Việc sử dụng chiến lược đọc của sinh viên có năng lực đọc tiếng Anh khác nhau
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 37, NO. 4 (2021)
111
READING STRATEGIES USED BYSTUDENTS OF DIFFERENT
LEVELS OFENGLISH READING PROFICIENCY
Nguyen Thi Bich Thuy*
PHENIKAA University, Faculty of English, Hanoi 12116, Vietnam
Received 4 February 2021
Revised 4 May 2021; Accepted 16 July 2021
Abstract: Reading plays a vital role in academic development, particularly when learners have
to work over a huge amount of foreign language materials for their own specialist subjects (McDonough
& Shaw, 2013). Strengthening English reading ability is necessary for students to promote individual
ability in university education. This study was conducted to explore if there were any differences in the
use of reading strategies among university students of different levels of self-rated English reading
proficiency. 957 students from 6 universities in the North of Vietnam participated in the study. The
results of the study through the questionnaire adapted from Oxford’s (2013) Self-Strategic Regulation
model (S2R) show that there were significant differences in the use of reading strategies among students
of different self-rated levels of English reading proficiency, especially between students of good and
poor proficiency. The highest frequencies in the use of each strategy category were in the group of self-
rated good readers and the students of the poor group reported the lowest frequencies. The study also
reveals individual strategies used the most and the least by each group of students.
Keywords: reading strategies, English reading proficiency, university students, Vietnam
1. Introduction*
Adolescents entering the world in the
so on (Hsu, 2015). One of the most
important factors is students’ learning
strategy use, particularly their use of reading
strategies.
21st century read and write more than at any
other time in human history (Moore et al.,
1999, as cited in International Reading
Association, 2012, p. 3). In the full bloom of
technology, especially in the stage of the
fourth industrial revolution, students’ ability
to read might be crucial as they will need
literacy to cope with the flood of information
and to feed their imaginations to create their
future. There are many factors affecting
students’ English reading proficiency such
as text types, university and social
Reading strategies refer to the mental
operations
involved
when
readers
purposefully approach a text. They indicate
how readers conceive a task, what textual
cues they attend to, how they make sense of
what they read, and what they do when they
do not understand (Barnett, 1988;
Brantmeier, 2002). In fact, reading strategies
play positive roles in English reading
comprehension as they facilitate learning to
read effectively (Brown, 2001; Oxford,
1990; Rubin, 2008).
environments,
students’
intelligence,
learning motivation, teaching methods, and
* Corresponding author.
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 37, NO. 4 (2021)
112
This research was conducted to
explore if there were any differences in the
use of reading strategies by students of
different levels of English reading
proficiency.
Although different authors have
defined reading strategies in different ways,
all of them share the same viewpoint on the
characteristics of reading strategies. Those
are (1) deliberate, conscious plans,
techniques, and skills; (2) aiming to enhance
reading comprehension and overcome
comprehension failures; and (3) behavioral
mental. They are of interest for what they
reveal about the way readers manage their
interaction with the written text and how
these strategies are related to text
comprehension (Carrell, Pharis & Liberto,
1989). In this sense, a reading strategy is an
action (or a series of actions) that is
employed to construct meaning (Brantmeier,
2002).
2. Literature Review
2.1. Reading Strategies
According to Garner (1987), reading
strategies are generally deliberate, planful
activities undertaken by active learners,
many times to remedy perceived cognitive
failure. Reading strategies are also defined
as actions that readers select deliberately and
control to achieve goals or objectives (Paris,
Wasik & Turner, 1991). In a very similar
way, Carrell, Gajuusek, and Wise (1998)
express “strategies are used deliberately to
refer to actions that readers select and
control to achieve desired goals or
objectives” (pp. 97-112). Yang (2004)
defines reading strategies as conscious and
deliberate activities that readers take to help
their reading in acquiring, storing, retrieving
information, and constructing meaning from
the text.
Different classification systems of
reading strategies based on contrasting
criteria have been proposed by different
authors (Carrell, 1989; Mokhtari & Sheorey,
2002; O'Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford,
1990; Oxford, 2013). Each existing
classification system in and on itself
involves an implicit theory about the nature
of reading strategies. However, how many
strategies are available to learners to assist
them in language learning and how these
strategies should be classified are open to
debate (Hsiao & Oxford, 2002). It may also
cause a problem that many researchers are
very easily puzzled with which classification
to follow when they conduct studies on
reading strategy use.
In the Self-Strategic Regulation
(S2R) model, Oxford (2013) describes
reading strategy as “deliberate, goal-directed
attempts to manage and control efforts to
read the L2” (p. 12). With the S2R model
readers are seen as strategically self-
regulated readers who approach challenging
reading tasks and problems by choosing
from a repertoire of tactics, the ones they
believe are best compatible with the
situation and purpose of their reading
(Oxford, 2013). Furthermore, Oxford’s
(2013) argument into characteristics of
reading strategies favors different types of
Oxford’s (2013) S2R model includes
strategies of three majors, mutually
influential dimensions: cognitive, affective,
sociocultural-interactive,
metastrategies.
and
Metastrategies, which consist of
eight strategies, aim to help readers manage
and control the reading process in a general
sense, with a focus on understanding
readers’ own needs and using and adjusting
the other strategies to meet those needs, for
example, planning, organizing, monitoring,
consciousness
(awareness,
attention,
intention, and efforts), whole reader,
utilizing strategy chains, transferability of
strategies to other related situations, and
reading effectiveness.
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 37, NO. 4 (2021)
113
evaluating, etc. Cognitive strategies include
six strategies, which help readers remember
and proceed with the reading process, such
as activating knowledge, constructing,
transforming, etc. Affective strategies
consisting of two strategies help readers
handle emotions, beliefs, attitudes, and
motivation in their reading process. Socio-
cultural Interactive strategies, which include
three strategies, support readers to deal with
issues of contexts, communication, and
culture in their reading comprehension.
The conceptual framework is
demonstrated as follows.
Figure 2.1
S2R Classification of Reading Strategies (Oxford, 2013)
METASTRATEGIES FOR GENERAL MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL
1. Paying Attention
2. Planning
5. Implementing Plans
6. Orchestrating Strategy Use
3. Obtaining and Using Resources
4. Organizing
7. Monitoring
8. Evaluating
METASOCIOCULTURAL
METACOGNITIVE
STRATEGIES
INTERACTIVE
STRATEGIES
META-AFFECTIVE
STRATEGIES
These metastrategies help the reader control the strategies below
COGNITIVE STRATEGIES
AFFECTIVE
SOCIOCULTURAL-
INTERACTIVE (SI)
STRATEGIES
STRATEGIES
help the reader construct,
transform, and apply L2
knowledge
help the reader create
positive emotions and
attitudes and stay
motivated
help the reader interact to
learn and communicate
(despite knowledge gaps)
and deal well with culture
1. Using the Senses to
Understand and Remember
2. Activating Knowledge
3. Reasoning
1. Activating Supportive
Emotions, Beliefs, and
Attitudes
1. Interacting to Learn
and Communicate
2. Overcoming
4. Conceptualizing with Details
(including analyzing, comparing,
etc.)
2. Generating Motivation
Knowledge Gaps in
Communicating
5. Conceptualizing Broadly
(including synthesizing,
summarizing, etc.)
3. Dealing with
Sociocultural Contexts
and Identities
6. Going Beyond the Immediate
Data (including guessing,
predicting, etc.)
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 37, NO. 4 (2021)
114
Oxford (2013) presents nine ways
that make the S2R Model different from
other strategy taxonomies, which shows the
advantages of this new model. The most
significant differences between Oxford’s
(2013) and other authors’ systems can be
demonstrated as follows.
and metastrategies (a total of nineteen)
needed for self-regulated L2 learning;
therefore, the model can be viewed as
scientifically elegant. Taking the advantages
and disadvantages of the theoretical issues
on reading strategies into consideration,
reviewing empirical studies on reading
strategies, the researcher has chosen the
Self-Strategic Regulation (S2R) model by
Oxford (2013) as the theoretical framework
for this study. The main reasons for the
choice are: firstly, the S2R reading model
has overcome the weaknesses of the other
models, especially by putting an important
role of reading strategies on readers'
comprehensions, which are ignored in all
other reading models. In addition, self-
regulation is one of the most exciting
developments in a second or foreign
language (L2) learning (Oxford, 2013, p. 7).
Secondly, Oxford's (2013) model focuses on
factors that make learning easier, more
enjoyable, faster, and more efficient. Finally,
through the comparing of the S2R reading
strategy taxonomy and other ones, Oxford's
(2013) S2R reading strategy classification
shows its scientific elegance, especially it
avoids the overlap of strategies in some other
taxonomies, which shows usefulness and
effectiveness for researchers to conduct a
study on reading strategy use.
First, the S2R Model systematically
integrates three major traditions of learning
theory and research: psychological,
socialcognitive, and sociocultural. The
psychological tradition of strategies is very
diverse, including strategies related to
schema (mental structure) development,
comprehension, cognitive information-
processing, metacognition, motivation,
emotion, and beliefs. The social-cognitive
strand deals with strategies associated with
task phases, self-efficacy, and social
comparisons. The sociocultural tradition
involves strategies (often called “higher
mental functions” or “operations”) as linked
with mediated learning, instrumental
enrichment, communities of practice, and
cognitive apprenticeship.
Second, by proposing affecting and
sociocultural interaction subscales of
strategies, especially by recognizing the
significant importance of metastrategies,
Oxford (2013) indicates that second
language reading is not just
a
cognitive/metacognitive process but is also
influenced by a complex web of beliefs,
2.2. Previous Studies
There have been more and more
studies on language learning strategies in
general and on reading strategies in
particular since the seventieth decade of the
previous century. In this part, some studies
on the reading strategy used by successful
and unsuccessful readers will be presented.
emotional
associations,
attitudes,
motivations, sociocultural relationships,
personal interactions, and power dynamics.
Third, the S2R Model states that
metastrategies,
such
as
Planning,
Organizing, Monitoring, and Evaluating, are
naturally usable at either the task level or the
entire-process level. Meanwhile, several
social-cognitive models of self-regulated
learning view these as only related to a
particular task phase (e.g., strategies used
before, during, and after the task). Finally,
the S2R Model includes the fewest strategies
A study which should be considered
to create the ground of investigation in this
field is one by Block (1986) when he using
“general comprehension” and “local
linguistic” categories echoed Hosenfeld’s
(1977) binary classification of strategies
compared the reading comprehension
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 37, NO. 4 (2021)
115
strategies used by native English speakers
and ESL students who were enrolled in a
remedial reading course at the university
level. The strategies introduced were divided
into two types: general strategies and local
strategies. Of the ESL students in the study,
the readers with higher comprehension
scores reported using “general strategies”
such as integrating new information in the
text with old information, distinguishing
main ideas from details, referring to their
background, and focusing on the textual
meaning as a whole. On the other hand,
readers with low comprehension rarely
distinguished main ideas from details rarely
referred to their background, infrequently
focused on textual meaning, and seldom
integrated information.
Malcolm (2009) when he compared the
reported academic reading strategy use of
medical students in Bahrain University at
different English proficiency levels. The
study result indicates that the low English
proficiency group used more translation
strategies and they reported using fewer
strategies than the upper-year students.
Moreover, the translation is also reported to
be heavily relied on by less proficient
readers in Alsheikh’s (2011) study.
In the reality of their reading process,
good readers outperformed the poor ones in
employing metacognitive strategies. In their
studies Yin and Agnes (2001), Zhang,
Seepho and Sirinthorn (2013), and
Shikano’s (2013) used the same instrument
of Metacognitive Awareness of Reading
Strategies Inventory (MARSI) (Mokhtari &
Richard, 2002) to collect data on the readers’
use of metacognitive strategies. Of the three
studies, Yin and Agnes’s (2001) study
results show that good readers were more
aware of metacognitive knowledge and used
metacognitive strategies more frequently
than poor readers. In addition, studies by
Dhieb-Henia (2003), Swanson and De La
Paz (1998), and Zhang (2001) conducted on
poor and good readers’ use of strategies
demonstrated that good readers used more
metacognitive strategies as they read.
In the same year, Ebrahimi (2012),
and Saeed, Maedeh, and Mohsen (2012)
conducted separate studies to investigate
cognitive strategies used by EFL graduate
students during their reading a hypermedia
text (8 Persian and 23 Persian students,
respectively). The data of both studies
collected through think-aloud, interview,
and questionnaire indicate that there was a
considerable discrepancy in the strategies
used between groups of high and low
reading proficiency. Strategies used by the
proficient group were mainly skimming and
using prior knowledge. In contrast, the less-
proficient group mostly made use of
paraphrasing, translating into the first
language, and checking the unknown words
in a dictionary. The result is in coincidence
with the findings in Zhang's (2001) and
Yau’s (2005) studies when they reveal that
there was a significant difference among
more advanced and less advanced readers.
Proficient readers employed effective
strategies such as monitoring their reading
comprehension, skimming for the key ideas,
and guessing meaning, while the latter
depended on a dictionary for word meaning,
and translated passages from English into
Chinese. This result was also shared by
In contrast, Shokrpour and Nasiri
(2011) in their study to investigate the use of
cognitive and metacognitive reading
strategies by ninety-four good and poor
Iranian academic IELTS test takers reveal
that there were not any significant
differences between good and poor readers
in using cognitive strategies. Sharing the
same results, the research by Shikano (2013)
on sixty Japanese university students shows
no significant differences between the high-
reading-proficiency group and the low-
reading-proficiency
group.
Moreover,
Zhang et al.’s (2013) investigation on
twenty-two Chinese third-year English
majored undergraduate students reveals that
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 37, NO. 4 (2021)
116
the metacognitive strategy use of high and
low proficiency students was the same at
medium level. This is similar to the findings
of Anderson’s (1991) and Yayli’s (2010)
studies when they found out that proficient
and less proficient readers used the same
strategy types while performing a reading
activity. However, high-scoring students
seemed to be applying strategies more
effectively and appropriately.
inferences, predictions, and elaborations;
skimming, guessing. In contrast, less
proficient readers tended to use less effective
strategies such as paraphrasing, translating
into the first language, and checking the
unknown words in a dictionary.
3. Methodology
3.1. The Participants
The participants chosen in this study
consisted of 981 students from six
universities in Hanoi, Vietnam (Banking
Academy, Posts and Telecommunications
Nevertheless,
a
study
by
Oranpattanachi (2010) on ninety Thai
engineering students shows that the high and
the low proficiency readers shared both
different and similar issues in their reading
processes. The differences were divided into
two aspects: the frequency of perceived
strategy use and the frequency of perceived
top-down strategy use. The similarities in
their reading processes were also divided
into two aspects: the rank ordering of
perceived strategy use and the style of text
processing.
Institute
of
Technology,
National
Economics University, University of Social
Science and Humanities, Hanoi Medical
University, and University of Science and
Technology of Hanoi). The participants aged
from 20-22, majoring in Economics,
Technology, Finance/Banking, Accounting,
Social Science and Humanities, Medicine,
and Administrating were second or third-
year students. They were diverse in gender,
academic major, experiences in English
learning including reading comprehension
proficiency, etc.
To
summarize,
of
studies
investigating strategies used by successful
and unsuccessful readers, most results reveal
that there were differences in strategy use
between the two kinds of readers. All the
authors share the idea that readers with
higher reading proficiency reported using
various and effective reading strategies, with
higher frequency and vice versa. High
proficient readers tended to deploy a wider
range of strategies with higher frequency.
The strategies used by successful readers are
more appropriate to tasks than those by
unsuccessful readers, so the strategies used
show higher effectiveness. Meanwhile,
some other studies show no significant
differences in strategy use, especially in the
total number of strategies, between the two
kinds of readers. However, the difference
lies in types and the frequency of using the
strategies. The strategies used by proficient
readers are mainly integrating new
information in the text with old information
or using background knowledge, including
3.2. Data Collection Instruments
Because of their salient advantages,
especially they are self-administered and can
be given to large groups of participants at the
same time, which can assure more uniform
and standard, and more accurate collected
data, questionnaires were the first choice in
the consideration of research instruments for
this study.
The questionnaire used in the present
study consists of two parts:
- Part One designed to gather the
information about individual characteristics
of the participants required the subjects to
supply their ethnographic data, such as
gender, age, time of English study, major,
their self-assessment on English, and
reading proficiency.
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 37, NO. 4 (2021)
117
- Part Two included nineteen
statements appropriate to nineteen different
strategies applied in reading comprehension.
These questionnaire statements, which are
broad, teachable actions that readers choose
from among alternatives and employ for
second/foreign language learning purposes,
adapted from the S2R strategy model by
Oxford (2013) demonstrated above.
Alpha=0.935 for 19 items of reading
strategies. In addition, the correlation
between coefficient variables and the total of
each item was high with the score ranging
from 0.454 to 0.758.
These results revealed that both
external and internal reliability and validity
of the questionnaire were assured and it
could be used as the instrument of the main
study.
The external reliability of the
questionnaire was assured as all the nineteen
items in the questionnaire were replicated
from Oxford’s (1990) Strategy Inventory for
Language Learning (SILL) which has been
applied by many other researchers across the
world in the field (Oxford, 2001).
3.3. Data Collection and Analyzing
Procedures
At the beginning of the procedures,
all of the participants were introduced to the
purpose of the study and were given
guidelines and instructions for completing
the questionnaire. The students then filled in
the two parts of the questionnaire, which
took about 30 to 40 minutes.
For each questionnaire statement,
five alternative choices were provided.
Participants were asked to select one from
among the followings:
981 questionnaires were returned.
However, after the data cleansing, 957 ones
were used for the research, which then were
analyzed via The Statistical Package for the
Social Science (SPSS) version 20.0.
1 for Never or rarely true of me
2 for Usually not true of me
3 for Somewhat true of me
4 for Usually true of me
5 for Always or almost true of me
Descriptive statistics were employed
to identify what and how frequently the
participants used strategies during their
reading English texts. The descriptive
statistics provided frequencies, means, and
standard deviations. These data were used to
describe what reading strategies the
participants used and how frequently the
strategies were used: the mean score of
overall reading strategy use, the mean score
of each strategy category, the most and the
least frequently used strategies among 19
strategies/4 strategy categories.
The higher the number that
respondents indicated applied to them, the
more frequent the use of the particular
strategy was reflected. The whole
questionnaire
was
translated
into
Vietnamese for the participants’ better
understanding (Appendix A).
A pilot study was conducted to test
the validity of the research instrument,
especially to check the compatibility of the
scale and the suitability of the statements in
the questionnaire. 110 students chosen
randomly participated in this pilot study and
they were asked to complete the reading
strategy questionnaire.
The Cronbach’s Alpha score was
measured to examine the internal
consistency of the reliability of the
questionnaire
statements
with
the
Cronbach's Alpha was used to check
the reliability of the scale inside the
questionnaire. The internal reliability of the
questionnaire was high with Cronbach's
participants for this study. The Cronbach’s
Alpha for the overall 19 items was .855 and
for each item if item deleted ranged from the
highest of .901 to the lowest of .842, which
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 37, NO. 4 (2021)
118
confirmed the reliability of the questionnaire
(Cronbach, 1951). This is commonly
considered a good indicator, as the
coefficient alpha should exceed 0.70 to
ensure dependable measurement of
cognitive activities (Cronbach, 1951).
Table 4.1
Participants’ Self-Rated English Reading
Proficiency
Level of self-rated
English reading
proficiency
Frequency Percent
The scores were interpreted using the
interpretation key based on the frequency
scale delineated by Oxford (1990) for
general learning strategy usage. The higher
the averages are the more frequently the
participants used the strategy concerned.
Good
113
232
379
233
957
11.8
24.2
39.6
24.4
957
Fair
Valid
Average
Poor
Total
Table 3.1
Frequency Scale Delineated by Oxford
(1990)
Table 4.2 shows the means and
standard deviations of the overall use of
reading strategies for the participants’
different levels of self-rated English reading
proficiency. It can be seen clearly from the
table that students who rated themselves
good and fair at English reading proficiency
outperformed those who self-rated average
and poor at English reading proficiency (M=
3.21, 3.14 vs M=2.86, 2.63, respectively).
Mean
score
Frequency
scale
Evaluation
Never or almost
never used
1.0-1.4
1.5-2.4
Low
Generally not
used
2.5-3.4
3.5-4.4
Medium
High
Sometimes used
Usually used
Table 4.2
Participants’ Overall Strategy Use by Levels
of Self-Rated English Reading Proficiency
Always or almost
always used
4.5-5.0
Self-rated
English
Overall strategy use
One-way ANOVAs, MANOVAs
were employed to find significant
differences in both the overall use of reading
strategies and the use of each strategy
category across levels of the participants’
English reading proficiency.
reading
proficiency
Number
Mean
S.D
Good
Fair
113
232
379
233
957
3.21
3.14
2.86
2.63
2.90
1.066
1.010
0.993
1.362
1.168
Average
Poor
4. Findings and Discussion
Total
The questionnaire analysis shows
how the participants self-evaluated their
English reading proficiency based on four
scales, from “Good” to “Poor”. It can be
seen from Table 4.1 that only 11.8% of the
participants self rated good at reading, while
most of them were fair or average at reading,
and nearly a quarter considered themselves
as poor English readers.
A one-way MANOVA results reveal
a significant multivariate main effect for
students’ self-rated English reading
proficiency (p=0.000<0.05) indicating the
relationship between the participants’ levels
of self-rated English reading proficiency and
their overall reading strategy use.
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 37, NO. 4 (2021)
119
Table 4.3 contains the means and
standard deviations of the four reading
strategy categories for the participants of
different levels of self-rated English reading
proficiency. The figures show that the
highest frequencies in the use of each
Table 4.3
strategy category were in the group of the
students who self-rated good at English
reading proficiency, and the students of
average and poor groups reported the lowest
frequencies.
Participants’ Use of Strategy Category by Levels of Self-Rated English Reading Proficiency
English
reading
proficiency
META
COG
S.D
AFFEC
SOCIO
N
M
S.D
M
M
S.D
M
S.D
Good
Fair
113
232
379
233
957
2.84
2.92
2.61
2.50
2.69
0.723
0.626
0.643
1.184
0.828
3.58
3.57
3.19
2.81
3.24
0.859
0.797
0.732
0.855
0.846
3.01
3.02
2.89
2.69
2.89
0.981
0.911
0.935
1.050
0.971
3.09
2.92
2.78
2.58
2.80
0.789
0.873
0.807
0.869
0.850
Average
Poor
Total
In addition, the results from one-way
MANOVA confirm that levels of the
students’ self-rated English reading
proficiency had effects on their use of the
four strategy categories.
p value=0.000<0.05 in the use of the
strategies (Paying attention, Monitoring,
Evaluating, Using the Senses to Understand
and Remember, Activating Knowledge,
Reasoning, Conceptualizing with Details,
Conceptualizing Broadly, Going Beyond the
Multiple Comparisons using the
LSD method were taken to compare the
frequent use of strategy categories by
participants of different levels of self-rated
English learning proficiency. The result
indicates that there were great differences in
the use of all strategy categories between a
group of self-rated poor students and three
other groups with p value=0.000 for all
comparisons. There were also significant
differences in the use of the Cognitive
Category between the group of self-rated
average and other groups.
Immediate
Data,
Generating
and
Maintaining
Motivation,
Overcoming
Knowledge Gaps in Communicating, and
Dealing with Sociocultural Contexts and
Identities). Ten of the strategies were shared
by the self-rated average group (Paying
attention, Monitoring, Evaluating, Using the
Senses to Understand and Remember,
Activating
Conceptualizing
Knowledge,
with
Reasoning,
Details,
Conceptualizing Broadly, Going Beyond the
Immediate Data, Dealing with Sociocultural
Contexts and Identities), too. It can also be
seen from the findings that two strategies-
Organizing, and Implementing plans were
reported being used differently by self-rated
poor and fair groups. Five strategies that did
not show the significant differences in the
use by the groups of different levels of self-
rated reading proficiency were Planning,
One more MANOVA with LSD
method was also taken to compare the
frequent use of individual strategies by
participants of different levels of self-rated
English reading proficiency. The results
reveal that there were significant differences
in the use of twelve strategies between self-
rated students of each reading proficiency
level and students of other groups, with
Obtaining
and
Using
Resources,
Orchestrating Strategy Use, Activating
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 37, NO. 4 (2021)
120
Supportive Emotions, Beliefs, and Attitudes,
and Interacting to Learn and Communicate.
It can be said that there were significant
differences in the frequent use of strategies
between students of different levels of self-
rated English reading proficiency, especially
between poor and average students and those
of other self-rated English reading
proficiency levels.
ranged from M=3.72; S.D=0.940 to M=3.50;
S.D=1.087. Meanwhile, the most used
strategies by the other group were Obtaining
and
Using
Resources,
Activating
Knowledge, Using the Senses to Understand
and Remember, Interacting to Learn and
Communicate, and Conceptualizing with
Details, with the mean scores at medium
level ranged from M=3.07; S.D=1.212 to
M=2.76; S.D=1.105. Of the five least used
strategies both of the groups shared four
strategies: Monitoring, Implementing Plans,
Organizing, and Planning. Each group
showed a different strategy for the rest -
Orchestrating Strategy Use for self-rated
good readers and Dealing with Sociocultural
Contexts and Identities for self-rated bad
English reading proficiency.
Table 4.4 shows strategies that were
used the most and the least frequently by
self-rated good and poor readers. The five
most used strategies by self-rated good
English
readers
were
Activating
Knowledge, Going Beyond the Immediate
Data, Using the Senses to Understand and
Remember, Reasoning, and Conceptualizing
Broadly with the mean scores at high level
Table 4.4
The Most and the Least Frequently Used Strategies by Self-Rated Good and Poor Participants
GOOD
POOR
M S.D
STRATEGIES
STRATEGIES
M
S.D
S3 Obtaining and Using
Resources
S10 Activating Knowledge
3.72
.940
3.07 1.212
3.04 1.078
2.88 1.044
2.76 1.091
2.76 1.105
S14 Going Beyond the
Immediate Data
3.61 1.114
3.58 1.015
3.58 1.051
3.50 1.087
S10 Activating Knowledge
S9 Using the Senses to
Understand and Remember
S9 Using the Senses to
Understand and Remember
S17 Interacting to Learn
and Communicate
S11 Reasoning
S12 Conceptualizing with
Details
S13 Conceptualizing Broadly
S15 Activating Supportive
Emotions, Beliefs, and
Attitudes
S12 Conceptualizing with
Details
3.49 1.127
2.76 1.165
2.73 1.054
S3 Obtaining and Using
Resources
3.42 1.092
3.40 1.040
S1 Paying attention
S1 Paying attention
S13 Conceptualizing Broadly 2.73 1.134
S11 Reasoning 2.72 1.044
S19 Dealing with Sociocultural
Contexts and Identities
3.20
.888
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 37, NO. 4 (2021)
121
GOOD
POOR
M S.D
STRATEGIES
STRATEGIES
M
S.D
S18 Overcoming Knowledge
Gaps in Communicating
S14 Going Beyond the
Immediate Data
3.12 1.016
3.04 1.030
2.72 1.037
2.66 6.429
S16 Generating and
Maintaining Motivation
S6 Orchestrating Strategy
Use
S15 Activating Supportive
Emotions, Beliefs, and
Attitudes
S18 Overcoming Knowledge
Gaps in Communicating
2.98 1.118
2.64 1.017
S17 Interacting to Learn and
Communicate
S16 Generating and
Maintaining Motivation
2.95 1.034
2.93 1.075
2.62 1.089
2.46 1.148
S8 Evaluating
S8 Evaluating
S19 Dealing with
Sociocultural Contexts and
Identities
S7 Monitoring
2.72 1.122
2.35 1.015
S6 Orchestrating Strategy Use
S5 Implementing Plans
S4 Organizing
2.66 1.185
2.58 1.124
2.55 1.118
S4 Organizing
2.32 1.047
2.28 1.132
2.27 1.009
S5 Implementing Plans
S7 Monitoring
S2 Planning
2.48 1.078
S2 Planning
2.23 1.032
Total
3.13
Total
2.63
Numerous studies have examined the
relationship between language learning
strategy use and proficiency in specific skill
areas, including speaking, listening, reading,
writing, and vocabulary learning have been
shown to exist (Cohen & Macaro, 2007;
Griffifths, 2008). Findings from many
studies reveal a positive relationship
between reading proficiency and reading
strategy use, which indicate that readers of
higher levels of proficiency tend to use more
reading strategies, as well as a wider range
of strategies than those of lower proficiency
levels (Huang & Nisbet, 2014; Madhumathi
& Ghosh, 2012).
overall use of strategies while reading.
The significant differences were
shown in the use of all the four strategy
categories between self-rated poor reading
proficiency participants and those of the
other groups. Self-rated poor students used
all the four strategy categories at a much
lower frequency degree than the others. The
greatest differences could be seen in the use
of Cognitive and Sociocultural categories.
Self-rated good proficiency students used
Cognitive strategies the most frequently with
high level (M=3.58; S.D=0.859), followed
by Sociocultural Interactive, Affective
categories, and Metastrategies received the
lowest level of frequency. The poor readers
also reported using the Cognitive category at
the highest frequency level but at a much
lower grade than that by the good self-rated
group (M=2.81; S.D=0.855 vs M=3.58;
S.D=0.859).ThisresultsupportsEhrmanetal.’s,
The results of this study are
consistent with the findings of the previous
studies with the fact that students who self-
rated good and fair readers overwhelmed
those who rated themselves average and
poor readers, especially poor readers, in the
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 37, NO. 4 (2021)
122
(2003) study when they claimed that only
cognitive strategies had a significant
relationship with language proficiency; in
other words, only cognitive strategies
significantly influenced ESL/EFL learners’
proficiency outcomes. However, the results
contradict Shokrpour and Nasiri’s (2011)
findings as they indicated that there were not
any significant differences between good
and poor readers in using cognitive
strategies.
good group. A comparison in the use of
individual strategies between these two
groups shows many significant differences.
Firstly, the mean scores on overall
use of strategies by the self-rated good
readers were much higher than those of the
poor (M=3.13; S.D=1.066 vs M=2.63;
S.D=1.362). All the five most used strategies
by the good group were at high level (M=
from 3.72; S.D= 0.940 to M=3.50;
S.D=1.087; M average=3.60; S.D=1.0414)
while those by the poor were at medium
level (M= from 3.07; S.D= 1.212 to M=2.76;
S.D=1.105; M average=2.90; S.D =1.106).
These findings show a significant
relationship between the participants’
English reading proficiency and their
employment of reading strategy categories.
Secondly, all the five most used
strategies by self-rated good students
belonged to the Cognitive category while
those by poor ones were of three different
categories- one of Metastrategies, three of
Cognitive, and one of Sociocultural
Interactive category. It is noticeable that the
strategies most used by the two groups were
completely different. The good group
reported using Activating knowledge
strategy the most and all the other four
related to guessing or inferring the meaning
of the text while the other group reported
Obtaining and Using Resources the most and
only one strategy related to guessing (the
least of the five most used strategies). The
two most used strategies by the two groups
were the typical ones of high and low
proficient readers as Oxford (1990) indicates
that high proficiency language learners make
educated guesses when they encounter
unknown expressions, but low proficiency
language learners try to look up unfamiliar
words. In addition, Rubin (1975) focusing
on observation of successful second
language learners concluded that the
characteristics of good language learners are
to be a willing and accurate guesser, to have
a strong drive to communicate, to learn from
communication, to be uninhibited and
willing to make mistakes, paying attention to
form by looking for patterns, taking
advantage of every opportunity to practice,
Higher
self-rated
English
reading
proficiency participants reported using
strategy categories much more frequently
than those of lower self-rated English
reading proficiency. However, students of
all the groups showed no good ability to
manage and control their reading, especially
ability to use and adjust other strategies to
meet their needs in the reading process as all
of them reported using Metastrategies at the
lowest frequency level, which consequently
influenced their reading comprehension.
The results of Vann and Abraham’s (1990)
studies reveal that unsuccessful learners did
use strategies generally considered as useful,
and often they employed the same strategies
as successful learners. Nevertheless, the
difference is that successful learners used a
larger range of strategies in language
learning more frequently and appropriately
than unsuccessful learners. That might be the
reason why the participants of this study,
both with high and low self-rated English
reading proficiency, used the same strategy
categories but at different frequency levels.
Taking the use of individual
strategies into consideration there were
significant differences in the use of sixteen
out of the nineteen given strategies. The
differences were mostly in the use of
strategies by the participants of self-rated
poor reading proficiency and those of the
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 37, NO. 4 (2021)
123
and focusing on meaning. The results of this
study support Oxford’s (1991) findings
when she concluded there were differences
between high and low proficient learners in
the frequency of application of strategies,
which in turn affected their academic
achievement. It is also in line with Zhang
and Wu’s (2009) findings as they claim that
the frequency of the use of strategy use
increase as learners become more proficient
and proficient learners show a greater and
higher tendency to use strategies than low
proficient learners (Park, 2010; Sheorey &
Mokhtari, 2001). The explanation for the
results might be that advanced learners
might be more autonomous in their use of
reading strategies (Park, 2010). However,
the results contradict Aliakbari and
Mahjoob’s (2016) findings when they
recognize no significant relationship
between the students’ proficiency level and
their use of metacognitive strategies.
In the reality of language learning,
learner’s use of appropriate strategies
enables them to be responsible for their own
learning
through
improving
their
independence, self-direction, and learner’s
autonomy, which are crucial for learners to
continue their life-long learning endeavors
(Oxford & Nyikos, 1989). It is suggested
from the results of this study that elicit
instruction of strategy use should be
incorporated into the English curriculum for
university students. Especially, students also
need to motivate themselves so that they can
become self-strategic regulating readers to
get high English reading achievement. In
addition, according to Anderson’s (1991)
“strategic reading is not only a matter of
knowing what strategy to use but also the
reader must know how to use a strategy
successfully and orchestrate its use with
other strategies. It is not sufficient to know
about strategies; a reader must also be able
to apply them strategically” (pp. 468-469).
5. Conclusions
It can be seen clearly from the
research that the participants’ levels of self-
rated English reading proficiency were
related to their overall reading strategy use.
There were significant differences in the use
of reading strategy categories among
students of different self-rated levels of
English reading proficiency, especially
between students of good and poor
proficiency. The highest frequencies in the
use of each strategy category were in the
group of self-rated good students, and the
students of the poor group reported the
lowest frequencies. The differences here
might have resulted from the students’
motivation and attitude to English learning
and reading. These were effective factors,
which consist of three variables: attitudes,
motivation, and anxiety. It is then crucial to
improve students’ affective factors (Henter,
2012).
References
Aliakbari, M.,
& Mahjoob, E. (2016). The
relationship between age and willingness to
communicate in an Iranian EFL context.
Journal of Applied Linguistics and
Language Research, 3(1), 54-65.
Al-sheikh, N. (2011). Three readers, three languages,
three texts: The strategic reading of
multilingual and multiliterate readers. The
Reading Matrix, 11(1), 34-53.
Barnett, M. (1988). Teaching through context: How
real and perceived strategy use affect L2
comprehension. The Modern Language
Journal, 77, 150-162.
Brantmeier, C. (2002). Second language reading
strategy research at the secondary and
university levels: Variations, disparities, and
generalizability. The Reading Matrix, 2(3),
1-13.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An
interactive approach to language pedagogy
(2nd ed.). Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Carrell, P., Gajuusek, L., & Wise, T. (1998).
Metacognition and EFL/ESL reading.
International Science, 26, 97-112.
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 37, NO. 4 (2021)
124
Carrell, P. L., Pharis, B. G., & Liberto, J. C. (1989).
Metacognitive strategy training for ESL
reading. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 647-678.
Malcolm, D. (2009). Reading strategy awareness of
Arabic-speaking medical students studying
in English. System, 37, 640-651.
Cohen, A., & Macaro, E. (Eds.). (2007). Language
learner strategies: Thirty years of research
and practice. Oxford University Press.
McDonough, J., & Shaw, C. (2013). Materials and
methods in ELT: A teacher’s guide (3rd ed.).
Blackwell.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the
internal structure of tests. Psychometrika,
16, 297-334.
Mokhtari, K., & Sheorey, R. (2002). Measuring ESL
students’ awareness of reading strategies.
Journal of Developmental Education, 25,
2-10.
Dhieb-Henia, N. (2003). Evaluating the effectiveness
of metacognitive strategy training for
reading research articles in an ESP context.
English for Specific Purposes, 22(4), 387-417.
Oranpattanachi, P. (2010). Perceived reading
strategies used by Thai pre-engineering
students. ABAC Journal, 30(2), 26-42.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies.
What every teacher should know. Heinle &
Heinle Publishers.
Ebrahimi, S. S. (2012). Reading strategies of Iranian
postgraduate English students living at ESL
context in the first and second language. In
Ch. Dan (Ed.), International proceedings of
economics development and research:
Education and management innovation
(Vol. 30, pp. 195-199). IACSIT Press.
Oxford, R. L. (2001). Language learning strategies.
In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.), The
Cambridge guide to teaching English to
speakers of other languages (pp. 166-172).
Cambridge University Press.
Ehrman, M. E., Leaver, B. L., & Oxford, R. L.
(2003). A brief overview of individual
differences in second language learning.
System, 31, 313-330.
Oxford, R. L. (2013). Teaching and researching
language learning strategies. Pearson.
Oxford, R. L., & Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables
affecting choice of language learning
strategies by university students. Modern
Language Journal, 73, 291-300.
Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading
comprehension. Ablex Publishing.
Griffiths, C. (2008). Strategies and good language
learners. In C. Griffiths (Ed.), Lessons from
good language learners (pp. 83-98).
Cambridge University Press.
Paris, S. G., Wasik, B. A., & Turner, J. C. (1991). The
development of strategies of readers. In R.
Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal & P. D.
Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading
research (Vol. 2, pp. 609-640). Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Hosenfeld, C. (1977). A preliminary investigation of
the reading strategies of successful and
unsuccessful second language learners.
System, 5, 110-145.
Rubin, J. (2008). Reflections. In C. Griffiths (Ed.),
Lessons from good language learners (pp.
10-15). Cambridge University Press.
Hsiao, T. Y., &. Oxford, R. L. (2002). Comparing
theories of language learning strategies: A
confirmatory factor analysis. Modern
Language Journal, 86, 368-383.
Saeed, K., Maedeh, M., & Mohsen, R. (2012).
Hypermedia reading strategies used by
Persian graduate students in TEFL: A think-
aloud study. Reading Matrix: An
International Online Journal, 12(1), 39-49.
Huang, J., & Nisbet, D. (2014). The relationship
between reading proficiency and reading
strategy use: A study of adult ESL learners.
Journal of Adult Education, 43(2), 1-14.
Shikano, M. (2013). A quantitative survey on
metacognitive awareness of reading strategy
use in English by Japanese university
students. International Education Centre
Journal, 14, 121-135.
International
Reading
Association.
(2012).
Adolescent literacy: A position statement of
the International Reading Association
(2012 ed.).
Madhumathi, P., & Ghosh, A. (2012). Awareness of
reading strategy use of Indian ESL students
and the relationship with reading
Shokrpour, N., & Nasiri, E. (2011). The use of
cognitive and metacognitive reading
strategies by Iranian IETSE test takers in the
reading section of the test. European
Journal of Social Science, 22(1), 126-134.
comprehension
achievement.
English
Language Teaching, 5(12), 131-140.
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 37, NO. 4 (2021)
125
Swanson, P. N., & De La Paz, S. (1998). Teaching
effective comprehension strategies to
students with learning and reading
disabilities. Intervention in School & Clinic,
33(4), 209-219.
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research,
38, 234-251.
Yin, W. M., & Agnes, C. S. C. (2001, December 2-6).
Knowledge and use of metacognitive
strategies [Paper presentation]. AARE
Annual Conference, Fremantle, Australia.
Vann, R., & Abraham, R. (1990). Strategies of
unsuccessful language learners. TESOL
Quarterly, 24(2), 223-234.
Zhang, L. (2001). Awareness in reading: EFL
students’ metacognitive knowledge of
reading strategies in an acquisition-poor
environment. Language Awareness, 10(4),
268-288.
Yang, L. L. (2004). The development of a validated
perceived self-efficacy scale on English
reading strategies. Journal of Education &
Psychology, 27(2), 377-398.
Yau, J. C. (2005). Two Mandarin readers in Taiwan:
Characteristics of children with higher and
lower reading proficiency levels. Journal of
Research in Reading, 28(2), 108-123.
Zhang, L., & Seepho, S. (2013). Metacognitive
strategy use and academic reading
achievement: Insights from a Chinese
context. Electronic Journal of Foreign
Language Teaching, 10, 54-69.
Yayli, D. (2010). A think-aloud study: Cognitive and
metacognitive reading strategies of ELT
department students. Egitim Arastirmalari-
Appendix A (English Version)
Questionnaire on Students’ Strategy Use in Reading Comprehension
In order to assess the use of English reading strategies of students, please answer the
following questions by filling in the personal information and marking X with the appropriate
choices. The information obtained is for research purposes only.
Part I: Personal Information
1. Full name: …………………………………..……… Age: ………………
2. Gender: Male Female
4. Major: ……………………
5. Freshmen, Sophomore, Junior, or Senior (circle one)
6. How long have you been studying English? …………………………………
7. Do you like learning English? Yes
8. Do you like reading in English? Yes
No
No
Do not mind
Do not mind
9. Have you ever been trained about reading strategies? Yes
No
10. How do you rate your overall English proficiency?
Good
11. How do you rate your English reading proficiency?
Good Fair Average
Fair
Average
Poor
Poor
12. How important is it for you to become proficient in reading in English?
Very important Important Not so important Not important
Part II: Reading Strategy Use
This questionnaire has been designed to help you to identify which strategies you use in
reading comprehension.
Read each statement below. Please write the responding 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 that tells HOW
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 37, NO. 4 (2021)
126
TRUE OF YOU THE STATEMENT IS.
1. Never or almost true of me
3. Somewhat true of me
5. Always true of me
2. Usually not true of me
4. Usually true of me
(1) means that the statement is very rarely true of you
(2) means that the statement is true less than half the time
(3) means that the statement is true of you about half the time
(4) means that the statement is true more than half the time
(5) means that the statement is true of you almost always
Mark an X in the appropriate column.
Please respond to each statement quickly, without too much thought. Try not to change
your responses after you choose them. Please use a pen to mark your choices.
Example:
No.
Statements
1
2
3
4
5
1
I focus on the text when reading.
X
Questionnaire statements
No.
Statements
1
2
3
4
5
METASTRATEGIES
I plan for reading.
1
2
I focus on the text when reading.
I use references (dictionaries, vocabulary, etc.) to help me
understand what I need to read.
3
4
5
6
7
8
I organize reading to get effectiveness.
I implement the reading plans.
I orchestrate the strategy use when reading.
I monitor my reading.
I evaluate my reading.
COGNITIVE STRATEGIES
9
I use the senses to understand and remember what I read.
I activate my knowledge to understand the reading text.
10
I reason (analyze and guess grammatical points, vocabulary, etc.)
what I read to understand the text (Reasoning).
11
12
13
I guess new words or phrases while reading through the analysis
of known elements (Conceptualizing with Details).
I guess the text basing on the link between words, phrases,
concepts, etc., in the reading (Conceptualizing Broadly).
VNU JOURNAL OF FOREIGN STUDIES, VOL. 37, NO. 4 (2021)
I deduce the content of the readings from the available
127
14
information (title, known vocabulary, topic sentences ...) (Going
Beyond the Immediate Data).
AFFECTIVE STRATEGIES
I am self-motivated in the process of reading through activating
supportive emotions, beliefs, and attitudes.
15
16
I generate and maintain motivation when reading.
SOCIOCULTURAL- INTERACTIVE STRATEGIES
I interact with others while reading to learn and communicate.
17
18
I overcome knowledge gaps about the text in communicating with
others.
I try to deal with sociocultural contexts and identities when
reading.
19
Thank you for your cooperation!
VIỆC SỬ DỤNG CHIẾN LƯỢC ĐỌC
CỦASINH VIÊN CÓ NĂNG LỰC ĐỌC TIẾNGANH KHÁC NHAU
Nguyễn Thị Bích Thủy
Khoa Tiếng Anh, Trường Đại học PHENIKAA, Yên Nghĩa, Hà Đông, Hà Nội 12116, Việt Nam
Tóm tắt: Đọc đóng một vai trò quan trọng trong sự phát triển học thuật, đặc biệt khi người học
phải làm việc với một khối lượng lớn tài liệu bằng ngoại ngữ cho các môn học chuyên môn của mình
(McDonough & Shaw, 2013). Tăng cường năng lực đọc tiếng Anh là rất cần thiết để sinh viên đại học
có thể phát huy năng lực cá nhân của bản thân. Nghiên cứu này được thực hiện nhằm tìm hiểu liệu có
sự khác biệt trong việc sử dụng các chiến lược đọc giữa các sinh viên đại học có mức độ tự đánh giá
năng lực đọc tiếng Anh khác nhau. 957 sinh viên từ 6 trường đại học ở miền Bắc Việt Nam đã tham gia
nghiên cứu. Kết quả của nghiên cứu thông qua bảng câu hỏi dựa trên mô hình S2R của Oxford (2013)
cho thấy mức độ tự đánh giá về năng lực đọc tiếng Anh của sinh viên có liên quan đến việc sử dụng
chiến lược đọc tổng thể của họ. Có sự khác biệt đáng kể trong việc sử dụng các chiến lược đọc giữa các
sinh viên có năng lực đọc tiếng Anh, đặc biệt là giữa các sinh viên có năng lực tốt và kém. Tần suất sử
dụng mỗi loại chiến lược được ghi nhận cao nhất là ở nhóm sinh viên tự đánh giá tốt và ngược lại.
Từ khóa: chiến lược đọc, năng lực đọc tiếng Anh, sinh viên đại học, Việt Nam
17 trang
22320
Free
Bạn đang xem tài liệu "Việc sử dụng chiến lược đọc của sinh viên có năng lực đọc tiếng Anh khác nhau", để tải tài liệu gốc về máy hãy click vào nút Download ở trên
File đính kèm:
- viec_su_dung_chien_luoc_doc_cua_sinh_vien_co_nang_luc_doc_ti.pdf
