ARRENDAMIENTO Y EN GENERAL POR OTORGAR EL USO O GOCE TEMPORAL DE INMUEBLES

A chi-squared test found significant differences among groups for the responses to Question 2 regarding their perception about similarities or differences between English on the test and in university textbooks. The results from Question 2 were based on a multiple- choice response. Responses to Question 3 on the Test Reflection Survey help explore the differences that were found in the second question of the survey. A Chinese translation was provided to encourage a response that might have been missed due to not understanding the question. The translation was, ―请解释一下该考试的题目与大学课本中学术英语应用的 相似性或者不同性.‖ The responses for each test-taker were coded according to the reference made to specific characteristics of academic language. The results from this

analysis with test-takers who were able to compare the language on the tests and language in university textbooks are presented in Figure 5.16. Because the number for participants varied in each group, results are shown as percentages.

Figure 5.16. Results indicating an ability to compare the texts.

Overall, the high-ability group provided the highest percentage (86%) of responses expressing similarities or differences between the text on the test and text in university textbooks. The mid-ability group provided a lower percentage (67%) of responses showing their group‘s ability to compare the two texts. The low-ability group responded with the lowest percentage (48%) of responses for their group that contained specific distinctions between the texts. References to similarities or differences between the two texts might be interpreted as showing that the test-takers were familiar with academic English well enough to respond accordingly to this question and indicating that the high-ability group was familiar enough to express the similarities or differences in words.

The data in Figure 5.17 represent the percentage of test-takers in the high-ability group (68%), mid-ability group (67), and low-ability group (48%) who were able to compare the English on the test and the English in university textbooks. The data show three responses for these test-takers.

86% 67% 48% 14% 33% 52% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

High (n=35) Mid (n = 109) Low (n=62)

Not able to compare Able to compare

The distribution is fairly similar among the groups. The majority of test-takers felt there were more differences between the texts than similarities. The largest percentage of responses indicating both differences and similarities were found in the mid-ability group.

Further review of the responses revealed differences that hint at the degree of familiarity with academic English among the responses for each group. Responses in the high- and mid-ability groups, for example, made a connection with academic disciplines. The connections indicated that the English on the test is similar to or different from language found in journal articles.

Figure 5.17. Percentage of distinctions indicating similar, different, or both for each group 40% 37% 43% 43% 44% 47% 17% 19% 10% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

High (n=30) Mid (n=73) Low (n=30)

Similar Different Both

Test-takers in these groups also thought that the language on the test was related to an academic discipline but perhaps too focused on one or two particular disciplines, as indicated in the following responses.

Most of the sentences seem to come from journal articles. (high-ability)

It's seems not so professional as the specific subjects in university textbooks. (mid-

ability)

It is more discipline-specific as it involves a lot of expressions and phrases in the law field. (high-ability)

I study Math and Chemistry, so this test is more complicated than my textbook. It's more like languages used in Fiance or economy. (mid-ability)

Another characteristic of the responses in these groups is the comparison with vocabulary and sentence structure with which the test-taker may have been familiar. Reference is made to sentence structure, passive sentences, rare vocabulary, and complex grammar.

In academic English, there will be a lot of terms to be defined. The sentence structure is kind of complex. (high-ability)

In general, they are very similar. The most obvious evidence is that the English in this test used a lot a passive sentence. (high-ability)

I my opinion, English used in the test is similar to that in the university test books. First of all, this kind of English always use completed sentences instead of simple ones, the formats are different. Second, the words used in academic English are rare than those we use normally. Finally, the conten of the sentence are academic, and the grammar used is complex. (mid-ability)

Responses in the high- and mid-ability groups indicated different ideas about the content and structure of English on the tests and in university texts. I interpret these comments as an indication that the test-takers are familiar enough with university texts to make an appropriate comment about the distinction between English on the test and English in university textbooks. Overall, the primary understanding of academic English in university

texts by these test-takers might have been that language is used to communicate content in university textbooks. This language is also used by various discourse communities or within a discipline to facilitate communication about a particular topic or subject matter for others in the discourse community.

A number of test-takers in the mid-ability group, however, responded as if their notion of ―university texts‖ was books for teaching English. These may have been university textbooks that the test-takers were familiar with during their EFL or ESL language course at the university. These example responses, not found in the other two groups, show that these test-takers probably had an instructional English textbook in mind when responding.

English in text is academic, it is different English used in university textbooks.

English used in textbooks teach students how to use English words in life, and how to write essay. English text just text students know some word. (mid-ability)

The similarity is cleared that both of them focus on grammar and using for the verb. It teach students how to use the word correctly have a better understanding of the word. It improves the skill of written English by checking the correct answers. However, most of the University text book, the test maker only focus on the exact answers. It will create fixed questions and made only one correct answers. In

comparison, this test is more open and provide variety of choices for students. It help students to create more answers and think out more verbs to use. The method help students to have a better understanding on the written English. (mid-ability)

Finally, the low-ability group had the lowest percentage of responses that explained similarities or differences between the text on the test and text in university textbooks (48%). Many of the responses were general in nature and did not address specific characteristics of the texts. Some responses from this group addressed the purpose of the language on the test and in academic texts. According to these test-takers, university texts are used to convey content, whereas the English on the test was used to assess language.

Similarity: most of words are not simple, oppositely, it represents that very formal in the academic English. Difference: 1.University textbooks: it more focus on students to

understand the content so that it would not use too hard words. 2. Test: it is a examination to test student's capability for applying words and grammars; thus, the purpose is not same to compare with university textbooks. (low-ability)

In text book, they almost have complete sentences, and we do not need to find which word I need to put it into a sentences. I think the aim at this test is let teacher know how many words you have already know, and how to use them. However, I think it may mislead the meaning of the sentences. And In Text book. they want us know the right ways and knowledge of something. So I think it is completely different compared the English in this test and English used in university textbooks. (low-ability)

Additional responses from this group might be an indication of an awareness of academic text but did not give a reason how they are similar or different, as in the following response:

It is parity similar with the academic English which be used in university text book. Because both of them are difficult to spelling and I hardly know them. (low-ability)

This response indicates that the test-taker does not have a command of academic language ability and considers that any language that is difficult might be academic language.

Responses in this group also indicated a text book example of what academic English should be rather than providing an understanding of features and characteristics of the

language. This response from a low-ability test-taker, for example, might refer to the discourse features of an academic text that was taught to the student in an English class.

In my opinion, the university textbooks should have a introduction and a conclusion, but this passage has not. (low-ability)

The idea of academic language to this test-taker was based only on the organization of the text at a discourse level and not vocabulary or content at a sentence level. Organization was difficult for this test-taker to identify in a test with only sentence level items. Interestingly, a few responses that did not explain a similarity or difference did reply with an explanation but only stated that the test-taker was not familiar with academic English. Responses such as these were not found among the mid- or high-ability test-takers.

I will start my university in some months, I do not know about English used in university, so I am not be able to explain it, or I would not be duty. (low-ability) I don't know what English used in university textbooks because I haven't read any university text book yet. I am sorry that I can't give you any answer to this question.

(low-ability)

I don’t know. (low-ability)

In sum, the group with the highest percentage of responses explaining the differences between the language on the test and language in university texts, the high-ability group, provided more specific examples for similarities and differences. Their responses were similar to responses from the mid-ability test-takers with reference to academic disciplines, vocabulary, and sentence structure, which could indicate a familiarity with the academic language used in university texts. One characteristic that was unique to the mid-ability test- takers was the interpretation of academic texts as instructional materials.

Responses in the low-ability group were mixed. A number of responses related to the purpose of the texts but were not specific about sentence level characteristics such as

vocabulary or sentence complexity. A few responses commented on discourse level

characteristics that might have been presented as characteristic of academic language taught in an English writing course. Finally, many responses from the low-ability group were ―I don‘t know.‖ At least test-takers in this group were honest in many responses stating that they were not familiar with university texts.