Expertise reversal effect on reading comprehension: A case of english for specific purposes (esp)

74 Huynh Cong Minh Hung. Journal of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University, 7(4), 74-83 
EXPERTISE REVERSAL EFFECT ON READING COMPREHENSION: 
A CASE OF ENGLISH FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES (ESP) 
HUYNH CONG MINH HUNG 
Ho Chi Minh City Open University, Vietnam – hung.hcm@ou.edu.vn 
 (Received: June 30, 2017; Revised: November 07, 2017; Accepted: November 29, 2017) 
ABSTRACT 
Cognitive Load Theory assists researchers in designing instructional procedures that can lead to enhancement 
of reading skills. This paper aims to examine cognitive load effect as expertise reversal effect on reading 
comprehension of English for Specific Purposes (ESP). An experiment was designed to investigate whether the 
expertise reversal effect can be applied to reading comprehension of ESP. The implications of the experiment 
findings can be used in teaching and learning ESP reading comprehension. The findings will help instructors design 
more appropriate reading comprehension instructions with alternative versions to integrate different domains such as 
English for Geography and Mathematics effectively and to test the expertise reversal effect on reading 
comprehension. 
Keywords: Cognitive Load Theory; Expertise reversal effect. 
1. Introduction 
Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) has 
developed since the 1980s and attracted many 
researchers all over the world. CLT is 
concerned with the limitation of working 
memory. According to CLT, reading 
comprehension is defined as a constraint of a 
limited working memory (Eskey and Grabe, 
1988). It will be more difficult for learners if 
working memory goes beyond its limitations 
(Goldman, Varma and Cote, 1996). Another 
difficulty for reading comprehension is the 
various levels of readers. According to 
Daneman and Capenter (1983) and Perfetti 
(1985), low level readers who do not have 
enough automation of schemas in reading 
comprehension may generate increased 
cognitive load. Obviously, differences 
between high level readers (experts) and low 
level readers (novices) are explained by using 
levels of expertise (Chi, Feltovich and 
Glasser, 1981). There are several instructional 
effects generated by CLT as the expertise 
reversal effect when instructions useful for 
novices may be unhelpful for more expert 
readers (Kalyuga, Ayres, Chandler and 
Sweller, 2007). The Expertise Reversal Effect 
is examined not only in natural sciences but 
also in well-structured domains like literacy 
texts (Kalyuga and Renkl, 2010) and biology 
texts (McNamara, Kintsch, Songer, 1996). 
The results of McNamara et al.’s (1996) 
experiments showed that novices would 
benefit from information added to original 
instructional text while experts were 
beneficial from original instructional text 
(McNamara et al., ibid). Oksa, et al. (2010) 
used Shakespearean text to differentiate 
instructional effectiveness and found that it 
was difficult for novices to comprehend the 
text, which used a lot of sophisticated 
Elizabethan English language. 
McNamara et al. (ibid) investigated the 
effect of text cohesion on readers’ 
comprehension. The results demonstrated that 
low level readers benefited more from high-
cohesive texts whereas high level readers 
benefited more from low-cohesive texts. This 
is because high-cohesive texts employed 
many anaphoric referents, sentence 
connectives, background information, 
meaningful headings and paragraphs while 
low cohesive texts do not contain so much 
structuring information (Tubingen, 2011). 
 Huynh Cong Minh Hung. Journal of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University, 7(4), 74-83 75 
McNamara et al. (ibid) clarified that low-
cohesive text required high level readers to 
engage in compensatory processing to infer 
unstated relations in the texts as germane 
possessing, while high cohesive text seduce 
high level readers to more passing processing 
instead of activating relevant prior knowledge 
of their own. In an effort to support the 
germane cognitive load explanation, O’Reilly 
and McNamara (2007) did a study about its 
effect on reading comprehension and found 
that learners with high prior knowledge and 
low reading skills did not benefit from high 
cohesive texts while skilled learners with high 
knowledge and reading skills would benefit 
from high cohesive texts. On explain their 
findings, O’Reilly and McNamara (ibid) 
considered that good reading skills assist high 
knowledge learners in involving in germane 
cognitive load processing. Kalyuga et al. 
(2007) explained that high knowledge 
learners, as skilled readers, know how to 
apply active processing strategies into well 
guided text instructions. McNamara et al. 
(ibid) stated that information added to an 
original biology instructional text for 
coherence enhancement was advantageous to 
low-knowledge readers only. However, an 
original minimally coherent format text was 
useful for high-knowledge readers more than 
an enhanced one. 
Unlike the study done by McNamara 
et al. (ibid), this experiment was conducted 
within the framework of CLT in which 
cognitive load approaches were used to 
measure effort and the efficiency. 
Accordingly, the current experiment used 
expanded and reduced versions instead of 
high-cohesive and low cohesive texts used by 
McNamara et al. (ibid) in their study. In the 
expanded and reduced versions, the sentences 
were added or removed while in the high-
cohesive texts and low cohesive texts, the 
content of the versions were modified by 
changing cohesive devices. 
Though CLT has been introduced since 
2007 (Huynh, 2007), no studies on cognitive 
load effects as expertise reversal effect have 
been carried out in the Vietnamese context. 
The paper is the first study in Vietnam to 
investigate the expertise reversal effect on 
EFL area related to reading comprehension. 
Based on a review of the study by McNamara 
et al (ibid), the ex ... .60 30 
Reduced 42.0 20.5 30 
Total 23.3 24.6 60 
Total expanded 15.33 20.94 60 
Reduced 23.66 24.56 60 
Total 19.50 23.11 120 
Figure 1. Performance scores in the learning phase 
Figure 2. Performance scores in the test phase 
3030 3030N =
GROUP
expert groupnovice group
L
E
A
R
N
IN
G
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
-20
VERSION
expanded version
reduced version
3030 3030N =
GROUP
expert groupnovice group
T
E
S
T
100
80
60
40
20
0
-20
VERSION
expanded version
reduced version
9610012
56214338
34
8520673
 Huynh Cong Minh Hung. Journal of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University, 7(4), 74-83 79 
Mental effort ratings (Table 2) 
demonstrated that the main effect of version 
was not significant, F (1,116) = .011, 
MSE = .747, p = .916. The main effect of 
expertise group was significant, F (1,116) = 
22.5, MSE = .747, p < .001, partial Eta 
Squared = .163 (see Table 2). There was a 
significant interaction between the groups and 
versions, F (1,116) = 18.7, MSE = .747, 
p < .001, partial Eta Squared = .139. Simple 
effect tests revealed that the effort scores of 
the expanded version were higher than those 
of the reduced version for the expert group, 
F (1,116) = 9.83, MSE = .747, p = .002, 
partial Eta Squared = .078 while the effort 
scores of the reduced version were higher than 
those of the expanded version for the novice 
group, F (1,116) = 8.92, MSE =.747, p = .003, 
partial Eta Squared = .071 (Figure 3). 
According to Paas and Van Merrienboer 
(1993), an efficiency score can be generated 
by using the difference between the z score of 
performance and the z score of effort. The 
main effect of version was not significant, 
F (1,116) = 1.34, MSE = .921, p = .209. The 
main effect of expert groups was significant, 
F (1,116) = 21.4, MSE=.921 p < .001, partial 
Eta Squared = .156 (See Table 4). There was 
a significant interaction between the groups 
and versions, F (1,116) = 27.0. MSE = .921, 
p < .001, partial Eta Squared = .189. Simple 
effect tests indicated that the reduced version 
was relatively more efficient than expanded 
version for the expert group, F (1,116) = 20.2, 
MSE = .926, p < .001, partial Eta Squared 
=.148. In contrast, the expanded version was 
relatively more efficient than the reduced 
version for the novice group, F (1,116) =8.17, 
MSE = .926, p = .005, partial Eta Squared 
=.066 (Figure 4). 
Table 2 
Effort and relative instructional efficiency in the experiment 
Group Version Effort Efficiency 
Mean SD Mean SD 
Expert Expanded 5.53 0.937 .0520 1.18703 
 Reduced 4.83 0.648 .8025 .83503 
 Total 5.18 0.837 .4273 1.08561 
Novice Expanded 5.60 1.102 -.3472 .82794 
 Reduced 6.27 0.691 -.5074 .95412 
 Total 5.93 0.972 -.4273 .88933 
Total Expanded 5.57 1.015 -. 1476 1.03442 
 Reduced 5.55 .982 .1476 1.17745 
 Total 5.56 .994 .0000 1.07729 
80 Huynh Cong Minh Hung. Journal of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University, 7(4), 74-83 
3030 3030N =
GROUP
novice groupexpert group
S
C
O
R
E
7.5
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
VERSION
expanded version
reduced version
Figure 3. Effort scores of the two groups 
Figure 4. Efficiency scores of the two groups 
4. Discussion 
As expected, the results showed that in 
the learning phase there was a significant 
interaction between the two groups and the 
two versions. The results demonstrated that, 
for the expert group, the reduced version 
outperformed the expanded version. The 
experts had better English proficiency in 
Geography. Thus, the experts were able to 
answer the question quickly and accurately. 
To comprehend the reduced version, the 
experts found it easy to find key words and to 
answer the questions. However, for the 
expanded version, the experts found it more 
difficult to answer the questions because the 
information provided and added to the version 
were redundant and caused an extraneous 
cognitive load. The results of the experiment 
in the learning phase for experts were 
different from previous studies (Oblinger and 
Oblinger, 2005; Chujo and Utliyama, 2005) in 
which text length had no significant effect on 
3030 3030N =
GROUP
NOVICE GROUPEXPERT GROUP
S
C
O
R
E
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
VERSION
EXPANDED GROUP
REDUCED GROUP
68
 Huynh Cong Minh Hung. Journal of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University, 7(4), 74-83 81 
reading comprehension. 
Contrary to expectation, in the learning 
phase, the results revealed that the expanded 
version did not significantly outperform the 
reduced version for the novices. The results in 
the learning phase for novices were consistent 
with some previous studies (Jalilehvand, 
2012; Strother and Ulijn, 1987; Mehrpour 
and Riazi, 2004) which showed a non-
significant effect of text length on reading 
comprehension. 
The results do not accord with McNamara 
et al’s (1996) data. Even though the expanded 
version had extra seven sentences explaining 
more about dinosaurs’ extinction, this 
addition seemed not enough to fill the gap 
between novice and experts’ background 
knowledge and the content of the text. One 
reason might be that English is the mother 
tongue of high school students in McNamara 
et al’s (1996) study while English is a foreign 
language for the Vietnamese students (ESP) in 
this experiment. Accordingly, the students of 
this experiment need to acquire adequate 
English proficiency as a second language to 
have appropriate background knowledge for 
understanding the content of the text. 
A second reason is that novices in the 
experiment were students from the 
Department of Mathematics who knew very 
little about geographical English, the domain 
of the text. For these two reasons, adding 
more information in the expanded version 
may not help the novices to achieve active 
processing in reading comprehension. In other 
words, the length of versions did not help 
novices to infer the content of the text in the 
learning phase. Nevertheless, the experiment 
results showed that both reduced and 
expanded versions did not make a difference 
for the novices in the learning phase. 
Unlike the “more effort” hypothesis 
suggested by McNamara et al. (ibid), the 
performance scores and effort scores of the 
experiment findings showed that the reduced 
version was beneficial to the experts as they 
need less effort to comprehend it. The reduced 
version in the experiment was a “challenging 
text” as McNamara et al. (ibid) suggested. 
The results of the mental effort scores also 
showed that McNamara’s hypothesis of 
putting in more effort was not supported. How 
much the experts understand the reduced 
version depend on how much they understand 
geography as the subject matter and whether 
knowledge they learnt from Department of 
Geography enough for them to comprehend 
the text. Obviously, the experts needed extra 
processing and differencing to understand the 
version. 
Next, the expanded version could help the 
novices to recall its content and answer the 
question because they already read this 
version in the learning phase and may have 
sufficient schemas to answer the questions in 
the test phase without looking at the text. In 
contrast, the novices who read the reduced 
version in the learning phase did not have 
sufficient schemas to recall the content and 
answer the questions precisely. For the 
experts, the background schemas helped them 
to recall more effectively. However, the 
experts who previously read the expanded 
version might have trouble recalling the 
content and answering the questions in the test 
phase due to extraneous and redundant 
cognitive load caused by the expanded version 
they learnt. 
The results of recalling in the test phase 
of this experiment were in line with that of 
MacNamara et al.’s (ibid) studies. 
Accordingly, the expanded version that helped 
the novices recall its content turned out to be 
counter-productive to the experts because it 
provided more appropriate schemas for 
novices to answer the questions while created 
a redundant and extraneous cognitive load for 
the experts. On the contrary, if novices did not 
get suitable schemas, it would generate an 
extraneous cognitive load for them to read the 
82 Huynh Cong Minh Hung. Journal of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University, 7(4), 74-83 
reduced version. 
Mental efforts scores showed significant 
interactions. It took more efforts for experts 
than for novices to understand the expanded 
version. These findings contradict with those 
of McNamara et al’s study. Also, instructional 
efficiency scores indicated that reduced 
version may be more efficient than expanded 
version for experts whereas the latter seemed 
more efficient than the former for novices. 
5. Implications 
Regarding educational implications, the 
results of this paper suggest that the 
alternative versions of a text should be 
designed appropriately to readers’ knowledge. 
The use of suitable versions may be 
very effective in facilitating reading 
comprehension, especially in an EFL context. 
Instructors should not design a reading 
comprehension version that might impose an 
extraneous cognitive load for readers and do 
not enhance their reading comprehension 
skills. 
The current research has provided some 
further insights into the relevant constructs. 
Of the two reduced and expanded versions of 
a text, the reduced version had a significant 
positive influence on high level readers while 
the expanded version helped enhance reading 
comprehension for lower level readers. 
In fact, instructors often provide all 
students with one general version of a text 
without considering the difference in their 
levels of knowledge. The findings implied 
that teachers should give students adequate 
versions of a text to improve learners’ reading 
comprehension. 
Furthermore, the main results of the paper 
revealed that the expanded version of a text 
could benefit novices significantly and thus, 
should be designed in a way to improve their 
reading comprehension. In contrast, the 
reduced version of a text needs to be designed 
to enhance the reading process of experts. 
6. Conclusion 
The present study found that reading 
instructions in ESP (English for Geography 
and History) used by readers of different 
levels could yield expertise reversal effect. 
The significant interaction between the two 
groups and two versions of the experiment 
indicated a negative correlation between the 
versions and the students’ expertise. The 
results showed that it was not the expanded 
version but the reduced version did enhance 
reading comprehension for experts because 
they were equipped with more sophisticated 
schemas for reading comprehension 
References 
Chi, M.T.H., Feltovich, P. & Glasser, R., (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts 
and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121-152. 
Chujo, K. Utliyama, M. (2005). Understand the role of text length, sample size and vocabulary size in determining 
text coverage. Reading in a foreign language, 17(1). 
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1983). Individual differences in integrating information between and within 
sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9, 561-584. 
Eskey, E., & Grabe, W. (1988). Interactive models for second language reading: perspectives on instruction. In 
P. Carrell., J. Devine, & E..Eskey (Eds.) Interactive Approaches to Second Language (pp. 223-237). Reading, 
Cambridge University Press. 
Feather, R.M., Snyder, S.L. (1993). Earth Science. McMillan. 
Goldman, S.R., Varma, S., & Cote, N. (1996). Extending capacity constrained construction interaction: Toward 
“smarter” and flexible models of text comprehension: In B.K. Britton & A.C. Greasser (Eds.), Models of 
understanding text, pp.73-113., Mahvaly, NJ: Erlbaum. 
 Huynh Cong Minh Hung. Journal of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University, 7(4), 74-83 83 
Huynh, C.M.H. (2007). Enhancing reading comprehension with an integrated format. 32
nd
 Annual conference of 
applied linguistics Association of Australia (ALAA 2007). The University of Wollongong, New South Wales, 
Australia. 
Jalilehvand, M. (2012). The effects of text length and picture on reading comprehension on Iranian EFL students. 
Asian Social Science. 3(3), 329-337. 
Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2007). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 
38, 23-31. 
Kalyuga, S., Renkl, A. (2010). Expertise reversal effect and its instructional implications: introduction to the special 
issue. Instructional Science, 38, 209-215. 
McNamara, D.S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N.B., Kintsch, W., (1996). Are good texts always better? Interaction of text 
coherence, background knowledge, and level of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and 
Instruction, 14(1), 1-43. 
Mehrpour, S. & Riazi, A. (2004). The impact of text length on EFL students’ reading comprehension. Asia EFL 
journal. 
Oblinger, D.G., & Oblinger, J.L. (2005). Educating the net generation. Educause. 
Oksa, A., Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P. (2010). Expertise reversal effect in using explanatory notes for readers of 
Shakespearean text. Instructional Science, 38, 217-236. 
Paas, F.W.C., & van Merrienboer (2003), The efficiency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine 
mental effort and performance measures. Human factors, 35, 737-743. 
Perfetti, C.A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press. 
Strother, J.B. & Ulijn, J.M. (1987). Does syntactic rewriting affect English for science and technology text 
comprehension?. In J. Devine, P.L. Carrell and D.E. Eskey (Eds.). Research in reading in English as a second 
language. Washington, DC: TESOL, 91-101.