Another Perspective on Cognitive Reading Strategy Use: Efficient and Inefficient Readers
Keywords:Cognitive reading strategies, efficient and inefficient readers, reading comprehension, writing a summary
This research investigated cognitive reading strategies used among university students for both efficient and inefficient readers, in southern Thailand. The study was conducted at two government universities. The data were collected through two research instruments: questionnaires and interviews. The questionnaires were distributed to 377 university students in March 2015 and the semi-structured interviews were implemented with 20 students, 10 efficient and 10 inefficient readers, afterward to accompany the quantitative data. The results from the questionnaire were analyzed and presented based on their descriptive statistics. The results revealed the percentages of cognitive reading strategies used between the two reading groups, also an independent t-test to check if there was any significant difference between efficient and inefficient readers on their strategy use. Next, the quantitative data were accompanied with discussion and explanation from the interview data. The findings verified that efficient readers tend to employ more strategies than inefficient readers when they read. Nevertheless, both reading groups were found to lack the same strategy: summary writing, which is believed to be another important cognitive reading strategy that could enhance students’ reading comprehension. Therefore, this study urges the integration of reading strategies in the classroom as an intervention for students to understand and use with English readings texts.
Aebersold, J. A., & Field, M.L. (2002). From reader to reading teacher: Issues and strategiesfor second language classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual Differences in Strategy Use in Second Language Reading and Testing. The Modern Language Journal,75(4), 460-472.
Anderson, N. J. (2012). Reading instruction. The Cambridge guide to pedagogy and practice in second language teaching, 218-225.
Asfaha, Y. M., Beckman, D., Kurvers, J., & Kroon, S. (2009). L2 reading in multilingual Eritrea: The influences of L1 reading and English proficiency. Journal of Research in Reading, 32(4), 351-365.
Alhaqbani, A., & Riazi, M. (2012). Metacognitive awareness of reading strategy use in Arabic as a second language. Reading in a foreign language, 24(2), 231-255.
Anastasiou, D., & Griva, E. (2009). Awareness of reading strategy use and reading comprehension among poor and good readers. Elementary Education Online, 8(2), 283-297.
Baleghizadeh, S., & Yousefian. M. (2012). The relationship between test-takers’ rate of strategy use and their reading comprehension performance. The NERA Journal, 48(1), 73-77.
Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, J. M. (1996). The cognitive academic language learning approach: a model for linguistically diverse classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 96(3), 259-273.
Clarke, M.A. (2002). The short circuit hypothesis of ESL reading – or when language competence interferes with reading performance. In P. Carrel et al. (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp. 114-124).New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gao, Y. (2017). The effect of summary writing on reading comprehension: the role of mediation in the EFL classroom. Reading Improvement, 54(2), 82-86.
Jiang, X. (2011). The role of first language literacy and second language proficiency in second language reading comprehension. The Reading Matrix, 11(2), 177-190.
Joh, J. (2004). Interplay of working memory, strategy use, and task difficulty in L2 reading comprehension. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 15(4), 900-914.
Lau, K. (2006). Reading strategy use between Chinese good and poor readers: a think-aloud study. Journal of Research in Reading, 29(4), 383-399.
Morvay, G. (2015). The role of L1 reading ability, L2 proficiency and non-verbal intelligence in L2 reading comprehension. Argentinian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(1), 26-47.
Niri, M. (2016). Reading strategies in Persian and English languages and their influence on English reading comprehension ability. International Journal of English Linguistics, 6(7), 159-165.
Park, G. (2013). Relations among L1 reading, L2 knowledge, and L2 reading: Revisiting Threshold Hypothesis. English Language Teaching, 6(12), 39-47.
Park, Y. (2010). A relationship between reading comprehension and reading strategy use: Meta-analysis. English teaching, 65(3), 3-22.
Sailors, M., & Price, L. (2010). Professional development that supports the teaching of cognitive reading strategy instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 110(3), 301-322.
Shang, H. (2010). Reading strategy use, self-efficacy and EFL reading comprehension. Asian EFL Journal, 12(2), 18-42.
Shokrpour, N., Sadeghi, A., & Seddigh, F. (2013). The effect of summary writing as a critical reading strategy on reading comprehension of Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Studies in Education, 3(2), 127-138.
Spirgel, A., & Delaney, P. (2016). Does writing summaries improve memory for text? Educational Psychology Review, 28, 171-196.
Wichadee, S. (2014). Developing reading and summary writing abilities of EFL undergraduate students through transactional strategies. Research in Education, 92, 59-71.
Yamashita, J. (2002). Mutual compensation between L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency in L2 reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 25(1), 81-95.
Yang, Y. F. (2015). Automatic scaffolding and measurement of concept mapping for EFL students to write summaries. Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 273-286.
Yayli, D. (2010). A think-aloud study: cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies of ELT department students. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 38, 234-2.