chapter 1: introduction -...

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1. Rationale

Internationally, within the field of education over the last few decades a gradual but

significant shift has taken place, resulting in less emphasis on teachers and teaching and

greater stress on learners and learning. This change has been reflected in various ways in

language education. Teaching English as a second or foreign language (TESL/TEFL) has also

changed tremendously. Most significantly, the traditional teacher-centred approach has been

replaced with the learner-centred one, which reflects a desire to explore ways of making

teaching responsive to learner needs and interests and allowing learners to play a fuller, more

active and participatory role in the day-to-day teaching and learning processes. Inherent in this

approach is a shift in the responsibilities of both teachers and students in the foreign language

classroom. No longer does the teacher act as the centre of all instruction, controlling every

aspect of the learning process. Learners themselves now, more than ever, are sharing the

responsibility for successful language acquisition and, in doing so, are becoming less

dependant on the language teacher for meeting their own individual language learning needs.

By giving students more responsibility for their own language development, language

programs are inviting learners to become more autonomous, to diagnose some of their own

learning strengths and weaknesses and to sift-direct the process of language development.

Then, for all L2 teachers who aim to develop their students' communicative

competence and language learning, an understanding of language learning strategies is crucial.

As Oxford (1990) puts it, language learning strategies"... are specially important for language

learning because they are tools for active, self-directed involvement, which is essential for

developing communicative competence" (p.1). According to Nunan (1999), learner-

centeredness does not mean that teachers should devaluating their own professional roles or

handling their duties and responsibility to the learner. Learner-centered instruction "is a matter

of educating learners so that they can gradually assume greater responsibility for their own

learning" (Nunan, 1999: 12) and research suggests that training students to use language

learning strategies can help them become better language learners. In the field of second

language acquisition, focus has been shifted away from finding perfect teaching

1

methodologies to investigating why some learners are very successful in their language

learning while others are not although they have made as much effort learning the language.

Several studies that have been carried out by Oxford (1990), O'Malley and Chamot (1990),

Nunan (1991), Rubin and Thompson (1994) and Cohen (1998) have shown that one of the

most important factors that distinguish successful learners from unsuccessful ones is their

learning strategies. In other words, successful learners do use some effective learning

strategies to deal with problems that emerge during their learning process while unsuccessful

ones employ inappropriate or ineffective strategies resulting in their failure in their language

learning. This finding has provoked interest among researchers and teachers in identifying

learning strategies employed by good language learners with a view to training bad learners to

use such effective learning strategies.

In Vietnam, learning strategies have also become a topic of interest in recent years

when the concepts of "self-learning" and "life-long learning" have been familiar to the ears of

both Vietnamese teachers and learners. Several studies into this field have been conducted

with different type of learners to find out particular strategies employed by effective and

ineffective learners such as Huyen Tran study (2004) on vocabulary learning strategies used

by students of English at Quy Nhon University or Mai Duong's (2005) on writing strategies

employed by first-year students at Hanoi National University or Nguyen Thi Thu Ha's (2006)

on reading strategies employed by second-year bridge and road students at the University of

Transport and Communications or Mai Van Binh's (2007) on vocabulary learning strategies

preferred by students at College of Finance and Business Administration. However, studies as

such are still scarce, thus, more research should be done in order to clarify particular strategies

used in different settings and by learners of different levels.

At Tay Bac University (TBU), reading is regarded as an important skill to the students

because these students need to read a lot of English books and documents to support their

professional studies. However, apart from some students who are quite good at English

reading, most students especially ethnic minority junior ones find reading difficult. They often

complain that they have little understanding of the text they have read and hardly finish their

reading exercises and exams successfully. Having taught English majored students at TBU for

several years, I am aware of their problems and very much want to help them to improve their

reading ability. Therefore, I intend to examine their reading strategies to find out the reading

2

strategies used by students of lower reading ability. Based on the findings, I am going to make

some implications to improve TBU students' reading proficiency.

1.2. Scope, aims and significance of the study

1.2.1. Scope of the study

The present study investigates the reading strategies used by readers among ethnic

minority junior first-year English-majored students at Tay Bac University (hereafter TBU).

The study of learning strategies in other English skills would be beyond the scope.

1.2.2. Aims of the study

The major purposes of this study are:

(1) to identify the reading strategies utilized by readers among ethnic minority junior

first-year English-majored students at Tay Bac University;

(2) to inform the concerned teachers so that they can find ways to improve their

students' reading proficiency.

In order to achieve the above aims of the study, the following major research question

will be addressed:

- What are the reading strategies employed by readers among TBU ethnic minority

junior first-year English-majored students?

1.2.3. Significance of the study

The study is the first one to be carried out in the field of reading strategies research at

TBU. It helps give a detailed description of reading strategies used by readers among first-

year English- majored students at junior grade at the university. More importantly, the

findings of their reading strategies can help teachers to understand more about their students

and they can serve as the foundation for some recommendations on how to improve the

3

students' reading proficiency. They are also an important basic for reading strategy based

instruction to be implemented in the future.

1.3. Method of the study

In order to achieve the aims mentioned above, the present study utilized quantitative

method including tests and survey questionnaires to collect data on the reading strategies

employed by TBU students. First, the two reading comprehension tests were given to the

subjects in order to identify their English reading proficiency levels. Then, the questionnaires

were administered to find out their reading strategies.

After the data is analyzed and discussed, some conclusions will be drawn, and some

suggestions will be raised in the thesis.

1.4 Organization of the thesis

The study is divided into five chapters

Chapter 1 includes the rationale, scope, aims, significance, methods and organization

of the study.

Chapter 2 reviews the literature relevant to the topic of research and summarizes some

selected studies on reading strategies, which serve as a theoretical and methodological

foundation of the study.

Chapter 3 presents the research methodology of the study. It provides information

about the participants, the research method, the instrumentation, the data collection procedures

and data analysis.

Chapter 4, the main part of the study that reports, discusses the main findings

according to the research question.

Chapter 5 is the conclusion that summarizes the findings, presents the implications and

limitations of the study and finally give some suggestions for further research.

4

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Introduction

This chapter reviews theories related to learning strategies in general and reading

strategies in particular. It also summarizes some studies on reading strategies that have been

conducted so far. All of these serve as a basic for an investigation into reading strategies

which is carried out and presented in the next chapter.

2.2. Language learning strategies

2.2.1. Learning strategies - The definitions

Over the last two decades, the study of learning strategies has seen as "explosion of

activity" (R. Ellis, 1994) with the contributions of such well-known researchers as Tarone

(1981), Weinstein and Mayer (1986), Rubin (1987), O' Malley and Chamot (1990), Oxford

(1990) and Cohen (1998). These studies have helped figure out a comprehensive overview of

learning strategies.

Although research on learning strategies is becoming increasingly popular, there have

been some considerable differences in the definition of learning strategies in the literature.

Taron (1981) claimed that "Learning strategies as attempts to develop linguistic and

sociolinguistic competence in the target language". Learning strategies, according to

Weinstein and Mayer (1986) (in O' Malley and Chamot 1990), have learning facilitation as a

goal and are intentional on the part of the learner. The goal of strategy use is to "affect the

learner's motivational or affective state, or the way in which the learner selects, acquires,

organizes, or integrates new knowledge." (1986: 43). These definitions are too general in

comparison to the complex nature of learning strategies.

Oxford (1990) defined learning strategies as "specific actions taken by the learner to

make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective, and more

transferable to new situations" (1990: 5). This definition is judged to be quite comprehensive

as it not only covers the cognitive but also the affective aspects of learning strategies (i.e. to

5

increase enjoyment in learning). However, Oxford's definition is not sufficient in the sense

that it regards learning strategies as "specific actions", i.e. learning strategies are behavioral,

and therefore, they are mostly observable. However, many studies in this field have shown

that learning strategies are difficult to observe as they are not only behavioral.

In an attempt to define learning strategies in a more sensible manner, Weinstein and

Mayer (in Ellis,1994: 531) claimed that learning strategies "are the behaviors and thoughts

that a learner engages in during learning that are intended to influence the learner's encoding

process". Thus, these two authors see learning strategies both behavioral and mental. Their

view has been shared by most researchers in strategies studies.

The definition that has been widely accepted to date was proposed by O' Malley and

Chamot (1990). According to them, learning strategies are "the special thoughts or behaviors

that individuals use to help them comprehend, learn or retain new information" (1990: 1). In

spite of being quite short, their definition covers the most important aspects of learning

strategies, that is learning strategies are both mental and behavioral (therefore both observable

and unobservable), and learning strategies are individually characterized (i.e. every learner's

strategies are different). Because of its comprehensive features, the present study utilized this

definition as the key direction in its investigation.

2.2.2. Why studying learning strategies?

When commenting on the role of learning strategies, Weinstein and Mayer (in O'

Malley and Chamot 1990) say that learning facilitation is the goal of learning strategies, which

are intentional on the part of the learner. The goal of learning strategy use is to "affect the

learner's motivational or affective state, or the way in which the learner selects, acquires,

organizes, or integrates new knowledge." (1986: 43).

Oxford (1990), one of the leading teachers and researchers in language learning

strategies field, also gives her own evaluation on learning strategies: "strategies are especially

important for language learning because they are tools for active, self-directed involvement,

which is essential for developing communicative competence". (1990: 1)

As a teacher of English, my strong belief is that " It takes better teachers to focus on

the learner" (Peter Strevens, cited in Oxford, 1990: 193) and "We cannot teach another

6

directly; we can only facilitate his learning (Carl Rogers, cited in Oxford, 1990: 193). The

current approach that is encouraged to be taken to teach English in our country in general and

in our own language setting in particular is communicative language teaching in which

learners are central to the learning process. Helping learners to be independent during their

learning process is a task of every teacher. To gain this aim, one of the suggestions is that

learners should be equipped various strategies so that they control their own learning process

confidently and independently. That is the reason why learning strategies are chosen as the

topic of this thesis.

2.2.3. Classification of learning strategies

Much of the earlier research (Rubin 1975 and 1981; Stern 1975; Naiman et al 1978)

focused on compiling inventories of the learning strategies that learners were observed to use

or reported to use.

Rubin (1981) proposed a classification scheme that subsumes learning strategies under

two primary groupings and a number of subgroups. Rubin's first primary category, consisting

of strategies that directly affect learning, includes clarification/verification, monitoring,

memorization, guessing/inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning and practice. The second

category, consisting of strategies that contribute indirectly to learning, includes creating

practice opportunities and using production tricks such as communication strategies. An

alternative classification scheme proposed by Naiman et al (1978) contains five broad

categories of learning strategies and a number of secondary categories. The primary

classification includes an active task approach, realization of language as a means of

communication and interaction, management of affective demands and monitoring of second

language performance.

Subsequent descriptive studies have endeavored to identify broad classes of learning

strategies, under which a large number of more specific strategies can be grouped. The works

by Wenden (1983), Oxford (1990), O'Malley et at (1985a and 1985b), O'Malley and Chamot

(1990) have made an important contribution to our knowledge of learning strategies. Wenden's

(1983) research examined the strategies that adult foreign language learners use in order to

direct their own learning. She identifies three general categories of self-directing strategies: (1)

7

knowing about language (relating to what language and language learning involves), (2)

planning (relating to what and how of language learning), and (3) self-evaluation (relating to

progress in learning and learner's response to the language experience). Wenden's framework

devised as a basic for learner training.

R. Oxford (1990) built on the earlier classifications with the aim of subsuming within

her taxonomy virtually every strategy previously mentioned in the literature. Oxford (1990)

draws a general distinction between direct and indirect strategies. The former consists of

memory, cognitive and compensation strategies while the later includes metacognitive,

affective and social strategies. However, Oxford's classification of learning strategies is

somewhat complicated and confusing as she treats compensation strategies as a direct type of

learning strategies and memory strategies as separate ones from cognitive strategies.

Perhaps, the framework that has been most useful and generally accepted is O'Malley

and Chamot (1990)'s. In O'Malley and Chamot 's framework, three major types of strategies

are distinguished in accordance with the information processing model, on which their

research is based. Metacognitive strategies are "higher order executive skills that may entail

planning for, monitoring or evaluating the success of learning activity" (O'Malley and

Chamot: 44). Cognitive strategies "operate directly on incoming information, manipulating it

in ways that enhance learning" O'Malley and Chamot, 1990: 44). The last subtypes of these

strategies presented in Table 2.1 were identified by O'Malley and Chamot on the basis of

their several descriptive studies on learning strategies used by second language learners.

Learning strategy

Definition

A. Metacognitive

strategies

Planning

Advance

organizers

Previewing the main ideas and concepts of the material to be learned, often by skimming

the text for the organization principle.

Directed attention Deciding in advance to attend in general to a learning task and to ignore irrelevant

distracters.

Functional

planning

Planning for and rehearsing linguistic components necessary to carry out an outcoming task.

Selective attention Deciding in advance to attend to specific aspects of input, often by scanning for key words,

8

concepts and/or linguistic markers

Self-management Understanding the conditions that help one learn and arranging for the presence of those

conditions.

Monitoring

Self-monitoring 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.

Evaluation

Self-evaluation Checking the outcomes of one's own language against a standard after it has been

completed.

B. Cognitive

strategies

Resourcing Using target language reference materials such as dictionaries, encyclopedias, or textbooks.

Repetition Imitating the language model, including overt practice and silent rehearsal.

Grouping Classifying words, terminology or concepts according to their attributes or meanings.

Deduction Applying rules to understand or produce the second language or making up rules based on

language analysis.

Imagery Using visual images (either mental or actual) to understand or remember new information.

Auditory

representation

Planning back in one's mind the sound of a word, phrase or longer language sequence.

Key word method Remembering a new word in the second language by: (1) identifying a familiar word in the

first language that sounds like or otherwise resembles the new word, and (2) generating

easily recalled images of some relationship with the first language homonym and the new

word in the second language.

Elaboration relating new information to prior knowledge, relating different parts or 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.

Differencing Using available information to guess the meanings of new items, predict outcomes or fill in

missing information.

Note taking Writing down key words or concepts in abbreviated verbal, graphic or numerical form

while listening or reading.

Recombination Constructing a meaningful sentence or larger language sequence by combining known

elements in a new way.

Translation Using the first language as a base for understanding and/or producing the second language.

C.

Social(affective)

strategies

Question for Eliciting from a teacher or peer additional explanation, rephrasing, examples or verification.

9

clarification

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.

Self-talk Reducing anxiety by using mental techniques that make one feel competent to do the

learning task.

Table 2.1. Learning strategy definition and classification (O'Malley and Chamot, 1990: 119)

This classification of learning strategies is comprehensive and sufficient and it is

applicable to learning strategy studies on four English disciplines. Therefore, the current study

will adopt O'Malley and Chamot's classification of learning strategies as the theoretical

framework for investigation.

2.4. The theory of reading

2.4.1. Definition of reading

For many foreign language or second language learners, reading is a very important

skill. Concerning the role of reading, Carrell (1988:1) stated that "Without solid reading

proficiency, second language learners cannot perform at levels they must in order to succeed".

Anderson (1999) also confirms that "the more exposure a student has to language through

reading, the greater the possibilities that overall language proficiency will increase" (1999:3).

Reading plays such a significant part in the success of second language learning and it

is essential to understand what reading really is. However, the act of reading is not completely

understood nor easily described. In a general term, (Anderson,1999:1) defines reading as "an

active, fluent process which involves the reader and the reading material in building meaning".

This definition of reading has been generally shared by other researchers.

According to Rumelhart (1977), reading involves the reader, the text and the

interaction between the reader and text. Aebersold and Field (1997:15) share the same view on

reading: "Reading is what happens when people look at a text and assign meaning to the

written symbols in that text. The text and the reader are the two physical entities necessary for

the reading process to start. It is, however, the interaction between the text and the reader that

10

constitutes the actual meaning". These interaction, in their opinion, are the interactions

between purpose and manner of reading and through reading strategies and schema. Purpose

determines how people read a text. People may read the text to understand it (reading for full

comprehension), or simply to get the general idea (skimming), to find the part that contains the

information they need (scanning). Readers also use some mental activities that are often

referred to as reading strategies to construct meaning from a text. In addition, readers base on

their previous knowledge that they bring meaning to the text to assist their reading

comprehension. This prior knowledge is known as the schema. Research in reading has shown

that schema plays an important role in helping the reader to comprehend a text.

The above-mentioned views on reading are only general ones. In order to understand

more about the nature of reading, it is necessary to take a closer look at the actual process that

really takes place in the reader's mind. So far, several models have been proposed to describe

this process. The next section is going to present these models of reading and discuss their

strengths and weaknesses.

2.4.2. Models of reading process

Up to now, attempts to describe the interaction between reader and text have been

numerous and different views of the reading process have been proposed. These views are

often grouped under three different reading models named the bottom-up, the top-down and

the interactive ones.

2.4.2.1. Bottom-up model

Early researchers often assumed a passive, bottom-up view of second language

reading, that is it was viewed as "a decoding process of reconstructing the author's intended

meaning" via recognizing the printed letters and words and building up a meaning for a text

from the smallest textual units at the bottom (letters and words) to larger and larger units at the

top (phrases, clauses, intersentencial linkages) (Rivers 1964, 1968; Plaister 1968; Yorio 1971).

In other words, in the bottom-up reading model, the reader begins with the written text

(the bottom) and constructs meaning from the letters, words, phrases and sentences found

11

within and then processes the text in a linear fashion. The coming data from the text must be

received before the high level mental storage of understanding transform and recode the data.

Gough (1972) who supported this reading model explained the sequence of the reading

system from a bottom-up perspective as follows: First, the graphemic information enters

through the visual system and it is transformed at the first level from a letter character, that is

from graphemic representation to a phonemic representation. Second, the phonemic

representation is converted at level two into a word. The meaning units or words then pass on

to the third level and meaning is assimilated into the knowledge system.

In short, the bottom-up model tends to be linear as they start with the printed stimuli

and proceed to higher level stage, one step after another. The basis for bottom-up processing is

the linguistic knowledge of the reader. However, this model reveals several shortcomings in

describing the actual reading process.

An important drawback of this model, as pointed out by Samuel and Kamil (1988: 31),

is "the lack of feedback, in that no mechanism is provided to allow for processing stages

which occur later in the system to influence processing which occurs earlier in the system.

Because of the lack of feedback loops in the early bottom-up models, it was difficult to

account for sentence-context effects and the role of prior knowledge of text topic as

facilitating variables in word recognition and comprehension.".

Due to this limitation, and together with the advent of Goodman's top-down view of

reading, the bottom-up view of reading fell into disfavor.

2.4.2.2. Top-down model

About over three decades ago, the views on reading changed together with the top-

down model of reading. Goodman (1975:135) described reading as a "psycholinguistic

guessing game", in which the "reader reconstructs, as best as he can, a message which has

been encoded by a writer as a graphic display". According to this point of view, the reader

reconstructs meaning from written language by using graphonic, syntactic and semantic

systems of the language, but he/she merely uses cues from the three levels of language to

predict meaning, and most important, confirms these predictions by relating them to his/her

past experiences and knowledge of the language.

12

Although Goodman did not characterize his theory as a top-down model, several other

reading experts (Anderson 1978; Cziko 1978) have considered it as basically a concept-driven

top-down pattern in which "higher level processes interact with and direct the flow of

information through low level processes" (Stanovich 1980:34). In this top-down approach, the

reader begins with a set of hypotheses or predictions about the meaning of text he is about to

read and then selectively sample the text to determine whether or not his predictions are

correct. Reading is a process of reconstructing meaning rather than decoding form, and the

reader only resorts to decoding if other means fail. This perspective was shared by many other

reading specialists such as Carrel (1988), Clarke and Siberstern (1977), Mackey and

Mountford (1979) and Widdowson (1978, 1983) as they viewed reading as "an active process

in which the second language reader is an active information processor who predict while

sampling only parts of the actual text" (in Carrel, 1983;3).

Just like bottom-up models, top-down models do have some limitations. These models

"tend to emphasize such higher-level skills as the prediction of meaning by means of context

clues or certain kinds of background knowledge at the expense of such lower skills as the

rapid and accurate identification of lexical and grammatical form. That is, in making the

perfectly valid point that fluent reading is primarily a cognitive process, they tend to

deemphasize the perceptual and decoding dimensions of that process" (Eskey,1988:93).

Samuel and Kamil (1988) also shared the same view. According to them, one of the

problems for the top-down model is that for many texts, the reader has little knowledge of the

topic and cannot generate predictions. A more serious problem is that even if a skilled reader

could generate predictions, the amount of time necessary to generate a prediction may be

greater than the amount of time the skilled reader needs simply to recognize the words.

Due to the above limitations of both bottom-up and top-down models, a new and more

insightful model of reading process has been proposed by Rumelhart (1977, 1980). Sanford

and Garrod (1981) and Van Dijk and Kintsch (1983) under the name of interactive model.

2.4.2.3. Interactive modelThe interactive model combines elements of both bottom-up and top-down approaches,

using that "a pattern is synthesized based on information provided simultaneously from

several knowledge sources" (Stanovich, 1980:35).

13

Widdownson (1979) has discussed reading as the process of combining textual

information with the information the reader brings to a text. In this view, the reading process is

not simply a matter of extracting information from the text. Rather, it is one in which the

reading activates a range of knowledge in the reader's mind that he/she uses, and that, in turn,

may be refined and extended by the new information supplied by the text.

Eskey (1988) defined the interactive model as a reading model that "posits a constant

interaction between bottom-up and top-down processing in reading, each source of

information contributing to a comprehensive reconstruction of the meaning of the text"(1988:

94). According to this view, good readers are regarded as "both good decoders and good

interpreters of texts, their decoding skills become more automatic but no less important as

their reading skill develops" (1984: 94). Eskey also believed that to achieve both fluency and

accuracy in reading, developing readers must work at perfecting both their bottom-up

recognition skills and their top-down interpretation strategies. In other word, good reading -

that is, fluent and accurate reading - can result only from a constant interaction between these

two processes.

The following comment by Stanovich (1980) can summarize all the strengths of the

interactive model over the other two models: "Interactive models of reading appear to provide

a more accurate conceptualization of reading performance than strictly top-down or bottom-up

models. When combined with an assumption of compensatory processing (that a deficit in any

particular process will result in a greater reliance on their knowledge sources, regardless of

their level in the processing hierarchy), interactive models provide a better account of the

existing data on the use of orthographic structure and sentence context by good and poor

readers"(1980: 32)

Therefore, it is generally agreed that the interactive model is the best one that can truly

reflect the reading process that takes place in the reader's mind. In this process, the reader

constantly shuttles between bottom-up and top-down processes and he can not be successful in

reading comprehension without either of these two processes. As this study focuses on reading

strategies, the next part is going to summarize some outstanding studies on reading strategies

that have been carried out.

2.5. Reading strategies

14

2.5.1. Definition of reading strategies

Much attention has been paid to the study of reading in general and reading strategies

in particular. Reading strategies are of interest for what they reveal about the way the readers

manage their interaction with written text and how these strategies are related to text

comprehension.

As mentioned earlier, research in second language learning suggests that learners use a

variety of strategies to assist them with the acquisition, storage, and retrieval of information.

C. Brantmeior (2002) defined reading strategies as "the comprehension processes that readers

use in order to make sense of what they read" (2002:1). This process 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 supporting ones (Barnet, 1988). Obviously, some strategies may be more useful

than others with different types of reading texts and tasks.

Based on O'Malley and Chamot's (1990), reading strategies can be understood as the

special thoughts or behaviours that individuals use to help them to comprehend, learn and

retain new information from the reading text. These strategies are both observable and

unobservable and individually different. According to O'Malley and Chamot's (1990), reading

strategies can be classified into three main types including metacognitive, cognitive and

social/affective strategies. A categorization scheme of these strategies have been provided in

section 2.1.

2.5.2. Review of reading strategies researchA considerable number of studies examine the comprehension strategies that second

language readers utilize to process a text. In these studies, the participants are quite diverse,

some from elementary, secondary and university levels, some from remedial reading classes

and others enrolled in courses taught at non-university language centres. Obviously, the

participants are of many different ages and backgrounds. Furthermore, the investigators use a

variety of research method and tasks to examine strategy type and frequency of strategy use

including think-aloud reports, interviews, questionnaires, observations and written recalls

(Bernhardt, 1991).

15

One of the earliest pieces of research on individual learners' reading strategies was

conducted by Hosenfield (1977). She examined successful and unsuccessful readers to find

out what types of cognitive operations they used to process written texts. Participants were

ninth grade students who were learning French. Before conducting her study, she classified

readers based on a test of L2 reading. Then, in an oral interview, participants were asked to

read a text and do think-aloud reports (that is, she directed them to say in their first language

whatever came to their mind while processing each sentence in the text). Hosenfield found out

that the successful readers used the following kinds of strategies (1977: 233-4):

* Keep the meaning of the passage in mind

* read in broad phrases

* skip inessential words

* guess from context the meaning of unknown words

* have a good self-concept as a reader

* identify the grammatical category of words

* demonstrate sensitivity to a different word order

* examine illustrations

* read the title and make inferences from it

* use orthographic information (e.g. capitalization)

* refer to the side glossary

* use the glossary as the last resort

* look up words correctly

* continue if unsuccessful at decoding a word or a phrase

* recognize cognates

* use their knowledge of the world

* follow through with a proposed solution to a problem

* evaluate their guesses.

Poor readers, on the other hand, translated sentences and lost the general meaning of

the passage, rarely skipped words or looked up unknown words in a glossary and had a poor

concept as a reader. While these results clearly described the strategies the students used to

process the text, they did not link the strategy use to comprehension of specific paragraphs or

16

to text as whole. The data only focused on sentence level comprehension so the results of the

study did not reveal overall comprehension of the entire text.

A decade later, Block's (1986) study compared the reading comprehension strategies

used by native English speakers and ESL students who were enrolled in remedial reading

course at the university level and she connected these behaviors to comprehension. The

participants were identified as non-proficient readers because they failed a college reading

proficiency test before they study. Subjects read two exploratory passages selected from an

introductory psychology textbook, and were asked to think aloud while they reading (they

reported after each sentence). After reading and retelling each passage, the participants

answered twenty multiple choice comprehension questions. Block developed a scheme to

classify strategies that consisted of two types: general strategies and local strategies. General

strategies included the following behaviors: anticipate content, recognize text structure,

integrate information, question information, distinguish main ideas, interpret the text, use

general knowledge and associations to background, comment on behavior or process, monitor

comprehension, correct behavior, focused on textual meaning as a whole, and react to the text.

Local strategies were: paraphrase, reread, question meaning of a clause or a sentence, question

meaning of a word and solve a vocabulary problem. Of the 9 ESL students in the study, the

readers with higher comprehension scores on the retelling and the multiple choice questions

integrated new information in the text with old information, distinguish main ideas from

details, referred to their background and focused on textual meaning as a whole. This means

they all employed "general strategies". On the other hand, readers with low comprehension

scores rarely distinguished main ideas from details, rarely referred to their background,

infrequently focused on textual meaning and seldom integrated information.

Sarig (1987) investigated the contribution of L1 reading strategies and L2 language

proficiency to L2 reading, as well as the relationship between L1 and L2 reading strategies.

Sarig's subjects were 10 female native Hebrew readers who were studying English as a foreign

language. Sarig classified the data from think-aloud reports into four general types of

behaviors or responses: (1) technical aids, (2) clarification and simplification, (3) coherence

detection and (4) monitoring moves. Sarig's results revealed that subjects transferred strategies

from L1 reading to L2 reading and that the same reading strategy types "accounted for success

and failures in both languages to almost the same extent" (Sarig, 1987: 118). Top-down,

17

global strategies led to both successful and unsuccessful reading comprehension. The two

language dependent strategies, the clarification and simplification strategies contributed to

unsuccessful reading comprehension in both L1 and L2. Results also indicated that most of the

strategies used during the reading comprehension process were particular to each reader or

that each individual read differently and used a different combination of strategies. These

results do not duplicate Block's (1986) where global strategies led to successful (not

unsuccessful) reading comprehension.

Some studies have shown that better readers are also better strategy users. Carrel

(1989) for example, conducted a study to investigate the metacognitive awareness of second

language reader strategies in both their first and second language and the relationship between

this awareness and their comprehension. Her first group of subjects was native Spanish

speakers of intermediate and high-intermediate levels studying English as a second language

at a university level institute. Her second group consisted of native English speakers learning

Spanish as a foreign language in first, second and third-year courses. Carrel first asked

subjects to read two texts, one in L1 and one in L2. She controlled for content schemata as

both texts were on a general topic of language. The subjects answered multiple choice

comprehension questions about the text followed by a strategy use questionnaire. Carrel

correlated strategy use with comprehension and concluded that the ESL readers of more

advanced proficiency level perceived "global" or top-down strategies as more effective. With

the Spanish as a L2 group, she found that at the lower proficiency levels, subjects used more

bottom-up or "local" strategies.

The last study mentioned here was conducted by Block (1992). He investigated the

comprehension monitoring process used by first and second language readers of English. The

subjects were 25 college freshmen and consisted of proficient and non-proficient readers of

English. While reading an expository text, the participants were asked to think aloud or more

specifically, to "say everything they understood and everything they were thinking as they

read each sentence" (Block, 1992: 323). The results indicated that when facing a vocabulary

problem, proficient ESL readers used background knowledge, decided on whether the word

contributed to the overall meaning of the passage, reread the sentence and used syntactic clues.

The meaning-based strategies are classified as global behaviors. On the other hand, non-

18

proficient ESL readers focused on identifying lexical problems and did little to figure out the

meaning of the words.

From the above findings of research in reading strategies, it becomes clear that there

are indeed differences between successful or good readers and less successful or poor readers

in terms of strategy use. Overall, more proficient readers combine both top-down and bottom-

up strategies in reading but tend to use more top-down strategies than bottom-up ones.

Specifically, they exhibit the following types of reading behaviors:

* overview text before reading

* employ context clues such as title, subheadings and diagrams

* look for important information while reading and pay great attention to it than

other information

* attempt to relate important points in text to one another in order to understand

the text as a whole

* activate and use prior knowledge to interpret text

* reconsider and revise hypothesis about the meaning of the text based on text

content

* attempt to infer information from the text

* attempt to identify or infer the meaning of words not understood or recognized

* monitor text comprehension

* use strategies to remember text (paraphrasing, repetition, making notes,

summarizing, self-questioning etc)

* understand relationship between parts of text and recognize text structure

* change reading strategies when comprehension is perceived not be proceeding

smoothly

* evaluate the qualities of text

* reflect on and process additionally after a part has been read and anticipate or plan

for the use of knowledge gained from the reading. (Hosenfield 1977; Block 1986; Carrel

1986)

While this list is not priotized or complete, it helps provide a description of the

characteristics of successful readers and serves as an important foundation for more research

into reading.

19

However, a gap that can be found in these studies on reading strategies is that few

researchers who have attempted to classify reading strategies into a more comprehensive

scheme except for top-down and bottom-up strategies (or global or local strategies). That is

the gap that the current thesis study tries to bridge by using O'Malley and Chamot's scheme to

classify the reading strategies used by readers among the TBU students. As mentioned earlier,

this scheme was developed by O'Malley and Chamot's (1990) based on their several

descriptive studies on learning strategies in four English skills. It can reflect the actual reading

process as it contains both top-down and bottom-up strategies within its categories. The top-

down strategies included in this scheme are elaboration (relating prior knowledge to new

information), transfer (using previous linguistic knowledge or prior skills to assist

comprehension), inferencing (using the available information to guess meaning of new items

and predict outcomes) and summarizing (making mental or oral summary of new information

gained through reading). The bottom-up strategies are grouping (classifying words,

terminology or concept according to their attributes or meanings), deduction (applying rules to

understand the second language), recombination (constructing a meaningful sentence or larger

language sequence by combing known elements in a new way), key word methods (remember

a new word in the second language) and translation (using the first language as a base for

understanding the second language). In addition, there are metacognitive strategies that

involve executive processes in planning for reading, monitoring comprehension and

evaluating how well one has achieved a reading activity. Therefore, this classification

framework is quite comprehensive and applicable to examining reading strategies. In this

study, the TBU subjects' reading strategies are classified according to this scheme.

2.6. Summary

This chapter has reviewed related theories on learning strategies in general and reading

strategies in particular. Some of the main points can be summarized as follows.

Concerning the definition of learning strategies, there have been quite different points

of views by different scholars. Some scholars see learning strategies as behaviors while others

view them as thoughts and behaviors. However, it is generally agreed that O'Malley and

Chamot's definition is the most convincing as it covers the significant features of learning

20

strategies: both mental and behavioral (both observable and unobservable) and individual

characterized.

The classification of learning strategies is also a complex work done by a considerable

number of researchers. Based on descriptive studies on learning strategies of ESL and EFL

learners, Rubin (1975), Naiman et al (1978), Wenden (1983), Oxford (1990), O'Malley et al

(1985a and 1985b) and O'Malley and Chamot (1990) have proposed useful schemes for

classification of learning strategies. Of these schemes, O'Malley and Chamot's framework has

been most useful and generally accepted to date. In O'Malley and Chamot's framework, three

majors types including metacognotive, cognitive and social/affective strategies are

distinguished in accordance with the information processing model, on which their research is

based. Such a detailed and sufficient classification learning strategies is presented in table 2.1

and is going to be adopted for the investigation of reading strategies for this study.

The second part of this chapter covers the important theories related to reading and an

overview of studies on reading strategies of successful and unsuccessful learners. These

theorists describe a process that moves both bottom-up and top-down, depending on the type

of text as well as on the reader's background knowledge, language proficiency level,

motivation, strategy use and cultural shaped beliefs about reading. In comparison to the

bottom-up and top-down models, interactive models of reading provide a more accurate

conceptualization of reading performance and describe exactly what really happens during the

reading process. According to this interactive model, good reading can only result from a

constant interaction between the bottom-up and the top-down processes. In other words, good

readers are those who can "efficiently integrate" both of these processes. This view is now

shared by a majority of researchers in a numerous number of studies on reading.

The last part of the chapter discusses reading strategies, the focus of the thesis, in

details. Most of the researchers have concluded that there are indeed differences between

effective and ineffective readers in terms of strategy used. The more proficient readers often

employed both top-down and bottom-up strategies but appear to use more top-down ones. A

detailed description of reading strategies employed by effective readers is provided so as to

serve as the basic for any research into reading strategies.

The next chapter is the study on reading strategies used by the TBU students, which

has been conducted in the light of the theories discussed above.

21

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

The previous chapter has provided a necessary theoretical background for the present

study. This chapter presents the methodology used for the data collection and analysis in the

study. It starts with a description of the participants and the setting of the study. It also provides

information about the research method. It then describes data collection instruments and

analysis procedures of the study.

3.1. The context of the study

3.1.1. Participants

There are 54 students at the age of 17 to 22, of them 32 students are from different

Ethnic Minority Groups including 14 students from Tay Group, 10 from Nung Group, 5 are

from Muong Group, and the rest are from Thai Group. The participants in this study were

among these 32 ethnic minority students. Of them there were 26 girls and 6 boys who mostly

came from the countryside. Most of these students were 19 years old (16 students), 11 were 20

years old and only 5 students were 21 years old . All of them spent between 4-10 years

learning English in which 20 students have been learning English for 8 years. Their

proficiency levels were generally reported to be between elementary and pre-intermediate.

Table 3.1. summarizes the background information about the participants such as genders,

ages, number of years learning English and their self-assessed English proficiency.

Total number of participant

s

Gender Age (years)Number of years learning English

English proficiency

Male Female 19 20 21 4 7 8 10 ElementaryPre-

intermediate

32 6 26 16 11 5 7 3 20 2 21 11

Table 3.1. Background information about the participants

22

These junior students are now studying the second semester of the course majoring in English. The course for these students lasts from the first year to the third year of training at the university. They have to learn some professional subjects in English to become teachers of English after three years studying English at the university. Therefore, English in general and reading skills in particular play a very important role in their study at the university.

There are some reasons for choosing these freshermen as the participants of this study.

Firstly, the training quality of these students is always of great concern to both the authority

and teachers at TBU. The findings of the study would provide essential information for

teachers to improve TBU students' reading proficiency and hence contribute to enhancing the

overall training quality of these students. Secondly, they are suitable participants for the study

because they have already finished the first semester in English reading so their English

reading proficiency is of great concern for me to conduct the study on reading strategies. In

addition, as these students are ones who I have been directly teaching, it is feasible for me to

have favourable conditions to carry out all the steps of the research process.

3.1.2. Setting of the study

The present study was conducted from mid April to mid June when the participants

were in the second semester of the first year. Up to the time of the study, they had been

studying English at the university for nearly a year with 3 reading periods per week (nearly 90

periods). They had been learning some books including Practise your reading skills by Hoang

Hai Anh-Quach Ngoc Anh-Le Thi Minh Hien, Cause and Effect by Partricia Ackert and some

other materials adapted to suit their proficiency levels such as New Headway Pre-

intermediate. All of the textbooks and materials aim to provide these students with basic

knowledge of English. At the time of the study, they were learning Cause and Effect by

Partricia Ackert as a textbook for the first-year junior English majored students at Tay Bac

University to study reading skills. While using this book we found that the book matches the

objectives of the learning program and students levels of proficiency because the book is for

students who know the basic structures of English and have a vocabulary of about 2000

English words. The 25 lessons are in 5 units. The exercises provide practice with vocabulary,

comprehension, inference, main idea, cause and effect, context clues, scanning, sequence,

summarizing, word forms, articles, prepositions, two-word verbs, compound words,

23

connecting words, and noun substitutes. The topics in the five units are quite interesting and

learners-friendly. The book is also easy to study. However, most of tasks are designed in the

same way and in the same order so that teachers have to redesign the tasks and the activities

quite often to match students interests. Besides, teachers meet difficulties when they use this

book because there is no teachers' book to support them and provide appropriate guidance to

them. In addition, students' levels of proficiency are not equal. Among these students, 2 have

spent 10 years learning English, 20 of them have learnt English for 8 years and the rest ones

have learnt English for 4 to 7 years in both local high schools and at the university. In this

term (15 weeks) they have to take part in 45 periods equal to 3 modules. Each lesson is often

divided into 3 periods so that we have to choose 15 lessons among the five units to study in

classroom and the rest is for home reading.

During this time, I was the only teacher who directly taught the learner-participants

and therefore, quite understand their strengths and weaknesses in English reading. This is a

great advantage for me to conduct this study.

3.2. Research method

This study is to be conducted as a descriptive study that utilized quantitative approach.

The quantitative analysis is employed through the process of data collected from tests and a

written questionnaire delivered to TBU first-year junior English-majored readers to examine

their reading strategy use.

3.3. Instruments of data collection

The present study utilized quantitative method including tests and survey

questionnaires to collect data on the reading strategies employed by TBU students. First, the

two reading comprehension tests were given to the subjects in order to identify their English

reading proficiency levels. Then, the questionnaires were administered to find out their

reading strategies.

3.3.1. Tests

24

A test is a procedure to collect data on subjects' ability or knowledge of certain

disciplines. In second language acquisition research, tests are generally used to collect data

about the subjects' ability and knowledge of the second language in areas such as vocabulary,

grammar, reading, metalinguistic awareness and general proficiency. As Vu and Do (2004)

stated, all good tests should have five main characteristics including validity, reliability,

discrimination, practicality and backwash in order to accurately assess the learners' ability. In

this study, two reading comprehension tests taken from De thi tuyen sinh vao Dai hoc Hue-

2001 and De 4 tuyen sinh vao Dai hoc va Cao dang nam 2002 were given to the subjects in

two periods. The reason for selecting them as the reading tests for my study is that both of

these can be regarded as standardized tests. They were developed by experts and therefore

considered to be well constructed. When deciding the tests for my students, I had to take into

consideration their reading abilities. At the time of the study their English proficiency was at

elementary level. Therefore, I only chose short and quite simple reading tasks which were

more appropriate for my students. Based on the analysis of the test scores from these two tests,

the students levels of proficiency were identified.

3.3.2. Questionnaires

Questionnaires are printed forms for data collection, which include questions or

statements to which the subject is expected to respond, often anonymously. Questions can

range from those that ask for yes-no responses or indication of frequency (e.g. 'never',

'seldom', 'sometime', 'often' and 'always') to less structured questions asking respondents to

describe or discuss language learning behavior in detail. It is believed that surveys are the

most commonly used descriptive method in educational research. There are a few advantages

to use survey questionnaire as a research method. "The main attraction of questionnaires is

their unprecedented efficiency in terms of (a) researcher time, (b) researcher effort, and (c)

financial resources." (Zoltan Dornyei, 2003: 9). In the history of learning strategy research,

"the most frequently used method for identifying students' learning strategies is through

questionnaires." (Chamot, 2005). As Selinger and Shohany (1989) pointed out, questionnaires

have the following advantages. Firstly, they do not take so much time to administer as other

procedures. Secondly, since the same questionnaire is given to all subjects at the same time,

25

the data are more uniform, standard and accurate. Lastly, questionnaires can be easily

quantified because multiple choice questions are used. Because of these advantages, I have

used questionnaires as a main data collection method in my study. The questionnaire used in

this study consists of two main parts. The first part required the subjects to give information

about their names, ages, genders, the number of years learning English, their English

certificates (if available) and their self-evaluated English proficiency levels. The second part

contains 17 questions mainly about the participants' reading strategies and some questions

about their views on reading comprehension.

3.4. Data collection procedures

The data collection procedures commenced in mid April and ended in mid June 2008.

All of the procedures involved the following steps.

Step1: In April, the subjects were given a reading comprehension test one a week. This work

is done in two weeks to get the test scores from two different reading comprehension tests.

The test scores were collected and then analyzed to identify students' level of reading

proficiency. Based on the results, effective and ineffective readers were classified.

Step 2: In early May, a questionnaire that included 20 questions was developed and given to

another group of 20 students for a trial purposes. Some ambiguous questions were identified

and adjusted to improve the questionnaire. Then the questionnaires were administered to the

TBU subjects to find out their reading strategies in general. After the data is analyzed and

discussed, some conclusions will be drawn, and some suggestions will be raised in the thesis.

All of these work was completed in June.

3.5. Data analysis

One set of data was obtained from the data collection. The data set comprised 32

questionnaires answered by those readers who were identified based on the test scores. The

following section reports the coding and analysis of the data set.

26

3.5.1. Coding of questionnaire data

The questionnaire included 20 questions, in which 17 items were reserved for asking

about the subjects' reading strategies. These reading strategies were coded into three main

types of strategies including metacognitive, cognitive and social/affective strategies.

Following is the reading strategies coding table used for the questionnaire.

Strategy Definition Items included in the questionnaire

A. Metacognitive strategies

Advance organizers

Previewing the main ideas and concepts of the material to be learnt, often by skimming the text for the organizing principle.

Item 4: I preview the headings and illustrations to get the main idea of the text before reading.Item 8: I skim through the text to understand main ideas of the texts before focusing on details.

Directed attention

Deciding in advance to attend in general to a learning task and ignore irrelevant distracters

Item 5: Before reading, I read the comprehension questions to decide important information that should be noted.Item 13: I skip the words that are not essential for comprehending the texts while reading.

Selective attention

Deciding in advance to attend to specific aspects of input, often by scanning for key word, concepts and/or linguistic markers.

Item 10: I scan for key words or concepts that are closely related to the questions in order to answer them.Item 6: I choose reading strategies according to my reading purposes.

Self-evaluation Checking the outcomes of one's own language against a standard after it has been completed.

Item 19: I check if my answers to the questions are correct or wrong after reading.

B. Cognitive strategies

Resourcing Using target language reference materials such as dictionaries, encyclopedias, or textbooks.

Item 11: I use a dictionary to look up words when encountering a new word while reading

Grouping Classifying words, terminology or concepts according to their attributes or meaning.

Item 16: I can determine the function of a word in a sentence while reading.

27

Transfer Using previous linguistic knowledge or prior skills to assist comprehension or production.

Item 14: I use my knowledge of grammar or vocabulary to help understand difficult parts in reading texts.

Elaboration Relating new information to prior knowledge, relating different parts of new information to each other, or making meaningful personal associations with the new information.

Item 7: I relate my prior knowledge to the information of the text I am reading.

Inferencing Using available information to guess meanings of new items, predict outcomes or fill in missing information.

Item 12: I guess meanings of new words using available information.

Note taking Writing down key words or concepts in abbreviated verbal, graphic or numerical form while listening or reading.

Item 18: I write down key words while reading.

Translation Using the first language as a base for understanding and/or producing the second language.

Item 9: I translate the reading text into Vietnamese to understand it more clearly.

Summarizing Making a mental, oral or written summary of new information gained through listening or reading.

Item 20: I mentally summarize the main ideas of the text after reading.

C. Social/Affective strategies

Question for clarification

Eliciting from a teacher or peer additional explanation, rephrasing, examples or verification.

Item 15: I ask my teacher or my friends to explain difficult parts in reading texts.

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.

Item 17: I work together with my classmate or friend to solve a problem in a reading text.

Table 3.4. Questionnaire: Reading strategy coding categories adapted from O'Malley and

Chamot (1990: 119)

3.5.2. Analytical procedures

Based on the test scores and the answers from the questionnaire, the subjects' level of

proficiency were identified. The analysis of these responses was carried out as follows.

28

First, the responses to each question were coding using a scale (ranging from 1 to 5).

For example, the first question asks about the importance of reading comprehension to the

students' purpose for learning English and give 5 options A, B, C, D and E. Option A (not

important at all) was coded 1, option B (not important) was coded 2, option C (a little

important ) was coded 3, option D (important) was coded 4 and option E (very important) was

coded 5. The same coding procedure was used for the rest of the questionnaire.The scores on the scale for the first three questions in the questionnaire were

interpreted as follows.

- From 1 to 1.4 Not important at all.

- From 1.5 to 2.4 Not important.

- From 2.5 to 3.4 A little important.

- From 3.5 to 4.4 Important.

- From 4.5 to 5 Very important.

The same interpretations were applied to the rest of questions on the reading strategies.

- From 1 to 1.4 Never.

- From 1.5 to 2.4 Rarely.

- From 2.5 to 3.4 Sometimes.

- From 3.5 to 4.4 Often.

- From 4.5 to 5 Very often.

The questions in the questionnaire will be analyzed one by one in their strategies use by

counting its percent.

3.6. Summary

This chapter reported the methodology employed for the study in terms of data

collection methods, participants, data collection procedures and data analysis. Firstly, detailed

description of participants and settings of the study was given, Then, data collection

instruments including tests and questionnaires were presented in details. Finally, coding

scheme employed for data analysis was given and statistical procedures were explained.

29

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

The previous chapter presented the methodology used for the study including the

participants, the data collection instruments and data analysis procedures. By using such

instruments as tests and questionnaires, the study collected two sets of data. The first set of

data identified the participants' levels of proficiency and the other is on their reading

strategies. This chapter reports findings gained from the analysis of data elicited from each

instrument.

4.1. Tests

As mentioned earlier, the greatest advantage of tests is that they can measure the

students' language proficiency. For this thesis, tests were used to identified the students'

reading ability. Moreover, the test scores were marked objectively as they were multiple

choice questions and blank-filling. Therefore, the test results were concise and objective

enough to serve the purpose of the study.

The major weakness of using test scores to assess students' language proficiency is that

they do not always reflect students' real ability as some students may not perform well in tests

due to some psychological factors such as nervousness or anxiety. To deal with this problem, I

used not only one but two different reading tasks with different types of questions ranging

from multiple choice to blank-filling. The students were regularly assessed through two

reading tasks administered in two weeks. This helped avoid wrong identification of students'

level of proficiency. Tables 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 summarizes the participants' test scores.

Test scores 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Number of participants 0 0 1 4 8 9 6 2 2 0 0

Tables 4.1.1. Students' test scores of the multiple choice test

Test scores 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Number of participants 0 0 0 3 13 12 2 1 1 0 0

30

Tables 4.1.2. Students' test scores of the blank -filling test

Based on the test scores, the subjects' proficiency levels were generally reported to be

between elementary and pre-intermediate.

4.2. Questionnaires

The questionnaire that was administered 32 TBU readers including 20 questions, of

them, the first three questions asked students' personal opinions on the importance of reading

comprehension, their evaluation on their own reading speeds, their ideas of some factors

affecting reading comprehension. The rest of 17 questions investigated their reading strategies.

4.2.1. TBU reader's attitudes to reading comprehension

Question 1 asks the TBU readers how importance reading comprehension is to their

purpose for English learning by circling the most suitable option.

Options Numbers of participants Percent

A. Not important at all. 0 0%

B. Not important. 0 0%

C. A little important. 0 0%

D. Important. 9 28.125%

E. Very important 23 71.875%

Table 4.2.1. Analysis of questionnaires (percent): Question 1

The answers to question 1 show that most of the informants thought that reading

comprehension was important to their purpose for learning English. As shown in table 4.2.1,

there was no significant difference among the readers' attitude to reading comprehension.

71.875% (23 students) thought that reading comprehension is very important and 28.125% (9

students) found reading comprehension important to them

Question 2 asks the TBU readers how they evaluate their reading speeds by circling

the most suitable option.

31

OptionsFrequency

Numbers of participants Percent

A. Very slow 5 15.625%

B. Slow 16 50%

C. Average 10 31.25%

D. Fast 1 3.125%

E. Very fast 0 0%


The data in table 4.2.2 indicates a significant difference among the readers' responses

to the second question. In this question, the readers generally evaluated their speeds as very

slow (15.625%), slow (50%) and average (31.25%) whereas only one student judged his speed

as fast (3.125%).

Question 3 asks the TBU readers to indicate the importance of the following factors to

reading comprehension by circling the most suitable option.

A. have a large English vocabulary 1 2 3 4 5

B. have a good knowledge of English grammar 1 2 3 4 5

C. have a good knowledge of the reading topic 1 2 3 4 5

D. have effective reading strategies 1 2 3 4 5

1. very important 2. important 3. a little important 4. not important 5. not important at all

FrequencyParticipants

1 2 3 4 5

N P N P N P N P N P

A 6 18.75% 3 9.375%

B 3 9.375% 4 12.5%

C 2 6.25% 3 9.375% 2 6.25% 2 6.25%

D 3 9.375% 4 12.5%


32

As indicated in the table, there were 9 responses given by two groups to question 3A

including 6 readers (18.75%) thought that a large English vocabulary was very important to

reading comprehension while those of 3 participants (9.375%) evaluated it as important.

For the question 3B, only 3 students (9.375%) thought that a good knowledge of

English grammar was very important to reading comprehension while those of 4 participants

(12.5%) judged it as important.

There was significant difference among the responses given by the readers to

question 3C. There were 5 students thought that a good knowledge of the reading topic was

very important (6.25%) and important (9.375%) whereas those of 2 participants (6.25%)

evaluated it as a little important and the same responses (6.25%) claimed that a good

knowledge of the reading topic was not important to reading comprehension

As opposed to the results of the above questions, the last question concerned to the

importance of reading strategies on reading comprehension shows that among 32 participants

there were only 3 readers (9.375%) claimed that effective reading strategies were very

important and those of 4 (12.5%) thought that they were important to reading comprehension.

4.2.2. Reading strategies

The next 17 questions were about the subjects' reading strategies. these strategies were

classified into metacognitive, cognitive and social/affective strategies on the basic of O'Malley

and Chamot's framework (1990). The following analysis utilized this framework in order to

clarify the reading strategies employed by the TBU subjects.

4.2.2.1. Metacognitive reading strategies

The first part deals with the analysis of TBU subjects' metacognitive reading strategies.

As discussed in the previous chapter, the metacognitive reading strategies were categorized

into three subtypes including advance organizers, directed attention and selective attention and

there were two questions for each subtype.

Table 4.2.4 presents the responses given by TBU subjects for metacognitive reading strategies.

33

Metacognitive strategiesParticipants

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Very often

N P N P N P N P N P

1. Advance organizersItem 4: I preview the

headings and illustrations to

get the main idea of the text

before reading.

Item 8: I skim through the text

to understand main ideas of

the texts before focusing on

details.

8 25% 14 43.75 % 10 31.25%

1 3.125% 1 3.125% 5 15.625% 15 46.875% 10 31.25%

2. Directed attentionorganizersItem 5: Before reading, I read

the comprehension questions

to decide important

information that should be

noted.

Item 6: I choose reading

strategies according to my

reading purposes.

5 15.615% 3 9.375% 15 46.875% 8 25% 1 3.125%

2 6.25% 18 56.25% 7 21.875% 5 15.625%

3. Selective attentionItem 10: I scan for key words

or concepts that are closely

related to the questions in

order to answer them.

Item 13: I skip the words that

are not essential for

comprehending the texts

while reading.

3 9.375% 15 46.875% 14 43.75%

6 18.75% 9 28.125% 8 25% 6 18.75% 3 9.375%

34

4. Self-evaluationItem 19: I check if my

answers to the questions are

correct or wrong after

reading.

2 6.25% 9 28.125% 11 34.375% 10 31.25%

* N = number of subjects, P = percent

Table 4.2.4. Analysis of questionnaires (percent): Metacognitive reading strategies

For advance organizers, the first subtype of metacognitive reading strategies, there

were two questions, question 4 and question 8. The answers to question 4 indicated that most

readers often (43.75%) and very often (31.25%) previewed the headings and illustrations to get

the main ideas of the text before reading whereas only 25% sometimes did this. As can be seen

from the results of question 8, almost of the subjects skimmed through the text to understand

main ideas before focusing on details with high frequency (15.625% sometimes, 46.875%

often, 31.25% very often), only 3.125% never and the same number of subjects (3.125%)

rarely did this.

In the second subtype of metacognitive reading strategies, directed attention was

discussed with two questions (question 5 and 6). The results in question 5 showed that most of

the subject did not pay enough attention to reading the comprehension questions to decide the

important information before reading (15.61% never, 9.375 rarely, 46.875 sometimes)

compared to that of 25% often and 3.125% very often employed this strategy. The answers to

question 6 indicated that only 15.615% often chose reading strategies according to their

purposes while 56.25% sometimes, 21.875% rarely and 6.25% never did it.

The third type of metacognitive strategies was selective attention (question 10 and 13).

Not to our surprise for question 10, there was no significant difference in the answers given by

the students. In general, almost of them hardly ever scanned for key words or concepts that are

closely related to the questions in order to answer them. However, question 13 showed a

variety in the answers. This indicated that 18.75% never, 28.125% rarely, 25% sometimes,

18.75% often and 9.375% very often skipped the words that are not essential for

comprehending the text.

35

The last type of metacognitive strategies was self-evaluation (question 19), which

showed that most of the subjects sometimes checked if their answers were right or wrong after

reading (34.375% sometimes and 31.25% often) while there were 9 students counted to

28.125% rarely and 6.25% never used this strategy.

4.2.2.2. Cognitive reading strategies

The second part analyzes the cognitive reading strategies employed by the TBU

readers. These cognitive strategies were also discussed on the basis of the O'Malley and

Chamot's framework (1990). They were categorized into 8 subtypes including resourcing,

grouping, transfer, elaboration, inferencing, note-taking, translation and summarizing. Table

4.2.5 presents the percentage given by the readers regarding their use of the cognitive

strategies.

Cognitive strategiesSubjects


N P N P N P N P N P

1. ResourcingItem11: I use a dictionary

to look up words when

encountering a new word

while reading

1 0.32% 4 12.5% 12 37.5% 10 31.25% 5 15.6%

2. GroupingItem 16: I determine the

function of words in a

sentence while reading.

0 0% 6 18.75% 16 50% 7 21.875% 3 9.37%

3. TransferItem 14: I use my

knowledge of grammar or

vocabulary to help

understand difficult parts

in reading texts.

0 0% 5 15.625% 14 43.75% 12 37.5% 1 3.12%

36

4. ElaborationItem 7: I relate my prior

knowledge to the

information of the texts I

am reading.

2 6.25% 4 12.5% 18 56.25% 8 25% 0 0%

5. InferencingItem 12: I guess meanings

of new words using the

available information.

0 0% 5 15.625% 11 34.375% 13 40.625% 3 9.375

%

6. Note-takingItem 18: I write down key

words while reading.

2 6.25% 9 28.125% 12 37.5% 7 21.875% 2 6.25%

7. TranslationItem 9: I translate the

reading text into

Vietnamese to understand

it more clearly.

0 0% 4 12.5% 9 28.125% 12 37.5% 7 21.87

5%

8. SummarizingItem 20: I mentally

summarize the main ideas

of the texts after reading.

1 3.125

%

8 25% 16 50% 7 21.875

%

0 0%


Table 4.2.5. Analysis of questionnaires (percent): Cognitive reading strategies

Concerning the strategy of resourcing, the results did not indicate a significant

difference in the frequency (37.5% sometimes, 31.25% often, 15.625% very often), only 0.32%

never and (12.5%) rarely. This confirmed the fact that almost the readers used a dictionary to

look up words when encountering new words while reading.

With regards to the grouping strategy, the answers to question 16 indicated that half of

the readers (50%) sometimes and (21.875%) often and (9.375%) very often determined the

function of words in a sentence while reading whereas not any student never did this and only

18.75% rarely used this strategy.

37

For the strategy of transfer, question 14 showed a variety in the answers. 15.625%

rarely, 43.75% sometimes, 37.5% often and 3.125% very often used their knowledge of

grammar and vocabulary to help understand difficult parts in the reading text while not any

students (0%) never did this.

For the next strategy, there were some similarities in the answers given by the TBU

readers to other items. The frequency of using elaboration strategy was quite various. In

general, the readers sometimes (56.25% ) relate their prior knowledge to the information of the

texts they are reading while 6.25% never, 12.5% rarely, 25% often and 0% very often used this

strategy.

Quite the same conclusion could be drawn for the learners' use of the strategy of

inferencing. This indicated that those readers who are more successful often guessed the

meanings of new words using available information (40.625% often and 9.375% very often)

whereas those less successful ones differed from one other in terms of strategy uses (15.625%

rarely, 34.375% sometimes).

For the strategy of note-taking, it can be said that the readers rarely and sometimes

write down key words while reading. The answers to this item showed that 28.125% rarely,

37.5% sometimes, 21.875% often and 6.25% very often while only 6.25% never employed this

strategy.

The results in item 9 showed the some similarities in the frequency of using translation

strategy as in those of note-taking one. This indicated that the subjects often and very often

translated the text into Vietnamese to understand it more clearly (37.5% often and 21.875%

very often) while only 12.5% rarely and 28.125% sometimes did the same.

The last strategy mentioned in this cognitive subtype was summarizing. The responses

to item 20 given by the subjects also varied greatly. 25% rarely, 50% sometimes, 21.875%

often and only 3.125% never used this strategy. This confirmed the fact that the readers

sometimes mentally summarized the main ideas of the text after reading.

4.2.2.3. Social/affective reading strategiesThe last type of reading strategies to be discussed was social/affective strategies. They

were classified into two subtypes namely question for clarification and cooperation. Table

4.2.6 illustrates the responses concerning two subtypes of social/affective strategies.

38

Social/affective strategyParticipants


N P N P N P N P N P

1. Question for clarificationItem 15: I ask my teacher or

my friends to explain

difficult parts in the reading

text.

1 3.1% 1

1

34.37% 12 37.5% 5 15.62% 3 9.375%

2. CooperationItem 17: I work together

with my classmate or friend

to solve a problem in the

reading text.

1 3.125

%

6 18.75% 14 43.75% 5 15.625% 6 18.75%


Table 4.2.6. Analysis of questionnaires (percent): Social/affective reading strategies

As indicated in table 4.2.6, the answer to question 15 showed a variety in the answers.

There was only one student (3.125%) never asked the teacher or friends to explain difficult

part in the reading text while among the others 34.375% rarely, 37% sometimes, 15.625%

often and 3.975% very often employed this strategy. This showed that almost of the TBU

subjects rarely and sometimes used question for clarification strategy.

The second and also the last strategy mentioned in this social/affective subtype was

cooperation, the frequency of using cooperation strategy was quite various. In general, the

readers sometimes (43.75% ) work together with classmate or friend to solve a problem in the

reading text while 3.125% never and the frequency use in other scales are quite the same,

18.75% rarely, 15.625% often and 18.75% very often used this strategy.

4.3. SummaryIn conclusion, this chapter reports findings gained from the analysis of data elicited

from each instrument. Overall, the TBU subjects’ strategy use was quite different. They used

metacognitive and cognitive strategies more frequently than social/affective strategies.

However, the frequency of those strategy use by the subjects was quite the same.

39

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION

The objectives of the study was to investigate the reading strategies employed by 32

ethnic minority junior first-year English majored readers at Tay Bac University. This chapter

draws conclusions based on the findings of the study, discusses the implications and the

limitations of the study and proposes some suggestions for further research.

5.1. Conclusions As stated in Section 1.2.2, Aims of the study, the research question: What are the

reading strategies employed by readers among TBU ethnic minority junior first-year English-

majored students? has now been addressed and the following are some concluding remarks

based on the findings of the study.

In general, based on the analysis of the questionnaire data, there were several

significant points found in the reading strategies employed by TBU readers. Overall, they used

metacognitive and cognitive strategies more frequently than social/affective strategies.

However, the frequency of those strategy use by the subjects was quite the same.

Regarding the metacognitive strategies including advanced organizers, directed

attention, selective attention and self-evaluation in the questionnaire, the results indicated that

the frequency of strategy use was various. The TBU readers often previewed the headings and

illustrations to guess the main ideas of the text before reading; chose reading strategies

according to their reading purposes; and almost of them often checked if their answers were

right or wrong after reading. However, almost of them rarely scanned for key words or

concepts that are closely related to the questions in order to answer them. In general, they only

sometimes read the questions to decide important information that should be noted and

skipped inessential words for comprehending the text.

Concerning the cognitive strategies, the frequency use of grouping, inferencing, note-

taking, summarizing, elaboration and rereading strategy were also varied. According to the

questionnaire analysis, almost the readers often used a dictionary to look up words when

encountering new words. Half of them sometimes tried to find out the function of words in a

sentence while reading; used their knowledge of grammar and vocabulary to help understand

difficult parts and related their prior knowledge to the information of the texts they are

40

reading. They translated the text into Vietnamese to understand it more clearly and mentally

summarized the main ideas of the text after reading with high frequency.

For the two subtypes of social/affective strategy, the responses given by the TBU

readers showed that almost of them rarely and only sometimes asked the teacher and friends to

explain difficult parts in the reading text. In general, they sometimes work together with

classmates or friends to solve a problem in the reading text.

Basically, the outcome of the present study partly confirmed the findings of the

previous study (see Chapter 2). The TBU readers who were at the lower proficiency levels

mostly used more bottom-up strategies. The findings of questionnaire confirmed that the

readers rarely or sometimes employed top-down or tended to combine top-down and bottom-

up strategies. They hardly ever or sometimes read questions to know what to focus on while

reading, determined suitable strategies according to their reading purposes, scanned for key

information, skipped unimportant words, guessed meanings of new words in context, wrote

down key words while reading or mentally summarized main ideas and checked their answers

after reading. In contrast, they frequently employed the translation strategy. During the reading

process, they tried to translate the text into Vietnamese but lost the general meaning of the

text. Concerning the strategy of resourcing, the findings confirmed the fact that almost the

readers used a dictionary to look up words when encountering new words while reading. This

abuse of the translation and resourcing strategies might slow down their reading speed and

badly affect their reading comprehension.

5.2. Implications of the study

The study has made some contributions to the learning and teaching of English reading

at TBU. It has attempted to categorize the learners' reading strategies based on O'Malley and

Chamot's framework (1990) that has been adapted to fit the specific data of the study. This

categorization scheme can be applied to other studies on reading strategies. In addition, the

study has found out the reading strategies used by the TBU subjects. Based on these findings,

some recommendations can be made to the teachers as follows.

As shown in the study, the significant point is that the ineffective readers used

metacognitive and cognitive strategies with low frequency so that they were not very

41

successful in reading comprehension. This indicated that these reading strategies can be

considered one of the most important factors that affect the students' reading proficiency.

Therefore, it is necessary for a teacher to be aware of this factor and think of ways to improve

his/her students' reading proficiency by providing them instruction on reading strategies.

Besides, reading motivation, habits and problems are important factors that might influence

the students' reading proficiency and their use of reading strategies. Therefore, for the first

meeting, especially in the big size classes, the teacher should spend time on a pre-test to

examine students' reading motivation, habits and their views on reading strategies as well as

the factors affecting reading comprehension so that he/she can divide the class into groups

according to the students' levels of proficiency. Before conducting such a strategy-based

instruction, the teacher should examine the students' reading strategies to identify what gaps

they have in their strategies. Then, a number of metacognitive and cognitive strategies can be

taught to students to develop their reading comprehension. These strategies may include

advanced organizers (i.e. previewing the title, the text and illustration), selective attention (i.e.

scanning for specific information), evaluation of one's own comprehension, elaboration of

prior knowledge, making inferences about meanings of new words, taking notes, producing

oral or written summary and so on.

In addition, the teacher can also consult other studies on the training of reading

strategies. Perhaps, one of the most effective strategy-based instruction model to date that the

teacher can refer to is Learning Strategies Taught in The Cognitive Academic Language

Learning Approach Model developed by O'Malley and Chamot (1990). This model is

applicable to develop four language skills for limited English proficient students and very

useful and valuable that the teacher can make use of in order to enhance his students' reading

proficiency.

5.3 Limitations and suggestions for further research

While the study provides some implications for teachers and researchers in general, it

is not free from limitations. These limitations are found in the number of participants and the

data collection instruments. Due to the limited time for conducting the study, only 32 TBU

students were chosen as the participants of the study. Only questionnaire data collection

42

instrument of this small number of participants could be insufficient to ensure the reliability of

the study findings. Besides, as the reading tasks used in the pre-test are short and quite simple,

the reading strategies employed by the readers were not very varied, which could limit the

findings of the study.

As the present study only investigated the reading strategies used by the students of the

same English major at TBU, it would be useful if further research considers examining

reading strategies employed by students of different majors to see whether there is any

dissimilarity among those students' strategies.

In addition, it would be of greater value if further studies investigate the impacts of

reading strategy-based instruction on English learners' reading proficiency. Based on the

findings of the present study and others on reading strategy, researchers may conduct

instruction on metacognitive and cognitive reading strategies and determine whether such

explicit instruction would improve students' reading comprehension.

43

REFERENCES

Aebersold J,A & Field, L, M (1997). From Reader to Reading Teacher. CUP.

Ackert (1998). Concepts and Comments-An ESL Reader. CUP.

Anderson, N, J (1999). Exploring Second Language Reading: Issues and Strategies. Heinle &

Heinle Publisher.

Anderson, N, J (1999). Improving Reading Speed, English Teaching Form. 21, pp.2-4.

Anderson, J.R. (1985). Cognitive Psychology and Its Implication. (2nd edn). W.H. Freeman.

Barnet, M.A (1988). Reading Through Context: How Real and Perceived Strategy Use

Affects L2 Comprehension, Modern Language Journal. 72, pp. 150-160.

Block, E. (1986). The Comprehension Strategies of Second Language Readers, TESOL

Quarterly, 20, pp. 319-341.

1992. See How They Read: Comprehension Monitoring of L1 and L2 Readers, TESOL

Quarterly, 26, pp. 319-341.

Brantmeier C (2002). Second Language Reading Strategy Research at the Secondary and

University Levels: Variations, Disperities and Generalizability, The Reading Matrix, Vol.3,

pp. 1-14.

Brown, J.D. (1988). Understanding Research in Second Language Learning. CUP.

Brown, J.D & Rodgers T.S (2002). Doing Second Language Research. OUP.

Brown, H.D (1994). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Prentice Hall.

44

Carel, P, J.Devine and D. Eskey (eds). (1988). Interactive Approaches to Second Language

Reading. CUP.

Cohen, A (1998). Strategies in Learning and Using Second Language. Longman.

Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. OUP.

Hosenfield, C (1977). A Preliminary Investigation of the Reading Strategies of Successful and

Unsuccessful Second Language Learners, System, 5, pp. 11-123.

Jones et al. (1987). Strategic Teaching and Learning: Cognitive Instruction in the Content

Area. Alexandria, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Mc Donough, S.H. (1995). Strategy and Skill in Learning a Foreign Language. Edward

Arnold.

Nunan, D. (1990). Research Methods in Language Learning. CUP.

Nunan, D. (1991). Language Teaching Methodology. Prentice Hall International Ltd.

O'Malley, J.M & Chamot, A.U (1990). Learning Strategies in Second language Acquisition.

CUP.

Oxford, R.L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know,

Newbury House.

Rubin, J & Thompson, I. (1994). How To be a More Successful Language Learner. Heinle and

Heinle Publisher.

Rumelhart, D.E. (1977). Toward an Interactive Model of Reading, Attention and Performance

6, pp. 573-603.

45

Samuel, S and M.Kamil (1988). Models of the Reading Process, in Interactive Approaches to

Second Language Reading, pp. 22-34. CUP.

Sarig (1987). High-level Reading in the First and in the Foreign Language: Some Comparative

Process Data, in Joan devine, P.L. Carrel & D.E. Eskey (Eds), Research in Reading in English

as a Second Language, Washington, TESOL, pp. 102-120.

Stanovich, K, E (1980). Toward an Interactive-Compensatory Model of Individual Differences

in the Development of Reading Fluency, Reading Research Quarterly 16 (1), pp. 32-71.

Stern, H.H. (1975). What Can We learn From The Good Language Learner?. Canadian

Modern Language Review 31, pp. 285-295.

Tarone, E. (1981). Some Thoughts on The Notion of Communication Strategy, TESOL

Quarterly 15, pp. 285-295.

Wenden, A.L. (1985). Learner Strategies, TESOL Quarterly 19 (5), pp. 1-7.

Widdowson, H.G (1978). Teaching Language As Communication. OUP.

1983. Learning Purpose and Language Use. OUP.

46

chapter 1: introduction -...

Documents