English reading strategy use by university students in vietnam = nghiên cứu chiến lược đọc tiếng anh của sinh viên đại học ở việt nam degree of doctor of linguistics 91401

The research also aimed to find out how the factors of gender, academic majors, English learning time, English learning/English reading enjoyment, self-rated English/English reading prof

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI

UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

-

NGUYEN THI BICH THUY

ENGLISH READING STRATEGY USE

BY UNIVERSITY STUDENTS IN VIETNAM

(Nghiên cứu chiến lược đọc tiếng Anh của sinh viên đại học ở Việt Nam)

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

[

Hanoi - 2018

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI

UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

-

NGUYEN THI BICH THUY

ENGLISH READING STRATEGY USE

BY UNIVERSITY STUDENTS IN VIETNAM

(Nghiên cứu chiến lược đọc tiếng Anh của sinh viên đại học ở Việt Nam)

Major: English Language Teaching Methodology

Code: 9140231.01

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Supervisors: 1 Dr Hoang Thi Xuan Hoa

2 Assoc Prof Dr Lam Quang Dong

[ Hanoi - 2018

The dissertation does not contain work extracted from theses, dissertations or research papers previously presented for another degree or diploma at this or any other universities

Signed

Nguyen Thi Bich Thuy

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Writing this dissertation has had a big impact on me The research journey would

never have been possible without the involvement of many individuals and

groups, to whom my grateful acknowledgments are extended

First and foremost, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to my

supervisors, Dr Hoàng Thị Xuân Hoa, and Assoc Prof Dr Lâm Quang Đông,

who gave me opportunities, encouragement, and invaluable guidance throughout

the entire journey of my doctoral study including this dissertation Without their

intellectual mentoring, I would never have completed this dissertation with pride

and satisfaction

My sincere thanks go to Dr Huỳnh Anh Tuấn, the Dean, and all the lecturers as

well as the staff members of the Faculty of Postgraduate Studies, University of

Languages and International Studies (ULIS), Vietnam National University (VNU)

for their precious help, constructive feedback, and warm support during my study

time

Thanks are also due to the Managing Board and my colleagues from the College

of Techniques, Economics and Trade (CTET) and those from other universities

who accompanied me during my study

I wish to express my gratitude to my research participants for their help and

willingness to participate in this research The results I have achieved today

partially belong to them

Last but not least, my heart goes to my loving Family, whose boundless love,

continuous support, encouragement, and exceptional patience have given me the

strength and motivation to complete this work This dissertation is dedicated to

my Parents, my Husband and my two Children

Thank you very much, everyone!

ABSTRACT

The present study investigated the strategy use by Vietnamese university students

when they read general English materials It also examined if there were

differences in the use of reading strategies between students who learned English

as a compulsory subject at university (EFL students) and those who used English

as a medium of instruction in the university (EMI students) The research also

aimed to find out how the factors of gender, academic majors, English learning

time, English learning/English reading enjoyment, self-rated English/English

reading proficiency, self-perception of the importance of being a proficient

English reader related to the students‟ reading strategy use

Nine hundred and sixty-three Vietnamese students from six universities in the

North of Vietnam participated in the study The main data of the research were

collected by means of a questionnaire, adapted from Oxford's (2013)

Self-Strategic Regulation Reading Strategy Model In addition, qualitative data from

semi-structured interviews with fifteen students chosen from the sample were also

analyzed to support the main evidence

The research findings revealed that the Vietnamese students were medium reading

strategy users EMI students reported to use more strategies and at a higher

frequency level than their EFL counterparts The results of the study indicated that

the Vietnamese university students employed the reading strategies differently

according to their personal characteristics, namely academic majors, enjoyment of

English learning and reading English materials, and self-rated English and English

reading proficiency

Though there were not statistically significant differences, students of different

gender, English learning time and self-perception levels of the importance of

being a proficient English reader used strategies differently as well

Based on the research results several pedagogical implications and suggestions for

further research were also presented

Comment [G5]: Inserted: -

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP i

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii

ABSTRACT iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS iv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS vii

LIST OF FIGURES AND GRAPHS x

INTRODUCTION 1

1 Background to the study 1

2 Purpose of the study 3

3 Scope of the study 4

4 Significance of the study 4

5 Structure of the study 5

CHAPTER ONE : LITERATURE REVIEW 7

1.1 Reading 7

1.1.1 Psycholinguistic model 7

1.1.2 Social constructivist model 12

1.1.3 Self-strategic regulation model 14

1.2 Reading strategies 17

1.2.1 Definitions and characteristics of reading strategies 17

1.2.2 Classifications of reading strategies 19

1.3 Previous studies on reading strategies 29

1.3.1 Frequencies and types of students‟ reading strategy use 29

1.3.2 Successful and unsuccessful readers‟ reading strategy use 33

1.3.3 Strategies used by English as a second (ESL) and English as a foreign language (EFL) readers 37

1.3.4 Factors affecting the use of reading strategies 39

1.3.5 Strategies used in reading texts of different genres 42

1.5 Chapter summary 51

CHAPTER TWO : RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 54

2.1 Common methods applied in reading strategy research 54

2.1.1 Questionnaires 56

2.1.2 Oral interviews 57

2.1.3 Verbal report 59

2.1.4 Mixed methods 62

2.2 Research methods of the present study 63

2.2.1 Questionnaire 64

2.2.2 Semi-structured interview 66

2.2.3 The reading text 66

2.3 The pilot study 67

2.3.1 Participants 67

2.3.2 Procedures 67

2.4 The main study 69

2.4.1 The participants 69

2.4.2 Instruments 76

2.4.3 Data collection and analysis procedures 76

2.5 Chapter summary 84

CHAPTER THREE : FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS 87

3.1 Findings 87

3.1.1 Question 1 What strategies are used by students in their reading General English (GE) texts? 87

3.1.2 Question 2 To what extent is the use of reading strategies by students who learn English as a compulsory subject (EFL students) different from that by students who use English as a medium of instruction in their universities (EMI students)? 93

3.1.3 Question 3 How do the factors of gender, academic majors, English learning time, English learning/English reading enjoyment, self-rated English/English reading proficiency, self-perception of the importance of being a proficient English reader relate to students‟ reading strategy use? 99

3.1.4 The predictive relationship among the students' strategy category use and independent variables 121

3.2 Discussion 126

3.2.1 Question 1 What strategies are used by university students in their

reading General English (GE) texts? 126

3.2.2 Question 2 To what extent is the use of reading strategies by students who learn English as a compulsory subject (EFL students) different from that by students who use English as a medium of instruction in their universities (EMI students)? 133

3.2.3 Question 3 How do the factors of gender, academic majors, English learning time, English learning/English reading enjoyment, self-rated English/English reading proficiency, self-perception of the importance of being a proficient English reader relate to the students‟ reading strategy use? 137

3.3 Chapter summary 149

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 151

1 Summary of the research findings 151

2 Pedagogical implications 155

2.1 For educational administrators 155

2.2 For teachers of English 156

2.3 For students 158

2.4 For English textbook writers 158

3 Limitations 159

4 Suggestions for further research 159

REFERENCES 162

APPENDICES 188

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AFFEC Affective Strategies

COG Cognitive Strategies

EFL English as a Foreign Language

SILL

Standard Deviation Strategy Inventory for Language Learning SOC Socio-cultural Interactive Strategies

SORS

SPSS

Survey of Reading Strategies

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

S2R

WHS

Self-strategic Regulation While-reading Strategies ZPD Zone of Proximal Development

Comment [G8]: Deleted:t Comment [G6]: Inserted: r Comment [G7]: Inserted: f

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Gender of Participants 71

Table 2.2 Academic Majors of Participants 71

Table 2.3 Participants‟ English learning time 72

Table 2.4 Participants‟ English Learning Enjoyment 72

Table 2.5 Participants‟ Enjoyment of Reading English Texts 73

Table 2.6 Participants‟ Experiences in Reading Strategy Training 73

Table 2.7 Participants‟ Self-rated English Proficiency 74

Table 2.8 Participants‟ Self-rated English Reading Proficiency 74

Table 2.9 Evaluation of the Importance of English Reading Proficiency 75

Table 2.10 Participants‟ Strategy Training Belief 75

Table 2.11 Interviewees' Information 78

Table 2.12 Frequency Scale Delineated by Oxford (1990) 80

Table 2.13 The Sample of Coding Qualitative Data 83

Table 2.14 The Research Procedures 85

Table 3.1 Strategies Used by Participants when Reading GE Texts 88

Table 3.2 Participants‟ Use of Each Strategy Category 91

Table 3.3 Participants‟ Use of Cognitive Strategies 91

Table 3.4 Participants‟ Use of Affective Strategies 92

Table 3.5 Participants‟ Use of Socio-Cultural Interactive Strategies 92

Table 3.6 Participants‟ Use of Metastrategies 92

Table 3.7 Overall Strategy Use by EFL and EMI Students 93

Table 3.8 Strategy Use by Categories by EFL and EMI Students 94

Table 3.9 Tests of between Subject Effects 94

Table 3.10 Individual Strategies Used by EFL vs EMI Students 95

Table 3.11 Sample t-test of Individual Strategies Used between EFL & EMI Students 97

Table 3.12 Overall Strategy Use by Gender 99

Table 3.13 Use of each Category Strategy by Gender 99

Table 3.14 Five Most and Least Used Strategies by Males and Females 100

Comment [G10]: Deleted:n Comment [G9]: Inserted: f

Comment [G12]: Deleted:S Comment [G11]: Inserted: The s

Table 3.15 Differences in Reading Strategy Use between Males and Females 101 Table 3.16 Participants‟ Overall Strategy Use by Academic Majors 103 Table 3.17 Use of Strategy Category by Academic Major Groups 104 Table 3.18 ANOVA F-Test on Effect of Academic Majors on Students‟ Reading Strategy Use 105 Table 3.19 Test of Homogeneity of Variances on Individual Strategy Use 106 Table 3.20 Participants‟ Overall Strategy Use by English Learning Time 108 Table 3.21 Use of Each Strategy Category by Students of Different English Learning Time 108 Table 3.22 Participants‟ Overall Strategy Use by Levels of English Learning Enjoyment 110 Table 3.23 Participants‟ Use of Each Strategy Category between Levels of English Learning Enjoyment 110 Table 3.24 Participants‟ Overall Strategy Use by Levels of English Reading Enjoyment 112 Table 3.25 Use of Reading Strategy Categories by Students of Different Levels of English Reading Enjoyment 112 Table 3.26 Participants‟ Overall Strategy Use by Self-rated English Proficiency 113 Table 3.27 Participants‟ Use of Each Strategy Category by Levels of Self-rated English Proficiency 114 Table 3.28 Participants‟ Overall Strategy Use by Levels of Self- rated English Reading Proficiency 115 Table 3.29 Participants‟ Use of Strategy Category by Levels of Self-rated English Reading Proficiency 116 Table 3.30 The Most and the Least Frequently Used Strategies by Self-rated Good and Poor Participants 117 Table 3.31 Participants‟ Overall Strategy Use by Self-perception of the Importance of Being a Proficient English Reader 119 Table 3.32 Use of Strategy Category by Students of Different Levels of Self-perception of the Importance of Being a Proficient English Reader 120 Table 3.33 Model Summary of Metastrategy Category Use and Independent Variables 122

Table 3.34 Coefficients between Metastrategy Category Use and Independent

Variables 122

Table 3.35 Model Summary of Cognitive Strategy Category Use and Independent Variables 123

Table 3.36 Coefficients between Cognitive Category Use and Independent Variables 124

Table 3.37 Model Summary of Affective Strategy Category Use and Independent Variables 124

Table 3.38 Coefficients between Affective Category Use and Independent Variables 125

Table 3.39 Model Summary of Socio-cultural Interactive Strategy Category Use and Independent Variables 125

LIST OF FIGURES AND GRAPHS Figure 1.1 Reading Process by Davies and Whitney (1989) 8

Figure 1.2 Bottom-up Process by Cambourne (1991) 9

Figure 1.3 Top-down Process by Cambourne (1991) 9

Figure 1.4 Bernhardt's (1986) Social Constructivist Model 13

Figure 1.5 S2R Classification of Reading Strategies (Oxford, 2013) 50

Figure 2.1 Data Collection Procedures based on Cresswell‟s Model (2003) 77

Graph 3.1 Impact of the Four Predictors on the Participants‟ Frequent Use of the Reading Strategy Categories 126

INTRODUCTION

1 Background to the study

Reading, as a receptive skill, has long been regarded as a prerequisite for foreign language acquisition (Aebersold & Field, 1997), since it functions as an essential source of input for other skills (listening, speaking, and writing) to construct language proficiency Being the essence of reading (Durkin, 1993), reading comprehension is one of the most important factors in English language learning for all students because it provides the basis for a substantial amount of learning in education (Alvermann & Earle, 2003; Martin, et al., 2008) Therefore, reading also plays a vital role in academic development, particularly when learners have to work over a huge amount of foreign language materials for their own specialist subjects (McDonough & Shaw, 2013) It is thought to be the primary means for gaining access to various sources of information, providing the basis for “synthesis and critical evaluation skills” (Celce-Murcia, 2001, p 187) Furthermore, reading also facilitates readers to develop themselves in various situations such as general knowledge, writing skills, and spelling (Ahmadi & Hairul, 2012; Harmer, 2007)

Because of its crucial importance reading in any language is demanding (Czicko, et al as cited in Kern, 1997) In addition, reading in a second or foreign language can place even greater demands on the processes involved in reading due

to the reader‟s incomplete linguistic or cultural knowledge (Bouvet, 2000) Students nowadays need not only to acquire knowledge and theories from English reading materials but also to read many English books, periodicals or magazines for the absorption of new knowledge and information Good English reading ability can be helpful to effectively obtain the current information as necessary Especially, in our modern society of internationalization and globalization it is in urgent need of English talented person Strengthening English reading ability is necessary for students to develop other English skills as well as to get knowledge for their study major However, though students have to read a large volume of academic texts in English many of them entering university education are unprepared for the reading demands placed on them (Dreyer & Nel, 2003)

Researchers and teachers have tried hard to find out possible ways to help students read successfully in English, but there are many factors affecting students‟ English reading proficiency such as text types, university and social environments, students‟ intelligence, learning motivation, teaching methods, and

so on (Hsu, 2015) One of the most important factors is students‟ learning strategy use, particularly their use of reading strategies The best prevention of reading difficulties is early intervention strategies (DeMoulin & Loye, 1999), as second or foreign language readers can “compensate for a lack of English proficiency by invoking interactive strategies, utilizing prior knowledge, and becoming aware of their strategy choices” (Hudson as cited in Auerbach & Paxton, 1997, p 238) However, in the reality of English teaching and learning, most students seem to be unfamiliar with the utilization of English reading strategies They show

an inability to read selectively or to extract what is important for the purpose of reading and discarding what is insignificant Also, they often select ineffective and inefficient strategies with little strategic intent (Wood, et al., 1998) Consequently, their reading comprehension is reduced

In their learning process, most students meet great challenges when dealing with reading texts They usually have difficulties in understanding the meaning of the context and cannot complete the tasks, which makes them feel tired and do not show enough interest in reading lessons or reading activities However, reading strategies help them in learning foreign languages and reading comprehension (Ben-David, 2002) Though reading strategies used by efficient and inefficient readers were different (Block, 1986; Shinghal, 2001), they help improve the reading ability of both the proficient and less proficient readers (Ahmadi & Pourhossein, 2012)

Those mentioned above have stimulated a noticeable growth in the number

of studies on reading strategies used in second and foreign language reading to improve comprehension (Block, 1986; Menzoda de Hopkins & Mackay as cited in Janzen & Stoller, 1998) However, research results were diverse Many studies revealed the significant correlation between reading strategy use and reading comprehension performance (Oxford & Ehrman, 1995; Zane & Othman, 2013) Some authors such as Anderson (1991), Baker and Boonkit (2004), and Yukselir

(2014) found out that high-proficiency and low-proficiency readers used more or

less the same range of strategies at the nearly similar level of frequency Other

studies indicated factors that affected readers' strategy use such as reader's

proficiency level, age, gender, motivation, learning style, career orientation,

culture, language teaching method, etc (Gavriilidou & Psaltou-Joycey, 2009)

In the context of Vietnam, the Project “Teaching and Learning Foreign

Languages in the National Education System, period 2008 to 2020” launched by

the Vietnam Prime Minister shows the overall objectives that “by 2020, most

young Vietnamese graduates of professional secondary schools, colleges and

universities will have a good command of foreign language which enables them to

independently and confidently communicate, study and work in a multilingual and

multicultural environment of integration; to turn foreign languages into a strength

of Vietnamese to serve national industrialization and modernization” (Decision

No 1400/QD-TTg) However, in such case, to the best knowledge of the

researcher, presently no comprehensive research has been done on the use of

reading strategies by university students in Vietnam, especially on the use of

reading strategies by students who learn English as a foreign language and those

who use English as a medium of instruction at the university, and on the factors

affecting their reading strategy use Such the reality was actually the impetus for

this study, which intended to fill in the gap

2 Purpose of the study

The primary purpose of the study was to explore the use of reading

strategies by Vietnamese university students when they read General English (GE)

texts The study also attempted to examine if there are any differences in the use

of reading strategies between students who learn English as a compulsory subject

and those who use English as a medium of instruction in the university In

addition, the study aimed to find out how the factors of gender, academic majors,

English learning time, English learning/reading enjoyment, self-rated

English/English reading proficiency, self-perception of the importance of being a

proficient English reader relate to students‟ reading strategy use In order to

achieve these purposes, the research addressed the following questions:

Comment [G13]: Inserted: the

Comment [G14]: Inserted: the

Question 1: What strategies are used by students in their reading General

English (GE) texts?

Question 2: To what extent is the use of reading strategies by students who

learn English as a compulsory subject (EFL students) different from that by students who use English as a medium of instruction in their universities (EMI students)?

Question 3: How do the factors of gender, academic majors, English

learning time, English learning/English reading enjoyment, self-rated English/English reading proficiency, self-perception of the importance of being a proficient English reader relate to the students‟ reading strategy use?

3 Scope of the study

This study investigates the use of reading strategies by non-English majored students in universities in the North of Vietnam when they read general English texts

4 Significance of the study

Reading plays an essential role in English for academic purposes (Aebersols & Field, 1997; McDonough & Shaw, 2003; Sengupta, 2002) However, previous studies show that most university students today take a surface approach to reading and learning (Biggs, 1998, p 58) They usually consider text information as isolated and unlinked facts, which leads to superficial retention of material for examinations and does not promote understanding or long-term retention of knowledge and information (Bowden & Marton, 2000, p.49) Hence

an investigation into students‟ reading strategy use in academic contexts may have some implications for Vietnamese learners, teachers, textbook writers, and education administrators to improve students‟ English reading proficiency particularly and English learning in universities generally The study is therefore significant as follows:

Theoretically, by reviewing the literature related to the field of the study the research has contributed to showing a comprehensive picture of theoretical issues in the field of reading and reading strategies The most updated and

appropriate theoretical framework guiding this research process was also

presented which might help other researchers in their future similar studies

Methodologically, the study has verified the effectiveness of different

methods in conducting studies on reading strategy use Specifically, it has

provided appropriate instruments to investigate readers' strategy use, especially in

the context of universities in Vietnam

The study is especially significant in the practice of English reading in

particular and English learning in general in universities in Vietnam First of all, it

has contributed to providing a comprehensive picture of Vietnamese university

students' reading strategy use when they read general English (GE) texts The

study results show the types and frequencies of reading strategies students used

which might help both teachers and students define the way Vietnamese

university students deal with English reading comprehension Secondly, a

comparison of the use of reading strategies between EFL and EMI students may

contribute to finding out the key to enhance students' reading performance

Thirdly, the identification of how the factors of gender, academic majors, English

learning time, English learning/English reading enjoyment, self-rated

English/English reading proficiency, self-perception of the importance of being a

proficient English reader relate to students' strategy use would help teachers

understand how differently Vietnamese university students employ strategies

during their reading according to their personal identities Consequently,

administrators and teachers may incorporate training on reading strategies in a

university English learning curriculum to help students improve their reading

comprehension, which then helps students much in completing their university

academic programs Furthermore, the results of the study might be a significant

base to enable textbook writers design English texts in such a way that readers are

encouraged to elicit and apply as many appropriate strategies as possible to

improve their reading comprehension

5 Structure of the study

This study is organized into three main parts: Introduction, Contents, and

Conclusions and Recommendations

Comment [G16]: Deleted:' Comment [G15]: Inserted: '

Comment [G17]: Inserted: a Comment [G18]: Inserted: he t

Comment [G19]: Inserted: to

The Introduction describes the background and the purposes of the study

with the key research questions The significance of the study is also presented

The Contents consist of three chapters Chapter One entitled Literature

Review provides comprehensive theoretical issues related to the field of the study The purpose of providing a review of the related literature is to show a conception

of reading and reading strategies by showing some most well-known reading models and reading strategy taxonomies, which is followed by a critical review of theoretical and empirical literature relevant to the purpose of the study Especially, the theoretical framework guiding the research is also presented In addition, previous studies related to reading strategies are demonstrated as well

Chapter Two explains the research methodologies of the study including the methodological considerations and procedures involved in the research process The chapter also describes in details the research instruments applied in the study and information about the participants of the study The data collection and analysis procedures are also presented

The study results presented and discussed in relation to the research questions and other sources of literature appear in Chapter Three

The Conclusions and Recommendations summarize the key findings of

the research, discuss the implications in English learning and teaching, indicate the limitations of the study, and provide some recommendations for future research in the field

All appendices, most of which are statistical tables, the transcription and coding of semi-structured interview recordings, are presented at the end of the dissertation

CHAPTER ONE LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter presents comprehensive theoretical issues related to the field

of the study It starts with a conception of reading and reading strategies by

providing the most well-known reading and reading strategy models, which is

followed by a critical review of theoretical and empirical literature relevant to the

purpose of the study Finally, the theoretical framework which guides the process

of this study is also demonstrated

1.1 Reading

Reading plays a crucial role in language learning It is one of the most

important language skills that students should develop It is through reading that

the students access a lot of information concerning the target language and

culture For either English as a second language or English as a foreign language,

reading is the important skill for students to master in order to ensure success in

language learning (Anderson, 1999) After all, reading is the basis of instruction in

all aspects of language learning (Mikulecky & Beatrie, 1990)

Different scholars have proposed different definitions of reading from

different perspectives However, most reading studies on reading attempt to

describe the conception of reading through psycholinguistic, cognitive,

metacognitive (Alsheikh, 2002; Anderson, 2003; Sariçoban, 2002; Stanovich,

2000), social constructivism (Bernhardt, 2003; 2005), and self-strategic regulation

views (Oxford, 2013) Each reading model has implied various reading processes

depending on which factors are stressed, and on which reading behaviors are

focused upon In this part of the study, three reading models from

psycholinguistic, social constructivism and self-strategic regulation perspectives

are demonstrated The concepts relating to the models with their strengths and

weaknesses are also described in details in the following section

1.1.1 Psycholinguistic model

In very early years Goodman (1971) described reading as a

"psycholinguistic guessing game" in which the "reader reconstructs, as best as he

Comment [G21]: Deleted:, Comment [G20]: Inserted: ,

can, a message which has been encoded by a writer as a graphic display" (p.135)

Sixteen years later Goodman, et al (1987) stated that reading is a perceptive

language process It is a psycholinguistic process in which it starts with a

linguistic surface representation encoded by a writer and ends with meaning the

reader constructs In this active process, the reader infers and interprets what is on

the page based on individual attitudes, interests, expectations, skills and prior

knowledge he or she brings to the reading task (Irwin, 1986)

Based on Goodman‟s (1987) view, Wallace (1992) adds that the reader

decodes language to thought with the movements of his eyes and brain The eyes

receive messages and the brain then has to work out the meaning of these

messages, which is known as “decoding” the message Davies and Whitney (1989,

p.20) illustrate the process of reading in the figure below:

Writer

Idea language idea

(thought) (thought)

Reader

Figure 1.1 Reading Process by Davies and Whitney (1989)

In this model, the process of decoding language to thought or working out

the meaning of a reading text is considered to be reading comprehension In this

process, the reader has to make an effort to extract the required information from

the printed text as efficiently as possible

Nunan (1991) suggests two approaches while readers deal with texts:

bottom-up approach and top-down approach The bottom-up approach has played

a significant role both in first and second language (L1 and L2) research and

theory The central notion behind the bottom-up approach is that reading is

basically a matter of decoding a series of written symbols into their aural

equivalents In other words, reading is viewed as a decoding process where the

reader reconstructs meaning from the smallest textual units (Carrell &

Eisterhold,1988) The model by Gough (1972) has been considered the most

comprehensive bottom-up model of reading and the most influential (Rayner &

Comment [G22]: Inserted: ,

Comment [G23]: Inserted: a

Figure 1.2 Bottom-up Process by Cambourne (1991)

Pollatsek, 1989) Cambourne (1991) also provides the following illustration of

how the bottom-up process is supposed to work as below:

According to this model, the reader processes each letter as it is

encountered by matching these letters with the phonemes of the language The

phonemes are blended together to form words At the end of the process, a

message is built up Comprehension is thus considered as a process of decoding,

and the reader's lexical and grammatical competence in the language is the core

basis for bottom-up processing In other words, in this model, the readers

construct meaning from the letters, words, phrases, and sentences found within the

text, processing it in a series of discrete stages in a linear manner (Gascoigne,

2005)

Although this bottom-up model provides justifications for the reading

processes of poor or beginning readers who depend substantially on lower-level

processing (Hassan, 1999), it has been criticized by Rayner and Pollatsek (1989)

for its lack of explanation regarding the processing of higher-order information

Furthermore, the step-by-step bottom-up process makes reading seem laborious,

ascribing a passive role to the reader since the reader‟s schemata do not appear to

have any role in the comprehension process The reader is depicted as having little

freedom in varying the linear sequence of the reading operation (Rayner &

Pollatsek, 1989)

An alternative to the bottom-up approach is called top-down In this model,

the reader rather than the text is the heart of the reading process Cambourne

(cited in Nunan, 1991, p.65) also proposes the following schematization of

top-down approach:

Print

Phonemes and graphemes matched

Every letter

discriminated

Blending pronunciation Meaning

if necessary

Figure 1.3 Top-down Process by Cambourne (1991)

Comment [G24]: Inserted: , Comment [G25]: Inserted: the Comment [G26]: Inserted: ,

Comment [G27]: Inserted: ,

This approach refers to the interaction process between the reader and the

text Whereas bottom-up processes take the form of a text-based decoding activity

(Gough, 1972; McKoon & Ratcliff, 1990), top-down processes are reader-driven

(Goodman, 1968; Graesser, et al., 1994) In the former model reading is assumed

to be a passive process and there is no room for higher-order processes

(Celce-Murcia & Olshtain, 2000), while in the latter one reading is viewed as an active

process in which the reader brings knowledge structures to the text (Anderson, et

al., 1977; Barnett, 1988) It can be seen from the diagram above the reader brings

to the interaction his/her knowledge of the subject at hand, knowledge of and

expectations about how language works, motivation, interests, and attitudes

towards the context of the text rather than decoding each symbol or even every

word Phonics would be one example employing "bottom-up" processing, where a

reader learns letter/sound relationships, moves to decoding words, reading

sentences, and then focuses on the meaning of a text The whole language would

be one example of employing "top-down" processing, where a reader constructs

meaning for a text based on his/her prior knowledge (Reynher & Hurtado, 2008)

However, according to Samuels and Kmil (1988), the top-down is not much a

model of reading as it is a description of the linguistic and cognitive processes that

any decent models of reading will need to take into account (p.24) In addition, it

has the problems of overemphasizing higher-level processes (Eskey, 1988), which

makes it seem more suitable for proficient readers (Hassan, 1999) Furthermore,

Rayner and Pollatsek (1989) also criticize this model for its lack of precision and

an inability to show how higher-order processes such as inferences and prediction

occur

Some authors (Alderson & Bachman, 2000; Brown, 2001; Rumelhart,

1977) suggest that both top-down and bottom-up processes are important, and a

combination of these two processes, i.e., interactive reading, is necessary for

reading successfully Furthermore, Nuttall (1996) maintains that reading, like a

conversation, is interactive; in other words, readers and writers depend on one

another Interactive reading in another sense refers to a continual shift from one

focus to another, now adopting a top-down approach to predict the probable

meaning, then moving to the bottom-up approach for checking that meaning So,

Comment [G28]: Inserted: ,

Comment [G32]: Deleted:W

Comment [G29]: Inserted: of Comment [G30]: Inserted: The w

Comment [G31]: Inserted: an

the interactive view of reading comprehension involves both bottom-up and

top-down processing, or an interactive process between the reader and the text

(Bernhardt, 1991; Grabe, 1991; Rumelhart, 1977), with different versions of the

model assigning varying degrees of importance to the individual top-down and

bottom-up components

Interactive approaches refer to two different conceptions: general

interaction between a reader and a text, and interaction of many component skills

(Grabe, 1991) In addition, the interactive model provides a cyclical view of the

reading process where textual information from the text and the reader's mental

activities, such as the processing of graphic, syntactic, lexical, semantic, and

pragmatic information impact comprehension (Barnett, 1989) In other words,

top-down and bottom-up processes complement one another and function interactively

in the reading process

The interactive model incorporates the role of background knowledge in

the language comprehension process A theoretical model to explain and

formalize the role played by background knowledge in language comprehension is

known as schema theory (Carrell & Eisterhold, 1983), one of the basic tenets of

which is that any given text does not carry meaning in and of itself Rather, it

provides direction for readers so that they can construct meaning from their own

cognitive structure (previously acquired or background knowledge) The

previously acquired knowledge structures accessed in the comprehension process

are called schemata (Hadley, 2001, p 147)

There are two types of schemata involved in the English reading

process-formal schemata and content schemata The process-formal schemata relate to the reader's

competence on the target language (knowledge of the structure of texts) whereas

content schemata are the background knowledge about the contents of the text

(knowledge of people, the world, culture, and the universe) The occurrences of

the miscomprehension about the text are usually resulted from the reader's failure

to activate appropriate schemata, regardless of formal schemata or content

schemata (Brown, 2001; Carrell & Eisterhold, 1983)

The interactive model has made use of the strengths and surmounted the

weaknesses of both bottom-up and top-down models as in this model

Comment [G33]: Inserted: a

Comment [G34]: Inserted: of

comprehension rather than decoding is the central purpose of reading (Bernhard,

1991) Therefore, flexibility by readers in utilizing the different levels of

processes helps them to arrive at the comprehension However, though reading

comprehension entails both lower skills such as the recognition of lexical and

grammatical units and higher-level skills such as using context and background

knowledge, this model fails to explain the reader‟s metacognitive processes

(Nassaji, 2002)

1.1.2 Social constructivist model

Vygotsky, the father of constructivism, claims that learning occurs

through dialogue (Vygotsky, 1978) This dialogue is initially intermental- it takes

place between teacher and student; between students; or even between text and

reader (Wilson, 2001) Vygotsky (1978) also points out that learners make sense

of what is said or written through internal and intramental dialogue Thus, learning

is interactive in the sense that learners must interact with sources of

ideas/knowledge in social settings, as well as in the sense that they must take an

active part in reconstructing ideas/knowledge within their own minds In social

constructivism, the reading process and the reader have undergone re-definition

and conceptualization Hence, social constructivists see reading as social practice

or a socio-cultural, collaborative experience (Alexander & Fox, 2008) Reading

comprehension is a dynamic and constructive meaning-making process involving

reader-text interaction The effectiveness of this meaning-making process heavily

depends on readers' self-characteristics and their active role in the process The

social context affects when you read, what you read, where you read, who you

read with and, of course, why and how you read The reader is seen as a member

of a network of a socio-cultural group In addition, the text genre, difficulty level

and style of writing will also determine the reading comprehension output (Bursk

& Damer, 2007; Gunning, 2008)

Gunning (2008) states that readers approach a text with their prior

knowledge, strategies used and other self-characteristics such as worldview,

beliefs, attitude, motives, values, motivation and linguistic ability Therefore, from

the social constructivist perspective, readers are autonomous individuals

Comment [G35]: Inserted: - Comment [G36]: Inserted: -

integrating schemata and new information from the text in producing meaning,

where they actively select, create and refine hypotheses made in synthesizing

information and interpreting meaning (Bruner, 1966) Bruner (1966) also states

that the constructivism basis emphasizes knowledge mobility in accommodating

cognitive activities, which resulted in transferal to several thinking levels during

the reading comprehension From Vygotsky's (1978) viewpoint the cognitive

development under social constructivism involves four aspects of human, namely,

mind, tools, the zone of proximal development (ZPD), and community of practice

(Mantero, 2002; Palincsar, 1998; Wertsch, 1991) Of the four aspects, the ZPD is

considered as a central concept in social constructivism theory that explicates the

important role of teachers as mediators and is at the heart of the concept of

scaffolding (Clark & Graves, 2004; Lantolf & Poehner, 2008) ZPD refers to

"what an individual can accomplish when working in collaboration with others

versus what he or she could have accomplished without collaborations with

others" (Zuengler & Miller, 2006, p 39) In this regard, reading which was

viewed traditionally as a purely individualistic skill has been looked from a

completely different perspective, since L2 readers are agents whose actions occur

in specific sociocultural environments and are affected by learners‟ dynamic

identities, which are related to nationality, ethnicity, class, educational experience,

gender, age, and so on (Lantolf & Pavlenko,1995)

Proposing that reading is composed of different elements and influences,

Bernhardt (1986) has developed a social constructivist model of reading

comprehension as below:

Figure 1.4 Bernhardt's (1986) Social Constructivist Model

Comment [G42]: Deleted: on

Comment [G37]: Inserted: , Comment [G38]: Inserted: the Comment [G39]: Inserted: he t Comment [G40]: Inserted: the Comment [G41]: Inserted: a

According to this model, the reader is one of the two primary variables of

a reading comprehension process The reader variables include intratextual

perception (the reconciliation of each paragraph within a text), prior knowledge

(the outside knowledge related to the text), and readers‟ metacognition (the extent

to which readers are monitoring their reading) The second variable is the text,

which includes two factors: word recognition (the semantic value of a word,

phonemic/graphemic decoding), and syntactic feature recognition (grammatical

features) It can be inferred from the model that reading comprehension requires

interaction between the linguistic elements in the text and the knowledge elements

in the reader This is in line with Luke and Freebody‟s (1990, 2003) definition of

four different reader resources: code breaking, meaning making, text using, and

text analyzing It is obvious that the two first resources involving both bottom-up

and top-down strategies but using and analyzing the text, which means reading

comprehension, occur only when the readers construct the text based on their

knowledge of the reading task, their knowledge of the target language, and their

knowledge about the world (Block, 1986, 1992; Grabe, 2009; Shapiro, 2004) In

addition, the reading process can be a situational activity because different readers

read the text in different environments, which means in a different culture,

different contexts and with different cultural orientations Consequently, readers

show different reading abilities according to the types of reading materials and

reading environments they encounter (Bernhardt, 1991; Cheng, 2005)

1.1.3 Self-strategic regulation model

Models of learner self-regulation applied to L2 learning have been called

by many names, such as "learner-self management" (Rubin, 2001), "learner

self-direction" (Dickinson, 1987), "self-regulated or autonomous L2 learning"

(Oxford, 1999), and "mediated learning" (Scarcella & Oxford, 1992, based on

Vygotsky, 1978) Self-regulation is usually understood as "thoughts, feelings, and

actions that are planned and cycling" (Zimmerman, 2008) From the social

cognitive perspective, self-regulation is the ability to employ intentional and

positive actions governed by internal and external influences (Bandura, 1991) In

Comment [G43]: Inserted: a

Strategic Self-Regulation (S2R) model of language learning, learners actively and

constructively use strategies to manage their own learning

Gu (2010) defines strategic, self-regulated learning as “ways of tackling the

learning task at hand and managing the self in overseeing the learning process

under the constraints of the learning situation and learning context for the purpose

of learning success” (p.2) Providing a thorough description of the concept

Pintrich (2000) states self-regulated learning as “an active, constructive process

whereby learners set goals for their learning and then attempt to monitor, regulate,

and control their cognition, motivation, and behavior, guided and constrained by

their goals and the contextual features in the environment” (p.453)

Self-strategic regulation (S2R) is essential to the learning process (Järvelä

& Järvenoja, 2011; Zimmerman, 2008) as it can help students create better

learning habits and strengthen their study skills (Wolters, 2011), apply learning

strategies to enhance academic outcomes, monitor their performance (Harris,

Friedlander, Saddler, Frizzelle, & Graham, 2005), and evaluate their academic

progress (De Bruin, Thiede, & Camp, 2001)

S2R is based on two main assumptions: (a) The use of appropriate

strategies enables everyone to learn an additional language effectively, and (b)

Strategies can be learned through mediation or assistance Because not every

student has strategic expertise at the outset, they need to be developed in the

individual students with the mediation of expertise (Gu, 2010, p.1) This

perspective is in line with Vygotsky‟s (1978) sociocultural model, as well as in the

S2R model, in which all learning is assumed to be assisted (mediated)

performance Vygotsky (1978) indicates that “the more capable other” by means

of mediation (various kinds of assistance and scaffolding) and student‟s “zone of

proximal development” (ZPD- the area of learning that a particular student can

optimally transfer through assistance) can foster actively engaged student Even if

the student is learning outside of a classroom, learning is always mediated by

interaction with cultural tools, such as books, media, technology, and language

itself

The S2R model agrees with several sociocultural models, which state that

learners are part of communities of practice, which is an authentic, meaningful

Comment [G44]: Inserted: the Comment [G45]: Inserted: ,

group centered on specific practices, goals, beliefs, and areas of learning within an

environment, and can be local or electronically networked (Lave & Wenger, 1991;

Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002) Newcomers or apprentices at first

"participate peripherally" in the community and observe strategies used by those

who have been in the group longer, especially central people known as

"old-timers" or experts (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Levine, Reves, & Leaver, 1996)

Gradually newcomers move closer to the center of the community of practice if

the circumstances are welcoming In a community of practice, a learner ideally

participates in what is called cognitive apprenticeship, i.e., a strategic, practical

learning-based relationship with a more capable other (Collins, 1988) Cognitive

apprenticeship helps students to acquire, develop, and use learning strategies in

authentic activities via interaction, the social construction of knowledge,

scaffolding, modeling, goal-setting, peer sharing, and learner reflection (Brown &

Palinscar, 1984) Strategically self-regulated learning in classroom communities

of practice is useful for all students, from the most expert learners to those who

have serious linguistic or cognitive disabilities (Harris & Graham, 2005) Learners

need to know and use strategies to get the most out of mediated learning, whether

in the classroom, in informal learning, or at a distance (Kozulin, Gindis, Ageyev,

& Miller, 2003; Vygotsky, 1986)

Based on Schunk and Ertmer‟s (2000) definition of self-regulation

learning model, reading in this model comprises such processes as setting goals

for reading, attending to and concentrating on instruction, using effective

strategies to organize, code, and rehearse information to be remembered,

establishing a productive working environment, using resources effectively,

monitoring performance, managing time effectively, seeking assistance when

needed, holding positive beliefs about the reader‟s capabilities, the value of

reading, the factors influencing reading, and the anticipated outcomes of actions,

and experiencing pride and satisfaction with the reader‟s efforts In addition, in the

reading process, the reader must not only effectively do the reading task and

manage himself/herself but also deal with (and make the most of) the reading

environment (Gu, 2010) Furthermore, according to Lantolf and Pavlenko (2001),

L2 readers are agents whose actions occur in specific sociocultural environments

Comment [G47]: Deleted:l Comment [G46]: Inserted: the

and are affected by their dynamic identities, which are related to nationality,

ethnicity, class, educational experience, gender, age, and so on

To sum up, reading is conceptualized as an interactive cognitive process in

which readers interact with the text using their prior knowledge, cultural

background, their own identities, and use appropriate strategies in order to

produce meaning out of the written discourse In order to read effectively, readers

always try to draw selectively on a range of strategies, which are determined by

readers' purpose, text type, and context (Erler & Finkbeiner, 2007; Wallace,

1992), and assumed to be mediated performance (Vygotsky, 1978) Metacognition

enhances the reader's reading comprehension through an awareness of the reader's

own understanding, of comprehension strategies, and of monitoring, evaluating,

and regulating comprehension during reading (Fitzgerald, 1995; Pressley, 2002)

1.2 Reading strategies

1.2.1 Definitions and characteristics of reading strategies

The word strategy comes from the ancient Greek term strategia meaning

generalship or the art of war More specifically, strategy involves the optimal

management of troops, ships, or aircraft in a planned campaign” (Oxford, 1990,

p.7) Strategy implies conscious movement towards a goal They must be

controllable because they are steps that learners take in order to manage their

learning and achieve desired goals (Pressley & Mc Comrmick, 1995)

Brown (1994) points out:

“Strategies are specific methods of approaching a problem or task,

modes of operation for achieving a particular end, planned designs

controlling and manipulating certain information They are

contextualized „battled plans‟ that might vary from moment to

moment, or day to day, or year to year Strategies vary

intraindividually: each of us has a whole host of possible ways to

solve a particular problem and we choose one or several of those on

sequence, for a given problem” (p.104)

Reading strategies refer to the mental operations involved when readers

purposefully approach a text They indicate how readers conceive a task, what

Comment [G48]: Inserted: the

textual cues they attend to, how they make sense of what they read, and what they

do when they do not understand (Barnett, 1988; Block, 1986; Brantmeier, 2002) Garner (1987) defines reading strategies as “generally deliberate, planful activities undertaken by active learners, many times to remedy perceived cognitive failure” Reading strategies are also defined as actions that readers select deliberately and control to achieve goals or objectives (Paris, Wasik, & Turner, 1991) In a very similar way, Carrell, Gajuusek and Wise (1998) express “strategies are used deliberately to refer to actions that readers select and control to achieve desired goals or objectives” Yang (2004) defines reading strategies as conscious and deliberate activities that readers take to help their reading in acquiring, storing, retrieving information and construct meaning from the text

Some authors have also demonstrated the relationship between reading strategies and skills Carrell (1989) indicates that strategies are deliberate actions

to achieve a purpose while skills are automatic and unconscious information processing techniques Similarly, reading skills are “automatic actions that result

in decoding, comprehension and fluency” while reading strategies are “deliberate, goal-directed attempts to control and modify the reader‟s efforts to decode the text, understand words, and construct meaning out of the text” (Afflerbach, Pearson, & Paris, 2008) In addition, Urquhart and Weir (1998) mention three differences between reading strategies and skills Firstly, strategies are reader-oriented while skills are text-oriented This leads to the second difference that strategies are decided by the reader‟s conscious behavior and skills are performed unconsciously Thirdly, strategies, unlike skills, are used by the reader in order to solve a problem during his/ her reading process

In the S2R model, Oxford (2013) describes reading strategy as "deliberate, goal-directed attempts to manage and control efforts to read the L2" (p.12) With S2R model readers are seen as strategically self-regulated readers who approach challenging reading tasks and problems by choosing from a repertoire of tactics, the ones they believe are best compatible with the situation and purpose of their reading (Oxford, 2013) Furthermore, Oxford's (2013) argument into characteristics of reading strategies favors different types of consciousness (awareness, attention, intention, and efforts), whole reader, utilizing strategy

chains, transferability of strategies to other related situations, and reading

effectiveness Oxford (2013) also differentiates reading strategies and skills that

skills are automatic and out of awareness, whereas strategies are intentional and

deliberate So, it is impossible to tell whether an action is a strategy or a skill

without finding out whether it is under the reader's automatic or deliberate control

Although different authors have defined reading strategies in different

ways all of them share the same viewpoint on the characteristics of reading

strategies Those are (1) deliberate, conscious plans, techniques and skills; (2)

aiming to enhance reading comprehension and overcome comprehension failures;

and (3) behavioral mental They are of interest for what they reveal about the way

readers manage their interaction with the written text and how these strategies are

related to text comprehension (Carrell, Pharis, & Liberto, 1989) In this sense, a

reading strategy is an action (or a series of actions) that is employed in order to

construct meaning (Brantmeier, 2002)

1.2.2 Classifications of reading strategies

Different authors have classified reading strategies in different ways

Based on three broad category classifications Chamot (1987, cited in

Wenden and Rubin, 1987, p.77) introduces twenty-two strategies which can be

used in reading, categorized in Metacognitive, Cognitive, and Social and

Affective strategies Metacognitive category which allows readers think about the

reading process, plan for reading, monitor the reading task, and evaluate how well

one has read (Schramm, 2008; Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001), consists of seven

strategies: Planning, Directed attention, Selected attention, Self-management,

Self-monitoring, Problem identification, and Self-evaluation

Cognitive strategies which help readers interact with the material to be

read, manipulate the material mentally or physically, use prior knowledge, or

apply a specific technique and various strategies in their efforts to construct

meaning in the comprehension process (Chamot, cited in Wenden & Rubin, 1987,

p.77; Pang, 2008) include eleven specific strategies: Repeating, Resourcing,

Grouping, Note taking, Deduction/ Induction, Substitution, Elaboration,

Summarization, Translation, Transferring, and Inferencing

Comment [G49]: Inserted: the

Four last strategies belonging to Social and Affective strategies allow

readers to interact with another person to assist reading or using affective control

to assist a reading task Those are Questioning for clarification, Cooperation,

Self-task, and Self-reinforcement

Oxford (1990) classifying language learning strategies into six groups of

Direct and Indirect strategies has proposed fifty strategies applied in reading The

first group of Direct strategies is Memory, which consists of ten specific strategies

categorized into four strategy sets: Creating mental linkages, Applying images and

sounds, Reviewing well, and Employing action

The second group of Direct strategies is Cognitive including thirteen

strategies divided into four strategy sets: Practicing, Receiving and sending

messages, Analyzing and reasoning, and Creating a structure for input and output

The last group of Direct strategies is Compensation with only one strategy set

namely Guessing intelligently with two specific strategies Using linguistic clues

and Using other clues

Indirect strategies are divided into three groups with nine strategy sets The

first group named Metacognitve consists of ten strategies belonging to three

strategy sets Centering your learning, Arranging and planning your learning, and

Evaluating The second group is Affective including ten specific strategies

categorized into three strategy sets: Lowering your anxiety, Encouraging yourself,

and Taking your emotional temperature

The last Indirect group consists of five strategies divided into three strategy

sets: Asking questions, Cooperating with others, and Empathizing with others

The names and definitions of all fifty strategies in this classification is

presented in Appendix 1.1

In a very recent study Oxford (2013) introduces quite a different taxonomy

of reading strategies (Appendix 1.2) The Self-Strategic Regulation (S2R) model

includes strategies of three majors, mutually influential dimensions: cognitive,

affective, sociocultural-interactive, and metastrategies Cognitive strategies help

the reader construct, transform, and apply L2 knowledge Affective strategies help

the reader create positive emotions and attitudes and stay motivated Sociocultural

Interactive (SI) strategies help the learner with communication, sociocultural

contexts, and identity All of these three strategy dimensions are powerfully

influenced by three types of Metastrategies Metacognitive strategies simply mean

“beyond the cognitive” and include strategies that provide general management

(control) of cognitive strategies help the reader control cognitive strategy use

Similarly, meta-affective strategies facilitate reader control of affective strategy

use, and meta-SI strategies enable the reader to control SI strategy use

Metastrategies, by virtue of their executive-control and management function,

help the reader know whether and how to deploy a given strategy and aid in

determining whether the strategy is working or has worked as intended Strategies

and metastrategies in the model are highly dynamic because they respond to the

changing needs of the learner for varying purposes in different sociocultural

contexts

A different classification of reading strategies was proposed by Shih (1992)

and Baker-Gonzalize & Blau (1995) when they suggested three stages of reading

strategy use: before reading, while reading, and after reading Before, or

pre-reading strategies are believed to activate prior knowledge, or schemata, essential

for understanding texts; during, or while-reading strategies help to locate the main

idea; and after, or post-reading strategies are used to review, detect and cogitate

upon the information (Paris et al., 1991; Young & Oxford, 1997)

Other scholars classified reading strategies using different terms Anderson

(1991) groups reading strategies to five categories: 1) supervising strategies, 2)

support strategies, 3) paraphrasing strategies, 4) strategies for establishing

coherence in the text, and 5) test-taking strategies Meanwhile, Jimenez, Garcia,

and Pearson (1996) classify reading strategies into text-initiated, interactive, and

reader-initiated strategies

Studies in both L1 and L2 reading generally indicate a binary

categorization of "bottom-up" and "top-down" strategies These strategies have

quite the same functions as local strategies and global strategies by Block (1986)

and Carrell (1989) Bottom-up or local strategies include focusing on identifying

the meaning and grammatical category of individual words, sentence structure,

and details of the text (Salataci & Akyel, 2002) As the reader processes

information that each sentence gives them they check to see how this information

Comment [G56]: Deleted:, Comment [G55]: Inserted: the

fits by using top-down or global strategies, such as activating background

knowledge, predicting, getting the gist of the text, and skimming (Barnett, 1988;

Block, 1986; Carrell et al., 1989)

Brown (1990) lists five specific strategies that can help students read more

quickly and effectively: Previewing, predicting, skimming and scanning, guessing

from context, and paraphrasing Sharing a quite similar view Brantmeier (2002)

agrees that reading strategies “may involve skimming, scanning, guessing,

recognizing cognates and word families, reading for meaning, predicting,

activating general knowledge, making inferences, following references, and

separating main ideas from support ideas” (p.1)

Mokhtari & Sheorey (2002) and Mokhtari & Reichard (2002) introduce the

Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS) and Metacognitive Awareness of Reading

Strategies Inventory (MARSI) to “measure the type and frequency of reading

strategies that adolescent and adult ESL students perceive they use while reading

academic or school-related materials in English” (p 4) The authors propose thirty

items using three broad categories as Global, Problem-solving, and Support

strategies These three classes of strategies interact with and support each other

when used in the process of constructing meaning from text

As demonstrated above, different classification systems of reading

strategies based on contrasting criteria have been proposed by different authors

(Anderson, 1991; Baker-Gonzalize & Blau, 1995; Block, 1986; Brown, 1990;

Carrell, 1989; Mokhtari & Sheorey, 2002; O'Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford,

1990; Oxford, 2013) Each existing classification system in and on itself involves

an implicit theory about the nature of reading strategies However, how the best

use of the strategies presented by the authors can be made depends on types of

readers and their reading purposes Using appropriate strategies for learning a

language helps learners think and process the target language in specific contexts

(Chamot, 2005; Cohen, 2007; Oxford, 2013) Nevertheless, how many strategies

are available to learners to assist them in L2 learning and how these strategies

should be classified are open to debate (Hsiao & Oxford, 2002) It may also cause

a problem that many researchers are very easy to be puzzled with which

classification to follow when they conduct studies on reading strategy

Comment [G57]: Inserted: -

Comment [G58]: Inserted: r Comment [G59]: Inserted: the

The comparisons between Oxford‟s (1990) reading strategy classification and three other best known taxonomies-the ones by O‟Malley and Chamot‟s (1990), Mokhtari and Sheorey‟s (2002), and Oxford (2013) presented below will help the researcher define the most appropriate reading strategy classification for the study

1.2.2.1 Comparing the O’Malley and Chamot’s (1990) and the Oxford’s (1990) reading strategy systems

O‟Malley and Chamot‟s (1990) reading strategy system derived from cognitive psychological theory of information processing (Brown & Palincsar, 1984) distinguishes three broad types of reading strategies: cognitive, metacognitive, and socio-affective (or sometimes called socio-affective or social-affective) Oxford (1990) classifies learning strategies into two major areas: direct and indirect strategies which are subdivided into a total of six classes (memory, cognitive, and compensation under the direct class; metacognitive, affective, and social under the indirect class) Direct and indirect strategies support each other and each strategy group is capable of connecting with and assisting every other strategy group (Oxford, 1990, p.14) However, in research practice, particularly in the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) and Strategy Applications Listed According to Reading Skill, Oxford did not use the direct/indirect dichotomy In fact, she introduces fifty reading strategies divided into memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, affective, and social strategies

There is a considerable degree of overlap between the two strategy systems, although there are also many differences (See Appendix 1.3)

O‟Malley and Chamot‟s (1990) metacognitive strategies generally match those of Oxford (1990) The general function of this category is planning, organizing, and evaluating one‟s own reading process

The number of metacognitive strategies introduced by O'Malley and Chamot (1990) and Oxford (1990) is not the same (seven compared with ten) However, according to Oxford (1990) paying attention strategy involves two modes: directed attention and selective attention, which are separated in O'Malley and Chamot's (1990) system Obviously, the two systems share six metacognitive

strategies Besides O'Malley and Chamot (1990) add problem identification

strategy and Oxford (1990) adds six more (Overviewing and linking with already

known material, Identifying the purpose of a language task, Setting goals and

objectives, Seeking practice opportunities, Finding out about language learning,

and Organizing) It can also be said from this difference that setting goals and

purpose of reading is considered important in Oxford (1990) system while

O'Malley and Chamot (1990) ignore this In general, metacognitive strategies are

quite consistent in both classifications

The cognitive strategies of O'Malley and Chamot (1990) roughly

correspond to a combination of Oxford's cognitive and memory strategies

although the number of strategies of these two systems is quite different (eleven

strategies compared with twenty-four) There are more six cognitive strategies and

eight memory strategies in Oxford's (1990) classification However, inferencing

strategy of O'Malley and Chamot's (1990) system is listed as a compensation

strategy in Oxford's (1990) (Using linguistic and other clues to guess- of guessing

intelligently strategy set) The reason for this, according to Oxford (1990) is that

this strategy is essential to make up for inadequate knowledge while reading

Oxford (1990) intentionally separates memory strategies from the cognitive

category because memory strategies appear to have a very clear, specific function

which distinguishes them from many cognitive strategies Naturally, memory

strategies serve cognition However, the actions included as memory strategies are

particular mnemonic devices that aid learners in moving information to long-term

memory for storage purposes and in retrieving it from long-term memory when

needed for use Most of the memory devices do not tend to contribute to the deep

processing of language information, although cognitive strategies do contribute to

deep processing (Hsiao & Oxford, 2002)

Both systems mention strategies dealing with affect and social interaction

Affective strategies are techniques whereby the learner manages his/her emotions,

feelings, and motivational states One of the most basic social interactions is

asking questions, an action from which learners gain great benefit In addition,

social strategies are techniques involving learning with other people

Comment [G61]: Deleted:are Comment [G60]: Inserted: is

Comment [G63]: Deleted:are Comment [G62]: Inserted: is

Comment [G64]: Inserted: the

O‟Malley and Chamot (1990) group affective strategies and social strategies together to form a category known as social-affective, socio-affective,

or socio-affective strategies In contrast, Oxford (1990) classifies affective and social strategies as separate categories and there are six more individual strategies

of these categories in Oxford‟s (1990) than in O‟Malley and Chamot‟s (1990) Both O‟Malley and Chamot‟s (1990) and Oxford‟s (1990) reading systems have made an important contribution to and have advanced our understanding of how reading strategies can be systematically categorized Nevertheless, in their research Hsiao and Oxford (2002) suggest that “it may be preferable to subdivide O‟Malley and Chamot‟s (1990) cognitive strategies into memory, cognitive, and compensation dimensions than to consider cognitive strategies as a unitary dimension” (Hsiao & Oxford, 2002) In addition, O‟Malley and Chamot‟s (1990) socio-affective strategies should be separated into affective and social dimensions (Hsiao & Oxford, 2002, p 378) Concluding that the six-factor model without the two higher-order strategy constructs is more consistent with learners‟ strategy use than other models (Hsiao & Oxford, 2002), Oxford (1990) emphasizes the classification is more comprehensive and detailed; it is more systematic in linking individual strategies, as well as strategy group; and it uses less technical terminology (Oxford, 1990, p.14) Furthermore, this comprehensive classification system has provided the foundation for the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL), which has been employed in numerous studies across the world

to validate the effectiveness of reading strategies to reading comprehension It is estimated that the SILL has been used in major studies on reading strategies around the world and involved 10,000 language learners (Kaylani, 1996) Moreover, it has been translated into more than twenty languages (Oxford, 2001) However, it appears that there could be other approaches that might help to advance theories of reading strategy classification and explain variability in learners‟ strategy use as well as or better than the six-factor strategy model

1.2.2.2 Comparing Oxford’s (1990) and Mokhtari and Sheorey’s (2002) reading strategy systems

In 2002, Mokhtari and Sheorey introduced the Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS), which was initially inspired by the review and use of another instrument Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory (MARSI)

by Mokhtari and Reichard (2002) as a measure of students‟ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies The SORS is intended to measure the type and frequency of reading strategies that adolescent and adult EFL students perceive they use while reading academic materials in English Here is a comparison of the reading strategy classifications by Oxford (1990) and that by Mokhtari and Sheorey (2002) (See Appendix 1.4)

The two systems show that Oxford (1990) and Mokhtari and Sheorey (2002) share twenty-one strategies, such as using previous knowledge, repeating, guessing, taking notes, translating, using clues, etc though the strategies are categorized differently by the authors As mentioned earlier Oxford (1990) proposes fifty strategies categorized in four groups while there are only thirty strategies divided into three groups in Mokhtari and Sheorey‟s (2002) classification Although Oxford‟s (1990, p.14) classification is comprehensive and detailed, with so many strategies, it is very difficult to decide which are the most important to learning In addition, there is a tendency to find overlapping strategies, which cannot be attributed to any particular theory of learning For example, three strategies of Cooperating with peers (Social), Cooperating with proficient users of the language (Social), and Discussing your feelings with someone else (Affective) can be combined as one strategy: Interacting to Learn and Communicate (in S2R model); or four strategies of Organizing (Metacognitive), Setting goals and objectives (Metacognitive), Identifying the purpose of a language task (Metacognitive), and Planning for a language task (Metacognitive) can be grouped as Planning (in S2R model)

It can be noticed that the classification by Mokhtari and Sheorey (2002) is simply organized and the number of reading strategies is moderate for readers to assess themselves Mentioning SORS, Mokhtari and Sheorey (2002) indicate

"SORS is presented as a simple and effective tool for enabling students to develop

a better awareness of their reading strategies, for teachers assess such awareness, and for assisting students in becoming constructively responsive readers" (p.2)

Furthermore, the title of each strategy group (Global, Problem-solving, and

Support) can also be considered as a useful guide for readers when they deal with

reading texts Global strategies can be applied in all kinds of texts, at any time,

while problem-solving strategies help readers cope with problems emerged during

their reading Besides readers can make the best of support strategies when they

face difficulties in reading In addition, many researchers have applied SORS in

their studies to investigate readers' strategies used while reading English academic

materials as a foreign/second language (Alsheikh, 2011, 2014; Al-Sohbani, 2013;

Jafari & Shokrpour, 2012; Monos, 2005; Sheorey & Baboezky, 2008; etc.)

1.2.2.3 Comparing Oxford’s (1990) and Oxford’s (2013) reading strategy

systems

Oxford‟s (2013) new model of reading strategies has addressed the gaps in

her initial 1990 taxonomy In the new model the divisions of direct and indirect

strategies, which were considered as the main limitation of Oxford‟s 1990

taxonomy (Uztosun, 2015), have not been used any longer This point has been

proved by the fact that Hsiao and Oxford‟s (2002) confirmatory factor analysis did

not provide support for categorizing strategies as direct and indirect strategies

Informed by self-regulation, the S2R model shifted the focus of language

learning strategies to the assumption that “learners actively and constructively use

strategies to manage their own learning” (Oxford, 2013, p.7) It can be seen

clearly that there are important differences between Oxford‟s (2013) S2R model

and her 1990 strategy classification

The most difference is that S2R model includes metastrategies for each

strategy dimension: metacognitive strategies, meta-sociocultural-interactive

strategies, and meta-affective strategies Oxford‟s explanation for this is that

metaknowledge is not only relevant to cognitive strategies but also affective and

sociocultural-interactive ones This is because deploying any type of strategy

requires using a meta-strategy which “help[s] the learner know whether and how

to deploy a given strategy and aid[s] in determining whether the strategy is

working or has worked as intended” (Oxford, 2013, p.18)

Comment [G66]: Deleted:are Comment [G65]: Inserted: is

In the S2R model, the role of memory (ME) and compensation (COM)

strategy categories is not mentioned Some individual strategies of these

categories have been put into the category of cognitive strategies, such as Using

linguistic clues (COM), Using other clues (COM), Using keywords (ME), and

Using imagery (ME) The others, for example, Using physical response or

sensation (ME), Using mechanical techniques (ME) have not been used anymore

Emphasizing the role of culture in the reading process, Oxford (2013)

includes strategies which are used to deal with sociocultural contexts and

identities by introducing a new strategy subscale namely

„sociocultural-interactive'

In sum, Oxford (2013) presents nine ways that make S2R Model different

from other strategy taxonomies, which shows the advantages of this new model

However, the most significant differences can be demonstrated as follows

First, the S2R Model systematically integrates three major traditions of

learning theory and research: psychological, socialcognitive, and sociocultural

The psychological tradition of strategies is very diverse, including strategies as

related to schema (mental structure) development, comprehension, cognitive

information-processing, metacognition, motivation, emotion, and beliefs The

social-cognitive strand deals with strategies as associated with task phases,

self-efficacy, and social comparisons The sociocultural tradition involves strategies

(often called “higher mental functions” or “operations”) as linked with mediated

learning, instrumental enrichment, the ZPD, communities of practice, and

cognitive apprenticeship

Second, by proposing affecting and sociocultural interaction subscales of

strategies, especially by recognizing the significant importance of metastrategies

Oxford (2013) indicates that second language reading is not just a

cognitive/metacognitive process but is also influenced by a complex web of

beliefs, emotional associations, attitudes, motivations, sociocultural relationships,

personal interactions, and power dynamics

Third, the S2R Model states that metastrategies, such as Planning,

Organizing, Monitoring, and Evaluating, are naturally usable at either the task

level or the whole-process level Meanwhile, several social-cognitive models of

Comment [G67]: Inserted: the

Comment [G68]: Deleted:s