English Language Journal Vol 4, (2011) 49-66 ISSN 1823 6820

INTRODUCTION

Reading skills are important throughout our lifespan, particularly as we respond to new demands and changes in jobs and in fact, reading for pleasure or recreational has been found to improve reading comprehension, writing style, vocabulary, spelling and grammatical development (Krashen, 1988). The current explosion of research in recent years has proven the benefits of reading significantly. Among them is by Yilmaz (2000) who confirms that reading will affect the educational achievements of students very positively. The study revealed that students failed in third grade because they are non-readers. It is often the case that reading at higher institutions of learning demands some types of skills. Over the years, there has been accumulated evidence that some skills are particularly important and that learners equipped with such reading skills or strategies may be more successful than others. Hosenfeld (1977) asserts that successful learners use more strategies than unsuccessful learners. Where learning is concerned, each individual has different learning abilities that are very much related to different levels and types of intelligence. It is claimed by Gardner (1983) that human beings do not share the same types of intelligence which we call multiple intelligences. This theory emphasizes individual differences and abilities. Such assertion is supported by Lightbrown and Spada (1999) as they mentioned that a variety set of skills and preferred strategies are used by different learners to approach a task. The same can be said about reading as it is an area which people engage in for a variety of reasons and in various ways. Based on this scenario, this study attempts to find out whether or not undergraduates use certain strategies during reading and whether or not there is a difference in the strategies used between high and low achievers of ESL.
LITERATURE REVIEW

There are two main theoretical models of reading that currently dominate the literature. These models, namely
50

English Language Journal Vol 4, (2011) 49-66 ISSN 1823 6820

bottom up approach and top down approach or generally known as the schema theory, place heavy emphasis on the importance of the reading comprehension process. Reading can be regarded as a psycholinguistics guessing game in which the reader reconstructs as well as he can, a message which has been encoded by a writer as a graphic display (Goodman, 1971). According to the schema theory, comprehending a text is an interactive process between the readers background knowledge and the text itself. This process can be divided into two parts; Bottom-up Approach to Reading: The previously acquired knowledge structures (Schemata) are hierarchically organized from most general information at the top to most specific information at the bottom. Top-down Approach to Reading: Many reading theorists currently conceptualize reading as an interactive, processoriented activity in which a reader actively constructs meaning from the text by constructing background knowledge, including knowledge of language, with text information (Anderson & Pearson, 1984). Weber (1984) emphasized that any reading process, be it in L1 or L2, needs to be perceived as a top-down/bottomup interaction between the graphic exhibit in the passage, a variety of stages of linguistic knowledge and procedures, and a range of cognitive processes. Strategy use is said to be the hallmark of efficient reading. Many empirical studies have linked success in reading to the quality and quantity of strategies used (Anderson, 2000; Oxford, 1990). It has been found that effective readers are more aware of strategy use than less effective readers (Mokhtari & Reichard, 2002). This suggests that one needs to be a strategic reader to be an effective reader. To construct meaning effectively from written texts then, certain strategies need to be employed. Before delineating pre-reading, while-reading, and postreading strategies, it is crucial to provide an operational definition of reading strategies due to possible confusion as to what constitutes strategies. The general consensus in the literature is that strategies are conscious processes which are executed for a purpose (Carrell, Gajdusek, & Wise, 1998). For a process to be considered as a strategy, it needs to be
51

English Language Journal Vol 4, (2011) 49-66 ISSN 1823 6820

observable or identifiable by the users when asked (Oxford, 1990). In this study, reading strategies then is defined as any processes that the readers are conscious of executing with the intention of constructing meaning from written texts. Referring to reading strategies in particular, Gardner (1987) points out that they are an action or sequence of actions used to create meaning. Whereby, Barnett (1989) has made use of the term reading strategy to explain the mental processes engaged when readers resolutely approach a text to make sense of what they read. Carrell (1998) has also made a similar interpretation of the word strategies as the author mentioned that strategies are conscious cognitive operation. Conscious readers (of the strategies they employ) can also discriminate between strategies that are suitable or unsuitable for particular reading conditions. Therefore, they are capable of observing their reading and this ability allows to enhance understanding (Paris, Lipson, & Wixson, 1983). The readers metacognition is represented by this conscious knowledge and control of cognitive processess (Baker & Brown, 1984). Strategic reading involves three stages, namely prereading, while-reading, and post-reading. Strategic readers actively construct meaning as they read and interact with the text. They set purposes for reading, select methods of realizing these purposes, monitor, and repair their own comprehension as they read, and evaluate the complete task (Gardner, 1987). It is also said that a strategic reader creates, examines, and broaden meaning before, during, and after reading for a selection of texts. On the other hand, it is explained that poor readers, initiate reading without thinking about the process of reading or the subject matter, omit or pay no attention to meanings of unfamiliar but crucial words, and do not incorporate prior knowledge with the text they are reading. Constructing meaning from texts can begin even before reading. Research has found that strategic readers use planning strategies before they begin to read in order to make the texts more accessible during reading. Saricoban (2002) affirms that pre-reading activities assist students to activate what they know about a topic and foresee what they
52

English Language Journal Vol 4, (2011) 49-66 ISSN 1823 6820

will read or hear. Students attention too is aimed at the major points through such strategies. During reading, effective readers use strategies to build their understanding of the text and become engaged in the reading process. Proficient readers know how and when to use certain reading strategies. They are also found to use monitoring strategies to make sure that they understand what they are reading (Samuels, Ediger, Willcutt, & Palumbo, 2005). Some of these strategies include checking for understanding, confirming predictions, asking questions and pausing (Goodman, Burke, & Sherman, 1980). Well-planned response after reading is just as important as those before and during reading (Rosenblatt, 1978). Constructing meaning from texts does not end with the termination of reading. To have a deeper understanding of the texts, readers have to summarise major ideas and evaluate their readings (Blachowicz & Ogle, 2001). This involves deep-level processing strategies that transform the literal meaning of the texts (Alexander, 2003). Some of these strategies include dentifying what is salient, making inferences, drawing conclusions and relecting upon the reading process (Pressley & Aflerbach, 1995). In a research done by Saricoban (2002), 110 preparatory ELT students at Hacettepe University were asked to evaluate an inventory of strategy use during their in classroom reading studies. The researcher examined the strategies effective readers employed in pre-reading, reading, and post-reading stages of instruction in classroom language learning by administering a reading inventory adopted from Varaprasad (1997). The aims were to determine the different strategies used by both successful and less successful readers at an upperintermediate level. The finding suggested that strategies such as analyzing arguments, focusing on descriptions and certain kinds of verbs were those preferred by successful readers as these strategies help them understand the purpose and the message conveyed by the author. Less successful readers also focused on the kinds of verbs; for instance, they focused on verbs such as the ones which denote mental process and actions. As observed by Saricoban (2002), successful readers usually evaluate and try to comment on the encoded message
53

English Language Journal Vol 4, (2011) 49-66 ISSN 1823 6820

by the author in order to extend their understanding of the text as a whole. It is therefore fair to conclude that strategies such as evaluating and commenting are vital in expanding ones interpretation and understanding of a text. Prior knowledge is important in reading as it becomes a bridge between what the reader already knows about the subject matter (background knowledge) and written text.
METHODOLOGY

A total of forty semester-one undergraduates from the Faculty of Chemical Engineering, University Malaysia Pahang were randomly selected for the study. The selection was based on two groups of students high achievers of English as a second language (ESL) and low achievers of English as a second language (ESL). The distinction between high and low achievers of English as a second language (ESL) was based on their performance in Malaysian University English Test (MUET) which is a test to measure candidates English language proficiency. Students who obtained Band 5 and 6 in MUET were categorized as high achievers of English as a second language (ESL) and those with Band 1 and 2 in MUET as low achievers of English as a second language (ESL). Primary data were collected using survey questionnaire for the data gathering process. The questionnaire which comprised twenty-eight items was adapted from S. H. M. Salleh (2007) based on major reading strategies listed by Gardner (1983). The questionnaire was used to elicit information on reading strategies that were employed by the two groups of learners. The questionnaire is divided into four parts, namely the respondents personal information, pre-reading strategies, while-reading strategies, and postreading strategies. It also requires the respondents to evaluate a statement according to three Likert scale of never, sometimes, and frequently. The data collected were then calculated, analysed and presented quantitatively utilizing both descriptive and inferential statistics technique. An independent t-Test; Two sample assuming unequal variances was conducted on the data to find out significant differences by comparing the use of each type of strategies
54

English Language Journal Vol 4, (2011) 49-66 ISSN 1823 6820

across groups. If the p-value is greater than 0.05 (p>0.05), hence it can be concluded that there is no statistically significant difference between the three conditions being compared. On the other hand, if the p-value is less than or equal to 0.05 (p<0.05), it can be concluded that there is a statistically significant difference between the three conditions.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS Pre-reading strategies frequently used by ESL high

and low achievers

Table 1 Means of frequency of use of pre-reading strategies among the ESL high and low achievers
Pre-reading strategies The mean score of high achievers of ESL 2.70 2.50 Rank The mean Rank score of low achievers of ESL 2.35 2.45 5 3

S1 S2

I set my purpose for reading I determine the points that I want to look for before reading a text. I scan through the chapter introduction/chapter summaries before reading the whole text I ask a lot of WH-questions related to the subject matter to myself before I read. I predict the content of a text before reading it. When I start reading a new chapter or text, I first think about the best way to understand it

2 5

S3

2.75

2.40

S4

2.50

2.55

S5 S6

2.50 2.55

6 4

2.30 2.55

2 1

As can be seen in Table 1.0, the ESL high achievers tended to use pre-reading strategy S3, i.e. to scan through the
55

English Language Journal Vol 4, (2011) 49-66 ISSN 1823 6820

chapter introductions/summaries before reading the whole text (mean=2.75) whereby the ESL low achievers preferred to use S6 (mean=2.55) that is to think about the best way to understand a new chapter or a text. The strategy S5 predicting the text content, however was least preferred by the ESL high achievers (mean=2.50) and S4 asking WHquestions before reading was the least favoured by the ESL low achievers (mean=2.30). Overall, these findings suggest that both ESL high and low achievers do plan certain reading methods by thinking of the best way to understand a text before actually reading it. In other words, constructing meaning from texts can begin even before reading. They prepare themselves mentally so as to obtain maximum understanding of the reading text and this method relates very much to the use of metacognitive strategies as quoted from El-hendi (1996) in which planning is considered as a crucial step before reading, other than monitoring and evaluating.
While-reading strategies frequently used by ESL high

and low achievers

As can be seen in Table 1.1, the ESL high achievers tended to use while-reading strategies S20 guessing meaning in context (mean=3.00) whereas the ESL low achievers preferred to use S19 (mean=2.90) that is rereading difficult expressions and sentences. The strategy S10 using different colour/highlighters, however , seemed to be the least preferred strategy of both ESL high and low achievers with the mean frequency of 2.15 and 2.00 respectively.
Table 1.1 Means of frequency of use of while-reading strategies among the ESL high and low achievers
While-reading strategies Rank Rank The mean The mean score of low scoreof high achievers of achievers of ESL ESL 2.95 3 2.75 3

S7

I give my complete attention as I read.

56

English Language Journal Vol 4, (2011) 49-66 ISSN 1823 6820

S8 S9

As I read the text, I make notes simultaneously. I highlight main ideas as I read the text.

2.45 2.75 2.15

15 8 16

2.35 2.45 2.00

14 10 16

S10 I use different colours or highlighters to differentiate main ideas from supporting details. S11 I imagine what I read S12 I work through a chapter in a textbook item by item and I study each part separately. S13 I repeat the main parts of a subject matter until I know them by heart. S14 I try to find the key words of a text as I read. S15 I do not proceed to the subsequent chapter until I have mastered the current chapter in detail. S16 I try to see the connection between topics discussed in different chapters of a textbook. S17 I try to construct an overall picture of a text for myself. S18 When I am reading a topic, I try to think of cases I know from my own experience that are connected to that topic. S19 When I dont understand an expression/ sentence, I read it again. S20 I guess meanings of difficult words from contexts. S21 I use dictionaries/ encyclopedias while reading. S22 I communicate with myself as I read.

2.70 2.65

10 11

2.70 2.40

4 12

2.65

12

2.45

11

2.80 2.80

4 5

2.60 2.40

6 13

2.80

2.55

2.75 2.50

9 14

2.35 2.75

15 2

2.95

2.90

3.00 2.55 2.80

1 13 7

2.65 2.55 2.55

5 7 8

57

English Language Journal Vol 4, (2011) 49-66 ISSN 1823 6820

Overall, these findings suggest that nearly all ESL high and low achievers reread sentences that they do not understand while reading a text. This fact may be a sign of a lack of tolerance of ambiguity among respondents and the observation actually contradicts Brown (2007) who claimed that the ability to tolerate ambiguity in any reading text portrays characteristics of effective readers. Byrne (1983) also stresses that learners should not read too slowly and carefully as if they are trying to unearth the meaning. He further added that effective readers should not face anxiety even though not all words in a reading text are familiar to them. Post-reading strategies frequently used by ESL high and low achievers
Table 2 Means of frequency of use of post-reading strategies among the ESL high and low achievers
Item Rank Rank The mean The mean score of low scoreof high achievers of achievers of ESL ESL 2.90 2.60 2 6 2.30 2.20 4 5

S23 I summarize the major ideas in a text after reading it.. S24 If I dont understand a text well, I try to find others sources (i.e. books, articles from websites, etc) about the subject concerned. S25 If I dont understand a text well, I approach my lecturer for further explanation. S26 I use different colours or highlighters to differentiate main ideas from supporting details. S27 When I have difficulty in understanding a text, I try to analyze why it is difficult for me. S28 I try to recall what I have read.

2.65

2.00

2.80

2.50

2.85

2.45

2.95

2.60

58

English Language Journal Vol 4, (2011) 49-66 ISSN 1823 6820

As seen in Table 2, both the ESL high and low achievers preferred to use post-reading strategies S28 recalling contents with the mean frequency of 2.95 and 2.60 respectively. The strategy S24 finding other sources such as books or article, however, was the least preferred strategy by the ESL high achievers (mean=2.60) and S25 approaching lecturers for further explanation was the least favoured by the ESL low achievers (mean=2.00). The above findings suggest that the ESL high achievers were not in-favour with S24 finding other sources to enhance understanding and S25 approaching lecturers for further explanation despite the fact that they were high achievers of ESL. Therefore, this observation supports Cabrals (2002) study result which indicates that many students tend to avoid the use of strategies that involve interaction with teachers. Students shyness may be the contributing factor as to why they opt not to approach lecturers for further clarification or exchange opinion with others on the subject matter.
Comparison in the use of pre-reading strategies between

the ESL high and low achievers Table 3 presents the result of the t-Test for the use of prereading strategies between the two groups of achievers. The t-Test results revealed a significant difference in the use of pre-reading strategies between the ESL high achievers and ESL low achievers (t=2.253, p<0.025). The mean frequency of use for the ESL high achievers is higher than the mean for the ESL low achievers (high=2.60, low=2.42). The result suggests that the ESL high achievers tended to utilize the pre-reading strategies more frequently than the ESL low achievers. These findings are in line with those of an earlier study by Schmitt (2005) who claimed that strategic readers used planning strategies before they began to read in order to make the texts more comprehensible. For instance, previewing texts enables predicting and questioning, which in turn helps to establish a purpose in reading (Pearson, Roehler, Dole, & Duffy, 1992). Moreover, constructing meaning from texts
59

English Language Journal Vol 4, (2011) 49-66 ISSN 1823 6820

can begin even before reading (Wei, 2007). This also helps to activate prior knowledge which can be used to make sense of the texts later.
Table 3 Results of the Independent Samples t-Test for pre-reading strategies between the ESL high and low achievers.
ESL high achievers (n=120) Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error t Stat Df Sig. (2-tailed) Std. Error Difference 2.6000 0.55610 0.05076 2.253 233.071 0.025 0.07766 ESL low achievers (n=120) 2.4250 0.64381 0.05877

Comparison in the use of while-reading strategies

between the ESL high and low achievers Table 4 presents the result of the t-Test for the use of whilereading strategies between the two groups of achievers. The t-Test results show that there was a high significant difference in the use of while-reading strategies by the ESL high achievers and the ESL low achievers (t=3.98, p<0.00). The mean frequency of use for the ESL high achievers is much higher than the mean for the ESL low achievers (high=2.70, low=2.53). This suggests that the ESL high achievers seemed to utilize while-reading strategies more frequently than the low achievers. These findings confirmed a statement by Wei (2007) who noted that during reading, effective readers used strategies to build their understanding of the text. These comprehension fostering strategies include visualising, inferring, paraphrasing and making connections between parts of text (Traillefer & Pugh, 1998). Effective readers were also found to use monitoring strategies to make sure that they understand what they are reading (Samuels, Ediger, Willcutt, & Palumbo, 2005). Some of these strategies
60

English Language Journal Vol 4, (2011) 49-66 ISSN 1823 6820

include checking for understanding, confirming predictions, and pausing (Goodman, Burke, & Sherman, 1980). The presence of these processes becomes evident when readers notice that they fail to gain meanings effectively from texts (Sugirin, 2002).
Table 4 Results of the Independent Samples t-Test for whilereading strategies between the ESL high and low achievers.
ESL high achievers (n=320) Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error t Stat Df Sig. (2-tailed) Std. Error Difference 2.7031 0.51558 0.2882 3.979 619.857 0.000* 0.04477 ESL low achievers (n=320) 2.5250 0.61282 0.3426

Comparison in the use of post-reading strategies

between the ESL high and low achievers. Table 5 presents the result of the t-Test for the use of postreading strategies between the two groups of achievers. The t-Test results, once again show that there was a high significant difference in the use of post-reading strategies between the ESL high achievers and the ESL low achievers (t=6.26, p<0.00). The mean frequency of use for the ESL high achiever is much higher than the mean for the ESL low achievers (high=2.79, low=2.33). These results suggest that the ESL high achievers utilized post-reading strategies more frequently compared to the ESL low achievers. These results reinforce the notion that effective readers do not stop thinking about the text when they stop reading (Schiff & Calif, 2004). Constructing meaning from texts does not end with the termination of reading. To have a deeper understanding of the texts, readers have to summarise major ideas and evaluate their readings (Blachowicz & Ogle, 2001). This involves deep-level processing strategies that
61

English Language Journal Vol 4, (2011) 49-66 ISSN 1823 6820

transform the literal meaning of the texts (Alexander, 2003). Some of these strategies include identifying what is salient, integrating it into prior knowledge, visualising, making inferences, drawing conclusions and reflecting upon the reading process (Pressley & Aflerbach, 1995). At this point, strategic readers are aware of the cause of comprehension breakdowns, and are able to execute some mix-up strategies accordingly (Ciborowski, 1995). These strategies include rereading, reading on and seeking outside help (Harmon, Martinez & Deckard, 2004). This suggests that post-reading strategies are a hallmark of efficient reading too.
Table 5 Results of the Independent Samples t-Test for postreading strategies between the ESL high and low achievers.
ESL high achievers (n=320) Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error t Stat Df Sig. (2-tailed) Std. Error Difference 2.7917 0.44714 0.04082 6.264 208.292 0.000* 0.07317 ESL low achievers (n=320) 2.3333 0.66526 0.6073

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest that reading strategies were generally applied by these two groups of learners namely, ESL high achievers and ESL low achievers. The ESL high achievers appeared to frequently utilize more effective reading strategies than the ESL low achievers. The results also demonstrate that there were significant differences for all pre-reading, while-reading, and post-reading strategies utilized between high and low achievers of ESL. High achievers of ESL were found to significantly use pre-reading, while-reading, and post-reading compared to low achievers of ESL. In sum, it is quite obvious to see that although the two groups of students applied almost similar strategies in
62

English Language Journal Vol 4, (2011) 49-66 ISSN 1823 6820

reading, some were prominently favoured by high achievers of ESL which eventually led them to be better and more successful readers. The findings of this study have provided some insight into the nature of learning English among high achievers of ESL and low achievers of ESL. It is imperative that appropriate language learning strategies or particularly reading strategies should be taught to language learners. It is vital that students know how to carry out reading tasks effectively or in other words, they need to be made aware of the existing useful strategies in reading so as to maximize comprehension. This is due to the fact that students are classically told to read but not how to do it. It can perhaps be stated that any reading task should be done with a purpose. As such, teachers must attempt to ensure that students will no longer approach reading assignment without realizing why they are studying (Kletzien & Bednar, 1988). In short, attention should be given to build up students metacognitive skills on the basis that studies have established that metacognitive skill development would improve remedial reading programs (El-Hindi, 1996). Among the important metacognitive skills accounted by Oxfords strategy classification system are: linking with already known material, setting goals and objectives, identifying the purposes of the task, evaluating level of understanding as well as paying attention. This means that the reading activity should not end the minute the last page of the text is dealt with by a reader. As soon as the reading process has finished, students should call for a reflection on what they have read and be able to assess their level of understanding. They also should have no problems sharing ideas with friends or seeking help from lecturers to enhance their understanding. In addition, students need to be equipped with the skills of finding keywords in any reading text to substantiate that any highlighted ideas are primarily pertinent ones. Other than that, reading strategies of successful readers should be adopted by other students. As stated by Ellis (1997), successful students use more strategies than unsuccessful students and thus, it would be an advantage if weaker students can be encouraged to use all the strategies that have been proven to be effective ones. Although it may not work
63

English Language Journal Vol 4, (2011) 49-66 ISSN 1823 6820

for every single student, they should be made aware of these crucial strategies. Educators can encourage students to try them and if found to be effective, adopt them. Apparently, this task of bringing about the awareness among students falls back on lecturers. Still, lecturers can only deliver the possible strategies that can be used and it is up to the students to change for the better.

64