INTRODUCTION 1 Rationale for the study
Aims of the study
The aim of the study is to investigate reading strategies used by non English major students at High School for Gifted students In particular, the study
uncovers the overall use of reading strategies among students when reading academic materials
explores the frequency of reading strategies that students use while dealing with academic reading text
finds out the differences (if possible) in reading strategies used by high proficiency and low proficiency students
The research questions
1 What reading strategies are used by non English specialized students at Grade 10 at High School for Gifted Students?
2 Are there any differences between the reading strategies employed by high proficiency and low proficiency students at grade 10 at High School for Gifted Students?
Significance of the study
This study is important for high school teachers as it highlights students' awareness and perceived use of reading strategies when engaging with academic materials It identifies the most and least commonly used reading strategies among students and reveals differences in strategy use between high and low proficiency learners As a result, educators can better recognize effective reading strategies and enhance their instructional approaches to promote reading strategy development in the classroom.
Scope of the study
This study explores the relationship between reading strategies and students' proficiency levels, focusing specifically on non-English major Grade 10 students at a High School for Gifted Students By examining this connection, the research aims to enhance understanding of how varying proficiency levels impact reading comprehension and strategy use.
Method of the study
To achieve the aims mentioned above, data were collected through the survey questionnaire and students‘ profile of proficiency levels
The quantitative research method aims to gather insights into the reading strategies employed by students, focusing on the differences between more proficient and less proficient readers.
Design of the study
The study consists of three main parts: the introduction, the development and the conclusion
Part I: Introduction: presents the rationale for the study, the aims, the method, significance, the scope of the study as well as the design of the thesis
Part II: Development: consists of three chapters
Chapter 1 discusses the theoretical background relevant to the research topic including the reading, reading process, reading comprehension, reading strategies and reviews research conducted in the fields of reading strategies
Chapter 2 presents the research methodology of the study, which focuses on the participants, the instrument, data collection procedure, and data analysis
Chapter 3 presents the results of the study, analyzes the data and solves the requirements in the research questions
Part III: Conclusion: offers major findings, pedagogical implications and provides limitations for the study, also some suggestions for future study.
DEVELOPMENT
LITERATURE REVIEW 1.1 Definition of reading
This chapter provides a concise overview of the theoretical framework pertinent to the study, focusing on key aspects of reading in a foreign language It will cover essential topics such as reading comprehension, the reading process, comprehension levels, and effective reading strategies Additionally, a summary of related research studies will be included to enhance the understanding of these concepts.
Reading is a deeply personal activity that manifests in many forms, allowing individuals to stay informed about global events and the progress of civilization In an age of information overload, the importance of reading in our lives has intensified Despite its significance, defining reading can be challenging, as various scholars offer differing interpretations of this fundamental human skill.
According to Smith (1985: 102), ―reading is understanding the author’s thought‖
Readers must grasp the author's intent rather than just the individual words; otherwise, their comprehension of the text becomes ineffective Understanding the author's mindset is essential for meaningful engagement with the material.
Reading is a complex cognitive process that involves the interaction between the reader and the text, as highlighted by Rumelhart (1997) and Silberstein (1994) This interaction is crucial to the reading experience, as it enables the reader to (re)create meaningful discourse Ultimately, the meaning derived from the text is largely dependent on the reader, who serves as the cognitive subject in this dynamic process.
According to Goodman (1971), reading is a psycholinguistic process where the reader reconstructs a message encoded by the writer He describes this reconstruction as a cyclical process involving sampling, predicting, testing, and confirming Similarly, William (1986) emphasizes the importance of this reconstruction, noting that written texts often provide more information than necessary for comprehension He asserts that an efficient reader selectively extracts only the essential elements needed to derive meaning.
Harmer (1989) describes reading as a mechanical process where the eyes capture the message while the brain interprets its significance This perspective emphasizes the dual role of the eyes and brain in understanding written content.
Different authors offer varied definitions of reading, yet many highlight key similarities, particularly the strong connection between reading and comprehension Additionally, they emphasize that the reading process encompasses the reader, the text, and the dynamic interaction between the two.
Reading purposes encompass the various aims and objectives that drive individuals to engage with texts Each reader approaches reading with distinct motivations, making these purposes a crucial factor in achieving reading success According to Ruiqi (2007), understanding one's reading purpose is essential for effective reading.
According to Ruiqi (2007), there are two major reading purposes: reading for getting information and reading for pure fun or enjoyment Additionally, Grabe and
Stoller (2002) have classified the reading purposes under seven main headings as follows: 1) Reading to search for simple information; 2) Reading to skim quickly;
3) Reading to learn from the text; 4) Reading to integrate information; 5) Reading to write (or search for information needed for writing); 6) Reading to critique texts; 7) Reading for general comprehension
Numerous scholars, including Grabe, Stoller, and Ruiqi, emphasize the significance of reading and its various purposes Understanding these reading purposes is crucial for student success in reading tasks This study focuses specifically on reading academic texts, with the primary goal being to extract information effectively.
Various research efforts have sought to define and elucidate the reading process, leading to the development of several models The most commonly referenced models include the bottom-up model proposed by Gough in 1972, the top-down model introduced by Goodman in 1967, and the interactive model by Rumelhart in 1977.
The bottom-up reading model focuses on the written text, suggesting that reading is driven by the text itself and progresses from parts to the whole In this model, readers start with the written words and construct meaning by interpreting letters, words, phrases, and sentences in a linear manner This interpretation involves translating language from one symbolic form to another (Nunan, 1991) Eskey (2005) notes that bottom-up processes encompass a range of complex skills, including word recognition, spelling, morpho-phonemic processing, and morpho-syntactic parsing.
In this model, the reader seems to play a relatively passive role because the basis of bottom – up processing is the linguistic knowledge of the reader Samuel and Kamil
(1988) pointed out the shortcomings of these models as follows:
Early bottom-up models struggled to incorporate feedback loops, making it challenging to consider how sentence-context effects and prior knowledge of a text's topic influence word recognition and comprehension.
Rumelhart (1977) aligns with Samuel and Kamil in asserting that the bottom-up model's linear process does not allow for higher-level information to influence lower-level analysis However, there are instances where readers can accurately identify words by utilizing higher-level semantic and syntactic processing.
The top-down reading model emphasizes the reader's contributions to understanding a text, asserting that reading is driven by meaning and moves from whole to part In this process, readers make predictions about the text, test these predictions, and adjust them as necessary They rely on their background knowledge to make inferences, decoding symbols only when needed for comprehension This model illustrates that word identification is primarily guided by meaning, with higher-level processes such as past experiences and language knowledge shaping the flow of information Essentially, reading is likened to a "psycholinguistic guessing game" where readers anticipate upcoming words, similar to how listeners predict what speakers will say next.
The interaction between the reader and the text is crucial, as readers draw on their prior experiences and language knowledge to derive meaning They utilize not only the visible letters but also semantic cues (meaning) and syntactic cues (grammatical structure) to enhance comprehension This active engagement allows readers to contribute their knowledge, expectations, motivation, and attitudes towards the content, highlighting the dynamic nature of the reading process (Goodman, 1967).
METHODOLOGY 2.1 Settings
In this chapter, the research methodology including five sectors: settings, participants, instruments for data collection, data collection procedure, and data analysis will be presented
The study took place at the High School for Gifted Students at Hanoi University of Education, where English is a mandatory subject Students engage with general English through five key components in each unit: reading, speaking, listening, writing, and language focus The curriculum is primarily delivered in formal educational settings, adhering to the national course distribution guidelines.
At the High School for Gifted Students, learners are organized into nine specialized classes based on their interests and aptitudes, including Mathematics, English, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Information Technology, Literature, and two non-major classes While English major students participate in a dedicated program, students in other classes adhere to the standard high school English curriculum.
The study involved 120 tenth-grade students from non-English specialized classes at the High School for Gifted Students, comprising 85 males and 35 females These students, aged 15 to 16, hailed from various regions across the country and were enrolled in subjects such as 10 Mathematics 1, 10 Mathematics 2, 10 Chemistry, and 10 Biology Each participant had a minimum of four years of English education at the lower-secondary level and completed an English proficiency test during their entrance examination to the school They had recently finished their first term, utilizing the course book "Tiếng Anh 10" authored by Hoàng Văn Vân and colleagues.
The study categorized participants into three proficiency groups—high, intermediate, and low—based on their average scores from three English tests designed by the school's English teachers These standard progressive and final term tests focused on assessing overall English proficiency, particularly in reading comprehension and vocabulary, aligning with the typical foreign language instruction methods in Vietnamese high schools The high-proficiency group scored between 8.0 and 9.5, the intermediate group between 6.5 and 7.9, and the low-proficiency group between 5.1 and 6.4, revealing a significant gap between the high and low proficiency groups This disparity facilitated the researcher’s ability to identify distinct differences in reading strategy usage To compare these strategies, twenty students were randomly selected from both the high and low proficiency groups.
Students‘ proficiency levels are illustrated as follows:
Level Score Number of Students Percentage
Figure 5: Distribution of students’ proficiency levels
Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS) (see Appendix)
The SORS was the primary tool utilized in this study, highlighting the significance of cognitive strategies and metacognitive awareness in second language (L2) reading This instrument comprises 30 items, each assessed on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 to 5.
The Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS) assesses reading strategies on a scale from 1 ("I never or almost never do this") to 5 ("I always or almost always do this") It focuses on three main categories: Global strategies, Problem Solving strategies, and Support strategies, each encompassing a specific number of items that evaluate different aspects of reading comprehension and strategy use.
Global strategies (GLOB) refer to intentional and well-planned techniques that learners use to effectively monitor or manage their reading These strategies include setting a clear purpose, previewing the text for its length and organization, and utilizing typographical aids, tables, and figures.
Problem Solving Strategies (PROB) refer to specific techniques that readers employ to enhance their understanding of textual information These localized strategies come into play when challenges arise, such as modifying reading speed based on text difficulty, inferring meanings of unfamiliar words, and revisiting sections of the text to bolster comprehension.
• Support Strategies (SUP) are basic support mechanisms intended to aid the reader in comprehending the text such as using a dictionary, taking notes, underlining, or highlighting textual information (9 items)
The SORS was not translated into Vietnamese because the language for the SORS is simple and easy
Prior to the main study, a pilot study was conducted to assess the reliability of the research instruments and to identify potential challenges in administration This pilot involved 20 grade 10 students (13 males and 7 females) from the High School for Gifted Students The findings indicated that no significant issues arose during the pilot study, and importantly, the research design proved to be effective.
In the primary study, participants received brief explanations regarding the study's objectives and general instructions before the main procedures commenced.
The initial step involved participants completing the SORS to assess their general reading strategy use for academic texts and to identify the most and least commonly utilized strategies within the overall group and its subgroups To ensure comprehension, the author reviewed each question with the students in class prior to their final responses Once the students completed the questionnaire, the author promptly collected their submissions.
Second step, the questionnaires by 20 high proficiency students and 20 low proficiency students were selected to compare reading strategy use between these two groups
Third step, these students‘ results from the SORS were collected, summarized, and analyzed
One hundred twenty students in total participated in this data collection, and all students completed the survey
This quantitative study aims to identify the common reading strategies used by students and assess their awareness of these strategies By examining the frequencies and variances in strategy use, the research employs statistical data analysis to generate descriptive statistics that provide insights into students' reading behaviors.
This study utilized descriptive statistics to analyze the reading strategies employed by non-English major students and their frequency of use By applying a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5, the research categorized strategy usage into three levels: high (mean of 3.5 or higher), moderate (mean of 2.5 to 3.4), and low (mean of 2.4 or lower), following the framework established by Mokhtari and Sheorey (2002) for language learning strategies.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3.1 Profile of reading strategies by non English major students at High School for Gifted Students
This chapter outlines the results of data analyses and findings from the study, which aimed to investigate the reading strategies employed by students at the High School for Gifted Students Additionally, the research explored the variations in reading strategy usage between two distinct proficiency groups.
3.1 Profile of reading strategies by non English major students at High School for Gifted Students
Descriptive statistics were utilized to analyze the profile of reading strategies, focusing on the mean usage of each strategy, overall usage, and the application of three distinct strategy categories The findings revealed an average overall score of 3.23 for reading strategy use, indicating a moderate level of engagement as defined by Mokhtari and Sheorey.
According to Mokhtari and Sheorey's 2002 interpretation key, a mean score of 3.5 or higher indicates high usage, 2.5 to 3.4 signifies moderate usage, and 2.4 or lower reflects low usage Table 1 reveals that Problem Solving strategies are utilized at a high level, whereas Global and Support strategies are employed at a moderate level.
Use of Each Strategy Category (N = 120)
Categories of Strategy Mean Level
The average score for the overall use of reading strategies among students at the High School for Gifted Students was 3.23 on a 5-point Likert scale This score reflects a moderate level of strategy utilization, aligning with previously established criteria for effective reading strategy use.
Research on reading strategy usage in EFL contexts reveals a pattern of moderate engagement among college students In a study by Lee (2007) involving Korean EFL students, the average usage of reading strategies was reported at 2.92 and 3.01 on a 5-point Likert scale, indicating a moderate level of strategy application Similarly, Wu (2005) found that 204 Taiwanese EFL college students also exhibited moderate usage of reading strategies, with an average score of 3.08 on the same scale Wu's study utilized the SORS to assess reading strategy use, identifying twelve strategies with high usage, sixteen with moderate usage, and two with low usage.
In this study, Problem Solving strategies emerged as the most frequently utilized reading strategies, with a mean score of 3.59, followed by Support strategies at 3.06 and Global strategies at 3.03 These findings align with previous research by Wu (2005) and the study conducted by Sheorey and Mokhtari (2001), which highlighted that both ESL college students and native English speakers predominantly employed Problem Solving strategies This trend is attributed to the nature of Problem Solving strategies, defined by Mokhtari and Sheorey (2002) as localized and focused techniques that readers apply while engaging directly with the text, such as re-reading for enhanced comprehension.
‗trying to stay focused‘, ‗paying close attention‘, and ‗reading slowly and carefully‘, do not seem to demand many resources and efforts from readers to be implemented
When comparing the use of Problem Solving strategies to Global and Support strategies, the latter demonstrated moderate usage among readers This may be attributed to the higher demands that Global and Support strategies place on readers, making them less accessible than Problem Solving strategies.
Analyzing and evaluating text, checking content alignment with purposes, confirming predictions, previewing material, asking self-questions, taking notes, and paraphrasing for comprehension can be challenging for readers, as they often demand additional resources or actions High School for Gifted Students may struggle with these strategies due to a lack of familiarity or knowledge on how to effectively implement them Techniques such as analyzing and evaluating, self-questioning, and note-taking may necessitate more advanced skills, including the ability to read between the lines.
Thirteen strategy items which fall into the category of Global strategies are listed in the order of mean of the strategy use score reported by the participants in Table 2
GLOB 15 Using text features (e.g., table, figures) 3.9 HIGH
GLOB 3 Using prior knowledge 3.7 HIGH
GLOB 1 Setting purpose for reading 3.67 HIGH
GLOB 20 Using typographical features (bold, italics) 3.52 HIGH
GLOB 24 Predicting or guessing text meaning 3.08 MODERATE
GLOB 23 Checking my understanding when new information comes 3.07 MODERATE
GLOB 4 Previewing text before reading it 2.78 MODERATE
GLOB 17 Using context clues 2.73 MODERATE
GLOB 6 Checking how text content fits purpose 2.7 MODERATE
GLOB 8 Noting text characteristics (e.g., length, organization) 2.59 MODERATE
GLOB 12 Determining what to read 2.56 MODERATE
The analysis reveals that four strategies are frequently used, eight are moderately utilized, and one is rarely employed among HSGS students Generally, these students effectively leverage text features, typographical elements, and background knowledge to enhance their comprehension of texts This trend may stem from the relative simplicity of language and figures presented in the table, making them more accessible than the text content itself Consequently, students often rely on these straightforward strategies for better understanding Conversely, there is a noticeable lack of awareness and familiarity among students regarding the analysis and evaluation of their reading material This advanced strategy necessitates the development of sophisticated skills, which require thorough instruction from teachers Unfortunately, in Vietnam, constraints such as limited class time and a shortage of well-trained English teachers hinder students' ability to master this crucial strategy.
Nine strategy items which fall into the category of Support strategies are listed in the order of mean of the strategy use score reported by the participants in Table 3
SUP 13 Using reference materials (e.g., dictionary) 3.84 HIGH
SUP 29 Translating into a native language 3.62 HIGH
SUP 30 Thinking about information in both English and mother tongue 3.53 HIGH
SUP 10 Underlining or circle information in the text to help me remember it 3.4 MODERATE
SUP 2 Taking notes while reading 2.8 MODERATE
SUP 22 Going back and forth in the text to find relationship among ideas 2.78 MODERATE
SUP 5 Reading aloud when text becomes difficult 2.76 MODERATE
SUP 26 Asking oneself questions 2.45 MODERATE
SUP 18 Paraphrasing (restate ideas in my own words) for understanding 2.37 LOW
The data reveals that students predominantly utilize three high-usage strategies, five moderate-usage strategies, and one low-usage strategy, with a notable proficiency in using reference materials, particularly dictionaries This strong reliance on dictionaries may stem from their accessibility and teachers' encouragement to incorporate them into learning Furthermore, students frequently interpret texts in both their native language and English, employing strategies like translating into their mother tongue and processing information in both languages This bilingual approach may be a result of the Grammar-Translation method commonly used by Vietnamese teachers in earlier grades Additionally, limited language proficiency can hinder students' ability to think directly in English.
The article presents eight problem-solving strategies ranked by their mean usage scores, as reported by participants in Table 4.
Use of Problem Solving strategies (N = 120)
PROB 9 Trying to stay focused when losing concentration 4.12 HIGH PROB 7 Reading slowly and carefully to make sure I understand 3.82 HIGH
PROB 25 Re-reading for better understanding when text becomes difficult 3.71 HIGH
PROB 28 Guessing meaning of unknown words or phrases 3.68 HIGH
PROB 11 Adjusting reading speed 3.64 HIGH
PROB 14 Paying closer attention to reading when text becomes difficult 3.33 MODERATE
PROB 19 Visualizing information read 3.23 MODERATE
PROB 16 Pausing and thinking about reading 3.16 MODERATE
The analysis reveals that five strategies are frequently employed, while three are used moderately, with no strategies falling into the low usage category when facing concentration challenges Specifically, strategies such as reading slowly for comprehension and re-reading difficult texts are highlighted These findings suggest that these strategies are accessible to readers, as they do not necessitate advanced vocabulary or critical thinking skills; instead, readers simply need to choose to implement these techniques when they encounter difficulties in understanding texts.
High School for Gifted Students frequently employ five effective strategies to enhance their reading comprehension: maintaining focus despite distractions, utilizing text features, consulting reference materials like dictionaries, reading slowly for better understanding, and re-reading challenging passages As indicated in Table 5, all five strategies are utilized at a high level, demonstrating their importance in academic success.
Five Most Frequently Used Strategies (N 0)
PROB 9 Trying to stay focused when losing concentration 4.12 HIGH GLOB 15 Using text features (e.g., table, figures) 3.9 HIGH SUP 13 Using reference materials (e.g., dictionary) 3.84 HIGH PROB 7 Reading slowly and carefully to make sure I understand 3.82 HIGH
PROB 25 Re-reading for better understanding when text becomes difficult
As can be seen, three of the five most frequently used strategies fell into the category of Problem Solving strategies: ―trying to stay focused‖ (PROB, M = 4.12),
―reading slowly and carefully to make sure I understand‖ (PROB, M = 3.82), and
Re-reading for improved comprehension is a common strategy among students at HSGS, with a mean score of 3.71 These three strategies are straightforward and do not necessitate advanced techniques, which may explain their frequent use by students when engaging with academic texts in English.
CONCLUSION 1 Conclusion
Pedagogical Implications
This study highlights important educational implications for English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teaching and learning in Vietnam, particularly for High School for Gifted Students (HSGS) While the findings primarily target these students, they may also apply to a broader audience The research indicates that HSGS students exhibit moderate use of reading strategies, suggesting a need for improvement to enhance their course performance and overall language proficiency Consequently, it is recommended that Vietnamese EFL teachers intensify reading strategy instruction in the classroom to bolster students' reading strategies and foster critical thinking skills.
This study indicates that students with high language proficiency tend to employ specific reading strategies, such as using context clues, re-reading for clarity, utilizing prior knowledge, and setting a purpose for reading, more frequently than their less proficient peers Consequently, it is recommended that Vietnamese EFL teachers highlight these effective reading strategies to low proficiency students, encouraging them to adopt these techniques to enhance their reading comprehension skills.
Students at the High School for Gifted Students often do not utilize essential reading strategies, such as noting text characteristics and self-questioning, which are crucial for effective comprehension These strategies enable readers to assess their understanding during and after reading It appears that these students may lack familiarity with advanced reading techniques Therefore, it is essential for Vietnamese EFL teachers to instruct students on recognizing, employing, and understanding the purpose and timing of these strategies, ultimately fostering more active and strategic reading habits Moreover, teachers should recognize that the use of reading strategies can enhance students' language proficiency while also promoting their awareness of effective reading practices.
Limitations and recommendations for further study
While the study contributed to understanding reading strategies used by students at High School for Gifted Students, shortcomings are unavoidable
One significant limitation of this study is the reliability of the questionnaire responses, as it remains uncertain whether students genuinely employ the reported strategies To enhance the accuracy of findings, future research should consider utilizing online think-aloud protocols or conducting interviews to gain deeper insights into students' actual strategy usage.
Another limitation lies in the limited number of participants; therefore, generalization of the results of this study should be acted with caution
The study participants, drawn from a specialized high school in Vietnam, likely possess higher English as a Foreign Language (EFL) proficiency compared to those from other institutions, which may have influenced their moderate use of reading strategies Consequently, the findings should be interpreted with caution Additional research is essential to explore the relationship between students' awareness of reading comprehension strategies and both their perceived and actual usage of these strategies.
1 Afflerbach, P, Pearson, P D , Paris, S G (2008) Clarifying Differences Between Reading Skills and Reading Strategies.The Reading Teacher, 61(5), pp 364-373
2 Alexander, P A., and Jetton, T L (2000) ‗Learning from text: A multidimensional and
3 Anderson, N.J (1991) ―Individual difference in strategy use in second language testing and reading‖ The Modern Language Journal, 75(4), 460-
4 Barnett, M A (1989) More than Meets the Eye Foreign Language Reading:
5 Barnett, M.A (1988) ―Reading through context: how real and perceived strategy use affects L2 comprehension‖ The Modern Language Journal, 12(2),150-162
6 Bialystok, E (1990) Communication Strategies, Oxford: Blackwell
7 Block, E (1986) ‗The comprehension strategies of second language readers‘,
8 Brown, H D (1994) Teaching by Principles Prentice Hall Regents
9 Carrell, P., Pharis, B., & Liberto, J (1989) Metacognitive strategy training for ESL reading TESOL Quarterly 23/4:647-678
10 Cohen, A D (1990) Language Learning: Insights for Learners,
11 Dao, T.M.H (2012).The relationship between first – year Nghe An college students’ motivation to read and their use of reading strategies Unpublished
M.A minor thesis, University of Langauges and Interational Studies.
12 Goodman, K S (1971) Reading a Psycholinguistic Guessing Game In
Harry Singer and Rorbert B Ruddell (Eds)
13 Grabe, W 1991 Current developments in second language reading research
Handbook of Reading Research,Vol III,Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp 285–
14 Harmer, H (1989) The Practice of English Language Teaching Harlow:
15 Lee, K R (2007) Strategy Awareness-Raising for Success: Reading
Strategy Instruction in the EFL context Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
University of Maryland, College Park
16 Mokhtari, K & Sheorey, R (2002) Measuring ESL students‘ awareness of
17 Mokhtari, K & Reichard, C.A (2002) ―Assessing students‘ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies.‖ Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249-259
18 Oxford, R (1990) Learning Strategies – What every Teacher Should Know Massachusetts: Heinle and Heinle
19 Pang, J (2008) ―Research on good and poor reader characteristics:
Implication for L2 reading research in China‖ Reading in a Foreign
20 RAND Reading Study Group (2002) Reading for understanding: Toward and R & D program in reading comprehension Washington, DC: RAND
21 Read, T A S (1983) What is a good classroom test? (in) Guilines a periodical for classroom language teachers Classroom tests Crabbe, D (ed.) Volumn 5 No.1 Singapore: SEAMEO regional language centre
22 Sheorey, R & Mokhtari, K (2001) ―Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among native and nonnative readers‖
23 Singhal, M (2001) ―Reading proficiency, reading strategies, metacognitive awareness and L2 readers‖ The Reading Matrix, 1(1), 1-15
24 Teoh, S A (1996) ‗Academic reading strategies: Focus on ESL learners at advanced level studies‘,MA Dissertation, UM
25 Weinstein, C E and Mayer, R E (1987) ‗The teaching of learning strategies‘ M C
26 Wolf, M., & Bowers, P (1999) The double-defict hypothesis for the developmental dyslexias Journal of Educational Psychology 91, 3, 415-
27 Wu, C.-P (2005) An investigation of metacognitive reading strategies used by EFL Taiwanese college students to comprehend familiar versus unfamiliar Chinese and English texts Unpublished Doctoral dissertation,
APPENDIX Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS) –
The purpose of this survey is to collect information about the various techniques you use when you read academic materials in English (e.g., reading textbooks, reading journal articles, etc.)
All the items below refer to your reading of college-related academic materials (such as textbooks, not newspapers or magazines)
Each statement is followed by five numbers, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, and each number means the following:
‗1‘ means that ‗I never or almost never do this‘
‗2‘ means that ‗I do this only occasionally‘
‗3‘ means that ‗I sometimes do this‘ (About 50% of the time)
‗4‘ means that ‗I usually do this‘
‗5‘ means that ‗I always or almost always do this‘
To participate in this survey, please read each statement carefully and circle the number (1, 2, 3, 4, or 5) that best reflects your opinion Remember, there are no correct or incorrect answers If you have any questions, please reach out to the instructor right away.
1 I have a purpose in mind when I read
2 I take notes while reading to help me understand what I read
3 I think about what I know to help me understand what I read
4 I take an overall view of the text to see what it is about before reading it
5 When text becomes difficult, I read aloud to help me
6 I think about whether the content of the text fits my reading purpose
7 I read slowly and carefully to make sure I understand what
8 I review the text first by noting its characteristics like length and organization
9 I try to get back on track when I lose concentration
10 I underline or circle information in the text to help me remember it
11 I adjust my reading speed according to what I am reading
12 When reading, I decide what to read closely and what to ignore
13 I use reference materials (e.g., dictionary) to help me understand what I read
14 When text becomes difficult, I pay closer attention to what I am reading
15 I use tables, figures, and pictures in text to increase my understanding
16 I stop from time to time and think about what I am reading
17 I use context clues to help me better understand what I am reading
18 I paraphrase (restate ideas in my own words) to better understand what I read
19 I try to picture or visualize information to help remember what I read
20 I use typographical features like bold face and italics to identify key information
21 I critically analyze and evaluate the information presented in the text
22 I go back and forth in the text to find relationship among ideas in it