8/13/2019 Marong 1

1/15

A Comparative Study of Successful and Unsuccessful

College ESL Readers in Their Use of Reading Strategies

Ma Rong

Beijing Technology and Business University

Ma Xiaomei

Xian Jiaotong University

I. Introduction

Since the late 1970s, many ESL researchers have begun to recognize the

importance of the strategies ESL students use while reading. There has been a

shift in attention from a focus on the product of reading (such as a score on a

reading comprehension test) to an emphasis on determining the strategies that

readers use in various reading contexts. A number of exploratory researches have

been made in those years (e.g. Hosenfeld, 1977; Block, 1986; Sarig, 1987; Lv &

Tu, 1998; etc.)

However, there are many unsatisfying points existing in the previous

researches, mainly summarized as the following aspects: firstly, the research

method of reading strategies used in one study was onefold, either quantitative

such as questionnaire or qualitative such as think-aloud protocol; secondly, the

researches were conducted with relatively a small group of subjects involved in,

usually in one university or even in one class and less then 50 students; thirdly, the

reading strategies in the researches are not comprehensive, some are only

cognitive strategies while others are only metacognitive ones; fourthly, theprevious studies did not pay enough attention to reading process; lastly, very few

researches were on the strategies of good and poor learners, which also did not

give a clear classification on what are good learners and what are poor learners

and cannot offer a satisfying result.

As a result, the present study was carried out to:

1) identify the range and variety of reading strategies used by successful andunsuccessful ESL readers.

2) determine if successful and unsuccessful ESL readers use different readingstrategies and what are differences and similarities in reading strategy use between

successful and unsuccessful ESL readers.

8/13/2019 Marong 1

2/15

3) determine if successful ESL readers share common reading strategies and ifthere are notable differences; if unsuccessful ESL readers share common reading

strategies and if there are notable differences and unsuccessful ESL readers.

II. Method

In the present study, both metacognitive and cognitive strategies in reading

are involved, as well as social and affective strategies. Besides, the present study

is also a combination of product research and process research.

The research questions are as follows:

1. What kinds of reading strategies do Chinese ESL readers use more

frequently in English reading?

2. What are the differences between successful and unsuccessful Chinese

ESL readers in reading strategy use?

3. What common features do successful ESL readers share and what are thedistinct differences in their use of reading strategies? What common features do

unsuccessful ESL readers share and what are the distinct differences?

The quantitative research was conducted in September 2002 to find outwhat kinds of reading strategies are frequently used by Chinese college ESL

readers and what kinds of strategies are more relevant to reading proficiency. In

order to get comprehensive and authentic data, 200 third-year undergraduates of

non-English major were chosen as our subjects. They came from various

specialties of four universities in Xian, China, i.e., Xian Jiaotong University,

Shaanxi Normal University, Xian University of Technology and Xian University

of Electronic Science and Technology (Xidian university). At that time, they had

just completed two years study of English and taken the CET-4 in June 2002.

They are classified half as successful readers and half as unsuccessful readers

according to their scores of CET-4 and their self-rated English reading ability.

Specifically, successful readers ranged in their scores of CET-4 between 96 and 85,

with an average score of 87.8; and unsuccessful readers between 54 and 32, with

an average score of 49.3. The two groups of subjects are significantly different in

their L2 proficiency levels.

The instrument used here is a questionnaire (for details, see Appendix I)

which was developed primarily on the basis of a survey of the available literatureon the strategies (mainly Rubin, 1975; OMalley 1985; 2001; Hosenfeld, 1977;

SILL, Oxford, 1990). The questionnaire consists three parts: background

information, general reading approach, and reading strategies that form the main

part. In the analysis of the result, the items of reading strategies were categorized

into three broad groups, that is, metacognitive reading strategies, cognitive

reading strategies, social and affective reading strategies.

The raw data were processed by means of SPSS Software. After the

descriptive statistics, independent-sample t-test was taken to further testify the

real existence of the differences between the successful and the unsuccessful

readers in their use of reading strategies.

8/13/2019 Marong 1

3/15

The qualitative study includes the interview and the think-aloud protocol.

The subjects of the intervieware 20 third-year undergraduates. Among them, 10

are successful readers and 10 unsuccessful readers. They were chosen from the

students who had taken part in the investigation of questionnaire, and

approximately the top 10 of successful readers and the bottom 10 of unsuccessfulreaders. The data collection instrument used here is an interview guideline with

consulting some previous interview guide (for example, see Hosenfeld, 1977;

Barnett, 1988). The participants were interviewed on the following aspects:

personal background, attitudes and approaches to reading, their in-class and

after-class reading practice, their reading process, their preferred reading

strategies when dealing with particular reading task.

And as for thethink-aloud protocol, we selected six subjects from those who

had been involved in the interview. They were also divided into two groups:

successful readers and unsuccessful readers. The material used in the study is an

article about tourists impressions of America (from, Yorkey, 1970). The passageis authentic, neither adapted nor shortened and was used as the think-aloud

material by Carrell, Pharis and Liberto in their study of Metacognitive Strategy

Training for ESL Reading in 1989. Whats more, the length of the passage is

proper and the words in the article are within the scope of CET-4 vocabulary.

Therefore, this passage was chosen as the material in the present study. The

subjects were asked to read the passage in English and verbally report their

thoughts while reading the passage. Considering the subjects are just

intermediate-level English learners and not very proficient in organizing and

expressing their idea in English, the think-aloud were conducted in Chinese, but

English expression was also welcomed. The think-aloud protocol was conducted

in accordance with established procedures used in the most current verbal report

research literature (e.g., Block, 1986, 1992; Fawcett, 1993; Garner, 1987; Kletzien,

1991; Olson, Duffy, & Mark, 1984).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1 Statistical results

Table 1 depicts the descriptive statistics including mean, mode and standarddeviation of each item on the reading strategy questionnaire. The statistical data of

the questionnaire can also be illustrated clearly in bar charts, which supply a

directviewing impression of both successful and unsuccessful subjects' responses

to the gamut of reading strategy questionnaire. The differences and similarities

between these two groups of subjects are presented legibly. For details, please see

Figure 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Table1: The descriptive statistics of the reading strategy questionnaireSuccessful Unsuccessful

Item Strategy Me S.D. Mo Me S.D. Mo

1 Having plans of reading 1.92 .98 1 1.79 .87 1

8/13/2019 Marong 1

4/15

2 Reading outside the class 3.23 .99 3 2.45 .90 3

3Reading the text whose difficulty is

proper3.47 1.09 3 2.74 1.09 3

4Choosing interested and familiar ones

to read3.36 1.05 4 3.06 1.01 3

5 Setting time before reading 2.37 1.21 2 2.35 1.10 2

6 Reducing anxiety by various means 2.01 1.21 1 2.39 1.25 27 Setting purpose for reading 3.30 1.18 4 2.95 1.20 2

8Using different reading approach andtechnique

3.56 1.10 4 2.73 1.14 2

9Dividing sense groups and readingaccording to it

2.29 1.10 2 2.15 1.06 2

10Classifying words according to their

importance2.45 1.19 1 2.39 1.13 2

11 Looking up dictionary and glossary 2.86 1.01 3 3.11 1.10 4

12Guessing meaning from the interpretiveclues

3.54 .86 4 3.07 .99 3

13Guessing meaning from logical relationof context

3.56 .84 4 3.08 .96 3

14 Guessing meaning through association 3.49 .87 3 3.00 .96 3

15 Guessing from the main idea and thestructure

3.58 .88 4 3.18 .96 3

16Guessing meaning through

word-building3.35 .94 4 2.09 .99 3

17 Discovering connotative meaning 3.12 .91 3 2.50 .99 2

18 Noting echo of words 3.15 1.00 3 2.48 .96 2

19 Noting the use of pronouns 3.42 1.06 4 3.02 1.09 3

20 Skipping unknown words and sentences 3.92 .99 4 3.48 .86 4

21Noting the ellipsis of some parts insentences

3.10 .99 3 2.69 .92 3

22 Using graphs, pictures, punctuation, etc 3.61 1.02 3 3.14 .89 3

23 Using discourse symbols 3.82 .95 4 3.22 1.06 3

24 Rereading the difficult sentences 3.04 1.01 3 3.19 .97 4

25 Reading aloud when text becomes hard 2.26 1.17 1 2.39 1.18 2

26 Paraphrasing with own words 2.37 1.13 2 2.37 1.04 227 Translating while reading 2.14 1.13 1 2.91 1.19 4

28 Looking backward from time to time 2.47 .87 2 3.02 .95 3

29 Visualizing the content in mind 3.39 .90 3 2.96 1.04 4

30Associating prior knowledge to

understanding3.68 .82 4 3.27 1.00 4

31Associating previous experience withcontent

3.19 1.00 3 2.74 1.03 3

32 Responding emotionally 3.50 .92 4 3.05 1.03 3

33 Taking notes while reading 1.90 .95 1 1.92 .94 2

34 Underlining the key words or sentences 3.18 1.23 4 3.00 1.15 3

35Choosing to use different readingtechniques

3.39 1.05 4 2.66 1.08 3

36 Adjusting reading rate and style 3.84 .85 4 2.98 1.14 3

37Looking for the topic sentence and themain idea

3.38 1.16 4 3.00 1.05 3

38Evaluating and correctingmisunderstanding

3.42 .91 4 3.04 .96 3

39 Raising questions 3.00 .99 3 2.62 1.15 3

40Summarizing and memorizing similar

content and structure2.21 1.01 2 2.15 .93 2

41Summarizing main idea, structure, etcafter reading

2.42 1.11 2 2.35 .96 2

42 Reviewing texts and words termly 2.34 1.03 2 2.41 .94 3

43Summarizing reading skillsaperiodically

2.57 .96 2 2.39 1.02 2

44Doing some exercises to test ownunderstanding

2.85 1.15 3 2.68 1.12 3

45Reading questions first and then thepassage

3.37 1.14 4 3.07 1.09 3

8/13/2019 Marong 1

5/15

46 consulting teachers and classmates 2.42 1.05 3 2.58 1.00 2

47Exchanging ideas with teachers and

classmates2.44 1.14 2 2.27 .94 2

48rewarding oneself when make someachievement

2.46 1.21 2 2.46 1.07 3

49 Encouraging oneself when fail 3.57 1.12 4 3.28 1.12 4

50 Learning cultural backgroundknowledge 3.40 1.18 4 2.38 1.09 3

8/13/2019 Marong 1

6/15

Figure 2:

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 40 41

Item

(Cognitive reading strategies)

Mean

successful readers

unsuccessful readers

Figure 3:

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

1 2 3 4 5 7 8 10 18 19 20 21 35 36 37 38 39 42 43 44 45 50

Item

(Metacognitive reading strategies)

Mean

successful readers

unsuccessful readers

Figure 4:

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

6 46 47 48 49

Item

(Social & affective reading strategies)

Mean

successful readers

unsuccessful readers

As for the think-aloud protocol, Table 2 presents an overview of the reading

8/13/2019 Marong 1

7/15

strategies used by the subjects during the experiment. Besides, Table 3 shows the

quantity of reading strategies used by the subjects while reading.

Table 2: reading strategies classification scheme

COG 1 Using of gloss or dictionaryCOG 2 Solving vocabulary problem

COG 3 Translating a word or phrase into L1

COG 4 Identifying, through circling, underlining, or placing an

arrow, words/phrases not understood

COG 5 Skimming for the general idea

COG 6 Making predictions

COG 7 Integrating information

COG 8 Reacting to the text information

COG 9 Visualizing the information in the text

COG 10 Summarizing main idea of the text or paragraphs

COG 11 Using background knowledge about the topicCOG 12 Using context clues

COG 13 Using key words

COG 14 Using prior knowledge

COG 15 Paraphrasing

COG 16 Reading the title

COG 17 Using typographical aids (e.g. italics)

COG 18 Rereading the difficult parts

MET 1 Questioning the meaning of a word, a clause or sentence

MET 2 Recognizing familiar words/phrases

MET 3 Being aware of knowledge of syntax and punctuation orother grammar

MET 4 Skipping unknown words

MET 5 Monitoring reading behavior

MET 6 Adjusting reading rate

MET 7 Monitoring comprehension and correcting

misunderstanding

MET 8 Commenting

MET 9 Noting the text structure

MET 10 Confirming prediction

MET 11 Identifying key words and topic sentences

MET 12 Continuing to read on with partial understanding

S & A 1 Consulting others

S & A 2 Discussing with others

Table 3: The quantity of reading strategies used by the subjects

Group Unsuccessful Successful

Name DLZ DWN WG LP XHJ YHCOG 11 7 9 16 18 16

8/13/2019 Marong 1

8/15

MET 7 6 6 12 11 11

S&A 1 0 0 2 1 0

* COG = cognitive reading strategies

MET = metacognitive reading strategies

S&A = social and affective reading strategies

3.2 Discussion of the results

By means of quantitative research and qualitative research, rich and valuable

findings are acquired, and both quantitative and qualitative analysis of the data

showed evidence that there do exist some differences on the use of reading

strategies between successful readers and unsuccessful readers. Generally

speaking, those successful readers could grasp the general meaning thoroughly,

understand most details well and use more interactive strategies. However, theunsuccessful readers struggled at a word-for-word or sentence-for-sentence level

and had great difficulties getting an overall meaning.

Followings are some tentative conclusions about the research questions

advanced at the beginning of this thesis:

1). What kinds of reading strategies do Chinese ESL readers use more

frequently in English reading?

The result of the study indicated that both the successful readers and the

unsuccessful readers identified and reported use of an extensive variety of reading

strategies. These reading strategies can be classified into three groups according to

O'Malley's theory, namely, cognitive reading strategies, metacognitive reading

strategies, social and affective reading strategies. In this study, it is found that the

subjects use reading strategies frequently in ESL reading, especially guessing

meaning through various means of textual context, predicting what will come next,

rereading difficult parts for better understanding, associating the content with

prior knowledge or personal experience, underlining the key points, adjusting

reading rate and techniques, choosing to read, selective attention, self-monitoring,

so on and so forth. Obviously, cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies are

much more often used than social and affective reading strategies. For instance,

the subjects seldom consult or discuss with teachers or classmates, and less oftenmake relaxation or encouragement. In addition, some other reading strategies like

having reading plans, setting time for reading, reviewing and summarizing what

have read, writing down key words and concepts, are also not used frequently by

these readers in reading English.

2). What are the differences between successful and unsuccessful Chinese

ESL readers in reading strategy use?

According to the results, we found some obvious differences between

successful and unsuccessful Chinese EFL readers in using the reading strategies

that are summarized as follows:

Firstly, in the reading process, successful readers are interacting with text

8/13/2019 Marong 1

9/15

more often while unsuccessful readers are only decoding the text word-by-word

or sentence-by-sentence. Successful readers dont only elicit information from the

text but also actively combine relative background knowledge and their own

experience with the text. They respond emotionally to the content and visualize

what they read in their mind. On the contrary, unsuccessful readers are tied to thetext. They decode the text in small units and receive the given information

passively, making no effort to guess the unstated facts and implied meanings. The

differences are well reflected in the use of inferring and elaborating strategies.

Secondly, successful readers focus most attention on comprehension of the

overall text, while unsuccessful readers always rest on small units, such as single

word or phrase. The think-aloud experiment showed this aspect quite clearly.

Successful readers take a top and global view in the reading, skip those words and

sentences which they think unimportant, and are capable of integrating individual

information together to form a whole perspective of the text. Unsuccessful readers

focus on the small parts of the reading, e.g., words, minor details and individualsentences. They seldom combine them together to have an overall idea, which

thus does not do any good to the understanding.

Thirdly, successful readers tend to use metacognitive reading strategies more

frequently and consciously than unsuccessful readers do. The successful readers

are more aware of knowledge of syntax or other grammar and noting the text

structure. Besides, the successful readers often monitor their reading behavior and

comprehension and correct misunderstanding as soon as when they find the

mistakes, as shown by their use of self-monitoring as a strategy. Lastly, they are

aware not only of which strategies to use, but they also tend to be better at

regulating the use of such strategies while reading. In other words, they know

which strategies to use and how to use them and the conditions under which the

strategies ought to be used. In contrast, unsuccessful readers are generally

deficient in reading strategies and seldom use the strategies consciously and

effectively.

Fourthly, during reading, the successful readers translate much less than the

unsuccessful readers. It is showed in all the three studies that successful readers

often substitute his/her own words for the original wording of the text, not

translating into Chinese. Some of them were even able to paraphrase the sentences

in English. In contrast, unsuccessful readers always put what they read intoChinese subconsciously. They like to translate what they read into Chinese, such

as Oh, I think this maybe means in Chinese, The Chinese meaning of this

word should be, etc.

Fifthly, the differences not only show up in the quantity of strategies they use,

but also in qualities, i.e., how they use the strategies flexibly and appropriately. It

can be verified distinctly in the use of word-attack skill. Unsuccessful readers

sometimes may use the same strategy as successful readers do, nevertheless, the

successful readers and the unsuccessful ones might use it in different way. For

example, when they wanted to use the strategy of guessing a word by breaking it

into parts, the successful readers could distinguish what kind of words could be

8/13/2019 Marong 1

10/15

broken up, whereas the unsuccessful ones often misused such strategy. One of the

unsuccessful readers even tried to break the word interview into inter and

view, and then looked up the dictionary for the two words inter and view

respectively. As a result, she could not understand the word and the sentence

ultimately.The above differences may be the main reasons that cause difference of

reading proficiency. Besides, there are still some other differences existing

between these two types of subjects. For instance, the successful readers were

more frequent to predict what content will occur in succeeding portions of text

and summarize main idea of the text or paragraphs than the unsuccessful readers.

However, some other factors, such as motivation, painstaking, anxiety, etc. should

not be neglected. For example, unsuccessful readers show very low motivations in

reading because they cant get any enjoyment except for frustration and anxiety;

successful readers usually spend more time on practicing reading after the class

and once read, they can concentrate on the reading.3. What common features do successful ESL readers share and what are the

big differences in their use of reading strategies? What common features do

unsuccessful ESL readers share and what are the big differences?

Surely there are some but not very remarkable differences existing in the

group of the successful readers and of unsuccessful readers respectively. For

example, some successful readers set purpose for reading and choose to read the

texts whose difficulty is proper, while some others just read without paying

attention to what they are reading; some like to read sentence by sentence while

others skim for main idea and do not read every word or sentence. As for

unsuccessful readers, some behave like successful readers, such as translating few,

elaborating, discovering connotative meaning and so on.

Comparatively speaking, the present findings have something in common

with what former researches did. For example, successful readers use reading

strategies more frequently, more appropriately, with greater variety, which

contribute to their successful completion of the reading task; unsuccessful readers,

on the other hand, not only have fewer strategy types in reading, but also

frequently use strategies that are inappropriate to the task or that lead to a failure

in reading. However, some new findings were also achieved in the study,

especially in students use of metacognitive reading strategies, and social andaffective reading strategies. The study also examined and revealed the difference

and the similarities of reading strategies use existing within the same group. In

addition, some other factors that may have some impact on students English

reading were also taken into consideration in the study.

4. Conclusion

The present study is a preliminary attempt and has some drawbacks and

limitations, many avenues remain to be explored in the further researches on

learning strategies. For example: the study only investigates some reading

8/13/2019 Marong 1

11/15

comprehension strategies used by students from four universities in one city.

Therefore, if other types of strategies are included and more subjects are sampled

from more universities (or even from middle schools) in different cities, we can

establish the validity of Chinese ESL students (not only college students, but also

middle school students) learning strategies in reading comprehension. Hence, theresearches will be more comprehensive and representative; besides, the study

demonstrates that successful readers apply strategies more frequently than

unsuccessful readers do. Further studies can be conducted to investigate why

ineffective readers are reluctant to use these strategies.

In order to reach the goal of teaching reading -- to help our students develop

as strategic and proficient readers, many helpful implications for both ESL

teachers and ESL learners are suggested, such as 1) teachers need to pay much

more attention to learning strategies as opposed to teaching strategies; 2) students

should be informed of the importance of reading strategies and then strategy

instruction should be emphasized while teaching reading comprehension; 3)students, especially unsuccessful ones, should be encouraged and motivated to use

strategies effectively in reading, etc.

To sum up, the present study has showed the close relationship between

using reading strategies and students' reading proficiency. Then, ESL teachers and

students should strengthen the awareness of the importance of reading strategies;

reading strategy instruction should be integrated with regular classroom reading

activity.

References

Barnett, M. A. 1988. Reading through context: How real and perceived strategies

use affects L2 comprehension [J]. The Modern Language Journal 72 (2):

150162.

Block, E. 1986. The comprehension strategies of second language readers [J].

TESOL Quarterly20 (3): 463494.

Block, E. 1992. See how they read: comprehension monitoring of L1 and L2

readers [J]. TESOL Quarterly26 (2): 319343.

Carrell, P. L., Pharis, B. G., & Liberto, J. C. 1989. Metacognitive strategy trainingfor ESL reading [J]. TESOL Quarterly23 (4): 647678.

Cohen, A. D. 2000. Strategies in learning and using a second language [M].

Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

Fawcett, G. 1993. Using students as think-aloud models [J].Reading research and

instruction33: 95104.

Garner, P. 1987. Metacognition and reading comprehension [M]. New Jersey:

Ablex.

Hosenfeld, C. 1977a. A learning-teaching view of second-language instruction:

the learning strategies of second-language learners with reading-grammar tasks

[D]. Ohio State University.

8/13/2019 Marong 1

12/15

Hosenfeld, C. 1977b. A preliminary investigation of the reading strategies of

successful and nonsuccessful second language learners [J]. System 5 (2):

110123.

Kletzien, S. B. 1991. Strategy use by good and poor comprehenders reading

expository text of differing levels [J].Reading Research Quarterly26: 6786.Olson, G. M., Duffy, S. A., & Mack, R. I. 1984. Think-out-aloud as a method for

studying real-time comprehension processes [A]. In D. Kieras & M. A. Just (eds).

New methods in reading comprehension research [C]. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum. Pp. 253286.

OMalley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner Manzanares, G., Kupper, L., &Russo, R.

P. 1985. Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate ESL students [J].

Language Learning35: 2146.

OMalley, J. M. & Chamot, A. U. 2001. Learning strategies in second language

acquisition[M].Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.

Oxford, R. 1990. Language learning strategies: what every teacher should know[M]. New York: Newbury House / Harper Collins.

Rubin, J. 1975. What the good language learner can tell us [J]. TESOL Quarterly

9 (1): 4151.

Sarig, G. 1987. High-level reading in the first and in the foreign language: some

comparative process data [A]. In J. Devine, P. L. Carrell, & D. E. Eskey (eds).

Research in reading in English as a second language [C]. Washington, DC:

TESOL. Pp. 105120.

, 1998, [J]

4 7481

Appendix I Questionnaire

1 1 2 3 4

21 2 3 4 5

31 2 3 4 5

4 40

10 -- 11 212 -- 23324 -- 33 434 -- 40

5.

8/13/2019 Marong 1

13/15

6

1

1 2

3

2

123456

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. , ( )

7. , , 8. 9. 10. 11.

8/13/2019 Marong 1

14/15

12.( )

13.

14.( )

15. 16. 17. 18.( )

19.I think so,so

20. 21. 22.

( )

23.( )

24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32.

33.

34. 35.( )

36. 37. 38.

39. 40. 41. 42. 43.( )

8/13/2019 Marong 1

15/15