Rationale
In recent decades, the focus of language learning has shifted from a teacher-centered approach to a learner-centered approach, emphasizing active student engagement over mere information transmission This shift raises the question of why some learners excel while others struggle in language acquisition Research indicates that the effective use of learning strategies significantly influences learners' success (Rubin, 1975; Oxford, 1990) Successful learners utilize effective strategies to navigate challenges in their learning journey, while less successful learners often do not Therefore, a solid understanding of language learning strategies is essential for both educators aiming to enhance their students' learning experiences and for students aspiring to master language skills Additionally, it is crucial for all learners to recognize the differences in their strategy usage to develop a deeper awareness of effective strategy implementation.
Recent research has highlighted the importance of understanding how language learners, particularly at Vietnam National University of Agriculture (VNUA), employ strategies to enhance their vocabulary, grammar, and overall language skills Despite the critical role of reading in the Honors Program, where most courses are conducted in English, many students struggle with academic texts, even after over a decade of English study This challenge has led to concerns about their comprehension and academic performance As an English teacher with two years of experience at VNUA, I recognize these difficulties and aim to support students in overcoming them This study focuses on examining the reading comprehension strategies utilized by first-year Honors Program students and identifying the differences in strategy use between successful and less successful readers.
Objectives of the study
This study investigates the reading strategies employed by first-year students in the Honors Program at VNUA, focusing on their current usage and effectiveness The primary objectives include assessing the students' reading habits and identifying areas for improvement in their reading strategies.
(1) to find out the frequency of reading strategy use of SRs and LSRs among the first-year students in Honors Program at VNUA;
(2) to investigate the differences in the frequency of reading strategy use between SRs and LSRs
Research questions
Question 1: What is the frequency of reading strategy use of successful readers and less successful readers?
Question 2: How does the frequency of reading strategy use of successful readers differ from that of less successful readers?
Methods of the study
The research employed a mixed-methods approach, utilizing both quantitative and qualitative techniques Quantitative data was gathered via a survey focused on reading strategy usage, while qualitative insights were derived from think-aloud reports, where participants verbalized their thoughts during task completion This combination aimed to explore learners' reading strategies comprehensively.
Significance of the study
This study aims to explore reading strategies within the context of the Honors Program at VNUA, focusing on the distinct approaches used by students at two different proficiency levels By analyzing the differences in reading strategies between skilled readers (SRs) and less skilled readers (LSRs), the research seeks to equip students with insights that will enable them to make informed decisions about their reading practices Additionally, the findings will provide a valuable pedagogical foundation for educators to develop targeted plans aimed at enhancing their students' reading competence.
Scope of the study
This study focused on participants who had completed their first year in the Honors Program at VNUA, majoring in agricultural economics The subjects were divided into two groups: successful readers and less successful readers, based on their reading test scores from the first two semesters and observations made by the researcher.
This study primarily focuses on the reading comprehension strategies employed by both successful and less successful readers, highlighting the differences in their approaches It does not explore strategies related to other language skills such as listening, speaking, or writing, nor does it examine learning styles or instructional methods used by teachers.
Organization of the study
The study will be presented in 3 parts
Part A– Introduction- states the reasons for choosing the topic, the objectives of the study, the questions, the scope, the methods, and the design of the study
LITERATURE REVIEW
Language learning strategies
In the past thirty years, language learning strategies have become a focal point in applied linguistics Tarone (1981) defined language learning strategies as efforts to enhance linguistic and sociolinguistic competence in the target language, integrating these skills into one's inter-language competence Similarly, Clause & Kasper (1983) emphasized that these strategies involve learners' attempts to attain linguistic and sociolinguistic proficiency, highlighting their importance beyond cultural understanding.
Language learning strategies, as defined by Richards (1992), are intentional behaviors aimed at enhancing the understanding, learning, and retention of new information Cohen (1998) expands on this by describing these strategies as deliberate steps or actions taken by learners to improve their second language acquisition or usage While these definitions are widely accepted among scholars, they primarily categorize language learning strategies as observable behaviors However, subsequent research indicates that these strategies are not always overtly demonstrated, suggesting a more complex understanding of how learners engage with language.
O'Malley and Chamot (1990) define language learning strategies as the unique thoughts or behaviors that individuals employ to enhance their understanding, learning, and retention of new information These strategies can be both observable and unobservable, reflecting the individuality of each learner's approach This comprehensive definition will serve as the foundational framework for this study.
Various classification systems for language learning strategies have emerged, with Stern's (1975) framework being particularly notable This system includes ten categories: planning, active, empathetic, formal, experimental, semantic, practice, communication, monitoring, and internalization strategies While it serves as a foundational model for subsequent frameworks, Stern acknowledges that this list is "highly speculative," indicating the need for further validation, modification, or refutation.
Rubin (1981) categorized learning strategies into two main types: direct and indirect Direct strategies encompass six specific methods: classification/verification, monitoring, memorization, guessing/inductive inferencing, deductive reasoning, and practice In contrast, indirect strategies are divided into creating opportunities for practice and production tricks A notable limitation of this taxonomy is its exclusion of social and affective strategies, which are also essential for effective learning.
Oxford (1990), based on Rubin's classification, distinguishes between direct strategies, which encompass memory, cognitive, and compensation strategies, and indirect strategies, which include metacognitive, affective, and social strategies However, the differentiation between cognitive strategies and memory strategies in Oxford's framework can be somewhat unclear.
O'Malley and Chamot's framework (1990) is widely recognized as one of the most utilized taxonomies for language-learning strategies This classification categorizes strategies into three primary types: metacognitive strategies, cognitive strategies, and social/affective strategies, as illustrated in Table 1.
Previewing the main ideas and concepts of the material to be learned, often by skimming the text for the organizing principle
Deciding in advance to attend in general to a learning task and to ignore the irrelevant distracters
Planning for and rehearsing linguistic components necessary for an upcoming task
Deciding in advance to attend to specific aspects of input, often by scanning for key words, concepts and/or linguistic markers
Understanding the conditions that help one‟s learning and arranging for the presence of those conditions
Checking one‟s comprehension during listening or reading or checking the accuracy and/or appropriateness of one‟s oral or written production while it is taking place
Self-evaluation Checking the outcomes of one‟s own language against a standard after it has been completed
Resourcing Using target language reference such as dictionaries, encyclopedias or textbooks
Repetition Imitating a language model, including overt practice and silent rehearsal
Grouping Classifying words, terminology or concepts according to their attributes or meaning
Deduction Applying rules to understand or produce the L2 or making up rules based on language analysis
Imagery Using visual aids (either mental or actual) to understand or remember new information
Planning back in one‟s mind the sound of a word, phrase or longer language sequence
To effectively remember a new word in a second language (L2), one can utilize two key strategies: first, identify a familiar word in the first language that sounds similar to or resembles the new word; second, create vivid mental images that connect the first language homonym with the new L2 word These techniques enhance recall and facilitate the learning process.
Elaboration Relating the new information to prior knowledge, relating different parts of new information to each other or making meaningful personal associations with the new information
Transfer Using previous linguistic knowledge or prior skills to assist comprehension or production
Inferencing Using available information to guess meanings of new items, predict outcomes or fill in the missing information
Note taking Writing down keywords or concepts in abbreviated verbal, graphic, or numerical form while listening or reading
Summarizing Making a mental, oral, or written summary of new information gain through linguistic skills
Recombination Constructing a meaningful sentence or larger language sequence by combining known element in a new way
Translation Using the first language as a base for understanding and/or producing the L2
Eliciting from a teacher or peer additional explanations, rephrasing, examples or verification
Cooperation Working together with one or more peers to solve a problem, pool information, check a learning task, model a language activity or get feedback on oral or written performance
Table 1 Learning strategy definition and classification
The article discusses three key categories of learning strategies: metacognitive, cognitive, and social/affective The metacognitive category involves reflecting on the learning process, planning, monitoring tasks, and evaluating progress The cognitive category focuses on engaging with the material through mental or physical manipulation and applying specific techniques Meanwhile, the social/affective category emphasizes interaction with others and managing emotions related to learning This comprehensive classification, proposed by O'Malley and Chamot, provides a robust framework for studying reading comprehension strategies and will be utilized in the current investigation.
Reading strategies
Different scholars define "reading" in diverse ways, highlighting its complexity Harmer (1989) describes reading as an exercise involving both the eyes and the brain, where the eyes receive messages and the brain interprets their significance Similarly, Anderson (1999) emphasizes that reading is an active and fluent process that engages the reader and the text in constructing meaning Both definitions underscore reading as a cognitive process focused on deriving intended meaning from written material.
Reading is a complex process that involves three key elements: the reader, the text, and their interaction According to Rumelhart (1977), both the reader and the text are essential for reading to occur Aebersold and Field (1997) further elaborate that reading entails assigning meaning to the written symbols in a text, highlighting the importance of the interaction between the reader and the text Their definition emphasizes that the purpose and manner of reading significantly influence how individuals approach a text and the strategies they employ to decode its meaning.
In short, working out a thorough definition of reading is a hard nut to crack
Researchers widely concur with the definition provided by Aebersold and Field (1977), emphasizing the need to explore various reading models This exploration is essential for gaining a comprehensive understanding of the reading process, as the definitions discussed are quite general.
1.2.2 Different approaches to reading process
In the past two decades, extensive research has explored the relationship between readers and text, leading to various perspectives on the reading process These perspectives are typically categorized into three main reading models: bottom-up, top-down, and interactive.
The bottom-up approach to reading emphasizes decoding, where readers identify letters, words, and phrases to construct meaning from the smallest textual units to larger ones This model begins with the written text, requiring readers to receive and process the data before transforming it into meaning Essentially, the bottom-up model is linear, progressing from printed stimuli to higher-level comprehension in a step-by-step manner.
Bottom-up processing in reading relies heavily on the reader's linguistic knowledge but has notable limitations in explaining the reading process Specifically, it struggles to account for the influence of sentence context and the reader's prior knowledge of the text's topic on word recognition and comprehension (Samuel and Kamil, 1988: 3) This model suggests minimal interaction between the reader's background knowledge and the text, leading to a decline in its popularity and a shift towards the more favored top-down approach.
The top-down approach to reading highlights the crucial role of a reader's background knowledge in understanding a text (Carrell, 1998: 4) This theory posits that effective comprehension occurs through the interaction between the reader's prior knowledge and the text itself Readers start with hypotheses or predictions about the text's meaning, relying on their activated knowledge while using minimal information from the text to validate or adjust their predictions.
According to Samuel and Kamil (1988), a significant limitation of the top-down model is that readers often lack sufficient knowledge of the topic, hindering their ability to make predictions about the text Additionally, the process of generating predictions can be more time-consuming than simply recognizing the words.
The limitations of both bottom-up and top-down reading models have prompted the introduction of an interactive approach, which merges aspects of the two This innovative model suggests that reading involves synthesizing patterns from multiple knowledge sources simultaneously, as noted by Stanovich (1980).
According to Widdowson (1978, cited in Nguyen, 2006), reading involves integrating textual information with the background knowledge that readers possess This perspective emphasizes that reading is not just about gathering information from the text; instead, it is a process that enhances and expands the reader's overall understanding.
Eskey (1988, cited in Nguyen, 2006) emphasizes the interactive model of reading, which highlights the continuous interaction between bottom-up and top-down processing, allowing readers to reconstruct the text's meaning effectively Good readers excel as both decoders and interpreters, with their decoding skills becoming increasingly automatic as their reading abilities improve Stanovich (1980) further supports the interactive model, stating that it offers a more precise understanding of reading performance compared to strictly top-down or bottom-up approaches He notes that the interactive model, combined with the concept of compensatory processing, better explains how both good and poor readers utilize orthographic structure and sentence context, adapting their strategies based on their processing strengths and weaknesses.
In summary, the interactive approach to reading involves the integration of various knowledge sources, including linguistic and subject matter expertise This model is widely recognized as the most accurate representation of the cognitive processes occurring during reading Readers engage in a continuous interplay between bottom-up and top-down processing, both of which are essential for effective reading comprehension This article will now highlight key studies on reading strategies that have been conducted in this area.
Empirical research has identified various definitions of reading strategies, particularly in the context of second language acquisition, where learners employ multiple techniques to enhance information acquisition, storage, and retrieval According to Brantmeior (2002), reading strategies encompass the comprehension processes that enable readers to understand texts These strategies include skimming, scanning, making educated guesses, recognizing cognates, reading for meaning, predicting outcomes, activating prior knowledge, making inferences, following references, and distinguishing main ideas from supporting details.
Reading strategies, as defined by O'Malley and Chamot (1990), are specific thoughts or behaviors that individuals employ to enhance their comprehension, learning, and retention of new information from texts.
Reading strategies can be categorized into three main types: metacognitive, cognitive, and social/affective strategies These strategies are both observable and unobservable, varying from person to person The framework for L2 learning strategies proposed by the authors allows for an adaptable categorization of these strategies.
Previewing the main ideas and concepts of the text, often by skimming the text for the organizing principle
Deciding in advance to attend in general to a learning task and to ignore the irrelevant distracters
Deciding in advance to attend to specific aspects of input, often by scanning for key words, concepts and/or linguistic markers
Checking one‟s comprehension during reading while it is taking place
Checking the outcomes of one‟s own language against a standard after it has been completed
Resourcing Using target language reference such as dictionaries, encyclopedias or textbooks
Grouping Classifying words, terminology or concepts according to their attributes or meaning
Deduction Applying rules to understand the text or making up rules based on language analysis
Imagery Using visual aids (either mental or actual) to understand or remember new information
Elaboration Relating the new information to prior knowledge, relating different parts of new information to each other
Cognitive or making meaningful personal associations with the new information
Transfer Using previous linguistic knowledge or prior skills to assist comprehension
Inferencing Using available information to guess meanings of new items, predict outcomes or fill in the missing information
Note taking Writing down keywords or concepts in abbreviated verbal, graphic, or numerical form while reading
Summarizing Making a mental, oral, or written summary of new information gain through linguistic skills
Translation Using the first language as a base for understanding the
Table 2: Reading strategy framework adapted from O’Malley and Chamot (1990)
METHODOLOGY
Participants
Six first-year students from the Honors Program at VNUA were chosen for a study based on their reading test scores and the researcher’s observations These non-English major students have spent 8 to 11 years learning English The participants were divided into two groups: three successful readers with the highest performance results and three less successful readers with the lowest scores.
Table 4 summarizes the background information about the participants such as genders, number of years learning English and their English proficiency
Gender Number of years learning English English proficiency
Table 4 Background information about the participants
Junior students at CEFR level A2 and above have successfully passed the Honors Program English placement exam at the start of the first semester Currently, they are in the second semester of their EFL compulsory course During their first year, these students engage in intensive English courses, which serve as a foundation for their future studies in professional subjects taught in English.
English reading material Therefore, English in general and reading skill in particular play a vital role in their study at the university
This study focuses on freshmen at VNUA due to their training quality being a significant concern for both authorities and educators The findings aim to provide crucial insights that can help teachers enhance students' reading proficiency, ultimately improving overall training quality Additionally, these participants have completed their first English reading course, making them ideal for examining the use of English reading strategies Furthermore, the researcher’s direct teaching experience with these students facilitates a favorable environment for conducting the research.
Settings of the study
The current study was carried out at the conclusion of the second semester of the participants' first year, during which they had engaged in approximately 150 periods of English reading instruction at the university Throughout each semester, the students underwent various summative and formative assessments to evaluate their performance.
Data collection instruments
Data on the learning strategies (LLSs) utilized by learners can be gathered through various methods, including interviews, verbal reports, learning strategy inventories, diaries, observations, and dialogue journals This study employed both quantitative and qualitative approaches, utilizing questionnaires for quantitative data collection and think-aloud reports for qualitative insights The quantitative aspect focused on a survey assessing reading strategy usage, while qualitative data was derived from think-aloud protocols to explore learners' reading strategies (RSs) in depth.
According to Parrot (1993), questionnaires are essential tools for assessing learners' responses to various factors in their educational experiences In this thesis, the questionnaire (see Appendices 1 and 2) was specifically crafted to explore students' reading strategies during comprehension tasks It is based on Phakiti's (2003) work and modified by the author for two main reasons: to eliminate redundant statements and to incorporate additional items informed by O'Malley and Chamot's classification.
The questionnaire, designed to evaluate students' self-assessment of reading strategy usage, is provided in both Vietnamese and English (Appendices 1 and 2) It consists of 18 statements focusing on metacognitive and cognitive reading strategies, utilizing a 1-5 Likert Scale for responses Participants select the option that best reflects their views, with 8 items categorized as metacognitive strategies—further divided into advanced organization, directed attention, selective attention, self-monitoring, and self-evaluation—and 10 items classified as cognitive strategies, including resourcing, grouping, deduction, imagery, elaboration, transfer, inferencing, note-taking, summarizing, and translation Detailed information is available in Table 5.
Learning strategies Items in the questionnaire
Item 2: I skim through the text to understand main ideas of the texts before focusing on details Item 4: I preview the headings and illustrations to get the main idea of the text before reading
Item 1: Before reading, I read the comprehension questions to decide important information that should be noted
Item 3: I skip the words that are not essential for comprehending the texts while reading
Item 5: I scan for key words or concepts that are closely related to the questions in order to answer them
Item 9: I choose reading strategies according to my reading purposes
Self-monitoring Item 10: Sometimes, I stop reading and consider whether I comprehend what I have read
Self-evaluation Item 18: I check if my answers to the questions are correct or wrong after reading
Resourcing Item 6: I use a dictionary to look up words when encountering a new word while reading
Grouping Item 11: I can determine the function of a word in a sentence while reading
Deduction Item 7: I often read the first line of every paragraph to understand the whole text
Imagery Item 8: I look at illustration or create pictures in my mind while I read
Elaboration Item 13: I relate my prior knowledge to the information of the texts I am reading
Item 12: I use my knowledge of grammar or vocabulary to help understand difficult parts in reading texts
Inferencing Item 14: I guess meanings of new words using the available information
Note-taking Item 16: I write down key words while reading
Summarizing Item 17: I mentally summarize the main ideas of the texts after reading
Translation Item 15: I translate the reading text into
Vietnamese to understand it more clearly
Table 5: Questionnaire: Reading strategy coding categories adapted from O'Malley and Chamot (1990: 119)
The think-aloud method, defined as a "stream-of-consciousness disclosure of thought processes" (Cohen, 1998), was utilized to gather insights into the reading strategies of first-year students in the Honors Program at VNUA According to Kuusela and Paul (2000), think-aloud can be conducted either concurrently, during task performance, or retrospectively, after the task is completed This approach was chosen for several reasons: it has been a primary data source in reading research (Hosenfield, 1977; Block, 1986, cited in Nguyen, 2006), it is deemed suitable for receptive tasks (O'Malley and Chamot, 1990), and it provides reliable information about cognitive processes (Cohen, 1998).
Procedures of data collection
These data collection instruments were piloted prior to the conduct of the main study to obtain the following objectives:
1 To ensure the understanding by the participants
2 To familiarize the researcher and participants with the instructions
Data were collected at two stages in which the administration of questionnaires was followed by the think-aloud reports
Before receiving the questionnaires, participants were given clear instructions on how to respond They were encouraged to note or mark any unclear words or items directly on their questionnaires Completing the questionnaires took the participants approximately 10 minutes.
Participants were instructed on the think-aloud protocol and its application to think-aloud reports They were provided with a reading text accompanied by questions and asked to verbalize their thoughts during the reading process Participants had the option to express their thoughts in either English or Vietnamese.
2.4.1.3 Results of the pilot-study
Participants reported that the researcher’s instructions were clear, and they encountered no difficulties with the questionnaires, as all statements were easily understood Additionally, during the think-aloud reports, participants effectively articulated their thoughts while engaging in the reading comprehension task.
In May 2015, questionnaires were distributed to six students following their end-of-term reading test A brief overview of the study's purpose was provided, ensuring participants that their responses would remain confidential The students completed the questionnaires in approximately 10 minutes, and the completed forms were collected immediately after they finished.
2.4.3 Administering the think-aloud reports
In early June, think-aloud reports were conducted to explore participants' cognitive processes during reading Initially, the study's objectives were outlined, followed by instructions on how to effectively engage in think-aloud reporting Participants were provided with a 400-word reading text accompanied by four questions and were encouraged to verbalize their thoughts in either Vietnamese or English To further stimulate their responses, prompts such as “What (else) are you thinking?” were utilized All sessions were tape-recorded and subsequently transcribed for analysis.
Coding of data
After the think-aloud reports were recorded and transcribed, the researcher implemented a four-step coding process as outlined by Young (1997) This involved carefully reading the reports multiple times, underlining relevant verbalizations, categorizing the strategies employed in the excerpts, and finally, annotating the strategies with specific codes in the protocol.
The frequency of reading strategies used will be defined as follow:
High use (Always used with a mean of 4.5 - 5.0, or often used with a mean of 3.5 - 4.4)
Medium use (Sometimes used with a mean of 2.5 - 3.4)
Low use (Rarely used with a mean of 1.5 - 2.4; or never used with a mean of 1.0 - 1.40).
Procedures of data analysis
The analysis of data collected from questionnaires and think-aloud reports utilized SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Science) and t-tests This process involved counting the frequency of strategy use among successful and less successful readers, which was then entered into SPSS to calculate means for further exploration T-tests were conducted to identify any significant differences in the frequency of strategy use and the selection of specific strategies between the two groups of readers.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Research question 2: How does the use of reading comprehension strategies
Figure 3: Individual strategy frequency within Cognitive category for successful and less successful readers
As displayed in Figure 3, among strategies within Cognitive category, there were 4 prominent strategies that were utilized with highest frequency among the rest, namely Deduction (M1 = 3.83, M2 = 4.17), Inferencing (M1 = 3.83, M2
=3.67), Grouping (M1 = 3.83, M2 = 3.33) and Elaboration (M1 = 3.00, M2 = 3.17) Surprisingly, note-taking strategy (M1= 2.33, M2 =1.83) was seen unimportant in all of the questionnaires and think-aloud reports
3.2 Research question 2: How does the frequency of reading strategy use of successful readers differ from that of less successful readers?
3.2.1 Differences in the use of strategy categories
Questionnaires Think-aloud Questionnaires Think-aloud
Table 6: Strategy categories used by successful and less successful readers
Successful readers consistently outperformed less successful students in both metacognitive and cognitive strategies, as indicated by their higher mean scores in questionnaire results (Metacognitive: M = 4.37 vs M = 3.13; Cognitive: M = 3.53 vs M = 2.67) and think-aloud reports (Metacognitive: M = 4.4 vs M = 2.93; Cognitive: M = 3.4 vs M = 2.53) This demonstrates that successful readers utilized metacognitive and cognitive strategies more frequently, reinforcing research findings that proficient readers engage in higher strategy frequency use compared to their less proficient counterparts.
The t-test results indicated that all t-values were above 0.05 for both categories, demonstrating no significant difference in the use of these strategy categories between the two groups of readers.
3.2.2 Differences in the use of individual strategies
Mean t-value Data sources Data sources
Table 7: Difference in the use of individual strategies by SRs and LRs (*) Note: Data source 1: Questionnaires; Data source 2: Think-aloud reports
Table 7 reveals that successful readers utilized a greater number of strategies across almost all individual techniques, with the exceptions of Self-monitoring, Resourcing, and Translation Notably, both successful and less successful readers shared a strong preference for Selective Attention Furthermore, all fourteen strategies were utilized by both groups.
3.2.2.1 Differences in the use of individual metacognitive strategies
Figure 4: The use of individual metacognitive strategies by successful readers
Data from questionnaires and think-aloud reports indicate that successful readers employ metacognitive strategies more frequently than their less successful counterparts, particularly in areas other than self-monitoring This suggests that successful readers are proactive planners and evaluators in reading comprehension, although they do not utilize self-monitoring as flexibly.
Figure 5: The use of individual metacognitive strategies by less successful readers
Less successful readers demonstrated a medium frequency of use (M = 2.5 – 2.83) for four out of five metacognitive strategies, according to questionnaire data, while think-aloud reports indicated a low frequency (mostly M = 2.33), with the exception of Selective Attention, which reached the highest frequency level This suggests that, although these readers were adept at focusing on specific aspects of the text, they lacked effective planning for previewing main ideas and concepts Additionally, their ability to self-evaluate and self-monitor contributed minimally to successful text comprehension.
The t-test results presented in Table 7 indicate significant differences in the use of Advanced organizer, Directed attention, and Self-evaluation strategies between the two groups, with t-values from questionnaires at 0.006, 0.003, and 0.002, and think-aloud reports at 0.039, 0.016, and 0.002, all well below the 0.05 threshold However, the analysis shows no significant difference in the frequency of Selective attention and Self-monitoring strategies.
The analysis of metacognitive strategies revealed notable differences between successful and less successful readers Both groups exhibited similar frequencies of selective attention and self-monitoring, with selective attention being the most utilized strategy This suggests that readers consistently searched for keywords or concepts relevant to the questions, yet rarely paused to assess their comprehension Additionally, successful readers demonstrated proactive planning and evaluation skills, while less successful readers failed to prioritize planning their reading approach and focused primarily on obtaining correct answers.
3.2.2.2 Differences in the use of individual cognitive strategies
Figure 6: The use of individual cognitive strategies by successful readers
The next category is Cognitive, which consists of 10 strategies As from Figure 6, successful readers showed a significant use of Deduction, Inferencing,
Summarizing, Grouping, Elaboration and Transfer with the mean scores obtained from both questionnaires and think-aloud reports range from 3.33 to 4.33 The other strategies received just a moderate amount of use (M = 2.0 – 3.0)
Figure 7: The use of individual cognitive strategies by less successful readers
The analysis of less successful readers reveals that their mean scores, as illustrated in Figure 7, fall below the high use scale (3.5 – 5.0), with the exception of Deduction from think-aloud reports (M2 = 3.67) Notably, the subjects frequently employed strategies such as Grouping, Resourcing, Inferencing, and Translation, while showing minimal use of Transfer, Note-taking, and Summarizing strategies.
The t-test results indicate that only two cognitive strategies, Inferencing (t-values of 0.007 and 0.016) and Summarizing (t-values of 0.005 and 0.016), show significant differences at the 0.05 level, suggesting that successful readers outperform their less successful counterparts in these areas However, for all other cognitive strategies assessed, no significant differences were observed.
Summary
The study reveals that all fourteen strategies from the framework by O'Malley and Chamot (1990) were utilized by participants, with a preference for metacognitive strategies over cognitive ones Notably, successful readers employed metacognitive and cognitive strategies more frequently than less successful readers, although no significant differences were observed between the two groups in these categories Successful readers also demonstrated a broader range of strategies and higher frequency of use Importantly, significant differences emerged between the two groups in three metacognitive strategies—Advanced Organizer, Directed Attention, and Self-Evaluation—and two cognitive strategies—Inferencing and Summarizing.
This study aimed to explore the reading strategies utilized by six first-year students in the Honors Program at Vietnam National University of Agriculture The chapter summarizes the study's findings, discusses their implications, acknowledges the study's limitations, and offers recommendations for future research.
Recapitulation of major findings
Firstly, the prominent findings from these data were that Metacognitive was more preferred than Cognitive by both groups of readers
Secondly, with reference to the use of strategy categories, successful readers reported utilizing metacognitive and cognitive categories more frequently than their less successful counterparts
Thirdly, regarding individual strategy use, the successful readers had a wider range of strategies and employed them more frequently than their less successful peers
Successful readers predominantly utilized Metacognitive strategies such as Advanced Organizers, Directed Attention, and Self-Evaluation, while key Cognitive strategies included Inferencing and Summarizing Notably, significant differences were observed between the two groups of readers regarding these essential Metacognitive and Cognitive strategies.
Concluding remarks
The initial findings indicate that students prioritize reflecting on their reading strategies, organizing information, and assessing their performance, rather than engaging directly with the text or employing specific reading techniques.
Successful readers demonstrated greater awareness of both strategy categories and individual strategies compared to their less successful counterparts.
A comment can be made from the last finding is that successful readers were active planners, evaluators, inference maker and summarizer in reading comprehension.
Implications
This study investigates the reading strategies employed by first-year Honors program students at VNUA, highlighting the differences between successful and less successful readers Notable distinctions were identified in two strategy categories and specific strategies utilized by each group The findings aim to guide language learners in effectively applying reading strategies and equip language teachers with insights to enhance their instructional methods, ultimately fostering more effective strategy instruction.
3.1 Reading strategies that the students need to develop
Research from questionnaires and think-aloud reports indicated that first-year students in the Honors program at VNUA struggled to effectively utilize strategies that could assist them in managing their academic demands and comprehending the texts they encountered.
3.1.1 Reading strategies that successful students need to develop
Table 8: Reading strategies that successful students need to develop
3.1.2 Reading strategies that less successful students need to develop
Table 9: Reading strategies that less successful students need to develop
The study highlights that ineffective readers employ metacognitive and cognitive strategies infrequently, which negatively impacts their reading proficiency It is crucial for teachers to recognize this issue and seek ways to enhance their students' reading skills through targeted instruction on reading strategies Prior to implementing such instruction, teachers should assess the specific gaps in their students' use of these strategies By teaching a variety of metacognitive and cognitive strategies, educators can significantly improve students' reading comprehension Consulting existing research on reading strategy training, particularly the Learning Strategies model, can provide valuable insights for effective instruction.
The Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA), created by O'Malley and Chamot in 1990, effectively supports the development of four essential language skills for students with limited English proficiency This model is an invaluable resource for teachers aiming to improve their students' reading proficiency.
Teachers can enhance language learning by focusing on effective strategies and incorporating strategy training into their teaching methods By evaluating their lessons post-delivery, educators can determine if they provide students with opportunities to utilize a diverse range of learning strategies.
Teachers alone cannot impart all the language skills students require; hence, it's crucial to educate students about effective reading strategies for success As Wenden (1985) emphasized, "learner strategies are the key element to learner autonomy," making it essential for educators to promote autonomous learning Consequently, students must actively monitor their reading strategies to achieve their academic goals.
Modeling effective reading strategies is crucial for curriculum enhancement, as research shows that think-aloud reports significantly improve language learners' performance in the classroom When teachers or proficient peers demonstrate their reading processes, less skilled learners can adopt these strategies, enhancing their own reading skills Additionally, think-aloud activities transform reading classes into engaging and interactive experiences, reducing monotony Thus, incorporating think-aloud procedures as an instructional tool in reading classes is essential for fostering better reading practices among learners.
Limitations of the study and suggestions for further studies
Perfection is hard to achieve especially in doing research; therefore, the limitations, which are well perceived by the researcher will be discussed
One significant limitation of this study is the small sample size, with only six students participating due to time constraints This limited number of subjects hinders the ability to make robust generalizations and raises concerns about the validity of the research findings Future studies should aim to increase the participant count to enhance the reliability of the results.
The study's limitations stem from its reliance on questionnaires and think-aloud reports for data collection, which may hinder the validity of the findings To enhance the reliability of future research, it is recommended to incorporate diverse data collection methods such as interviews, diaries, and observations.
Learner variables, including motivation, gender, cultural background, attitudes, beliefs, task types, learning styles, and tolerance of ambiguity, significantly impact the use of reading strategies (Oxford, 1990) However, this study does not consider these factors To gain a comprehensive understanding of the language learning strategies employed by first-year students in the Honors program at VNUA, future research should investigate the effects of these learner variables.
Further research should explore the effects of reading strategy-based instruction on English learners' reading proficiency Building on the current study and existing literature, researchers can implement explicit teaching of metacognitive and cognitive reading strategies to assess their impact on enhancing students' reading comprehension.
1 Aebersold, J.A & Field, M.L., 1997 From Reader to Reading Teacher: Issues and Strategies for Second Language Classrooms Cambridge University Press
2 Anderson, N.J., 1999 Exploring Second Language Reading: Issues and
3 Brantmeior, C., 2002 Second Language Reading Strategy Research at the Secondary and University Levels: Variations, Disparities and Generalizability,
4 Carrell, P.L., Devine, J & Eskey, D.E., 1988 Interactive Approaches to Second
Language Reading Cambridge University Press, New York
5 Clause, F and Kasper G., 1983 Strategies in Interlanguage Communication
6 Cohen, A.D., 1998 Strategies in learning and using a second language
7 Ericsson, K.A & Simon, H.A., 1993 Verbal Reports as Data The MIT Press,
8 Harmer, J., 1989 The practical language teaching Pergamon Press, Essex
9 Kuusela, H & Paul, P., 2000 A comparison of concurrent and retrospective verbal protocol analysis American Journal of Psychology 113 (3): 387 - 404 University of Illinois Press
10 Nguyen, T.T.H., 2006 Reading Strategies Used by Students at the University of Transport and Communication Vietnam National University Journal
11 O‟Malley, J.M & Chamot, A.U., 1990 Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
12 Oxford, R., 1990 Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know Newbury House/ Harper & Row, New York
13 Parrot, M., 1993 Tasks for Language Teachers Cambridge University Press,
14 Phakiti, A., 2003 A Closer Look at the Relationship of Cognitive and Metacognitive Strategy Use of EFL Reading Achievement Test Performance
15 Richards, J.C & Schmidt, R., 1992 Dictionary of Language Teaching and
16 Rubin, J., 1975 What the "Good Language Learner" Can Teach Us TESOL Quarterly 9 (1): 41–51
17 Rubin, J (1981), “Study of cognitive processes in second language learning”,
18 Rumelhart, D.E., 1977 Toward an Interactive Model of Reading In S Dornic (Ed.) Attention and Performance 6: 573-603 Academic Press, New York
19 Samuel, S and Kamil, M., 1988 Models of the Reading Process, in Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading: 22-34 Cambridge University
20 Stanovich, K E., 1980 “Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency”, Reading research quarterly 16 (1): 32-71
21 Stern, H.H., 1975 What Can We Learn from the Good Language Learner?
22 Tarone, E., 1981 Some Thoughts on The Notion of Communication Strategy,
23 Wenden, A.L., 1985 Learner Strategies, TESOL Quarterly 19 (5): 1-7
24 Young, M Y C., 1997 “A serial ordering of listening comprehension strategies used by advanced ESL learners in Hong Kong”, Asian Journal of English Language Teaching 7: 35-53
APPENDIX 1 PHIẾU ĐIỀU TRA VỀ VIỆC SỬ DỤNG CHIẾN LƯỢC ĐỌC HIỂU
Hướng dẫn: Dưới đây là các phát biểu về quy trình thực hiện bài đọc hiểu Mỗi phát biểu sẽ được đánh số từ 1 đến 5, với ý nghĩa cụ thể cho từng số.
1 - „Tôi không bao giờ làm điều này.‟
2 - „Tôi ít khi làm điều này.‟
3 - „Tôi thỉnh thoảng làm điều này.‟
4 - „Tôi thường xuyên làm điều này.‟
5 - „Tôi luôn luôn làm điều này.‟
Sau khi đọc từng phát biểu, hãy đánh dấu X vào ô tương ứng với số bạn chọn Lưu ý rằng không có đánh giá đúng hay sai cho mỗi câu trả lời của bạn Cảm ơn sự hợp tác của bạn!
1 Trước khi đọc, tôi đọc các câu hỏi đọc hiểu để xác định thông tin quan trọng cần lưu ý
2 Tôi đọc lướt qua văn bản để hiểu ý chính trước khi tập trung vào các ý chi tiết
3 Tôi bỏ qua các từ không cần thiết để hiểu văn bản trong khi đọc
4 Tôi xem trước các tiêu đề và minh hoạ để nắm được ý chính của văn bản trước khi đọc
5 Tôi dò tìm các từ chìa khoá hoặc khái niệm mà liên quan trực tiếp đến các câu hỏi để trả lời chúng
6 Tôi dùng từ điển để tra cứu khi tôi gặp một từ mới trong khi đọc
7 Tôi thường đọc dòng đầu tiên của mỗi đoạn văn để hiểu toàn bộ văn bản
8 Tôi xem các minh hoạ hoặc tưởng tưởng ra các hình ảnh trong đầu trong khi đọc
9 Tôi chọn các chiến lược đọc hiểu tuỳ vào mục đích đọc của mình
10 Thỉnh thoảng tôi dừng đọc lại và suy nghĩ xem tôi có hiểu điều tôi vừa đọc hay không
11 Tôi có thể xác định chức năng của một từ trong một câu trong khi đọc
12 Tôi dùng kiến thức ngữ pháp và từ vựng để giúp tôi hiểu những phần khó của văn bản đọc
13 Tôi liên hệ kiến thức trước đây của tôi với thông tin trong văn bản mà tôi đang đọc
14 Tôi đoán nghĩa của các từ mới thông qua thông tin sẵn có trong văn bản
15 Tôi dịch văn bản đọc sang tiếng Việt để hiểu rõ hơn
16 Tôi viết ra các từ chìa khoá trong khi đọc
17 Tôi tóm tắt trong đầu những ý chính của văn bản sau khi đọc xong
18 Tôi kiểm tra lại các câu trả lời cho các câu hỏi xem đúng hay sai sau khi đọc xong
Số năm đã học tiếng Anh (Vui lòng ghi rõ): _ năm
APPENDIX 2 QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE USE OF READING STRATEGIES
When taking reading comprehension tests, it is essential to carefully analyze each statement provided Each statement is accompanied by a scale from 1 to 5, indicating different levels of understanding or agreement To effectively navigate the test, focus on the key concepts and main ideas presented in the text Utilize the scoring system to evaluate your comprehension accurately, ensuring that you reflect on your responses critically By doing so, you can enhance your performance and achieve better results in reading comprehension assessments.
To participate in the survey, please mark an X in the box that corresponds to your response (1, 2, 3, 4, or 5) for each statement Remember, there are no correct or incorrect answers for any of the items in this survey.
1 Before reading, I read the comprehension questions to decide important information that should be noted
2 I skim through the text to understand main ideas of the texts before focusing on details
3 I skip the words that are not essential for comprehending the texts while reading
4 I preview the headings and illustrations to get the main idea of the text before reading
5 I scan for key words or concepts that are closely related to the questions in order to answer them
6 I use a dictionary to look up words when encountering a new word while reading
7 I often read the first line of every paragraph to understand the whole text
8 I look at illustration or create pictures in my mind while I read
9 I choose reading strategies according to my reading purposes
10 Sometimes, I stop reading and consider whether I comprehend what I have read
11 I can determine the function of a word in a sentence while reading
12 I use my knowledge of grammar or vocabulary to help understand difficult parts in reading texts
13 I relate my prior knowledge to the information of the texts
14 I guess meanings of new words using the available information
15 I translate the reading text into Vietnamese to understand it more clearly
16 I write down key words while reading
17 I mentally summarize the main ideas of the texts after reading
18 I check if my answers to the questions are correct or wrong after reading
Years of studying English (Please specify): year(s)
APPENDIX 3 READING TASKS FOR THINK- ALOUD REPORTS
Read the passage and complete the tasks below
The Sydney Opera House, completed in 1973 after 14 years of debate and at a cost of nearly £60 million, is an iconic symbol of Australian culture and a landmark in global architecture Renowned for its unique design, often compared to sailing ship sails and broken eggshells, it stands as the most recognizable Australian building worldwide Set against the stunning backdrop of Sydney Harbour, the Opera House embodies Australia's commitment to cultural appreciation amidst the dynamic energy of a modern city.
The Sydney Opera House, designed by renowned Danish architect Jorn Utzon, won an international competition in the late 1950s However, due to state government interference over rising costs, the final structure deviated from Utzon's original vision, with many interior design plans only recently uncovered Initially budgeted at £5.5 million, the project faced significant financial challenges, leading Utzon to leave Australia in frustration, vowing never to return Ultimately, the completion of the Opera House was funded through a state-run lottery.
The interior of the building was significantly reduced by architects working within a tight budget, leading to smaller rehearsal rooms and the elimination of certain facilities, which has drawn criticism from artists However, despite the initial controversy, the Opera House has emerged as a celebrated modern architectural masterpiece Officially opened by the Queen in 1975, it has since hosted a diverse array of world-class performances in opera, ballet, and theatre, earning acclaim from audiences worldwide.
Part A Answer the following questions
1 Which is the best title for the passage? a Utzon Quits Australia c History of a Queen b An Architectural Disaster d A Dane in Our Lives
2 What is the main point of the second paragraph? a to describe the Opera House visually c to state where the Opera House is located b to tell the history of the building d to say why the building was built
3 Which is (are) the topic sentence (s) of the third paragraph? a Sentence number one c The last sentence b Sentence number two D Sentences number one and two
4 To what do the bold and underlined pronouns in the passage refer? a “it” c “this” b “their” d “them”
Part B Do the following statements agree with the information in the passage? Write
YES if the statement agrees with the information
NO if the statement contradicts the information NOT GIVEN if there is no information on this in the passage
1 The building is possibly the most famous of its type in the world
2 The Opera House drew world attention to the Arts in Australia
3 Utzon designed the roof to look like the sails of a sailing ship
4 A few people claim that it is a major architectural work
5 According to the author, Sydney is a quiet and graceful city
6 The cost of construction went more than £50 million over budget
7 Utzon never returned to Australia to see the completed building
8 There is only one theatre within the complex
9 The Government was concerned about some artists' complaints
10 Australian artists give better performances in the Opera House
Part C Find the single words in paragraphs 1 and 2 which mean the following:
3 permanent, lasting 4 (to) advance steadily
Next, find the words in paragraphs 3 and 4 which mean the following:
Part D Read the summary of the text, then complete the gaps in it using the words from the box below There are more words than you need
The Sydney Opera House is one of the most famous (1) … buildings in the world Officially opened in (2) …, its eye-catching and (3)… shape was the dream of a
The Danish architect Utzon originally designed the Opera House, but financial constraints prevented its completion After 14 years of controversy and rehearsals, the building was finally ready in 1975 and is now hailed as a masterpiece of modern architecture With its distinctive star-shaped exterior and iconic curves, the Opera House regularly hosts world-class performances by acclaimed Australian artists from the realms of opera, ballet, and theatre, making it a famous cultural landmark.
APPENDIX 4 RAW DATA FROM SURVEY
Successful readers Less successful readers
APPENDIX 5 SAMPLE THINK-ALOUD REPORTS
Skimming the reading passage is essential as it provides an overview of the text and prompts critical thinking about the related issues After this initial review, I carefully reread the questions to identify the key information needed and determine where to locate it within the text.
I was unable to answer all the questions and, while I reviewed my responses, I remain uncertain, particularly regarding parts c and d Initially, when I read the passage, I visualized the Sydney Opera House, which helped me to quickly connect the imagery with the information presented in the text for better comprehension.