000080690 an investigation into the awareness of reading strategy use among students in the foundation studies department at hanoi university

000080690 an investigation into the awareness of reading strategy use among students in the foundation studies department at hanoi university

T he significance of the study

D efin itio n s o f re a d in g

Reading is a complex process that blends perceptual, psycholinguistic, and cognitive abilities (Adams, 1990; NICHHD, 2000) It is also conceptualized as an interactive cognitive activity in which readers engage with the text using their prior knowledge, cultural background, and appropriate strategies (Alderson, 1984; Silberstein, 1994, p 12).

Walker (1996) defines reading as an active process rather than a product Readers continuously shift between multiple sources of information, develop and refine meaning and strategies, check their interpretations, and use the social context to shape and focus their response.

Reading, as defined by scholars such as Manzo and colleagues, is the process of decoding the words to reconstruct the author's basic message, making inferences and understanding the author's implied message, and judging the significance of the author's message.

Reading has long been recognized as the most important skill in teaching and learning a foreign language This section delves into the role of reading in learning English as a foreign language (EFL), detailing how reading practice supports vocabulary growth, grammar awareness, comprehension strategies, and learner motivation By examining evidence from research and classroom practice, we highlight how deliberate reading activities can accelerate language development, improve accuracy and fluency, and foster autonomous learning The discussion also offers practical implications for curriculum design and teaching approaches that maximize the impact of reading in EFL contexts.

The ro le o f re a d in g

The im portance o f read in g for second language acq u isitio n has b een w idely ack n o w led g ed by such research ers as D ay & B am ford (1998, 20 02) an d G rabe (2004)

Carrell (1989) argued that, for many students, reading is by far the most crucial of the four core language skills when learning a second language, with particular significance for English as a second or foreign language (p 1).

T h e im p o rtan ce o f rea d in g can be identified th rou gh th e g o als o f reading S w eet &

Snow (2002) indicates that the main goal of reading is to extract and construct meaning from the text Building on observations of how readers actually read, Do Thi Hong Hoa (2007) identified additional purposes for reading, including reading to learn the language, reading for content information, and reading for cultural knowledge and awareness.

For language learning, Do Thi Hong Hoa (2007) suggests that giving learners opportunities to access a variety of reading materials enables them to absorb vocabulary, grammar, sentence structure, and discourse patterns This exposure helps learners develop a more complete understanding of how the elements of language work together to convey meaning.

In their native language, learners typically read to obtain information about a subject they are studying, and this goal is equally useful in the language learning classroom Reading for content information in the target language offers authentic reading material and an authentic purpose for reading, enabling learners to access real-world texts and to acquire subject knowledge while developing language skills.

Reading everyday materials designed for native speakers provides learners with deeper insight into the lifestyles and worldviews of the people whose language they study Access to newspapers, magazines, and online content exposes learners to culture in all its variety, helping to break down monolithic cultural stereotypes.

Unlike Do Thi Hong Hoa (2007), this study focuses on the relationship between reading and the other language skills—writing, listening, and speaking—and uses Harmer's framework to explain how reading affects these areas The evidence suggests that reading practice enhances writing accuracy and fluency, strengthens listening comprehension, and supports more fluent and accurate speaking, underscoring the value of an integrated approach to language instruction Educators can leverage these connections by designing reading-centered activities that scaffold writing tasks, listening exercises, and speaking opportunities around authentic texts to boost overall language proficiency.

Scholars in 1998 and 2008 agreed that reading texts provide strong models for writing and offer opportunities to study language aspects such as vocabulary, grammar, punctuation, and how sentences, paragraphs, and entire texts are structured Reading can play a more important role than speaking and listening for a language learner, since without reading it is harder to achieve goals Through reading, learners acquire substantial information that helps them become better speakers and writers, highlighting reading as a foundational activity in language development.

As reading plays a crucial role, there should be greater emphasis on teaching reading to ESL learners While reading is important, the use of strategies within the reading process is considered even more important and is linked to successful reading comprehension (Alderson, 1984; Bernhardt, 2005).

H udson, 2007) T h is th e re fo re lead s to th e d isc u ssio n s o f rea d in g stra te g ie s in th e n e x t section o f the study.

This section emphasizes the importance of reading strategies in foreign language learning and outlines the main classifications of reading strategies By adopting purposeful reading practices, learners can boost comprehension, expand vocabulary, and build overall language proficiency, while understanding the classifications helps tailor approaches to different genres, texts, and learning objectives.

The im p o rta n ce o f re a d in g stra teg ie s

Reading is an active and complex process in which comprehension is achieved through a diverse range of strategies Research shows that readers deploy a wide array of cognitive and metacognitive techniques as they engage with text, using both conscious and unconscious methods to understand what they read, as noted by Paris, Wasik, and Turner (1991) and Johnston (1983).

According to Lau (2006), learners face a range of difficulties in the reading process, with inefficient strategy use identified as the major challenge hindering effective comprehension This suggests that focusing on teaching and applying efficient reading strategies can help improve reading outcomes.

According to Cohen (1990), reading strategies are the mental processes that readers consciously choose to use in order to accomplish reading tasks Garner (1987) and other researchers have similarly explored how these cognitive strategies shape readers’ interaction with text and their ability to achieve comprehension Recognizing reading strategies as deliberate, adaptable tools helps explain why some readers monitor their understanding, adjust their approaches when encountering difficulty, and employ targeted techniques to extract meaning from written material.

Afflerbach, Pearson, and Paris (2008) define reading strategies as specific, deliberate, goal-directed mental processes or behaviors that control and modify a reader’s efforts to decode a text, understand words, and construct the meaning of what is read These intentional cognitive actions help readers monitor comprehension, regulate decoding and vocabulary processing, and actively build coherent meaning from a passage, making reading strategies a core concept in reading comprehension and vocabulary development.

In d iscu ssio n o f the im p o rtan ce o f reading strategies, M cN am ara (2007) stated that:

A substantial body of evidence highlights the importance of reading strategies Research shows that successful readers know when and how to use deliberate strategies to repair gaps in comprehension From this finding, a key implication is that teaching reading strategies to struggling readers may play a crucial role in improving their comprehension.

S haring th e sam e idea w ith M cN am ara, researchers lik e A nastasio u & G riva (2009),

Carrell et al (1989), Carrell, Pharis & Liberto (1989), Farrell (2001), and Zhang (2008) agree that when students’ knowledge about reading strategies and the use of those strategies is developed, they become better readers.

Using reading strategies is essential because it reveals how readers perceive a task, what they do to derive meaning from texts, and how they respond when comprehension breaks down Macaro and Erler (2008) and Zhang (2001) show that readers actively select and apply strategies to interpret content, monitor their understanding, and repair gaps in meaning as needed.

Based on the definitions and researchers' evaluations, reading strategies play a crucial role in reading comprehension To gain a deeper understanding of reading strategies, the following subsection provides detailed information about the classification of reading strategies.

C la ssifica tio n o f R e a d in g S t r a t e g ie s

T h is sectio n prov id es an o verv iew o f classification o f read in g strategies p ro du ced by the fo llo w in g researchers: N a im a n et al (1978); R ub in (1 9 8 1 ); O xford (1990); O ’M alley &

C ham ot (1990) and P ressley & A fflerb ach (1995).

Based on interviews with 34 good language learners, Naiman et al (1978) proposed a five-category framework of learning strategies: (1) an active task approach, (2) realizing language as a system, (3) realizing language as a means of communication and interaction, (4) managing affective demands, and (5) monitoring second language performance They hoped that the strategies used by proficient learners could be transferred to poor learners However, Gass & Selinker (1994) cautioned that findings drawn from studies that exclude poor learners cannot be used to claim that poor learners do the same as good learners Moreover, as O’Malley & Chamot (1990) argued, the scheme appears not to rest on a solid second-language acquisition or cognitive-theory foundation Consequently, this Naiman et al (1978) framework is not congruent with the present study, which investigates the awareness of reading strategy use among both good and poor readers.

Rubin (1981) proposed a classification scheme for language learning strategies based on observations of a small group of students and self-reports from some of them She subsumed all strategies under two primary categories: the first category comprises six direct strategies that actively contribute to language learning—clarification/verification, monitoring, memorization, guessing/inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning, and practice—and the second category contains strategies that indirectly affect language learning, such as creating opportunities for practice and production strategies like communication strategies As Lan (2005) notes, Rubin's model contributes to outlining the important strategies used by successful language learners, but Lan also identifies limitations: the model is theoretically unsustainable and not particularly useful for practitioners.

U n like these tw o research ers, O x fo rd (1990) p ro v id es a m odel that com prises an ex h au stiv e list o f strategies (62 strategies) w hich is d iv id e d into tw o m ajo r classes:

Direct and indirect strategies are organized into three groups each: direct strategies include memory, cognitive, and compensation strategies, while indirect strategies comprise metacognitive, affective, and social strategies Compared with the two previously mentioned classification schemes, Oxford's framework, as described by Ellis (1994), is more comprehensive and detailed, covering social and affective strategies in greater depth.

Skehan (1991) indicates that Oxford's classification model is considered a better tool for other researchers to classify and code learning strategies systematically However, although Oxford's classification model seems to be more consistent with the learner strategy use, it is not based on theory (O'Malley & Chamot, 1990).

O n th e basis o f a study co n d ucted w ith E S L y o u n g ad u lt learners, O ’M alley & C ham ot

(1990) p ro p o sed a strategy classification w hich d ep end s on the level o r ty pe o f thinking pro cess including: m ctacog nitive, cog nitive and social affectiv e strategies.

Metacognitive strategies are organized into seven sub-strategies: planning, directed attention, selective attention, self-management, self-monitoring, problem identification, and self-evaluation Cognitive strategies comprise eleven sub-strategies: repetition, resourcing, grouping, note-taking, deduction/induction, substitution, elaboration, summarization, translation, transfer, and inferencing Social-affective strategies include cooperation and strategies such as questioning for classification and self-talk Takeshi (2003) assessed that O’Malley and Chamot provided a robust and consistent classification scheme, importantly grounded in cognitive theories.

Oxford (2002) compared the classification of language-learning strategies proposed by O’Malley & Chamot (1990) with the framework developed by Oxford (1990) and found substantial overlap between the two strategy systems In particular, the cognitive strategies identified by O’Malley & Chamot are consistent with the components of Oxford’s approach, indicating a close alignment across these taxonomies in how learners deploy cognitive strategies during language learning.

Oxford’s memory and cognitive strategies play a key role in the discussion of language-learning approaches In addition, Poole (2010) did not appreciate the appearance of the category of social affective strategies in O’Malley & Chamot’s model Previously, Rubin (1981) had addressed that “not all L2 learning strategy systems have included affective strategies” (p 17).

A n o th er classification o f reading strategies w as p ro p o se d by Pressley & A fflerbach

In 1995, two researchers conducted a comprehensive synthesis of decades of reading research that examined expert readers’ verbal reports They identified general tendencies that skilled readers typically use to approach a text, such as surveying the text to begin understanding it and applying strategies to make sense of the material Building on these insights, they proposed the Constructively Responsive Reading (CRR) model, a theoretical framework that groups three broad types of reading strategies, including Identifying and Learning Text Content.

M o nito ring an d E v aluation A ccordingly, strateg ies for Id entify in g and L earn ing T ext

Meaning-making in reading encompasses processes such as paraphrasing, elaborating, and both literal and inferential reasoning, as well as the analysis and synthesis of text content Monitoring strategies are metacognitive processes that detect comprehension problems and guide strategy use based on the reader’s perception of the text, its context, and the self Evaluation strategies are critical for judging internal and external features of text, including the validity of content, the credibility and trustworthiness of information, and the reputation of authors and sources Pressley and Afflerbach’s framework highlights how these strategies interrelate to support effective comprehension.

The 1995 model was regarded as an effective tool for researchers to classify and code reading strategies It was built on comprehensive research syntheses and maintained the explanatory power needed to detail the complexity of reading strategy use in different contexts (Wolf & Goldman, 2005).

T h e ab o v e re v ie w o f classificatio ns by a n u m b er o f research e rs show s d ifferen t opinions ab o u t classificatio n s o f strategies and m an y research ers on strategies have so far used su ch classificatio n s as the theoretical b asis to d ev elo p strategy item s in th eir q u estio n n aires O xford’s (1990) classification w as an ex am p le B ased on the classificatio n sch em e o f 62 strategies, O xford (1990) d e sig n e d T he S trategy Inventory for L an g u ag e L earning (SIL L ) w hich co m p rised 5 0 strategies w ith the aim at in v e stig atin g stu d e n ts’ use o f learning strategics S IL L w a s th e n ad ap ted successfully by no t only research e rs in V ietnam (e.g., Le X uan A nh, 2 0 0 1 ; T ran T h u T h ao , 2009) but also research e rs outside V ietnam (e.g., N o gu ch i, 1991; H ash em i, 2011).

W hereas, o n th e basis o f P ressley & A fflcrb aclv s (1 9 9 5 ) m odel, in 2000, M okhtari and

R eich ard co -w o rk ed to g e th er to prop ose M etaco g n itiv e A w areness o f R eading

S trategies In v en to ry (M A RS1) co nsistin g o f 30 item s w ith th e aim at exam in in g the aw aren ess o f reading strateg ies am o ng nativ e E n g lish students M A R S I then w as m o d ified an d d eveloped into the S urv ey o f R eading S trateg ies (S O R S ) by M okhtari and

S heorey (2 0 0 2 ) to m ak e it m ore ap pro priate for the use o f n on -nativ e E n glish students

U ntil now , S O R S has b een con sidered as the un ique, yet effectiv e tool for researchers in this field an d has also been adapted successfully by a n u m b e r o f research (e.g., L ee &

L iao, 2 00 7; S h eo rey & B aboczky, 2008; Z h an g & W u, 2 00 9; M alcom , 20 09 and Poole,

Lee and Liao (2007) explored differences in Taiwanese ESL college freshmen's self-reported use of reading strategies when engaging with expository texts, using the Self-Reported Reading Strategy (SORS) instrument as the primary data collection tool They found that SORS is not only a strong means to examine the link between students’ awareness of reading strategies and their actual reading ability, but also a meaningful contributor to raising students’ awareness of strategy use Moreover, SORS offers a comprehensive taxonomy of strategies, capturing items that may be unique to this student group—such as translating from English into the students’ native language—a feature highlighted by Lee and Liao (2007) and Poole (2009).

Because the study centers on how readers use strategies, the Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS) aligns closely with this research, which examines ESI students’ awareness of reading strategies within IIANU’s FSD program The next sub-section provides the specifics of SORS as proposed by Mokhtari & Sheorcy (2002).

The S u rv e y o f R e a d in g S tra te g ie s b y M o kh ta ri & S h e o re y (2 0 0 2 )

As stated above the Survey o f Reading Strategies (SORS) by Mokhtari & Sheorey

Developed in 2002 to measure ESL students' awareness of reading strategies, SORS provides a framework for understanding learners' reading processes This article presents the original SORS, explains the motivations for its development, and outlines the categories of strategies it covers.

To assess non-native English students’ awareness of reading strategy use, the Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS) was designed, featuring 30 items across three broad categories: Global strategies (GLOB), Problem-solving strategies (PROB), and Support strategies (SUP) The GLOB category contains 13 items that help readers monitor and manage their reading intentionally, such as deciding what to read or ignore, noting text characteristics, and guessing what the material is about The PROB category includes eight items aimed at helping learners solve problems when a text becomes difficult, with examples like re-reading for better understanding and going back when concentration is lost The SUP category provides supportive mechanisms to sustain engagement with the text, involving note-taking, underlining, or circling important information.

A five-point Likert scale was used after each item to measure the frequency of strategy use, with options ranging from 1 ("I never or almost never do this") to 5 ("I always or almost always do this").

To ensure the reliability of the three SORS categories, internal consistency was assessed with Cronbach’s alpha Analysis showed reliability coefficients of GLOBAL alpha = 0.92, PROB alpha = 0.79, and SUP alpha = 0.87, with the overall category reliability not reported.

.93 T h ese reliability co efficien ts o f SO R S indicates a reaso n ab lely d ep en dable m easure o f stu d en ts’ aw aren ess o f read in g strategies.

To date, many researchers have used SORS as the primary instrument in their studies and have offered several comments on SORS.

Lee and Liao (2007) examined 163 Taiwan college students’ awareness of reading-strategy use and chose the SORS as the main instrument for data collection They explained that SORS contains broader and more comprehensive categories of strategies that are reasonably grouped, which helps to better examine and increase students’ awareness of strategy use Consequently, they concluded that the SORS framework is effective for assessing and enhancing students’ awareness of reading-strategy use.

SO R S w as an effectiv e tool for inv estigating E S L stu d e n ts’ aw aren ess o f reading strategy use.

Poole (2009) aimed to assess the awareness of reading strategy use among female and male university students and adapted SORS to collect data He found that, compared with other instruments such as think-aloud protocols, the think-aloud process helped students and teachers become aware of strategy use; however, SORS enabled both teachers and bilingual students—who exhibited different strategy use from monolingual students—to become more reflective Consequently, SORS appears more appropriate for assessing ESL students’ awareness of reading strategies (Poole, 2009).

Zhang and Wu (2009) evaluated SORS as not only an effective data-collection tool but also a valuable instrument that helped students become more aware of the reading strategies they used They found that SORS was a strong instrument that supported the positive link between students’ awareness of reading strategies and their reading comprehension Zhang and Wu further suggested that SORS could serve as a superior instructional tool—one that teachers should use to teach students reading strategies (Zhang & Wu, 2009).

Taking into account the authors' comments and evaluations of the advantages of SORS, the researcher was persuaded to adapt the original SORS as the primary instrument for data collection in the present study.

L The Original SORSĨ .7

In 2002, Mokhtari and Sheorey, in an effort to find a tool for assessing ESL students’ awareness of reading strategies, developed the Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS), a reliable instrument grounded in the concept of metacognitive awareness of reading strategies SORS was initially based on this metacognitive framework and has since become a widely used measure in ESL research and classroom practice to gauge learners’ strategic knowledge, guiding targeted instruction to improve reading comprehension By assessing global, problem-solving, and support strategies, SORS helps educators identify which strategies students are aware of and how they apply them during reading.

M etacognitive A w a re n ess o f R eading S trateg ies Inv en tory by M okhtari & R eichard

According to Alderson (2005), SORS was regarded as a necessary, dependable, and reliable measure of ESL students’ metacognition and reading strategies The development of SORS by Mokhtari and Sheorey was motivated by the need to provide a practical instrument for assessing these metacognitive awareness and reading strategies in ESL learners.

There was a need for a tool that could help teachers assist students in increasing their awareness of reading strategies Mokhtari and Sheorey were motivated to develop SORS, hoping it would help students become more aware of the strategies they use and become more thoughtful, constructively responsive, and strategic readers as they engage with academic materials.

Second, this conclusion stems from substantial research demonstrating a link between students’ awareness of reading strategies and their ability, as well as the importance of awareness of strategy use for reading comprehension (see details in 2.3.2) The SORS was developed to examine this relationship and has proven to be an effective instrument in this field (Poole, 2005).

Thirdly, to date there have been no published instruments specifically designed to assess ESL students’ awareness of reading strategy use while reading for academic purposes To address this gap, the SORS was developed to meet that demand.

Finally, S O R S c o n ta in s a m ore co m p reh en siv e list o f strateg ies than o th er instrum ents

Although many researchers agree that a number of reading strategies can transfer from one language to another (Carrell, 1991), the existing instruments do not account for strategies that are unique to individual learners, such as metacognitive approaches, background knowledge, and motivational factors that shape reading across languages Consequently, current assessment tools may overlook learner-specific strategies, which limits our understanding of cross-language reading transfer and the effectiveness of literacy interventions.

“tran slating” o r “ u sin g both lang uages” w hen rea d in g to m ax im ize understanding (Z hang, 2001) F o r e x am p le, the S trategy Inventory for L an gu ag e L earning by O xford

Carrell's 1989 questionnaire, long regarded as a superior tool for investigating students' conceptualizations of reading strategies, did not include the specific types of strategies later identified; however, SORS compensates for the lack of such instruments.

C on seq uen tly, S O R S s e e m s to be m ore app rop riate for E S L stu dents a n d can m easure comprehensively students’ awareness of strategies than other existing instruments (Alderson, 2005).

Continued development of SORS signals its potential as a research instrument for examining ESL students' awareness of reading strategy use and as an enhanced tool for teachers to cultivate students' awareness of strategies and their capacity to read strategically SORS offers comprehensive categories of reading strategies necessary for a thorough assessment of students' awareness of strategy use, and the scope and depth of these strategies are explored in detail in the subsequent section.

SORS Categories of Strategies

The SORS categories of strategies were developed on the basis of Mokhtari and Reichard’s (2002) MARSI framework of reading strategies, which contains three categories: Global Reading Strategies, Problem-Solving Strategies, and Support Reading Strategies (see Appendix 1).

(13 items), problem strategies (8 items) and support strategies (9 items) These categories were built upon the Theory o f Constructive Responsive Reading by Pressley

& Afflerbach (1995) which was considered as a firm theoretical underpinning for researchers to develop tools for assessing students’ awareness o f reading strategies.

Mokhtari and Sheorcy (2002) subsequently adapted MARSI's classification of strategies as they undertook the development of SORS In doing so, they revised the items of strategies by adding two key approaches commonly employed by ESL students, including "translating from one language to another."

These changes—emphasizing thinking in both the native and target language while reading, removing the items “summarizing information read” and “discussing what one reads with others,” and refining wording to improve clarity for ESL learners—have made Mokhtari and Reichard’s (2002) classification of reading strategies more comprehensive and better aligned with ESL students, as echoed by Lee and Liao (2007) and Lawrence (2007) The discussion centers on the strategies within the three categories of SORS.

Global Reading Strategies comprises 13 items (see Appendix 1) and represents a set of strategies for the overall analysis of a text, including deciding what to read and what to ignore, drawing on prior knowledge to aid comprehension, and reading with a clear purpose in mind These strategies are intentional, carefully planned reading approaches that students use to monitor and manage their reading, such as maintaining a purpose, previewing the text for length and organization, and using typographic cues, tables, and figures (Mokhtari & Reichard, 2002, p 252; Mokhtari & Sheorey, 2002, p 6).

Problem Solving Strategies comprises eight items (Appendix 1) conceived as strategies for solving problems that arise when a reading task becomes difficult These strategies include rereading to increase comprehension and adjusting reading speed as the materials become more difficult or easier They provide students with actionable plans to navigate the text skillfully The strategies are localized, focused repair strategies used when problems develop in understanding information, enabling learners to address comprehension issues as they occur Examples include checking one’s understanding when encountering conflicting information or guessing the meaning of unfamiliar words (Mokhtari & Reichard, 2002, p 252; Mokhtari & Sheorey, 2002, p 6).

Support strategies include nine items (see Appendix 2) centered on note-taking and other practical techniques that function as support mechanisms, such as underlining or circling information in the text to improve memory and summarize the important ideas These strategies provide students with ongoing support to sustain engagement with reading by leveraging reference materials such as dictionaries and other assistive tools (Mokhtari & Reichard, 2002, p 252-253; Mokhtari & Sheorey, 2002, p 6).

Okhtari and Sheorey (2002) indicated that the categories of strategies in their SORS were, to some extent, equivalent to the categories classified by O'Malley and Chamot.

According to the 1990 framework, global strategies align with metacognitive strategies, problem-solving strategies align with cognitive strategies, and support strategies correspond to the social/affective strategies category.

T herefore, th e nam es o f categories can be' in terch an geable H ow ever, according to

L aw rence (2007) th e categ o ries o f strateg ies by M o khtari & S heorey (2002) w ere classified m ore detailed a n d m ore co m p reh en siv e than those by O ’M alley & C ham ot

Since 1990, the wording of each statement within every category has become more understandable and clearer for ESL students Thus, SORS is reaffirmed as consistent with the present study, which aims to investigate ESL students’ awareness of reading strategy use.

Lee and Liao (2007) argue that categorized reading strategies help students develop a clearer awareness of their own approach to texts when engaging with academic materials As students become more aware of these strategies and learn to apply them flexibly, they are better able to monitor their reading comprehension, a point also highlighted by O’Malley and colleagues.

C ham ot, 1990; O 'N e il, 1992; P ressley, 2000 and V een m a n , K ok, & Blote, 2005)

H ence, th e fo llow in g section concerns about the d iscu ssio n o f the a w a r e n e s s 'o f strategics an d its role in reading.

T he awareness of reading strategy use

The revised SORS

A s stated in th e ab o v e section, after m aking som e ch an g e s the revised SO R S (see

Appendix 2 lists 28 items, with 13 items in the GLOBAL category, 7 items in the PROB category, and 8 items in the SUP category Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients were used to assess the reliability of the revised SORS After analysis, the internal reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) for the three strategy categories of the revised SORS were as follows: GLOBAL α = 0.734.

Cronbach's alpha values indicate solid reliability for the revised SORS: PROB = 0.740 and SUP = 0.748, with an overall alpha of 0.855 This internal consistency of the revised SORS was acceptable and supported the overall reliability of the study (Glass & Hopkins, 1996).

Besides the questionnaire, an interview with a selected group of students was also conducted This follows Macaro (2001), who suggested that interviewing language learners about the strategies they employ can be highly productive and a valuable way to complement a questionnaire (p 56) In the current study, the interview was used to validate the questionnaire results for research questions 2 and 3.

T h e in terview included ten o pen -en d ed q u estio n s (see A p p en d ix 3) in w hich the first sev en q uestions (question 1 to q u estio n 7) w ere ad apted from A n astasio us & G riv a’s

In 2009, the last three questions (questions 8 to 10) were designed by the researcher The students were asked to comment on their reading processes and the strategies they employed.

The study aims to investigate students' awareness of reading strategy use Data were collected primarily with the SORS questionnaire as the main instrument, and the results were corroborated through interviews Accordingly, the same participants were selected on two occasions.

T h e p articip an ts atten d in g the q u estio n n aire survey w ere 42 studen ts selected from 160 stu d en ts in six classes in F S D at MANU.

FSD is one of the new departments at HANU, welcoming over 500 students each year from six multidisciplinary faculties and providing targeted English training to help them reach a basic English level before starting their majors Most students spend one year at FSD, comprising three semesters aimed at achieving that language baseline Each semester lasts about 12 to 14 weeks, with the first two semesters covering general and basic English and the third emphasizing academic English In every semester, students take two assessments—the mid-term exam and the final exam.

T herefore, stu d en ts have to deal w ith a total o f six tests to com plete th eir co u rse in FSD.

By the time of the study, FSD comprised 24 classes—18 for students specializing in social sciences and 6 for those majoring in natural sciences The students received English-language training tailored to their respective fields Participants in the questionnaire survey were drawn from the six natural-sciences classes.

After completing their first-semester mid-term tests, the students were selected and divided into two groups—high reading ability and low reading ability—based on their average mid-term scores This arrangement ensured that group classification reflected each student’s demonstrated reading proficiency and set the stage for comparing outcomes across different reading levels.

Baselines for 'high reading ability' were marked seven points upward and for 'low reading ability' four points downward (see Appendix 5 for further information about students’ mid-term test scores, and note that their names were changed) Reading ability was also verified based on teachers’ assessments Consequently, there were 20 high-reading-ability students (12.5%) and 22 low-reading-ability students.

P a rticip a n ts f o r th e In te r v ie w s

After students completed the questionnaire, the researcher selected ten participants from among forty-two for interviews: five students with the lowest mid-term scores and five students with the highest mid-term scores.

A p p en d ix 6 for details) T h e selection o f th o se 10 stu d en ts w as also based on the references o f te a c h e rs’ assessm en ts S tu d en ts’ nam es in it w ere chan ged an d coded as w ell).

T he p ro cedu res for co llectin g d ata o f the presen t stud y w ere co nducted through tw o stages:

B efore carry in g ou t this survey, the researcher m et all stu d en ts and teachers to ask for p erm ission and voluntary.

T h en , th e q uestio nn aire ad m in istratio n w as conducted at th e end o f the required lecture

T h e q u estio n n aire w as ad m in istered to 42 stu dents an d w as assisted by the class English teach ers B efore stu dents gave respo nses to the q u estio n n aires, they w ere given a b rie f ex p lan atio n o f th e pu rpo se and req u irem en ts o f the question naire T hey w ere advised to think about the strateg ies they em plo yed w hen reading te x ts in the class and w ere also ask ed to p ro v id e honest responses W hen the ad m in istratio n w as carried o u t the research e r w as also p resen t to deal w ith q u estio n s that co u ld be raised by students M ost o f th e stud ents w ere able to finish the q u estion naire w ithin 10 m inutes.

A fter that, all the com pleted q u estio n n aires w ere co llected for d ata an aly sis and no q u estion naire w as invalid.

Following the questionnaire, individual interviews were conducted with ten selected students in the classroom Each interview lasted approximately 10 to 15 minutes and consisted of ten open-ended questions Students were asked to comment on the reading process and the strategies they employed during reading comprehension The interviews were recorded and transcribed.

D ata collected from th e SO R S w ere analyzed usin g S tatistical P ackage for Social

Statistics (SPSS), version 15.0 Data analysis procedures include calculating descriptive statistics, using two independent samples t-tests and ANOVA to examine whether there are differences in reading strategy use between two groups and the possible relationship between students’ awareness of strategy use and their reading comprehension The descriptions of these calculating methods were as follows.

Using a quantitative approach, the study presents means and standard deviations in tables to explore the reading strategies that students employed when tackling reading tasks Descriptive statistics also indicate the most preferred strategy among students In terms of strategy use, the analysis on a Likert scale from 1 to 5 applies three usage levels—high (mean 3.5 or higher), moderate (mean 2.5–3.4), and low (mean 2.4 or lower)—as suggested by Oxford and Burry-Stock (1995) for language-learning strategies.

3.5.1.2 The two Independent-Samples T-Test

This method was applied to examine whether there are significant differences in strategy use between two groups—students with high reading ability and those with low reading ability Significance is achieved only when the results meet both criteria: a t-value exceeding 2 and a p-value below 0.05 In comparing the two groups, the null hypothesis states that there are no differences in students’ strategy use If the observed p-value is less than or equal to 0.05 and the t-value is greater than 2, the null hypothesis is rejected, indicating a significant difference in strategy use between the groups.

ANOVA was used to examine whether there is a relationship between students’ use and their reading ability Like the independent-samples t-test, ANOVA analyzes the interactions between two variables, and the null hypothesis is that there are no interactions between the two variables If the p-value is less than 0.05, the null hypothesis is rejected; if the p-value is greater than 0.05, the null hypothesis is not rejected.

In te rvie w s A n a ly s is

T h e d ata collected from in terv iew s w ere first cod ed , and th en analyzed usin g a M ann-

Whitney U test was used to examine differences in strategy use between two groups of students The data were also analyzed by ANOVA to assess the relationship between students’ awareness of reading strategy use and their reading ability The following sub-section focuses on the coding guidelines and their descriptions.

The guidelines by Pressley and Afflerbach (1995) served as the main basis for coding students' interview responses (see Appendix 4 for the coding guidelines) The original coding guidelines summarized the results of numerous think-aloud studies and provided useful categories for classifying different reading strategies After reviewing all the student protocols, 28 items were selected for coding.

T h e entire d ata collected through interview s w ere first taken notes, then coded into strategies by follow in g th e d escriptio ns o f strateg ies in th e gu idelines that P ressley and

A fflerbach proposed T h e reaso n s w hy th e se gu idelines w ere used to co d e the interview responds w ere as follow:

First, the guidelines were selected as the theoretical foundation for developing strategies under Mokhtari and Sheorey's (2002) Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS), the main instrument used in this study Consequently, the categories for classifying different reading strategies in the guidelines largely align with the SORS categories, enabling the researcher to assess students’ awareness of reading strategy use within the same framework as the questionnaire.

Secondly, according to Lau (2006), applying the guidelines for coding students’ responses helps ensure that each identified strategy is grounded in clear and legitimate operational definitions This approach strengthens the coding process by aligning observed strategies with well-defined criteria, enhancing reliability and validity in qualitative analysis.

Table 1 The coding criteria of in interview

T h e students did n o t an sw er or replied “ 1 d o n ’t k n o w ”

T h e stu d en t said, “ I usu ally start read ing a te x t im m ediately w ithout d o in g a n y th in g b efore I read ”

The stu d en t’s an sw er w as superficial or not related to strateg ic behaviour.

T he stu d en t said, “ I usu ally read the co m p reh en sio n q u estio n s first b ecau se m y teach er ask s m e to do so”

T h e stu d en t had in-depth und erstan ding o f th e k n o w ledg e or knew how to apply strateg ies flexibly in co m p reh en d in g a text.

The student explains that they typically start by reading the title of a text, a simple reading strategy that activates what they already know about the topic and helps them predict what the author will reveal in the text This title-first approach sets expectations, supports comprehension, and guides how they approach the rest of the material.

This calculation method was used to examine whether there were differences in the awareness of reading strategy use between two groups of students, aiming to address research questions 3 and 4 and to validate the results obtained from the questionnaire using the Mann–Whitney U test, with a significance level set at 0.05 According to Siegel and Castellan (1988), this nonparametric test is one of the most powerful options and is particularly useful for studies with small sample sizes The present study meets these criteria and is therefore a strong candidate for applying the Mann–Whitney U test.

S ummary

S tu d e n ts ' u se o f re a d in g c o m p re h e n sio n s tra te g ie s 3 7 1 The frequency of overall strategy use

To address the first research question—How often do students use the reported reading strategies in academic materials?—descriptive statistics computed in SPSS version 15.0 were used to analyze the questionnaire data The results reveal the frequencies with which students employ various reading strategies when engaging with academic materials.

4.1.1.1 The frequency o f overall strategy use

T ab le 2 b elo w show ed th e frequency o f th e use o f overall strategies by 42 students.

Table 2 Frequency of overall strategy use

P roblem S o lv in g ’S trategies (PR O B ) 42 3.46 59

It can b e o b serv ed that am o n g the th ree strategy categ o ries, the PR O B (M = 3.46, SD 59) has the h ig h est av erage freq u en cy , follow ed by G L O B (M = 3.23, SD = 58) and

SU P (M = 3.08, SD = 59) A ccording to the criteria o f strategy use by O xford and

B urry-Stock (1995) (see 3.5), such frequency o f strategy use is at m od erate level.

Students at FSD HANU demonstrate awareness of reading strategies during the reading process, and their level of strategic awareness is moderately reflected in how frequently they use these strategies.

To gather more evidence about the frequency and awareness of reading strategies among students, descriptive statistics on the use of individual strategies offer detailed insights These statistics help identify which strategies are most commonly used and where gaps in awareness may exist, enabling targeted improvements in reading instruction and content optimization for search engines.

4.1.1.2 The frequency of individual strategy use

Table 3 presents descriptive statistics for the frequency of use of individual strategies The mean scores of these strategy items ranged from a high of 4.07 to a low of 2.02 Among 28 strategies, 9 (32%) exhibited high usage (mean > 3.5), 18 (64%) fell into a medium usage category (mean > 2.5), and only 1 (4%) showed low usage (mean < 2.4) The details follow.

Among the nine highest usage strategies, five are listed under the PROB category: Re-reading for better understanding (M = 4.07), Trying to stay focused on reading (M = 3.71), Guessing meaning of unknown words (M = 3.64), Adjusting reading rate (M = 3.57), and Reading slowly and carefully (M = 3.50) The GLOBAL category follows with three strategies, namely Previewing the text before reading (M = 3.69), Predicting or guessing text meaning (M = 3.52), and a third strategy that isn’t shown in the provided excerpt.

“ U sing p rio r k n o w ledg e” (M = 3.50) O n ly the strateg y o f “ U n derlin in g inform ation in the te x t” (M = 4.02 ) w as u n d er S U P category.

Study findings show that the mean frequency for the most commonly used reading strategy is 4.07, while the least used one is 3.50, a gap of just 0.50 The small gaps among the other strategies indicate that these approaches are broadly helpful for students, who can benefit from reading about them and learning how to apply them effectively in reading tasks. -**Support Pollinations.AI:** -🌸 **Ad** 🌸Powered by Pollinations.AI free text APIs [Support our mission](https://pollinations.ai/redirect/kofi) to keep AI accessible for everyone.

N ext, w ith the group o f m edium -level usage strateg ies, it is easily n oticed that the

G L O B catego ry d o m in ates w ith 10 strateg ies nam ely “U sin g co n tex t clu es” (M = 3.45),

“ U sing typo grap hical aid s” (M = 3.43), “ S etting p u rp o se for read ing ” (M = 3.38),

“ D eterm ining w hat to re a d '5 (M = 3 26), “C o n firm in g predictio ns” (M = 3.17),

The article identifies five core competencies for effective critical reading: resolving conflicting information (M = 3.14), noting text characteristics (M = 3.00), using text features (M = 2.95), checking how the text contents fit the intended purpose (M = 2.93), and evaluating what is read (M = 2.76); it then outlines six practical strategies under these competencies to help readers analyze any text more effectively, ensuring content aligns with purpose, improves interpretation, and strengthens overall comprehension.

Within the SUP category, core strategies include using reference materials to support accurate information retrieval and comprehension They also emphasize thinking about information in both English and the learner's mother tongue, taking notes while reading, and going back and forth in the text to clarify meaning Additional practices such as translating from English to the mother tongue and paraphrasing for better understanding help learners internalize concepts and improve retention.

W hile, th e P R O B catego ry provided only tw o strateg y item s w ith “V isu alizin g inform ation read” (M = 2 9 0 ) and “ P au sin g and th in k in g ab o u t read in g” (M = 2.83).

Two frequency levels characterize this group's strategy use Strategies with a mean of 3.00 or higher (M = 3.00 to M = 3.45) form the upper level, while those with means below 3.00 (M = 2.64 to M = 2.95) form the lower level Most strategies with means above 3.00 belong to the GLOBAL category, which indicates that students who use strategies more frequently tend to favor GLOBAL-type approaches.

Global reading strategies are often more prominent than other strategies, guiding readers on how to manage and plan their reading For example, readers using these techniques may be conscious of finding clues to understand the text by applying context clues (M = 3.45), or they may decide what to read and what to skip (Determining what to read, M = 3.26).

Among reading strategies, the only approach labeled “Asking oneself a question” (M = 2.02) in the SUP category shows the lowest level of usage This suggests that this strategy may not be helpful for students when tackling reading tasks, leading them to ignore it or be less aware of it than other strategies (Malcolm, 2009).

Table 3 Frequency of individual strategy use

Item Strategy Category Mean SD

5 D eterm inin g w h at to read 3.26 1.08

8 U sing typ og raph ical aids 3.43 1.42

15 T ry to stay focused o n reading 3.71 1.09

16 A d ju stin g rea d in g rate 3.57 97

19 P ausing an d th in k in g 2.83 1.12

20 V isu alizin g in fo rm ation read 2.90 1.14

21 T ak in g note w h ile read ing 3.29 1.27

25 G o in g back and forth in th e text 3.07 1.22

28 T h in k in g in b o th languages 3.36 1.17

In ad d itio n , the findings from the D escriptiv e statistics also indicated top five strategies that w ere m ost favored by the students T able 4 below sh o w ed details.

No Top five strategies Mean SD

2 U nderlining inform atio n in the text 4.02 1.02

3 Try to stay focused on reading 3.71 1.09

4 P review ing the te x t before reading 3.69 1.05

5 G uessing m e an in g o f u nk no w n w ords 3.64 1.08

A s can be easily seen fro m T able 4, the strategics w ere d isp o sed in o rd er w ith top usage strateg y falling into “ R c-read in g for b etter u n d erstand in g” (M = 4.07, SD = 87) and

Data show that underlining information in the text is the most effective reading strategy (M = 4.02, SD = 1.02), followed by trying to stay focused on reading (M = 3.71, SD = 1.09), previewing the text before reading (M = 3.69, SD = 1.05), and guessing the meaning of unknown words (M = 3.64, SD = 1.08) Together, these findings suggest that active engagement with a text—highlighting key details, maintaining concentration, surveying content ahead of time, and making educated inferences about unfamiliar terms—supports comprehension and reading fluency.

T h e ex p lan atio n s for that p referab le cho ice o f stu den ts c a n be m ad e as follow

First, students who embraced reading strategies such as rereading for better understanding, staying focused while reading, and guessing the meaning of unknown words reported being aware of their own comprehension processes and able to take corrective actions when understanding broke down For example, when concentration waned they tried to stay focused on the text, and when a passage proved difficult they reread to increase understanding or infer the meaning of unfamiliar terms.

Second, students who were interested in underlining information in the text during reading tasks demonstrated their ability to use available aids to enhance understanding and memorization This approach shows that deliberate annotation can support reading comprehension and improve memory retention.

Finally, the results indicate that students not only demonstrate the ability to gauge their own comprehension but also reveal a capacity to plan their reading by using the "previewing the text before reading" strategy This effective reading strategy helps learners set a purpose, preview structure, and identify key ideas, leading to improved comprehension and overall reading performance.

S tra te g y u se b e tw e e n h ig h re a d in g a b ility a n d lo w re a d in g a b ility s tu d e n ts 4 2 1 Difference in the use overall strategies

T h is section addresses the results obtained for the second research q u estio n o f the study

Are there differences in reading strategy use between students of high reading ability and students of low reading ability? To answer this question, The Independent analyzes existing research to compare the reading strategies employed by high-ability readers and low-ability readers and to evaluate how these strategies influence comprehension and learning outcomes.

S a m p le s T -T est w as ap p lied to an aly ze th e data T h e d e ta ils w ere as follow

4.1.2.1 Diffcrencc in the use overall strategies

Results from an independent-samples t-test revealed a significant difference in overall strategy use between two groups of students Table 5 demonstrates the detailed findings.

Table 5 shows that HRA students dominated their LRA counterparts in the utilization of reading-strategy categories The average frequency of reading-strategy use was higher for HRA students in both reported categories: In the PROB category, HRA students have M = 3.92, SD = 30 compared with LRA students at M = 3.04, SD = 47 In the GLOBAL category, HRA students show M = 3.72, SD = 32 while LRA students register M = 2.79, SD = 37 These results indicate that HRA students consistently report higher frequencies of reading-strategy use than LRA students across the observed categories.

SU P category show ed th e least variation b etw een tw o p arties w ith M = 3.50, SD = 48 for H R A stu dents w hereas th a t for th eir LRA co u n terp arts w as M = 2.7 0, SD = 40.

Statistical analysis demonstrates significant differences in overall strategy use between two groups of students, with t-values above 2 and p-values below 0.05 The evidence appears in three measures: GLOB [t(40) = 8.70, p = 000], PROB [t(40) = 7.14, p = 000], and SUP [t(40) = 5.78, p = 000].

Table 5 Difference in the use of overall strategies

Strategy Category High (N = 20) Low (N = 22) Sig

In th e n ex t sub -sectio n, th e details o f th e d ifferen ce in th e use o f ind ivid ual strategies betw een tw o groups o f stud en ts w ere addressed.

4.I.2.2 Difference in the use of individual strategies

The independent-samples t-test results, shown in Table 6, reveal clear differences in the use of individual strategies between the two groups of students These findings indicate that the groups differ in how frequently and/or effectively they employ specific strategies, highlighting the importance of considering subgroup differences when analyzing strategy use.

W ith regard to the G L O B categ ory, the results indicated g reat d ifferen ces in the use o f individual strategies A m o n g 12 ind ivid ual strategies u n d er this category, 8 strategies

About 66.7% of participants showed a substantial difference between the two groups across several reading-strategy domains, including Checking how the text fits its purpose (t = 3.36, p = 002), Determining what to read (t = 3.10, p = 004), Using typographical aids (t = 3.63, p = 001), Predicting or guessing meaning (t = 4.98, p < 001), Confirming predictions (t = 4.38, p < 001), Resolving conflicting information (t = 4.12, p < 001), and Evaluating what is read (t = 4.54, p < 001).

Regarding the PROB category, among seven strategies, only three (42.8%) demonstrated a significant difference between two groups of students.

“ A d ju stin g read in g ra te ” (t = 3.5 2, p = 001), “G u e ssin g m e a n in g o f u n k n o w n w o rd s” (t

= 3.2 5, p = 002) a n d “ V isu a liz in g in fo rm atio n re a d ” (t = 4 6 5 , p = 002).

Within the SUP category, individual strategies were used less frequently than those in the other two categories Of eight strategies examined, four (50%) showed a statistically significant difference between the two student groups, and the evidence for these differences is found in the relevant strategies.

“ U nd erlining in fo rm atio n ” (t = 4 1 1 , p = 0 00), “ P a ra p h ra sin g for b etter u n d e rsta n d in g ” (t = 3.68, p = 0 01), “ G o in g b ack and forth in th e te x t” (t = 4 0 6 , p = 00 0) an d “A sk in g o n e s e lf q u estio n ” (t = 3 3 8 , p = 002).

Table 6 Difference in the use of individual strategies

14 R eading slo w ly and carefully 3.70 97 3.32 94 1.28 207

15 Try to stay fo cu sed on read ing 4.10 96 3.36 1.09 2.31 206

17 R e-reading for und erstan ding 4.45 75 3.73 82 2.95 05

21 T ak in g no te w h ile reading 3.80 1.24 2.82 1.14 2.66 11

In sh o rt, in exam in in g stu d e n ts’ use o f read in g strateg ies the results from and the

An independent-samples t-test revealed significant differences between two groups of students Students with high reading ability outperformed those with low reading ability in overall strategy use, and these differences were statistically significant Among the three categories, the GLOBAL category emerged as the most significantly different, with eight of its twelve strategies showing statistical significance What can be inferred from these differences will be explained in the next section, which discusses students’ use of reading strategies and their achievement outcomes.

S tu d e n ts' u se o f re a d in g s tra te g ie s a n d th e ir a c h ie v e m e n ts 4 6 1 Students' use of overall strategies and their achievements

This section addresses the study’s third research question: to what extent is there a relationship between students’ awareness of strategy use and their reading ability? An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the data, and the results are presented below.

4 I 3 I S tu d e n ts ’ u se o f o v e ra ll s tra te g ie s a n d t h e i r a c h ie v e m e n ts

T h e resu lts ob tain ed fro m A N O V A rev ealed a p ositive correlatio n b etw een the use o f o v erall strateg ies an d stu d en ts’ level T able 7 show ed th e details.

Table 7 Students’ use o f overall strategies and their achievements

As shown in Table 7, statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) were observed for each of the three subscales: GLOBAL category (F = 74.70, p < 001), PROB category (F = 49.06, p < 001), and SUP (F = 34.09, p < 001) These results indicate that the reading strategies assessed in the survey were used more frequently by students rated as having high reading ability than by those rated as having low reading ability.

In other words, the HRA students in this study showed greater awareness of reading strategies than their LRA peers, highlighting the role of metacognitive and strategic approaches in reading This pattern aligns with the findings of O’Malley and Chamot (1990) and Anastasiou & Griva, who emphasize how strategic awareness supports reading proficiency.

In 2009, students who were more aware of strategies under the GLOB and PROB categories and who used those strategies more frequently demonstrated stronger abilities to monitor reading comprehension and to plan They also showed the potential to apply these strategies flexibly across tasks.

4.1.3.2 Students’ use of individual strategies and their achievements

Alongside the correlation between the use of three categories and students’ levels, the study also examined the interaction between students’ achievements and their use of individual items within each category The results reveal nuanced patterns across categories, showing that higher-achieving students engage with specific items differently within each category These findings are described in detail in Table 8.

It can be observ ed from T able 8 th a t u n d er th e G L O B categ o ry th ere w ere 9 strategies

(6 9,2% ) o f total 13 strateg ies interactin g w ith stu d e n ts’ level (p < 0 05 ) including

“C h eck ing ho w th e te x t fits purpo se” (p = 002), “N o tin g te x t characteristics” (p 005), “ D eterm inin g w h a t to read ” (p = 004), “U sing typ ograph ical aids” (p = 001),

“ P redicting o r g uessing m ean in g” (p = 000), “C o n firm in g pred ictio ns” (p = 000),

“ R esolving co n flictin g in fo rm atio n ” (p = 000), “E v alu atin g w h at is read” (p = 004) and “ U sin g p rio r k n o w led g e” (p = 000).

Although the results from the mean column indicated that the means of individual strategies under the GLOBAL category were not as high as those under the PROB category, they showed higher interaction with students’ levels This supports the findings of previous studies by a number of authors (e.g., O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Zhang, 2001, 2008; Sheorey).

& R eichard, 2 00 1; Z h an g & W u, 2009; A n astasio u & G riva, 2 009) th a t em phasized on the k e y role o f the aw aren ess o f G L O B strategies in re a d in g com prehension.

Under the PROB category, four strategies (44.4% of the seven total) showed significant interaction with students’ level: adjusting reading rate (p < 001), guessing the meaning of unknown words (p = 000), pausing and thinking about what is read (p = 001), and visualizing information read (p = 000) These strategies exhibited a positive correlation with HRA students, suggesting that HRA learners in this study could effectively use them to overcome difficulties when the text becomes challenging (Mokhtari & Sheorey, 2002).

Although the mean column revealed that the individual strategies under the SUP category were less frequently used by two groups of students, some specific strategies under this category showed high interaction with students’ level In this category, four strategies (50% of the total eight strategies) were found to have a correlation with students’ level, including "Underlining information" (p = 001) and "Using reference materials" (p = 002).

Paraphrasing for better understanding (p = 005) and translating from English to another tongue (p = 002) were significant findings in this study The results can be explained by students’ ability to use aids such as underlining and reference materials, as well as other study tools, which supported comprehension and cross-language translation.

“P arap h rasin g ” to en h an c e th e ir u n d erstand in g an d m em o rizin g to th e te x t they had to deal w ith.

Table 8 Students’ use of individual strategies and their achievements

13 Using prior knowledge 4.20 67 2.91 92 15.11 000 Problem Solving Strategies

15 T ry to stay fo cu sed on reading 4.15 96 3.36 1.09 5.29 12

20 Visualizing information read 3.65 75 2.27 1.07 10.3 000 Support Strategies

21 T ak in g no te w h ile reading 3.80 1.24 2.82 1.14 7.15 227

25 G oing back and fo rth in the text 3.75 967 2.45 1.10 1.04 087

ANOVA results showed an interaction between three strategy categories and students’ reading levels Among the categories, the GLOBAL strategy category exhibited higher interaction with students’ level than the other two categories This suggests that high-reading-ability students in the study had greater awareness of GLOBAL strategies than their lower-reading-ability counterparts, and they were more capable of understanding how to use these strategies effectively and of monitoring their reading comprehension.

T h is fin d in g illustrates th a t the m ore stud ents can be aw are o f strateg ies they em ploy the m o re reading proficiency they can obtain.

A s stated in the M eth od olog y, interview s w as used to valid ate the results from questionn aires for R esearch qu estio n 3 an d 4 T h e resu lts from interview s w ere as follow

D iffe re n ce in the u se o f re a d in g s tra te g ie s 5 0 4.2.2 S tu d e n ts' use o f re a d in g stra te g ie s a n d th e ir a c h ie v e m e n ts

Regarding the first research question, interview data supported the questionnaire results, indicating a significant difference in the use of strategies between two groups of students The Mann–Whitney U test findings provide detailed evidence of this difference and clarify how strategy use varied across the groups.

T o b eg in w ith, T ab le 9 b elo w indicated th e d ifferen ce in th e use o f o verall strategies b etw een tw o gro ups o f students.

Table 9 Difference of overall strategy use (interview data)

Strategy Category High (N = 5) Low (N = 5) Mann- p - value

It can be easily observed from T ab le 9, the sig n ifican t d iffere n ce in th e use o f overall strategies betw een tw o grou ps o f stud ents w as evid enced in th e m ean colu m n and p- valuc colum n In the m ean co lum n, the H R A students ov erp erfo rm ed th eir counterparts in all three categories S im u ltaneou sly , the statistics o f sig n ific a n t in th e p -valu e colum n further d em on strated the d iffere n ce in th e use o f ov erall strateg ies w ith all the p-values w ere expected under 005 ([G I.O B , p = 001], [PR O B , p = 002] and [SU P, p = 004]).

N ext, T ab le 10 further ev id en ced for the d ifferen ces by p ro v id in g the detailed results in the use o f individual strateg ies b etw een H R A stu den ts and L R A students.

Table 10 shows that interview data corroborate the questionnaire findings regarding differences in the use of overall strategies, but several conflicts remain between questionnaire results and interview results when identifying differences in individual strategies.

Within the GLOB category, interview data identified seven individual strategies that showed significant differences between two groups of students Among them, six strategies yielded results consistent with the questionnaire data All statistical significances were under 005—for example, “Checking understanding” (p = 004), “Using typographic aids” (p = 004), “Predicting meaning” (p = 002), “Confirming predictions” (p = 002), “Resolving conflicting information” (p = 000), and “Using prior knowledge” (p = 000) However, the interview data yielded a few contrary findings to the questionnaire data First, the strategy “Evaluating what is read” (p = 006) showed no significant difference, whereas it was proven significantly different in the questionnaire data (p = 004) Second, the interview data reported that the strategy “Previewing the text” (p = 004) had a significant difference, while this was not found in the questionnaire data (p = 009).

Within the PROB category, three reading strategies—adjusting reading rate (p = 004), re-reading the text (p = 003), and guessing unknown words (p = 002)—showed significant differences between two groups of students In contrast, the strategy of visualizing information (p = 005) did not appear among the significantly different strategies, although it was shown to differ significantly in the questionnaire data (p = 000).

For students in the SUP category, interview results fully supported the questionnaire findings, revealing four strategies that showed a significant difference in usage between HRA and LRA students, notably the strategy “Underlying information” (p = 0.004).

“P arap h rasin g ” (p = 002), “A sking o n e s e lf q u estio n ” (p = 000) and “T ran slating ” (p 003).

Overall, the interview data largely supported the questionnaire findings by identifying differences in reading-strategy use between the two student groups However, the interview data did not align with the questionnaire results in revealing differences for several individual strategies, suggesting these strategies showed no significant between-group differences due to limited evidence The following section presents the interview results addressing Research Question 4 of the study.

Table 10 Difference in the use of individual strategies (interview data)

Item Strategy Category High N=5) Low (N=5) Mann-

12 E valu ating w h at is read 34.00 1.08 3 0 00 2.34 22.65 06

13 Using prior knowledge 36.00 1.91 20.50 2.00 22.00 000 Problem Solving Strateg es

19 P au sin g and think ing 33.50 1.64 28.05 2.04 19.86 360

Validating the questionnaire results for the third research question (see 3.1), ANOVA was used again to analyze the interview data As a result, the interview data corroborate the questionnaire findings, showing a positive correlation between students' use of reading strategies and their achievement.

First, the study examines the relationship between students’ use of overall strategies and their achievement The interview data fully support the questionnaire data, and Table 11 below provides further details.

Table 11 Students’ use of overall strategics and their achievements (interview data)

As shown in Table 11, all categories of strategies—GLOBAL, PROB, and SUP—exhibit a positive correlation with students' reading comprehension levels: GLOBAL (F = 62.95, p < 001), PROB (F = 46.71, p = 002), and SUP (F = 33.29, p = 004) This suggests that these strategy categories influence reading comprehension, and students who are more aware of how to apply them may improve their overall reading proficiency.

This study examines the correlation between the use of individual learning strategies and students’ achievements By integrating interview data with questionnaire results, the analysis reveals that the qualitative findings largely support the quantitative patterns observed in the survey In other words, what students report in interviews about their strategies aligns closely with what the questionnaires indicate about their performance The convergence of interview and questionnaire data strengthens the conclusion that individual learning strategies are associated with higher achievement, offering implications for pedagogy and future research.

H o w ever, th ere w ere still ex istin g som e variations T h e resu lts w ere p resen ted in details in T ab le 12.

Table 12 Students’ use of individual strategies and achievements (interview data)

Item Strategy Category High N=5) Low iN=5)

5 D eterm ining w hat to read 3.53 905 2.73 1.19 9.43 05

13 Using prior knowledge 4.16 602 2.74 1.25 20.45 000 Problem Solving Strategies

14 R eading slow ly an d carefully 3.63 955 3.30 1.02 1.134 293

15 Try to stay fo cu sed on reading 3.94 938 3.39 1.15 2.72 108

19 P ausin g and th in k in g 3.21 976 2.57 1.08 4.04 051

20 Visualizing information read 3.58 769 2.13 1.10 23.44 000 Support Strategies

In the GLOB category, Table 12 shows that the interview data identified eight individual strategies with positive correlations to students' level, consistent with the questionnaire results However, the strategy "Deciding what to read" was not positively correlated in the interview data (F = 9.43, p = 005) while it was positively correlated in the questionnaire data (F = 9.32, p = 004) Overall, the strategies under this category appear useful for students in this study, especially those that were positively correlated with students' level in both the questionnaire and interview data.

Within the PROB category, interview data indicated that only two individual strategies positively interacted to affect students' ability, whereas four interacting strategies were identified in the questionnaire data The two strategies that showed positive correlation in both the questionnaire and interview data were “Guessing unknown words” (F = 10.30, p = 003) and “Visualizing information” (F = 23.44, p = 000) The other two strategies—“Adjusting reading rate” and “Pausing and thinking”—were found only in the questionnaire data, not in the interview data.

Under the SUP category, five individual strategies were identified as having positive correlations with students’ interview performance Of these five strategies, four were observed in both questionnaires and interviews, namely “Underline information” and “Using references.”

“ P arap h rasin g ” and “T ran slatin g ” O nly strategy “ G o in g back and forth in the text” [F 12.52, p = 001] w as not rev ealed correlated in th e q u estio n n aire data.

D is c u s s io n

This study examines the awareness of reading strategy use among Foundation Studies Department students at Hanoi University while they read academic materials, and the results reveal several major findings worth noting, including how students identify and apply various reading strategies, the level of their strategy awareness during academic reading, and the potential implications for enhancing reading comprehension in foundation-level coursework.

Assessment of students' frequencies of reading-strategy use revealed that students at FSD could recognize and be aware of their reading-strategy use when tackling reading tasks, and this awareness was moderately reflected in the frequency with which they used strategies Consequently, to help students monitor their reading comprehension and use strategies flexibly, it is necessary to raise their awareness of reading strategy use, especially for students with lower reading abilities.

Next, in assessing the differences in the use of reading strategies between IIRA students and LRA students, results from both interviews and questionnaires show that there are differences in how reading strategies relate to students’ reading ability The statistical tests for the overall strategies yielded p-values below 0.05 and t-statistics above 2, confirming the observed differences and indicating that the pattern of strategy use is associated with variations in reading proficiency across the two groups.

H R A students in this stu d y had better aw areness o f strateg y use than th eir LRA peers.

However, interview data did not align with questionnaire data in examining differences in the use of individual reading strategies between two groups of students, and this pattern also held for individual items IRA students dominated their LRA counterparts in all strategies, with some opting for strategies such as underlining information in the text, re-reading for better understanding, and guessing the meaning of unknown words more often than LRA students According to Mokhtari and Sheorey (2002), students who frequently use such strategies can detect comprehension difficulties and adjust their strategies accordingly These findings are consistent with earlier studies showing that HRA students are aware of their reading purposes and can deploy a range of processing strategies for texts.

S toller, 2002; P ressley, 2 00 2; Z hang & W u, 2 0 09 ; M alco lm , 2009) as w ell as can be able to use co n tex t and p rio r k n o w ledge m ore efficien tly for co m p rehension purposes (V an D ijk & K intsch, 1983).

Thirdly, several individual reading strategies—such as "Previewing the Text" and "Visualizing Information"—were not consistently reflected in the results of both interviews and questionnaires Consequently, there is no significant difference in the use of these strategies between the two groups of students.

Regarding the relationship between students' awareness of reading strategies and their reading ability, findings from both interview data and questionnaire data indicate a positive correlation between strategy use and reading proficiency Nevertheless, questionnaire and interview results also reveal some inconsistencies when examining the correlations of individual strategies.

As to th e G L O B categ o ry , although th is categ ory is n ot em ployed as frequently as the

Within the PROB category, there are more individual strategies that interact with students’ level than in the PROB or SUP categories The findings from both questionnaires and interviews identified eight individual strategies that positively correlate with students’ ability, with the exception of the strategy “Deciding what to read.” This strategy did not show a positive correlation in interview data (F = 9.43, p = 005), whereas it showed a positive correlation in questionnaire data (F = 9.32, p = 004) Thus, there is not enough evidence to conclude the relationship between the use of this strategy and students’ ability.

Within the PROB category, although it had the highest frequency of choices among students, it exhibited the fewest individual strategies that interacted with students’ abilities compared with other categories Under this category, the questionnaire data supported the interview data, identifying two interactive strategies, one of which was “Guessing the Unknown Words.”

Nevertheless, interview data conflicted with the questionnaire results, indicating that two strategies—adjusting reading rate and pausing to think—were not positively correlated with students’ reading proficiency Consequently, there is insufficient evidence to establish a relationship between the use of these strategies and students’ reading outcomes.

Regarding the SUP category, this category was not frequently used by students, yet it showed a broader range of individual strategies that correlated with students' abilities more than the PROB category Questionnaire and interview data identified four individual strategies under this category that positively correlated with student performance Of these, the strategy “Going back and forth in the text” (F = 12.53, p = 001) interacted significantly in interview data, whereas in questionnaire data the effect did not reach conventional significance (F = 1.04, p = 087) Similar to other strategies, these can produce conflicting findings across data sources.

G L O B an d PR O B , it early to say that there is a relatio n sh ip betw een th e use o f this strateg y and stu d e n ts’ ab ility o f read in g com prehension.

In summary, the interview data supported the questionnaire data in examining the correlations between students’ awareness of reading strategy use and their reading ability However, due to conflicting results for a few individual strategies across the two methods, there was insufficient evidence to conclude that these specific strategies positively interacted with students’ reading levels.

T h e p u rp o ses o f the stu d en ts w ere to inv estigate aw aren ess o f reading strategy use am o n g stu d e n ts in FSD a t H A N U The results o f this stu d y suggested that students in

Findings show that students were moderately aware of the reading strategies they used The analysis also revealed notable differences in the use of these strategies, with high-reading-ability (HRA) students distinguishing themselves from their low-reading-ability counterparts in terms of strategic knowledge.

Therefore, it can be inferred that LRA students benefit from a strategies training course that guides them to reflect on their reading process, identify their weaknesses, and take remedial measures, as suggested by researchers who have documented positive effects of strategies training on LSL students (e.g., Carrel et al., 1989; Hudson, 1998).

T h e fo llo w in g d isscused m o re ab o u t the reco m m en d atio n s for train in g an d instructing stu d en ts rea d in g strategies.

The study showed positive correlations between students’ use of several individual reading strategies and their reading ability Consequently, researchers recommend that teachers explicitly instruct students in these strategies, helping them become more aware of and understand how to use them effectively to tackle reading tasks.

Regarding the use of those individual strategies, the researcher recommends that teachers in FSD use the Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS) to instruct students As Lawrence (2007) stated, SORS is very useful for both teachers and students For teachers, it is an effective tool to assess, monitor, and document the type and number of reading strategies used by students For students, it is a valuable tool that reminds them of the list of reading strategies and raises their awareness of using these strategies while reading In addition, Mokhtari & Sheorey (2002) suggest that SORS can be used as a pre-test or post-test aimed at evaluating the impact of instruction on students’ awareness and use of strategies during reading.

Beyond the application of SORs, Hassan (2003) offers a practical recommendation for teachers in FSD He argues that to help students become more aware of reading strategy use, teachers should first identify the strategies that underlie their current classroom practices before deciding which strategies need to be taught, developed, and enhanced Then, instructional materials should be prepared, ample opportunities provided, and a conducive learning environment created for students to practice using the strategies taught To make his recommendations clearer, he cites Carrell (1989).

Effective second language reading pedagogy includes not only training and practice in task-specific strategies (strategy training) but also instruction that orchestrates, oversees, and monitors these skills (self-regulation training); more importantly, it provides learners with information about the significance and outcomes of these strategies and the range of their utility (awareness training).

Beyond giving students a toolkit of reading strategies, teachers must provide training on when, where, and how to use these strategies effectively Students also need to learn to evaluate their own use of strategies to ensure positive, optimal outcomes Effective reading comes not only from employing task-specific strategies, but also from applying strategies that are appropriate to the situation.

T hird, b esid e the above reco m m en d atio n s, teachers in F S D also are su ggested to adopt a

An instructional approach that combines comprehension practice with strategy evaluation focuses on assessing how students use reading strategies In this method, learners increase their knowledge and awareness of strategy use by reflecting on and verbalizing how they apply these strategies at the outset Over time, they develop a greater degree of autonomy in using these reading strategies across different contexts This recommendation is supported by findings from Cohen (1990, 2007), Zhang (2001), and Zhang et al.

(2 00 8), w hich sugg est th a t being able to v erbalize and e v alu ate strategy use is a sign o f high aw areness o f read in g strategics.

Fourth, in addition to the implications discussed above, the researcher identifies another useful suggestion from Janzen (2001) for raising students’ awareness of reading-strategy use, which may benefit teachers in FSD Janzen (2001) proposes embedding five features into the course syllabus, the first of which is an explicit discussion of what reading strategies are, along with where, when, and how to use them.

Key components of strategic reading instruction include teacher modeling of strategic reading behaviors, students reading aloud and thinking aloud while practicing targeted strategies, classroom discussion, and the adoption of a sustained content area for the course Of these features, the first four are essential for developing strategic readers, while the fifth helps students learn to apply a given strategy to other readings and to integrate it with additional strategies.

Fifth, research indicates that in the long run teachers should focus on developing students’ interest in reading by organizing extensive reading activities This approach is an effective means for students at FSD to achieve their reading efficacy, given the strong evidence that extensive reading is closely linked to reading achievement Day and Bamford (1998, 2002) discuss these issues and the benefits of rich extensive reading activities, and Renandya (2007) reports findings on how extensive reading supports the development of various aspects of L2 language proficiency.

Conclusion: This study presents five actionable recommendations for teachers in FSD to improve instruction of students’ reading strategies The recommendations are intended to help teachers adjust their instructional procedures more comprehensively and in ways that better meet their students’ needs The researcher hopes these recommendations will be practical, applicable across classrooms, and supportive of students’ reading development in FSD.

In v ie w o f the m ajor findings o f the present study, th e research e r finds so m e issues arisin g fro m th is study, a n d then recom m ends several av en u es for future research.

Because this study used a small sample of students, its findings have limited generalizability to a larger population Future research should replicate the study with larger, more diverse samples across different proficiency levels to examine how students use reading comprehension strategies and to validate the results for diverse learner groups.

Second, the study has not examined the differences between male and female students at FSD in their use of reading strategies Future research should place greater emphasis on evaluating how reading-strategy use varies across genders, since prior research has highlighted potential gender differences in strategy use and their implications for learning outcomes.

C h avez (2001) gend er sh o u ld be exam in ed m ore c lo sely in o rd er to d isco v er possible achiev em en t gaps and, if possible, red u ce t h e m '

Third, the study did not assess other factors that may affect students’ awareness of reading strategy use, such as vocabulary awareness, reading accuracy, or reading fluency Therefore, the researcher suggests that future studies should comprehensively examine the interactions among these factors and students’ awareness of reading strategy use.