlier in this thesis,
the package identifies specific difficulties being experienced by particular students, and classes,
in reading particular text (see Table 4.3). This would allow teachers to build a cloze test on
selected authentic text, use the test to identify the difficulties experienced by their class and
then construct more focused class and individual activities based on identified difficulties and
the exercise formats exemplified and suggested by the package. Central use of the package
could produce textbooks that are more appropriate for the Saudi context and local use could
produce supplementary material that responded directly to local needs.
This study found that EFL teachers in TVTC institutes expressed a desire for better support
and professional development opportunities. Greater targeted instruction in ESP methods and
approaches would better assist TVTC educators to increase learner proficiency and
preparedness for EFL use in the workplace.
Motivation is clearly a factor in any form of education and the results presented in this study
suggest that location may have a substantial impact on student motivation. The interaction of
location and student cloze score suggests that local opportunities, or the lack of them, may have
complex impact on student attitude to study in TVTC colleges. Such social factors deserve
further study as the Corporation prepares to meet the challenges of Vision 2030.
163
6.3 Limitations of the study
The major limitation of this study is its purely quantitative nature. The lack of the interviews
and/or focus groups that would have comprised a qualitative component has limited the depth
of exploration of social and pedagogical issues. However, the quantitative data analysed here
provides ample support for such subsequent deeper work.
A limitation of the quantitative work itself is the absence of analysis of the impact of
interactions between background variables on student reading performance. The separate
reporting of the differing impacts adequately addresses the specific research questions but
interaction between them may have been illuminative.
The lack of female participants is another limitation of the study. This reflects the gender
segregation maintained in all Saudi educational institutions. However, the disciplines at the
focus of this study are not included in Saudi technical colleges that enroll women and therefore
the text at its core would not be appropriate for an expanded project.
The text sampling inherent in the cloze procedure represents another limitation. Although
participants considered the sample typical of the mandatory text, previous discussion has
recognized that it did not produce sufficiently reliable sub-tests for a full range of the language
features that could plausibly be causing trouble for these students.
The thinkliteracy package used in data collection would allow convenient replication of the
language test, based on different text samples to expand the number of language features
explored. This study used a random 1-in-5 deletion pattern. Given the strength of the current
results, such replication could rest on deliberately focused deletion. For example, a test could
be prepared that focused specifically on issues of technicality.
164
6.4 Recommendations of the study
This study focused on language features and problems that may cause difficulties for Saudi
technical students in reading comprehension. One of the significant findings of this study is
that a majority of students said that they like learning English, could easily read and understand
it, and claimed to recognise the importance of reading, but their cloze results showed a very
low mean. The Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabia could adopt strategies to encourage
learners to read and to change their reading habits. Teachers have an important role here to help
their students and encourage to read them from early in life, as the Holy Qur’an itself
recommends.
The Department of Curriculums in the Saudi Ministry of Education and the Technical and
Vocational Training Corporation (TVTC) could sponsor further study of the specific
difficulties facing EFL Saudi teachers and learners as they move towards realisation of Vision
2030. The thinkliteracy software would be useful in both further exploring student difficulty
and examining any proposed textbook. The Department of Curriculums and the TVTC could
pay more attention to choosing textbooks appropriate to their students’ needs.
6.5 Final remarks
ESP courses should be developed from analysis of local needs. In the new context of Vision
2030, Saudi policy makers and syllabus designers generally, and TVTC colleges in particular,
need to design curricula and/or choose ESP texts that are appropriate for their students, in their
locations, facing their opportunities. Such ESP curricula and textbooks have multiple roles:
they are urgently needed to prepare students, in a short time, to read, write, and communicate
better in the specific contexts of current changes within the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. This
will require strategic alignment between national aims, local provision and individual
aspiration.
165
To conclude, this study is the first of its kind to focus on readability of technical textbooks in
TVTC colleges in Saudi Arabia. It is a timely and significant focus, as the Kingdom begins to
implement the 2030 Vision. TVTC institutes are an important source of Saudi employees and
therefore play a crucial role in the nation’s economic and socio-cultural future. An enhanced
and expanded focus on ESP practices in TVTC colleges will make an important contribution
to achieving the goals of the 2030 Vision.
167
Bibliography
Abbad, A. (1988). An analysis of communicative competence features in English language
texts in Yemen Arab Republic (Doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois, Chicago,
IL. Retrieved from https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/69184
Abdan, A. (1991). An exploratory study of teaching English in the Saudi elementary public
schools. System, 19(3), 253–266.
Abdel Wassie, A. W. (1970). Education in Saudi Arabia. Glasgow, United Kingdom:
Macmillan.
Abdulsalam, A. (2009). Saudi students’ perspectives on their teachers’ transmission of
negative messages: A hidden curriculum (Doctoral dissertation) University of Kansas,
Lawrence, KS. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1808/6193
Abu-Ghararah, A. (1990). EFL speaking inability: Its causes and remedies. The Journal of
the National Association for Bilingual Education, 14(1–3), 63–75.
Abu-Melhim, A. (2009). Attitudes of Jordanian college students towards learning English as
a foreign language. College Student Journal, 43(2), 682–694.
Abu-Rabia, S. (2000). Effects of exposure to literary Arabic on reading comprehension in a
diglossic situation. Reading and Writing, 13(1-2), 147-157.
Ahmed, M. (2014). The ESP Teacher: Issues, tasks and challenges. English for Specific
Purposes World,15(42),1–33.
Al-Abdali, M. (2010, September 30). TOEFL is the first obstacle that faces scholarships and
reveals the weakness of the foreign language education in Saudi Arabia. Al-Watan
News. Retrievedfrom
http://www.alwatan.com.sa/Nation/News_Detail.aspx?ArticleID=22890&CategoryID=3
168
Alaga, N. (2016, May). Motivation and attitude of students toward learning English
language. Paper presented at the the International Conference on Research in Social
Science, Humanities, and Education, Cebu, Philippines. Retrieved
fromhttp://uruae.org/siteadmin/upload/UH0516002.pdf
Al-Ahdal, A. (2014). High school Eglish teachers’ professional life cycle: A study in an EFL
context. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(1), 30–38.
Al-Alwani, A. (2005). Barriers to integrating information technology in Saudi Arabia
science education. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Kansas, Lawrence,U.S.A.
Retrived from http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005PhDT........64A
Al-Amin, A., & Ahmed, S. (2012). Syntactical and punctuation errors: An analysis of
technical writing of university students science college, Taif University, KSA. English
Language Teaching, 5(5), 2–8.
Al-Amri, A. (2008). An evaluation of the sixth grade English language textbook for Saudi
boys' schools (Unpublished Master’s thesis). King Saud University, Riyadh, KSA.
Al-Amri, M. (2011). Higher education in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Higher Education Theory
and Practice, 11(4), 88–91.
Al-Arabiya English. (2016, April 25). Saudi Arabia announces ‘Vision 2030’. Al-Arabiya
English. Retrieved from http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-
east/2016/04/25/Saudi-Arabia-to-announce-Vision-2030-today.html
Al-Asmari, A. R. (2015). Communicative language teaching in EFL university context:
Challenges for teachers. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 6 (5), 976-984.
Al-Asmari, A., & Khan, M. S. (2014). World Englishes in the EFL Teaching in Saudi Arabia.
Arab World English Journal, 5(1), 316-325.
169
Al-Asmari, N. (2013). Effects of Acculturation Factor on Saudi Arabian English Language
Learners: A Contextual Comparison Study (Doctoral dissertation), University of
Newcastle, Newcastle, N.S.W. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1959.13/1042350
Al-Badi, I. (2015). Academic writing difficulties of ESL learners. The 2015 WEI
International Academic Conference Proceedings. Retrieved from
https://www.westeastinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Ibtisam-Ali-Hassan-
Al-Badi-full-Paper.pdf
Al-Badi, N. M., Harkins, J., &O’Toole, J. M. (2018). Recent reforms in Saudi secondary
science education: Teacher and student perceptions of Grade 10 Physics. International
Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(3), 1–21.
Al-Badi, N., O’Toole, J.M. & Harkins, J. (2017). Reading difficulties and language features
in an Arabic Physics text. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 21(8), 46–69.
Albert, R. T., Albert, R. E., & Radsma, J. (2002). Relationships among bilingualism, critical
thinking ability, and critical thinking disposition. Journal of Professional Nursing,
18(4), 220–229.
Alderson, J. C. (1979). The cloze procedure and proficiency in English as a foreign language.
TESOL Quarterly, 13(2), 219–227.
Al-Fotais, A. (2012). Investigating textbooks’ input as a possible factor contributing to
vocabulary knowledge failure among Saudi EFL learners at Taif university (Master’s
thesis). University of Essex, Colchester, United Kingdom. Retrieved from
http://files.figshare.com/2399197/Al_Fotais__2012__Investigating_Textbooks__Input_
as_a_Possible_Factor_Contributing_to_Vocab....pdf
Al-Hamlan, S. (2013). EFL curriculum and needs analysis: An evaluative study. Unpublished
report, MATESOL, King Saud University, Riyadh. Retrieved from
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED542860
170
Al-Haq, F. A. A. (1982). An analysis of syntactic errors in the composition of Jordanian
secondary students (Unpublished Master’s thesis). Yarmouk University, Jordan.
Al-Haq, F. A. A., & Smadi, O. (1996). Spread of English and westernization in Saudi Arabia.
World Englishes, 15, 307–317.
Al-Hawsawi, S. (2014). Investigating student experiences of learning English as a foreign
language in a preparatory programme in a Saudi university. (Doctoral dissertation).
University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom. Retrieved from
http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/48752
Al-Hazmi, S. (2003). EFL teacher preparation programs in Saudi Arabia: Trends and
challenges. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 341–344.
Al-Hazmi, S. (2015). Current issues in English language education in the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia. Journal of Modern Languages, 17, 129–150.
Al-Hazmi, S., & Schofield, P. (2007). Enforced revision with checklist and peer feedback in
EFL writing: The example of Saudi university students. Scientific Journal of King
Faisal University (Humanities and Management Sciences), 8, 237-267. Retrieved from
https://apps.kfu.edu.sa/sjournal/ara/pdffiles/h826.pdf
Al-Hazmi, S., Black, W., & McNaught, J. (2013). Arabic SentiWordNet in relation to
SentiWordNet 3.0. International Journal of Computational Linguistics, 4(1), 1–11.
Ali, S. (2009). Teaching English as an international language (EIL) in the Gulf Corporation
Council (GCC) countries: The brown man’s burden. In F. Sharifian (Ed.), Teaching
English as an international language: Perspectives and pedagogical issues (pp. 34–
57). Bristol, United Kingdom: Multilingual Matters.
Al-Jabber, J. (2004). Attitudes of Saudi Arabian secondary preservice teachers toward
teaching practices in science: The adequacy of preparation to use teaching strategies
171
in classrooms (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University, Bloomington,
IN.
Al‐Jarf, R. (2004). The effects of web‐based learning on struggling EFL college writers.
Foreign Language Annals, 37(1), 49–57.
Al‐Jarf, R. (2007). Teaching vocabulary to EFL college students online. CALL-EJ
Online,8(2), 1–16.
Al-Jughaiman, A., & Grigorenko, E. (2013). Growing up under pressure: The cultural and
religious context of the Saudi system of gifted education. Journal for the Education of
the Gifted, 36(1), 307–322.
Al-Kahtany, A., Faruk, S., & Al Zumor, A. W. (2016). English as the medium of instruction
in Saudi higher education: Necessity or hegemony? Journal of Language Teaching and
Research, 7(1), 49–58.
Al-Maini, Y. H. A. (2006). The learning and teaching of English as a foreign language: A
case study of a Saudi secondary school (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University
of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom.
Al-Malki, M., & Soomro, A. F. (2017). Practitioners’ perspectives on the application of
integration theory in the Saudi EFL context. English Language Teaching, 10(6), 93–
102.
Al-Mohanna, A. (2010). English language teaching in Saudi Arabian context: How
communicatively oriented is it. Journal of King Saud University-Languages and
Translation, 22, 69–88.
Al-Mutairi, N. (2008). The influence of educational and sociocultural factors on the learning
styles and strategies of female students in Saudi Arabia (Doctoral dissertation).
University of Leicester). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2381/10217
172
Al-Nafisah, K., & Al-Shorman, R. d. A. (2011). Saudi EFL students’ reading interests.
Journal of King Saud University: Languages and Translation, 23(1), 1–9.
Al-Nasser, A. (2015). Problems of English language acquisition in Saudi Arabia: An
exploratory-cum-remedial study. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(8), 1612–
1619.
Al-Nooh, A., & Mosson-McPherson, M. (2013). The effectiveness of reading techniques
used in a Saudi Arabian secondary school classroom as perceived by students and
teachers: A study of methods used in teaching English and their effectiveness. Arab
World English Journal, 4(3), 331–345.
Al-Omrani, A. (2008). Perceptions and attitudes of Saudi ESL and EFL students toward
native and nonnative English-speaking Teachers (Doctoral dissertation). Available
from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3303340)
Al-Omrani, A. H. (2014). Integrating reading into writing instruction in the EFL programs at
Saudi universities. Arab World English Journal, 5(3), 100–112.
Al-Otaibi, G. N. (2004). Language learning strategy use among Saudi EFL students and its
relationship to language proficiency level, gender and motivation (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). Indiana University of Pennsylvania. Indiana, PA.
Al-Othman, F., & Shuqair, K. M. (2013). The impact of motivation on English language
learning in the Gulf States. International Journal of Higher Education, 2(4), 123–130.
Al-Qahtani, A. (2016). Why do Saudi EFL readers exhibit poor reading abilities? English
Language and Literature Studies, 6, (1), 1–6.
Al-Qahtani, S. (2015). The effect of teachers’ motivational strategies on EFL learners’
achievement (Doctoral dissertation). University of Newcastle, Newcastle, N.S.W.
Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1959.13/1305665
173
Al-Rabai, F. (2010). The use of motivational strategies in the Saudi EFL classroom (Doctoral
dissertation). University of Newcastle, Newcastle, N.S.W. Retrieved from
http://hdl.handle.net/1959.13/807509
Al-Rabai, F. (2011). Motivational instruction in practice: Do EFL instructors at King Khalid
University motivate their students to learn English as a foreign language? Arab World
English Journal, 2(4), 257–285.
Al-Rabai, F. (2014). The effects of teachers’ in-class motivational intervention on learners’
EFL achievement. Applied linguistics, 37(3), 1–28.
Al-Rabai, F. (2016). Factors underlying low achievement of Saudi EFL learners.
International Journal of English Linguistics, 6(3), 21–37.
Al-Roomy, M. (2013). An action research study of collaborative strategic reading in English
with saudi medical students (Doctoral dissertation), University of Sussex, Brighton,
United Kingdom. Retrieved from http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/46830/
Al-Saif, A. (2005). An evaluation of the TEFL textbook for the 6th elementary class in Saudi
Arabia (Unpublished Master’s thesis). University of Essex, Colchester, United
Kingdom.
Al-Seghayer, K. (2011). English teaching in Saudi Arabia: Status, issues, and challenges.
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Hala Printing Co.
Al-Seghayer, K. (2014 a). The actuality, inefficiency, and needs of EFL teacher preparation
programs in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English
Literature, 3(1), 143–151.
Al-Seghayer, K. (2014 b). The four most common constraints affecting English teaching in
Saudi Arabia. International Journal of English Linguistics, 4(5), 17–26.
Al-Seghayer, K. (Ed.). (2005). Teaching English in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Slowly but
steadily changing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
174
Al-Shammri, A. (2008, June 26). Higher education was considering increasing the
scholarships awards and the acceptance of 86% of secondary school graduates in the
universities (In Arabic). Asharq Al-Awsat.
Al-Shehri, A. (2004). The development of reusable online learning resources for
instructional design students based on the principles of learning objects (Doctoral
dissertation). Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS. Retrieved
from http://hdl.handle.net/2097/35
Al-Shehri, S. (2011, October). Context in our pockets: Mobile phones and social networking
as tools of contextualising language learning. Paper presented at the 10th World
Conference on Mobile and Contextual Learning, Beijing, China.
Al-Shumaimeri, Y. (2003). A study of classroom exposure to oral pedagogic tasks in relation
to the motivation and performance of saudi secondary school learners of English in a
context of potential curriculum reform (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University
of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Al-Shumaimeri, Y. (2011). The effects of reading method on the comprehension performance
of Saudi EFL students. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4(1),
185–195.
Al-Sowat, H. (2012). An evaluation of English language textbook “Say It In English” for first
year intermediate grade in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Studies in Curriculum and
Supervision, 3(2), 330–413.
Al-Zahrani, N. (2016). Saudi students’ experiences of learning English in English as a
foreign and second language settings (Unpublished Master’s thesis). Mount Saint
Vincent University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Available from
http://jasr.co/article/view/18305/pdf
175
Anderson, J. (1993). Is a communicative approach practical for teaching English in China?
Pros and cons. System, 21(4), 471–480.
Anderson, L. W., & Bourke, S. F. (2000). Assessing affective characteristics in the schools
(2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Anderson, L.W. (2003). Classroom Assessment: Enhancing the Quality of Teacher Decision-
Making. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ansari, A. A. (2012). Teaching of English to Arab students: Problems and remedies.
Educational Research,, 3(6), 519–524.
Arab News. (2003, June 18). Ministry eyes ways to utilize newly hired English teachers.
Arab News. Retrieved from http://www.arabnews.com/node/233080
Arab News. (2014, March 20). Jeddah’s profile growing as tourism and commercial hub.
Arab News. Retrieved from http://www.arabnews.com/news/542916
Arab News. (2015, June 30). Saudi Universities to accept 95% of high school graduates. Arab
News. Retrieved from http://www.arabnews.com/saudi-arabia/news/769476
Ardi, M. (2016). Investigating students’ foreign language anxiety. Malaysian Journal of ELT
Research, 3(1), 37–55.
Arghode, V. (2012). Qualitative and quantitative research: Paradigmatic differences. Global
Education Journal, 2012(4), 155–163.
Arsenal F. C. (2017, June 7). The Club Arsenal Publications. Retrieved
fromhttps://www.arsenal.com/the-club/arsenal-publications#8AR0JPVTtwPAS1lu.99
Assalahi, H. (2013). Why is the grammar-translation method still alive in the Arab world?
Teachers’ beliefs and its implications for EFL teacher education. Theory and Practice
in Language Studies, 3(4), 589–599.
176
Assulaimani, T. (2015). The L2 motivational self system: A case study of two Saudi
universities (Doctoral dissertation). University of Newcastle, Newcastle, N.S.W.
Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1959.13/1295890
Babaiba, W. (2015). Reading comprehension difficulties among EFL Learners: The case of
third-year learners at Nehali Mohamed Secondary School (Unpublished Master’s
thesis). University of Tlemcen, Algeria.
Bachman, L. F. (1985). Performance on cloze tests with fixed-ratio and rational deletions.
TESOL Quarterly, 19(3), 535–556.
Baheej, K. (2015). Difficulties that Arab students face in learning English. Studia
Universitatis Moldaviae, 5(85), 123–125.
Basturkmen, H. (2003). Specificity and ESP course design. RELC Journal, 34(1), 48-63.
Beardsmore, H. B. (1982). Bilingualism: Basic principles. Clevedon, OH: Multilingual
Matters.
Beinborn, L., Zesch, T., & Gurevych, I. (2014). Readability for foreign language learning:
The importance of cognates. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 165(2), 136–
162.
Belcher, D. D. (2006). English for specific purposes: Teaching to perceived needs and
imagined futures in worlds of work, study, and everyday life. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1),
133–156.
Berninger, V. W., & Amtmann, D. (2003). Preventing written expression disabilities through
early and continuing assessment and intervention for handwriting and/or spelling
problems: Research into practice. In H. L. Swanson, K. R Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.),
Handbook of learning difficulties (pp. 345–363). New York, NY: Guildford Press.
Berns, M. (1990). ‘Second’ and ‘foreign’ in second language acquisition/foreign language
learning: A sociolinguistic perspective. In B. Van Patten & J. F. Lee (Eds.). Second
177
language acquisition: A sociolinguistic perspective. Philidelphia, PA: Multilingual
Matters.
Blank, L., Brewer, C. (2003). Ecology education when no child is left behind. Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment1(7), 383–390.
Bojović, M. (2015). Teaching foreign language for specific purposes: Teacher
development.Paper presented at the 31st Annual Conference of the Association of
Teacher Education in Europe. Retrieved from http://www.pef.uni-lj.si/atee/978-961-
6637-06-0/487-493.pdf
Bonamy, D. (2011). Technical English 2. Harlow, United Kingdom: Pearson Education.
Bormuth, J. R. (1965a). Validities of grammatical and semantic classifications of cloze test
scores. In J. A. Figurel (Ed.), Reading and inquiry: Volume 10 (pp. 283–285). Newark,
NJ: International Reading Associates.
Bormuth, J. R. (1965b). Optimum sample size and cloze test length in readability
measurement. Journal of Educational Measurement, 2(1), 111–116.
Bosbait, M., & Wilson, R. (2005). Education, school to work transitions and unemployment
in Saudi Arabia. Middle Eastern Studies, 41(4), 533–545.
Bowen, A. D. (2013). Combatting the downward spiral: Burnout, support networks and
coping strategies of TESOL teachers at private language schools in Johannesburg,
South Africa (Doctoral dissertation). University of South Africa, Johannesburg, South
Africa. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10500/13770
Brown, J. D. (1983). A closer look at cloze validity and reliability. In J. W. Oller & J. Jonz
(Eds.), Issues in language testing research (pp. 189–196). Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.
Brown, J. D. (2002). Do cloze tests work? Or, is it just an illusion? Second Language Studies,
21(1), 79–125
178
Brown, J. D. (2013). My twenty-five years of cloze testing research: So what? International
Journal of Language Studies, 7(1), 1–32.
Bruton-Simmonds, I. (2003). A criticism of modern linguistics with suggestion for
improvement of English through the BBC [Lecture]. Retrieved from
http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/ChLect2K3.html
Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Burns, A., & Richards, J. (2009). The Cambridge guide to second language teacher
education. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Cain, K. (2003). Text comprehension and its relation to coherence and cohesion in children’s
fictional narratives. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21(3), 335–351.
Carraway, L. N. (2006). Improve scientific writing and avoid perishing. The American
Midland Naturalist, 161(2), 383–394.
Carroll, D. (2008). Psychology of language. Belmont, CA: Thomson Learning.
Chang, S.-C. (2011). A contrastive study of grammar translation method and communicative
approach in teaching English grammar. English Language Teaching, 4(2), 13–24.
Chang, Y.H., Chang, C.Y., & Tseng, Y.H. (2010). Trends of science education research: An
automatic content analysis. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(4), 315–
331.
Chastain, K. D., & Woerdehoff, F. J. (1968). A methodological study comparing the audio-
lingual habit theory and the cognitive code-learning theory. The Modern Language
Journal, 52(5), 268–279.
Chen, L. (2004). On text structure, language proficiency, and reading comprehension test
format interactions: A reply to Kobayashi, 2002. Language Testing, 21(2), 228–234.
179
Cheng, L., Klinger, D. A., & Zheng, Y. (2007). The challenges of the Ontario secondary
school literacy test for second language students. Language Testing, 24(2), 185–208.
Christie, F., & Derewianka, B. (2008). School discourse: Learning to write across the years
of schooling. London, United Kingdom: Continuum.
Collier, J. H., & Toomey, D. M. (1997). Scientific and technical communication: Theory,
practice, and policy [Digital edition]. Sage.
Connor, U., & Johns, A. M. (Eds.). (1990). Coherence in writing: Research and pedagogical
perspectives. Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Cooray, M. (1965). The English passive voice. English Language Teaching, 21(3), 203-210.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research : Planning, conducting, and evaluating
qualitative and quantitative research (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Crystal, D. (1987). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language. Cambridge, United Kingdom:
Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D. (2000). Rediscover grammar. Harlow, United Kingdom: Pearson Education.
Dao, T. K., Donghyuck, L., & Chang, H. L. (2007). Acculturation level, perceived English
fluency, perceived social support level, and depression among Taiwanese international
students. College Student Journal, 41(2), 287–296.
Dawson, C. (2007). Prescriptions and proscriptions: The three Ps of scientific writing: Past,
passive and personal. Teaching Science, 53(2), 36–38.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second
language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Douglas, M. (2011). In the active voice. New York, NY: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Duarte-Expósito, M. J., Nieto-Barco, A., de Vega-Rodríguez, M., & Barroso-Ribal, J. (2004).
Event related brain potentials and imageability effect in the semantic processing.
Revista de Neurologia, 39(12), 1123–1128.
180
DuBay, W. H. (2004). The principles of readability. Retrieved from
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED490073
Dudley, D. (2016, December 8). Rising unemployment suggests Saudi government reforms
are failing. Retrieved from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2016/12/08/saudiunemployment/#5f5e3fb
d2022
Dudley-Evans, T. (2001). English for specific purposes. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.), The
Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp. 131–136).
Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading
comprehension. The Journal of Education, 189(1–2), 107–122.
Duschl, R. (2004). Foreword. In R. K. Yerrick & W.-M. Roth (Eds.), Establishing scientific
classroom discourse communities: Multiple voices of teaching and learning research
(pp. ix–xi). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Elkiliç, G., Han, T., & Aydin, S. (2009, June 9–10). Punctuation and capitalisation errors of
Turkish EFL students in composition classes: An evidence of L1 interference. Paper
presented at the 1st International Symposium on Sustainable Development, Sarajevo,
Bosnia and Herzegovina. Retrieved from
http://eprints.ibu.edu.ba/355/1/ISSD2009-Education-2_p279-p284.pdf
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford
University Press.
Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University
Press.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (Rev. ed.). Oxford, United
Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
181
Ellis, R. (2015). Understanding Second Language Acquisition, (2nd. ed.). Oxford, United
Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends”: Social
capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer‐
Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143–1168.
Elyas, T. (2008). The attitude and the impact of the American English as a global language
within the Saudi education system. Novitas-Royal, 2(1), 28–48.
Elyas, T., & Picard, M. (2010). Saudi Arabian educational history: Impacts on English
language teaching. Education Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern
Issues, 3(2), 136–145.
Eunson, B. (2007). Communicating in the 21st century (2nd ed.). Milton, Australia: John
Wiley & Sons.
Fang, Z., Lamme, L., & Pringle, R. (2005). Integrating reading instruction into an inquiry-
based science curriculum: Its effects on middle school students’ attitudes and
achievement in reading and science. Tallahassee, FL: Learning Systems Institute.
Fareh, S. (2010). Challenges of teaching English in the Arab world: Why can’t EFL programs
deliver as expected? Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 3600–3604.
Faruk, S. M. G. (2015). Winds of change in Saudi English textbooks: A cultural perspective.
Sino-US English Teaching, 12(7), 524–538.
Ferrara, S. L. (2005). Reading fluency and self-efficacy: A case study. International Journal
of Disability, Development and Education, 52(3), 215–231.
Firestone, W. A. (1987). Meaning in method: The rhetoric of quantitative and qualitative
research. Educational Researcher, 16(7), 16–21.
Flowerdew, J. (1990). English for Specific Purposes: A selective review of the literature. ELT
Journal, 44(4), 326–337.
182
Flowerdew, J., & Peacock, M. (2001). Issues in EAP: A preliminary perspective. In J.
Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic
purposes (pp. 8–24). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Fraser, B. J. (1974). Selecting evaluation instruments. Research in Science Education, 4(1),
99–111.
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes
and motivation. London, United Kingdom: Edward Arnold.
Gee, J. P. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. New
York, NY: Psychology Press.
Gee, J. P. (2009). Language and literacy: Reading Paulo Freire empirically. Unpublished
manuscript. University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI. Retrieved from
http://www.jamespaulgee.com/sites/default/files/pub/ReadingFreire.pdf
Gencilter, B. (2009). Effects of technology on motivation in EFL classrooms. Turkish Online
Journal of Distance Education, 10(4), 136–158.
General Authority for Statistics, KSA (n.d.). Population. Retrieved from
https://www.stats.gov.sa/en
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial
and Special Education, 7(1), 6–10.
Greene, J., & Benjamin, B. (2001). Testing reading comprehension of theoretical discourse
with cloze. Journal of Research in Reading, 24(1), 82–98.
Gunning, R. (1952). The technique of clear writing. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Gunning, R. (1969). The FOG index after twenty years. Journal of Business Communication,
6(2), 3–13.
Gunning, T. G. (2002). Assessing and correcting reading and writing difficulties. Boston,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
183
Habtoor, H. A. (2012). English for specific purpose textbook in EFL milieu: An instructor’s
perspective evaluation. International Journal of Linguistics, 4(3), 44–59
Hakuta, K., Bialystok, E., & Wiley, E. (2003). Critical evidence: A test of the critical-period
hypothesis for second-language acquisition. Psychological Science, 14(1), 31–38.
Halliday, M., & Hasan, R. (1967). Cohesion in English (Vol. 9). London, United Kingdom:
Longman.
Halliday, M., & Martin, J. R. (2003). Writing science: Literacy and dscursive power.
Abingdon, London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
Hamdan, A. (2005). Women and education in Saudi Arabia: Challenges and achievements.
International Education Journal, 6(1), 42–64.
Hamdan, A. (2014). The road to culturally relevant pedagogy: Expatriate teachers’
pedagogical practices in the cultural context of Saudi Arabian higher education. McGill
Journal of Education, 49(1), 201–226.
Hamdan, A. (Ed.) (2015). Teaching and learning in Saudi Arabia: Perspectives from higher
education. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Hand, B., Yore, L. D., Jagger, S., & Prain, V. (2010). Connecting research in science literacy
and classroom practice: A review of science teaching journals in Australia, the UK and
the United States, 1998–2008. Studies in Science Education, 46(1), 45–68.
Härnqvist, K., Christianson, U., Ridings, D., & Tingsell, J.G. (2003). Vocabulary in
interviews as related to respondent characteristics. Computers and the Humanities,
37(2), 179–204.
Harrison, W., Prator, C., & Tucker, G. (1975). English language policy survey of Jordan.
Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.
184
Hayati, M., & Gohjogh, N. (2008). Investigating the Influence of Proficiency and Gender on
the Use of Selected Test-Wiseness Strategies in Higher Education. English Language
Teaching. Canadian Centre of Science and Education. 1(2), 169–181.
Herbert, A. J. (1965). The structure of technical English. London, United Kingdom:
Longman.
Herman, P., & Wardrip, P. (2012). Reading to learn. Science Teacher, 79(1), 48–51.
Hinton, P. R., McMurray, I., & Brownlow, C. (2004). SPSS explained. London, United
Kingdom: Routledge.
Holmes, M. D. (1996). ClozeMaker. Exeter, United Kingdom: Creative Technology
(MicroDesign) Ltd.
Hunter College. (n.d.). Readability formulas. Retrieved from
http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/irb/education-training/smog-readability-formula
Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1987). English for specific purposes: A learning-centred
approach. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Jackson, J. (2005). An inter-university, cross-disciplinary analysis of business education:
Perceptions of business faculty in Hong Kong. English for Specific Purposes, 24(3),
293–306.
Javid, C. Z. (2014). Measuring language anxiety in an EFL context. Journal of Education and
Practice, 5(25), 180–193.
Javid, C. Z. (2015). English for specific purposes: Role of learners, teachers and teaching
methodologies. European Scientific Journal, 11(20), 17–34.
Javid, C. Z., Farooq, M. U., & Gulzar, M. A. (2012). Saudi English major undergraduates and
English teachers’ perceptions regarding effective ELT in the KSA: A comparative
study. European Journal of Scientific Research, 85(1), 55–70.
185
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2012). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jonz, J. (1990). Cloze item types and constraints on response. In J. W. Oller & J. Jonz (Eds.),
Cloze and coherence (pp. 317–344). Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press.
Kaldor, S., & Rochecouste, J. (2002). General academic writing and discipline specific
academic writing. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 29–47.
Kannan, R. (2009). Difficulties in learning English as a second language. ESP world, 5(26),
1–4.
KAUST News. (2018, April 3). Agreement signed for building of SaudiVax R&D vaccine
center. Retrieved from https://www.kaust.edu.sa/en/news/agreement-signed-for-
building-of-vaccine-development-center
Kehoe, J. (1999). Writing multible-choice test items. Practical Assesment Research &
Evaluation, 4(9), 1–6.
Keshavarz, M. H., & Salimi, H. (2007). Collocational competence and cloze test
performance: A study of Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 17(2), 81–92.
Kess, J. F. (1993). Psycholinguistics: Psychology, linguistics and the study of natural
language. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Khan, I. A. (2011). Learning difficulties in English: Diagnosis and pedagogy in Saudi Arabia.
Educational Research, 2(7), 1248–1257.
Khresheh, A. (2012). Exploring when and why to use Arabic in the Saudi Arabian EFL
classroom: Viewing L1 use as eclectic technique. English Language Teaching, 5(6),
78–88.
Kim, D. (2008). English for occupational purposes: One language? London, United
Kingdom: Bloomsbury Publishing.
186
Kobayashi, M. (2002a). Cloze tests revisited: Exploring item characteristics with special
attention to scoring methods. The Modern Language Journal, 86(4), 571–585.
Kobayashi, M. (2002b). Method effects on reading comprehension test performance: Text
organization and response format. Language Testing, 19(2), 193–220.
Kobayashi, M. (2004). Investigation of test method effects: Text organisation and response
format. A response to Chen, 2004. Language Testing, 21(2), 235–244.
Kolb, L. (2008). Toys to tools: Connecting student cell phones to education. Washington,
DC: International Society for Technology in Education.
Koosha, B., Ketabi, S., & Kassaian, Z. (2011). The effects of self-esteem, age and gender on
the speaking skills of intermediate university EFL learners. Theory and Practice in
Language Studies, 1(10), 1328–1337.
Krashen, S., Long, M. A., & Scarcella, R. C. (1979). Age, rate and eventual attainment in
second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 13(4), 573–582.
Kreidler, C. W. (1966). English Prepositions. ELT, 20(2).
Krieger, Z. (2007). Saudi Arabia puts its billions behind Western-style higher education.
Chronicle of Higher Education,54(3), 1–6.
KSU. (2018). Saudi public universities. Retrieved from http://ksu.edu.sa/ar/e-services
Kuhl, P. K. (2004). Early language acquisition: Cracking the speech code. Nature Reviews
Neuroscience, 5, 831–843.
Kumazawa, T. (2016). Factors affecting multiple-choice cloze test score variance: A
perspective from generalizability theory. International Journal of Language Studies,
10(1), 15–30.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
187
Lee, O., & Luykx, A. (2003). Ecology education when no child is left behind. Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment, 1(3), 384–385.
Lee, O., & Luykx, A. (2007). Science education and student diversity: Race/ethnicity,
language, culture, and socioeconomic status. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.),
Handbook of research on science education (pp. 171–197). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Lemke, J. L. (1998). Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J.
R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science (pp. 87–113). London, United Kingdom:
Routledge.
Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological foundations of language. Behavioral Science, 2(12), 59–67.
Lervåg, A., & Aukrust, V. G. (2010). Vocabulary knowledge is a critical determinant of the
difference in reading comprehension growth between first and second language
learners. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51(5), 612–620.
Liton, H. A. (2013). EFL teachers’ perceptions, evaluations and expectations about English
language courses as EFL in Saudi Universities. International Journal of Instruction,
6(2), 19–34.
Mackay, R. (1978). Identifying the nature of the learner’s needs. In R. M. Mackay, J (Ed.),
English for Specific Purposes (pp. 21–37). London, United Kingdom: Longman.
Maginnis, G. H. (1982). Easier, faster, more reliable readability ratings. Journal of Reading,
25(6), 598–599.
Mahboob, A., & Elyas, T. (2014). English in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. World Englishes,
33(1), 128–142.
Makhdoom, A. (2012). An investigation into the problems involved in the implementation of
the suggested strategic planning model for schools in Saudi Arabia. (Doctoral
188
dissertation). Goldsmiths University of London, London, United Kingdom. Retrieved
from http://research.gold.ac.uk/6517/1/EDU_thesis_Makhdoom_2010.pdf
Malecki, E., & Ewers, M. (2007). Labor migration to world cities: With a research agenda for
the Arab Gulf. Progress in Human Geography, 31(4), 467–484.
Marshall, S. P., Scheppler, J. A., & Palmisano, M. J. (2003). Science literacy for the twenty-
first century. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Martin, J. R. (1993). Technicality and abstraction: Language for the creation of specialized
texts. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and
discursive power (pp. 203-220). London, United Kingdom: The Falmer Press.
Martin, J. R. (2013). Embedded literacy: Knowledge as meaning. Linguistics and education,
24(1), 23–37.
Master, P. (2005). Research in English for specific purposes. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of
research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 99-116). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mayer, V. (Ed.). (2002). Global science literacy. Dordrecht, South Holland: Kluwer.
Mayo, M., & Lecumberri, M. (2003). Age and the acquisition of English as a foreign
language (Vol. 4). Dublin, Ireland: Multilingual Matters.
Miller, M. J., DeWitt, J. E., McCleeary, E. M., & O'Keefe, K. J. (2009). Application of the
cloze procedure to evaluate comprehension and demonstrate rewriting of pharmacy
educational materials. Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 43(4), 650–657.
Ministry of Education, KSA. (2013). General goals of teaching English in Saudi Arabia.
Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/tamma07/general-goals-for-teaching-english-
in-saudi-arabia-pdf
Ministry of Education, KSA. (2017). Government universities. Retrieved from
https://www.mohe.gov.sa/en/studyinside/Government-Universities/Pages/default.aspx
189
Ministry of Education, KSA. (2018). Ministry of Education: Establishment. Retrieved from
https://www.moe.gov.sa/en/TheMinistry/Education/Pages/EstablishmentoftheMinistryo
fEducation.aspx
Ministry of Higher Education. (n.d.). Statistical summary. Retrieved from
http://info.moe.gov.sa/stat/indexE.htm
Ministry of Interior, KSA. (2016). Regions Emirates. Retrieved from
https://www.moi.gov.sa/wps/portal/Home/emirates/!ut/p/z1/jY_LCsIwFES_pV9wb16t
WV4rJKEBqRJas5GsSkWriPj9avetmd3AOQMDEXqIU3qPQ3qN9yldv_0UyzM6KS2
TvDG02yKRaHWjHEMvoZsB3Zra2h_AqERyFd-
jU8w4DjHHrw1ZWXnEjTcKHdlw0K0QSCLPx4UQZvrLQFyf7yDOyNqDfxvH9ITH
LYTQ40VSUXwAUUWsrA!!/dz/d5/L0lHSkovd0RNQUZrQUVnQSEhLzROVkUvZ
W4!/
Mohan, B., & Slater, T. (2005). A functional perspective on the critical ‘theory/practice’
relation in teaching language and science. Linguistics and education, 16(2), 151–172.
Moores-Abdool, W., Yahya, N., & Unzueta, C. H. (2011). Learning preferences of Saudi
university students with native English-speaking teachers. TESOL Arabia Perspectives,
18(3),18–24.
Moskovsky, C., & Picard, M. (Eds.). (2018). English as a Foreign Language in Saudi
Arabia: New Insights into Teaching and Learning English. London, United Kingdom:
Routledge.
Moskovsky, C., Alrabai, F., Paolini, S., & Ratcheva, S. (2013). The effects of teachers’
motivational strategies on learners’ motivation: A controlled investigation of second
language acquisition. Language Learning, 63(1), 34–62.
Mourtaga, K. (2006). Some reading problems of Arab EFL students. Journal of Al-Aqsa
University, 10(2), 75–91.
190
Mpepo, M. V. (1998). The distinction between EFL and ESL and the EFL bias in language
teaching. Southern African Journal of Applied Language Studies, 6(2), 82–90.
Muijs, D. (2010). Doing quantitative research in education with SPSS. London, United
Kingdom: Sage.
Munby, J. (1981). Communicative syllabus design: A sociolinguistic model for designing the
content of purpose-specific language programmes. Cambridge, United Kingdom:
Cambridge University Press.
Murray, D. E., & Christison, M. (2011). What english language teachers need to know. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Musa, F. (2010, October 20). Teaching writing to post-secondary students: Procedure and
technicalities in an EFL classroom. Paper presented at the First National Conference on
English Language Teaching, Palestine.
Nather, E. (2014). An integrated program to promote the confidence of Saudi public school
students in speaking English (Doctoral dissertation). University of Canberra, Canberra,
Australia. Retrieved fromhttp://www.canberra.edu.au/researchrepository/file/247858f1-
2c64-4b7f-a51f-b3c40cd208f6/1/full_text.pdf
Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to
scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240.
Nouraldeen, A., & Elyas, T. (2014). Learning English in Saudi Arabia: A sociocultural
perspective. International Journal of English Language and Linguistics Research, 2(3),
56–78.
NTP 2020. (2017). National transformation program. Retrieved from
http://vision2030.gov.sa/en/ntp
O’Toole, J. M. (1996). Science, schools, children and books: Exploring the classroom
interface between science and language. Studies in Science Education, 28, 113–143.
191
O’Toole, J. M. (1998). Climbing the fence around science ideas. Australian Science Teachers
Journal, 44(4), 51–56.
O’Toole, J.M. (2004). What is difficult to read, why might this be so, and what could, or
should, be done about it? An overview of section two. In A. Peacock & A. Cleghorn
(Eds.), Missing the meaning: The development and use of print and non-print learning
materials in diverse school settings (pp. 161–178). New York, NY: Palgrave
Macmillan.
O’Toole, J. M., & King, R. A. R. (2010). Reading by the numbers: Reconsidering numerical
estimates of reading difficulty. International Journal of Learning, 17(10), 181–194.
O’Toole, J. M., & King, R. A. R. (2011). The deceptive mean: Conceptual scoring of cloze
entries differentially advantages more able readers. Language Testing, 28(1), 127–144.
O’Toole, J. M., & O’Toole, G. (2004). Specialist language style and supposedly adept
monolingual science students. International Journal of Learning, 9, 1201–1214.
O’Toole, J. M., & Schefter, M. (2008). Patterns of student difficulty with science text in
undergraduate Biology courses. The International Journal of Learning, 15(1), 133–148.
O’Toole, J. M., & Tiny Rock Pty Ltd (2016). Thinkliteracy. Retrieved from
https://app.thinkliteracy.com/
O’Toole, J. M., Cheng, J., & O’Toole, G. (2015). An enduring lens for a continuing problem:
Close analysis of conceptually scored cloze items. Language Testing in Asia, 5(7), 1–
14.
O’Toole, J. M., Freestone, M., McKoy, K. S., & Duckworth, B. (2018). Types, Topics and
Trends: A Ten-Year Review of Research Journals in Science Education. Education
Sciences, 8(73),doi:10.3390/educsci8020073
Oller, J. W., & Jonz, J. (1994). Cloze and coherence. London, United Kingdom: Bucknell
University Press.
192
OPEC. (2016). Saudi Arabia facts and figures. Retrieved from
http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/about_us/169.htm
Orr, T. (2001). English language education for specific professional needs. IEEE
Transactions on Professional Communication, 44(3), 207–211.
Ortega, L. (2014). Understanding second language acquisition. New York, NY: Routledge.
Oxford, R., & Shearin, J. (1994). Language learning motivation: Expanding the theoretical
framework. The Modern Language Journal, 78(1), 12–28.
Pae, T. (2008). Second language orientation and self-determination theory: A structural
analysis of the factors affecting second language achievement. Journal of Language
and Social Psychology, 27(1), 5–27.
Pan, Y. C., & Newfields, T. (2012). Tertiary EFL Proficiency Graduation Requirements in
Taiwan: A Study of Washback on Learning. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language
Teaching, 9(1), 108–122.
Phillips, L., & Norris, S. (2009). Bridging the gap between the language of science and the
language of school science through the use of adapted primary literature. Research in
Science Education, 39(3), 313–319.
Platt, J., Platt, H., & Richards, J. (1992). Dictionary of language teaching and applied
linguistics. London, United Kingdom: Longman.
Qashoa, S. (2006). Motivation among learners of English in the secondary schools in the
Eastern Coast of the UAE. (Master’s thesis), The British University in Dubai, Dubai,
UAE. Retrieved from http://bspace.buid.ac.ae/handle/1234/217
Rababah, G. (2002). Communication problems facing Arab learners of English. Journal of
Language and Learning, 3(1), 180–197.
Rahman, M. M. (2012). An evaluation of English writing text at the preparatory year, Najran
University, Saudi Arabia. Academic Research International, 2(2), 706–715.
193
Rahman, M. M., & Al-Haisoni, E. (2013). Teaching English in Saudi Arabia: Prospects and
challenges. Academic Research International, 4(1), 112–118.
Readability Formulas (n.d.). Readability formulas. Reading Assessment and Reading Grade
Levels. Retrieved from http://www.readabilityformulas.com/
Richards, J. (1998). Beyond training. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching.
Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Riley, L. D., & Harsch, K. (1999). Enhancing the learning experience with strategy journals:
Supporting the diverse learning styles of ESL/EFL students. Proceedings of the
HERDSA Annual International Conference (pp.1-18), Melbourne, Australia, 12–15
July. Retrieved from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=C985E2F25E0E1AB6CB67B
A0D8761757F?doi=10.1.1.594.8987&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Riley, P. (1978). The cloze procedure: Testing and teaching comprehension. Sydney,
Australia: ATESOL.
Roberts, D. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman
(Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (pp. 729–780). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Robinson, C. (1981). Cloze procedure: A review. Educational Research, 23(2), 128–133.
Robinson, P. (1980). ESP (English for specific purposes): The present position. Oxford,
United Kingdom: Pergamon Press.
Romero, B. N. (2014). Improving speaking skills. Encuentro, 18, 86–90. Retrieved from
https://www.encuentrojournal.org/textos/Navarro.pdf
Roth, W., & Lawless, D. (2002). Science, culture, and the emergence of language. Science
Eucation, 86(3), 368–385.
194
Rugh, W. A. (2002). Education in Saudi Arabia: Choices and constraints. Middle East Policy,
9(2), 40–55.
Saadi, I. A. (2012). An examination of the learning styles of Saudi preparatory school
students who are high or low in reading achievement (Doctoral dissertation).
University of Victoria, Australia. Retrieved from http://vuir.vu.edu.au/id/eprint/19421
Sadeghi, K. (2014). Phrase cloze: A better measure of reading. The Reading Matrix, 14(1),
76–94.
Saigh, K., & Schmitt, N. (2012). Difficulties with vocabulary word form: The case of Arabic
ESL learners. System, 40(1), 24–36.
Saito, H., & Ebsworth, M. E. (2004). Seeing English language teaching and learning through
the eyes of Japanese EFL and ESL students. Foreign Language Annals, 37(1), 111–
124.
Salaberry, M. R. (2001). The use of technology for second language learning and teaching: A
retrospective. The Modern Language Journal, 85(1), 39–56.
Sasaki, M. (2000). Effects of cultural schemata on students’ test-taking processes for cloze
tests: A multiple data source approach. Language Testing, 17(1), 85–114.
Saudi Gazette (2017, July 5). Housing policies blamed for real estate sector stagnation. Saudi
Gazette. Retrieved from http://saudigazette.com.sa/article/512236/SAUDI-
ARABIA/Makkah
Saudi Gazette (2018, March, 26). Six key pacts signed during Muhammad’s Boston visit.
Saudi Gazette. Retrieved from
http://saudigazette.com.sa/article/531211/World/America/6-key-pacts-signed-during-
Muhammads-Boston-visit
Saudi Press Agency. (2018, April 11). HRH the Crown Prince and French President hold
joint press conference. Saudi Press Agency. Retrieved from
195
http://www.spa.gov.sa/viewfullstory.php?lang=en&newsid=1750719&lang=en
Saudi Vision 2030. (n.d.). Saudi Vision 2030.Retrieved from
http://vision2030.gov.sa/en/media-center
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schmitt, M. C., & Sha, S. (2009). The developmental nature of meta-cognition and the
relationship between knowledge and control over time. Journal of Research in Reading,
32(2), 254–271.
Scholl, N., & Hornberger, N. (2008). Encyclopedia of language and education. New York,
NY: Springer.
Sessa, S. (2005). Strategies designed to promote active learning and student satisfaction.
Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 2(4), 17–26.
Shafea, S. (2017). Mobile microblogging as a tool to promote learners’ engagement with L2
targeted vocabulary study (Doctoral dissertation). University of Southampton,
Southampton, United Kingdom. Retrieved from https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/414601/
Sharp, A. (2009). Reading comprehension in two cultures. International Journal of Learning,
16(6), 281–292.
Siddiqui, M. A. (1998). Academic libraries in Saudi Arabia: A survey report. The Reference
Librarian, 28(60), 159–177.
Smith, E. A., & Senter, R. (1967). Automated readability index[Technical report]. Retrieved
from http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/667273.pdf
Smith, F. (1988). Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis of reading and
learning to read (4th ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Smoak, R. (2003). What is English for specific purposes? English Teaching Forum, 41(2),
22–27.
196
Somers, H., & Wild, E. (2000, November). Evaluating machine translation: The cloze
procedure revisited. Paper presented at the the Twenty-second International Conference
on Translating and the Computer, London, United Kingdom.
Spolsky, B. (2000). Language testing in the modern language journal. The Modern Language
Journal, 84(4), 536–552.
Stansfield, C. W. (2008). Where we have been and where we should go. Language Testing,
25(3), 311–326.
Stevens, K. T., Stevens, K. C., & Stevens, W. P. (1992). Measuring the readability of
business writing: The cloze procedure versus readability formulas. Journal of Business
Communication, 29(4), 367–382.
St-Germain, W. (2000). Literacy in science: Book 2. Glebe, Australia: Emerald City Books.
Strevens, P. (1977). Special purpose language learning: A perspective. Language Teaching,
10(3), 145–163.
Stoneman, B. W. H. (2006). The impact of an exit English test on Hong Kong
undergraduates: A study investigation the effects of test status on students’ test
preparation behaviours (Doctoral dissertation). Hong Kong Polytechnic University,
Hong Kong, China. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10397/2720
Strong, M. (1988). A bilingual approach to the education of young deaf children: ASL and
English. In S. Michaels (Ed.), Language learning and deafness (pp. 113–129).
Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge Unversity Press.
Suleiman, S. (1983). Teaching English to Arab students at the university level. In E. Dahiyat,
and M. Ibrahim (Eds.), Papers from the First Conference on the Problems of Teaching
English Language and Literature at Arab Universities. Amman-Jordan: University of
Jordan.
197
Suleiman, S. (1983). Teaching English to Arab students at the university level. Paper
presented at the The first Conference on the Problems of Teaching English Language
and Literature at Arab Universities, Amman, Jordan.
Suryati, N. (2013). Developing an effective classroom interaction framework to promote
lower secondary school students’ English communicative competence in Malang, East
Java, Indonesia (Doctoral dissertation). The University of Newcastle, Newcastle,
Australia. Retrieved from http://novaprd-
lb.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/uon:13587
Sywelem, M., Al-Harbi, Q., Fathema, N., & Witte, J. E. (2012). Learning style preferences of
student teachers: a cross-cultural perspective. Institute for Learning Styles Journal, 1,
10–24. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED533031
Szyjka, S. (2012). Understanding research paradigms: Trends in science education research.
Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 43, 110–118.
Tahaineh, Y. (2014). A review of EFL Arab learners’ language: Pitfalls and pedagogical
implications. International Journal of English Linguistics, 4(1), 84–102.
Tarone, E., Dwyer, S., Gillette, S., & Icke, V. (1998). On the use of the passive and active
voice in astrophysics journal papers: With extensions to other languages and other
fields. English for Specific Purposes, 17(1), 113–132.
Tatweer, & Ministry of Education, KSA. (2013). The General goals of teaching English in
Saudi Arabia. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/tamma07/general-goals-for-
teaching-english-in-saudi-arabia-pdf
Taylor, W. L. (1953). Cloze procedure: A new tool for measuring readability. Journalism
Quarterly, 30(4), 415–433.
Taylor, W. L. (1956). Recent developments in the use of “cloze procedure”. Journalism
Quarterly, 33(1), 49–99.
198
Tenopir, C., & King, D. W. (2004). Communication patterns of engineers. Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley.
TheRoth Council. (2016). Shura in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: A historical background.
Retrieved from
https://www.shura.gov.sa/wps/wcm/connect/ShuraEn/internet/Historical+BG/
The Statistics Portal. (n.d.) The most spoken languages worldwide (speakers and native
speaker in millions). Retrieved from http://www.statista.com/statistics/266808/the-
most-spoken-languages-worldwide/
Todd, R. W. (2003). EAP or TEAP? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(2), 147–
156.
Trimble, L. (1985). English for science and technology: A discourse approach. Cambridge,
United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
TVTC. (2017). Foundation and development of the TVTC. Retrieved from
http://www.tvtc.gov.sa/English/AboutUs/Pages/default.aspx
Unruh, S., & Obeidat, F. (2015). Learning English: Experiences and needs of Saudi
engineering students. College Quarterly, 18(4), 1–15.
Van Way, C. W., III. (2007). On scientific writing. Nutrition in Clinical Practice, 22(6), 636–
640.
Veletsianos, G., & Navarrete, C. (2012). Online social networks as formal learning
environments: Learner experiences and activities. The International Review of Research
in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(1), 144–166.
Von Wörde, R. (2003). Student perspectives on foreign language anxiety. Inquiry, 8(1), 1–15.
Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ876838.pdf
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
199
Wahba, E. H. (1998). Teaching pronunciation: Why? Forum 36(3), 32. Retrieved from
http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/usia/E-USIA/forum/vols/vol36/no3/p32.htm
Wald, E. R. (2018, March 18). Counting down 7 big meetings lkely on Saudi Crown Prince’s
U.S. agenda. Retrieved from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenrwald/2018/03/18/counting-down-7-big-meetings-
likely-on-saudi-crown-princes-us-agenda/#4b4d9705475b
Wang, F. (2008). Motivation and English achievement: An exploratory and confirmatory
factor analysis of a new measure for Chinese students of English learning. North
American Journal of Psychology, 10(3), 633-646.
Wang, H. (2012). A study of Taiwanese EFL learners’ syntactic transfer in verb transitivity.
Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(10), 1993–2001.
Wang, L.-W., Miller, M. J., Schmitt, M. R., & Wen, F. K. (2013). Assessing readability
formula differences with written health information materials: Application, results, and
recommendations. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 9(5), 503–516.
Watanabe, Y. (1996). Does grammar translation come from the entrance examination?
Preliminary findings from classroom-based research. Language Testing, 13(3), 318–
333.
Watanabe, Y., & Koyama, D. (2008). A meta-analysis of second language cloze testing
research. Second Language Studies, 26(2), 103–133.
Webster’s Dictionary. (2018). Word. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-
webster.com/word
Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education.
Buckingham, United Kingdom: Open University Press.
Westwood, P. S. (2008). What teachers need to know about reading and writing difficulties.
Camberwell, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.
200
Wignel, P. (2005). Technicality and abstraction in social science. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel
(Eds.), Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science
(pp. 299–328). New York, NY: Routledge.
Yones, F. (2001). Strategies of teaching Arabic language at high schools. Cairo, Egypt:
Alkitab Alhadith Printing.
Yore, L. D., & Treagust, D. F. (2006). Current realities and future possibilities: Language and
science literacy-empowering research and informing instruction. International Journal
of Science Education, 28(2–3), 291–314.
Younes, Z. B. (2016). The effectiveness of using ESP courses for pyp Saudi female learners
of English. Asian Journal of Educational Research, 4(4), 9–27.
Yovanoff, P., Duesbery, L., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2005). Grade-level invariance of a
theoretical causal structure predicting reading comprehension with vocabulary and oral
reading fluency. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 24(3), 4–12.
Zakaria, S. (2016, December 6). Arabs read 35 hours a year, shows study. Khaleej Times.
Retrieved from http://www.khaleejtimes.com/nation/general/arabs-read-35-hours-a-
year-reveals-study
Zangmo, S., Laugesen, R., O’Toole, J. M. & Gyeltshen, K. (2018).Cloze as a measure of
specialist language difficulties: Write-in or multiple choice?Bhutan Journal of
Research and Development, 7(12), 26–31.
Zhang, F., & Zhan, J. (2014). The knowledge base of non-native English-speaking teachers:
Perspectives of teachers and administrators. Language and Education, 28(6), 568–582.
201
Appendices
Appendix 1
1.1 Cloze test passage
Assembling a Car
First, the parts are delivered by truck or rail to the delivery area of the car assembly plant.
From here, some parts (1) are taken to the body (2) shop, and other parts are (3) transported
to the chassis line. (4) The parts are carried around (5) the plant by forklift trucks (6) or
conveyor belts.
In the (7) body shop, the panels are (8) welded to the frame to (9) form the body of the
(10) car. This is done by (11) more than 400 robots.
Then (12) the body is taken to (13) thepaint shop. Here (14) it is cleaned and painted by
(15) robots. Special clothing is worn (16) by the robots to protect the paint. (17) After this,
the (18) body is checked by human (19) workers to look for faults.
(20) Next, the painted body moves (21) along a conveyor belt to (22) thetrim line and
many (23) parts are added to (24) it. Forexample, the instrument (25) panel, the air
conditioning system, the (26) heating system and the electrical (27) wiring are all installed
here. (28) The windscreen is inserted by (29) robots using laser guides.
Meanwhile, (30) in the chassisline, components (31) are added to the chassis. (32) First,
the chassis is turned (33) upside down, to make the (34) work easier. Then the fuel (35)
system, the transmission, the suspension, (36) the exhaust system, the axles (37) and the
drive shaft are (38) all installed. Next the chassis (39) is turned over (rightside up). (40) The
engine is lowered (41) into the chassis and connected to (42) it.
Now the chassis and (43) the body move simultaneously (44) to the final assembly line.
(45) Here the body is attached (46) to the chassis, and all the (47) final parts are added. The
tyres (48) and the radiator are (49) added here. The hoses are (50) connected, and the radiator
and air conditioner are filled with fluid. The car’s central computer is also installed here.
Lastly, the finished car and all electrical systems are tested. The car is filled with fuel and
the engine is started for the first time. The car is put on special rollers to test the engine and
the wheels. If it passes the test, the car is finally driven out of the assembly plant.
202
1.2 Actual passage
Source: Bonamy, D. (2013). Technical English 2. Harlow, United Kingdom: Pearson Education.
203
204
1.3 Classification of words to be deleted and distractors
No Exact deletion
Item Category
dictionary functional
Distractors
1 are aux passive can have may must Grammar
2 shop noun semi line place store truck Lexical
3 transported verb passive bought inserted sold translated Lexical
4 The article gram them there these they Grammar
5 the article gram another its same some Lexical
6 or conjunction cohesive oar of ore our Grammar
7 body noun cohesive brake buggy door wheel Lexical
8 welded verb passive welds weld welder welding Grammar
9 form verb active formed former forming forms Grammar
10 car noun general card carrier cars cart Lexical
11 more adjective qualifier many few most some Grammar
12 the article gram all any their there Lexical
13 the article gram his its my that Grammar
14 it pronoun cohesive one only then when Lexical
15 robots noun technical rabbits rebars ribbons rubbers Lexical
16 by preposition cohesive bay boy buy bye Grammar
17 After preposition cohesive along from since while Lexical
18 body noun cohesive baddy bodies body’s buddy Grammar
19 workers noun general work worked worker working Grammar
20 next adverb cohesive after before when while Lexical
21 along preposition cohesive belong from to toward Grammar
22 the article gram all any many much Lexical
23 parts noun semi part piece place puts Grammar
24 For preposition cohesive as by on to Grammar
205
25 panel noun semi door hole wall work Lexical
26 heating adjective qualifier heated heats warm warmed Grammar
27 wiring noun technical wire wired wives wire’s Grammar
28 The article gram them then there they Grammar
29 robots noun technical doors mirrors windows wipers Lexical
30 in preposition cohesive after before for of Grammar
31 are aux passive been is was were Grammar
32 First adverb cohesive fast firs fist frost Lexical
33 upside noun general beside inside sides upsides Grammar
34 work noun general body paint robot wire Lexical
35 system noun semi sister systems stem stems Grammar
36 the article gram by from of to Lexical
37 and conjunction cohesive against because except or Lexical
38 all adverb qualifier every more most some Lexical
39 is aux passive does done had has Grammar
40 The article gram a all there whole Lexical
41 into preposition cohesive for in of up Grammar
42 it pronoun cohesive he him them they Grammar
43 the article gram it no some to Lexical
44 to preposition cohesive toe too tow two Grammar
45 Here adverb cohesive how when where which Lexical
46 to preposition cohesive by for in of Grammar
47 final adjective cohesive find fine fined finer Lexical
48 and conjunction cohesive an any are hand Lexical
49 added verb Passive bought broken gone lost Lexical
50 connected verb Passive concerned confined confused contained Lexical
206
1.4 Deleted item category
1.5 Deleted item category
1.6 Deleted item category
1.7 Deleted item category
Noun 13
Technical Semi - Technical General Cohesive
3 4 4 2
Verb 5 Auxiliary 3 Article 9
Passive Active Passive Grammatical
4 1 3 9
Conjunction 3 Adjective 3 Pronoun 2
Cohesive Grammatical Cohesive Qualifier Cohesive
2 1 1 2 2
Preposition 8 Adverb 4
Cohesive Cohesive Qualifier
8 3 1
207
Appendix 2: Readability assessment
2.1 Actual texts
208
Appendix 3: Approvals
3.1 Jeddah college consent form
209
3.2 Human research ETHICS approval
210
Appendix 4: Thinkliteracy package
4.1 Thinkliteracy print screen results
4.2 Consent form
211
4.3 The cloze passage
4.4 The questionnaires
212
213
214
215
216
Appendix 5: Students’ survey
5.1 Demographic information
Please answer all of the following questions by choosing the appropriate
Jeddah Abha Riyadh Onaizah Almithnib Jazan 1. City:
No Yes 2. Have you studied this passage before? 3. Department:
Engines & Vehicles Electrical & Power Production
Refrigeration & Air - Conditioning Civil & Architecture
Saudi Non-Saudi 4. Nationality:
No Yes 5. Have you ever studied abroad?
6. Father’s highest level of education:
Informal education Less than secondary school Secondary school Diploma Bachelor Post graduate
7. Mother’s highest level of education:
Informal education Less than secondary school Secondary school Diploma Bachelor Post graduate
No Yes 8. Do like your major?
20-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 40+ 9. Your age
Diploma Bachelor 10. Your level of program
217
5.2 Students’ Likert survey
No Item Strongly disagree
Disagree Little disagree
Little agree
Agree Strongly agree
11 I like learning English.
12 Learning English will help me in my major.
13 Learning English will help me to find a job easily after graduation.
14 English is a very important to learn.
15 I understand my English teacher when he explains the lesson.
16 Class hours are suitable for the students.
17 My English teacher only speaks English in my class.
18 I usually use English outside classes.
19 I understand what I read.
20 I read English easily.
218
5.3 Students’ responses
Table 5.3.1
Questions 1 – 20
Q 1 Overall student score: City
City Mean Std.
Deviation Number Valid percent Sig.
Jeddah 40.17 18.62 161 57.50% .000
Jazan 25.00 11.00 8 2.85%
Riyadh 28.94 17.97 34 12.14%
Onaizah 29.33 7.560 33 11.78%
Almithnib 30.22 13.28 9 3.21%
Abha 32.62 14.61 35 12.50%
Total 35.83 17.466 280 100%
Q 2 Overall student score: Prior knowledge
Prior Knowledge Mean
Std. Deviation
Number Valid percent Sig.
Yes 32.40 14.79 109 38.92% .008
No 38.02 18.68 171 61.08%
Total 35.83 17.46 100% 280
219
Q 3 Overall student score: Department
Department Mean Std.
Deviation Number Valid
percent Sig.
Engines & Vehicles 30.03 13.578 56 20.00% .035
Electrical& Power 39.46 19.89 94 33.57%
Refrigeration & Air-conditioning
35.61 16.47 21 7.50%
Civil & Architecture 35.62 17.54 81 28.92%
Production 36.00 13.58 28 10.00%
Total 35.83 17.46 280
Q 4 Overall student score: Nationality
Nationality Mean Std. Deviation Number Valid percent Sig.
Saudi 35.55 17.13 263 93.92% .298
Not Saudi 40.11 22.15 17 6.08%
Total 35.83 17.46 280
Q 5 Overall student score: Studied abroad
Studied Abroad Mean Std. Deviation Number Valid percent Sig
Yes 35.50 17.69 61 21.78% .869
No 35.92 17.44 219 78.22%
Total 35.83 17.46 280
220
Q 6 Overall student score: Father’s education
Fathers Education Mean Std.
Deviation Number Valid Percent
Sig.
Informal education 31.73 13.80 38 13.6 .215
Less than secondary school
33.89 18.31 55 19.6
Secondary School 38.32 19.52 75 26.8
Diploma 37.35 18.02 34 12.1
Bachelor 37.80 16.57 61 21.8
Postgraduate 30.23 12.18 17 6.1
Total 35.83 17.46 280 100.0
Q 7 Overall student score: Mother’s education
Mothers Education Mean Std.
Deviation Number Valid Percent
Sig.
Informal education 34.50 16.21 52 18.6 .322
Less than secondary school
33.97 16.56 78 27.9
Secondary School 36.42 19.19 70 25.0
Diploma 35.50 17.31 24 8.6
Bachelor 41.16 18.87 43 15.4
Postgraduate 32.15 11.14 13 4.6
Total 35.83 17.46 280 100.0
221
Q 8 Overall student score: Like major
Like Major Mean Std. Deviation Number Percent Sig.
Yes 35.9302 17.51695 258 92.14% .757
No 34.7273 17.22175 22 7.86%
Total 35.8357 17.46645 280 100%
Q 9 Overall student score: Student age
Student age Mean Std. Deviation Number Percent Sig.
20-25 34.57 16.38 243 86.78%
26-30
31-35
36-40
40+
45.45
50.66
33.66
42.00
21.61
25.85
16.60
29.59
22
6
6
3
7.85%
2.14%
2.14%
1.07%
.012
Total 35.83 17.46 280 100%
Q 10 Overall student score: Level of program
Level of Program Mean Std. Deviation Number Valid % Sig.
Diploma 32.83 15.90 224 80%
Bachelor 47.85 18.40 56 20% .012
Total 35.83 17.46 280 100%
222
Q 11 Overall student score: I like learning English
Mean Std.
Deviation Number Valid percent Sig.
Strongly disagree 24.93 7.36 15 5.4 .001
Disagree 30.66 6.53 6 2.1
Little disagree 23.42 6.44 14 5.0
Little agree 30.26 15.56 30 10.7
Agree 37.21 17.44 76 27.1
Strongly agree 38.93 18.50 139 49.6
Total 35.8357 17.46 280 100.0
Q 12 Overall student score: English help major
Mean Std.
Deviation Number Valid Percent
Sig.
Strongly disagree 29.06 6.36 15 5.4 .009
Disagree 37.66 29.75 6 2.1
Little disagree 24.66 9.99 12 4.3
Little agree 29.77 14.82 18 6.4
Agree 34.14 16.21 83 29.6
Strongly agree 39.08 18.39 146 52.1
Total 35.8357 17.46 280 100.0
223
Q 13 Overall student score: English help find job
Mean Std.
Deviation Number Valid Percent
Sig.
Strongly disagree 28.15 10.180 13 4.6 .014
Disagree 24.00 8.00 3 1.1
Little disagree 20.00 6.23 8 2.9
Little agree 41.33 23.43 18 6.4
Agree 34.29 16.42 68 24.3
Strongly agree 37.41 17.49 170 60.7
Total 35.8357 17.46645 280 100.0
Q 14 Overall student score: English is important
Mean Std.
Deviation Number Valid Percent
Sig.
Strongly disagree 28.87 9.74 16 5.7 .000
Disagree 25.00 3.74 6 2.1
Little disagree 25.36 14.26 19 6.8
Little agree 30.19 11.50 21 7.5
Agree 34.80 17.07 77 27.5
Strongly agree 39.90 18.61 141 50.4
Total 35.83 17.46 280 100.0
224
Q 15 Overall student score: Understand English teacher
Mean Std.
Deviation Number Valid
Percent
Sig.
Strongly disagree 28.31 7.21 19 6.8 .041
Disagree 31.06 14.67 15 5.4
Little disagree 29.71 15.18 14 5.0
Little agree 34.72 16.86 61 21.8
Agree 36.26 17.11 99 35.4
Strongly agree 40.36 20.16 72 25.7
Total 35.83 17.46 280 100.0
Q 16 Overall student score: Class hours suitable
Mean Std. Deviation Number Valid Percent
Sig.
Strongly disagree 33.78 14.04 19 6.8 .268
Disagree 35.57 19.42 14 5.0
Little disagree 30.87 16.10 32 11.4
Little agree 37.68 18.69 38 13.6
Agree 38.47 18.04 102 36.4
Strongly agree 34.00 16.78 75 26.8
Total 35.8357 17.46 280 100.0
225
Q 17 Overall student score: Teacher only speaks English
Mean Std.
Deviation Number Valid Percent
Sig.
Strongly disagree 31.35 16.16 28 10.0 .043
Disagree 31.29 14.31 17 6.1
Little disagree 28.48 12.03 25 8.9
Little agree 36.86 17.03 58 20.7
Agree 39.33 19.84 93 33.2
Strongly agree 35.86 16.11 59 21.1
Total 35.83 17.46 280 100.0
Q 18 Overall student score: Use English outside class
Mean Std. Deviation Number Valid Percent
Sig.
Strongly disagree 28.96 14.76 31 11.1 .169
Disagree 33.90 15.66 22 7.9
Little disagree 35.72 16.61 43 15.4
Little agree 36.21 18.60 75 26.8
Agree 36.55 17.02 65 23.2
Strongly agree 40.04 18.85 44 15.7
Total 35.83 17.46 280 100.0
226
Q 19 Overall student score: I understand what I read
Mean Std.
Deviation Number Valid Percent
Sig.
Strongly disagree 29.13 8.19 23 8.2 .000
Disagree 28.90 10.06 22 7.9
Little disagree 27.72 11.34 43 15.4
Little agree 37.07 17.40 80 28.6
Agree 39.22 20.71 67 23.9
Strongly agree 43.15 18.84 45 16.1
Total 35.83 17.46 280 100.0
Q 20 Overall student score: I read English easily
Mean Std. Deviation Number Valid Percent
Sig.
Strongly disagree 28.64 9.34 25 8.9 .000
Disagree 32.56 13.81 25 8.9
Little disagree 31.02 12.78 39 13.9
Little agree 31.65 15.64 82 29.3
Agree 44.48 20.97 74 26.4
Strongly agree 40.17 17.32 35 12.5
Total 35.83 17.466 280 100.0
227
Table 5.3.2
Students’ demographic survey
Reliability = .694
No Variable Answers Mean Std. Students Percent %
Sig
1
City
Jeddah Abha Riyadh Onaizah Almithnib Jazan
40.17 32.62 28.94 29.33 30.22 25.00
18.62 14.61 17.97 7.56
13.28 11.00
161 35 34 33 9 8
57.50 12.50 12.14 11.78 3.21 2.85
.000
2
Prior knowledge
Yes No
32.40 38.02
14.79 18.68
109 171
38.92 61.08
.008
3 Department
Engines & Vehicles Electrical& Power Refrigeration & Air- conditioning Civil & Architecture Production
30.03 39.46 35.61
35.62 36.00
13.57 19.89 16.47
17.54 13.58
56 94 21
81 28
20 33.57 7.50
28.92 10%
.035
4 Nationality Saudi Not Saudi
35.55 40.11
17.13 22.15
263 17
93.92 6.08
.298
5 Study abroad Yes No
35.50 35.92
17.69 17.44
61 219
21.78 78.22
.869
6
Father's education
Informal school Less than secondary Secondary School Diploma Bachelor Postgraduate
31.73 33.89 38.32 37.35 37.80 30.23
13.80 18.31 19.52 18.02 16.57 12.18
38 55 75 34 61 17
13.60 19.60 26.80 12.10 21.80 6.10
.215
7 Mother's education
Informal school Less than secondary Secondary School Diploma Bachelor Postgraduate
34.50 33.97 36.42 35.50 41.16 32.15
16.21 16.56 19.19 17.31 18.87 11.14
52 78 70 24 43 13
18.60 27.90 25.00 8.60
15.40 4.60
.322
8 Like Major Yes NO
35.93 34.72
17.51 17.22
258 22
92.14 7.86
.757
9
Student age
20-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 40+
34.57 45.45 50.66 33.66 42.00
16.38 21.61 25.85 16.60 29.59
243 22 6 6 3
86.78 7.85 2.14 2.14 1.07
.012
10 Level of Program
Diploma Bachelor
32.83 47.85
15.90 18.40
224 56
80 20
.000
228
Table 5.3.3
Students’ reduced Likert responses
No
Variable Agree
Disagree Sig
11
Like learning English
N M SD
245 35.45 17.17
139 38.93 18.50
76 37.21 17.44
30 30.21 15.56
14 23.42 6.44
6 30.66 6.53
15 24.93 7.36
N M SD
35 26.34 6.78
.001
Combined % 87.5% 12.5% 12
English help major
N M SD
247 34.33 49.42
146 39.08 18.39
83 34.14 16.21
18 29.77 14.82
12 24.66 9.99
6 37.66 29.75
15 29.06 6.36
N M SD
33 30.46 15.37
.009
Combined % 88.21% 11.79% 13
English help job
N M SD
256 37.68 19.11
170 37.41 17.49
68 34.29 16.42
18 41.33 23.43
8 20.00 6.23
3 24.00 8.00
13 28.15 10.18
N M SD
24 24.05 8.14
.014
Combined % 91.43% 8.57% 14
English is important
N M SD
239 34.96 15.73
141 39.90 18.61
77 34.80 17.07
21 30.19 11.50
19 25.36 14.26
6 25.00 3.74
16 28.87 9.74
N M SD
41 26.41 9.25
.000
Combined % 85.36% 14.64%
15
Understand E. teacher
N M SD
232 37.11 18.04
72 40.36 20.16
99 36.26 17.11
61 34.72 16.86
14 29.71 15.18
15 31.06 14.67
19 28.31 7.21
N M SD
48 29.69 12.35
.041
Combined % 82.86% 17.14% 16
Class hour
N M SD
215 36.72 17.84
75 34.00 16.78
102 38.47 18.04
38 37.6818.69
32 30.87 16.10
14 35.57 19.42
19 33.78 14.04
N M SD
65 33.41 16.52
.268
Combined % 76.79% 23.21% 17
Teacher only speak English
N M SD
210 37.35 17.66
59 35.86 16.11
93 39.33 19.84
58 36.86 17.03
25 28.48 12.03
17 31.29 14.31
28 31.35 16.16
N M SD
70 30.37 14.17
.43
Combined % 75% 25% 18
Use English Outside class
N M SD
184 37.60 18.16
44 40.04 18.85
65 36.55 17.02
75 36.21 18.60
43 35.72 16.61
22 33.90 15.66
31 28.96 14.76
N M SD
96 32.86 12.65
.169
Combined % 65.71% 34.29% 19
Understand what I read
N M SD
192 39.81 18.98
45 43.15 18.84
67 39.22 20.71
80 37.07 17.40
43 27.72 11.34
22 28.90 10.06
23 29.13 8.19
N M SD
88 28.58 9.86
.000
Combined % 68.57% 31.43% 20
Read English easily
N M SD
191 38.77 17.98
35 40.17 17.32
74 44.48 20.97
82 31.65 15.64
39 31.02 12.78
25 32.56 13.81
25 28.64 9.34
N M SD
89 30.74 12.36
.000
Combined % 68.21% 31.79%
229
Appendix 6: Teachers’ survey
Table 6.1
Teachers’ online Likert survey
No Item Strongly
disagree
Disagree Little
disagree
Little
agree
Agree Strongly
agree
1 Students enrolled in our
college are among the best in
the Kingdom.
2 Placement tests are good
indicators to narrow the gap
between students’ weakness
in English and their future
academic studies.
3 The students face difficulties
in most English skills.
4 Classes hours and times are
suitable for both students and
teachers.
5 Students enrolled in our
college are aware of the
importance of learning and
improving their English.
6 Current textbooks are suitable
for our students
7 The structure and grammar of
the technical textbooks are
easy and clear.
8 I use two or more teaching
methods.
9 I divide my students into
groups during the class work.
230
10 I use extra-curricular
activities to help my students
learn English.
11 The language of
the ESP textbooks is beyond
our students’ level.
12 My students read English
easily.
13 I encourage my students to
speak English while talking to
each other in the class.
14 TVTC supports EFL teachers’
development.
15 EFL teachers need
extra ESP courses in an
English-speaking country.
16 I use the black board for
assignments only.
231
Table 6.2
Teachers’ online demographic survey
17. Nationality:
18. Experience
19. Qualification
20. College
Saudi Non-Saudi
6-10 11-15 16-20 20-25 26-30 30+
PhD Master Bachelor
Jeddah Abha Riyadh Onaizah Almithnib Jazan Other
232
Table 6.3
Teachers’ Likert items (1–8)
No Variable Mean
Std. # Strongly agree
Agree
Little agree
Little disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
1
College has best students
2.38 1.37 n %
2 5.5
---- 6 16.7
5 13.9
12 33.3
11 30.6
Combined % 5.5 30.6 63.9 2
Placement tests
4.77 1.31 n %
11 30.6
17 47.2
1 2.8
4 11.1
2 5.5
1 2.8
Combined % 77.8 13,9 8.3 3
Students have trouble
5.08 1.02 n %
13 36.2
18 50.0
2 5.5
1 2.8
2 5.5
----
Combined % 80.6 8.3 5,5 4
Class hours are suitable
3.94 1.67 n %
5 13.9
13 36.1
8 22.2
5 13.9
---- 5 13.9
Combined % 50.0 36.1 13.9 5
Importance of English
3.36 1.31 n %
1 2.8
7 19.4
10 27.8
6 16.7
10 27,8
2 2,5
Combined % 22.2 44.5 30.3 6
Textbooks are suitable
3.41 1.36 n %
1 2.8
9 25.0
7 19.4
9 25.50
7 19.4
3 8.3
Combined % 27.8 44.9 27.7 7
Technical textbooks are easy
3.97 1.31 n %
5 13.9
8 22.2
11 30.6
5 13.9
7 19.4
---
Combined % 36.1 44.5 19.4 8
Two teaching methods
4.94 .714 n %
8 22.2
18 50.0
10 27.8
--- --- ---
Combined % 72.2 27.8
233
Table 6.4
Teachers’ Likert items (9–16)
No Variable Mean Std. # Strongly agree
Agree Little agree
Little disagree
Disagree Strongly disagree
9
Grouping students
4.66 1.14 n
%
9
25.0
13
36.1
10
27.8
1
2.8
3
8.3
---
Combined % 61.1 30.6 8.3
10
Extra curricula
activity
4.52 1.23 n
%
6
16.7
17
47.2
8
22.2
1
2.8
3
8.3
1
2.8
Combined % 63.9 25.0 11.1
11
ESP text too hard
4.47 1.25 n
%
5
13.9
19
52.8
5
13.9
3
8.3
3
8.3
1
2.8
Combined % 13.1 36.8 25.4
12
Students read English easily
2.52 .94 n
%
--- 1
2,8
5
13.9
9
25.0
18
50.0
3
8.3
Combined % 2.8 38.9 58.3
13
Encourage students
4.72 1.05 n
%
9
25.0
14
38.9
8
22.2
4
11.1
1
2.8
---
Combined % 63.9 33.3 2.8
14
TVTC supports 3.77 1.35 n
%
--- 14
38.9
11
30.6
4
11.1
3
8.3
4
11.1
Combined % 38.9 41.7 19.4
15
Need ESP
training
5.63 .54 n
%
24
66.7
11
30.6
1
2.8
--- --- ---
Combined % 97.3 2.8 ---
16
Blackboard
assignment
3.61 1.57 n
%
2
5.5
12
33.4
8
22.2
3
8.3
6
16.7
Combined % 38.9 30.5 30.6
234
Table 6.5
Teachers’ online survey responses (1–20)
Q 1 College has best students
Frequency Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Strongly disagree 11 30.6 30.6
Disagree 12 33.3 63.9 Little disagree 5 13.9 77.8 Little agree 6 16.7 94.4 Strongly agree 2 5.6 100.0
Total 36 100.0
Q 2 Placement tests good
Frequency Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Strongly disagree 1 2.8 2.8
Disagree 2 5.6 8.3 Little disagree 4 11.1 19.4 Little agree 1 2.8 22.2 Agree 17 47.2 69.4 Strongly agree 11 30.6 100.0
Total 36 100.0
Q 3 Students have trouble
Frequency Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Disagree 2 5.6 5.6
Little disagree 1 2.8 8.3 Little agree 2 5.6 13.9 Agree 18 50.0 63.9 Strongly agree 13 36.1 100.0
Total 36 100.0
235
Q 4 Class hours suitable
Frequency Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Strongly disagree 5 13.9 13.9
Disagree 5 13.9 27.8 Little agree 8 22.2 50.0 Agree 13 36.1 86.1 Strongly agree 5 13.9 100.0
Total 36 100.0
Q 5 Students aware of importance of English
Frequency Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Strongly disagree 2 5.6 5.6
Disagree 10 27.8 33.3 Little disagree 6 16.7 50.0 Little agree 10 27.8 77.8 Agree 7 19.4 97.2 Strongly agree 1 2.8 100.0
Total 36 100.0
Q 6 Textbooks are suitable
Frequency Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Strongly disagree 3 8.3 8.3
Disagree 7 19.4 27.8 Little disagree 9 25.0 52.8 Little agree 7 19.4 72.2 Agree 9 25.0 97.2 Strongly agree 1 2.8 100.0
Total 36 100.0
Q 7 Technical textbooks are easy
Frequency Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Disagree 7 19.4 19.4
Little disagree 5 13.9 33.3 Little agree 11 30.6 63.9 Agree 8 22.2 86.1 Strongly agree 5 13.9 100.0
Total 36 100.0
236
Q 8 I use two or more teaching methods
Frequency Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Little agree 10 27.8 27.8
Agree 18 50.0 77.8 Strongly agree 8 22.2 100.0
Total 36 100.0
Q 9 I divide my students into groups
Frequency Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Disagree 3 8.3 8.3
Little disagree 1 2.8 11.1 Little agree 10 27.8 38.9
Agree 13 36.1 75.0 Strongly agree 9 25.0 100.0
Total 36 100.0
Q 10 I use extra curriculum activities
Frequency Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Strongly disagree 1 2.8 2.8
Disagree 3 8.3 11.1 Little disagree 1 2.8 13.9
Little agree 8 22.2 36.1 Agree 17 47.2 83.3
Strongly agree 6 16.7 100.0 Total 36 100.0
Q11 - Language in ESP text too hard
Valid Frequency Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree 1 2.8 2.8 Disagree 3 8.3 11.1 Little disagree 3 8.3 19.4 Little agree 5 13.9 33.3 Agree 19 52.8 86.1 Strongly agree 5 13.9 100.0 Total 36 100.0
237
Q 12 My students read English easily
Valid Frequency Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree 3 8.3 8.3 Disagree 18 50.0 58.3 Little disagree 9 25.0 83.3 Little agree 5 13.9 97.2 Agree 1 2.8 100.0 Total 36 100.0
Q 13 I encourage students to speak English in class
Valid Frequency Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Disagree 1 2.8 2.8 Little disagree 4 11.1 13.9 Little agree 8 22.2 36.1 Agree 14 38.9 75.0 Strongly agree 9 25.0 100.0
Total 36 100.0
Q 14 TVTC supports teachers
Valid Frequency Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree 4 11.1 11.1 Disagree 3 8.3 19.4 Little disagree 4 11.1 30.6 Little agree 11 30.6 61.1 Agree 14 38.9 100.0
Total 36 100.0
Q 15 - Teachers need extra ESP training
Valid Frequency Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Little agree 1 2.8 2.8 Agree 11 30.6 33.3 Strongly agree 24 66.7 100.0
Total 36 100.0
238
Q 16 - Blackboard for assignment
Valid Frequency Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly disagree 5 13.9 13.9 Disagree 6 16.7 30.6 Little disagree 3 8.3 38.9 Little agree 8 22.2 61.1 Agree 12 33.3 94.4 Strongly agree 2 5.6 100.0
Total 36 100.0
Q 17 Teacher nationality
Q 18 Years of English teaching
Valid Frequency Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 6-10 1 2.8 2.8
11-15 6 16.7 19.4 16-20 20 55.6 75.0 20-25 6 16.7 91.7 26-30 2 5.6 97.2 30+ 1 2.8 100.0
Total 36 100.0
Q 19 Highest qualification
Valid Frequency Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent Master 20 55.6 55.6
PhD 1 2.8 58.3 Bachelor 15 41.7 100.0
Total 36 100.0
Valid Frequency Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Saudi 34 94.4 94.4 Jordanian 1 2.8 97.2 Indian 1 2.8 100.0
Total 36 100.0
239
Q 20 What is your College?
Valid Frequency Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent Jeddah 21 58.3 58.3
Riyadh 4 11.1 69.4 Onaizah 2 5.6 75.0 Almithnib 3 8.3 83.3 Abha 2 5.6 88.9 Other 4 11.1 100.0
Total 36 100.0
240
Appendix 7: Language features
Table 7.1
Dictionary category
No
Language
Features
Mean Std.
Deviation
Cloze test Reliability
(Cronbach's Alpha = .874)
Sub test
No. of
items
participants Reliability
1 Noun 40.46 21.79 13 280 .679
2 Pronoun 38.57 33.51 2 280 -.014
3 Adjective 35.23 31.99 3 280 .401
4 Article 35.63 22.57 9 280 .581
5 Verb 34.71 24.02 5 280 .298
6 Conjunction 31.42 29.26 3 280 .276
7 Preposition 34.24 21.99 8 280 .509
8 Auxiliary 20.71 26.00 3 280 .291
9 Adverb 39.55 27.52 4 280 .357
10 Initial capital 39.59 26.71 7 280 .636
241
Table 7.2
Function category
N
o
Language
Features
Mean
Std.
Deviatio
n
Cloze test
(Reliability = .874)
Sub test
No. of
items
participa
nts
Reliabilit
y
1 technical 41.78 31.49 3 280 .294
2 grammatical
operator
35.63 22.57 9 280 .581
3 semi-technical 39.82 28.22 4 280 .375
4 qualifier 37.61 32.13 3 280 .365
5 general 32.41 28.41 4 280 .438
6 Cohesion 37.27 19.59 19 280 .739
7 passive voice 26.68 20.81 7 280 .431
8 active voice 48.92 50.07 1 280 Just 1
9 Lexical distracter 36.81 19.83 25 280 .804
10 grammar distracter 34.85 17.02 25 280 .735
242
Table 7.3
Language features with demographic background
Noun
City Mean N Std. Deviation
Jeddah 46.2494 161 22.65622
Jazan 28.8462 8 14.68175
Riyadh 31.4480 34 18.97193
Onaizah 34.2657 33 14.90737
Almithnib 28.2051 9 12.16261
Abha 34.2857 35 21.38136
Total 40.4670 280 21.79593
Noun
Prior Knowledge Mean N Std. Deviation
Yes 38.5321 109 19.28753
No 41.7004 171 23.22490
Total 40.4670 280 21.79593
243
Noun
Department Mean N Std. Deviation
Engines & Vehicles 34.8901 56 18.55247
Electrical& Power 45.4173 94 24.71622
Refrigeration & Air-conditioning
43.2234 21 22.88073
Civil & Architecture 39.2213 81 20.11818
Production 36.5385 28 18.44551
Total 40.4670 280 21.79593
Noun
Level of Program Mean N Std. Deviation
Diploma 36.5041 224 20.03324
Bachelor 56.3187 56 21.51383
Total 40.4670 280 21.79593
Noun
Participant Age Mean N Std. Deviation
20-25 39.3479 243 21.15759
26-30 49.6503 22 24.75319
31-35 53.8462 6 26.64694
36-40 34.6154 6 15.95111
40 + 48.7179 3 37.94525
Total 40.4670 280 21.79593
244
Grammar distracter
City Mean N Std. Deviation
Jeddah 38.9317 161 17.29022
Jazan 24.5000 8 12.90626
Riyadh 28.1176 34 18.59254
Onaizah 29.3333 33 9.41630
Almithnib 29.7778 9 14.71205
Abha 31.5429 35 16.45733
Total 34.8571 280 17.02647
Grammar distracter
Prior Knowledge Mean N Std. Deviation
Yes 31.5229 109 15.35481
No 36.9825 171 17.72916
Total 34.8571 280 17.02647
Grammar distracter
Department Mean N Std. Deviation
Engines & Vehicles 28.1429 56 13.38578
Electrical& Power 38.1702 94 20.41012
Refrigeration & Air-conditioning
37.1429 21 15.80597
Civil & Architecture 35.0617 81 15.64956
245
Production 28.1429 56 13.38578
Total 38.1702 94 20.41012
Grammar distracter
Level of Program Mean N Std. Deviation
Diploma 32.3036 224 16.11552
Bachelor 45.0714 56 16.87586
Total 34.8571 280 17.02647
Grammar distracter
Participant Age Mean N Std. Deviation
20-25 33.5473 243 16.16370
26-30 45.4545 22 18.62085
31-35 46.0000 6 23.15167
36-40 32.0000 6 16.58915
40 + 46.6667 3 33.30666
Total 34.8571 280 17.02647
246
Initial capitalization
City Mean N Std. Deviation
Jeddah 43.3008 161 28.00430
Jazan 23.2143 8 13.08751
Riyadh 31.0924 34 25.95619
Onaizah 33.7662 33 20.76907
Almithnib 50.7937 9 38.53908
Abha 37.1429 35 21.13241
Total 39.5918 280 26.71068
Initial capitalization
Prior Knowledge Mean N Std. Deviation
Yes 35.9109 109 25.68890
No 41.9382 171 27.15595
Total 39.5918 280 26.71068
Initial capitalisation
Department Mean N Std. Deviation
Engines & Vehicles 33.6735 56 24.12530
Electrical& Power 41.9453 94 26.14996
Refrigeration & Air-conditioning
25.8503 21 20.00972
Civil & Architecture 41.7989 81 29.60434
Production 47.4490 28 24.91211
Total 39.5918 280 26.71068
247
Initial capitalization
Level of Program Mean N Std. Deviation
Diploma 36.0332 224 24.46253
Bachelor 53.8265 56 30.57775
Total 39.5918 280 26.71068
Initial capitalization
Participant Age Mean N Std. Deviation
20-25 38.6831 243 25.84799
26-30 48.7013 22 31.37878
31-35 42.8571 6 36.14032
36-40 35.7143 6 34.69988
40 + 47.6190 3 29.73809
Total 39.5918 280 26.71068
Article
City Mean N Std. Deviation
Jeddah 40.0276 161 24.63560
Jazan 22.2222 8 13.28032
Riyadh 29.4118 34 22.70228
Onaizah 28.6195 33 14.44185
Almithnib 37.0370 9 22.22222
Abha 30.7937 35 15.26472
Total 35.6349 280 22.57766
248
Article
Prior Knowledge Mean N Std. Deviation
Yes 31.0907 109 20.44206
No 38.5315 171 23.44005
Total 35.6349 280 22.57766
Article
Department Mean N Std. Deviation
Engines & Vehicles 28.5714 56 18.33191
Electrical& Power 38.8889 94 22.02722
Refrigeration & Air-conditioning
30.1587 21 19.29078
Civil & Architecture 36.3512 81 25.93988
Production 40.8730 28 21.18000
Total 35.6349 280 22.57766
Article
Level of Program Mean N Std. Deviation
Diploma 32.1925 224 20.62843
Bachelor 49.4048 56 24.88308
Total 35.6349 280 22.57766
249
Article
Participant Age Mean N Std. Deviation
20-25 34.2478 243 21.80922
26-30 45.9596 22 26.18064
31-35 55.5556 6 28.10913
36-40 33.3333 6 19.87616
40 + 37.0370 3 27.96235
Total 35.6349 280 22.57766
Preposition
City Mean N Std. Deviation
Jeddah 39.0528 161 22.91108
Jazan 23.4375 8 14.07490
Riyadh 25.7353 34 21.08361
Onaizah 27.2727 33 16.66963
Almithnib 27.7778 9 24.82578
Abha 31.0714 35 18.53341
Total 34.2411 280 21.99666
250
Preposition
Prior Knowledge Mean N Std. Deviation
Yes 30.7339 109 18.59754
No 36.4766 171 23.69486
Total 34.2411 280 21.99666
Preposition
Department Mean N Std. Deviation
Engines & Vehicles 27.9018 56 17.99480
Electrical& Power 36.3032 94 25.07175
Refrigeration & Air-conditioning
33.9286 21 18.60060
Civil & Architecture 35.8025 81 22.33910
Production 35.7143 28 18.23023
Total 34.2411 280 21.99666
Preposition
Level of Program Mean N Std. Deviation
Diploma 31.6964 224 20.63513
Bachelor 44.4196 56 24.41586
Total 34.2411 280 21.99666
251
Preposition
Participant Age Mean N Std. Deviation
20-25 32.7160 243 21.34137
26-30 44.3182 22 24.91870
31-35 45.8333 6 23.27373
36-40 37.5000 6 26.22022
40 + 54.1667 3 19.09407
Total 34.2411 280 21.99666
Grammatical operator
City Mean N Std. Deviation
Jeddah 40.0276 161 24.63560
Jazan 22.2222 8 13.28032
Riyadh 29.4118 34 22.70228
Onaizah 28.6195 33 14.44185
Almithnib 37.0370 9 22.22222
Abha 30.7937 35 15.26472
Total 35.6349 280 22.57766
252
Grammatical operator
Prior Knowledge Mean N Std. Deviation
Yes 31.0907 109 20.44206
No 38.5315 171 23.44005
Total 35.6349 280 22.57766
Grammatical operator
Department Mean N Std. Deviation
Engines & Vehicles 28.5714 56 18.33191
Electrical& Power 38.8889 94 22.02722
Refrigeration & Air-conditioning
30.1587 21 19.29078
Civil & Architecture 36.3512 81 25.93988
Production 40.8730 28 21.18000
Total 35.6349 280 22.57766
Grammatical operator
Level of Program Mean N Std. Deviation
Diploma 32.1925 224 20.62843
Bachelor 49.4048 56 24.88308
Total 35.6349 280 22.57766
253
Grammatical operator
Participant Age Mean N Std. Deviation
20-25 34.2478 243 21.80922
26-30 45.9596 22 26.18064
31-35 55.5556 6 28.10913
36-40 33.3333 6 19.87616
40 + 37.0370 3 27.96235
Total 35.6349 280 22.57766
Lexical distracter
City Mean N Std. Deviation
Jeddah 41.4161 161 21.79179
Jazan 25.5000 8 9.54688
Riyadh 29.7647 34 19.40175
Onaizah 29.3333 33 9.30949
Almithnib 30.6667 9 14.00000
Abha 33.7143 35 15.10078
Total 36.8143 280 19.83646
254
Lexical distracter
Prior Knowledge Mean N Std. Deviation
Yes 33.2844 109 16.89077
No 39.0643 171 21.24732
Total 36.8143 280 19.83646
Lexical distracter
Department Mean N Std. Deviation
Engines & Vehicles 31.9286 56 16.06335
Electrical& Power 40.7660 94 21.04599
Refrigeration & Air-conditioning
34.0952 21 19.78359
Civil & Architecture 36.1975 81 21.04187
Production 37.1429 28 17.37967
Total 36.8143 280 19.83646
Lexical distracter
Level of Program Mean N Std. Deviation
Diploma 33.3571 224 17.72782
Bachelor 50.6429 56 21.87271
Total 36.8143 280 19.83646
255
Lexical distracter
Participant Age Mean N Std. Deviation
20-25 35.6049 243 18.65499
26-30 45.4545 22 25.96835
31-35 55.3333 6 29.43920
36-40 35.3333 6 17.78389
40 + 37.3333 3 26.63331
Total 36.8143 280 19.83646
Cohesion
City Mean N Std. Deviation
Jeddah 41.4841 161 20.52276
Jazan 25.0000 8 18.60807
Riyadh 30.3406 34 20.44821
Onaizah 31.5789 33 11.54601
Almithnib 31.5789 9 19.51631
Abha 34.2857 35 16.16536
Total 37.2744 280 19.59972
256
Cohesion
Prior Knowledge Mean N Std. Deviation
Yes 33.8484 109 17.06010
No 39.4583 171 20.81424
Total 37.2744 280 19.59972
Cohesion
Department Mean N Std. Deviation
Engines & Vehicles 30.6391 56 16.27970
Electrical& Power 40.0336 94 20.77087
Refrigeration & Air-conditioning
32.8321 21 19.18742
Civil & Architecture 39.3762 81 20.04343
Production 38.5338 28 18.23513
Total 37.2744 280 19.59972
Cohesion
Level of Program Mean N Std. Deviation
Diploma 34.5395 224 18.28357
Bachelor 48.2143 56 20.99938
Total 37.2744 280 19.59972
257
Cohesion
Participant Age Mean N Std. Deviation
20-25 36.1057 243 18.68861
26-30 47.1292 22 23.73163
31-35 47.3684 6 27.44927
36-40 35.0877 6 23.22160
40 + 43.8596 3 23.73289
Total 37.2744 280 19.59972
258
Table 7.4
Reduced students’ Likert responses with language features
11- English helps my major
Noun
Article
Preposition
Grammatical
Operator
Lexical distracter
Grammar distracter
Cohesion
Initial capitalisation
Disagree Mean 32.1678 27.6094 29.5455 27.6094 28.6061 29.4545 30.7815 37.2294
N 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33
Std. Deviation
17.77724 18.24076 18.43967 18.24076 14.83648 15.90026 16.80512 22.28623
Agree Mean 41.5758 36.7072 34.8684 36.7072 37.9109 35.5789 38.1419 39.9075
N 247 247 247 247 247 247 247 247
Std. Deviation
22.07276 22.91410 22.38698 22.91410 20.18391 17.07232 19.81246 27.27107
259
13- English helps me get a job
Noun
Article
Preposition
Grammatical Operator
Lexical distracter
Grammar distracter
Cohesion
Initial capitalisatio
n
Disagree
Mean 27.2436 24.0741 25.5208 24.0741 25.1667 24.6667 26.9737 35.7143
N 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24
Std. Deviation 15.87499 13.77165 14.02597 13.77165 9.76091 11.35463 11.74957 23.07351
Agree Mean 41.7067 36.7187 35.0586 36.7187 37.9062 35.8125 38.2401 39.9554
N 256 256 256 256 256 256 256 256
Std. Deviation 21.88706 22.95348 22.44594 22.95348 20.19801 17.17168 19.92310 27.03780
14- English is important
Reduced
Noun
Article
Preposition
Grammatical Operator
Lexical distracter
Grammar distracter
Cohesion
Initial capitalisatio
n
Disagree
Mean 27.9550 27.6423 26.8293 27.6423 26.2439 27.1220 27.9846 33.1010
N 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41
Std. Deviation 17.77207 14.29883 15.45178 14.29883 11.86756 13.95743 11.85315 20.56325
Agree Mean 42.6135 37.0060 35.5126 37.0060 38.6276 36.1841 38.8681 40.7053
N 239 239 239 239 239 239 239 239
Std. Deviation 21.73068 23.45868 22.71544 23.45868 20.37277 17.17629 20.23105 27.50996
260
15- I understand my English teacher Noun
Article
Preposition
Grammatical
Operator Lexical
distracter Grammar distracter
Cohesion
Initial capitalisatio
n
Disagree
Mean 33.4936 31.7130 27.3438 31.7130 29.5833 29.5833 29.1667 31.2500
N 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48
Std. Deviation 16.97875 16.36682 18.71117 16.36682 12.14773 14.26174 14.23718
20.12903
Agree Mean 41.9098 36.4464 35.6681 36.4464 38.3103 35.9483 38.9519 41.3177
N 232 232 232 232 232 232 232 232
Std. Deviation 22.42605 23.60748 22.38815 23.60748 20.78728 17.37184 20.15553
27.60112
261
17- Teacher Only speaks English in Class Noun
Article
Preposition
Grammatical Operator
Lexical distracte
r Grammar distracter
Cohesion
Initial capitalisatio
n
Disagree
Mean 33.9560 30.9524 29.1071 30.9524 29.8857 30.7429 32.1053 34.2857
N 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70
Std. Deviation 18.35779 18.52427 18.76164 18.52427 15.96694
14.09768 16.98145
25.55506
Agree Mean 42.6374 37.1958 35.9524 37.1958 39.1238 36.2286 38.9975 41.3605
N 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210
Std. Deviation 22.44954 23.60934 22.75804 23.60934 20.48582
17.71505 20.14139
26.91173
262
19- I understand what I read Noun
Article
Preposition
Grammatical
Operator Lexical
distracter Grammar distracter
Cohesion
Initial
capitalisation
Disagree Mean 31.8182 29.2929 25.8523 29.2929 28.9091 27.8636 29.0670 33.2792
N 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88
Std. Deviation 16.86840 16.34920 16.60860 16.34920 12.06461 10.95779 11.78168 20.96897
Agree Mean 44.4311 38.5417 38.0859 38.5417 40.4375 38.0625 41.0362 42.4851
N 192 192 192 192 192 192 192 192
Std. Deviation 22.67313 24.40968 23.10519 24.40968 21.59834 18.32791 21.27561 28.55029
20- Reading English is easy Noun
Article
Preposition
Grammatical
Operator Lexical
distracter Grammar distracter
Cohesion
Initial
capitalisation
Disagree Mean 36.2143 31.3358 27.1067 31.3358 31.5955 29.9775 31.0467 33.8684
N 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89
Std. Deviation 18.99160 17.21015 17.49959 17.21015 13.43056 13.07494 13.92602 21.68483
Agree Mean 42.4487 37.6382 37.5654 37.6382 39.2461 37.1309 40.1764 42.2588
N 191 191 191 191 191 191 191 191
Std. Deviation 22.76227 24.46742 23.10222 24.46742 21.80722 18.17050 21.15745 28.41432
263
Table 7.5
Language features with demographic background
No
Variable Agree
Disagree Sig
11
Like learning English
N M SD
245 35.45 17.17
139 38.93 18.50
76 37.21 17.44
30 30.21 15.56
14 23.42 6.44
6 30.66 6.53
15 24.93 7.36
N M SD
35 26.34 6.78
.001
Combined % 87.5% 12.5% 12
English help major
N M SD
247 34.33 49.42
146 39.08 18.39
83 34.14 16.21
18 29.77 14.82
12 24.66 9.99
6 37.66 29.75
15 29.06 6.36
N M SD
33 30.46 15.37
.009
Combined % 88.21% 11.79% 13
English help job
N M SD
256 37.68 19.11
170 37.41 17.49
68 34.29 16.42
18 41.33 23.43
8 20.00 6.23
3 24.00 8.00
13 28.15 10.18
N M SD
24 24.05 8.14
.014
Combined % 91.43% 8.57% 14
English is important
N M SD
239 34.96 15.73
141 39.90 18.61
77 34.80 17.07
21 30.19 11.50
19 25.36 14.26
6 25.00 3.74
16 28.87 9.74
N M SD
41 26.41 9.25
.000
Combined % 85.36% 14.64%
15
Understand E. teacher
N M SD
232 37.11 18.04
72 40.36 20.16
99 36.26 17.11
61 34.72 16.86
14 29.71 15.18
15 31.06 14.67
19 28.31 7.21
N M SD
48 29.69 12.35
.041
Combined % 82.86% 17.14% 16
Class hour
N M SD
215 36.72 17.84
75 34.00 16.78
102 38.47 18.04
38 37.6818.69
32 30.87 16.10
14 35.57 19.42
19 33.78 14.04
N M SD
65 33.41 16.52
.268
Combined % 76.79% 23.21% 17
Teacher only speak English
N M SD
210 37.35 17.66
59 35.86 16.11
93 39.33 19.84
58 36.86 17.03
25 28.48 12.03
17 31.29 14.31
28 31.35 16.16
N M SD
70 30.37 14.17
.43
Combined % 75% 25% 18
Use English Outside class
N M SD
184 37.60 18.16
44 40.04 18.85
65 36.55 17.02
75 36.21 18.60
43 35.72 16.61
22 33.90 15.66
31 28.96 14.76
N M SD
96 32.86 12.65
.169
Combined % 65.71% 34.29% 19
Understand what I read
N M SD
192 39.81 18.98
45 43.15 18.84
67 39.22 20.71
80 37.07 17.40
43 27.72 11.34
22 28.90 10.06
23 29.13 8.19
N M SD
88 28.58 9.86
.000
Combined % 68.57% 31.43% 20
Read English easily
N M SD
191 38.77 17.98
35 40.17 17.32
74 44.48 20.97
82 31.65 15.64
39 31.02 12.78
25 32.56 13.81
25 28.64 9.34
N M SD
89 30.74 12.36
.000
Combined % 68.21% 31.79%
264
Table 7.6
Teachers’ Likert items
No Variable Mean
Std. # Strongly agree
Agree
Little agree
Little disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
1
College has best students
2.38 1.37 n %
2 5.5
---- 6 16.7
5 13.9
12 33.3
11 30.6
Combined % 5.5 30.6 63.9 2
Placement tests
4.77 1.31 n %
11 30.6
17 47.2
1 2.8
4 11.1
2 5.5
1 2.8
Combined % 77.8 13,9 8.3 3
Students have trouble
5.08 1.02 n %
13 36.2
18 50.0
2 5.5
1 2.8
2 5.5
----
Combined % 80.6 8.3 5,5 4
Class hours are suitable
3.94 1.67 n %
5 13.9
13 36.1
8 22.2
5 13.9
---- 5 13.9
Combined % 50.0 36.1 13.9 5
Importance of English
3.36 1.31 n %
1 2.8
7 19.4
10 27.8
6 16.7
10 27,8
2 2,5
Combined % 22.2 44.5 30.3 6
Textbooks are suitable
3.41 1.36 n %
1 2.8
9 25.0
7 19.4
9 25.50
7 19.4
3 8.3
Combined % 27.8 44.9 27.7 7
Technical textbooks are easy
3.97 1.31 n %
5 13.9
8 22.2
11 30.6
5 13.9
7 19.4
---
Combined % 36.1 44.5 19.4 8
Two teaching methods
4.94 .714 n %
8 22.2
18 50.0
10 27.8
--- --- ---
Combined % 72.2 27.8
265
Appendix 8
8.1 Students’ survey in Arabic (1)
جمیع الأسئلة باختیار الخیار المناسبأجب على
اختر مدینتك: -1
ھل سبق ان درست قطعة تجمیع السیارة؟ -2
انتاج - 5مدني و معماري -4تبرید و تكییف -3القوى الكھربائیة -2محركات و مركبات -1. القسم: 3
سعودي غیر سعودي . الجنسیة: 4
لا نعم . ھل سبق و ان درست خارج المملكة؟ 5
. مستوى 6 تعلیم الأب:
. 7 مستوى تعلیم الأم:
لا نعم . ھل تحب تخصصك؟8
. كم عمرك ؟9
بكلوریس -2 دبلوم -1. ماھي مرحلتك الدراسیة؟ 10
- ثانوي تحت الثانوي - كتاتیب
دراسات علیا - بكالوریوس دبلوم
- ثانوي تحت الثانوي - كتاتیب
دراسات علیا - بكالوریوس دبلوم
266
8.2 Students’ survey in Arabic (2)
استبیان المتدربین
حدد مستوى تأییدك للمعطیات التالیة
أوافق بشد -٦أوافق -٥أوافق قلیلاً -٤أعترض قلیلاً -۳ـ أعترض ۲أعترض بشدة -۱
أشكرك على مشاركتك القیمة
المعطیات
6 5 4 3 2 1
وافق قلیلاً أوافق بشدةوافق عترض عترض قلیلاً
أعترض بشدة
ب تعلم اللغة الانجلیزیة 1
اللغة الانجلیزیة سوف یساعدني في 2 التخصص
الانجلیزیة سوف یساعدني أكثر في 3 ایجاد الوظائف بعد التخرج
4 الانجلیزیة سھل للغایة
5
م ما یقولھ معلم اللغة الانجلیزیة أثناء الشرح
عات الدرس كافیة و ملائمة 6
7
م اللغة الانجلیزیة لا یتحدث الا باللغة الانجلیزیة اثناء الشرح
8
خدم اللغة الانجلیزیة خارج الكلیة عادة
م كل ما أقرأ باللغة الانجلیزیة 9
طیع القراءة باللغة الانجلیزیة بسھولة 10
267
Appendix 9: Students in labs
9.1 Students performing the cloze test and survey
268
269
270
271
272
273
Appendix 10: Students’ reading interest
10.1 Students’ reading interest other than curriculum
274
275
276
277
