The relationship between reading proficiency and the use of reading strategies in ielts reading

INTRODUCTION

Background to the study

English has become the global language of trade and communication, leading to a rising demand for internationally recognized English language proficiency certificates This trend is fueled by English's role as a lingua franca, prompting the development of standardized tests like TOEFL, TOEIC, and IELTS Obtaining these certificates enables learners to access broader academic opportunities and enhances their employment prospects.

Since its establishment in 1989, the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) has become a leading assessment for English language proficiency in higher education, effectively gauging candidates' readiness for English-speaking environments Among its four components—Speaking, Listening, Reading, and Writing—many candidates find the Reading module particularly challenging due to unfamiliar topics, complex texts, diverse tasks, and time constraints, compounded by a lack of effective strategies Research indicates that the inability to apply reading strategies significantly contributes to poor reading comprehension among L2 learners Effective readers are recognized for their strategic awareness and ability to monitor their comprehension processes, which are crucial for success Studies highlight that the key differences between proficient and less proficient readers lie in their recognition of the need for strategic reading and their active engagement in these processes.

(e.g., Grabe & Stoller, 2013; Mokhtari & Sheorey, 2008b; Sheorey & Mokhtari,

Extensive studies have been conducted to explore the use of reading strategies among L2 learners with diverse demographic and academic backgrounds (e.g., Mokhtari et al., 2018; Anderson, 2004; Phakiti, 2003; Sheorey

Further research is essential to explore the strategies employed by test takers in the IELTS reading test, as existing studies have yielded varied results and lack generalizability In Vietnam, IELTS certificates are increasingly mandatory for university admissions and graduation in numerous undergraduate programs conducted in English Despite this demand, the instruction and development of strategic reading skills for the IELTS remain under-researched and present a significant opportunity for future studies in the region.

There is a significant demand for research on the variation of reading strategy use among IELTS test-takers across different proficiency levels Understanding how specific strategies impact reading proficiency can provide valuable insights This necessity has inspired a study focused on exploring the relationship between reading proficiency and the application of reading strategies in the IELTS Reading section.

Aims of the study

The study concentrates on the following aims:

− To identify the reading strategies employed by B2 and C1-leveled test takers in the IELTS reading test;

− To compare and contrast the reading strategy use of B2 and C1- leveled IELTS test takers;

− To examine the relationship between reading proficiency and the use of reading strategies of the IELTS test takers.

Research questions

In an attempt to achieve the research aims mentioned above, the three following questions will be addressed in the study:

1 What are the reading strategies employed by B2 and C1-leveled test takers in the IELTS reading test?

2 Are there any differences in the use of reading strategies of B2 and C1-leveled IELTS test takers?

3 Is there any correlation between reading proficiency and the use of reading strategies of test takers in the IELTS reading test?

Significance of the study

This study significantly enhances understanding of the relationship between reading proficiency and reading strategies in IELTS, addressing a key concern in English Language Teaching (ELT) and IELTS training Despite varying findings in previous research, there is a pressing need for further empirical evidence, particularly regarding strategic reading in international standardized tests like IELTS in Vietnam, where research is still emerging The findings of this study offer valuable implications for reading strategy instruction, aiming to improve reading comprehension among IELTS test takers Given the established reliability and validity of the IELTS test, the assessment of participants' English language and reading proficiency lends credibility to this research Ultimately, this study aspires to elevate test takers' awareness of strategic reading, helping them navigate challenges and enhance their reading comprehension skills.

Scope of the study

Due to limitations in time and research conditions, the study focuses on a survey of 200 IELTS test takers, rather than including participants from all proficiency levels.

The study examines the reading strategies of non-English majors pursuing bachelor's degrees at a university in Binh Duong Province, focusing on those who achieved an overall IELTS band score between 5.5 and 8.0, corresponding to B2 and C1 levels in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) Utilizing the taxonomy of reading strategies proposed by Mokhtari & Sheorey (2002), the research investigates 30 items categorized into three subscales: Global Reading Strategies, Problem-Solving Strategies, and Support Reading Strategies.

Organization of thesis chapters

The thesis is comprised of five chapters which are organized as follows:

Chapter 1 serves as an introduction, providing a comprehensive overview of the study's background and the rationale behind selecting this particular topic for research It outlines the research aims and questions, highlights the significance of the study, delineates its scope, and presents the organization of the thesis chapters.

Chapter 2 of the literature review establishes a comprehensive theoretical foundation for the study, covering key aspects such as definitions, models, and classifications of reading comprehension, as well as the IELTS Reading module and the challenges faced by readers It delves into the concept of strategic reading, emphasizing reading strategies and metacognitive awareness, particularly among ESL/EFL students Additionally, the chapter explores the correlation between the use of reading strategies and academic reading success in ESL/EFL contexts, while also presenting the study's conceptual framework.

Chapter 3, Methodology, outlines the research design, participant selection, and sampling techniques, along with the research instruments used It details the procedures for data collection and analysis, while also providing justifications for the statistical analysis methods employed to ensure the study's reliability and validity.

− Chapter 4, Findings and Discussion, presents and discusses the research findings in compare and contrast with several prior studies in response to the three stated research questions

Chapter 5 provides a comprehensive conclusion and outlines the implications of the study, summarizing the key findings in relation to the research questions It highlights significant pedagogical implications and offers practical recommendations Additionally, the chapter addresses the limitations of the study and suggests directions for future research endeavors.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Reading comprehension

For decades, linguists have extensively researched the nature of reading, leading to significant shifts in scholarly consensus Early definitions emphasized thinking and reasoning (Thorndike, 1917), while more recent perspectives view reading comprehension as a complex combination of processes (Grabe, 2009) This evolution highlights the multifaceted nature of reading beyond just oral reading.

1940s (Bloomfield, 1942) to silent reading in the 1960s (Stauffer,1969); from decoding to reading comprehension (Artley, 1961), and the notion that ‘reading is a matter of interaction’

Reading is an active and critical process that goes beyond merely recognizing written words; it involves the reader engaging in cognitive activities to extract meaning from the text (Grabe, 1991) According to Artley (1961), this process requires the reader to reconstruct the writer's beliefs, feelings, and sensory expressions, highlighting the interactive nature of reading Nuttall (1996) emphasizes that the essence of reading lies in 'reading for meaning' or 'reading comprehension,' asserting that the primary purpose of reading is to construct understanding, irrespective of the text type This perspective is widely endorsed by linguists (e.g., Anderson, 1999; Silberstein, 1994; Grabe, 1991), as comprehension is crucial; without it, reading becomes futile Sargent et al (2010) define reading comprehension as the ability to understand text through explanation, interpretation, application, and self-monitoring of knowledge, affirming that the ultimate goal of reading is comprehension This definition has gained significant recognition and has greatly influenced English language teaching and learning.

Moreover, many scholars have agreed that ‘reading is a matter of interaction’ The interaction between the reader and the text is strongly emphasized by Silberstein (1994) and Aebersold & Field (1997) Later, Yükselir

Reading is defined as an interactive process involving the text, context, background knowledge, and the reader's decision-making (2014) According to Anderson (2004), this process is strategic and fluent, requiring the integration of textual content and prior knowledge to construct meaning The interplay of text, reader, fluency, and strategies collectively shapes the reading experience Anderson's widely recognized definition serves as a foundational framework for interactive reading models, which will be explored further in the next section, and is also the operational definition of reading comprehension used in this study (see Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.1 The definition of reading (Anderson 2004, p.13)

Scholars and educators have made numerous efforts to establish a general theoretical framework for reading comprehension, which can offer metaphorical insights into the processes involved While some models provide a broad overview, others focus more narrowly on explaining findings from extensive research Grabe & Stoller (2013, p.25) present a synthesis of these two perspectives on reading models.

3 Simple view of reading model

This section offers an overview of metaphorical models, focusing on the cognitive processing model of reading introduced by Khalifa & Weir (2009), which has gained significant traction in recent research on IELTS Academic Reading.

Bottom-up, top-down, and interactive reading models offer foundational insights from early research on reading comprehension While these models serve as a valuable starting point for exploring reading comprehension further, they fall short of reflecting the latest advancements in reading research.

Bottom-up models, rooted in behaviorism, emphasize the text itself and view reading as a mechanical process that relies on a piece-by-piece mental translation, with minimal input from prior knowledge (Grabe & Stoller, 2013) Strategies such as focusing on individual words, using dictionaries, and highlighting information assist in understanding specific linguistic units (Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001) However, these lower-level reading processes are inadequate for comprehensive understanding, as they depend heavily on the text itself Readers begin with word recognition, processing text letter by letter and storing meanings in short-term memory (Gough, 1972) This meticulous approach slows reading speed and hinders the ability to grasp the overall message, leading to the gradual replacement of bottom-up models with top-down models.

Top-down models are psycholinguistic frameworks that emphasize the role of prior knowledge and inferences in understanding new material, contrasting with bottom-up models that focus on word recognition and syntactic parsing According to Grabe & Stoller (2013), a reader's goals and expectations drive the reading process, allowing them to use past knowledge to predict text content, a concept referred to as a ‘psycholinguistic guessing game’ by Goodman (1976) Top-down strategies, including previewing content, establishing reading purposes, and making inferences, are essential for effective comprehension (Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001) However, these strategies can be inadequate for second language (L2) readers, who often lack sufficient background knowledge and must focus on the orthographic, phonological, lexical, and syntactic features of words Ignoring these elements can lead to invalid predictions, highlighting the limitations of both bottom-up and top-down approaches and leading to the development of hybrid, interactive models.

Interactive models of reading comprehension integrate both bottom-up and top-down approaches, highlighting the necessity for quick and precise word recognition alongside the application of prior knowledge for making inferences and predictions This synthesis of bottom-up information with top-down contextual understanding is widely endorsed by linguists, underscoring its importance in effective reading strategies.

Research indicates that combining top-down and bottom-up processing in reading comprehension can create a self-contradictory model Strong top-down controls conflict with the essential bottom-up processes, such as automatic word recognition, which require minimal interference from top-down knowledge or inferences To enhance reading comprehension, it is essential to develop interactive models that clearly delineate the various processes involved, particularly focusing on bottom-up automatic processes that operate with limited influence from higher-level processing or background knowledge.

2.1.2.2 Cognitive processing model of reading

In recent decades, specific models of reading comprehension have emerged as alternatives to general metaphorical frameworks The socio-cognitive approach to test validation emphasizes the importance of individual cognitive characteristics in test performance (O'Sullivan & Weir, 2011; Brunfaut & McCray, 2015) It is widely recognized that test takers' abilities are influenced by their interactions with test tasks This concept underpins Khalifa & Weir’s (2009) cognitive processing model, which is utilized in this study to examine the relationship between reading proficiency and strategy use among IELTS test takers The cognitive processes involved during the test are illustrated in Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2 The cognitive processing model of reading

The cognitive processing model of reading, as outlined by Brunfaut and McCray (2015), includes three essential components: metacognitive activity, the central processing core, and the knowledge base Each of these components is further divided into smaller, specific processes that contribute to the overall reading experience.

Metacognitive activity, as defined by Khalifa & Weir (2009), encompasses goal-setting, goal-monitoring, and remedial actions during reading Readers establish their reading objectives, determining whether to focus on local or global comprehension and whether to read carefully or quickly Throughout the reading process, they evaluate their progress against these goals and implement corrective measures when difficulties arise The authors emphasize the crucial role of the goal setter, as the reading purpose influences the importance of various processes within the model Additionally, the components of goal setting and monitoring function as metacognitive mechanisms that facilitate the integration of different processing skills and knowledge sources available to readers.

Metacognitive mechanisms enable readers to employ various strategies and skills to meet diverse reading needs (Urquhart & Weir, 1998) The specific requirements of a test task influence the level of cognitive processing engaged by the reader As a result, readers may opt to skim, search read, scan, or read thoroughly, depending on their interpretation of the task's demands.

The central processing core, illustrated in Figure 2.2, encompasses eight cognitive processes arranged hierarchically, ranging from lower-level to higher-level functions Reading comprehension emerges from the seamless interaction of these cognitive processes Lower-level processes include word recognition, lexical access, syntactic parsing, and establishing propositional meaning, while higher-level processes involve inferencing, constructing a mental model, developing a text-level representation, and creating intertextual connections As noted by Grabe (2009), lower-level processes are largely automated and operate independently of conscious thought The structure of the central processing core is further detailed by Brunfaut & McCray (2015) and Khalifa & Weir.

Difficulties in reading comprehension

Certain difficulties in reading comprehension are recognized as a result of the key differences between L1 and L2 reading abilities Grabe & Stoller (2013) provides a summary of L1 and L2 distinctive features as follows:

1 Differing amounts of lexical, grammatical and discourse knowledge at initial stages of L1 and L2 reading

2 Greater metalinguistic and metacognitive awareness in L2 settings

3 Varying linguistic differences across any two languages

4 Varying L2 proficiencies as a foundation for L2 reading

6 Interacting influence of working with two languages

7 Differing levels of L1 reading abilities

8 Differing motivations for reading in the L2

9 Differing amounts of exposure to L2 reading

10 Differing kinds of texts in L2 contexts

11 Differing language resources for L2 readers

Socio-cultural and institutional differences

12 Differing socio-cultural backgrounds of L2 readers

13 Differing ways of organising discourse and texts

14 Differing expectations of L2 educational institutions

Beginner L2 readers possess limited linguistic background knowledge, including insufficient vocabulary, grammar, and discourse structure Their exposure to reading in the target language is minimal compared to L1 readers, leading to less practice in L2 reading This unique reading experience involves navigating two languages, resulting in distinct cognitive processes and various transfer effects, which can either facilitate or interfere with L1 influence on L2 reading Additionally, L2 readers rely on different combinations of prior knowledge, which can affect how they construct understanding in L1 versus L2 contexts Furthermore, encountering unfamiliar social and cultural assumptions in L2 texts may hinder comprehension.

Research highlights significant differences between L1 and L2 reading abilities, particularly noting that beginner and intermediate L2 readers experience a larger gap compared to advanced L2 readers (Genesee et al., 2006; Koda, 2005) As L2 reading proficiency increases, the reading processes begin to resemble those of L1 readers, though they may never fully align The distinctiveness of linguistic features between L1 and L2, such as the differences between Japanese, Chinese, and English, also plays a crucial role in L2 reading While the influence of these differences diminishes with improved L2 reading skills, it does not completely vanish Furthermore, advanced comprehension skills are similar across both L1 and L2 reading, as they are linked to overall comprehension abilities rather than limited linguistic knowledge (Grabe, 2014).

Recognizing the distinctions between first language (L1) and second language (L2) reading, along with the challenges faced by L2 readers, is essential for creating effective strategies to enhance comprehension and reading skills in L2 This study focuses on IELTS test takers, highlighting the specific obstacles they encounter during the reading section of international English language proficiency assessments.

Weir et al (2009) explores the connections between the IELTS reading module and academic reading, highlighting the reading challenges faced by students that can impact their IELTS scores The study reveals that both first-year and second-year undergraduate students encounter specific reading difficulties, ranked in order of severity.

1 Reading texts where the subject matter is complicated

2 The time available to do the necessary reading

Research by Weir et al (2009) indicates that students perceive the time allocated for reading as insufficient to effectively navigate complex texts and extract relevant information quickly While the challenge of encountering unknown words is acknowledged, it appears to be less significant by the second year of study Conversely, a lack of background knowledge continues to pose a challenge for students, even as they progress into their second year.

Strategic reading

Strategic reading, as defined by Anderson (2003), involves employing various reading strategies to achieve specific objectives, marking it as a key trait of proficient readers (Paris, Wasik, & Turner, 1991) Successful readers develop action plans to navigate challenging texts, requiring them to balance essential comprehension skills (Grabe & Stoller, 2013) This process entails recognizing processing difficulties, connecting textual information with prior knowledge, and actively monitoring comprehension while adjusting reading goals.

Strategic reading is not just about knowing which strategies to use, but also about effectively coordinating them based on the reader's goals and tasks (Anderson, 1991; Grabe, 2009) Skilled readers develop their strategic reading abilities over time through extensive practice with diverse texts (Mokhtari & Sheorey, 2008b) To be effective, strategic readers must adapt their strategies flexibly to meet varying demands while continuously monitoring their understanding (Grabe & Stoller, 2013) Therefore, strategic reading instruction should involve frequent modeling, scaffolding, and ample practice, integrated into regular reading lessons rather than treated as standalone sessions (Grabe, 2014).

This section explores the essential elements of strategic reading, specifically reading strategies and metacognitive awareness, supported by recent research findings This foundational understanding aims to enhance the investigation of reading strategy utilization among IELTS test takers.

The concept of "strategies" in reading, which emerged in the 1970s, originally referred to cognitive processing distinct from traditional skills-based reading However, the distinction between strategies and skills has become increasingly ambiguous Alexander & Jetton (2000) identify two key differences in text-based learning: automaticity and intentionality, while Chamot (2005) highlights consciousness as a defining characteristic of strategies Skills are essential, habitual processes that skilled readers perform automatically, reflecting an unconscious familiarity with fundamental reading procedures An example of the overlap between skills and strategies is the identification of main ideas, where the classification depends on whether the reader consciously activates the procedure or relies on habitual, automatic responses.

Grabe and Stoller (2013) define reading skills as the automatic and integrated use of language processing procedures, including word recognition and syntactic parsing While these skills may initially be learned as strategies, they ultimately become nearly automatic In contrast, reading strategies involve the reader's conscious reflection and intentional actions aimed at solving problems or achieving specific goals during the reading process (Anderson, 2009; Brown, 2007) Mokhtari and Reichard (2002) provide a widely recognized definition, describing reading strategies as deliberate procedures that readers regularly employ to address perceived cognitive failures.

Reading strategies are defined as conscious techniques employed by readers to improve their understanding and retention of text Research by Pani (2004) indicates that proficient readers utilize these strategies more frequently and effectively compared to their less skilled counterparts.

Scholars have extensively conceptualized and categorized reading strategies in various frameworks This section will first explore different taxonomies of reading strategies before delving into Mokhtari's specific taxonomy, highlighting its unique contributions to the understanding of effective reading practices.

& Sheorey (2002) is concentrated on The reading strategy taxonomy employed in the study is the one proposed by Mokhtari & Sheorey (2002)

Anderson (1991) categorizes reading strategies into five key groups: supervising, support, paraphrase, coherence, and test-taking strategies, totaling 47 items Most of these strategies focus on intensive reading techniques frequently used in test situations, with some items exhibiting overlap.

Weir et al (2009) categorizes reading strategies into two main stages: before reading and while reading Before-reading strategies include three key actions: reading the text slowly and carefully, quickly and selectively to grasp the main idea, or opting not to read the text at all In contrast, while-reading strategies encompass 17 actions, with 12 focusing on how readers tackle test questions, such as matching synonyms, inferring meaning from context, and utilizing prior knowledge The remaining five strategies emphasize techniques for locating answers, including constructing meaning within individual sentences or across multiple sentences.

Chalmers & Walkinshaw (2014), building on the work of Weir et al (2009), identify two main categories of reading strategies: preview reading strategies and in-test reading strategies The former encompasses five techniques that readers utilize prior to addressing test questions, while the latter includes thirteen strategies employed during the test Notably, the preview reading strategies were derived from Weir et al.'s before-reading strategies, highlighting the extent of text engagement by the reader—whether they consider the entire text or only a portion before answering questions.

Numerous studies have focused on identifying reading strategies used by ESL/EFL learners, notably by Mokhtari & Sheorey (2002), Mokhtari & Reichard (2004, 2002), and Sheorey & Mokhtari (2001) In their research, Sheorey & Mokhtari (2001) examined the differences in reading strategy usage between native and non-native English speakers when engaging with academic texts The study involved a survey of 302 university students, comprising 150 native English speakers from the U.S and 152 ESL students, utilizing the initial version of the Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS), which included 28 strategy items adapted from the Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory (MARSI).

MARSI, developed by Mokhtari between 1998 and 2000, assesses native English-speaking students' awareness and use of reading strategies for academic materials Key findings reveal that both U.S and ESL learners recognize nearly all strategies listed in the survey Both groups prioritize cognitive strategies, followed by metacognitive and support strategies, regardless of gender or reading ability However, ESL students reported a higher frequency of strategy use, particularly in support strategies, compared to their U.S counterparts Additionally, high-reading-proficiency students in both groups employed cognitive and metacognitive strategies more than those with lower proficiency Gender differences emerged, with U.S females using strategies more often than males, a trend not observed in the ESL group Overall, reading ability significantly influences students' awareness and application of reading strategies.

In 2002, Mokhtari & Reichard revised the Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory (MARSI) to enhance its reliability and factorial validity That same year, Mokhtari & Sheorey introduced the Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS), a 30-item tool designed to evaluate the metacognitive awareness and perceived use of reading strategies among adolescent and adult ESL students According to Mokhtari & Sheorey (2002), the SORS aims to support developmental education instructors in improving ESL students' metacognitive awareness, fostering their ability to become thoughtful, responsive, and strategic readers.

Since its introduction in 2002, SORS has become a valuable tool for teaching and research, garnering numerous citations in published studies Mokhtari and Sheorey (2002) redefined two categories of reading strategies from their earlier work, renaming metacognitive strategies as Global Reading Strategies and cognitive strategies as Problem-Solving Strategies.

This study utilizes the SORS instrument to examine the reading strategies employed by IELTS test takers The SORS framework comprises three key subscales: Global Reading Strategies, Problem-Solving Strategies, and Support Reading Strategies.

Reading strategy use of ESL/EFL learners

Recent studies have examined the reading strategies utilized by ESL/EFL learners across various contexts Poole (2005) investigated the reading strategies of 248 university ESL students from the Midwest and South of the U.S., revealing that Problem-Solving Strategies are used frequently, while Global and Support Reading Strategies are employed at a moderate rate Similarly, Yau (2009) discovered that Chinese adolescents learning English as a foreign language tend to use metacognitive and Problem-Solving Strategies more often in their L2 reading.

Research by Li (2010) using MARSI highlights that Taiwanese EFL high school students predominantly utilize Problem-Solving Strategies, followed by Global Reading and Support Reading Strategies Similarly, Hong-Nam (2014) conducted a survey of 96 high school students in the Southwestern U.S., revealing a consistent trend where Problem-Solving Strategies are most frequently employed, alongside Global and Support Reading Strategies Additionally, Shikano (2013) found that Japanese preparatory school students also favor Problem-Solving Strategies over Global and Support Reading Strategies, reinforcing the significance of these strategies across different educational contexts.

& Page (2014) found that Support Reading Strategies is the least used subscale among EFL Korean university students

2.5 Relationship between reading strategy use and ESL/EFL academic reading achievement

Research indicates that metacognitive awareness and the effective use of reading strategies significantly impact the reading achievement of ESL/EFL learners For example, Phakiti (2003) demonstrated that Thai EFL university students who consistently apply metacognitive strategies perform better on reading tests Similarly, Kummin & Rahman (2010) found that proficient ESL students in Malaysia utilize a diverse array of reading strategies, while their less successful peers often lack metacognitive awareness Additional studies, such as those by Prichard (2014) and Shikano (2015), support these findings Furthermore, Mokhtari & Sheorey (2008b) suggest that skilled readers exhibit a strong awareness of global reading strategies, enabling them to plan, monitor, and evaluate their reading processes effectively.

Mokhtari and Reichard (2002) utilized the Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory (MARSI) to explore the metacognitive awareness and perceived reading strategy usage among native and non-native learners in grades 6-12 for academic reading The study involved 825 students from 10 school districts across five Midwestern states, encompassing urban, suburban, and rural environments It focused on three reading strategy subscales: Global Reading Strategies, Problem-Solving Strategies, and Support Reading Strategies Findings indicated significant differences in the use of Global and Problem-Solving Strategies between highly skilled and less skilled readers, while no notable differences were found in Support Reading Strategy usage Additionally, students who identified as excellent readers reported a significantly higher use of Problem-Solving Strategies compared to those who assessed their reading abilities as average or below.

Conceptual framework of the study

This study explores the connection between reading proficiency and the application of reading strategies among IELTS test takers A conceptual framework is developed based on existing literature and research objectives, illustrating the anticipated relationship between reading proficiency and reading strategy usage The research employs the taxonomy of reading strategies outlined by Mokhtari & Sheorey (2002), focusing on three key subscales: Global Reading Strategies, Problem-Solving Strategies, and Support Reading Strategies The study's conceptual framework is visually represented in Figure 2.4.

Figure 2.4 Conceptual framework of the study

METHODOLOGY

Research design

This study investigates the relationship between reading proficiency and reading strategy use among IELTS test takers, aiming to assist future candidates in overcoming reading test challenges and improving their skills By leveraging successful reading strategies, both test takers and instructors can help learners achieve their desired band scores The research employs the reading strategy taxonomy by Mokhtari & Sheorey (2002), focusing on three subscales: Global Reading Strategies, Problem-Solving Strategies, and Support Reading Strategies Utilizing a correlational research design, quantitative data was gathered from a survey of 200 IELTS Academic test takers at B2 and C1 levels to explore the potential linear relationship between their reading proficiency and the application of reading strategies.

Participants and sampling procedures

To achieve a substantial sample size for correlational research while addressing practical constraints, convenience sampling was utilized The study involved 200 IELTS test takers, all non-English majors enrolled in bachelor programs at a university in Binh Duong Province, with Overall Band Scores ranging from 5.5 to 8.0 in the Academic module Admission to the university requires a valid IELTS Academic certificate with a minimum score of 5.0, while progression to the second academic year mandates a score of at least 6.0 Students failing to meet these English proficiency standards cannot continue beyond the third semester and must apply for a one-year deferment, as English serves as the medium of instruction for their programs.

Participants in the latest IELTS Academic module report Overall Band Scores ranging from 5.5 to 8.0 These scores are then mapped to the corresponding CEFR levels to categorize test takers into higher and lower proficiency groups Table 3.1 illustrates the alignment between IELTS Overall Band Scores and CEFR levels.

Table 3.1 The relation between IELTS test takers’ Overall Band Scores and their CEFR levels (IELTS Guide for Teachers, 2019)

IELTS Overall Band Score CEFR Level

The table reveals that participants with IELTS Overall Bands between 7.0 and 8.0 are classified as C1-level test takers, comprising a higher-proficiency group of 80 individuals In contrast, those scoring between 5.5 and 6.5 fall into the B2-level category, making up a lower-proficiency group of 120 participants Their reading proficiency is reflected in their Reading Band Scores from the latest IELTS Academic results, with further details available in Appendix A regarding the participants' background information.

Test takers at B2 and C1 levels were selected for this research because their IELTS scores align with the minimum requirements for university admission and graduation in Vietnam Specifically, students scoring between Band 5.5 and 6.5, equivalent to B2 level in the CEFR, can be exempted from the English module of the Vietnamese National High School Graduation Exams and gain entry to top colleges and universities Additionally, these scores meet the criteria for enrolling in academic programs taught in English Higher scores at the C1 level improve the likelihood of receiving university admission scholarships or financial aid This study aims to provide valuable insights for students entering or currently enrolled in undergraduate programs in Vietnam, while also ensuring that the researcher can easily access test takers at these proficiency levels.

Research instruments

A self-report questionnaire was created to investigate the connection between reading proficiency and the use of reading strategies among 200 IELTS test takers, all of whom had Overall Band Scores ranging from 5.5 to 8.0 The reading proficiency of the participants is assessed through their IELTS Reading Band Scores, while the frequency of reading strategy usage is evaluated using a five-point Likert scale.

The questionnaire consists of two main sections, primarily featuring closed-ended questions Initially, participants receive a brief overview of the research objectives, target audience, questionnaire design, and confidentiality assurance Section 1 collects demographic data, including gender, major, the date of the last IELTS test, Overall Band Score, and Reading Band Score Clarifications are provided regarding the use of Overall Band Scores to categorize participants into B2 and C1 groups, while Reading Band Scores are utilized to explore the connection between reading proficiency and reading strategy usage Section 2 presents 30 reading strategy items adapted from the Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS) by Mokhtari & Sheorey (2002), designed to assess metacognitive awareness and the perceived application of reading strategies among adolescent and adult ESL learners These strategies are systematically categorized for analysis.

• Item 1 – 13: GLOB (Global Reading Strategies),

• Item 14 – 21: PROB (Problem-Solving Strategies),

• Item 22 – 30: SUP (Support Reading Strategies)

The classification of strategy types is intended for data analysis, and participants do not see this information in the questionnaire During the analysis phase, each strategy is identified using the format: [Strategy type]_[Item number] (e.g., GLOB_1) Participants rate the frequency of their strategy use on a five-point Likert scale, where 1 indicates "Never or almost never" and 5 signifies "Always or almost always."

IELTS reading test The level of strategy use is then identified as low, medium, or high according to the key to averages provided in SORS (Mokhtari &

Global Reading Strategies (GLOB), formerly known as metacognitive strategies, involve purposeful, top-down approaches that enable readers to analyze texts effectively These strategies include setting reading goals, activating prior knowledge, previewing text structure, and utilizing typographical and graphic aids Problem-Solving Strategies (PROB), previously referred to as cognitive strategies, focus on localized actions to address comprehension challenges, such as adjusting reading pace or rereading difficult sections Support Reading Strategies (SUP) help maintain engagement with texts, encouraging practices like note-taking and highlighting In this study, participants were instructed to report their perceived use of reading aloud and reference materials during self-practice, rather than in a testing environment, to ensure clarity and accuracy in their responses.

Cronbach’s Alpha is a key indicator of reliability that assesses the internal consistency of survey items, ensuring the questionnaire's dependability To evaluate this reliability, the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, version 26.0) is utilized The results, including the Cronbach’s Alpha values for the overall 30 items and each corresponding subscale, are presented in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2 The reliability of the questionnaire

Alpha N of items N of cases

Table 3.2 reveals that the overall Cronbach’s Alpha for the 30 reading strategies is 0.858, indicating good internal consistency The subscale α values are as follows: Global Reading Strategies at 0.816, Problem-Solving Strategies at 0.758, and Support Reading Strategies at 0.800 According to George & Mallery's (2003) guidelines, a Cronbach’s Alpha value between 0.8 and 0.9 reflects a strong level of reliability in the instrument.

0.7 or higher indicates acceptable internal consistency Hence, the reliability of this questionnaire is justified to be at a good level.

Data collection procedure

Before implementing the questionnaire, a pilot survey was conducted with 10 IELTS test takers to gather firsthand insights into its functionality in research settings and identify potential issues Each participant completed the questionnaire independently while verbalizing their thoughts, providing detailed feedback on any unclear aspects that required clarification This feedback was instrumental in refining the questions and format, leading to the development of a final version of the questionnaire with minimal changes.

In a study involving 200 IELTS test takers with Overall Band Scores ranging from 5.5 to 8.0, self-report questionnaires featuring 30 items on reading strategies, adapted from the Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS) by Mokhtari & Sheorey (2002), were distributed after a pilot phase Participants received a brief overview of the study's purpose and assurances regarding their privacy before completing the questionnaire They were informed that there were no right or wrong answers and that assistance would be provided for any statements that were unclear.

In the questionnaire, participants provide essential background information, including gender, major, and their most recent IELTS test details, such as the Overall Band Score and Reading Band Score The Overall Band Score categorizes test takers into B2 or C1 levels for comparative analysis, while the Reading Band Score indicates their reading proficiency This data is crucial for examining the relationship between reading proficiency and the use of reading strategies Participants also report the frequency of employing 30 specific reading strategies during the IELTS reading test, rating their usage on a Likert five-point scale from 1 (Never or almost never) to 5 (Always or almost always).

Support Reading Strategies, namely reading aloud when text difficulty increases

(SUP_23) and using reference materials (SUP_25), test takers were reminded in advance to reflect their use of these strategies in IELTS practice tests rather than on the actual exam.

Data analysis scheme

Raw data was collected and subsequently processed and transformed, utilizing appropriate statistical analysis methods to address the three research questions The results were presented through various indexes, including the mean (M), standard deviation (SD), p-value (Sig 2-tailed), and Pearson correlation coefficient (r).

Research question 1, ‘What are the reading strategies employed by B2 and

The study focuses on C1-level IELTS test takers and examines the frequency of their reading strategy usage during the IELTS reading test Participants completed a questionnaire where they rated the frequency of 30 different reading strategies on a five-point Likert scale, with responses ranging from 1 (Never or almost never) to 5 (Always or almost always).

Descriptive statistics were conducted to calculate the mean frequencies of 30 reading strategies, categorized into three groups: Global Reading Strategies (GLOB) The analysis revealed that participants consistently utilized these strategies, with a frequency rating of 5, indicating a strong preference for effective reading techniques.

(2) PROB (Problem-Solving Strategies), and (3) SUP (Support Reading Strategies) Statistical analysis of the data was performed by the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, version 26.0)

The mean values were analyzed using the key to averages from SORS (Mokhtari & Sheorey, 2002), allowing for the classification of strategy use into low, medium, or high levels Table 3.3 illustrates the interpretation of reading strategy use based on this key.

Table 3.3 Key to averages – The interpretation of the levels of reading strategy use (Mokhtari & Sheorey, 2002)

The data presented in the table categorizes usage strategies into three distinct groups based on mean scores: a mean between 1.0 and 2.4 signifies a low-use strategy, scores from 2.5 to 3.4 indicate a medium-use strategy, and a mean between 3.5 and 5.0 reflects a high-use strategy.

The research question investigates the differences in reading strategy usage between B2 and C1-level IELTS test takers To analyze this, a one-way ANOVA was conducted using SPSS (version 26.0) to compare the mean frequencies of 30 distinct reading strategies, as well as three groups of strategies, across the two proficiency levels.

Validating the use of one-way ANOVA for data analysis is crucial, as this method is only appropriate if six specific assumptions are satisfied Ensuring these assumptions are met is essential for obtaining reliable results from one-way ANOVA.

− Assumption 1: The dependent variable should be measured on a continuous scale (i.e., at the interval or ratio level)

The study examines 33 dependent variables related to 30 individual reading strategies, utilizing a five-point Likert scale for measurement While Likert scale data is typically considered ordinal, experts, including Sullivan and Artino (2013), agree that parametric tests, such as one-way ANOVA, can be appropriately applied to analyze these responses Thus, employing one-way ANOVA for data derived from a five-point Likert scale is deemed acceptable.

− Assumption 2: The independent variable should include at least two categorical, independent groups

→ The independent variable consists of two categorical groups, which are B2 and C1 Hence, the second assumption is satisfied

− Assumption 3: There should be independence of observations, which means that there is no relationship between the observations in each group or between the groups themselves

→ Test takers at B2 level are obviously not able to join the group C1 and vice versa Thus, the third assumption is met

− Assumption 4: There should be no significant outliers Outliers are isolated instances in a dataset that deviate significantly from the usual pattern

→ There are no significant outliers because all data points follow the usual pattern with values ranging from 1 to 5 for 33 dependent variables

(30 individual reading strategies and the three groups of strategies) and from 1 to 2 for the independent variable (B2 and C1) Thus, the fourth assumption is met

− Assumption 5: For each category of the independent variable, the dependent variable should follow a normal distribution

→ Shapiro-Wilk tests were carried out to confirm the normality of data using SPSS (version 26.0)

− Assumption 6: Variances must be homogeneous

→ Levene’s tests of homogeneity of variances were conducted using SPSS (version 26.0)

Prior to conducting one-way ANOVA, Shapiro-Wilk tests for data normality and Levene’s tests for homogeneity of variances were performed to ensure the validity and reliability of the results These tests were applied to 33 variables representing 30 individual strategies across three strategy groups: GLOB, PROB, and SUP The p-value from each Levene statistic was then compared to the significance level (Alpha), typically set at 0.05.

When the significance level (sig.) of the Levene statistic is greater than or equal to 0.05, it indicates that there is no significant difference in variances among the groups, confirming the assumption of homogeneity of variances This allows for valid analysis of the data using one-way ANOVA Subsequently, it is essential to compare the ANOVA p-value with the predetermined alpha level.

• If sig (of ANOVA) ≥ 0.05, there is no statistically significant difference in the mean frequencies between the groups (i.e., B2 and C1) Hence, the variable is rejected

• If sig (of ANOVA) < 0.05, there is a statistically significant difference in the mean frequencies As a result, the variable could be used to identify the differences in frequency between the groups

If the significance of the Levene statistic is less than 0.05, it indicates a significant difference in variances among the groups, violating the assumption of homogeneity of variances In such instances, Welch’s ANOVA should be used to compare the means instead of the traditional one-way ANOVA.

• If sig (of Welch) ≥ 0.05, there is no statistically significant difference in the mean frequencies between the groups (i.e., B2 and C1) Therefore, the variable is rejected

• If sig (of Welch) < 0.05, there is a statistically significant difference in the mean frequencies As a result, the variable could be used to identify the differences in frequency between the groups

The research question investigates the correlation between reading proficiency and the use of reading strategies among IELTS test takers To assess this relationship, the study employs Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficient, which quantifies the linear association between the IELTS Reading Band Scores of 200 participants and their frequency of employing reading strategies This statistical method evaluates the strength and direction of the relationship between two variables on at least an interval scale, providing evidence for any linear connections present.

Verifying the validity of Pearson's correlation is essential before applying it to collected data This statistical method assesses the significant relationship between two variables measured for the same individuals, provided that seven specific assumptions are satisfied.

− Assumption 1: The two variables should be measured on a continuous scale (i.e., at the interval or ratio level)

The IELTS Reading Band Score assesses test takers' reading proficiency, while the frequency of employing reading strategies is evaluated on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 to 5 This indicates that the initial assumption regarding the measurement methods is validated.

− Assumption 2: The two variables should be paired

→ Each of the 200 test takers has a value for reading proficiency (IELTS Reading Band Score) and frequency of using reading strategies There are

200 pairs of values Therefore, the second assumption is met

− Assumption 3: There should be independence of observations

→ The two observations (reading proficiency and frequency of using reading strategies) for one participant are independent of those for any other participant Thus, the third assumption is satisfied

− Assumption 4: There should be a linear relationship between the two variables

→ Scatterplots were created using SPSS (version 26.0) to check for linearity

− Assumption 5: The two variables should follow a normal distribution

→ Shapiro-Wilk tests were carried out to confirm the normality of data using SPSS (version 26.0)

− Assumption 6: There should be homoscedasticity

→ Scatterplots were created using SPSS (version 26.0) to check for homoscedasticity

− Assumption 7: There should be no significant outliers Data points that fall outside of the typical pattern are considered outliers

All data points align with the expected pattern, showing frequency values for reading strategies between 1 and 5, and IELTS Reading Band Scores ranging from 5.5 to 9.0, indicating no significant outliers and satisfying assumption 7.

Summary

To sum up, the study employs a correlational research design with quantitative data collection and analysis methods Participants of the study are

A study involving 200 IELTS test takers, with overall band scores ranging from 5.5 to 8.0 in the Academic module, classified participants into B2 and C1 proficiency groups Data was collected using a self-report questionnaire featuring 30 items based on the Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS) by Mokhtari & Sheorey (2002), which categorized reading strategies into Global Reading Strategies (GLOB), Problem-Solving Strategies (PROB), and Support Reading Strategies (SUP) Descriptive statistics were utilized to analyze the mean frequencies of reading strategies for the first research question regarding the strategies employed by B2 and C1 test takers Additionally, a one-way analysis was conducted to explore potential differences in reading strategy usage between the two proficiency levels.

ANOVA was used to analyze the reading strategies employed by two groups of test takers To investigate the correlation between reading proficiency and the use of reading strategies in the IELTS reading test, the Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficient was applied Data analysis was conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, version 26.0).

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

What are the reading strategies employed by B2 and C1-leveled test takers

takers in the IELTS reading test?

Descriptive statistics reveal the mean frequencies of 30 reading strategies utilized by 200 test takers in the IELTS reading test These strategies are categorized into three groups, with the first group being GLOB (Global Reading).

Strategies), (2) PROB (Problem-Solving Strategies), and (3) SUP (Support

Reading Strategies) Based on mean values, strategies’ level of use is then identified as low, medium, or high according to the key to averages provided in

4.1.1 Test takers’ mean frequencies of using all the reading strategies and each subscale of strategies

This section highlights the key findings regarding the frequency with which test takers utilize reading strategies during the IELTS reading test The data is presented on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from "Never or almost never" to "Always or almost always."

(2) Occasionally, (3) Sometimes, (4) Usually, (5) Always or almost always

Table 4.1 shows the mean frequencies of overall 30 reading strategies and each subscale of strategies

The detailed table showing the mean and level of use of each strategy can be found in Appendix F.

Table 4.1 Test takers’ mean frequencies of using all the reading strategies and each subscale of strategies

Strategy Mean frequency Level of use

Table 4.1 illustrates the frequency of test takers' use of 30 reading strategies, revealing a medium overall usage level (M = 3.43) The most favored strategies among participants are Global Reading Strategies, followed by Problem-Solving Strategies and Support Reading Strategies These findings align with previous research conducted by Barrot (2016) and İpek (2015), which explored the reading strategies employed by L2 university students when engaging with academic texts.

The study reveals that Global Reading Strategies (M = 3.65) and Problem-Solving Strategies (M = 3.64) are utilized frequently by test takers, while Support Reading Strategies show medium usage (M = 2.94) Notably, the use of Global and Problem-Solving Strategies is nearly equal These results contrast with earlier research (e.g., Par, 2020; Hong-Nam & Page, 2014; Poole, 2008; Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001), which indicated a stronger preference for Problem-Solving Strategies among L2 adult learners in higher education, followed by Global and Support Reading Strategies.

Test takers demonstrate a strong awareness of various reading strategies, frequently utilizing top-down approaches to analyze texts globally They effectively preview content, activate prior knowledge, skim for main ideas, and utilize typographical features and graphic aids to understand the material Additionally, they set reading purposes, make predictions, and critically evaluate their readings When faced with challenging texts, they employ problem-solving strategies, engaging in bottom-up reading techniques like re-reading and pausing to regain comprehension While they occasionally use support mechanisms such as note-taking, paraphrasing, and translating, these are less frequently employed to enhance their understanding of the text.

The distribution of 30 reading strategies across three levels of use are demonstrated in Figure 4.1

Figure 4.1 The distribution of 30 reading strategies corresponding to three levels of use

High-use group Medium-use group Low-use group

The study reveals a diverse frequency of reading strategies, ranging from a high score of 4.00 for PROB_17 to a low score of 2.26 for SUP_23 (refer to Appendix F) Among the 30 strategies assessed, 16, representing 53.33%, are identified as high-use strategies.

In the analysis of reading strategies, 13 strategies (43.33%) fall into the medium-use category, while only one strategy (3.34%) is classified as low-use Notably, a significant majority of high-use strategies, accounting for 93.75%, are categorized as Global Reading Strategies (GLOB) and Problem-Solving Strategies (PROB), whereas most Support Reading Strategies (SUP) are predominantly of medium use.

Global Reading Strategies (GLOB) represent 62.5% of the most frequently used reading strategies Among these, the top strategies include utilizing context clues to enhance comprehension (GLOB_8, M = 3.88), establishing reading goals (GLOB_1, M = 3.87), and previewing main ideas (GLOB_3).

M = 3.85), using typographical aids to identify key points (GLOB_9, M = 3.77), predicting general ideas or theme while reading (GLOB_12, 3.71), checking understanding of new information (GLOB_11, M = 3.70), reading critically

(GLOB_10, M = 3.65), using graphic aids to increase understanding (GLOB_7,

The study reveals that the most utilized reading strategies among participants include selective reading (M = 3.64), activating prior knowledge (M = 3.59), and using background information (M = 3.63) Additionally, nearly a quarter of the medium-use group employs strategies such as evaluating the alignment of textual content with reading goals (M = 3.41), confirming predictions (M = 3.40), and previewing text characteristics.

Over 62.5% of Problem-Solving Strategies (PROB) are categorized as high-use, indicating that test takers actively engage in various techniques when comprehension becomes challenging These strategies include paying closer attention (PROB_17, M = 4.00), refocusing (PROB_15, M = 3.88), re-reading difficult sections (PROB_20, M = 3.87), guessing the meanings of unfamiliar terms (PROB_21, M = 3.84), and adjusting reading speed (PROB_16, M = 3.83) In contrast, 23.07% of the strategies fall into the medium-use category, which includes reading slowly for better understanding (PROB_14, M = 3.30), visualizing information for retention (PROB_19, M = 3.29), and pausing to reflect on the material.

The majority of Support Reading Strategies (SUP) (77,78%) belongs to medium-use group On the one hand, underlining or circling information

(SUP_24, M = 3.97) is the only Support Reading Strategy that falls into high-use group On the other hand, reading aloud when text difficulty increases (SUP_23,

M = 2.26) is the only low-use strategy among 30 items

In conclusion, test takers exhibit diverse patterns in their use of reading strategies, demonstrating awareness of nearly all strategies presented Global Reading Strategies, or metacognitive strategies, are utilized more frequently than other types, highlighting the test takers' efforts to manage and analyze texts comprehensively Additionally, Problem-Solving Strategies, formerly known as cognitive strategies, are used almost as often as Global Reading Strategies, indicating that test takers adjust their approaches to enhance comprehension when faced with challenging material In contrast, Support Reading Strategies are employed less frequently than the other two categories The upcoming section will detail the specific strategies with the highest and lowest usage among test takers.

4.1.2 The most and the least frequently used reading strategies

Table 4.2 presents a summary of the reading strategies utilized by 200 IELTS test takers, highlighting the five most frequently employed strategies in descending order and the five least used strategies in ascending order based on their means.

Table 4.2 The five most and least frequently used reading strategies

The five most frequently used reading strategies

Item Strategy type Strategy Mean Level of use

17 PROB Paying closer attention when text difficulty increases 4.00 High

24 SUP Underlining or circling information to memorize it 3.97 High

8 GLOB Using context clues to increase understanding 3.88 High

15 PROB Refocusing when losing concentration 3.88 High

1 GLOB Setting reading goal(s) 3.87 High

The five least frequently used reading strategies

Item Strategy type Strategy Mean Level of use

23 SUP Reading aloud when text difficulty increases 2.26 Low

28 SUP Self-questioning about the text 2.53 Medium

25 SUP Using reference materials (e.g., a dictionary) 2.78 Medium

26 SUP Paraphrasing for better understanding 2.86 Medium

At first glance, the five most used strategies come from all the three subscales, whereas all the five least used strategies fall into Support Reading Strategies

The data reveals that the highest mean frequencies in reading strategies are associated with increased attention to text difficulty (PROB_17, M = 4.00), actively underlining or circling key information for better retention (SUP_24, M = 3.97), utilizing context clues to enhance comprehension (GLOB_8, M = 3.88), refocusing when concentration wanes (PROB_15, M = 3.88), and establishing reading goals (GLOB_1).

M = 3.87) These findings are in line with several previous studies (e.g., Par,

In 2020, Mokhtari and Reichard identified that when readers face difficulties or lose focus, they often utilize specific strategies to regain their concentration Notably, three of the five most frequently employed strategies in their study align with those highlighted by Anderson in 2004 for EFL readers These strategies include enhancing attention during challenging texts (PROB_17), using underlining or circling to aid memorization (SUP_24), and refocusing after distractions (PROB_15) The significance of underlining or circling for memorization (SUP_24) is particularly emphasized.

M = 3.97) is the only Support Reading Strategy that falls into high-use group

By contrast, the least used strategies are reading aloud when text difficulty increases (SUP_23, M = 2.26), translating (SUP_29, M = 2.51), self-questioning about the text (SUP_28, M = 2.53), using reference materials (SUP_25,

M = 2.78), and paraphrasing (SUP_26, M = 2.86) All of these items belong to

Support Reading Strategies In this study, test takers employ Support Reading

Strategies less frequently compared to Global Reading Strategies and Problem-

Solving Strategies This does not follow a tendency suggested by Sheorey &

L2 learners exhibit a common preference for Support Reading Strategies, regardless of their first languages and cultural differences (Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001) These learners often utilize various supplemental tools to address challenges in their linguistic, discourse, and pragmatic skills, enhancing their text comprehension.

Mokhtari (2001), this study employs SORS to examine how L2 learners make use of reading strategies in a standardized test of English language proficiency

Are there any differences in the use of reading strategies of B2 and C1-leveled IELTS test takers?

This study investigates the relationship between test takers' proficiency levels and their use of reading strategies Participants are categorized into two distinct groups based on their proficiency: the higher-proficiency group (C1) and the lower-proficiency group (B2) According to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), individuals in these groups achieve specific scores on the IELTS, reflecting their overall language abilities.

Individuals scoring between 7.0 and 8.0 are classified at the C1 proficiency level, whereas those with scores from 5.5 to 6.5 fall within the B2 level A comparison of reading strategy usage reveals that higher-proficiency test takers employ these strategies more frequently than their lower-proficiency counterparts, highlighting effective patterns in strategy utilization.

4.2.1 Overall differences in the use of three subscales of reading strategies between B2 and C1-leveled IELTS test takers

Table 4.3 presents the results from the comparison between B2 and C1- leveled IELTS test takers with regard to their frequency of using three subscales of reading strategies

Table 4.3 Overall differences in the use of three subscales of reading strategies

Subscales used more frequently by higher-proficiency (C1) test takers

Subscale used more frequently by lower-proficiency (B2) test takers

Statistical analysis reveals significant differences in reading strategy usage between C1 and B2 test takers C1-level participants demonstrate a greater reliance on Global Reading Strategies and Problem-Solving Strategies compared to their B2-level counterparts In contrast, C1 test takers exhibit a mean score of 2.58 for Support Reading Strategies, indicating a distinct variation in strategic approaches to reading among different proficiency levels.

SD = 0.638) is smaller than that of B2-leveled test takers (M = 3.18, SD = 0.596) which indicates that Support Reading Strategies are used more frequently by

B2-leveled test takers It is also worth noting that the most widely-used strategies among C1-leveled test takers are Global Reading Strategies (M = 3.92,

SD = 0.471), whereas Problem-Solving Strategies are the highest-use subscale among B2-leveled test takers (M = 3.56, SD = 0.584)

C1-level test takers utilize Global Reading Strategies significantly more frequently than B2-level participants, with mean scores indicating high usage (M > 3.50, SD = 0.471, p < 0.001) compared to moderate usage (M < 3.50, SD = 0.483, p < 0.001) among B2 participants These findings align with previous studies, such as those by Ahmadian et al (2016), Hong-Nam & Page (2014), Prichard (2014), and Shokrpour & Nasiri (2011), which demonstrate that higher-proficiency individuals tend to employ Global Reading Strategies more effectively.

Ahmadian et al (2016) has found that higher-scoring IELTS candidates employ Global Reading Strategies more often than lower-scoring ones

Shokrpour and Nasiri (2011) investigate the cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies employed by Iranian academic IELTS test takers, revealing that those with higher proficiency levels tend to utilize metacognitive strategies more effectively.

Research indicates that proficient EFL university students utilize Global Reading Strategies more frequently than their lower-proficiency peers Studies by Hong-Nam & Page (2014) and Prichard (2014) highlight the reading strategies used by these students, revealing that skilled L2 adult readers tend to apply metacognitive strategies more often than those with lesser proficiency Prichard (2014) emphasizes that learners across all proficiency levels can gain advantages from implementing Global Reading Strategies.

Strategies Such top-down strategies can enhance efficient reading and is especially helpful for less proficient students

Higher-proficiency test takers (C1) utilize Problem-Solving Strategies more frequently (M = 3.75, SD = 0.506, p < 0.05) compared to lower-proficiency test takers (B2) (M = 3.56, SD = 0.584, p < 0.05), aligning with findings from several studies (Ahmadian et al., 2016; Prichard, 2014) This contrasts with Shokrpour & Nasiri (2011), who found no statistically significant difference in the use of these strategies between proficiency levels (p > 0.05) However, the current research indicates a significant difference (p < 0.05), suggesting that higher-proficiency test takers are better at recognizing noncomprehension, identifying confusion causes, and employing diverse strategies to address problems (Grabe, 2009).

Support Reading Strategies are the only preferred subscale among B2-level test takers, who report a medium usage (M > 2.5, SD = 0.596, p < 0.001) In contrast, C1-level test takers show a near-low usage of these strategies (M ≈ 2.5, SD = 0.638, p < 0.001), suggesting that higher proficiency correlates with a decreased reliance on Support Reading Strategies This trend aligns with the research findings of Ahmadian et al (2016) and Hong-Nam & Page (2014), which explore reading strategy usage among IELTS test takers in Iran and EFL university students in Korea, respectively.

4.2.2 Strategies used more frequently by higher-proficiency (C1) IELTS test takers

This section reveals the reading strategies predominantly employed by higher-proficiency (C1) test takers in the study, emphasizing effective patterns of strategy use in comparison to previous research conducted by linguists.

Table 4.4 Strategies used more frequently by higher-proficiency (C1)

Considering if textual content fits the reading goal(s)

5 GLOB Previewing characteristics of the text 3.46 1.169 3.15 967 049

7 GLOB Using graphic aids to increase understanding 3.88 1.095 3.48 961 008

8 GLOB Using context clues to increase understanding 4.21 706 3.66 855 000

9 GLOB Using typographical aids to identify key points 3.99 921 3.63 840 005

11 GLOB Checking understanding of new information 3.99 948 3.52 869 000

12 GLOB Predicting general ideas or theme while reading 4.03 914 3.50 1.077 000

Paying closer attention when text difficulty increases

Re-reading difficult parts to increase understanding

21 PROB Guess the meaning of unfamiliar terms 4.16 770 3.62 871 000

A study reveals that higher-proficiency (C1) and lower-proficiency (B2) test takers utilize reading strategies differently, with statistically significant differences across all three subscales of reading strategies The findings indicate that C1 level participants are more likely to employ 16 specific reading strategies compared to B2 level participants These strategies are categorized into Global Reading Strategies and Problem-Solving Strategies.

C1-level test takers utilize 12 out of 13 Global Reading Strategies (92.3%) and 4 out of 8 Problem-Solving Strategies (50%) more frequently than B2-level test takers The most commonly employed strategies in the study include PROB_17, GLOB_8, and GLOB_1 However, there is no statistically significant evidence indicating that C1-level test takers are more inclined to use any specific Support Reading Strategy.

Global Reading Strategies are utilized more frequently by C1-level test takers, with 12 out of 13 strategies in this subscale being favored These strategies encompass planning, which involves determining what actions to take and when, and monitoring, which includes tracking, checking, analyzing, evaluating, and reflecting on the reading process The study reveals that 92.3% of the strategies preferred by C1-level test takers fall under Global Reading Strategies, indicating a correlation between proficiency level and the use of these strategies, consistent with findings from Sheorey & Mokhtari (2001) and other studies (Ahmadian et al., 2016; Hong-Nam & Page, 2014; Prichard, 2014) that highlight the greater emphasis proficient L2 adult readers place on Global Reading Strategies compared to their less proficient counterparts.

In detail, C1-leveled test takers are more likely to set goals for reading

Higher-proficiency readers, as indicated by GLOB_1 (M = 4.24, SD = 0.680), not only comprehend and analyze texts but also set and adjust their reading goals, aligning with findings from Grabe & Stoller (2013) and Nordin et al (2013) Mokhtari & Sheorey (2002) emphasize the importance of GLOB_1 as a key strategy that all readers should adopt before engaging with texts, as varying reading purposes necessitate different approaches The IELTS reading test includes 11 task types that require skills such as inferring, predicting, and summarizing, assessing both overall comprehension and attention to details Therefore, establishing reading goals is crucial, as it serves as a metacognitive strategy that encourages readers to adapt their reading techniques—such as skimming, scanning, or careful reading—based on their understanding of the task requirements (Urquhart & Weir, 1998).

Higher-proficiency (C1) test takers exhibit a greater tendency to preview text characteristics (M = 3.46) and main ideas (M = 4.21) compared to lower-proficiency (B2) test takers, utilizing these planning strategies to enhance comprehension before reading According to Grellet (1987), analyzing a text's structure and characteristics, such as title and length, is essential for a global understanding This allows higher-proficiency test takers to quickly identify relevant sections and manage their reading time effectively Goldman & Rakestraw (2000) highlight the importance of understanding text structure for strategic processing Additionally, skimming key points enables test takers to grasp the overall context and activate prior knowledge of the subject matter.

C1-leveled test takers also use typographical aids to identify key points

Research indicates that higher proficiency test takers (GLOB_9, M = 3.99, SD = 0.921) utilize graphic aids more frequently (GLOB_7, M = 3.88, SD = 1.095) than those at the B2 level Visual elements can provide valuable clues regarding the title or content of a text, enhancing reading comprehension as supported by previous studies (Proctor et al., 2007; Lin & Chen, 2007; Jiang & Grabe, 2007) Consequently, individuals with advanced proficiency are more likely to recognize bold text, italics, tables, graphs, and images, which helps them identify key points and better understand the material.

Is there any correlation between reading proficiency and the use of reading

This research investigates the correlation between test takers' reading proficiency and their use of reading strategies in the IELTS Reading test The IELTS Reading Band Scores serve as an indicator of reading proficiency, while Pearson’s product-moment correlation was used to calculate correlation coefficients (r) To assess the strength of the association, Cohen’s guidelines for interpreting correlation magnitudes were applied The findings, detailing the relationship between reading proficiency and the reported use of 30 specific reading strategies, can be found in Appendix G.

4.3.1 Relationship between test takers’ reading proficiency and the overall use of reading strategies

Table 4.6 presents the results of Pearson’s product-moment correlation for the overall 30 reading strategy items and the three subscales of reading strategies

The article highlights two significant correlation coefficients marked with double asterisks (**), indicating a high level of statistical significance A single asterisk (*) signifies a correlation coefficient that is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed), representing a 95% confidence level In contrast, a double asterisk (**) denotes significance at the 0.01 level (2-tailed), equivalent to a 99% confidence level For a correlation coefficient to be deemed statistically significant, it must meet the criterion of p ≤ 0.05.

Table 4.6 Relationship between test takers’ reading proficiency and the overall use of reading strategies

Research indicates a significant correlation between test takers' reading proficiency and their use of Global Reading Strategies and Support Reading Strategies, suggesting these strategies may serve as predictors of reading success Conversely, there appears to be little to no correlation between reading proficiency and the application of all 30 reading strategies or Problem-Solving Strategies, as evidenced by p-values exceeding 0.05.

A medium positive correlation exists between test takers' reading proficiency and the use of Global Reading Strategies (r = 386 **, p < 0.001), indicating that as the use of these strategies increases, reading proficiency also rises This finding aligns with previous research on metacognitive reading strategies and reading achievement among EFL undergraduate students from diverse cultural backgrounds (Par, 2020; Zhang & Seepho, 2013) Conversely, a significant negative correlation is observed between reading proficiency and Support Reading Strategies (r = -.580 **, p < 0.001), suggesting that as reading proficiency improves, the reliance on Support Reading Strategies decreases.

The study revealed no significant correlation between test takers' reading proficiency and their overall use of 30 reading strategy items (p > 0.05) Statistically significant correlations were found only with specific types of reading strategies, such as Global Reading Strategies and Support Reading Strategies This indicates that merely employing a variety of reading strategies does not reliably predict reading achievement Effective strategic reading requires critical analysis and the ability to apply corrective feedback on strategy use Proficient readers understand when and how to implement different strategies and can effectively coordinate their application (Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001; Anderson, 1991) Furthermore, despite previous findings suggesting differences in the use of Problem-Solving Strategies between higher and lower-proficiency test takers, there was minimal statistical evidence for a linear relationship between reading proficiency and the application of these strategies (p > 0.05).

4.3.2 Correlations between test takers’ reading proficiency and the use of certain specific reading strategies

There are statistically significant correlations between test takers' reading proficiency and the frequencies of using 22 out of 30 investigated reading strategies These includes 12 positive correlations and 10 negative ones

4.3.2.1 Positive correlations between test takers’ reading proficiency and the use of certain specific reading strategies

Table 4.7 presents the reading strategies having positive correlations with test takers’ reading proficiency The strategies are shown in descending order of the correlation coefficients

Table 4.7 Positive correlations between test takers’ reading proficiency and the use of certain specific reading strategies

1 GLOB Setting reading goal(s) 380 ** Medium 000

16 PROB Adjusting reading speed 346 ** Medium 000

8 GLOB Using context clues to increase understanding 305 ** Medium 000

21 PROB Guess the meaning of unfamiliar terms 287 ** Small 000

11 GLOB Checking understanding of new information 283 ** Small 000

3 GLOB Previewing main ideas 267 ** Small 000

Considering if textual content fits the reading goal(s)

7 GLOB Using graphic aids to increase understanding 154 * Small 030

2 GLOB Activating and using prior knowledge 143 * Small 044

9 GLOB Using typographical aids to identify key points 139 * Small 050

Table 4.7 reveals that 12 reading strategies are positively correlated with test takers' reading proficiency Among these, 5 strategies show medium correlations (41.67%), while 7 strategies exhibit small correlations (58.33%) Notably, Global Reading Strategies account for the majority at 83.33%, with the remaining strategies categorized as Problem-Solving.

Research indicates that Global Reading Strategies are increasingly utilized as test takers' reading proficiency improves, supporting previous findings that these planning and monitoring techniques can effectively predict reading proficiency (Grabe, 2014) In contrast, there are no positive correlations associated with Support Reading Strategies.

The reading strategies that have medium positive correlations with reading proficiency are setting reading goal(s) (GLOB_1, r = 380**, p < 0.001), adjusting reading speed (PROB_16, r = 346**, p < 0.001), using context clues to increase understanding (GLOB_8, r = 305**, p < 0.001), reading selectively

Research indicates that strategies such as GLOB_6 (r = 304**, p < 0.001) and GLOB_10 (r = 297**, p < 0.001) are crucial for proficient readers, often employed instinctively at first According to Grabe (2014), these strategies are typically used without much conscious thought, but when initial strategies fail to yield adequate comprehension, readers shift to a more deliberate problem-solving approach The effective application of these strategies can serve as predictors of reading proficiency among test takers Therefore, it is vital for individuals to recognize and utilize these strategies appropriately to enhance their reading performance Additionally, establishing clear reading goals can further support this process.

(GLOB_1), reading selectively (GLOB_6), and reading critically (GLOB_10) are considered key reading strategies that foster comprehension (Baker, 2002; Pressley & Block, 2002)

Setting reading goals is strongly correlated with reading proficiency (GLOB_1, r = 380**, p < 0.001), indicating that proficient L2 readers can effectively determine their reading purposes and adapt their reading strategies accordingly In contrast, unskilled L2 readers struggle to adjust their processing modes to meet varying reading objectives (Koda, 2005) While the IELTS provides band descriptors for productive skills like Speaking and Writing, it lacks similar descriptors for receptive skills such as Listening and Reading.

The CEFR outlines that B2 level readers should be capable of scanning texts for relevant information, comprehending detailed content, and identifying the main points effectively (Council of Europe 2001).

At the C1 level, readers must read quickly to meet the demands of an academic course, demonstrating both efficient and careful global reading skills This requires the ability to switch between different reading modes based on specific goals, indicating a higher level of adaptability for proficient candidates To improve reading performance, it is crucial for test takers to establish clear reading goals.

Likewise, adjusting reading speed (PROB_16, r = 346**, p < 0.001) is essential for the improvement of reading proficiency This strategy is considered

According to Oxford et al (2004), reading involves a metacognitive, planning-related strategy, while Sheorey & Mokhtari (2001) describe it as a cognitive strategy Readers engage in various reading types based on their goals, and failing to adapt their reading speed and strategies can hinder effective comprehension Grellet (1981) notes that processing all texts uniformly can lead to wasted time and missed information Skilled readers can adjust their reading speed to meet the text's demands, whether for quick scanning or careful analysis Koda (2005) emphasizes that reading speed issues are symptoms of deeper processing problems, suggesting that simply urging struggling readers to read faster is ineffective Instead, frequent exposure to diverse reading levels is essential for developing the flexibility needed to enhance reading fluency.

Using context clues significantly enhances reading proficiency, particularly for B2 and C1 level readers, who begin to integrate textual content and comprehend abstract texts with sophisticated language According to Weir & Khalifa (2008), context serves two main purposes: to aid decoding when it is inadequate and to enhance the meaning derived from a text As proficiency increases, test takers encounter a greater demand for complex vocabulary, requiring them to grasp a wider range of lexical items Higher proficiency levels necessitate the ability to understand nuanced emotional and conceptual language, which can lead to polysemy challenges Therefore, success in reading assessments hinges not only on a broad vocabulary but also on the ability to deduce meanings from context.

Selective reading is positively linked to reading proficiency, highlighting the importance of knowing what to read and what to ignore Bax (2013) utilized eye-tracking technology to analyze the reading behaviors of Malaysian undergraduates during a mock IELTS test, revealing that less proficient test takers struggled with larger text chunks, which hindered their ability to find answers In contrast, proficient readers quickly identified relevant sections and focused on them to extract necessary information Successful candidates demonstrated better skills in matching words and synonyms between questions and the text, underscoring the advantages of extensive vocabulary development and the ability to recognize various lexical connections.

Critical reading skills are significantly linked to reading proficiency (GLOB_10, r = 297**, p < 0.001), highlighting the importance of enhancing one's ability to analyze and evaluate texts To improve reading proficiency, test takers must learn to differentiate between facts and opinions, recognize biases, and understand the writer's intentions Developing these skills will enable individuals to make better inferences and ultimately enhance their performance in reading assessments.

Furthermore, 7 strategies are found to have small positive correlations with reading proficiency These are guessing the meaning of unfamiliar terms

(PROB_21, r = 287 ** , p < 0.001), checking understanding of new information

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Conclusions

The research data generated by descriptive statistics, one-way ANOVA, and the Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficient has yielded significant findings that shed light on the three research questions

5.1.1 Reading strategies employed by B2 and C1-leveled test takers in the IELTS reading test

The overall strategy use among IELTS test takers is reported at a medium level, with participants employing 30 reading strategies that vary in frequency from a high of 4.00 to a low of 2.26 This reflects a general awareness of the reading strategies available Notably, 16 out of the 30 strategies are used at a high level, representing 53.33%, while 13 strategies are employed at a medium level, accounting for 43.33% Only one strategy, reading aloud, is utilized at a low level, categorized under Support Reading Strategies.

Among the three subscales of reading strategies, Global Reading Strategies are the most frequently utilized, followed by Problem-Solving Strategies and Support Reading Strategies This indicates that test takers predominantly employ top-down strategies to analyze texts holistically Key techniques include previewing the text, activating background knowledge, skimming for gist, and utilizing typographical elements, which enable readers to quickly understand the overall meaning Additionally, test takers set reading goals, make predictions, and critically evaluate their readings When focus wanes or comprehension falters, they resort to Problem-Solving Strategies to regain concentration Conversely, Support Reading Strategies are the least used, with the exception of underlining or circling key information.

Test takers demonstrate a minimal reliance on support mechanisms and external resources when engaging with the text This includes strategies such as reading aloud, translating, self-questioning, utilizing reference materials like dictionaries, and paraphrasing.

5.1.2 Differences in the use of reading strategies of B2 and C1-leveled IELTS test takers

Statistical analysis reveals significant differences between B2 and C1-level IELTS test takers in their application of reading strategies Higher-proficiency C1 test takers are more inclined to utilize Global Reading Strategies and Problem-Solving Strategies Notably, they employ 16 specific reading strategies with greater frequency than their B2 counterparts.

This article discusses 12 essential global reading strategies that enhance comprehension and engagement, including setting reading purposes, previewing text structure, identifying key points, and recognizing typographical elements and graphic aids It emphasizes the importance of making predictions, checking those predictions, and evaluating whether the text aligns with reading goals Additionally, it highlights the need for critical analysis, contextual understanding, and verifying comprehension of new information Furthermore, it outlines 4 effective problem-solving strategies preferred by C1-level test takers when facing comprehension challenges: adjusting reading speed, maintaining focused concentration, re-reading difficult sections, and making educated guesses for unfamiliar words These insights reveal successful patterns in reading strategy application.

Lower-proficiency (B2) test takers favor Support Reading Strategies, utilizing seven specific techniques more frequently than higher-proficiency (C1) test takers These include one Problem-Solving Strategy and six Support Reading Strategies B2 level test takers typically read more slowly and carefully to enhance comprehension, often taking notes, reading aloud, translating, using dictionaries, and asking questions about the text They frequently switch between Vietnamese and English This trend illustrates a shift in preferences from Support Reading Strategies to Global Reading Strategies and certain Problem-Solving Strategies as reading proficiency improves.

5.1.3 Correlations between reading proficiency and the use of reading strategies of test takers in the IELTS reading test

Research indicates minimal correlation between test takers' reading proficiency and the use of a total of 30 reading strategies, including Problem-Solving Strategies However, there are statistically significant correlations between reading proficiency and the application of Global Reading Strategies, Support Reading Strategies, and 22 specific reading strategies.

Global Reading Strategies exhibit a medium positive correlation with reading proficiency, indicating that as test takers' reading skills improve, they are more likely to utilize these strategies This aligns with previous research by Grabe (2014), which suggests that planning and monitoring strategies are effective predictors of reading proficiency Conversely, Support Reading Strategies demonstrate a significant negative correlation with reading proficiency, suggesting that as individuals become more proficient readers, their reliance on these support strategies diminishes.

The correlation coefficients of various strategies exhibit a wide range of effect sizes, with 12 positive and 10 negative correlations identified Among the positive correlations, there are 5 medium positive correlations (GLOB_1, GLOB_6, GLOB_8, GLOB_10, PROB_16) and 7 small positive correlations (PROB_21, GLOB_2, GLOB_3, GLOB_4, GLOB_7, GLOB_9, GLOB_11) Notably, the majority of these positive correlations are attributed to Global Reading Strategies, which facilitate planning and monitoring for comprehensive text analysis, while a smaller portion focuses on adjusting reading speed and interpreting unfamiliar vocabulary to enhance comprehension.

Negative correlations were found for many Support Reading Strategies and Problem-Solving Strategies related to careful reading and reflection, including three large negative correlations (SUP_25, SUP_29, SUP_30), two medium (SUP_23, SUP_28), and five small (SUP_22, SUP_26, SUP_27, PROB_14, PROB_18) This trend is expected, as these strategies tend to slow reading speed significantly Under standardized testing conditions, using dictionaries or reading aloud is not feasible, necessitating consistent practice in exam-like settings without external resources to manage time effectively and achieve desired results Additionally, strategies such as self-questioning, note-taking, and reflecting are challenging and require proficiency to execute correctly The findings suggest that lower-proficiency test takers utilize these strategies more frequently but do not apply them as effectively as their higher-proficiency counterparts.

Implications

Based on the findings, several practical implications are proposed to support IELTS instructors in enhancing reading instruction and to help test takers improve their reading proficiency for achieving their desired band score Additionally, these implications are designed to assist ESL/EFL teachers and students in the broader context of teaching and learning reading comprehension.

Raising awareness of reading strategies, particularly Global Reading Strategies, is crucial as they significantly correlate with reading proficiency By showcasing various strategies utilized by higher-proficiency test takers, this study offers valuable guidance for lower-proficiency readers facing comprehension challenges Establishing reading goals, adjusting reading speed, previewing key points, and critically analyzing texts are essential practices Additionally, leveraging background knowledge, context clues, and visual aids can help readers identify main ideas and enhance understanding Effective strategy use not only boosts reading comprehension but also empowers low-proficiency readers to become more strategic and thoughtful This research provides empirical support for integrating reading strategy instruction in EFL classrooms to improve learners' reading proficiency.

Higher-proficiency readers may not require the same support reading strategies as lower-proficiency readers Research indicates that many strategies, such as translating, switching between English and Vietnamese, using reference materials, reading aloud, and paraphrasing, show negative correlations with reading proficiency This suggests that as readers improve, the need for these strategies diminishes By understanding the characteristics and preferences of readers at various proficiency levels, IELTS instructors and EFL teachers can tailor their strategy instructions to enhance the effectiveness of these approaches.

The effectiveness of reading strategies, such as self-questioning, reflecting, and note-taking, is context-dependent (Ehrman et al., 2003) While these Support Reading Strategies are often utilized by lower-proficiency readers, they tend to have a negative correlation with reading proficiency This indicates that less skilled readers rely on these strategies more frequently, yet their application is less efficient compared to proficient readers Conversely, proficient readers use these strategies less often but apply them more effectively, resulting in better comprehension Therefore, it is crucial to train students in the effective use of these advanced reading strategies to enhance their reading skills.

Research highlights the importance of developing strategic readers rather than merely implementing various reading strategies mechanically Understanding reading strategies is insufficient; readers must effectively apply and integrate these strategies during their reading process Proficient readers excel at both utilizing and monitoring their reading strategies, which necessitates a flexible combination for effective comprehension Despite the introduction of reading strategies in L2 textbooks, they are rarely presented in purposeful combinations aimed at specific goals Therefore, a reading curriculum that focuses on training strategic readers, rather than just isolated strategy instruction, is essential for L2 readers to achieve optimal benefits Reading strategy instruction should extend beyond traditional textbook approaches.

Further theoretical and empirical research is essential to enhance the teaching and learning of reading modules in international English language proficiency tests, such as IELTS, and to improve L2 reading comprehension overall In Vietnam, the field of reading strategy training is still developing While training in metacognitive reading strategies may not fully address the challenges faced by IELTS test takers and EFL university students in reading comprehension, it significantly influences their understanding and application of effective reading strategies.

Limitations of the study

Due to time constraint and limited research conditions, some limitations of the study are recognized to elucidate the boundaries of the study

The study involved 200 non-English major undergraduate IELTS test takers at B2 and C1 levels according to the CEFR, indicating a high level of English proficiency and medium metacognitive strategy awareness among participants However, the findings cannot be generalized to all EFL students in Vietnam or global IELTS test takers A larger sample size and diverse contexts could yield more precise results.

The study examines test takers' strategy use, taking into account various factors such as age, gender, social and educational backgrounds By considering influential elements like sociocultural backgrounds, personalities, learning styles, motivations, and attitudes, the research aims to gather richer data and generate new hypotheses Additionally, analyzing strategy use across different reading text types and task types in the IELTS reading test can yield more comprehensive insights into test takers' strategies.

The research utilizes the taxonomy of reading strategies proposed by Mokhtari & Sheorey (2002), incorporating 30 items from the SORS framework While this approach is comprehensive, it is important to note that other reading strategies may exist, and categorizing them can be challenging The distinction between metacognitive and cognitive strategies, specifically Global Reading Strategies and Problem-Solving Strategies, is often blurred, as highlighted by Cohen (1998) For instance, adapting reading speed is considered a cognitive strategy, specifically a Problem-Solving Strategy, according to Mokhtari & Sheorey.

(2002) but a metacognitive, planning-related strategy (i.e., Global Reading Strategy) by Oxford et al (2004) That is to say, the relativity of reading strategy categorization is inevitable

Mokhtari & Sheorey (2002) highlight that the SORS, being a self-report measure, raises questions about the actual implementation of the strategies claimed by test takers This creates a limitation due to the discrepancy between participants' perceived use of strategies and their actual application in practice.

Suggestions for further studies

This study aims to enhance the understanding of reading strategies and their impact on reading comprehension for IELTS instructors, test takers, and ESL/EFL educators and learners While it provides valuable insights, it also highlights the need for further research in this area.

To enhance the reliability of the study's findings, it is crucial to conduct research with a larger sample size and include test takers across all levels of English language proficiency Additionally, a diverse research sample ensures that the results can be effectively applied in various educational contexts.

Future research should explore additional factors influencing ESL/EFL learners' reading proficiency, including age, gender, cultural background, motivation, attitude, and the duration of exposure to reading strategy instruction By examining these elements, studies can yield richer data and generate new hypotheses.

Future research should explore alternative taxonomies of reading strategies to overcome the limitations of the SORS framework (Mokhtari & Sheorey, 2002) Additionally, employing diverse research methods like think-aloud protocols, semi-structured interviews, or eye-tracking can help reconcile the disparity between participants' perceived use and their actual application of reading strategies.

Research into ESL/EFL teachers and students' perceptions of reading strategy instruction in classroom settings is essential The effectiveness of reading strategy instruction presents a valuable area for study, where experimental research could assess the impact of strategy training sessions on participants' reading proficiency Additionally, exploring the strategy use of test takers in other English language skills, including listening, speaking, and writing, is also significant.

Word count (main text): 25,777 words

Aebersold, J A and Field, M L (1997) From reader to reading teacher:

Issues and strategies for second language classrooms Cambridge:

Ahmadian, M., Poulaki, S., & Farahani, E (2016) Reading Strategies Used by

High Scoring and Low Scoring IELTS Candidates: A Think-aloud Study Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(2), 408

Alderson, J C (2000) Assessing reading Cambridge: Cambridge University

Alexander, P & Jetton, T L (2000) Learning from text: A multidimensional and developmental perspective In M Kamil, P Mosenthal, P D Pearson and R Barr (eds), Handbook of reading research, Vol III (pp 285–310) New York: Longman

Anderson, J R (2009) Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications (7th ed.)

Anderson, N J (1991) Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing The Modern Language Journal, 75(4),

Anderson, N J (1999) Exploring Second Language Reading: Issues and

Anderson, N J (2003) Teaching reading In D Nunan (Ed.), Practical

English language teaching (pp 67-86) New York: McGraw-Hill

Anderson, N J (2004) Metacognitive Reading Strategy Awareness of ESL and EFL Learners The CATESOL Journal, 16(1), 11–28

In "Effects of two types of input modification and self-questioning on level 7 students’ comprehension of science texts," Angeles (2008) explores how different instructional strategies influence students' understanding of scientific material The study highlights the significance of input modification and self-questioning techniques in enhancing comprehension among level 7 learners By examining these pedagogical approaches, the research contributes valuable insights into effective teaching methods for improving students' engagement and retention of science content This work is included in the book edited by Deng and Seow, which focuses on innovative teaching practices in English language and communication classrooms.

Centre for English Language Communication, NUS

Artley, S (1961) What is reading: A report on elementary education Chicago:

Baker, L (2002) Metacognition in comprehension instruction In C Block &

M Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp 77-95) New York: Guilford Press

Barrot, J S (2016) ESL learners’ use of reading strategies across different text types The Asia-Pacific Edu Researcher, 25(5), 883-892

Bax, S (2013) Readers’ cognitive processes during IELTS reading tests: evidence from eye tracking ELT Research Papers 13-06

Birch, B M (2014) English L2 reading: Getting to the bottom New York:

Block, c., & Pressley, M (2007) Best practices in teaching comprehension In

L Gambrell, L Morrow & M Pressley (Eds.), Best practices in literacy instruction (3rd ed., pp 220-242) New York: Guilford Press

Block, E L (1992) See How They Read: Comprehension Monitoring of L1 and L2 Readers TESOL Quarterly, 26, 319-343

Bloomfield, L (1942) Linguistics and reading The Elementary English

Brown, H D (2007) Principles of language learning and teaching New

Brunfaut, T & McCray, G (2015) Looking into test-takers’ cognitive processing while completing reading tasks: A mixed-method eye- tracking and stimulated recall study British Council English Language

Cain, K (2010) Reading Development and Difficulties Wiley-Blackwell

Carver, R.P (1992) Reading Rate: theory, research and practical implications

Chalmers, J., & Walkinshaw, I (2014) Reading strategies in IELTS tests:

Prevalence and impact on outcomes English Australia Journal, 30(1),

Chamot, A U (2005) The Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach

(CALLA): An update In P A Richard-Amato & M A Snow (Eds.),

Academic success for English language learners: Strategies for K-12 main-stream teachers (pp 87-101) New York: Longman

Cohen, A (1998) Strategies in learning and using a second language (2nd ed.) New York: Longman

Cohen, A D., & Upton, T A (2006) Strategies in responding to the new

TOEFL reading tasks Princeton, NJ: ETS

Cohen, J (1992) Quantitative Methods in Psychology: A Power Primer

Council of Europe (CoE) (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages Learning, Teaching, Assessment Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Cromer, W (1970) The difference model: A new explanation for some reading difficulties Journal of Educational Psychology, 61(6), 471-483

Dửrnyei, Z (2007) Research Methods in Applied Linguistics Oxford: Oxford

Ehrman, M., Leaver, B & Oxford, R (2003) A brief overview of individual differences in second language learning System, 31(3), 313-330

Friesen, D., & Haigh, C (2018) How and Why Strategy Instruction Can

Improve Second Language Reading Comprehension: A Review

Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 18(1), 1-18

Genesee, F., Geva, E., Dressler, C., & Kamil, M (2006) Synthesis: Cross- linguistic relationships In D August & T Shanahan (Eds.),

Developing literacy in second language learners (pp 153-174)

George, D., & Mallery, P (2003) SPSS for Windows Step By Step: A Simple

Guide and Reference (11.0 Update) Boston: Allyn & Bacon

Goldman, S R & Rakestraw, J A., Jr (2000) Structural aspects of constructing meaning from text In M Kamil, P Mosenthal, P D Pearson and R Barr (eds), Handbook of reading research, Vol III (pp 311-35) New York: Longman

Goodman, K (1976) Reading: A Psycholinguistic Guessing Game In H

Singer & R Ruddell (eds) Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading Newark, Del.: International Reading Association

Gough, P (1972) One Second of Reading In J Kavanagh & I Mattingly (eds)

Language by Ear and by Eye: The Relationships between Speech and Reading Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp 331-358

Grabe, W (1991) Current developments in second language reading research

Grabe, W (2002) Reading in a second language In R B Kaplan (Ed.), The

Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp 49-59) New York: Oxford

Grabe, W (2004) Research on Teaching Reading Annual Review of Applied

Grabe, W (2009) Reading in a Second Language: Moving from Theory to

Practice Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Grabe, W (2014) Key issues in L2 reading development In X Deng & R

Seow (Eds.), Alternative pedagogies in the English language and communication classroom (pp 8-18) Singapore: Centre for English

Grabe, W., & Stoller, F L (2013) Teaching and researching reading, second edition In Teaching and Researching Reading, Second Edition

Green, A (2014) Exploring Language Assessment and Testing: Language in action London, New York: Routledge

Grellet, F (1987) Developing Reading Skills Cambridge: Cambridge

Grellet, F (1981) Developing Reading Skills: A Practical Guide to Reading

Comprehension Exercises Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Hong-Nam, K., (2014) ELL High School Students’ Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategy Use and Reading Proficiency The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 18(1), 1-6

Hong-Nam, K., & Page, L (2014) Investigating metacognitive awareness and reading strategy use of EFL Korean university students Reading Psychology, 35(3), 195-220

Hudson, T (2007) Teaching second language reading New York: Oxford

Hughes, A (1993b) Testing the ability to infer when reading in a second or foreign language Journal of English and Foreign Languages, 10(11), 13-22

The IELTS Guide for Teachers provides essential insights into the test format, scoring system, and effective strategies for preparing students for the IELTS exam It is a valuable resource for educators aiming to enhance their students' performance Additionally, İpek (2015) explores the correlation between foreign language reading strategies and reading proficiency among Turkish EFL learners, highlighting the importance of tailored reading approaches in language acquisition Together, these resources emphasize the significance of understanding test structures and employing effective teaching methodologies to improve language proficiency.

Jenkins, R J., Fuchs, L., Broek, P., Espin, C., & Deno, S L (2003) Accuracy and fluency in list and context reading of skilled and RD groups: Absolute and relative performance levels Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 237-245

Jiang, X., & Grabe, W (2007) Graphic organizers in reading instruction:

Research findings and issues Reading in a Foreign Language, 19, 34-

Jordan, R.R (1997) English for Academic Purposes: a guide and resource book for teachers Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Just, M A., & Carpenter, P A (1980) A theory of reading from eye fixations to comprehension Psychological Review, 87(4), 329-354

Khalifa, H., & Weir, C J (2009) Examining reading: Research and practice in assessing second language reading Cambridge: Cambridge

Kirby, J R & Savage, R S (2008) Can the simple view deal with the complexities of reading? Literacy, 42, 75–82

Koda, K (2005) Insights into second language reading New York:

Koda, K (2007) Reading and language learning: Crosslinguistic constraints on second language reading development In K Koda (Ed.), Reading and language learning (pp 1-44) Special issue of Language Learning Supplement, 57, 1-44

Kummin, S., & Rahman, S (2010) The relationship between the use of meta- problem-solving strategies and achievement in English Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 7(C), 145-150

Li, F (2010) A study of English reading strategies used by senior middle school students Asian Social Science, 6(10), 184

Lin, H., & Chen, T (2007) Reading authentic EFL text using visualization and advanced organizers in a multimedia learning environment Language Learning & Technology, 11(3), 83-106

McNamara, D., & Kintsch, W (1996) Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence Discourse Processes, 22, 247-88

McNamara, D., Kintsch, E., Songer, N., & Kintsch, W (1996) Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from texts Cognition & Instruction, 14, 1-43

Mokhtari, K & Sheorey, R (2008b) Summary, implications, and future directions In K Mokhtari and R Sheorey (eds), Reading strategies of first- and second-language: See how they read (pp 215–28) Norwood,

Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C A (2002) Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies Journal of Educational Psychology

Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C A (2004) Investigating the strategic reading processes of first and second language readers in two different cultural contexts System, 32(3), 379–394

Mokhtari, K., & Sheorey, R (2002) Measuring ESL students’ awareness of reading strategies Journal of developmental education, 25(3), 2

Mokhtari, K., Dimitrov, D M., & Reichard, C A (2018) Revising the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies inventory (MARSI) and testing for factorial invariance Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8(2 Special Issue), 219–246

Nordin, N M., Rashid, S., Zubir, S I S., & Sadjirin, R (2013) Differences in reading strategies: How ESL learners really read Procedia- Social and

Nuttall, C.E (1996) Teaching reading skills in a foreign language Oxford:

Oxford, R., Cho, Y., Leung, S., & Kim, H J (2004) Effect of the presence and difficulty of task on strategy use: An exploratory study IRAL, 42, 1-47

OʼSullivan, B., & Weir, C.J (2011) Test development and validation In B

OʼSullivan (Ed.), Language testing theories and practices (pp 13-32) Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan

Pani, S (2004) Reading strategy instruction through mental modeling ELT

Par, L (2020) The relationship between reading strategies and reading achievement of the EFL students International Journal of Instruction,

Paris, S G., Wasik, B., & Turner, J (1991) The development of strategic readers In R Barr et al (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol II, pp 609-40) New York: Longman

Phakiti, A (2003) A closer look at the relationship of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use to EFL reading achievement test performance Language Testing, 20(1), 26-56

Poole, A (2005) Gender differences in reading strategy use among ESL college students Journal of College Reading and Learning, 36(1), 7-

Poole, A (2008) Awareness of reading strategies among male and female college students when reading online Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction 15(1), 127-140

Pressley, M (2002) Metacognition and self-regulated comprehension In A

Farstrup & S Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp 291-309) Newark, NJ: International Reading

Pressley, M (2006) Reading instruction that works (3rd ed.) New York:

Pressley, M., & Block, C (2002) Summing up: What comprehension instruction could be In C Block and M Pressley (Eds.),

Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp 383-

Pressley, M., Gaskins, I., and Fingeret, L (2006) discuss the importance of effective instruction and development strategies for enhancing reading fluency in struggling readers In their contribution to the book edited by Samuels and Farstrup, they highlight research-based approaches that can significantly improve fluency skills Their findings emphasize the need for targeted interventions and instructional practices to support students who face challenges in reading, ultimately aiming to foster greater literacy success.

Prichard, C (2014) Reading Strategy Use of Low- and High-Proficiency

Learners and the Effect of Reading Instruction 115-122

Proctor, P., Dalton, B., & Grisham, D (2007) Scaffolding English language learners and struggling readers in a universal literacy environment with embedded strategy instruction and vocabulary support Journal of Literacy Research, 39(1), 79-93

Sargent, S., Smith, M., Hill, N., Morrison, S., & Burgess (2010) What’s Old is

New Again: Is the Foundation of Comprehension Still Solid? In Szabo, Sampson, Foote, & Falk-Ross (Eds.), Mentoring Literacy Professionals: Continuing the Spirit of CRA/ ALER After 50 Years

College Reading Association Yearbook, (Vol 31, pp 361-373)

Schiff, R., & Calif, S (2004) An academic intervention program for EFL university students with reading disabilities Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48(2), 102-113

Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K (2001) Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among native and non-native readers

Shikano, M (2013) A quantitative survey on metacognitive awareness of reading strategy use in English by Japanese university students

Shikano, M (2015) Second Language Readers’ Gender, Major, and Reading

Strategy Use Academia, Literature and Language, 98, 41-59

Shokrpour, N., & Nasiri, E (2011) The use of cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies by Iranian IELTS test takers in the reading section of the test European Journal of Social Science, 22(1), 126-134

Silberstein, S (1994) Techniques and resources in teaching reading Oxford:

Stauffer, R G (1969) Directing reading maturity as a cognitive process New

Sullivan, G M., & Artino, A R., Jr (2013) Analyzing and interpreting data from Likert-type scales Journal of graduate medical education, 5(4),

Trabasso, T., & Bouchard, E (2002) Teaching readers how to comprehend texts strategically In C Block & M Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp 176-200) New York:

Urquhart, A & Weir, C (1998) Reading in a second language: process, product and practice London: Longman

Urquhart, A H., & Weir, C J (2014) Reading in a Second Language: Process, product and practice In Reading in a Second Language: Process, Product and Practice (Vol 148)

Watkins, P (2018) Teaching and Developing Reading Skills: Cambridge

Handbooks for Language Teachers (2nd ed.) Cambridge: Cambridge

Weir, C J., Hawkey, R Green, T., Devi, S (2009) The cognitive processes underlying the academic reading construct as measured by IELTS

Research Reports, 9, 157-189, British Council/IDP Australia

Weir, C., & Khalifa, H (2008) A cognitive processing approach towards defining reading comprehension Cambridge ESOL: Research Notes,

Yau, J L (2009) Reading characteristics of Chinese-English adolescents: knowledge and application of strategic reading Metacognition

Yükselir, C (2014) An investigation into the reading strategy use of EFL prep-class students Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 158,

Zhang, L J (2001) Awareness in reading: EFL students’ metacognitive knowledge of reading strategies in an acquisition-poor environment

Zhang, L., & Seepho, S (2013) Metacognitive Strategy Use and Academic

Reading Achievement: Insights from a Chinese Context Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 10(l), 54-69

Zhang, X., & Guo, L (2019) Cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies training in EFL reading Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 428, 110-114

APPENDIX A: BACKGROUND INFORMATION OF PARTICIPANTS

Computer Science (CSE) Finance and Accounting (BFA) Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) Mechanical Engineering (MEN)

Civil Engineering (BCE)Architecture (ARC)

A.3 The last time taking the IELTS test

9 Expert user Has fully operational command of the language: appropriate, accurate and fluent with complete understanding

Has fully operational command of the language with only occasional unsystematic inaccuracies and inappropriate words Misunderstandings may occur in unfamiliar situations Handles complex detailed argumentation well

Has operational command of the language, though with occasional inaccuracies, inappropriate words and misunderstandings in some situations Generally handles complex language well and understands detailed reasoning

Has generally effective command of the language despite some inaccuracies, inappropriate words and misunderstandings Can use and understand fairly complex language particularly in familiar situations

Possessing a partial command of the language, individuals can grasp the overall meaning in various situations, despite frequently making mistakes They are capable of managing basic communication within their specific field.

Basic competence is limited to familiar situations Has frequent problems in understanding and expression Is not able to use complex language

Conveys and understands only general meaning in very familiar situations Frequent breakdowns in communication occur

Effective communication is limited to basic information conveyed through isolated words or short phrases in familiar contexts, primarily to address immediate needs Individuals experience significant challenges in comprehending both spoken and written English.

1 Non user Essentially has no ability to use the language beyond possibly a few isolated words

0 Did not attempt the test No assessable information provided

APPENDIX C: FORMAT OF THE IELTS READING TEST

(Retrieved from https://www.ielts.org)

IELTS Academic IELTS General Training Timing 60 minutes (no extra transfer time)

The article discusses the diverse range of question types utilized in assessments, including multiple choice, true/false/not given, and identifying a writer's views with yes/no/not given options It also highlights matching tasks such as information, headings, features, and sentence endings, along with various completion formats like sentence, summary, note, table, flowchart, and diagram label completion, as well as short-answer questions.

There are 3 sections The total text length is 2,150 - 2,750 words

Three long texts for 3 sections

- Section 3: one longer and more complex text

- Authentic texts taken from books, journals, magazines and newspapers, written for non- specialist audiences

- Texts range from the descriptive and factual to the discursive and analytical

- Texts may contain non-verbal materials such as diagrams, graphs or illustrations

- If texts contain technical terms, then a simple glossary is provided

- Authentic texts taken from notices, advertisements, company handbooks, official documents, books, magazines and newspapers

Texts have been written on academic topics of general interest

Topics are relevant to everyday life in an English-speaking country, work-related issues and general interest

A wide range of reading skills are assessed, including:

• reading for gist • reading for main ideas • reading for detail • understanding inferences and implied meaning • recognizing writer’s opinions, attitudes and purpose • following the development of an argument

Marking Each correct answer receives 1 mark Scores out of 40 are converted to the IELTS 9-band scale Scores are reported in whole and half bands

APPENDIX D: SURVEY OF READING STRATEGIES (SORS)

The purpose of this survey is to collect information about the various strategies you use when you read academic materials in ENGLISH Each statement is followed by five numbers, 1, 2, 3,

4, and 5, and each number means the following:

‘1’ means that ‘I never or almost never do this’

‘2’ means that ‘I do this only occasionally’

‘3’ means that ‘I sometimes do this’ (About 50% of the time.)

‘4’ means that ‘I usually do this’

‘5’ means that ‘I always or almost always do this’

After reading each statement, circle the number (1, 2, 3, 4, or 5) which applies to you Note that there are no right or wrong responses to any of the items on this survey

1 I have a purpose in mind when I read 1 2 3 4 5

2 I take notes while reading to help me understand what I read 1 2 3 4 5

3 I think about what I know to help me understand what I read 1 2 3 4 5

4 I take an overall view of the text to see what it is about before reading it 1 2 3 4 5

5 When text becomes difficult, I read aloud to help me understand what I read 1 2 3 4 5

6 I think about whether the content of the text fits my reading purpose 1 2 3 4 5

7 I read slowly and carefully to make sure I understand what I am reading 1 2 3 4 5

8 I review the text first by noting its characteristics like length and organization 1 2 3 4 5

9 I try to get back on track when I lose concentration 1 2 3 4 5

10 I underline or circle information in the text to help me remember it 1 2 3 4 5

11 I adjust my reading speed according to what I am reading 1 2 3 4 5

12 When reading, I decide what to read closely and what to ignore 1 2 3 4 5

13 I use reference materials (e.g., a dictionary) to help me understand what I read 1 2 3 4 5

14 When text becomes difficult, I pay closer attention to what I am reading 1 2 3 4 5

15 I use tables, figures, and pictures in text to increase my understanding 1 2 3 4 5

16 I stop from time to time and think about what I am reading 1 2 3 4 5

17 I use context clues to help me better understand what I am reading 1 2 3 4 5

18 I paraphrase (restate ideas in my own words) to better understand what I read 1 2 3 4 5

19 I try to picture or visualize information to help remember what I read 1 2 3 4 5

20 I use typographical features like bold face and italics to identify key information 1 2 3 4 5

21 I critically analyze and evaluate the information presented in the text 1 2 3 4 5

22 I go back and forth in the text to find relationships among ideas in it 1 2 3 4 5

23 I check my understanding when I come across new information 1 2 3 4 5

24 I try to guess what the content of the text is about when I read 1 2 3 4 5

25 When text becomes difficult, I re-read it to increase my understanding 1 2 3 4 5

26 I ask myself questions I like to have answered in the text 1 2 3 4 5

27 I check to see if my guesses about the text are right or wrong 1 2 3 4 5

28 When I read, I guess the meaning of unknown words or phrases 1 2 3 4 5

29 When reading, I translate from English into my native language 1 2 3 4 5

30 When reading, I think about information in both English and my mother tongue 1 2 3 4 5

SCORING GUIDELINES FOR THE SURVEY OF READING STRATEGIES

1 Write the number you circled for each statement (i.e., 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5) in the appropriate blanks below

2 Add up the scores under each column and place the result on the line under each column

3 Divide the subscale score by the number of statements in each column to get the average for each subscale

4 Calculate the average for the whole inventory by adding up the subscale scores and dividing by 30

5 Use the interpretation guidelines below to understand your averages

3.5 or higher = High 2.5 – 3.4 = Medium 2.4 or lower = Low

Interpreting your scores reveals the frequency of your use of reading strategies when engaging with academic texts The average scores for each subscale—Global, Problem-Solving, and Support Strategies—highlight which strategies you rely on most It's essential to understand that the effectiveness of these strategies is influenced by your English reading proficiency, the nature of the material, and your reading objectives A low score in any subscale suggests that there are strategies you may want to explore and incorporate into your reading practices.

Mokhtari, K., & Sheorey, R (2002) Measuring ESL students reading strategies Journal of Developmental Education, 25 (3), pp 2-10

As a graduate student in TESOL at the University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Vietnam National University - Ho Chi Minh City, I am currently focused on my MA thesis, which explores the relationship between reading proficiency and the use of reading strategies in IELTS Reading.

This questionnaire is designed with the aim of acquiring information about the use of reading strategies of test takers in the IELTS reading test

The questionnaire is divided into two sections: the first section gathers background information about the participants, while the second section assesses the frequency of reading strategies employed by test takers during the IELTS reading test.

Participating in the questionnaire is completely voluntary, and your assistance is highly valued Rest assured that all responses will remain confidential and will solely be utilized for research purposes.

Thank you for your cooperation and help

The questionnaire is geared to IELTS Academic test takers with the Overall Band Scores of 5.5 – 8.0

1 NOTE: The questionnaire consists of 5 pages

This section is about the background information of participant Please tick (✓) the appropriate boxes or specify the required information

 Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE)

3 The last time you took the IELTS test

4 Your latest IELTS Overall Band Score

5 Your latest IELTS Reading Band Score: ……… (Please specify)

SECTION 2: FREQUENCY OF IELTS READING STRATEGY USE

For each strategy, please indicate how frequent you use it by a tick (✓) in the appropriate box

Never or almost never Occasionally Sometimes Usually

1 I have a purpose in mind when I read     

2 I think about what I know to help me understand what I read     

3 I take an overall view of the text to see what it is about before reading it

4 I think about whether the content of the text fits my reading purpose

5 I review the text first by noting its characteristics like length and organization

6 When 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     

Never or almost never Occasionally Sometimes Usually

12 I try to guess what the content of the text is about when I read     

13 I check to see if my guesses about the text are right or wrong     

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 I stop from time to time and think about what I am reading     

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 of unknown words or phrases     

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

Never or almost never Occasionally Sometimes Usually

24 I underline or circle information in the text to help me remember it

25 I use reference materials (e.g., a dictionary) 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 relationships among ideas in it

28 I ask myself questions I like to have answered in the text     

English into my native language     

30 When reading, I think about information in both English and my mother tongue

Thank you for completing the questionnaire

Information will be treated in confidence

APPENDIX F: IELTS TEST TAKERS’ MEAN FREQUENCIES OF USING 30 READING STRATEGIES

Item Strategy type Strategy Mean Level of use

17 PROB When text becomes difficult, I pay closer attention to what I am reading 4.00 High

24 SUP I underline or circle information in the text to help me remember it 3.97 High

8 GLOB I use context clues to help me better understand what I am reading 3.88 High

15 PROB I try to get back on track when I lose concentration 3.88 High

1 GLOB I have a purpose in mind when I read 3.87 High

20 PROB When text becomes difficult, I re-read it to increase my understanding 3.87 High

3 GLOB I take an overall view of the text to see what it is about before reading it 3.85 High

21 PROB When I read, I guess the meaning of unknown words or phrases 3.84 High

16 PROB I adjust my reading speed according to what

9 GLOB I use typographical features like bold face and italics to identify key information 3.77 High

12 GLOB I try to guess what the content of the text is about when I read 3.71 High

11 GLOB I check my understanding when I come across new information 3.70 High

10 GLOB I critically analyze and evaluate the information presented in the text 3.65 High

7 GLOB I use tables, figures, and pictures in text to increase my understanding 3.64 High

6 GLOB When reading, I decide what to read closely and what to ignore 3.63 High

2 GLOB I think about what I know to help me understand what I read 3.59 High

Item Strategy type Strategy Mean Level of use

4 GLOB I think about whether the content of the text fits my reading purpose 3.41 Medium

13 GLOB I check to see if my guesses about the text are right or wrong 3.40 Medium

27 SUP I go back and forth in the text to find relationships among ideas in it 3.39 Medium

14 PROB I read slowly and carefully to make sure I understand what I am reading 3.30 Medium

19 PROB I try to picture or visualize information to help remember what I read 3.29 Medium

5 GLOB I review the text first by noting its characteristics like length and organization 3.28 Medium

30 SUP When reading, I think about information in both English and my mother tongue 3.10 Medium

18 PROB I stop from time to time and think about what I am reading 3.09 Medium

22 SUP I take notes while reading to help me understand what I read 3.07 Medium

26 SUP I paraphrase (restate ideas in my own words) to better understand what I read 2.86 Medium

25 SUP I use reference materials (e.g., a dictionary) to help me understand what I read 2.78 Medium

28 SUP I ask myself questions I like to have answered in the text 2.53 Medium

29 SUP When reading, I translate from English into my native language 2.51 Medium

23 SUP When text becomes difficult, I read aloud to help me understand what I read 2.26 Low

APPENDIX G: CORRELATION BETWEEN IELTS TEST TAKERS’ READING PROFICIENCIES AND FREQUENCIES OF USING READING STRATEGIES

1 GLOB I have a purpose in mind when I read .380 ** Medium 000

I adjust my reading speed according to what I am reading

I use context clues to help me better understand what

When reading, I decide what to read closely and what to ignore

I critically analyze and evaluate the information presented in the text

When I read, I guess the meaning of unknown words or phrases

I check my understanding when I come across new information

I take an overall view of the text to see what it is about before reading it

I think about whether the content of the text fits my reading purpose

I use tables, figures, and pictures in text to increase my understanding

I think about what I know to help me understand what

I use typographical features like bold face and italics to identify key information

When reading, I translate from English into my native language

When reading, I think about information in both English and my mother tongue

I use reference materials (e.g., a dictionary) to help me understand what I read

When text becomes difficult, I read aloud to help me understand what I read

I ask myself questions I like to have answered in the text

I take notes while reading to help me understand what

I read slowly and carefully to make sure I understand what I am reading

I stop from time to time and think about what I am reading

I paraphrase (restate ideas in my own words) to better understand what I read

I go back and forth in the text to find relationships among ideas in it

I check to see if my guesses about the text are right or wrong

I review the text first by noting its characteristics like length and organization

I try to guess what the content of the text is about when I read