The Relationship of the Process of Reading in EGP with the Process of Reading in ESP and the Product of Reading in EGP and ESP (Hubungan antara Proses Membaca dalam EGP dengan Proses Membaca dalam ESP dan Hasilan Membaca dalam EGP dan ESP)



This study using ex post facto design had two purposes. First, it attempted to fi nd out if there was any relationship between the process of reading in EGP (English for General Purposes) and ESP (English for Specicfi c Purposes). Second, it intended to investigate if the EGP reading process would correlates with the EGP and ESP reading product. Thirty nine Iranian tertiary level students received reading comprehension tests as well as reading strategy questionnaires in EGP and ESP. Based on the mean score of the EGP reading strategy questionnaire the participants were classifi ed into two groups of low and high awareness and use of reading strategies. Analysis of data using one-way ANOVA and multivariate analysis of variance evinced the high group had more awareness and use of strategies in ESP and outperformed the low group in ESP reading comprehension test. However, no signifi cant difference was found in EGP reading comprehension test between the two groups. It was concluded that awareness and use of strategies in EGP coupled with content knowledge would be a good predictor of a successful academic reading performance. EGP teachers would be able to improve the strategic reading competence of students to be transferred to ESP reading tasks. ESP practitioners would be able to do needs analysis for content reading courses so that possible defi ciencies in strategic competence would not result in ineffi ciency in ESP reading


Strategic reading; EGP; ESP; awareness and use of strategies

Full Text:



Affl erbach, P., Pearson, P.D. & Paris, S.G. 2008. Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher 61: 364-373.

Aghvami, D. 1996. English for the Students of Accounting. Place??: SAMT Publications.

Ahmadi, M. 2003. Can ESP be tested by EGP? Journal of Medical Education 3: 7-10.

Ajideh, Parviz. 2009. Autonomous Learning and Metacognitive Strategies Essentials in ESP Class. English Language Teaching 2(1).

Ajideh, P. 2011. EGP or ESP Test for Medical Fields of Study. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning 5(7): 19-37.

Anderson, N.J. 2002. The Role of Metacognition in Second Language Teaching and Learning. (online paper). 0110_Anderson.

pdf- . Accessed on January15, 2013.

Auerbach, E. & Paxton, D. 1997. ‘‘It’s not the English thing’’: bringing reading research into the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly 31: 237-261.

Chien, C., Lee, W. & Kao, L. 2008. Collaborative Teaching in an ESP Program. Asian EFL Journal 10(6).

Cohen, A.D. 1995. Second Language Learning and Use Strategies: Clarifying the Issues. (Report No. EDO-FL-023-639). ERIC Clearinghouse on Language and Linguistics: Washington, D.C. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED393307).

Cook, G. 2007. Viewpoint. A thing of the future: Translation in language learning. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 17(3): 396-401.

Fogarty, R. 1994. How to Teach for Metacognition. Palatine, IL: IRI/Skylight Publishing.

Garcia, G.E., Willis, A.I. & Harris, V.J. 1998. Appropriating and creating space for difference in literacy research. Journal of Literacy Research 30: 181-186.

Haghani, Manoochehr. 2001. English for Students of Computer. Place?: SAMT Publications.

Hutchison, T. & Waters, A. 1987. English for Specific Purposes. Cambridge University.

Lau, K L. 2006. Reading strategy use between Chinese good and poor readers: A think-aloud study. Journal of Research in Reading 29: 383-399.

Lee, J. & Schallert, D.L. 1997. The relative contribution of L2 language profi ciency and L1 reading ability to L2 reading performance: A test of the threshold hypothesis in an EFL context. TESOL Quarterly 31: 713-739.

Mokhtari, K. & C. Reichard. 2004. Investigating the strategic reading process of fi rst and second language readers in two different cultural contexts. System 32: 379-394.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. 2000. Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Offi ce.

O’Malley, J.M. & Chamot, A. U. 1990. Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Oxford, R.L. 1990. Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Oxford, R., Yunkyoung, C., Santoi, L. & Hae-Jin, K. 2004. Effect of the presence and diffi culty of task on strategy use: An exploratory study. IRAL, 42(1): 1-47.

Sheorey, R. & Mokhtari, K. 2001. Differences in the metacognitive

awareness of reading strategies among native and non-native readers. System 29(4): 431-449.

Taillefer, G. & Pugh, T. 1998. Strategies for professional reading in L1 and L2. Journal of Research in Reading 21(2): 97-108.

Talebi, H.S. 2014. An investigation into the effect of L1 (Persian) reading product on the product and process of reading in EGP and ESP. Jordan Journal of Modern Languages and Literature 6(1): 55-76.

Urquhardt A. & Weir, J.C. 1998. Reading in a Second Language: Process and Product. London: London Longman.

Weaver, C. 1994. Reading Process and Practice: From Sociopsycholinguistics to Whole Language (2nd ed.). Portsmouth,

NH: Heinemann.

Yamashita, J. 1999. Reading in a First and a Foreign Language: A Study of Reading Comprehension in Japanese (the L1) and English (the L2). Doctoral thesis. Lancaster University


  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

© Malaysian Journal of Education | Jurnal Pendidikan Malaysia
ISSN 2180-0782 | eISSN: 2600-8823