A correlational study on tolerance of ambiguity and English reading strategies use of non-English major undergraduate students
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study explored the relationship between the tolerance of ambiguity (TOA) of Chinese non-English major undergraduate students and their use of English reading strategies. TOA refers to an individual’s ability to accept, manage, and remain comfortable with uncertain, unclear, or ambiguous situation in the context of language learning and comprehension, where meaning may not always be immediately apparent, particularly in English reading comprehension in this study. A mixed-methods research design was employed, including quantitative data and qualitative data. For collecting quantitative data, questionnaires were used for measuring TOA levels and reading strategies use from 371 undergraduate freshmen at a private university located in Guilin, China. While semi-structured interviews were used to collect qualitative data with 18 participants, 3 from each level of two questionnaires. The results showed that most participants performed a high TOA level, and a positive correlation was identified between TOA and reading strategies use. Specifically, students with higher TOA level tended to adopt flexible reading strategies. There are three dimensions of reading strategies, global strategies (e.g., setting reading goals), problem-solving strategies (e.g., making inferences), and support strategies (e.g., using dictionaries). And semi-structured interviews worked as an addition to confirming the finding. A limitation of this study is its focus on freshmen from a private university, which may restrict the generalizability of the findings to other educational contexts.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The articles featured in the Journal of Language and Culture (JLC) constitute academic works representing the viewpoints of the respective author(s). It is crucial to note that these opinions do not necessarily reflect those of the Editorial Board.
All articles published in JLC are released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). This license grants permission for unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided proper credit is given to the original author(s) and the source.
References
Aaro, T. (2008). Variables in psychology: A critique of quantitative psychology. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 42(2), 159–178. https://doi:10.1007/s12124-008-9058-9
Al-Mekhlafi, A. M. (2018). EFL learners’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. International Journal of Instruction, 11(2), 297–308. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.11220a
Galletta, A., & Cross, W. E. (2013). Mastering the semi-structured interview and beyond: From research design to analysis and publication (Vol. 18). NYU press.
DiCicco‐Bloom, B., & Crabtree, B. F. (2006). The qualitative research interview. Medical education, 40(4), 314-321.
Baharloo, A., & Ghasemian, Z. (2024). The interplay of Iranian EFL learners’ tolerance of ambiguity and their reading performance encountering unknown vocabularies: Taking their L2 reading anxiety into account. International Journal of Research in English Education, 9(3), 61-74.
Block, E. (1986). The comprehension strategies of second language readers. TESOL Quarterly, 20(3), 463–494. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586295
Braun, V., Clarke, V., Hayfield, N., & Terry, G. (2019). Thematic analysis. In P. Liamputtong (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in health social sciences (pp. 843–860). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_103
Budner, S. (1962). Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. Journal of Personality, 30(1), 29–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1467-6494.1962.TB02303.X
Büşra, Y. (2020). Tolerance of ambiguity and cognitive engagement in language learning outcomes. Applied Linguistics Journal, 41(5), 620-635.
Chapelle, C., & Roberts, C. (1986). Ambiguity tolerance and field independence as predictors of proficiency in English as a second language. Language Learning, 36(1), 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1467-1770.1986.TB00367.X
Daqing, W. (2021). An analysis of tolerance of ambiguity in second language learning. Sino-US English Teaching, 18(9), 250-260. https://doi.org/10.17265/1539-8072/2021.09.003
Dardjito, H. (2019). Students’ metacognitive reading awareness and academic English reading comprehension in EFL context. International Journal of Instruction, 12(4), 611–624. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12439a
Deliany, Z., & Cahyono, B. Y. (2020). Metacognitive reading strategies awareness and metacognitive reading strategies use of EFL university students across gender. Studies in English Language and Education, 7(2), 421–437. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v7i2.17026
Dewaele, J.-M., & Li, C. (2020). Emotions in second language acquisition: A critical review and research agenda. Foreign Language World, 196(1), 34-49.
de Vries, H. H. (2021). Tolerance of ambiguity. In The Palgrave encyclopedia of the possible (pp. 1-16). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Durmaz, B. N. (2020). The relationship between listening metacognitive awareness, foreign language listening anxiety and ambiguity tolerance of Turkish EFL students [Unpublished Master’s thesis, Gazi University]. Gazi University.
Durmaz, B. N., & Aşık, A. (2022). Relationship between metacognitive awareness, listening anxiety and ambiguity tolerance of Turkish EFL learners. The Reading Matrix, 22(2), 173–187. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363335646
Durrheim, K., & Foster, D. (1997). Tolerance of ambiguity as a content specific construct. Personality and Individual Differences, 22(5), 741–750. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(96)00207-3
Ely, C. M. (1989). Tolerance of ambiguity and use of second language strategies. Foreign Language Annals, 22(5), 437–445. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1944-9720.1989.TB02766.X
Habók, A., & Magyar, A. (2019). The role of metacognitive strategies and tolerance of ambiguity in second language reading comprehension. System, 80, 123-135.
Jiang, Y. (2023). Tolerance of ambiguity, reading strategies and foreign language anxiety in English learning. Curriculum and Teaching Methodology, 6(16), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.23977/curtm.2023.061601
Jing, Z. (2015). A study on foreign language reading strategies from the perspective of schema activation theory. Computer-Assisted Foreign Language Education in China, (1), 67–72.
Kallio, H., Pietilä, A. M., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M. (2016). Systematic methodological review: Developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72(12), 2954–2965. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13031
Keshavarz, M. H., & Assar, M. (2011). Reading comprehension ability and metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among high, mid and low ambiguity tolerance EAP students. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 1(2), 71-108.
Kianinezhad, N. (2024). Investigating the influence of ambiguity tolerance and resilience on student engagement: A literature review. English Learning Innovation (Englie), 5(1), 58–69. https://doi.org/10.22219/englie.v5i1.28210
Mokhtari, K., & Sheorey, R. (2002). Measuring ESL students’ awareness of reading strategies. Journal of developmental education, 25(3), 2-11.
Lai, P. (2009). Psychological representation and cognitive analysis of ambiguity tolerant language learning style. Journal of Tianjin Foreign Studies University, 16(6), 67–72.
Li, H., Gan, Z., Leung, S. O., & An, Z. (2022). The impact of reading strategy instruction on reading comprehension, strategy use, motivation, and self-efficacy in Chinese university EFL students. SAGE Open, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221086659
Lin, Y., Niu, R., & Yu, Z. (2023). Roles of ambiguity tolerance and learning effectiveness: Structural equation modeling evidence from EFL students’ perceptions of factors influencing peer collaboration. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688231216201
Liu, D. (2002). A study on reading strategies of Chinese English learners. Foreign Language World, 6, 13–18.
McKim, C. A. (2017). The value of mixed methods research: A mixed methods study. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(2), 202–222. doi:10.1177/1558689815607096
Mirsadegh, M., Hooman, F., & Homaei, R. (2021). Relationship between tolerance of ambiguity and family cohesion with academic engagement based on mediating role of academic resilience in female students. Social Determinants of Health, 7(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.22037/sdh.v7i1.34811
Mohammadi, R. R., Saeidi, M., & Ahangari, S. (2020). Self-regulated learning instruction and the relationships among self-regulation, reading comprehension and reading problem solving: PLS-SEM approach. Cogent Education, 7(1), 1784534. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1746105
Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.249
Neda, H. (2024). The predictive role of tolerance of ambiguity on strategy use and reading comprehension. Modern Language Journal, 108(1), 100-115.
Oxford, R. L. (1992). Research on second language learning strategies. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 174–187. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190500002452
Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (2013). How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction. In Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 15-51). Routledge.
Ponterotto, J. G., Mathew, J. T., & Raughley, B. (2013). The value of mixed methods designs to social justice research in counseling and psychology. Journal for Social Action in Counseling and Psychology, 5(2), 16-29.
Sadeghi, K., & Bakhshi, N. (2025). Integrated listening/speaking skill assessment: The role of ambiguity tolerance, cognitive/metacognitive strategy use, and foreign language anxiety. International Journal of Language Testing, 15(1), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.22034/ijlt.2024.452581.1338
Seidi, N. (2018). The effect of ambiguity tolerance and gender on Iranian EFL learners reading comprehension. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 5(4), 130–139. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341541916
Wang, X. (2015). Effect of meta-cognitive strategy training on Chinese EFL learners’ reading competence. International Journal of English Linguistics, 5(1), 159–165. https://doi.org/10.5539/IJEL.V5N1P159
Wen, Q. (2003). The road to success in learning English. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Yamane, T. (1967). Elementary sampling theory. Prentice-Hall.
Yang, N. (2022). An investigation into the interplay between Chinese EFL teachers’ emotional intelligence, ambiguity tolerance, and work engagement. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.929933
Yin, Y. (2005). The impact of “ambiguity tolerance” on English learning and its implications for classroom English teaching. Foreign Language World, 2, 58–61.
Yu, M., Wang, H., & Xia, G. (2022). The review on the role of ambiguity of tolerance and resilience on students’ engagement. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.828894
Zhang, L. J., & Wu, A. (2009). Chinese senior high school EFL students’ metacognitive awareness and reading-strategy use. Reading in a Foreign Language, 21(1), 37–59. https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10125/66635
Zhang, Q. (2004). The influence of ambiguity tolerance on the choice of foreign language learning strategies. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 6, 457–461.
Zhang, S. (2011). A study on the influence of foreign language ambiguity tolerance based on different learning tasks. Journal Beijing International Studies University, 33(8), 70–75.
