چكيده
Abstract
This study explored the reading strategy use of Iranian M.A. students in general and academic reading comprehension tests across three different fields of study. On the one hand, it was an attempt to investigate the relationship between reading strategy use and academic field of study. On the other, it aimed to pinpoint the consistency or variability of reading strategy use over general and academic reading comprehension materials. Eighty-two M.A. students from the three major groups of engineering, basic-sciences, and humanities took part in this study in Iran. The Nelson test and the Reading Comprehension section of the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) were used as pre-tests. Survey of Reading Strategy Use (SORS) was also used as a strategy inventory intended to measure the participants’ metacognitive awareness and perceived use of reading strategies. To do so, three technical reading comprehension tests were developed from within the literature of the three fields of study, namely power engineering, physics, and communication. The reading section of the TOEFL, along with these tests, served as specific tasks on which the participants could base their responses to the items in the SORS. The results indicated that the use of overall, global, problem-solving, and support strategies by Iranian M.A. students was slightly different. Problem-solving and support strategies were the most and the least frequently used strategies. Moreover, reading strategy use--overall, global, problem-solving, and support reading strategies--of Iranian M.A. students was not related to their academic field of study. Accordingly, participants from the three different academic fields of study utilized the same strategy subscales with slightly different frequency. Likewise, reading strategy use of engineering and basic-sciences students did not differ significantly in general and academic materials. Throughout the study, interestingly, it was realized that engineering students utilized strategies more frequently when dealing with general materials than when dealing with academic materials. Instead, basic-sciences students reacted more strategically when reading academic materials in comparison to general reading comprehension materials.
