INTRODUCTION
Rationale for the study
Reading is a fundamental skill in language learning, serving as essential input for developing other language abilities It is an interactive and complex process, where the reader's background—knowledge, emotions, experiences, and culture—plays a crucial role in understanding the text (Brown, 2001) Despite its importance, many learners struggle with reading comprehension, particularly with academic texts, often due to a lack of effective reading strategies Research highlights that proficient and less proficient readers employ different strategies, and teaching these strategies can significantly enhance reading comprehension for all students (Zare & Nooreen, 2011; Brantmeier, 2002; Song, 1998; Carrell, 1989).
Despite numerous studies on learning and reading strategies, there is a lack of research exploring the link between reading comprehension achievement and the application of these strategies, particularly among students at Hanoi Pedagogical University 2 (HPU2) In the Faculty of Foreign Languages at HPU2, reading is deemed a crucial language skill and a mandatory component of the curriculum Students are anticipated to achieve a satisfactory level of proficiency and comprehension to meet academic standards However, many students struggle with reading, particularly when it comes to academic texts, finding it to be a challenging task.
Despite years of English study, many students still find their proficiency lacking This research aims to investigate the reading strategies employed by third-year students and identify which of these strategies enhance reading comprehension Additionally, it examines the impact of reading strategies on the reading proficiency of students at HPU2 The findings are intended to assist students in developing effective reading strategies and improving their overall reading skills, while also guiding instructors in creating suitable methodologies for teaching English reading.
Aims of the Study
- investigate the frequency of different kinds of reading strategies used by third-year students at HPU2
- study the correlation between the adoption of reading strategies and the students‘ reading achievements
- find out whether the differences between higher-proficiency students and lower-proficiency students in terms of reading strategy use or not.
Research Questions
Question 1: What is the frequency of reading strategies used by students at HPU2 when they read English academic materials?
Question 2: To what extent is there the relationship between reading strategies and reading achievements?
Question 3: Are there any differences between higher-proficiency students and lower-proficiency students in terms of reading strategy use in their academic study?
Method of the study
The researcher employed a quantitative method for the study, gathering data through questionnaires that surveyed the use of reading strategies, along with the reading scores of students at HPU2.
Significance of the study
Reading is a crucial language skill for university students, as they encounter diverse academic materials Previous research has significantly contributed to enhancing learners' reading comprehension This dissertation focuses on students' reading comprehension skills, aiming to help them identify and understand the reading strategies they employ Furthermore, the study seeks to provide teachers with insights into the connection between reading strategies and reading proficiency, enabling them to better assist students in improving their English reading skills in academic settings.
Scope of the study
This study primarily examined the frequency of reading strategies employed by third-year English major students at the Faculty of Foreign Languages at HPU2 The research specifically focused on this group to gain insights into their reading habits and techniques.
Design of the thesis
The research consists of five chapters which are
Chapter 1: Introduction presents basic information such as the reason for choosing the topic, the aims, the questions, the method, the scope, as well as the organization of the study
Chapter 1: Literature review offers an overview of fundamental theories on reading, reading strategies and other researches of the same area
Chapter 3: Methodology will present participants, data collection, data collection procedure as well as data analysis procedures
Chapter 4: Findings and discussion provides the results of the study and discusses the findings
Chapter 5: Conclusion summarizes the main contents of the study, points out some limitations and makes recommendations for further study
LITERATURE REVIEW
Reading comprehension
2.2.1 The concept of reading and reading comprehension
Reading is an essential skill that plays an important role in acquiring the second language as well as in life
Reading is defined in various ways by linguists and researchers, with Grabe (1991) emphasizing it as a crucial skill for second language learners, particularly in academic settings In the context of English as a foreign language (EFL), reading becomes an indispensable ability Readers engage with texts to construct meaning, participating in a dialogue with the authors They approach reading with specific purposes, adapting their strategies to suit different tasks and objectives.
Reading is defined as "the transfer of a message from writer to reader" (1996, p.3) According to Goodman (1988), it is both a receptive language process and a psychological process, starting with the decoding of linguistic information and culminating in the reader's construction of meaning Thus, reading can be understood as the interaction between language structure and human cognition, emphasizing the importance of reading comprehension.
While reading, readers try to understand what the writer is attempting to communicate Reading comprehension is not only a process of understanding
Reading comprehension is a cognitive skill that enables individuals to understand, analyze, and interpret written texts It involves utilizing existing background knowledge to make predictions about the content To effectively comprehend text, readers must be familiar with its structure and topic, employ appropriate reading strategies, and recognize words According to Sadeghi (2007), reading comprehension is influenced by internal factors, such as cognitive abilities and background knowledge, as well as external factors like text modality, characteristics, and the reading environment.
Reading comprehension is a dynamic process that integrates information from texts with a reader's prior knowledge to derive meaning (Nunan, 2003) It involves multiple cognitive processes, including decoding and understanding sentence structure (Hudson, 1996) Veeravagu (2010) describes it as a thinking process where readers extract facts and ideas, interpret the author's intended meanings, relate them to their own knowledge, and assess their relevance to personal objectives Additionally, Janzen and Stoller (1998) outline ten key processes that enhance reading comprehension, such as setting a reading purpose, previewing content, making predictions, asking and answering questions, connecting new information to existing knowledge, summarizing, linking different parts of the text, and recognizing text structure.
Though there are many different views of reading and reading comprehension, linguists focus on the interacting and understanding of the meaning
Reading comprehension goes beyond simply recognizing letters or words; it involves understanding meaning and context It is the process of connecting new information from a text with what the reader already knows To enhance comprehension, readers can employ various strategies that facilitate these connections Consequently, it is essential for educators to guide learners in recognizing and utilizing these strategies during their reading experiences.
Reading models illustrate how readers engage with texts and derive meaning from them Researchers propose three primary reading process models: bottom-up, top-down, and interactive These models collectively outline the comprehensive reading experience.
The bottom-up model, as described by Gough (1972), involves decoding small text segments to construct meaning gradually In this approach, readers analyze text letter by letter, word by word, and sentence by sentence (Grabe, 2009) The process begins with identifying letters, combining them into words, and then organizing these words into phrases and sentences (Paran, 1996) This model emphasizes the text's intrinsic features, requiring readers to create meaning at the lexical level While mastering these decoding skills can enhance comprehension, a significant drawback is the tendency to overly focus on individual words and structures, which may hinder overall understanding.
8 meaning will be limited Meaning can only be constructed separately at word or sentence level, which hinders the process of achieving overall meaning (Nuttall,
In 1996, it was found that meanings of words are retained in short-term memory, leading to a significant reduction in reading speed when readers concentrate on each individual word and detail This bottom-up reading model fragments the text into isolated components, hindering the reader's ability to grasp the overall meaning and interact effectively with the writer.
The top-down reading model emphasizes the use of background knowledge and predictions rather than focusing on word recognition and decoding Readers engage with the text by making predictions based on their experiences, using contextual cues to understand unfamiliar words, which allows for comprehension even without recognizing every word This model incorporates skills such as skimming, scanning, predicting, and contextual guessing, contrasting with the bottom-up approach that prioritizes surface meaning and dictionary use Grabe (1988) highlights that reading involves connecting text information with the reader's background knowledge However, the top-down model has limitations; readers lacking sufficient background knowledge may struggle with comprehension and resort to guessing, as noted by Goodman (1967), who describes reading as a "psycholinguistic guessing game."
The interactive model effectively integrates both top-down and bottom-up reading strategies, allowing readers to alternate between predicting meaning and verifying it against the text As Nuttall (1996) explains, this dynamic process enables readers to continuously shift their focus, enhancing comprehension and engagement with the material According to Alyousef, this model highlights the importance of balancing these approaches for improved reading effectiveness.
The interactive reading model, introduced in 2005, views reading as an engaging process between the reader and the text, highlighting the importance of reading fluency This model encourages readers to utilize various types of knowledge, including linguistic and universal knowledge through bottom-up processing, as well as schematic knowledge via top-down processing Readers are not merely passive recipients of information; instead, they actively seek meaning by employing lexical, syntactic, semantic, and common knowledge, along with careful reading skills and strategies As a result, the interactive reading model has become essential in the teaching and learning of English reading skills.
The three reading models—bottom-up, top-down, and interactive—enhance our understanding of reading and provide essential guidance for teaching and learning The bottom-up model focuses on decoding letters and words and analyzing sentence structures, while the top-down model enables readers to leverage their background knowledge and experiences to grasp the text's overall meaning The interactive model bridges these two approaches, highlighting the simultaneous interaction of decoding and comprehension during the reading process.
Reading strategies
Reading strategies are necessary for students when they want to improve their reading skills Reading strategies are often taught by teachers or used by
Farrell (2001) emphasized that students can enhance their reading skills through the learning of effective reading strategies, which can be systematically taught Yang (2006) found that employing comprehension monitoring strategies significantly aids readers in better understanding the material Additionally, individuals often create their own personal strategies to improve their reading comprehension.
To fully grasp reading strategies, it is essential to clarify the concepts of "strategy" and "learning strategy." A "strategy" refers to a plan or method aimed at achieving a specific goal, while learning strategies are defined as the specific thoughts or behaviors individuals employ to comprehend, learn, or retain new information (O'Malley & Chamot, 1990) According to Oxford (1990), learning strategies are conscious steps taken by students to enhance their learning Oxford (2003) further elaborates that these strategies involve specific actions that make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, self-directed, effective, and transferable to new situations In summary, learning strategies are crucial for facilitating a more efficient and engaging learning experience.
Reading strategies are variously defined by researchers, with Davies (1995) characterizing them as physical or mental processes employed consciously or unconsciously to enhance text comprehension and learning Abbott (2006) echoes this by describing reading strategies as the mental operations or comprehension processes that readers intentionally select and apply to understand the material Additionally, Garner (1987) contributes to this understanding of reading strategies and their significance in facilitating effective reading practices.
Reading strategies are deliberate and playful activities that active learners engage in to address cognitive challenges (Garner, 1987) They are crucial for understanding how readers interact with texts and for enhancing comprehension (Carrell, 1998) Defined as techniques that facilitate successful reading, these strategies encompass predicting content, questioning, recognizing text structure, integrating information, and monitoring comprehension (Baker & Boonkit, 2004; Yang, 2006) Reading strategies include both cognitive strategies, such as note-taking and deduction, and metacognitive strategies, which involve planning and evaluating one's learning approach (Baker & Brown, 1984) Barnett (2002) emphasizes that reading strategies consist of cognitive operations that help readers make sense of texts, highlighting their role in the comprehension process.
Janzen (2003) defines reading strategies as plans and behaviors used to construct meaning when faced with comprehension challenges He categorizes these strategies into two types: bottom-up and top-down Bottom-up strategies involve analyzing the text itself, such as understanding words and sentences or consulting a dictionary for unfamiliar terms In contrast, top-down strategies leverage prior knowledge, allowing readers to connect the material to their existing understanding and experiences.
Reading strategies are essential techniques that enhance comprehension and facilitate the achievement of reading tasks Linguists emphasize the diversity of these strategies, which vary in application based on context and learner needs Identifying effective reading strategies is crucial for both educators and students to improve reading skills Additionally, teachers must carefully select which strategies to incorporate into their syllabi to effectively teach reading comprehension.
Reading strategies are often categorized by researchers based on different criteria, such as timing and focus One common classification divides them into three stages: before, during, and after reading Pre-reading strategies activate prior knowledge related to the text, while during-reading strategies help identify the main idea and make references Post-reading strategies are employed to review the content Additionally, some researchers, like Block (1986), differentiate strategies into global and local categories, with global strategies focusing on comprehension-gathering and monitoring, and local strategies targeting specific language units.
In 1991, a comprehensive classification of reading strategies was proposed, identifying five key groups: supervising strategies, support strategies, paraphrase strategies, coherence strategies, and test-taking strategies O'Malley and Chamot (1990) further categorized strategies into three main types: metacognitive, cognitive, and social/affective strategies Metacognitive strategies focus on the management of learning through planning, monitoring, and evaluating, while cognitive strategies involve actively manipulating or transforming learning material using techniques like resourcing, repetition, grouping, deduction, imagery, auditory representation, and the keyword method.
13 elaboration, transfer, note taking, summarizing, and translation Social/affective strategies mainly involve the learner in communicative interaction with another person
Mokhtari and Reichard (2000) categorized reading strategies into three subgroups: global strategies for overall text analysis, problem-solving strategies for addressing challenges in comprehension, and support strategies that involve using reference materials and note-taking They developed the Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory (MARSI) to assess learners' reading strategy use with academic texts Building on this, Sheorey and Mokhtari (2001) created the Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS), which also includes global reading strategies (GLOB), problem-solving strategies (PROB), and support strategies (SUP), serving as the classification framework for this paper.
Global reading strategies (GLOB) are deliberate techniques that enable learners to effectively manage their reading process These strategies involve setting a clear purpose, previewing the text's structure and length, and utilizing visual aids like tables and figures This concept aligns with O'Malley and Chamot's (1990) definition of metacognitive strategies, which emphasize the reader's engagement with the text through monitoring and evaluation.
Problem-solving strategies (PROB) are essential techniques that readers employ when encountering challenging sections of a text These strategies involve adjusting reading speed, guessing the meanings of unfamiliar words, and re-reading passages to enhance comprehension By utilizing these focused methods, readers can effectively navigate difficulties and improve their understanding of the material.
O'Malley and Chamot (1990) emphasized the importance of cognitive strategies in learning, highlighting techniques like summarizing and rereading that manipulate incoming information to enhance understanding and retention.
Support strategies (SUP) involve essential techniques designed to assist readers in understanding texts more effectively These strategies include utilizing a dictionary, taking notes, and employing methods like underlining or highlighting key information to enhance comprehension.
Previous related studies
Research has explored the connection between reading strategies and reading comprehension achievement, revealing varied results due to the diverse ages and backgrounds of participants, as well as the range of research methods employed.
Molla (2015) examined the link between reading strategy use and reading comprehension among Ethiopian EFL learners, utilizing the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) by Oxford (1990) and TOEFL reading comprehension passages for data collection The study employed Pearson coefficient correlation to analyze the relationship between reading strategies and comprehension achievement Findings revealed that most students were unaware of various reading strategies, resulting in low usage while reading English texts The correlation analysis indicated that almost all types of reading strategies did not correlate with the students' reading comprehension levels, likely due to their lack of knowledge regarding the effective use of these strategies.
In her 2011 study, Sun Ling investigated the use of reading strategies among Chinese English majors, focusing on the correlation between these strategies and students' reading achievements The research utilized the reading comprehension section of the TEM 4 (Test for English Majors—Band 4) from 2006 as a key assessment tool to analyze the outcomes.
This study utilized 15 tests designed for undergraduate English majors and two questionnaires to gather data from participating students The reading strategies questionnaire, adapted from Phakiti (2003), was employed to assess students' reading comprehension The findings indicated that students employed reading strategies at a medium level during comprehension tests Notably, both metacognitive and cognitive reading strategies were found to have a significant correlation with reading achievements Additionally, the results highlighted differences in the application of reading strategies between high-proficiency and low-proficiency readers.
A study by Zare-ee (2007) at Kashan University, Iran, explored the connection between cognitive and metacognitive strategy use and English as a Foreign Language (EFL) reading achievement Utilizing reading comprehension scores, questionnaires, and interviews, the research revealed a significant correlation between reading achievement and the use of metacognitive strategies, while the link between reading achievement and cognitive strategies was found to be insignificant Additionally, the findings indicated that students with higher reading proficiency levels employed metacognitive strategies more frequently than their less successful peers.
Phakiti (2003) investigated the impact of cognitive and metacognitive strategies on EFL reading test performance among Thai university students, utilizing both quantitative and qualitative data analyses The study employed a multiple-choice reading comprehension test, a cognitive–metacognitive questionnaire, and retrospective interviews for data collection Findings indicated that the use of these strategies positively influenced reading test performance, with highly successful test-takers demonstrating significantly higher levels of metacognitive strategy use compared to their moderately successful and unsuccessful peers.
Previous studies reveal varied findings regarding the relationship between reading strategies and reading achievements, with a predominant focus on cognitive and metacognitive strategies Researchers have created various questionnaires to assess these strategies, including Purpura's (1999) questionnaire and one developed by Oxford.
In 1990, a cognitive–metacognitive questionnaire was developed to gather data on learners' reading strategies However, no research has explored the connection between reading strategies and reading achievements within the current research population This study aims to investigate the relationship between reading strategies and reading achievements among third-year students at HPU2, utilizing the Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS) adapted from Kouider Mokhtari and Ravi Sheorey (2002).
METHODOLOGY
Participants
A study involving 72 third-year students from the Faculty of Foreign Languages at HPU2, who have over 10 years of English learning experience, was conducted These participants recently completed their first semester and received their final test scores in reading skills Table 1 provides a summary of the participants' background information.
Male Female High-proficiency participants
Settings of the study
The study took place after participants completed the first semester of their third year, during which they received their reading results and assessed their performance for that semester.
Data collection instruments
The study utilized a questionnaire to gather information on the strategies employed by students Additionally, the reading scores were analyzed to explore the correlation between reading strategies and students' reading achievements.
The Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS) questionnaire, created by Kouider Mokhtari and Ravi Sheorey in 2002, was utilized in this study to assess the types and frequencies of reading strategies employed by adolescent and adult ESL students while engaging with academic English texts The SORS underwent field testing with ESL students at two U.S universities, demonstrating its validity and reliability, with an internal reliability score of 89, making it an effective tool for measuring reading strategy usage among non-native English speakers.
The questionnaire comprises 30 items divided into three categories: Global reading strategies (13 items), Problem-solving strategies (8 items), and Support reading strategies (9 items) To ensure clarity, the questionnaire has been translated into Vietnamese Participants rated their use of each strategy on a five-point Likert scale, where 1 indicates "I never or almost never do this" and 5 signifies "I always or almost always do this." Detailed items are presented in Table 2.
Strategy categories Items in the questionnaire
Item 1: I have a purpose in mind when I read Item 3: I think about what I know to help me understand what I read
Item 4: I take an overall view of the text to see what it is about before reading it
Item 6: I think about whether the content of the text fits my reading purpose
Item 8: I review the text first by noting its
19 characteristics like length and organization
Item 12: When reading, I decide what to read closely and what to ignore
Item 15: I use tables, figures, and pictures in text to increase my understanding
Item 17: I use context clues to help me better understand what I am reading
Item 20: I use typographical features like bold face and italics to identify key information
Item 21: I critically analyze and evaluate the information presented in the text
Item 23: I check my understanding when I come across new information
Item 24: I try to guess what the content of the text is about when I read
Item 27: I check to see if my guesses about the text are right or wrong
Item 7: I read slowly and carefully to make sure I understand what I am reading
Item 9: I try to get back on track when I lose concentration
Item 11: I adjust my reading speed according to what I am reading
Item 14: When text becomes difficult, I pay closer attention to what I am reading
Item 16: I stop from time to time and think about what I am reading
Item 19: I try to picture or visualize information to help remember what I read
Item 25: When text becomes difficult, I re-read it to increase my understanding
Item 28: When I read, I guess the meaning of unknown words or phrases
Item 2: I take notes while reading to help me understand what I read
Item 5: When text becomes difficult, I read aloud to help me understand what I read
Item 10: I underline or circle information in the text to help me remember it
Item 13: I use reference materials (e.g a dictionary) to help me understand what I read Item 18: I paraphrase (restate ideas in my own words) to better understand what I read
Item 22: I go back and forth in the text to find relationships among ideas in it
Item 26: I ask myself questions I like to have answered in the text
Item 29: When reading, I translate from English into my native language
Item 30: When reading, I think about information in both English and my mother tongue
Table 2: The questionnaire (adopted from Kouider Mokhtari and Ravi Sheorey,
The researcher used the first semester scores on reading skill of the third- year students at HPU2 to analysis The reading comprehension test is designed
The VSTEP reading test comprises 40 multiple-choice questions divided into four passages, each containing ten questions After three years at HPU2, students are expected to achieve a C1 proficiency level, equivalent to level 5 Reading scores are translated into band scores on a 0–10 scale, using a six-level numerical system aligned with the CEFR-VN framework, where scores of 3, 4, and 5 correspond to B1, B2, and C1 levels, respectively.
CEFR (Common European Framework of Reference for Languages)
Table 3: Score converter of VSTEP
At HPU2, students' scores are utilized to classify them into high, intermediate, or low proficiency groups Third-year students are anticipated to achieve a C1 level of English proficiency by the end of their second semester Consequently, those who scored 8 are identified as high-proficiency readers.
Table 4: Range of students’ achievements
Data collection process
The data collection process consisted of three key steps Initially, participants filled out a Background Information Sheet, providing demographic information such as gender and age, along with self-reported data on their years of English learning and first-semester Reading Skill scores Subsequently, participants completed a Reading Strategy Questionnaire featuring 30 items, where they indicated their frequency of strategy use on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always).
Data analysis procedures
The researcher employed correlation statistics to examine the relationship between multiple variables, as defined by Creswell (2010, p.338), who states that correlational research involves measuring the degree of association between two or more variables Essentially, a correlational study is a quantitative approach that investigates whether a relationship exists between two or more quantitative variables In this particular study, the researcher assessed the use of reading strategies using the Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS) and analyzed the correlation between reading strategies and reading achievements utilizing SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences).
To answer Research Question 1 (What is the frequency of reading strategies used by students when they read English academic materials?), I used SPSS
The Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 20 was utilized to analyze the mean frequencies of strategies employed by third-year students at HPU2, focusing on three categories: Global reading strategies, Problem-solving strategies, and Support reading strategies The analysis assessed the level of use of these strategies based on the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) scale, identifying the five most and least popular strategies among the students.
(Oxford, 1990), which categorized a score of 1.0 – 2.4 as low; 2.5 – 3.4 as medium and 3.5 – 5.0 as high Table 5 below shows the frequency of reading strategies use
Table 5: The frequency of reading strategies use (Oxford, 1990)
To investigate the relationship between reading strategies and reading achievements, the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was calculated to assess the linear relationship between students' strategy usage and their reading scores This statistical method evaluates the strength and direction of the association between two variables (Dürnyei, 2007, p.223) The Pearson correlation coefficient, denoted as r, ranges from -1 to 1, where r = -1 signifies a perfect negative correlation, indicating that an increase in one variable results in a decrease in the other Conversely, r = 0 denotes no linear relationship, while r = 1 represents a perfect positive correlation, suggesting that an increase in one variable correlates with an increase in the other The interpretation of these correlation coefficients is detailed in Table 6.
Interval coefficient Level of correlation
Table 6: Interpreting the correlation coefficient (Cohen, Manion, & Marrison,
Research Question 3 investigates the differences in reading strategy use between higher-proficiency and lower-proficiency students in their academic studies An independent t-test was conducted to compare the mean frequencies of strategies employed by two groups: high-proficiency readers (19 students scoring 8.0–10) and low-proficiency readers (22 students scoring 5.0–6.0), excluding an intermediate group (scores 6.5–7.5) for clarity According to Dữrnyei (2007), independent-samples t-tests are suitable for comparing independent groups The t-test determines if the difference between the two sets of scores is statistically significant, with a significance level typically set at 0.05 If the t-value exceeds this level, the difference is not statistically significant; otherwise, it indicates differing variances between the two groups The findings confirm that there are indeed differences in reading strategy use between higher-proficiency and lower-proficiency students Data from students’ reading comprehension test scores and questionnaire responses were analyzed using SPSS for accurate results.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Research question 1: What is the frequency of reading strategies used by
Table 7: Students’ mean frequencies of using all strategies and each category of strategies
According to Oxford's (1990) classification, students are categorized as high strategy users if their mean scores are above 3.5 (M≥3.5), medium strategy users if their scores range from 2.5 to 3.4 (2.5≤M≤3.4), and low strategy users if their scores fall below 2.4 (M≤2.4).
The analysis of Table 7 reveals that students exhibited a medium level of strategy use, with an average frequency score of 2.9 Among the 30 strategies assessed, only 10% (3 strategies) were categorized as high use, with mean values of 3.5 or above In contrast, 80% (24 strategies) demonstrated medium use, with means ranging from 2.50 to 3.49, while the remaining 10% (3 strategies) were identified as low use, scoring below the mean of 2.19.
26 below 2.5) The overall average is medium which indicates that third-year students sometimes used reading strategies when reading academic materials
4.1.1 The most frequently used strategies
GLOB4 I take an overall view of the text to see what it is about before reading it
GLOB1 I have a purpose in mind when I read 3.50
GLOB3 I think about what I know to help me understand what I read
PROB9 I try to get back on track when I lose concentration
SUP2 I take notes while reading to help me understand what I read
Table 8: The most frequently and least frequently used strategies
The analysis of the five most frequently used reading strategies reveals that GLOB4, which involves taking an overall view of the text before reading, is the most popular among students (M=3.51) This is closely followed by GLOB1, where readers have a specific purpose in mind (M=3.50), and GLOB3, which emphasizes reflecting on prior knowledge to aid comprehension (M=3.49) All three strategies are categorized as Global reading strategies, highlighting the importance of intentional planning in the reading process Notably, at least three of these top strategies are "top-down" approaches, focusing on the reader's perspective and objectives prior to engaging with the text.
4.1.2 The least frequently used strategies
GLOB8 I review the text first by noting its characteristics like length and organization
GLOB20 I use typographical features like bold face and italics to identify key information
GLOB15 I use tables, figures, and pictures in text to increase my understanding
GLOB6 I think about whether the content of the text fits my reading purpose
GLOB21 I critically analyze and evaluate the information presented in the text
Table 9: The least frequently and least frequently used strategies
Table 9 highlights the five least frequently utilized reading strategies by students at HPU2, with a notable observation that most of these strategies fall under the category of Global reading strategies Among them, two strategies were employed at a medium level, suggesting occasional use by students Particularly, three strategies—GLOB21 (critically analyzing and evaluating information), GLOB6 (considering the text's alignment with reading purposes), and GLOB15 (using tables, figures, and pictures to enhance understanding)—were identified as the least utilized, receiving low usage ratings.
Students at HPU2 demonstrated a medium level of frequency in their use of reading strategies, with a notable preference for global reading strategies Problem-solving strategies followed, while support strategies were used less frequently Overall, the strategy of gaining a comprehensive view of the text ranked highest in usage, whereas the use of tables, figures, and pictures was reported to be the least utilized strategy.
Research question 2: To what extent is there the relationship between
This study examines the impact of students' reading strategy usage on their reading proficiency, as indicated by their reading scores in academic settings To analyze the relationship between these two variables, the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was employed.
4.2.1 Correlation between reading strategies use and reading comprehension achievements
The second research question of this study aimed to examine the correlation between reading strategy usage and reading comprehension success among students at HPU2 To investigate this relationship, the Pearson product moment correlation coefficient was employed The findings, which illustrate the correlation between the SORS scores and reading test results, are detailed in Table 10.
Reading Strategies use Reading achievement Pearson Correlation 1 868 **
Reading strategies use Pearson Correlation 868 ** 1
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Table 10: Correlation between reading strategies use and reading comprehension achievements
Table 10 reveals a strong positive correlation of 877 between the use of reading strategies and reading comprehension achievements, with a significance value of 0.00, indicating statistical significance at the 0.01 level This finding underscores the crucial role that reading strategies play in enhancing reading skills Specifically, it suggests that as students increase their use of reading strategies, their comprehension scores also rise, demonstrating that those who frequently employ these strategies tend to achieve higher levels of reading success.
Research consistently shows a positive correlation between the use of reading strategies and reading comprehension achievement, as confirmed by various studies conducted in different contexts (Zare).
4.2.2 Correlation between sub-strategies and the reading achievements
Table 11: Correlation between sub-strategies and reading comprehension achievements
Table 11 reveals a strong positive correlation between three sub-strategies and reading achievements: Problem reading strategies (r = 849), Support reading strategies (r = 793), and Global reading strategies (r = 747) This indicates that students with higher reading proficiency tend to utilize these strategies more frequently.
The research indicates that three key sub-strategies—GLOB, PROB, and SUP—are essential for effective language learning A strong correlation between the use of these strategies and reading comprehension underscores their significance in the language acquisition process Training learners to consistently apply appropriate strategies enhances their ability to understand texts and authors more effectively Utilizing a diverse range of reading strategies not only aids in resolving reading challenges but also contributes to improved language proficiency over time.
Research question 3: Are there any differences between higher-proficiency
This study investigates the differences in reading strategies employed by high-proficiency and low-proficiency readers Participants were divided into two groups: the lower-proficiency group, scoring between 5.0 and 6.0, and the higher-proficiency group, scoring between 8.0 and 9.0 To pinpoint significant differences in strategy use, the intermediate group, scoring between 6.5 and 7.5, was excluded from the analysis.
4.3.1 Differences between high-proficiency and low-proficiency readers in reading strategies use
To investigate the differences in reading strategy usage between high-proficiency and low-proficiency readers, an independent sample T-test was conducted, with the findings presented in Table 12 below.
Table 12: Frequency distribution of reading strategies used by high-proficiency readers low-proficiency readers
Table 12 indicates a t-value below 0.05, highlighting significant differences in the reading strategies employed by high-proficiency readers compared to low-proficiency readers.
High-proficiency readers utilize reading strategies more frequently than low-proficiency readers, with strong readers averaging a mean score of M=3.6, indicating high-frequency use, while weak readers average M=2.4, reflecting low-frequency use This disparity suggests that low-proficiency readers either occasionally employ strategies or use them less often than their high-proficiency counterparts Consequently, it is essential for instructors to assist low-proficiency readers in effectively understanding and applying reading strategies to enhance their reading skills.
4.3.2 Differences between high-proficiency and low-proficiency readers in reading sub-strategies use
Figure: Frequency distribution of sub-strategies
The distribution of reading strategy use among high-proficiency and low-proficiency readers reveals that high-proficiency students employ more strategies across three categories: Global, Problem-Solving, and Support High-proficiency readers demonstrate high-frequency use of these strategies, with mean scores of M=3.57 for Global, M=3.76 for Problem-Solving, and M=3.51 for Support In contrast, low-proficiency readers show medium usage levels, with mean scores of M=2.53 for Global, M=2.45 for Problem-Solving, and lower scores in Support strategies Overall, the data indicates a significant disparity in the use of reading strategies between the two proficiency levels.
High-proficiency readers Low-proficiency readers
Research indicates a notable disparity in reading strategy utilization between students of varying reading abilities, with high-proficiency junior high school students employing strategies more frequently and diversely compared to their low-proficiency peers (M=2.45) Hsu (2004) supports this finding, highlighting that advanced readers utilize a broader range of reading strategies during their learning process Additionally, a survey conducted by Chen corroborates these results, further emphasizing the importance of effective reading strategies in academic performance.
(1999) demonstrated that the low achievers and the high achievers show different frequencies in applying different reading strategies The high achievers employ a wider variety of strategies than low achievers
4.3.2.1 Differences in the use of Global reading strategies
High-proficiency readers Low-proficiency readers
Table 13: Differences in the use of Global reading strategies
Table 13 highlights the disparities in the usage of thirteen subcategories of global reading strategies between high-proficiency and low-proficiency groups High-proficiency readers consistently employed global reading strategies more often than their low-proficiency counterparts The average scores for high-proficiency groups indicate a tendency for high and medium frequency of strategy use, while low-proficiency groups exhibited only occasional use, reflected in medium to low frequency ratings.
High-proficiency readers frequently utilize global reading strategies, with GLOB1 (having a purpose in mind when reading), GLOB4 (taking an overall view of the text before reading), and GLOB30 (using typographical features like bold and italics to identify key information) being the most commonly employed In contrast, low-proficiency readers show lower mean usage for these strategies, with averages of M=3.05 for GLOB1, M=2.73 for GLOB4, and M=2.09 for GLOB30.
4.3.2.2 Differences in the use of Problem solving reading strategies
Table 14: Differences in the use of Problem solving reading strategies
The table illustrates the differences in problem-solving strategies employed by high-proficiency and low-proficiency readers High-proficiency readers occasionally utilized the strategy PROB14, which involves paying closer attention when text becomes challenging, whereas they frequently applied other strategies In contrast, low-proficiency readers most infrequently used the strategy PROB25, which entails re-reading difficult text to enhance comprehension.
Research indicates that low-frequency users engage in re-reading strategies less often, while high-proficiency groups utilize this approach more frequently This suggests that when faced with challenging texts, re-reading is essential for enhancing comprehension and understanding.
4.3.2.3 Differences in the use of Support reading strategies
High-proficiency readers Low-proficiency readers
Table 15: Differences in the use of Support reading strategies
High-proficiency readers effectively utilize a variety of support reading strategies, while low-proficiency readers often neglect these techniques Specifically, low-proficiency readers predominantly rely on just two strategies, indicating a significant gap in their approach to reading support.
Low-proficiency readers often employ strategies like reading aloud and translating text into their native language, which are used more frequently than by high-proficiency readers These strategies, while helpful for understanding difficult words or sentences, can hinder reading speed and overall comprehension Interestingly, high-level readers rely less on translation, suggesting that this approach may negatively affect English reading comprehension Additionally, there is a notable difference in the use of note-taking and underlining strategies between strong and weak readers, with strong readers utilizing these techniques more frequently, resulting in higher mean scores compared to their weaker counterparts.
Summary
In conclusion, there is a strong correlation between reading strategies and the reading achievements of third-year students at HPU2 Notably, high-proficiency readers employ reading strategies more frequently than their low-proficiency counterparts While high-proficiency readers utilize a wide range of reading strategies at a high frequency, low-proficiency readers demonstrate a medium frequency in their use of these strategies.
CONCLUSIONS
Recapitulation of major findings
This study has examined the relationship between reading strategies use and reading achievements The following findings are summarized in this study
The study indicates that students exhibit a moderate frequency of using reading strategies when engaging with academic materials Among the various categories of strategies, problem-solving reading strategies are employed most frequently, followed by support reading strategies and global strategies Notably, the strategy of taking an overall view of the text is the most commonly used, whereas the analysis and evaluation of information within the text are seldom utilized by students.
Reading strategies are significantly correlated with reading achievements, indicating that their effective use enhances reading comprehension among learners The findings suggest that students who frequently employ various strategies, such as underlining key information, thinking in both English and Vietnamese, and gaining an overall understanding of the text, are more likely to succeed in reading comprehension Therefore, the consistent application of these strategies plays a crucial role in improving students' reading outcomes.
39 namely reading aloud and translating are negatively correlated to reading achievements
High-proficiency readers employ reading strategies more often than their low-proficiency counterparts, with their usage ranging from high to medium frequency In contrast, low-proficiency readers primarily utilize these strategies at medium to low frequencies Notably, the only strategies that low-proficiency readers use more frequently than high-proficiency readers are reading aloud and translating.
Implications
This study explores the application of reading strategies among third-year students at HPU2, examining the correlation between these strategies and reading achievements, as well as the differences in strategy usage between two student groups The findings provide valuable insights for teachers to better understand their students' current reading strategy practices Additionally, the study offers implications for both language learners and educators on how to effectively utilize reading strategies to enhance learning outcomes.
The study highlights the positive relationship between reading strategies and reading comprehension, indicating that learners who frequently employ these strategies tend to achieve higher comprehension scores Therefore, it is crucial for students to recognize the significance of utilizing reading strategies to enhance their comprehension skills Additionally, students are encouraged to explore various strategies to identify those they may not be using This is particularly important for low-proficiency students, who should focus on specific strategies to navigate academic reading materials effectively Key strategies for these students include identifying essential information through typographical features, analyzing and evaluating text content, and actively marking important information by underlining or circling it during reading tasks.
The study's findings highlight that reading strategies significantly enhance reading proficiency, emphasizing their necessity for effective reading comprehension It is essential for teachers to recognize the importance of incorporating these strategies into their lessons to boost students' reading skills To improve reading proficiency, educators should prioritize teaching a variety of reading strategies, including global, problem-solving, and support strategies, while also ensuring that students understand how to apply them effectively.
High-proficiency readers utilize reading strategies more frequently than low-proficiency readers, highlighting a significant difference in their approach To enhance the skills of weaker readers, educators should focus on teaching effective reading strategies and regularly remind them to apply these techniques during reading sessions According to Cunningham and Allington (1994), it is essential for readers to employ appropriate strategies to improve comprehension With proper instruction and support, struggling readers can develop their skills and transition into proficient readers.
To enhance reading comprehension among struggling readers, educators should focus on teaching strategies favored by proficient readers One such strategy is to discourage the use of translation, which is commonly relied upon by low-proficiency readers but often hinders effective reading By advising weaker readers to avoid translation during comprehension tests, teachers can promote more effective reading practices and improve overall proficiency.
41 an overall view of the text, identifying key information, note-taking so these reading strategies can be encouraged to train and practice more in classroom reading activities.
Limitations of the study and suggestions for further studies
A limitation of this study is that the quantitative data on students' reading strategy use was solely gathered through questionnaires, which may hinder the validity of the findings To enhance the accuracy of future research, it is recommended to incorporate diverse data collection methods, such as think-aloud protocols, observations, and interviews during students' reading of academic texts.
This research may face potential biases due to the predominance of female participants (65 females vs 7 males) and variations in students' backgrounds, including learning styles, years of English study, and cultural contexts, which could influence their reading strategies These limitations may hinder the generalizability of the findings Therefore, further exploration of reading strategy use in diverse teaching and learning environments, beyond just academic contexts, is essential to understand how different readers apply reading strategies in various situations.
Further research can explore the differences in reading strategy usage between male and female students, as well as investigate effective reading strategies and instructional methods that enhance reading proficiency Additionally, action research may be conducted to assess the effectiveness of various reading strategies in improving learners' reading skills.
1 Abbott, M L (2006) ESL reading strategies: Differences in Arabic and Mandarin speaker test performance Language Learning, 56, 633–670
2 Baker, W., & Boonkit, K (2004) Learning strategies in reading and writing: EAP contexts Regional Language Centre Journal, 35(3), 299-328
3 Barnett, M A (1988) Reading through context: How real and perceived strategy use affects L2 comprehension The Modern Language Journal, 73(2), 150-162
4 Block, E (1986) The comprehension strategies of second language readers
5 Brantmeier, C (2002) Second language reading strategy research at the secondary and university levels: variations, disparities, and generalizability
6 Brown, H D (2001) Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy New York: Longman
7 Brown, H D (2007) Principles of Language Learning and Teaching White Plains, N.Y: Pearson Education
8 Carol, R (2002) Mindful reading: strategy training that facilitates transfer
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45(6), 498-513
9 Carrell, P.L (1989) Metacognitive awareness and second language reading
10 Chen, B.C (1999) Discrepancy of reading strategies for academic purposes between high achievers and low achievers at a junior college in Taiwan The proceedings of the Eight International Symposiums on English Teaching,
11 Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K (2007) Research Methods in Education (6th ed.) London: Routledge
12 Creswell, J W (2012) Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (4 th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson
13 Cunningham, P.M & Allington, R.L (1994) Classroom that works: They can all read and write New York: Harper Collins
14 Davies, F (1995) Introducing reading Penguin Books
15 Dửrnyei, Z (2007) Research Methods in Applied Linguistics Oxford:
16 Farrell, T.S.C (2001) Teaching reading strategies: ‗It takes time!‘ Reading in a Foreign Language, 13, 631-635
17 Garner, R (1987) Metacognition and Reading Comprehension Norwood,
18 Goodman, Kenneth S 1967 Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game
Journal of the Reading Specialist, 6, 126-135
19 Grabe, W (1991) Current developments in second language reading research TESOL Quarterly 25(3), 375-406
20 Grabe, W (2009) Reading in a Second Language: Moving from Theory to Practice New York: Cambridge University Press
21 Hsu, S C (2004) Reading Comprehension Difficulty and Reading Strategies of Junior High School EFL Students in Taiwan Unpublished master‘s thesis,
National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
22 Janzen, J., & Stoller, F L (1998) Integrating strategic reading in L2 instruction Reading in a Foreign Language, 12(1), 251-269
23 Mokhtari, K., & Sheorey, R (2002) Measuring ESL students reading strategies Journal of Developmental Education, 25 (3), 2-10
24 Molla, B (2015) The relationship between reading strategy use and reading comprehension among Ethiopian EFL Learners International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature, 3(9), 34-41
25 Nunan, D (2003) Practical English language teaching New York:
26 Nuttall, C (1996) Teaching Reading Skills in a Foreign Language (New
27 O'Mally, J.M., and Chamot A.U (1990) Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
28 Oxford, R.L, (1990) Language Learning Strategies: What every Teacher should Know New York: Newbury House/Harper & Row
29 Phakiti, A 2003 A Closer look at the relationship of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use to EFL reading achievement test performance
30 Sadeghi, K (2007, September) The key for successful reader-writer interaction: Factors affecting reading comprehension in L2 Revisited Asian EFL Journal, 9(3), 198-220
31 Veeravagu, J., Muthusamy, C., Marimuthu, R., & Subrayan, A (2010) Using Bloom‘s taxonomy to gauge students‘ reading comprehension performance Canadian Social Science, 6(3), 205-212
32 Yang, Y (2006) Reading strategies or comprehension monitoring strategies?
33 Zare-ee, A (2007) The relationship between cognitive and metacognitive strategy use and EFL reading achievement Journal of Applied Psychology, 2(5), 105 – 119
34 Zare, P & Nooreen, N (2011) The relationship between language learning strategy use and reading comprehension achievement among Iranian undergraduate EFL learners World Applied Sciences Journal 13(8), 1870-1877
35 Zare, P (2013) Exploring reading strategy use and reading comprehension success among EFL learners World Applied Sciences Journal, 22 (11), 1566 – 1571
36 Zare, P and Othman, M (2013) The relationship between reading comprehension and reading strategy use among Malaysian ESL learners
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 3(13), 187 – 193
APPENDICES APPENDIX 1: CÂU HỎI ĐIỀU TRA VỀ CHIẾN LƢỢC ĐỌC HIỂU
Số năm bạn học tiếng Anh (Vui lòng ghi rõ): năm Điểm bài thi kỹ năng đọc học kỳ 1 của bạn (Vui lòng ghi rõ):
CÂU HỎI ĐIỀU TRA VỀ CHIẾN LƢỢC ĐỌC HIỂU
Mục đích của nghiên cứu này là thu thập thông tin về cách bạn sử dụng chiến lược đọc hiểu khi tiếp cận các tài liệu học thuật bằng tiếng Anh, bao gồm bài đọc về nhà, bài thi và bài báo Mỗi phát biểu trong nghiên cứu được đánh số từ 1 đến 5, với mỗi số mang một ý nghĩa riêng biệt.
1 – Tôi không bao giờ hoặc gần như không bao giờ làm điều này
2 – Tôi ít khi làm điều này
3 – Tôi thỉnh thoảng làm điều này
4 – Tôi thường xuyên làm điều này
5 – Tôi luôn luôn làm điều này
Sau khi đọc từng phát biểu, hãy đánh dấu X vào ô tương ứng với lựa chọn của bạn Lưu ý rằng không có câu trả lời nào là đúng hay sai cho mỗi phát biểu của bạn.
Xin chân thành cảm ơn
1 Tôi luôn có mục đích khi đọc
2 Việc ghi chú khi đọc giúp tôi hiểu những gì tôi đọc
3 Tôi nghĩ về những gì tôi biết để giúp tôi hiểu những gì tôi đọc
4 Tôi có một cái nhìn tổng thể về văn bản trước khi đọc nó
5 Khi văn bản trở nên khó khăn, tôi đọc to để giúp tôi hiểu những gì tôi đọc
6 Tôi nghĩ về việc liệu nội dung của văn bản có phù hợp với mục đích đọc của tôi không
7 Tôi đọc chậm và cẩn thận để chắc chắn rằng tôi hiểu những gì tôi đang đọc
8 Tôi xem văn bản trước bằng cách lưu ý các đặc điểm của nó như độ dài và cấu trúc
9 Tôi cố gắng quay lại văn bản khi tôi mất tập trung
10 Tôi gạch chân hoặc khoanh tròn thông tin trong văn bản để giúp tôi nhớ nó
11 Tôi điều chỉnh tốc độ đọc của mình theo những gì tôi đang đọc
12 Khi đọc, tôi quyết định những gì cần đọc kỹ và những gì cần bỏ qua
13 Tôi sử dụng tài liệu tham khảo (ví dụ: từ điển) để giúp tôi hiểu những gì tôi đọc
14 Khi văn bản trở nên khó khăn, tôi chú ý hơn đến những gì tôi đang đọc
15 Tôi sử dụng bảng, sơ đồ và hình ảnh trong văn bản để tăng sự hiểu biết của tôi
16 Thỉnh thoảng tôi dừng lại và nghĩ về những gì tôi đang đọc
17 Tôi sử dụng các gợi ý bối cảnh để giúp tôi hiểu rõ hơn những gì tôi đang đọc
18 Tôi diễn giải (trình bày lại ý tưởng bằng từ ngữ của riêng tôi) để hiểu rõ hơn những gì tôi đọc
19 Tôi cố gắng mô tả hoặc hình dung thông tin để giúp nhớ những gì tôi đọc
20 Tôi sử dụng các tính năng đánh máy như in đậm và in nghiêng để xác định thông tin chính
21 Tôi phân tích và đánh giá thông tin được trình bày trong văn bản
22 Tôi xem lại trong văn bản để tìm mối quan hệ giữa các ý trong đó
23 Tôi kiểm tra sự hiểu biết của tôi khi tôi gặp thông tin mới
24 Tôi cố gắng đoán nội dung của văn bản khi tôi đọc
25 Khi văn bản trở nên khó khăn, tôi đọc lại nó để tăng sự hiểu biết của tôi
26 Tôi tự hỏi mình những câu hỏi tôi muốn trả lời trong văn bản
27 Tôi kiểm tra xem suy đoán của tôi về văn bản là đúng hay sai
28 Khi tôi đọc, tôi đoán nghĩa của những từ hoặc cụm từ chưa biết
29 Khi đọc, tôi dịch từ tiếng Anh sang tiếng Việt
30 Khi đọc, tôi nghĩ về thông tin bằng cả tiếng Anh và tiếng Việt
APPENDIX 2:QUESTIONNAIRE OF READING STRATEGIES USE
Years of studying English (Please specify): years
Your first semester test score on reading skill (Please specify):
QUESTIONNAIRE OF READING STRATEGIES USE
(Kouider Mokhtari and Ravi Sheorey, 2002)
This survey aims to gather insights into the strategies you employ while reading academic materials in English, such as textbooks for homework or journal articles Each statement in the survey is accompanied by a scale of five numbers for your responses.
1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, and each number means the following:
‗1‘ means that ‗I never or almost never do this‘
‗2‘ means that ‗I do this only occasionally‘
‗3‘ means that ‗I sometimes do this‘ (About 50% of the time.)
‗4‘ means that ‗I usually do this‘
‗5‘ means that ‗I always or almost always do this‘
To complete the survey, please read each statement carefully and mark an X in the box that corresponds to your response (1, 2, 3, 4, or 5) Remember, there are no correct or incorrect answers for any of the statements provided.
1 I have a purpose in mind when I read
2 I take notes while reading to help me understand what I read
3 I think about what I know to help me understand what I read
4 I take an overall view of the text to see what it is about before reading it
5 When text becomes difficult, I read aloud to help me understand what I read
6 I think about whether the content of the text fits my reading purpose
7 I read slowly and carefully to make sure I understand what I am reading
8 I review the text first by noting its characteristics like length and organization
9 I try to get back on track when I lose concentration
10 I underline or circle information in the text to help me remember it
11 I adjust my reading speed according to what I am reading
12 When reading, I decide what to read closely and what to ignore
13 I use reference materials (e.g a dictionary) to help me understand what I read
14 When text becomes difficult, I pay closer attention to what I am reading
15 I use tables, figures, and pictures in text to increase my understanding
16 I stop from time to time and think about what I am
17 I use context clues to help me better understand what I am reading
18 I paraphrase (restate ideas in my own words) to better understand what I read
19 I try to picture or visualize information to help remember what I read
20 I use typographical features like bold face and italics to identify key information
21 I critically analyze and evaluate the information presented in the text
22 I go back and forth in the text to find relationships among ideas in it
23 I check my understanding when I come across new information
24 I try to guess what the content of the text is about when I read
25 When text becomes difficult, I re-read it to increase my understanding
26 I ask myself questions I like to have answered in the text
27 I check to see if my guesses about the text are right or wrong
28 When I read, I guess the meaning of unknown words or phrases
29 When reading, I translate from English into Vietnamese
30 When reading, I think about information in both English and Vietnamese
APPENDIX 3: Students’ average frequencies of using 30 reading strategies Descriptive statistics
Categories Number Mean Level of use