000075840 An Investigation of Reading Strategies Used by Second-year Students at Hanoi University of Business and Technology (Investigation on reading strategies of second-year students at Hanoi University of Business and Technology) Nghiên cứu chiến lược đọc hiểu của sinh viên năm thứ hai trường Đại học Kinh doanh và Công nghệ Hà Nội (Điều tra về các chiến lược đọc của sinh viên năm thứ hai trường Đại Học Kinh Doanh và Công Nghệ Hà Nội)
Background o f the study
Reading is a fundamental skill for gaining knowledge from English texts, and while Vietnamese students typically read their first language with ease, they face new challenges when reading in English due to limited exposure outside the classroom As a result, Vietnamese EFL learners often struggle with reading comprehension because they lack sufficient skills to navigate English textbooks and other materials written in English.
Although many researchers seek ways to help EFL learners read more successfully, reading proficiency is hindered by factors such as motivation, social environment, prior experience, and gaps in reading skills Recent studies show that metacognitive knowledge—or awareness of reading strategies—has become a key factor influencing readers' comprehension Emphasizing metacognitive strategy instruction can enhance EFL learners’ reading performance by helping them plan, monitor, and regulate their approach to text.
Vietnamese EFL learners often struggle to use reading strategies because they read little and have limited practice applying these strategies to improve comprehension, and they rarely receive explicit training on how to deploy such strategies in their learning In many English classrooms, teaching is dominated by translation into Vietnamese, with teachers providing the answers to comprehension questions and dictating what to write, which makes the classroom largely teacher-directed and leaves students learning passively Consequently, students tend to read slowly, rely heavily on dictionaries, and overuse translation, which leads to frustration and poorer understanding In this situation, they depend on bottom-up, word-by-word or sentence-by-sentence strategies instead of adopting top-down or global strategies that help construct meaning from larger text units.
Strengthening reading skills enhances students’ ability to understand English texts Examining students’ metacognitive awareness and their perceived use of reading strategies while reading academic English texts can reveal how strategy use develops, promote greater awareness of these strategies, and improve students’ interaction with the texts.
Aims o f the study and research questions
This study investigates metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among Accounting and Information Technology students Building on prior research, it demonstrates that metacognition plays a significant role in reading comprehension, in addition to language proficiency, prior experience, and other contextual skills By examining how students plan, monitor, and evaluate their reading, the research identifies key metacognitive strategies that support understanding in technical and non-technical texts The results highlight that, beyond language ability, metacognitive awareness contributes to better comprehension, offering implications for teaching and curriculum design aimed at enhancing students' strategic reading and overall academic performance.
Although there is no single precise definition of metacognition, it has been a central concept in reading research for more than two decades and is widely considered a key element of successful reading comprehension While many questions about how reading comprehension works remain, researchers agree that metacognition involves knowledge and control of cognitive processes and helps learners improve their reading Assessing what readers think during reading and the strategies they choose reveals how they interact with text and how these strategies relate to comprehension The study of metacognition also sheds light on the cognitive processes behind reading and what differentiates proficient readers from their less successful peers Additional research on reading strategies and metacognition in second-language reading is needed, since metacognitive aspects can significantly facilitate comprehension If metacognition can help remedy reading failure, it warrants more extensive and detailed study to understand how it supports learners’ understanding This study aims to investigate the reading strategies of second-year students at Hanoi University of Business and Technology, focusing on students’ metacognitive awareness and perceived use of English reading strategies when engaging with academic materials, and to determine the level of usage for each strategy and for overall strategies, as well as to examine differences in strategy use by language proficiency.
1 What are the frequencies o f metacognitive o f reading strategies employed by the second-year students at HUBT?
2 What are the differences in the use o f reading strategies due to language proficiency as measured by their GPAs and self-evaluation?
Scope o f the study
This study focuses on second-year students majoring in Accounting and Information Technology at Hanoi University of Business and Technology during the 2012–2013 academic year, and aims to examine the types and frequencies of reading strategies they perceive themselves using when reading academic and school-related materials, excluding other kinds of reading materials.
Significance o f the stu d y
Findings from this study offer practical guidance for EFL learners and HUBT students seeking to improve their reading by developing awareness of reading strategies, deepening their understanding of the reading process, and building confidence in their own abilities Drawing on Anderson (1991), effective L2 reading instruction should teach students how to assess their success with each strategy, empowering them to become more active readers and thinkers Strategy instruction can boost metacognitive awareness and the use of reading strategies when tackling academic tasks, and teachers play a vital role in assessing students’ strategic use while helping them become constructively responsive and engaged readers To maximize impact, metacognitive reading strategy instruction should be integrated into the overall reading curriculum, thereby increasing students’ metacognition about reading Ultimately, guiding students to become constructively responsive readers offers a powerful path to skilled academic reading and improved future achievement.
Outline o f the thesis
This study includes five chapters and appendices.
Chapter 1, “Introduction”, describes the introduction o f the study which consists o f background, aims o f the study and research questions, scope o f the study, significance o f the study, and outlines the thesis.
Chapter 2, the Literature Review, outlines the definitions and components of metacognition, examines metacognitive awareness in reading, and discusses methods for assessing awareness of reading strategies; most importantly, it synthesizes relevant literature and prior research related to the study topic.
Chapter 3, “Methodology” , focuses on the methodology for this study and the procedure for carrying out the research such as instruments for data collection, subjects, procedures, and methods o f data analysis.
Chapter 4, “Results”, reports and discusses the results o f the data analysis Then, researcher compares the results among groups o f students when they use reading strategies.
Chapter 5, Conclusions, interprets the study results and outlines the implications for theory and practice, while detailing the study’s limitations and offering recommendations for future research The chapter closes with the overall conclusion of the study, summarizing the main findings and their significance A bibliography follows, listing all sources referenced directly or indirectly throughout the study.
This literature review synthesizes the research pertinent to this study and is organized into five sections: definitions of metacognition; components of metacognition; the relationship between metacognitive awareness and reading; assessment of metacognitive awareness of reading strategies; and a review of related studies The review clarifies key terms, identifies the core components of metacognition, explains how metacognitive awareness enhances reading comprehension and strategy use, surveys instruments and methods for assessing metacognitive awareness of reading strategies, and summarizes prior findings to situate the current study within the broader field of metacognition and reading research.
D efinitions
The definitions o f metacognition have been described in several sources (e.g., Anderson, 1999; Baker & Brown, 1994; Pressley, 2002; Schraw & Moshman, 1995; Veenman, Van Hout-Wolters, & Afflerbach, 2006) However, “Metacognition” is often simply defined as
Metacognition, often described as thinking about thinking, defies a simple definition While the term has been part of educational psychology for decades and humans have long reflected on their own cognitive experiences, consensus on what metacognition truly entails remains elusive No single definition has emerged, in part because multiple terms—such as self-regulation, executive control, meta-memory, theory of mind, and comprehension monitoring—are used to describe the same core phenomenon and are frequently interchangeable in the literature Despite some nuanced differences, all perspectives converge on the central role of executive processes in overseeing and regulating cognitive activity.
The term “metacognition” is most often associated with John Flavell According to Flavell
According to Flavell (1979), metacognition comprises metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive experiences, and regulation Metacognitive knowledge refers to the acquired understanding of cognitive processes and is knowledge that can be used to monitor and control these processes Flavell further divides metacognitive knowledge into three categories: knowledge of person variables, knowledge of task variables, and knowledge of strategy variables.
Knowledge o f person variables refers to general knowledge about how one learns and processes information as well as individual knowledge o f one’s own learning processes.
Learners know that study sessions are more productive in a quiet library than at home with many distractions They understand task variables—the nature of the task and the processing demands it places on them; for example, reading and understanding a science text typically takes longer than reading and understanding a novel They also rely on strategy variables, including cognitive and metacognitive strategies as well as conditional knowledge about when and where to apply these strategies.
Metacognitive experiences involve using metacognitive strategies and metacognitive regulation to manage cognitive activity and ensure the cognitive goal of understanding is met Metacognitive strategies are the sequential steps learners use to plan, monitor, and regulate their thinking, while metacognitive regulation oversees and adjusts those processes as learning unfolds In practice, after reading a paragraph, a learner self-checks their understanding; if they cannot answer questions or feel unsure, they determine what actions are needed, such as rereading or seeking clarification, to achieve understanding By rereading and reevaluating, the learner closes the gap and demonstrates how periodic self-monitoring sustains comprehension.
Components o f M etacognition
Metacognition is typically defined as including both knowledge about thinking and the strategies used to regulate cognitive activities A central issue is separating cognitive processes from metacognitive processes, as some forms of metacognitive knowledge may not be clearly distinct from cognitive knowledge Flavell (1979) himself acknowledged that metacognitive knowledge can be indistinguishable from cognitive knowledge, highlighting the ongoing challenge in defining metacognition precisely Recall that metacognition is often described as knowledge about one's own thinking and the regulation of cognitive strategies, which shapes how learners plan, monitor, and adjust their approach to learning.
Metacognition, or thinking about thinking, involves monitoring and evaluating whether a cognitive goal has been met This self-monitoring is the defining criterion that distinguishes metacognitive processes from ordinary cognitive strategies While cognitive strategies aim to help a learner achieve a goal—such as understanding a text—metacognitive strategies focus on ensuring the goal is reached, for example through self-questioning to assess one’s understanding of the material.
Metacognitive experiences typically precede or follow cognitive activity and arise most often when comprehension falters, such as when a reader recognizes they do not understand what they have just read In such cases, learners activate metacognitive processes to repair their understanding Because cognitive and metacognitive strategies can overlap, the same technique—such as self-questioning—may function as a cognitive strategy aimed at acquiring knowledge or as a metacognitive strategy for monitoring comprehension, depending on the purpose Examining one without the other provides an incomplete picture, since cognitive and metacognitive strategies are closely connected and mutually dependent.
For decades, researchers have studied metacognition, distinguishing it from cognition: while cognitive skills are needed to perform a task, metacognition helps us understand how the task is performed A widely cited distinction identifies two metacognitive components: knowledge of cognition and regulation of cognition (Schraw & Moshman, 1995) Knowledge of cognition refers to what individuals know about their own thinking and about thinking in general, and it includes three types of metacognitive awareness: declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge (Veenman et al., 2006).
Declarative knowledge covers what learners know about themselves and the factors that affect performance—such as topic familiarity, prior knowledge, and how rereading can boost memory and comprehension Procedural knowledge is about how to use study strategies and the processes of thinking; people with strong procedural knowledge perform tasks more automatically, possess more strategies, sequence them effectively, and apply distinct approaches to problem solving (Schraw & Moshman, 1995) Conditional knowledge is the awareness of when and why to use declarative and procedural knowledge, including why strategies work, when to apply them, and which contexts call for which approaches (Veenman et al., 2006) For example, effective learners may see the value of paraphrasing to monitor reading comprehension, but they also know to use paraphrasing selectively depending on the text and purpose Conditional knowledge therefore helps learners allocate cognitive resources efficiently and adapt strategies to changing learning tasks.
Regulation of cognition, or metacognitive regulation, refers to activities that help learners control their thinking and learning processes Research shows that metacognitive regulation can improve performance by enabling better use of resources, more effective application of existing strategies, and a clearer awareness of when understanding breaks down A number of studies report significant learning gains when regulatory skills and guidance on how to use them are incorporated into classroom instruction, indicating that even younger learners can acquire these skills through teaching Therefore, improving one facet of regulation, such as planning, may also strengthen others like monitoring, though more research is needed to confirm these links.
Among the regulatory skills described in the literature, three essential abilities—planning, comprehension monitoring, and evaluation—are discussed extensively Planning involves selecting appropriate strategies and allocating resources to influence performance, such as making predictions before reading, sequencing strategies, and allocating time or attention before beginning a task Comprehension monitoring is the online awareness of one’s understanding and task performance, with periodic self-testing during learning as a prime example Evaluation refers to appraising the products and efficiency of one’s learning, including re-evaluating goals and conclusions.
Metacognition encompasses the knowledge about one's own cognitive processes and the regulatory skills used to monitor and control those processes In a general sense, metacognition includes multiple components, such as knowledge about cognition and the regulation of cognition, which together enable individuals to think about their thinking and manage their mental activities more effectively.
Metacognitive awareness and read ing
The relationship between readers’ metacognition or metacognitive awareness of reading strategies and reading performance has long been established in the literature, with foundational studies by Grabe (1991), Mokhtari & Reichard (2001), Sheorey & Mokhtari (2001), and Zhang (2001, 2002), along with Zhang & Wu (2009) However, the concept of metacognitive awareness is not as simple as it appears, and an increasing number of researchers now investigate how readers recognize and regulate their strategies during the reading process Metacognition, then, serves as a label for a body of theory and research that addresses learners’ knowledge of and use of their own cognitive resources, shaping our understanding of how metacognitive processes influence reading performance.
Metacognitive knowledge, or metacognitive awareness, comprises three interrelated components: knowledge about ourselves, knowledge about the tasks we face, and knowledge about the strategies we employ Self-knowledge includes awareness of how well we perform on different types of tasks and our overall proficiency levels Task knowledge involves understanding the demands and difficulty of tasks For example, in reading, researchers have found that familiar-topic material is generally easier to understand than unfamiliar-topic material.
With regard to strategies, researchers may know that prediction o f article content based on titles improves comprehension, and so forth Metacognitive awareness, therefore, also involves the awareness o f whether or not comprehension is occurring, and the conscious application o f one or more strategies to correct comprehension In a notable piece o f LI reading researcher, Baker & Brown (1984) have investigated several different aspects o f the relationship between metacognitive ability and effective reading Two dimensions of metacognitive ability were recognized: (1) knowledge o f cognition or metacognitive awareness; and (2) regulation o f cognition which as stated earlier includes the reader’s knowledge about his or her own cognitive resources, and compatibility between the reader and the reading comprehension For example, if a reader is aware o f what is needed to perform effectively, then it is possible to take steps to meet the demands o f a reading situation more effectively If, however, the reader is not aware o f his or her own limitations as a reader or o f the complexity o f the task at hand, then the reader can hardly be expected to take actions to anticipate or recover from difficulties (Carrell, 1989) The reader’s metacognitive knowledge about reading includes an awareness o f a variety o f reading strategies and that the cognitive enterprise o f reading is influenced by this metacognitive awareness o f reading strategies; that is the combination o f a conscious awareness o f the strategic reading processes and the actual utilization o f reading strategies that distinguishes the good from poor readers (Mokhtari & Reichard, 2001; Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001).
Much o f research in the area o f L2 reading strategies has stemmed from first language studies in reading Analysis o f transcripts o f reading interviews provides information on novice ESL readers’ theoretical orientations toward reading in their second language However, some o f these LI studies using self-report data have also found a lack o f correlation between what readers say they do and what they actually do when reading In other words, a reader does not describe how to use a particular strategy but in fact does use it while reading To explain this, Baker & Brown (1984) point out that “knowing that” (declarative knowledge) is different from “knowing how” (procedural knowledge), and knowing that a particular strategy is useful (awareness) precedes its routine use, which in turn precedes the ability to describe how it is used (Carrell, 1989, p 122) Some studies have shown that better readers are also better strategy users The results from the research o f Carrell (1989), for example show that there is a close relationship between L2 reader’s metacognitive awareness and comprehension in both first and second language reading.
Many studies have highlighted the role of metacognitive awareness in reading comprehension, whether readers are engaging with a text in their native language or a second language The consensus is that strategic awareness and ongoing monitoring of the comprehension process are critical components of skilled reading, as Baker and Brown describe.
1984) Such awareness and monitoring is often referred to in the literature as
Metacognition refers to a reader’s awareness of their own cognitive processes during reading, including how they monitor comprehension and employ self-regulation strategies to enhance understanding It involves knowledge of the reading process and the self-control mechanisms readers use to monitor and improve comprehension, a concept explored by Auerbach and Paxton (1997) and Carrell et al.
Metacognitive awareness—planning and deliberately carrying out actions to achieve a goal—is a fundamental element of proficient, strategic reading Such metacognition involves knowing which reading strategies to apply, actively monitoring comprehension while reading, and adjusting strategies as needed to maintain or improve understanding In other words, effective readers not only select appropriate strategies for processing texts but also continuously track their understanding and modify their approach in response to comprehension challenges, making metacognitive skills central to high-level reading performance.
Across the literature, a strong link exists among the reading strategies readers employ, their metacognitive awareness, and their reading proficiency Studies consistently show that successful readers deploy a greater repertoire of strategies and use them more frequently than their peers (Anderson, 1991; Carrell, 1989) Moreover, proficient readers tend to have heightened metacognitive awareness of how they deploy strategies and what they know, a combination that contributes to higher reading ability (Baker & Brown, 1984) In contrast, novice readers often remain unaware of these strategies and the need to use them (Paris & Jacobs, 1984) In this sense, metacognition about reading—defined here as deliberate, conscious procedures that enhance text comprehension—highlights the importance of deepening our understanding of readers’ metacognitive knowledge about reading and strategies to cultivate active, constructively responsive readers This research has spurred important questions about readers’ awareness of the reading process, their monitoring of comprehension, and their use of strategies before, during, and after reading (Pressley, 2002).
Assessment o f metacognitive awareness o f reading strategies
Early studies of reading in L2 contexts used a range of instruments, including verbal protocol analyses (Auerbach & Paxton, 1997; Zhang, 2002), interviews on strategies (Zhang, 2001), and various questionnaires (Carrell, 1989; Mokhtari & Reichard, 2001; Mokhtari & Sheorey, 2002; Schmidt, 1990; Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001; Zhang, 2002; Zhang & Wu, 2009) However, there is little consensus on how to measure metacognition Among these instruments, the 22-item Index of Reading Awareness (IRA), developed by Paris and Jacobs, began as a research tool and is recommended for classroom teachers as an informal measure of elementary students’ metacognitive awareness Carrell (1989) developed a 36-item Metacognitive Awareness Questionnaire (MAQ) to probe EFL learners’ metacognitive conceptualizations or “awareness” judgments about silent reading strategies in both their native language and a second language Later, Schmitt (1990) developed an L2 multiple-choice questionnaire to assess elementary students’ awareness of strategic reading processes.
Mokhtari and Reichard (2001) developed the Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory (MARSI) to measure native-language readers’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies when engaging with academic materials, and validated MARSI with a large native-speaker sample (N = 825) spanning middle school to college, indicating it is not appropriate for non-native speakers In response, Mokhtari and Sheorey (2002) developed the Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS) to assess the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies in ESL/EFL learners, making three revisions: adjusting item wording for easier understanding, adding two critical L2 strategies such as translating between languages and thinking in the native language while reading, and removing two items that did not align with current literature on metacognition and reading comprehension The revised 30-item instrument was field-tested with ESL students at two U.S universities, yielding reliability results of 0.89 or better, indicating a reasonable degree of consistency in measuring awareness and perceived use of reading strategies among non-native English speakers.
The SORS measures three broad categories of reading strategies: Global Reading Strategies (GOLB) with 13 items, Problem-Solving Strategies (PROB) with 8 items, and Support Strategies (SUP) with 9 items These subscales are based on MARSI’s factor analyses and theoretical considerations (Mokhtari & Sheorey, 2002) A brief description of each SORS category and the number of items within each category is given below.
Global reading strategies are deliberate, planned metacognitive techniques that learners use to monitor and manage their reading, such as setting a purpose for reading, activating prior knowledge, evaluating whether the text fits the purpose, predicting content, confirming predictions, and previewing text for content, among other steps Problem-solving strategies are localized, on-the-spot techniques used when comprehension breaks down in text processing, including reading slowly and carefully, adjusting reading rate, sustaining attention, pausing to reflect, rereading for deeper understanding, visualizing information as mental images, reading aloud, and guessing the meaning of unknown words Support strategies are basic tools that aid comprehension, such as using a dictionary, taking notes, and underlining or highlighting key information (Mokhtari & Reichard, 2001; Mokhtari & Sheorey, 2002; Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001).
Internal consistency reliability of the SORS subscales, as indicated by Cronbach's alpha, shows global reading strategies at 0.92, problem-solving strategies at 0.79, and support strategies at 0.87, with an overall scale reliability of 0.93, indicating a highly dependable measure of students' metacognitive awareness of reading strategies.
Zhang and Wu (2009) revisited the 30-item SORS after an initial pilot test of a Chinese version, with the aim of eliminating items that were unclear or repetitive in Mokhtari and Sheorey’s (2002) version In this revision, they removed several items that failed to meet clarity and distinctiveness criteria, resulting in a refined scale better suited for cross-language application.
To improve clarity and reduce redundancy, Item 14 is retained to handle ambiguity, while Item 15 is revised to eliminate repetition In addition, Items 4 and 8 are combined into a single response because those two strategies are deployed concurrently Items 2, 3, and 21 are rephrased and elaborated to make their statements more comprehensible for participants Finally, the overall sequence of items is reorganized by grouping strategies under the same categories, making them easier for respondents to read and to differentiate among related and similar approaches The revised SORS consists of a reorganized, clearer, and consolidated set of items, categorized to improve readability and response accuracy.
The instrument consists of 28 items divided into three reading-related categories: global reading (12 items), problem-solving (7 items), and support reading (9 items) The revised SORS demonstrates acceptable internal consistency for research use Cronbach’s alpha coefficients are 0.87 for the global reading category, 0.79 for the problem-solving category, and 0.72 for the support reading category The overall reliability coefficient is 0.85, exceeding the 0.70 threshold and indicating high reliability of the survey (Zhang & Wu, 2009).
Related literature
Al-Nujaidi (2003) examined how EFL learners' perceived reading strategies relate to their vocabulary size and reading comprehension, and whether gender and the amount of extensive reading modulate this relationship In a sample of 226 university students who completed the Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS) and took both a vocabulary size test and a reading comprehension test, results showed that participants reported using most reading strategies with high to moderate frequency, though a subset—critical reading, summarizing, using typographical aids, and noting text characteristics—were less frequently employed, with a tendency toward problem-solving strategies The study also found that participants' overall reading ability was low and their estimated vocabulary size was small (about 500–700 word families), significantly below the level needed to tackle unsimplified English texts.
A 2005 study investigated the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among 86 Hungarian university students majoring in English by using the Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS) developed by Mokhatari and Sheorey (2002) to inform reading-skills improvement programs The findings showed participants exhibited high awareness of the SORS-listed strategies, with a preference for problem-solving reading strategies, followed by global reading strategies and support reading strategies The study also identified gender and the amount of time spent reading in English per week as variables that affect reading-strategy use.
Wu (2005) examined whether high-English proficiency and low-English proficiency Taiwanese university students differ in the reading strategies they report under various reading conditions In a sample of 204 students who completed a background questionnaire, the GEPT reading comprehension section, and the Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS, Mokhatari & Sheorey, 2002), results indicated that English proficiency influenced strategy use: more proficient readers employed more reading strategies than less proficient readers when reading in English Among strategy types, problem-solving strategies were used most frequently, followed by global reading strategies, while support strategies were least frequently used Additionally, the use of reading strategies varied by individual factors, with years of English study significantly affecting strategy use, and gender, academic major, and the type of higher educational institution attended also shaping strategy use when reading in English or Chinese.
Lee (2006) investigated how 163 non-English major EFL university freshmen in Taiwan self-reported their use of metacognitive reading strategies while reading English expository texts and examined whether inductive versus deductive rhetorical text structures influence strategy use and reading comprehension performance The study divided participants into four groups by English proficiency and used two expository texts (inductive and deductive), the Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS; Mokhatari & Sheorey, 2002), and a 10-item comprehension test as instruments The results showed that English proficiency was significantly associated with reading strategy use, with more proficient readers employing a greater range of reading strategies than less proficient readers.
Zhang and Wu (2009) investigated meta-cognitive awareness and reading-strategy use among 270 Chinese EFL students at a senior high school in Hainan Province, China, employing the SORS instrument The results indicated that students reported high-frequency use across three strategy categories—global, support, and problem solving Furthermore, the high-proficiency group outperformed the intermediate and low-proficiency groups in the global and problem-solving categories, while no statistically significant differences emerged among the three proficiency groups in the use of support strategies.
Park (2010) investigated reading strategy use among 115 Korean college students learning English as a foreign language as they read authentic expository/technical texts The participants consisted of 60 males and 55 females from three universities in Korea The study employed the Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS) and a modified SORS to measure general and text-specific reading strategy use, respectively; a TOEFL reading comprehension section to assess overall comprehension; one authentic expository/technical passage and one authentic narrative passage as reading tasks; and a background-information questionnaire The results revealed that Korean EFL students reported high-frequency use of reading strategies when reading authentic expository/technical texts in English, and their reading comprehension ability related to strategy use to some degree; the higher their reading comprehension ability, the more they used sophisticated reading strategies.
Majid, Zahra, and Mohammad (2011) explored metacognitive awareness among Iranian EFL learners in higher education To measure this, they employed the Survey of Reading Strategy (SORS) questionnaire to assess global reading strategies, problem-solving strategies, and support strategies used by these students.
In Tehran, Iran, 194 English-major learners from various universities participated in a mixed-methods study that combined a questionnaire with semi-structured interviews to investigate reading strategies The findings indicate that participants were moderately aware of reading strategies, with the problem-solving strategy identified as the most frequently used, followed by global strategies and then support strategies Interview data revealed additional problem-solving strategies not covered by the questionnaire, while many support strategies assessed by the questionnaire were not reported by the interviewees, underscoring a notable divergence between questionnaire responses and interview insights and highlighting the role of method in capturing reading strategy use.
Clarisse (2011) examined whether metacognitive reading strategies or beliefs about reading better predict text comprehension among 226 Filipino college students at a private university Participants completed the Reading Beliefs Inventory (RBI) (Kara-Soteriou, 2007) and the Survey of Reading Strategies Inventory (SORS) (Mokhtari & Sheorey, 2002), and then answered a researcher-made reading comprehension test Results indicated that among the three subscales of metacognitive reading strategies, only problem-solving strategies correlated positively with text comprehension, with students who reported using this strategy achieving relatively higher scores on the reading tasks The findings also showed that active beliefs about reading, rather than passive beliefs, were positively correlated with text comprehension Moreover, after accounting for the effects of active reading beliefs, problem-solving reading strategies still contributed to text understanding.
In a 2011 study, Sujin examined metacognitive awareness and perceived use of reading strategies among Thai students as they read English academic texts The sample consisted of 100 M.5 students at Bangkok Christian College in 2010 who completed a 28-item Reading Strategies Survey (SORS) The strategies were categorized into global reading, problem-solving, and support reading strategies Results showed that participants reported moderate overall use of reading strategies, with problem-solving strategies being the most frequently used, followed by global reading strategies and then support strategies Additionally, students in the higher-reading-proficiency group outperformed their lower-proficiency peers across all three strategy categories Finally, students who rated themselves as having high reading ability demonstrated greater use of global reading and problem-solving strategies than those with lower self-rated reading ability.
Nguyen Thi Mai Thao and Trinh Quang Lap (2011) examined which metacognitive reading strategies Vietnamese EFL learners use and how these strategies relate to reading achievement, employing both qualitative and quantitative methods with data from questionnaires, reading comprehension tests, and interviews of 84 grade-11 students at a remote upper-secondary school in the Mekong Delta The results show that participants most often used problem-solving strategies and least often used support-reading strategies, and there is a strong interaction between the use of these strategies and reading comprehension achievement The study also identifies problems hindering learners’ use of metacognitive strategies in reading.
Ahmad and Mehdi (2012) investigated how 122 undergraduate L2 Arabic students, largely from Africa and Asia, perceive the usefulness of reading strategies when engaging with Arabic academic texts using the 30-item SORS (Mokhtari & Sheorey, 2002) The findings indicate that participants viewed problem-solving reading strategies as more useful than global or support strategies There were statistically significant positive relationships between self-rated Arabic reading ability and overall strategy use (r = 0.233), as well as with problem-solving strategies (r = 0.236) and global strategies (r = 0.239) Additionally, African-background students reported greater use of global strategies than Asian-background students, and junior and senior students consistently demonstrated higher strategy use across all three categories than first- and second-year students The results are discussed in light of the reading strategy knowledge base and its theoretical and practical implications.
Evidence from studies conducted in various learning contexts shows a close relationship between learners’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies and their English proficiency Overall, learners report using many reading strategies with high to moderate frequency and demonstrating awareness of strategies, with a preference for problem-solving strategies, followed by global reading strategies and support strategies Additionally, English proficiency influences strategy use: more proficient readers employ a broader repertoire of reading strategies than less proficient readers when reading in English.
The studies implemented by M o’nos (2005), Wu (2005), Majid, Zahra, and Mohammad
Studies by Sujin (2011) and colleagues provide substantive guidance for researchers aiming to reference and adapt their findings in follow-up work They address the core issues that any study of strategies for effective reading learning should tackle: showing levels of readers with high and moderate frequency of strategy use, identifying the most and least frequently used strategies, and examining how reading proficiency, gender, time spent reading, and academic major may influence the success of strategy use.
Overall, the studies’ findings appear reliable enough to reflect the actual reading strategy use of both English-major and non-English-major university students across different learning contexts Specifically, students employed a medium range of strategies, with problem-solving strategies used most frequently and support reading strategies used least frequently, as reported in Wu’s study, Sujin’s study, and Mono’s study Language proficiency was shown to have significant effects on overall strategy use, on the three strategy categories, and on individual strategy items Together, these findings offer English teachers and curriculum planners validated information and a broad view of the strategies their students are currently using.
To sum up, it is suggested that the researcher is entirely able to replicate the studies conducted by
Summary
This chapter provides an overview of prior research on metacognition, focusing on four key areas: the range of definitions of metacognition, its constituent components, the role of metacognitive awareness in reading, and the methods used to assess metacognitive awareness of reading strategies.
In the first section o f this chapter addressed a variety o f definitions to compare and finds out the most suitable definition with the term o f “metacognition”
The second part presented components o f metacognition and provided a description o f metacognition to emphasize the role o f executive process in the overseeing and the regulation o f cognitive processes.
The third section o f this chapter, metacognitive awareness and reading was insightfully discussed in order to recognize the relationship between metacognitive awareness o f reading strategies and reading performance in the literature.
The fourth section o f this chapter, assessment o f metacognitive awareness of reading strategies presented methodology and research instrument o f previous studies to assess the reading process.
The previous section identified the studies most relevant to this investigation, enabling the researcher to replicate the theoretical background and the anticipated findings of prior work to frame the current study Notably, the analyses also include studies conducted by Vietnamese researchers in this field to illustrate a clear picture of reading strategies.
This study aims to test the research questions related to metacognitive awareness and perceived use of reading strategies among Accounting and Information Technology students at Hanoi University of Business and Technology as they read English-language academic materials, as described in Chapter One The methodology is organized into six components: design of the study, restated research questions, instrumentation, participants, data analysis, and procedures.
Design o f the stu d y
This study employed a combined quantitative research design, using numerical data to answer the research question Quantitative research involves collecting numerical data to analyze the relationship between an independent variable and a dependent (outcome) variable within a population These designs are categorized as descriptive, where subjects are typically measured once, or experimental, where measurements are taken before and after a treatment.
This study examined which reading strategies are most frequently used by 116 HUBT students and explored whether differences in reading strategy use relate to language proficiency To address its aims, the research combined two designs: a survey design and a correlational design The survey design describes the attitudes, opinions, behaviors, and characteristics of the population, while the correlational design assesses the degree of association between two or more variables or score sets (Creswell, 2005).
Using a survey design, the current study identifies which reading strategies are most and least commonly used by second-year HUBT students The correlational design further examines differences in reading-strategy use among HUBT students across multiple levels.
Teaching and learning English at H U BT
At HUBT, English courses total 12 credits, divided into two phases: General English and ESP General English comprises three courses totaling eight credits and aims to train students in the four core language skills The General English courses cover topics related to real-life situations ESP consists of two courses totaling four credits and focuses on English for specific purposes, including economics, electronics and telecommunications, and information technology Students typically attend six English classes per week and complete the program in 16 weeks Assessments include a 45-minute written mid-term paper and a 90-minute computer-based end-of-course multiple-choice test.
Administrators have placed a strong emphasis on improving HUBT students’ English language proficiency They have equipped classrooms with modern teaching-learning facilities and supported teachers through extensive professional development in English teaching methodologies Through a range of teaching approaches, HUBT's English teachers aim to help students adopt effective learning strategies, enabling them to become more active and engaged in their English studies.
Research questions restated
This study examines reading strategies among second-year students at Hanoi University of Business and Technology, emphasizing metacognitive awareness and the perceived use of English reading strategies when processing academic materials It seeks to quantify the usage levels of individual strategies and overall strategy use, and to explore how language proficiency affects the employment of English reading strategies, thereby answering the study’s research questions.
1 What are the frequencies o f metacognitive o f reading strategies employed by the second-year students at HUBT?
2 W'hat are the differences in the use o f reading strategies due to language proficiency as measured by their GPAs and self-evaluation?
Instrumentation
Justification f o r the use o f S O R S
The Survey o f Reading Strategies (SORS) o f Mokhatari & Sheorey (2002) is used in the current study because o f some following reasons First, SORS was devised by Mokhatari
Sheorey (2002) developed an instrument to measure learners' metacognitive awareness and perceived use of reading strategies while engaging with English-language academic materials The Scale of Reading Strategies (SORS) is one of the most useful manuals for learner-strategy assessment, with an estimated 40–50 major studies, including dissertations and theses, having used SORS (Mokhatari & Sheorey, 2002) In addition to its original English version, SORS has been translated and applied in many languages, such as Arabic, Chinese, French, Japanese, Korean, Russian, and Thai Finally, many students discover a great deal about themselves by taking a strategy questionnaire.
Description o f S O R S
The study used a questionnaire as the research instrument, consisting of two parts: the first section collected participants' general background information, and the second section drew from the original Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS) to measure participants' metacognitive awareness and their perceived use of reading strategies when reading academic or school-related English texts (Mokhtari & Sheorey, 2002).
Part I, designed by the researcher, consists of nine close-ended questions This section aims to collect participants' background information, including name, age, gender, class, major, university average, and foreign language study Specifically, the first part of the questionnaire asks respondents to report how long they have studied English and to self-evaluate their English proficiency, with the responses compiled in Appendix A.
The second section of the SORS comprises 30 items that assess three domains of reading strategies—global reading strategies (items 1–13), problem-solving strategies (items 14–21), and support reading strategies (items 22–30) Each item is rated on a five-point Likert scale from 1 to 5 to indicate how frequently students use these strategies, with 1 = never or almost never, 2 = only occasionally, 3 = sometimes, 4 = usually, and 5 = always or almost always; the scale details are provided in Appendix B.
To help participants understand the questionnaire, the sequence of items was rearranged by category, clustering all strategies within the same category After the SORS items were clustered, related items were organized to reflect these groupings, with consecutive placement designed to streamline responses and improve interpretability.
13 belonged to Global Reading Strategies These generalized and intentional strategies were used for a global analysis o f text or setting up the stage for the reading activity Items
Items 14–21 test learners’ ability to identify problems and decide how to solve them, which are categorized as Problem-Solving Strategies Items 22–30 belong to the third cluster, Support Reading Strategies, providing functional or practical tools—such as dictionaries, reference materials, and other strategies—to sustain learners’ engagement with the readings A brief description of these three subcategories is provided below.
Global Reading Strategies (GLOB) are intentional, carefully planned techniques that help learners set a clear purpose for their reading They emphasize previewing the text to assess its length and organization (items 1-13), enabling readers to adopt an efficient approach and enhance comprehension from the outset.
Problem Solving Strategies (PROB): the actions and procedures that readers to take concentrate on problem-solving, such as adjusting one’s speed o f reading when the materials become difficult or easy (items 14-21).
Support Reading Strategies (SUP): basic support mechanisms or tools aimed at sustaining responsiveness to reading, such as highlighting textual information (items 22-30).
Furthermore, based on the interpretation key suggested by Oxford (1990), criteria for the three levels o f usages were classified as high (mean o f 3.5 or higher), moderate (mean o f 2.5 to 3.4), and low (mean o f 2.4 or lower) As a general rule, the score average showed the mean frequency with which students used a given category o f strategies In other words, the score average indicated how often students believed they used the strategies in the instrument when reading academic materials.
The internal consistency reliability coefficients for the SORS’s three subscales determined by Cronbach’s alpha are as follows: global reading strategies (0.78), problem-reading strategies (0.79), and support reading strategies (0.72) Also, the reliability for the overall scale was 0.85, indicating a reasonably dependable measure o f students’ metacognitive awareness o f reading strategies and general reliability o f the study (as cited in Zhang &
Due to the high reliability o f the SORS as mentioned above, the questionnaire for assessing the metacognitive awareness and perceived use o f reading strategies among Accounting and Information Technology students was used from this latest - revision o f SORS In addition, there are several reasons to use it in this study First, the SORS has been originally developed from the MARSI that is tested and verified by reviewing an extensive body o f recent research on metacognition and reading comprehension (e.g., Baker & Brown, 1984; Jacobs & Paris, 1987; Paris & Jacobs, 1984) Second, many researchers in previous studies provide evidence that the instrument is a reliable and valid measure for assessing adult students’ metacognitive awareness and perceived use o f reading strategies while reading for academic purposes (Mokhtari & Reichard, 2001; Mokhtari & Sheorey, 2002; Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001; Zhang, 2002) Third, the strategy items cover a wide array o f strategies that occur at multiple stages o f the reading process such as before, during, and after reading Put another way, metacognitive processes in reading clearly take place at all three stages in the reading process Finally, the items stated in the questionnaire are written in simple and easy language for EFL learners to understand.
By taking into consideration the participants’ English proficiency and their feedback from their questionnaire, the researcher used the original SORS to increase its relevance to this study First, the questionnaire was administered in HUBT to make the participants feel more comfortable This helped guarantee the success o f the data collection and eliminate any misunderstanding o f the English content Second, the adviser o f the study, who was proficient reader in both English and Vietnamese, was invited to review the translated Vietnamese version for clarity and readability The SORS version was administered in Vietnamese to avoid participants’ language problems which may cause their misunderstanding o f the items.
Participants
To fulfill the aims of the study, the researcher decided to launch the questionnaire survey among 116 second-year students majoring in Accounting and Information Technology with the total o f 200 students of the Department o f Accounting and Information Technology The student subjects o f the questionnaire survey were selected from four intact classes Class 1 includes 30 students, Class 2 includes 40 students, Class 3 includes 26 students, and Class 4 includes 20 students In the total number of subjects, there were 81 female students and 35 male students For the reason that the Department o f Accounting and Information Technology had the largest number o f students at HUBT, the subjects participating in the current study could be representative o f the students o f other departments at HUBT.
To complete the aims o f the study, the researcher carried out to survey 116 second - year students at Hanoi University o f Business and Technology in the 2012-2013 academic years All the subjects ranged between 20 and 25 in age They finished three courses o f Business English in the first three semesters o f their academic study Thus, the subjects were supposed have background business knowledge o f four English skills as well as English language for their major In addition, they seemed to become more mature in their awareness o f the importance o f English to their future career.
Data analysis
According to the related studies mentioned earlier, and for this research, descriptive statistics were employed to perform the demographic data which includes age, length o f studying English, level o f English proficiency, major, other foreign language Besides, the
SORS was analyzed with descriptive statistics to get the mean o f the use o f overall strategies, the mean o f the use o f each strategy category, and the mean o f the use o f individual strategies The data analysis showed the strategies which were most and least frequently used among the subjects o f the study as well.
As a lot o f studies on language learning strategy, the researcher decided to use the criteria provided by Oxford (1990) to assess the level o f strategy users in this current study The subjects with a mean o f 2.5 and under are low strategy users, the subject with a mean o f 2.5-3.5 are moderate strategy users and the subjects with a mean o f more than 3.5 are high strategy users.
Table 3.1: O xford’s (1990) classification o f mean scores to understand language learning strategy use
Level o f strategy use Mean Level o f users
High always or almost always used 4.5 to 5.0
M edium sometimes used 2.5 to 3.4 Moderate
Low generally not used 1.5 to 2.4
Never or almost never used 1.0 to 1.4 Low
The patterns o f strategy choice in relation to individual strategies, types o f strategy, and overall strategy are analyzed by calculating the means and the standard deviation within the whole group with the use o f the Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) version 16.0 for windows and Microsoft Excel version 2007.
Finally, an analysis o f variance (ANOVA) was implemented to test the differences in the use o f English reading strategies according to the students’ GPAs (advanced, good, fair, poor, and failed) and self-evaluated English proficiency (high, intermediate, and beginning).
Procedures
The researcher was conducted at Hanoi University o f Business and Technology It was carried out in the second semester o f the 2013 academic year, starting at the beginning o f February and ending at the end o f June 2013 The procedure o f data collection and analysis was implemented through these following steps:
Firstly, the researcher determined the scope o f the data collection and constructed the data collection instruments o f the study as described above.
Secondly, the researcher asked the administrators o f HUBT for the permission to conduct the study by sending them formal request The researcher received the agreement o f the administrators to carry out the survey in the four classes majoring in Accounting and Information Technology in Week 10 o f the second semester Then, an official offer was sent to the class instructors to find their acceptance and collaboration during the study.
Thirdly, the researcher arranged the time to meet the students o f the four intact classes majoring in Accounting and Information Technology The subjects were informed o f the purpose and content o f the survey, and then give directions on how to fill in the questionnaire To ensure that the subjects could understand all the statements or expressions in the questionnaires, the researcher was always present during the time they completed questionnaires in order to answer all possible questions All o f the subjects completed the questionnaires on time and handed in their questionnaires to the researcher.
Finally, the process o f analyzing the collected data started after the survey It took the researcher about 2 weeks to import the data into SPSS.
Sum m ary
This chapter has presented concretely the methodology in the present study Accordingly, a quantitative research design was indentified with an apparent explanation The questionnaire - main kind o f research instrument was characterized in detail Furthermore, the chapter determined the number o f subjects taking part in the study and provided readers with the study procedure at the end o f the chapter.
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
This chapter presents the findings from the analysis o f the collected data to answer two research questions The chapter analyzes the subjects’ responses to the questionnaires with the illustrations o f tables The results o f the questionnaires focus to describe the most or least frequently used strategy categories, the most or least frequently used reading strategies, and the relationship between the students’ reading strategy use and language proficiency.
Results and discussion o f the questionnaires
Background o f the second-year H U B T stu d en ts
The demographic background questionnaires help to provide an overview o f the participants The information o f the subjects gathered from the background questionnaires contained gender, major, length o f studying English, level o f English proficiency, self-evaluation.
As seen in Table 4.1, the number o f male students was smaller than that o f female students The male students were 35 (30.2%) and the female students were 81 (69.8%) The table also shows that about 95.7% o f the subjects have studied English for more than five years (6-10 years = 73.3%; 11-15 years = 22.4%) There was only a small part o f the subjects having less than 5 years o f studying English (4.3%) because o f the differences in the training program o f particular regions However, no student has learned English for more than 15 years.
It was reported that exactly 96.6% o f the subjects had no experience o f learning other foreign language apart from English Hence, the most common foreign language o f HUBT students is English, and the language learning strategies being mentioned in the current study are known as English learning strategies Only 3.4% o f the subjects commented that they have learned French apart from English.
Table 4.1: Distribution o f the participants by gender, time o f English study and other foreign language
Gender Years of English study Experience of learning other foreign language
Today, a lot o f Vietnamese universities have applied the regulation o f higher education under credit system, and HUBT is not an exception Accordingly, the Grade Point Average o f HUBT students is calculated following 10-point grading system and dropped into one o f the 5 proficiency levels as described in Table 4.2 The normal passing level is 4.0 The students within the range o f 4.0-5.4 are ranked into poor or below-average level; within the range o f 5.5-6.9 into fair or average level; within the range o f 7.0-8.4 into good level; and within the range o f 8.5-10 into advanced or excellent level.
Table 4.2: Distribution o f the participants by GPAs
Score GPAs Number of students (N = 116)
Table 4.2 shows the proficiency levels of students based on their GPAs in the English course, as announced in the previous semester Good learners accounted for 28.4% of the participants, while 2.7% reached an excellent level by the end of the term Nearly half of the participants (47.4%) were rated at the average level, the middle tier in the GPA system In contrast, about 21.5% of students had poor results across all courses, placing them below the average level.
Table 4.3: Distribution o f the participants by self-evaluation
English proficiency level Number of students Percentage (%)
Apart from reporting GPAs, the study asked students to self-assess their English proficiency using three levels: high, intermediate, and beginning The results show that 77.6% of participants consider themselves at an intermediate level, 17.2% at a beginning level, and 5.2% at a high proficiency level These self-evaluations provide valuable insight into how aware students are of their own language abilities and offer researchers a useful measure of perceived English proficiency across the sample.
Use o f overall strategies and three strategy categories by the second-year H UBT
Using Mokhtari & Sheorey's (2002) Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS) on a five-point Likert scale, the mean scores of second-year HUBT students' responses were computed to gauge the frequency of metacognitive reading strategies employed The results present two findings in answer to the question of how frequently these strategies are used: first, overall metacognitive strategy use appears moderate to high, as reflected in the mean scores across SORS items; and second, there is a differential pattern of use across strategy types, with some components showing higher frequencies than others, indicating varying levels of reliance on different metacognitive strategies during reading.
4.1.2.1 Use o f overall strategies by the second-year HUBT students.
Initially, the average score o f the whole participant’s response was interpreted to find out the overall reading strategies that HUBT utilized As suggested in Table 4.4, 30.7% o f the participants responded with 4 or 5 for the strategy use (“4 Usually” = 25.4% or “5 Always or almost always” = 5.3%) In other words, the second-year HUBT students certainly demonstrated use o f reading strategies.
As presented in Table 4.6, the means and standard deviations o f problem-solving strategies (item 14 to 21) indicated medium strategy use It is notable that all the strategies of problem-solving category had the mean o f over 3.00 in which strategy item 15 “I try to get back on track when I lose concentration" (M = 3.71, SD = 969) and item 17 “When text becomes difficult, I pay closer attention to what I am reading” (M = 4.06, SD = 847) showed high strategy use, the others reported medium strategy use.
Table 4.6: Problem-solving strategies: Means and Standard deviations
1 4 1 read slowly and carefully to make sure I understand what I am reading
1 5 1 try to get back on track when I lose concentration 3.71 969 H
16 I adjust my reading speed according to what I am reading 3.08 925 M
17 When text becomes difficult, I pay closer attention to what I am reading
1 8 1 stop from time to time and think about what I am reading 3.43 989 M
19 I try to picture or visualize information to help remember what I read
20 When text becomes difficult, I re-read it to increase my understanding
21 When I read, I guess the meaning o f unknown words or phrases
• H = High-use range; M = Medium-use range; L = Low-use range
Table 4.7 describes the means and standard deviations o f support reading strategies (item
Among the reading-support strategies evaluated, six items (22, 23, 24, 25, 27, and 28) showed medium usage in the reading-support category, while three items (26, 29, and 30) demonstrated low usage In particular, item 26—paraphrasing, or restating ideas in one’s own words to better understand what is read—was among the lower-used strategies.
(M = 2.45, SD = 926), item 29 “When reading, I translate from English into my native language” (M = 2.28, SD = 921), and item 30 ''When reading, I think about information in both English and my mother tongue ” (M = 2.43, SD = 944).
Table 4.7: Support reading strategies: Means and Standard deviations
22.1 take notes while reading to help me understand what I read 2.55 773 M
23 When text becomes difficult, I read aloud to help me understand what I read
24 I underline or circle information in the text to help me remember it
25 I use reference material such as dictionaries to help me understand what I read
26 I paraphrase (restate ideas in my own words) to better understand what I read
27 I go back and forth in the text to find relationship among ideas in it
28.1 ask m yself question I like to have answer in the text 2.52 625 M
29 When reading, I translate from English into my native language
30 When reading, I think about information in both English and my mother tongue
* H = High-use range; M = Medium-use range; L = Low-use range
Table 4.8 presents the most frequently used reading strategies, with three strategies in high use and seven other strategies in medium use The most preferred strategy is PROB4: "When text becomes difficult, I pay closer attention to what I am reading."
Among second-year HUBT students, the mean score for this reading strategy was 4.06, indicating that learners paid close attention to reading when texts became difficult and suggesting heightened awareness and seriousness about English reading The second most frequently used strategy was PROB2, “I try to get back on track when I lose concentration,” with a mean of 3.71 The third strategy used was GLOB4, “I use context clues to help me better understand what I am reading,” with a mean of 3.66 Overall, problem-solving strategies ranked highest in frequency of use, highlighting the emphasis on staying focused and using context clues to comprehend challenging texts.
Table 4.8: M ost frequently used strategies: M eans and Standard deviations
Item Strategy M SD Use Rank
PROB4 17 When text becomes difficult, I pay closer attention to what I am reading
PROB2 15 I try to get back on track when I lose concentration
GLOB4 8 I use context clues to help me better understand what I am reading
PROB5 18 I stop from time to time and think about what I am reading
PROB1 14 I read slowly and carefully to make sure I understand what I am reading
PROB7 20 W hen text becomes difficult, I re-read it to increase my understanding
PROB6 19 I try to picture or visualize information to help remember what I read
SUP3 24 I underline or circle information in the text to help me remember it
GLOB5 12 I try to guess what the content o f the text is about when I read
PROB3 16 I adjust my reading speed according to what I am reading
* GLOB = Global reading strategies; PROB = Problem-solving strategies; SUP Support reading strategies
Table 4.9: Least frequen tly used strategies: Means and Standard deviations
Item Strategy M SD Use Rank
SUP7 29 When reading, I translate from English into my native language
GLOB2 5 I review the text first by noting its characteristics like length and organization
SUP8 30 When reading, I think about information in both English and my mother tongue
SUP5 26 I paraphrase (restate ideas in my own words) to better understand what I read
GLOB3 7 I use tables, figures, and pictures in text to increase my understanding
SUP6 2 8 1 ask m yself question I like to have answer in the text
SUP1 22 I take notes while reading to help me understand what I read
SUP2 23 When text becomes difficult, I read aloud to help me understand what I read
SUP4 25 I use reference material such as dictionaries to help me understand what I read
GLOB1 1 I have a purpose in mind when I read 2.78 811 M 10lh
* GLOB = Global reading strategies; PROB = Problem-solving strategies; SUP Support reading strategies.
Table 4.9 identifies five reading strategies with low usage and five with medium usage The least frequently used strategy is SUP7, “When reading, I translate from English into my native language” (item 29), with a mean of 2.28, indicating that most students translate English into Vietnamese The second least used is GLOB2, “I review the text first by noting its characteristics like length and organization” (item 5), with a mean of 2.29, suggesting this global preview is only sometimes used by students The third least frequently used strategy comes from the support category: “When reading, I think about information in both English and my mother tongue” (item 30) Overall, the results show that support reading strategies constitute the largest share of the lowest-preference options.
The findings indicate that the least frequently used strategies were the lower-preference options, such as support reading strategies Overall, all strategies fell within the medium usage category, but several items showed low usage levels (mean < 2.5), including items 5, 29, and 30.
26, and 7, and some were in high use level (M > 3.5) such as item 17, 15, and 8.
4.1.2.3 Use o f each individual by Accounting and Information Technology students
Table 4.10 compares the means and standard deviations of global reading strategies between Accounting and Information Technology students, showing that both groups used these strategies at a medium level overall Eleven items in the global reading category indicated medium use, while items 5 and 7 showed relatively low use across both groups Specifically, item 5 (“review the text first by noting its characteristics like length and organization”) had M = 2.26, SD = 943 for Accounting students and M = 2.07, SD = 998 for Information Technology students Item 7 (“use tables, figures, and pictures in text to increase my understanding”) had M = 2.41, SD = 893 for Accounting students and M = 2.28, SD = 807 for Information Technology students.
Table 4.10 reveals significant differences in the use of global reading strategies between Accounting and Information Technology students For most items (2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, and 12), the p-values were below 0.05, indicating statistically significant differences in how the two groups apply these strategies In contrast, items 1, 5, 8, and 10 showed p-values greater than 0.05, suggesting no significant difference between the groups on those aspects Overall, the two student groups employ distinct approaches to global reading strategies to optimize their English reading performance.
Table 4.10: Global reading strategies: Means and Standard deviations o f Accounting and Information Technology students
1 1 have a purpose in mind when I read 2.73 815 2.63 799 011
2 1 think about what I know to help me understand what I read
3 1 take an overall view o f the text to see what it is about before reading it
4 I think about whether the content o f the text fits my reading purpose
5 I review the text first by noting its characteristics like length and organization
6 W hen reading, I decide what to read closely and what to ignore
7 I use tables, figures, and pictures in text to increase my understanding
8 I use context clues to help me better understand what I am reading
9 I use typographical features like bold face and italics to identify key information
10 I critically analyze and evaluate the information presented in the text
11 I check my understanding when I come across new information
12 I try to guess what the content o f the text is about when I read
13 I check to see if my guesses about the text are right or wrong
* H = High-use range; M = Medium-use range; L = Low-use range
Table 4.11 summarizes the means and standard deviations of problem-solving strategies for Accounting and Information Technology students, indicating a moderate level of strategy use for both groups Importantly, all strategies evaluated across the two cohorts achieve mean scores above 3.00, signaling generally positive engagement with the strategies In particular, item 17 suggests that students tend to pay closer attention to the text when it becomes difficult, reflecting a resilient approach to challenging material.
Analysis of reading strategies shows that item "I am reading" demonstrates high strategy use, with M = 4.13, SD = 815 in Group 1 and M = 4.22, SD = 758 in Group 2 Item 18 "I stop from time to time and think about what I am reading" also reflects high strategy use, with M = 3.67, SD = 974 in Group 1 and M = 3.67, SD = 1.034 in Group 2 The remaining items were reported as medium strategy use.
Table 4.11: Problem-solving strategies: M eans and Standard deviations o f Accounting an d Information Technology students
14 I read slowly and carefully to make sure I understand what I am reading
15 I try to get back on track when I lose concentration
16 I adjust my reading speed according to what I am reading
17 When text becomes difficult, I pay closer attention to what I am reading
18.1 stop from time to time and think about what
19 I try to picture or visualize information to help remember what I read
20 When text becomes difficult, I re-read it to increase my understanding
21 When I read, I guess the meaning o f unknown words or phrases
* H = High-use range; M = Medium-use range; L = Low-use range
Table 4.12 presents the means (M) and standard deviations (SD) for support reading strategies used by Accounting and Information Technology students (items 22–30) Overall, the use of these strategies falls at a medium level Specifically, item 23—“When text becomes difficult, I read aloud to help me understand what I read”—has M = 2.43 with SD = 0.604 for Accounting students and M = 2.48 for Information Technology students, indicating that reading aloud is a commonly used, mid-range strategy across both groups.
Reading-strategy use was evaluated with items 26 and 29 Item 26, “I paraphrase (restate ideas in my own words) to better understand what I read,” showed higher engagement, with means of 2.43 (SD = 941) in one group and 2.28 (SD = 861) in the other Item 29, “When reading, I translate from English into my native language,” indicated lower strategy use, with both groups scoring M = 2.13 and SDs of 741 and 718, respectively Overall, these results point to generally low reading-strategy use, with paraphrasing more commonly used than translation.
Table 4.12: Support reading strategies: Means and Standard deviations o f Accounting and Information Technology students
22 I take notes while reading to help me understand what I read
23 When text becomes difficult, I read aloud to help me understand what I read
24 I underline or circle information in the text to help me remember it
25 I use reference material such as dictionaries to help me understand what I read
26 I paraphrase (restate ideas in my own words) to better understand what I read
27 I go back and forth in the text to find relationship among ideas in it
28 I ask m yself question I like to have answer in the text
29 When reading, I translate from English into my native language
30 When reading, I think about information in both English and my mother tongue
* H = High-use range; M = Medium-use range; L = Low-use range
Difference in the use o f reading strategies by the second-year H U BT students
Language proficiency was assessed using two indicators—GPA and self-evaluation The results presented address the study’s second question: what differences in the use of reading strategies emerge when language proficiency is measured by GPA and by self-evaluation? The findings describe how reading-strategy use relates to these two proficiency measures, outlining the patterns seen across different levels of GPA and self-perceived proficiency.
4.1.3.1 Use o f strategies by the second-year HUBT students due to language proficiency as measured by their GPAs
Second-year HUBT students were categorized into five GPA-based groups—advanced, good, fair, poor, and failed (Table 4.2) None of the participants failed the English examination in the previous semester Table 4.13 indicates that students at every proficiency level most frequently used problem-solving strategies; among advanced students, the least frequently used strategy was support reading strategies (M = 3.00, SD = 1.000) For good, fair, and poor levels, the least-used strategy was also support reading strategies, with means and SDs of Level B (M = 2.52, SD = 619), Level C (M = 2.29, SD = 956), and Level D (M = 2.08, SD = 862).
Table 4.13: Means and Standard deviations o f three categories o f strategy use according to GPAs
Proficiency level Level A Level B Level C Level D
Strategy M SD M SD M SD M SD
* Grade Point Average: A = Excellent (Advanced), B = Good, C = Average (Fair), D =Below Average (Poor); N = number o f respondents
Table 4 14c: M ultiple comparisons on strategy use according to GPAs
Strategy C ategory GPA Level Sig- (p)
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level; A, B, C, D: Grade Point Average.
Analysis of global reading strategies showed a significant difference between poor students and the other three proficiency groups—advanced, good, and fair—with less proficient students using fewer global reading strategies Similarly, a significant difference emerged in the use of support reading strategies between poor students and the higher-proficiency groups, and students at the fair level tended to use more support reading strategies than those at the poor level Additionally, there was a significant difference in problem-solving strategies, with the most proficient students (advanced) employing more problem-solving strategies than those in the good, fair, and poor groups.
4.1.3.2 Use o f strategies by the second-year HUBT students due to language proficiency as measured by their self-evaluation
According to Table 4.3, the second-year students o f HUBT self-evaluated themselves at three levels: high, intermediate, and beginning The results showed that a great number o f
Discussion on the results of the questionnaires
4.1.4.1 Medium use o f overall language strategies by the second-year HUBT students
Consistent with prior studies, the current research demonstrates that second-year HUBT students recognize the importance of reading strategies for developing their English proficiency Regarding overall reading strategies, the findings show that the frequency with which these students employ strategies ranges from 2.28 (item 29) to 4.06 (item 17), with an average of about 3.1, indicating medium-level usage of reading strategies during English reading This suggests that reading strategies play a significant role in the students’ English reading and that they are aware of applying these strategies in the reading process The results align with earlier studies by Monos (2005), Wu (2005), Majid, Zahra, and Mohammad (2011), and Sujin (2011).
Regarding the use of three strategy categories, the study found that problem-solving strategies were preferred by all students over the other strategies Similar results were reported by Monos (2005), Wu (2005), and Majid, Zahra, and Mohammad, indicating a consistent preference for problem-solving approaches across studies.
These strategies enable students to regulate their emotions and motivation by self-monitoring their language learning, and they show that second-year HUBT students were keen to track their progress in English reading and began developing study plans for this subject The findings align with those of Mo’nos (2005), Wu (2005), Majid, Zahra, and Mohammad (2011), and Sujin (2011), who report that support-reading strategies are the least preferred The infrequent use of support-reading strategies suggests that the second-year HUBT students still have difficulties with note-taking and paraphrasing while reading Reading English is a process that involves gradually accumulating knowledge from what is read and demonstrating it when required Therefore, students should use support-reading strategies more frequently to improve note-taking in English reading.
Among the strategy categories examined, problem-solving strategies were used most frequently, followed by global reading strategies and then support reading strategies The findings showed no high or low extremes in the use of any of the three strategy categories, indicating that second-year HUBT students demonstrated an overall medium level of use across all three categories.
An analysis of reading strategies revealed that evaluating the ten most and ten least frequently used strategies based on mean scores was inadequate Among the reading strategies, the fourth problem-solving strategy was the most preferred (M = 4.06, SD = 0.847), whereas the seventh strategy in the support-reading category was the least preferred (M = 2.28, SD = 0.921) Overall, all strategy categories were used at a medium level, but certain individual strategies within those categories showed low or high usage, indicating that there was not always a direct correspondence between category-level usage and the usage of individual strategies.
4.1.4.2 Significant differences in the use o f reading strategies due to language proficiency among the second-year HUBT students.
The study shows that language proficiency has a main effect on the overall strategies used by second-year HUBT students, indicating that higher proficiency influences how students select and apply reading strategies As in many previous studies, there are significant differences in English reading strategy use among students with different levels of proficiency Moreover, GPAs and self-evaluation emerged as strong predictors of differences in reading strategy use among HUBT students, underscoring the influence of academic performance and self-assessment on strategic reading behavior.
In this study, students were classified into five groups according to their university GPAs (Table 4.2) Those who earned an A grade were categorized as advanced learners, followed by B grade for good learners, C grade for fair learners, D grade for poor learners, and a fifth group representing the remaining performance levels.
No student was recorded as failing (grade F) according to the university’s last-term averages Overall, higher-achieving students reported using a broader range of language-learning strategies than their lower-achieving peers The findings indicate significant differences in the use of problem-solving strategies, global reading strategies, and support reading strategies in relation to students’ average performance.
The study found significant differences in the use of global reading strategies and support reading strategies between low-proficiency students (poor) and higher-proficiency students (advanced, good, and fair), and a separate significant difference in the application of problem-solving strategies between the highest-proficiency group (advanced) and the lower-proficiency groups (good, fair, and poor) The results indicate that advanced students deploy these strategies more frequently than their peers, which corresponds to higher overall proficiency.
Using a second measure of proficiency—the self-evaluation instrument—participants rated themselves as high, intermediate, or beginning in English to reflect their perceived success The results indicate that students’ self-perceived language abilities strongly shaped their use of learning strategies An ANOVA examining strategy use by GPA showed significant differences in problem-solving strategies, global reading strategies, and support reading strategies between high and intermediate students, between high and beginning students, and between intermediate and beginning students Overall, students with higher self-evaluation reported greater strategy use than those with lower self-evaluation.
Overall, the statistical tests in the study revealed significant differences across proficiency levels in the use of problem-solving strategies, global reading strategies, and support reading strategies among second-year HUBT students.