The application of S2R strategies in English reading comprehension by university students in Vietnam

Year 2020, , 1534 - 1546, 01.10.2020

Thuy Thi Bich Nguyen

https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.803893

Abstract

Reading plays a significantly important role in every student’s academic development, especially when they have to work over a great number of foreign language materials for their professional subjects (McDonough & Shaw, 2013). Strengthening English reading ability is necessary for students to promote individual ability in university education.
One of the most important factors affecting students’ English reading proficiency is their use of reading strategies. This study is taken to explore how Vietnamese university students applied Self-strategic regulation (S2R) strategies in their English reading comprehension. 963 students from 6 universities in the North of Vietnam participated in the study. The results of the study through the questionnaire and semi-sructured intreviews show that the participants applied S2R strategies at a medium level of frequency (M=2.9) when they read general English materials. Cognitive strategies were reported being used the most frequently, followed by Affective strategies, Socio-cultural Interactive strategies, and Meta-strategies. Five of the six most frequently used strategies were in the category of Cognitive ones. All the five least commonly used strategies were of medium and low usage falling into the Meta-strategy subscale. From the research results, the author has proposed some pedagogical recommendations to educational administrators, English teachers, students, and English textbook writers as well.

Keywords

self-strategic regulation, reading comprehension, reading strategies; university students; Vietnam

References

• Alhaisoni, E. (2017). Prior knowledge of EFL reading comprehension: Native and non-native EFL teachers’ perceptions, classroom strategies and difficulties encountered. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature (IJSELL), 30-41.
• Al-Sheikh, N., & Mokhtari, K. (2011). An examination of the metacognitive reading strategies used by native speakers of Arabic when reading in English and Arabic. English Language Teaching, 151-160.
• Alvermann, D., & Earle, J. (2003). Rethinking reading comprehension. New York: Guilford Press.
• Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing. Modern Language Journal, 460-472.
• Atkins, B., & Varantola, K. (1998). Language learners using dictionaries: The Final Report on the EURALEX/AILA. Research Project on Dictionary Use, 21-81.
• Barnett, M. (1989). More than meets the eyes. Prentice Hall.
• Block, E. (1986). The comprehension strategies of second language readers. TESOL Quarterly, 463-494.
• Brantmeier, C. (2002). Second language reading strategy research at the secondary and university levels: Variations, disparities, and generalizability. The Reading Matrix, 1-13.
• Celce-Murcia, M. (2001). Language teaching approaches: An overview. In Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed.). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
• Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. In Psychometrika (pp. 297-334).
• DeMoulin, D., & Loye, R. (1999). Helping children to learn to read. Education, 40-43.
• Do, M., & Vo, P. (2015). Investigating reading strategies used by EFL students at Dong Thap University. Asian Journal of Educational Research, 10-20.
• Dreyer, C., & Nel, C. (2003). Teaching reading strategies and reading comprehension within a technology-enhanced learning environment. System, 31, 349-365.
• Durkin, D. (1993). Teaching them to read (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
• Hamzah, M. S., & Abdullah, S. K. (2009). Analysis of metacognitive strategies in reading and writing among Malaysian ESL learners in four educational institutions. European Journal of Social Sciences, 676-683.
• Harrison, C. (1996). Methods of teaching reading: Key issues in research and implications for practice. Edinburgh: Scottish Office Education and Industry Department.
• Hoang, N. (2016). The relationship between reading strategy use and reading proficiency of Vietnamese students in the UK. British Council ELT Master’s Dissertation Awards.
• Hsu, L.-W. (2008). Taiwanese hospitality college students’ English reading strategies in English for specific purpose courses. Journal of Hospitality and Home Economics, 53-67.
• Hudson, T. (2007). Teaching second language reading. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Keene, E., & Zimmermann, S. (1997). Mosaic of thought: Teaching comprehension in a reader’s workshop. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
• Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S.L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 477-480.
• Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Li, S., & Munby, H. (1996). Metacognitive strategies in second language academic reading: A qualitative investigation. English for Specific Purposes, 199-216.
• McDonough, J., & Shaw, C. (2013). Materials and methods in ELT: A teacher’s guide (3rd ed.). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
• Miller, G. A., & Gildea, P. M. (1985). How to misread a dictionary. AILA Bulletin, 13-26.
• Mokhtari, K., & Sheorey, R. (2002). Measuring ESL students’ awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Developmental Education, 2-10.
• Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies. What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
• Oxford, R. (2001). Language learning strategies. In R. Carter, & D. Nunan, The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp. 166-172). Cambridge, The UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Oxford, R. (2013). Teaching and researching language learning strategies. Harlow, The UK: Pearson.
• Pang, J. (2008). Research on good and poor reader characteristics: Implications for L2 reading research in China. Reading in a Foreign Language, 1-18.
• Park, Y. H. (2010). Korean EFL college students’ reading strategy use to comprehend authentic expository/technical texts in English. The University of Kansas.
• Pressley, M., El-Dinary, B. P., Gaskins, I., & Schuder, T. B. (1992). Beyond direct explanation: Transactional instruction of reading comprehension strategies. Elementary School Journal, 513-555.
• Pritchard, R. (1990). The effects of cultural schemata on reading processing strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 273-295.
• Rubin, J. (2008). Lessons from good language learners. Cambridge, The UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Scholfield, P. (1982). Using the English dictionary for comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 185-194.
• Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among native and non-native speakers. System, 29(4), 431-449.
• Shikano, M. (2013). A quantitative survey on metacognitive awareness of reading strategy use in English by Japanese university students. International Education Centre.
• Sim, S. (2007). A study on reading strategies in KSL classes. School of Modern Language Studies University of New South Wales.
• Smith, E., & Swinney, D. (1992). The role of schemas in a reading text: A real-time examination. Discourse Processes, 303-316.
• Uztosun, M. (2015). Review of teaching and researching language learning strategies. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 99-104.
• Wu, C. (2005). An investigation of metacognitive reading strategies used by EFL Taiwanese college students to comprehend familiar versus unfamiliar Chinese and English texts. University of Idaho.
• Yayli, D. (2010). A think-aloud study: Cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies of ELT department students. Egitim Arastirmalari-Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 234-251.
• Yüksel, I., & Yüksel, I. (2012). Metacognitive awareness of academic reading strategies. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 894-898.