000036891 AN INVESTIGATION INTO READING STRATEGY PREFERENCES OF SECOND YEAR STUDENTS AT THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION MỘT CUỘC ĐIỀU TRA VỀ SỞ THÍCH CHIẾN LƯỢC ĐỌC CỦA SINH VIÊN NĂM THỨ HAI TẠI HỌC VIỆN HÀNH CHÍNH CÔNG QUỐC GIA
A im s o f the s tu d y
The aim s o f this study are:
- to identify strategy preferences o f second year students at N APA in reading public adm inistrative m aterials in English;
- to discover if there are any differences in the strategy use betw een designated successful and unsuccessful readers.
- to m ake recom m endations to raise students’ aw areness o f using reading com prehension strategies in the classroom
This research study comprises five chapters, along with a references list and appendices Chapter I presents the study’s background, states its aims, and outlines the organization of the thesis Chapter II offers a review of related literature, including language learning strategies and reading comprehension strategies Chapter III details the research methods, as well as the procedures for data collection and analysis Chapter IV reports the results and provides a discussion of the findings Chapter V provides conclusions, recommendations arising from the study, and suggestions for further research.
O rganisation o f the th e s is
D efinition o f language learning s tra te g ie s
Learning strategies are defined in several ways, with Tarone (1981) offering a formal definition as attempts to develop linguistic and sociolinguistic competence in the target language (p 2) The article then describes the motivation for using these strategies and the role of production strategies However, the overall definition can seem too broad and difficult to grasp.
Learning strategies are a set of processes or steps used by a learner to facilitate the acquisition, storage, and use of information (Dansereau, 1985) O’Malley and Chamot (1990) describe strategies as intentional cognitive or affective actions taken by learners to master both simple and complex material Oxford (1990) argues that while these definitions are useful, they do not fully capture the richness of learning strategies, expanding the definition to include actions that make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective, and more transferable to new situations Together, these perspectives frame learning strategies as deliberate, learner-driven tactics that enhance understanding and transfer across contexts.
O xford's definition o f learning strategies is used because it is m ore concrete, detailed and easier to understand than the others m entioned above.
Features o f language learning strategies
O xford (1990) m entions twelve key features o f language learning strategies: considering com m unicative com petence as the main goal, allow ing learners to become more self-directed, expanding the role o f teachers, problem orientation, action basis, involvem ent beyond ju st cognition, direct and indirect support o f learning, observability and unobservability, consciousness, teachability, flexibility and being influenced by m any factors.
First o f all, language learning strategies consider com m unicative com petence as the m ain goal This arises from the fact that com m unicative com petence now seems to be a priority in every foreign language classroom A ccording to O xford and Crookall
Language learning strategies are designed to help learners participate actively in authentic communication and to build communicative competence These strategies operate both broadly and specifically to support that development Yet many learners do not recognize the important role of learning strategies, making it necessary to help them identify their own strategy preferences and to use them appropriately.
Language learning strategies foster self-direction, a quality Dickinson (1987) identifies as especially important for language learners who won’t always have a teacher to guide them outside the classroom By promoting autonomous study and purposeful practice, these strategies support the active development of language proficiency and empower learners to navigate new linguistic environments In short, adopting effective language learning strategies leads to greater self-direction and more robust, sustained progress in acquiring a second language.
Language learning strategies reshape teachers' roles, shifting them from traditional positions—such as parent, instructor, manager, judge, leader, and even doctor—to more collaborative ones: facilitator, helper, guide, adviser, coordinator, and co-communicator, especially when communicative teaching approaches are valued These new teaching capacities include identifying students' learning strategies, training learners to apply those strategies, and helping students become more independent learners.
N ext, language learning strategies are problem - oriented A ccording to Oxford
Based on Chamot (1987) and related work from 1990, learners consciously use learning strategies because there is a problem to solve, a task to accomplish, an objective to meet, or a goal to attain In the most straightforward sense, these strategies are the specific actions learners take to enhance their learning.
Language learning strategies are not limited to cognitive functions such as mental processing and the manipulation of the new language; they also encompass metacognitive processes like planning, monitoring, and evaluating one’s own learning, along with emotional, social, and other personal factors When applied appropriately, these strategies support language learning directly by guiding how learners approach tasks and regulate their study, and indirectly by shaping motivation and self-regulation (Oxford, 1990).
W enden, 1991, O 'M alley and Cham ot, 1990).
In addition, language learning strategies can be observable or unobservable
Oxford (1990) notes that some learning strategies are observable to an outside observer—for example, resource-management strategies—while others, such as the use of mental associations and memory strategies, are not directly observable A key challenge in observing learning strategies is that many are used outside the classroom in informal, naturalistic settings, making them unobservable to teachers Consequently, identifying the strategies learners actually deploy can be difficult.
Language learning strategies are flexible and teachable, accommodating the individuality with which learners select, combine, and sequence those strategies This adaptability allows strategies to change over time, making them easier to teach and modify through targeted strategy training, an essential part of language education (Oxford, 1990; Jones, Palincsar, Ogle, and Carr, 1987).
Oxford (1990) argues that language learning strategies are shaped by multiple factors, including degree of awareness, stage of learning, task requirements, age, gender, nationality, motivation, and the learner’s purpose for studying a language Consequently, effective strategy training and instructional design must account for these variables to enhance learners’ outcomes and adaptability in real-world language use.
Classification of language learning strategies is an important part of research in this field When strategies are clearly classified, researchers can identify learners' strategy preferences, determine how extensively learners use different strategies, and help them become more strategic learners However, studies of second language learners have classified learning strategies in diverse ways, using various criteria This section reviews several studies that apply different classification criteria to language learning strategies, illustrating how classification schemes influence our understanding of learners' approaches and the design of targeted instructional support.
The classification framework of learning strategies emerged from efforts to identify the characteristics of good language learners Rubin (1975) initiated research focused on the strategies of successful learners, yielding a first primary category consisting of strategies that directly affect learning—clarification/verification, monitoring, memorization, guessing/inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning, and deliberate practice A second primary category consists of strategies that contribute indirectly to learning, including creating practice opportunities and using production tricks such as communication strategies In this research and later work (1981), Rubin used procedures such as observations, classroom videotapes, student self-reports, and diaries.
In 1978, Naiman, Frohlich, and Todesco conducted a study that focused on personality traits, cognitive styles, and learning strategies essential to successful learners Their work linked these individual differences to how learners approach tasks and apply strategies, and it built on an initial strategy framework proposed earlier by Stern.
In 1975, Naiman and colleagues identified the learning strategies used by proficient language learners, drawing on classroom observations, interviews, and questionnaires They proposed a five-category classification schema (with several secondary subcategories) that good learners tend to employ The primary categories include an active task approach, the realization of language as a system, the realization of language as a means of communication, the management of interaction to address affective demands, and the monitoring of second language performance.
Rubin and Naiman's classification schemes differ, and O’Malley and Chamot (1990) argue that they have no grounding in theories of second language acquisition or cognition, making it difficult to identify which strategies are fundamental for language learning or most useful to other learners from the extensive list of techniques Moreover, there is no clear distinction drawn between metacognitive and cognitive strategies, although Brown and Palincsar (1982) have attempted to separate these categories.
O'M alley, C ham ot, Stew ner-M anzanares, K upper and Russo, (1985) w ho based their classification on psychological functions.
Learning strategies and learning s ty le s
Learning styles and learning strategies are two closely related concepts in education Learning styles refer to characteristic cognitive and physiological behaviors that indicate how learners perceive, interact with, and respond to their learning environment (Keefe, 1979; cited in Willing, 1988, p 40), while learning strategies are the specific procedures learners use for individual learning tasks According to Oxford (1990), learning strategies are the deliberate actions taken by learners to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, and more transferable to new situations.
According to Reid (1987), learning styles include visual, auditory, kinesthetic, tactile, group, and individual preferences Visual learners absorb information best by seeing words in books, on the chalkboard, and in worksheets; auditory learners learn from hearing spoken words and oral explanations; kinesthetic learners gain understanding through experience and active physical involvement in classroom activities; tactile learners thrive with hands-on experiences using materials Group learners tend to study more easily when collaborating with at least one other student, while individual learners prefer to work alone These differences imply that students with different learning styles adopt different learning strategies.
Although the definitions of learning strategies and learning styles are clear, the main issue is how these concepts connect Brown (1991) argues that learning strategies do not operate in isolation but are directly tied to the learner’s underlying learning styles—general approaches to learning—and other personality-related variables such as anxiety and self-concept Schmeck (1988) emphasizes understanding learning strategies within the context of learning styles, defining learning styles as the expression of personality in the learning situation He also urges researchers to view learning styles and learning strategies within broader personality factors, including introversion/extroversion and reflectiveness.
/im pulsiveness, field independence/dependence, self-confidence and self-concept, creativity.
McKeachie (2004, p 2) argues that learning styles are often treated as fixed, inherited characteristics that constrain how students learn when instruction doesn’t align with their preferred styles As a result, some teachers conclude they must tailor their teaching to each student’s style However, most attempts to match instruction to an individual learner’s style have shown only limited effects on learning outcomes He therefore notes that what are called learning styles are essentially learned preferences and study habits, and that everyone is capable of moving beyond the particular style they favor at the moment.
Regardless of learning styles, students can adopt strategies that enable effective learning even when instruction does not align with their preferred approach Teachers should help students develop the skills and strategies needed to learn from methods that differ from their preferences, motivate them to keep learning, and acquire the abilities necessary for continued, lifelong learning This study’s researcher shares this viewpoint.
Learning styles are general approaches to learning, while learning strategies are the specific actions learners take to handle individual tasks Because learners differ in both styles and strategies, identifying each student’s learning style and learning strategy can support more effective learning This study therefore begins by examining the learning strategies of students at NAPA.
R eading com prehension strategies-
D efinition o f reading com prehension and reading com prehension
Grellet (1990) defines reading comprehension as the ability to extract the required information from a written text as efficiently as possible Lenz (2002) adds that reading comprehension is the process of constructing meaning from the text In the author's view, reading comprehension involves at least two participants—the reader and the writer—so the comprehension process begins by decoding the writer's words and then using background knowledge to arrive at an approximate understanding of the writer's message.
Reading comprehension is more than merely understanding information in a text; it is a complex, interdependent set of processes that underlie fluent reading Grabe and Stoller (2002) propose that to grasp what fluent reading entails, we should examine the requirements of skilled, automatic word processing, the ability to form a general meaning representation of the main ideas, and the efficient coordination of multiple processes under tight time constraints They define reading comprehension as the necessary, integrated processes that support fluent reading, highlighting rapid, efficient, interactive, strategic, flexible, evaluating, and purposeful cognitive and linguistic activities that collectively enable comprehension, interpretation, and learning.
Reading comprehension relies on rapid processing across multiple cognitive components in nearly any purposeful reading context, and the faster a text is read, the more effectively these processing components operate to support understanding For comprehension to occur, these processes must be carried out efficiently in combination, with tight coordination that enables the overall interpretation of the text Reading comprehension is an interactive, two-way process: the cognitive operations involved occur simultaneously, and linguistic information from the text interacts with background knowledge activated from the reader’s long-term memory, shaping meaning and interpretation.
Reading comprehension requires strategic engagement from the reader: sensing processing difficulties, reconciling gaps between text information and prior knowledge, and continually monitoring understanding while adjusting reading goals When readers become strategic, they read flexibly to align with changing purposes and sustain ongoing monitoring of comprehension Reading is also an evaluative process, as the reader decides whether the information is coherent and matches the intended purpose of reading.
Reading is inherently purposeful Readers engage with texts in different ways based on their specific goals, and understanding these varied reading purposes helps tailor content for audiences Motivation to tackle a particular text arises from a blend of internal triggers—curiosity, personal need, or interest—and external influences—assignments, recommendations, or contextual cues.
Reading is fundamentally a process of comprehension, since understanding the text is the purpose of reading; as such, it also functions as a learning process, especially in academic settings where the most common way for students to acquire new information is through reading.
Reading is fundamentally a linguistic process, and meaningful interpretation relies on actively engaging with the language of the text If we cannot understand the words, we cannot fully comprehend what we are reading.
Grabe and Stoller (2002) expand earlier definitions to offer a comprehensive view of reading comprehension that explicitly includes the processes involved In short, reading comprehension results from the coordinated interaction of multiple cognitive and linguistic processes that help readers extract meaning from a text and interpret it accurately.
2.2.1.2 D efinition o f reading com prehension strategies
Oxford (1990) offers a comprehensive definition of language learning strategies (see 2.1.1) and describes, in practical terms, how these strategies are employed across the four core skills—listening, speaking, reading, and writing She contends that the strategies associated with listening, speaking, reading, and writing are themselves learning strategies that are applied within each specific skill.
Singhal (2001) distinguishes between strategies that make learning effective and those that improve comprehension According to Singhal, the former are generally referred to as learning strategies in the second language literature.
Reading strategies, or comprehension strategies, describe how readers frame a task, make sense of what they read, and respond when understanding falters In essence, these strategies are the techniques and cognitive processes learners use to boost reading comprehension and to overcome comprehension failures Yet they are also the learning strategies themselves, embedded within the broader concept of learning strategies Therefore, reading-comprehension strategies should be understood as specific actions, techniques, and processes that learners deploy to improve their reading understanding When distinguishing reading strategies from general reading skills, these actions must be applied consciously by the learner.
R eading strategies and reading skills —
Skills and strategies are two com m on term s used to describe the activity o f reading Paris, W asik and Turner (1991) state:
Skills in reading are automatic information-processing techniques, whether it's decoding grapheme-phoneme relationships or summarizing a story, that are applied to text largely without conscious effort They arise from expertise, repeated practice, following directions, luck, or even naive use, and operate behind the scenes during reading In contrast, strategies are deliberate, planned actions that readers choose to achieve specific goals, guiding how they approach and understand a text.
A lexander and Jetton (2000) propose tw o differences betw een skillful and strategic processing, relevant to text-based learning: autom aticity and intentionality
Skills are essentially essential academic habits: routinized, automatic procedures we rely on when tackling any nontrivial task By contrast, strategies are deliberately employed approaches that guide how we engage in such tasks The authors argue that skills are information-processing abilities that operate automatically, while strategies are conscious, controllable capabilities the reader can apply.
H ow ever, it is not always easy to m ake such a clear distinction betw een the two term s In fact, "m any abilities that are com m only identified as strategies are relatively autom atic in their use by fluent readers (e.g skipping an unknow n w ord w hile reading, rereading to reestablish text meaning)" (G rabe and Stoller, 2002, p 15) and "an em erging skill can becom e a strategy w hen it's used intentionally Strategies are more efficient and developm entally advanced w hen they becom e generated and applied autom atically as skills Thus, strategies are skills under consideration" (Paris et al.,
1991, p 611) A pparently, som etim es, the distinction betw een skills and strategies is not entirely clear precisely because that is part o f the nature o f reading In this study, reading strategies are used to denote specific actions, techniques, steps and plans students consciously em ploy in their reading process to im prove their com prehension.
Roles o f reading strategies in reading com prehension p r o c e s s
Reading strategies play a very im portant role in reading com prehension, especially w hen learners becom e center in teaching and learning process now A nderson
According to a 1991 source, there has recently been a shift in attention from the product of reading—such as scores on reading comprehension tests—toward emphasizing the strategies readers use across various reading contexts This shift moves away from solely measuring outcomes to investigating the cognitive and strategic processes that readers deploy to understand texts By focusing on reading strategies, researchers aim to explain how readers adapt to different genres, purposes, and task demands (p 460).
Readers interpret an author’s message in diverse ways, and reading comprehension is shaped by the reader’s knowledge of the topic, language structures, text structures and genres, and by cognitive and metacognitive strategies and motivation (Lenz, 2002, p 2) Therefore, knowledge of reading strategies is a key factor influencing reader comprehension Lenz also notes that readers with poorly developed language skills and strategies will not have the tools to take advantage of the obvious structures and comprehension cues found in considerate text, nor will they have the extra tools needed to overcome the barriers of inconsiderate text.
Grabe and Stoller define fluent reading comprehension as requiring readers to be strategic: to monitor their comprehension and to shift their reading goals as needed Effective readers draw selectively on a range of strategies determined by reader purpose, text type, and context, predicting and sampling while selecting the minimal visual information consistent with their predictions They do not need to use all cues; Goodman (1996) notes that they tune out irrelevant information This selectivity is the key to effective reading.
Reading strategies are essential for fluent reading and comprehension Once identified, these strategies help learners understand why they struggle with reading, and they enable teachers to determine the most effective steps to support students and boost their reading competence.
Previous research on reading com prehension strategies —
Previously, research on reading com prehension strategies had been lim ited in
Several studies in first-language (L1) reading have attempted to describe the characteristics of good readers For example, Haley (1981) showed that skilled readers activate a reading schema before engaging with a story, forming expectations about its structure, while poor readers do this to a much lesser extent There is also a notable study of effective reading strategies in second language (L2) reading Hosenfeld (1977) reports on the reading strategies of successful and unsuccessful second-language learners using think-aloud introspection He found that successful readers rely on context-based guessing grounded in inductive reasoning He also describes a metacognitive strategy in which learners evaluate their thinking by assessing the logical plausibility of a guess At the same time, Hosenfeld was among the first to attempt to train learners in the use of reading strategies, specifically efficient reading strategies.
Recent research on reading comprehension strategies has highlighted how differences in strategy use distinguish good readers from poor readers Findings consistently indicate that poor readers do not adopt strategic reading behaviors on their own and require explicit instruction about what, where, and when to apply these procedures For instance, Pearson (1985) showed that poor readers often fail to recognize that different assignments pose different types of questions—literal, those requiring integration of the text, or those relying on prior knowledge—and they frequently employ strategies that are inappropriate for the task In addition, poor readers tend to make fewer inferences, struggle to integrate ideas across the text, and form less accurate representations Even when decoding is accurate, these readers often neglect the text's meaning, fail to connect new information to prior knowledge, and do not monitor their own comprehension (Bos & Vaughn, 1994).
Anderson (1991) examined whether there are differences in strategy use between simply reading a passage and performing on a reading test, and whether weaker and stronger readers differ in their strategy deployment for each task The study recruited 28 students to complete two tasks: (a) a reading test with no commentary, and (b) reading a text while commenting on the strategies they used To probe potential differences by ability, all participants first took a reading test that did not involve think-aloud commentary, allowing classification into high-, intermediate-, and low-ability groups After being trained to provide think-aloud comments, they completed the experimental reading task, verbalizing their strategies while reading and answering comprehension questions after each passage The comments were audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded into a taxonomy of 47 possible reading strategies.
According to Anderson's study, weaker students differed from stronger students in their reading abilities, and the better readers reported using significantly more total strategies in their think-aloud comments.
Anderson’s analysis of three case studies found no difference in the number of reading strategies used or in reading-test performance, and showed that students tended to rely on similar types of strategies across ability levels and tasks While the weakest student could comment on many strategies, she did not appear to monitor whether these strategies were effective, indicating that the challenge lay in applying strategies well rather than just knowing them Overall, no single strategy or small set of strategies accounted for reading success; instead, most students used a wide variety of strategies and reported employing several approaches both for general reading and during reading tests.
Recently in Vietnam, several studies have explored the reading comprehension strategies used by students at specific institutions Using data collection tools such as oral interviews, self-designed questionnaires, and observation, Nguyen Thi Bich Thuy (2003) examined the cognitive strategies employed by students at the College of Economics, Technology and Commerce She found that the predominant strategies were skimming, scanning, inferencing, and transferring, and that successful readers tended to use a wider range of strategies than less successful readers These readers were described as effective and appropriate users of reading strategies Thuy recommended that teachers encourage students to vary their strategies according to the reading task.
A nother study was also done by a V ietnam ese author - Tran Thi Phuong Hoa
A 2003 study examined the role of metacognitive strategies in reading English academic materials for students at the Center for European Studies To collect needed data, the researcher employed four instruments: questionnaires, structured interviews, observation, and introspective and retrospective reports The findings indicate that a reader who lacks metacognitive awareness and strategic reading skills struggles to comprehend and retain information in challenging texts, underscoring the value of metacognitive strategies for effective academic reading.
English proficiency in some ways may succeed in handling English academ ic materials if he/she can use m etalcognitive strategies.
Gilbert (2003) conducted an investigation into the learning strategies of English major students at Vinh University in Vietnam The study sampled 146 students from first to fourth year who completed a questionnaire and participated in 10 oral interviews The questionnaire, adapted from the SLSQ, comprises five parts: one for each of the four communicative skills and a general section.
Gilbert's research on reading skills shows that two tactics yield stronger gains than expected: using context clues to infer meaning and periodic summarization to monitor comprehension The study also highlights physical reading habits that can hinder progress, such as slower readers who rely heavily on a dictionary and tend to touch each word—with a finger or a pencil—reading it in isolation rather than grouping longer phrases into meaningful chunks.
This study is conducted w ith different subjects and purposes In this study, I am going to investigate strategy preferences o f English non-m ajor second year students at
This study on reading comprehension analyzes reading strategies across four main categories—cognitive, metacognitive, social, and affective The participants are English non-major second-year students who have just completed three general English courses and are enrolled in an ESP course on PA Data were collected using a questionnaire, think-aloud interviews, tests, and document analysis.
Findings show that nearly all learners rely on reading strategies during tasks, with good readers also serving as proficient guessers and predictors; they make conscious efforts to read more efficiently, while poorer readers often lack strategic approaches to reading or solving problems Yet, poor readers can overcome reading difficulties by employing metacognitive strategies These findings offer directions for future research into the reading strategy preferences of the students at NAPA and, specifically, for comparing the strategies used by strong and weak readers Identifying these strategies will help promote effective reading strategies among good readers and equip poor learners with the skills they need to improve their reading.
A proposed classification scheme o f reading com prehension
Oxford (1990) synthesized earlier work on language learning strategies and connected them to the four language skills For reading, Oxford provides a list of 50 strategies with definitions (Appendix B) Building on Oxford's research, this study examines reading comprehension strategies in four categories—cognitive, metacognitive, affective, and social—comprising twenty specific strategies that students are likely to use Oxford's definitions are retained, though some strategy names have been adjusted to avoid overlap and better fit the study's reading-focused objectives; the revised names are enclosed in brackets Finally, memory strategies (for example, associating/elaborating or using keyword strategies) and compensation strategies (such as analyzing expressions or sums) appear to belong to the cognitive strategy category (Brown and Falincsar, 1982; O'Malley and Chamot, 1990).
D etails about four categories o f strategies and 20 specific strategies are as follows:
Cognitive strategies in this study include the follow ing specific strategies:
Scanning : This strategy requires readers to read a passage quickly to find specific inform ation or details, especially those that relate to certain reading tasks.
Periodic summarizing is a comprehension-checking strategy in which learners create a concise summary or abstract of a longer passage The process requires significant condensation of thought and helps learners organize and integrate new input This approach is especially useful when dealing with long, difficult texts, as it provides a clear way to verify understanding and retain key ideas.
Skim m ing : This strategy involves reading a passage quickly to grasp the main ideas the speaker w ants to get across.
G uessing the m eaning o f a new w ord fr o m co ntext: This strategy involves m aking guesses about the m eaning o f new words by looking at the surround words or situation.
Using imagery is an effective memory technique for readers By tying new information to visual concepts stored in memory, readers create familiar, easily retrievable visualizations, phrases, or locations that anchor understanding and recall This strategy enhances reading comprehension by turning abstract ideas into vivid mental pictures, making it easier to retrieve details later To apply it, map key concepts to striking images, memorable metaphors, or spatial cues—like rooms or routes—building a personal image library that supports durable retention.
Resourcing, also called using resources for receiving and sending messages, is a language-learning strategy that relies on tools such as dictionaries, grammar books, glossaries, and word lists to uncover the meaning of what you read in the target language By consulting these resources, learners verify vocabulary, grammar, and usage, improving reading comprehension and enabling accurate, confident communication when composing messages in the new language.
Reasoning deductively: W ith this strategy, the readers are asked to infer or predict outcom es from w hat is read but not stated in a text.
Analyzing expressions is a reading strategy used to determine the meaning of unfamiliar phrases by breaking the expression into component parts By examining how the meanings of the parts fit together, readers can infer the overall sense of the expression within the text This breakdown enhances comprehension, turning complex phrases into understandable units and improving interpretation in context.
Translating: This strategy allow s learners to use their ow n language as the basis for understanding w hat they read in the new language.
Elaborating: This strategy links new language information to familiar concepts already in memory, forming meaningful associations that boost language learning comprehension and improve recall, making the material easier to remember and apply in real-life communication.
Rereading, or repeating, is a strategy that means reading a passage more than once to understand it more completely The technique is most effective when you read a text several times, with each pass serving a different purpose: to grasp the general drift or main ideas, to predict what comes next, and to read for details This approach improves reading comprehension, reinforces memory, and helps you identify supporting evidence, making it a valuable tool for exam preparation and academic reading.
Note-taking is a reading strategy that involves jotting down the main ideas, key points, and important details as you read to improve retention and understanding By capturing essential concepts and their connections during the reading process, you create a concise reference that reinforces comprehension and recall However, the emphasis should be on understanding the material, not on recording everything, so you selectively note ideas that clarify meaning and support long-term memory.
M etacognitive strategies in this study include the follow ing specific strategies:
Identifying a purpose for reading is a key strategy that helps learners focus their energy on the relevant language skills By clarifying why they read, learners can tailor their approach to the task—whether skimming for the main idea or gist, reading for pleasure, or quickly locating a specific piece of information This purposeful approach supports efficient comprehension and strengthens overall language proficiency across different reading activities.
Activating prior knowledge is a learning strategy that centers on linking the new topic to what learners already know, rather than focusing on how the language is used in the moment By connecting present material to students' existing experiences and information, this approach builds a meaningful bridge that supports comprehension and retention In practice, teachers prompt learners to recall related concepts, relate new ideas to familiar examples, and use prior knowledge as a scaffold for understanding the current content.
Self-evaluating is a metacognitive strategy that involves checking comprehension after completing a receptive language activity or evaluating language production after it has taken place In reading, it means learners assess their own proficiency in various ways, such as whether their predictions were accurate and what portion of the reading passage they understood.
This category includes the following specific strategies:
Asking for clarification or verification is a reading strategy that involves inviting a teacher or others to repeat information, paraphrase key points, explain processes, or provide examples when readers are unclear about how to approach a reading task.
C ooperating with others: This strategy m eans w orking w ith one or more peers to obtain feedback, pool inform ation, or m odel a language activity.
This category includes the following strategies:
Positive self-affirmations are a practical strategy for boosting reading confidence By saying or writing upbeat statements to oneself, readers prime a proactive mindset that reduces anxiety when approaching difficult texts Examples include phrases like “I can understand this material,” “I am a capable reader,” and “I will take it one paragraph at a time.” Using these affirmations before a reading task can improve focus, motivation, and overall comprehension, making challenging material feel more manageable.
D iscussing fe e lin g s with som eone else: This strategy means talking w ith another person (teacher, friend, relative) to discover and express feelings about language learning/ reading.
The four categories o f strategies and 20 specific strategies are sum m arized in Table 2.1 below.
Scanning Identifying a purpose fo r reading
C ooperating M aking positive statem ents Periodic sum m arizing inform ation to check predictions
Thinking about w hat yo u already know about the topic
A sking fo r clarification or verification
D iscussing fe e lin g s with som eone else
Skim m ing Self-evaluating to check predictions
G uessing the m eaning o f a new w ord fr o m context
Self-evaluating the reading process
T ab le 2.1: T he proposed classification schem e o f reading com prehension strategies under study
S u m m a ry
This chapter provides an overview of language learning strategies, covering their definition, classification, and features Although researchers define and classify learning strategies differently, they largely agree that these are deliberate actions, steps, techniques, and plans learners use to improve progress in acquiring a foreign or second language, and that identifying these strategies helps teachers support learners more effectively It also defines reading comprehension and reading comprehension strategies, outlines the roles of these strategies in the reading process, and reviews prior research on reading strategies The most important finding across studies is that successful readers use contextual guessing and think strategically—planning, monitoring, and adjusting their approach—whereas poorer readers do not think strategically about how to read or solve problems and often exhibit habits that hinder their reading.
The chapter presents a four-category framework for reading comprehension strategies—metacognitive, cognitive, social, and affective—and uses this classification to investigate students' reading strategy preferences.
N A PA w ith the hope that w hen these strategy preferences are identified, we can create favorable conditions to help learners m ore advanced and self-co nfid ent in reading skill in general, and learning in particular.
This chapter will describe research m ethods used to collect data to answ er the three research questions and explain how and why the m ethods are used.
This study is carried out to find out language learning strategy preferences o f students in reading public adm inistrative m aterials, to discover if there are any differences in the strategy use betw een successful and unsuccessful readers, and then to suggest som e recom m endations to raise students’ aw areness o f using reading com prehension strategies in the classroom Especially, it aims at answ ering the following questions:
1 W hat are strategies used by second year students at N A PA in reading public adm inistrative m aterials in English?
2 Are there any differences in the strategy use betw een designated successful readers and unsuccessful readers?
D escriptions o f variables —
Independent v a ria b le
In this study, the independent variables were the second - year students at
More concretely, a sample of 50 students was selected as representatives of this student group to collect the data needed for the study These 50 participants were then divided into four groups, from which individuals classified as successful readers and unsuccessful readers were chosen to provide information to answer the study’s second research question Further details about these groups are presented in section 3.3.1, and the definitions of successful and unsuccessful readers are described in section 3.4.2.
D ependent v a ria b le
As mentioned in 2.1.1, this study uses Oxford's (1990) definition of learning strategies; the dependent variables are the reading comprehension strategies These strategies are operationalized as 20 specific strategies across four categories—metacognitive, cognitive, social, and affective—and are examined in two student groups: successful readers and unsuccessful readers.
To investigate reading strategies, the study used three data collection methods: a Reading Strategy Questionnaire to assess students’ strategy preferences and any differences in strategy use between successful and unsuccessful readers; think-aloud interviews to obtain deeper insights that address the two research questions; and tests to categorize students into two groups—successful and unsuccessful readers This multi-method approach ensured both broad patterns and detailed understanding of how reading strategies are employed in practice.
The data collection in stru m en ts
Q uestionnaire -
The second data collection instrument employed in this project is the questionnaire, a widely used method for gathering data As Seliger and Shohamy (1989) define it, a questionnaire consists of questions or statements to which participants are expected to respond, often anonymously In the field of second language acquisition research, questionnaires are chiefly used to collect data on the processes involved in language use and to obtain background information about participants, including age, prior experience with language learning, the number of languages spoken, and years of studying the target language.
Questionnaires offer notable advantages in language studies: they are self-administered and can be deployed to large samples simultaneously, maximizing efficiency; anonymity encourages respondents to share sensitive information more openly, improving data quality; and administering the same questionnaire to every participant yields uniform, standardized data, with simultaneous timing across subjects enhancing overall accuracy.
Using the Reading Strategy Questionnaire, this study examined students’ reading comprehension strategy preferences and investigated whether successful readers differ from unsuccessful ones in the strategies they employ Data from the questionnaire, complemented by interview insights, illuminate how readers approach texts and highlight the strategies associated with higher comprehension Based on these results, the study proposes actionable recommendations to help students strengthen their reading skills and improve overall comprehension.
The R eading Strategy Q uestionnaire w as designed based on the SLSQ on page
17 o f the I.earning Strategies H andbook by C ham ot et al (1999) and on the List o f
Oxford's Strategies Useful for Reading (1990), which was referenced in sections 2.1.3 and 2.2.5, comprises 20 statements that correspond to 20 specific reading strategies arranged into four categories described in 2.2.5 Each item is a close-ended question designed to assess how learners apply these strategies The self-evaluating strategy, in particular, includes two statements: one evaluating whether students check their predictions and another examining whether they review their reading process Together, the 20 items provide a concise, question-driven framework for monitoring and developing reading strategies.
The SLSQ has been widely used by researchers studying language learning strategies (Gilbert, 2003; Tal, 2004) For reading, the SLSQ includes nine statements representing nine reading strategies, of which seven were adopted in this study: statements 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 19 and 20; the remaining two were not used because they were not included in the study’s classification In addition, the researcher designed thirteen other questionnaire items based on Oxford’s List of strategies useful for reading To minimize learner misunderstanding, the questionnaires were translated into Vietnamese and presented alongside the English version.
Twenty questions used a five-point Likert scale Participants were asked to respond to each statement by selecting one of five options: Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Often, or Always This format facilitates nuanced measurement of respondents' attitudes and experiences across a spectrum from never to always.
D etails o f the statem ents in the questionnaire are as follows:
This category includes statem ents 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 in which:
S can ning: statem ent 3 Periodic sum m arising inform ation to check com prehension: statem ent 4
G uessing the m eaning o f a new w ord fr o m context: statem ent 6
U sing imagery: statem ent 7 Resourcing: statem ent 8 Reasoning deductively, statem ent 9
A n alysin g expressions', statem ent 10 Translating: statem ent 11
Elaborating: statem ent 12 Rprpnding- s ta te m e n t 1 3
This category includes statem ents 1,2,19,20 in which:
Identifying a purpose fo r reading: statem ent 1 Thinking about w hat yo u already know about the to p ic: statem ent 2 Self-evaluating to check pred ictio n s: statem ent 19
Self-evaluating reading process: statem ent 20
This category includes statem ents 15, 16 in which:
A skin g f o r clarification or verification: statem ent 15
C ooperating with others', statem ent 16
This category includes statem ents 17, 18 in which:
M aking po sitive statem ents: statem ent 17
D iscussing feelings with som eone else: statem ent 18
Think-aloud in terv iew s
Interviews are the third main data‑collection method in research, used to obtain information by speaking directly with the subject They can be conducted face‑to‑face or by telephone, and are personalized, enabling in‑depth information gathering, free response, and flexible exploration that other methods cannot provide (Seliger, p 166) While interviews can be costly and time consuming, they have recently been used to study the language‑learning strategies learners use in different contexts, with learners verbalizing the cognitive strategies and processes they employ when producing various features of language.
Thinking - aloud is a procedure to collect data in such verbal reports and has been used in m any studies, especially in studies on reading strategies (U lshavsky, 1977;
Think-aloud interviews involve externalizing the content of the mind while a participant performs a task, with instructions to verbalize everything they think and notice, no matter how trivial it may seem This method is described as yielding rich data because it captures information held in short-term memory and makes it directly accessible for processing and verbalization (Hayes and Flower, 1980; Seliger, 1989) Since other methods cannot always produce data that directly reflect a subject’s actual experiences or thought processes, the think-aloud interview stands out as a practical approach for accessing real-time cognitive activity.
“valuable for assessing reading strategies” (H osenfeld et al, 1981).
This study used think-aloud interviews to gather depth information on students’ reading strategy preferences The interviews were conducted using the Interviewer Guide for Reading Strategies developed by Hosenfeld et al (1981) To align the guide with the study objectives, the researcher modified several strategies within the guide The final interview protocol retains the core strategies described in section 2.2.5.
Chapter II (see Appendix D) outlines a think-aloud study in which students read passages on public administration and completed comprehension tasks while verbalizing their actions, with the researcher recording the strategies the students reported using into the Guide (Appendix E) and occasionally noting their general behaviors as they spoke aloud During the interviews, participants were encouraged to identify the strategies they used and to describe any difficulties in understanding the texts or questions, and to comment on the reading strategies they employed To help participants feel comfortable expressing their opinions and judgments, the researcher conducted all interviews in Vietnamese, with details of the think-aloud interviews provided in Appendix F.
Participants were interviewed individually in the researcher's office The researcher used Appendix D to mark the strategies employed by the interviewees, and the interviews were recorded to help verify the information collected in each session Before each interview, the researcher explained the study's purpose and provided instructions to help the students understand what they needed to do.
Subjects o f the s tu d y
D escription o f the subjects in g e n e ra l
The study sampled second-year students at NAPA, from whom 50 individuals were selected as representatives due to their similarity, including 46 female and 4 male students All subjects were studying English as a required subject At the time of the study, they were in the fourth semester of the English program and were enrolled in a 60-period ESP course.
A dm inistration after having finished three general English sem esters In those three sem esters, their textbook was Lifelines, Pre -Interm ediate by Tom H utchinson
The sample consisted of 50 students divided into two classes, with 24 students in one class and 26 in the other Their common assumed English proficiency was intermediate They shared the same English textbooks, and their ages ranged from 18 to 19 Almost all had at least three years of English study in high school These 50 students were then given a reading proficiency test to classify them as successful readers or unsuccessful readers.
In this study, gender has m inim al effect on the gained results because the num ber o f m ale students is so small in the total o f the subjects.
Participants in the te s ts
As stated in section 3.3.3, fifty students took part in the test and were classified as successful or unsuccessful readers based on their scores Consequently, thirty-three students fell into these two groups Further details about the test results will be provided in the next chapter.
R espondents to the q u estio n n aire
All fifty students—comprising 46 females and 4 males—were given the questionnaires The study found that gender had a minimal effect on the results, largely because the male sub-sample was very small relative to the total Details about these students are provided above in section 3.4.1.
Participants in the think-aloud in te rv ie w s
Eight students—six girls and two boys—participated in think-aloud interviews to gain deeper information about their reading strategy preferences and to reaffirm the questionnaire results The sample comprised both successful and unsuccessful readers who had been classified by the test results, with four identified as successful and four as unsuccessful Each participant was interviewed individually.
P ro c e d u re s
The data were collected by the researcher during a week in August 2005 After contacting the English teachers of the subjects in person to obtain approval for inviting their students to participate in the study, the researcher pre-arranged the schedule The researcher went to the English classes to administer the tests The students were asked to complete the tests in 60 minutes The English teachers and the researcher supervised and marked the test papers later.
Questionnaires were distributed the next day with clear instructions, and participants were encouraged to ask for clarification or extra time as they completed them They were assured that only the researcher would assess their responses, that neither their teacher nor any other person would be involved in the assessment, and that their names would not be used in reporting the results Most students had no difficulty understanding the items, and all completed the questionnaire in their own classrooms under the researcher’s supervision, with each class taking approximately 30 minutes.
Four days later, eight selected students were interviewed individually in the researcher's office The researcher had pre-arranged the interview times and contacted each student by telephone to schedule them Before each interview, the researcher explained the purpose of the study and provided instructions to help the students understand what they were expected to do Each interview lasted about 15 minutes.
D ata a n a ly s is
Interpretation o f the data collected from the reading strategy ^
A ls o d c s c r ib c d a b o v e , th e q u e s tio n n a ire in c lu d e s 2 0 c lo s e - e n d e d q u e s tio n s to find out the reading strategy preferences o f the students as well the differences between the two designated student groups These questions w ere designed on the Likert scale ranging from "Never" to "Always" To be exact, the researcher used a 5-4-3-2-1 Likert scale in w hich 5 = always, 4 = U sually, 3 = Som etim es, 2 = R arely and 1 = Never Then, in order to be able to interpret and present the collected data in a coherent way and tim esaving, the researcher decided to form ulate a data interpretation scheme by using the m ean score m ethod o f descriptive statistics Tilley (1990, p.66) points out
"The m ean o f a set o f scores is w hat is referred to in everyday parlance as the average
In w ords, the m ean is equal to the sum o f the scores divided by the num ber o f the scores".
This study analyzes reading comprehension strategies at both the individual strategy level and across four strategy categories, as outlined in section 2.2.5 It first computes the mean score for all responses to each statement or strategy, and then compares this average to the standard points of the rating scale (5-4-3-…).
This section seeks to determine which specific learning strategies respondents prefer most and to assess any differences in strategy use between two learner groups—good learners and poor learners Because mean scores are often decimal, they are rounded to the nearest standard point on the scale The study uses Oxford's established scale to evaluate learners' strategies, with clearly defined standard points that structure the scoring.
This can be illustrated by the following exam ple: For question 1 in Part B o f the
Among 50 respondents to the questionnaire, four chose 5 (Always), nineteen chose 4 (Usually), thirteen chose 3 (Sometimes), twelve chose 2 (Rarely), and two chose 1 (Never) All raw data are shown in Appendix G, Tables 1 and 2 On a five-point Likert scale, the mean score is 3.22, reflecting a central tendency toward mid-to-upper mid responses.
C o m p a rin g this m e a n score w illi the a b o v e m e n tio n e d p rin c ip le s , o n e c a n sec th a t respondents u sed this strategy at m e d iu m level.
By analyzing the mean scores of each specific strategy, we calculated the averages for each category of strategies These category averages reveal which strategy category was most preferred for reading, highlighting the dominant approaches readers lean toward to improve reading outcomes.
A lso from the m ean scores, the standard deviation (S.D ) was obtained to m easure the variability o f data collected.
3.6.2 C oding schem e for think - aloud interview s
The coding schem e is defined as "a system atic w ay o f developing and refining interpretation o f data" (Taylor and Bodan, 1984, p 136 cited in Pham Thu Hien, 2004)
Data from think-aloud interviews were coded into strategies and classified according to Oxford's (1990) framework referenced in section 2.2.5 Because Appendix D was used to document the think-aloud interviews and each interview was audio-recorded on cassette tapes, a three-step procedure was followed in the analysis.
A lw ays or alm ost always used 4.5 to 5.0
G enerally not / R arely used 1.5 to 2.4 Low
N ever or alm ost never used 1.0 to 1.4
Mean score was calculated using a weighted sum [(4×5) + (19×4) + (13×3) + (12×2) + (2×1)], which yields 50 and a mean of 3.22 To interpret the data, the procedure involved two steps: (1) reading each think-aloud report (the guide) carefully several times, and (2) listening to the tapes again to verify the information in the report.
(3) read eight reports again and counted the num ber o f strategies used by each interviewee.
Reliability of information from think-aloud interviews was verified by the investigator along with two external coders who were English teachers at NAPA The coders had been trained to verify the investigator's data and to establish agreement in interpretation First, they received the eighth think-aloud reports and randomly selected two, then followed the three-step procedure described earlier They worked independently and, in a final step, discussed the results with the investigator Any disagreements were resolved by negotiation.
S u m m a ry
The researcher describes the data collection instruments used in this study and explains why these methods were chosen Accordingly, the three research methods employed are tests, a questionnaire, and think-aloud interviews She also outlines the research procedures for data analysis and describes how the data were analyzed The detailed results will be discussed in the next chapter.
C H A PT E R IV: RESULTS AND D ISC USSIO N
This chapter will present results gained from the data collection instrum ents described in C hapter III and discussions on such results to answ er three research questions.
As stated in section 3.3.3, the reading comprehension test was administered to collect data on the subjects' reading abilities Based on the test results, the researcher divided participants into two groups—successful readers and unsuccessful readers—for analysis related to the second research question Accordingly, students who scored 3 or higher were categorized as successful readers, while those scoring below 3 were categorized as unsuccessful readers, enabling a clear comparison of reading comprehension factors between the groups.
5 are considered unsuccessful readers and those who got m ark 7 and over are considered successful ones Therefore, after the test, there are 20 unsuccessful and 13 successful students in all.
The results o f the R eading Strategy Q u estio n n aire
The results o f the think-aloud in te rv ie w s
C ognitive stra te g ie s
The first specific trend the researcher noted is the use o f strategies o f skim m ing and scanning by both good and poor students W hen she asked them "W hen you read a text like this, w hat do you usually do?" they all answ ered "First, I look through the text to get the m ain ideas o f it, and then I read the required tasks and com e back to the text to find the answ er" Especially, most o f them did it autom atically.
The second trend is that the students used translating strategy at a rate that was a bit lower than they actually answ ered in the questionnaire Three poor readers said they were trying to translate the text into V ietnam ese to understand it and do the tasks easily Vice versa, the strategy o f reasoning deductively, w hich w ere used at high level by successful readers and at m edium by the unsuccessful in the questionnaire, was moderately used by stronger students These four students said " I try to infer w hat is said and then I do the task" The researcher continued asking them "H ow do you infer?
W hat is your inference based on?" they replied "I read the title".
One trend the researcher observed, unsurprisingly, was students' overreliance on reference materials and their physical reading habits For example, many students always kept a pencil in hand to underline new words and constantly consulted a dictionary or glossary whenever unfamiliar terms appeared They would say, "There are many new words and I have to use it; if not, I can't understand the text." In contrast, the strongest student never used the glossary and finished reading in 15 minutes with comprehension as good as or better than peers who took more than 25 minutes relying on their dictionaries; she explained, "I only use the dictionary as the last resort."
All of the students reported that they repeatedly reread texts on public administration, not just the provided excerpt, until they understood them The researchers concluded that the students did not realize that rereading itself is a reading strategy and that they were compelled to reread because the texts were difficult One student said, “I have to read it again and again with my opened dictionary.” Consequently, it seems the students struggled to guess the meanings of new words or phrases from context, and this rereading habit was especially evident during reading test hours.
The fourth trend is the lack of periodic summarizing and note-taking strategies Although questionnaire responses suggested that some interviewees occasionally used these strategies, the think-aloud interviews revealed that no students took notes on what they read They only paid attention to the comprehension questions, and after finishing, they simply sat and looked around—that was all.
The final trend concerns the use of strategies for analyzing expressions and elaborating on them Nobody indicated that they used an analyzing strategy Three students, when they received the handout, said to themselves, “I have learned it,” suggesting they were attempting to elaborate on what they were reading with what they had learned The imagery strategy did not receive any favor either This mirrors what they reported in the questionnaires.
M etacognitive stra te g ie s
Overall, all students interviewed have clear purposes for their reading, though these purposes vary Most say they read the text to complete the exercises that follow, while two say they want to know what is said in the text beyond just finishing the tasks Additionally, they all report trying to relate the topic to something they already know because they have learned it before.
V ietnam ese before, anyw ay This strategy w as used favourably by good learners who are usually active in th eir learning.
Across studies, a common trend in reading-strategy use, reinforced by think-aloud interviews, is that students rely on metacognitive strategies less often and engage in little self-evaluation By watching students perform reading tasks, it becomes evident that after finishing, they stop, smile, and leave the reading behind without checking whether their answers were correct or whether their approaches helped them complete the tasks They often fail to see how their actions contributed to task success, and some even say, "I just want to finish the exercises If I check them again, I also cannot know whether I did them correctly." This pattern appears in both poor and good readers Consequently, the researcher concludes that students report using evaluation strategies at a higher rate than they actually employ in practice.
Social s tra te g ie s
In think-aloud interviews conducted with students individually, the social strategies of asking for clarification or verification and cooperation were not directly observed, because none of the students asked the teacher for help; this differs from classroom practice, where students typically ask questions when they do not understand something, and the absence of these interactions may indicate that the tasks were clear enough or that discussing with the teacher one-on-one was less conducive to seeking assistance.
Cooperative learning is a widely used strategy in classrooms today When researchers asked students to provide more information about how this approach works, all of them said they consistently use it They explained, "We always talk with our friends to share information or to ask the meaning of new words." This pattern suggests that collaborative habits are a regular part of their learning experience.
A ffective stra te g ie s
Little information about the use of affective strategies was gained In the interviews, nobody mentioned statements like statement 18 of the questionnaire, which can be explained by the fact that the strategy of making positive statements cannot be observed directly in interviews When the researcher asked the students whether they made such statements, six students said they did.
“N ever”, tw o successful readers said “Som etim es” This is not in accordance w ith what they reported in the questionnaire.
Among students, the most frequently used strategy is cooperation, particularly discussing feelings with someone else This pattern appears to be driven by habit rather than by conscious awareness of its use as a deliberate strategic communication tactic.