A Study of Reading Strategies

A STUDY OF READING STRATEGIES USED BY THAI
UNIVERSITY ENGINEERING STUDENTS

AT KING MONGKUT’S INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY LADKRABANG
By
Pattaraporn Thampradit
B.A. (1st Class Hons.) Prince of Songkhla University, Thailand, 1977

M.A. Chulalongkorn University, Thailand, 1981
A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Doctor of Philosophy Degree
Department of Curriculum and Instruction

(Reading and Language Studies)
In the Graduate School
Southern Illinois University at Carbondale
May, 2006
UMI Number: 3215042
UMI Microform 3215042

Copyright 2006 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
DISSERTATION APPROVAL
A STUDY OF READING STRATEGIES USED BY THAI UNIVERSITY

ENGINEERING STUDENTS AT KING MONGKUT’S INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY LADKRABANG
By
A Dissertation Submitted in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in the field of Curriculum and Instruction
(Reading and Language Studies)
Approved by
Marla H. Mallette, Chair

James E. Jackson, Co-chair
D. John McIntyre
Kelly K. McKerrow
Hasan Sevim
Graduate School
Southern Illinois University at Carbondale
April, 2006
AN ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION OF
Pattaraporn Thampradit, for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in the College of Education,
presented on April 5, 2006 at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale
TITLE:
Major Professors: Marla H. Mallette

James E. Jackson
The purpose of this study was to investigate the reading strategies used by Thai
university first year engineering students. The six research questions addressed in this
study were: (a) What are the reading strategies used by Thai university first year
engineering students? (b) What are the reading strategies used by students with different
reading abilities while reading an expository text? (c) What are the reading strategies
used by male and female subjects while reading an expository text? (d) Do the levels of
reading ability have a significant influence on the use of reading strategies? (e) Does
gender have a significant influence on the use of reading strategies? and (f) Is there any
significant interaction between gender and reading ability on students’ use of reading
strategies?
Forty-eight Thai full-time, first year university students (28 male and 20 female;
24 high- readers and 24 low-readers) participated in the study. All subjects were asked to
produce verbal reports during the process of reading expository text. The subjects’ verbal
reports were transcribed and coded into idea units (Block, 1968; Green, 1998) using
Anderson’s framework (Anderson, 1991).
The results of this study showed that subjects appeared to be using the same
strategies, but they used them with different frequencies. Cognitive reading strategies
i
were used most frequently while metacognitive reading strategies were used least
frequently. Furthermore, there was a statistically significant difference in the use of
cognitive, metacognitive, and compensating reading strategies between high and low
English reading ability students. That is, differing levels of English reading ability
influenced the subjects’ use of reading strategies. In contrast, gender did not seem to
influence the subjects’ use of reading strategies. Similarly, no statistically significant
interaction between gender and reading ability on students’ use of cognitive or
metacognitive reading strategy was found. Interestingly, though, there was a statistically
significant interaction between gender and reading ability on students’ use of
compensating reading strategies. Results suggested that since students with different
levels of English reading ability used strategies not only with different frequencies, but
also in different ways, it is necessary to teach low English reading ability students how to
use strategies more appropriately and effectively. In addition, suggestions are offered for
future research.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I wish to thank a number of people, without whose help and support this study
would not have been feasible. First, I am tremendously grateful to my co-committee
chairpersons, Dr. Marla H. Mallette and Dr. James E. Jackson, for their untiring support,
encouragement, patient, and extremely helpful suggestions over the years throughout my
study. Special appreciation and thanks are also extended to my committee members, Dr.
John D. McIntyre, Dr. Kelly K. McKerrow and Dr. Hasan Sevim for their
professionalism, time commitment, valuable assistance, caring, and supportive
comments.
I would also like to thank Dr. Krassimira D. Charkova for helping me to have
better understanding of statistical designs and analyses. The study would not have been
completed without her.
I would like to express my thanks and appreciations to the president of King
Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, who allowed me to do this study,
Charoensuk Nako for her assistance in being co-rater of this study, and to all students
who participated in this study. Their time and efforts are always appreciated.
I would also like to extend my gratitude to my family, especially to my eldest
sister, Worasiri Thampradit, and my beautiful daughter, Rapeepan Maitree, who have
provided inexhaustible support and shown implausible patience throughout my study.
Finally, I would like to dedicate this study to the memory of my beloved mother who
would have been so proud.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................. iii
LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... vii
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1

Statement of the Problem..................................................................................... 4
Statement of Purpose ........................................................................................... 9
Research Questions.............................................................................................. 9
Significance of the Study ..................................................................................... 10
Definition of Terms.............................................................................................. 11
Limitations of the Study....................................................................................... 12
CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE ........................................ 13

Introduction.......................................................................................................... 13
Reading Strategies .................................................................................................13
The Distinction between Skilled and Unskilled Readers..................................... 18
Verbal Protocols in the Reading Process ............................................................. 20
Reading Strategies Using Verbal Protocols in L2 Learners ................................ 23
Research on ESL learners .................................................................................... 24
Strategies and Individual Differences............................................................ 24
Reading Strategies Used by Successful and Unsuccessful ESL Learners..... 25
Reading Strategies and Gender...................................................................... 27
Research on EFL learners .................................................................................... 29
Strategies and Individual Differences............................................................ 29
Reading Strategies Used by Successful and Unsuccessful EFL Learners..... 31
CHAPTER 3 METHOD AND PROCEDURES.............................................................. 35

Research Questions.............................................................................................. 35
Selection of the Subjects...................................................................................... 36
Instruments........................................................................................................... 38
Procedures............................................................................................................ 40
Data Analysis ....................................................................................................... 43
Analysis of verbal protocols ................................................................................ 45
iv
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS .................................................................................................. 48
Results of research question 1.............................................................................. 49
Summary and Conclusion .................................................................................... 61
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................65

Summary of Findings........................................................................................... 65
Discussion ............................................................................................................ 66
Recommendations................................................................................................ 69
Recommendations for EFL reading instruction............................................. 69
Recommendations for Further Research........................................................ 70
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 72
APPENDICES
Appendix A .......................................................................................................... 81
Appendix B ............................................................................................................84
Appendix C ............................................................................................................86
Appendix D............................................................................................................89
Appendix E ............................................................................................................91
Appendix F.............................................................................................................93
Appendix G............................................................................................................96
Appendix H............................................................................................................98
VITA ................................................................................................................................114
v
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE # PAGE
1. The use of reading strategies by Thai university first year engineering

students .....................................................................................................................49
2. The use of reading strategies between the HRA and LRA students ................. 51
3. The use of reading strategies between male (N=28) and female (N=20) ............ 55
4. Summary of analysis of variance for main effects and interactions of

students’ use of cognitive reading strategy (CRS)............................................... 57

students’ use of metacognitive reading strategy (MRS) ...................................... 57

students’ use of compensatory reading strategy (CoRS) ..................................... 58
7. Interactions between students’ reading ability and gender on

compensatory reading strategies .......................................................................... 60
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE # PAGE
1. Profile Plots: The significant interaction between gender and reading

ability on students’ use of compensatory reading strategy .................................. 61
vii
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Reading strategies show evidence of how readers manage their interaction with
reading task, the textual cues to which they attend, how they make sense of what they
read, and what they do when they do not understand (Block, 1986). They range from
simple fix-up strategies such as guessing the meaning of an unknown word from context,
to more complex strategies such as summarizing and relating what is being read to the
reader's background knowledge (Janzen, 1996).
A vast amount of research in first language (L1) reading has focused on
describing those strategies that are involved in understanding written texts. For example,
research in L1 reading reveals that good readers are better at monitoring their
comprehension than poor readers, that they are more aware of the strategies they use than
poor readers, and that they use strategies more flexibly and efficiently (Garner, 1987;
Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995; Pressley, Beard El-Dinary, & Brown, 1992). As Paris and
Jacobs (1984) state:
skilled readers often engage in deliberate activities that require planful thinking,
flexible strategies, and periodic self-monitoring... [while] novice readers often
seem oblivious to these strategies and the need to use them (p. 2083).
Similarly, research in L1 reading has found that good readers differentiate
between important information and details as they read and are able to use clues in the
text to anticipate information and/or relate new information to information already stated
(see e.g., Garner & Krauss, 1977; Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995). Good readers are also
2
able to notice inconsistencies in text and employ strategies to make these inconsistencies
understandable (Baker & Brown, 1984; Garner, 1980).
In recent decades, there has been growing interest in recognizing the importance
of the strategies English as a second language (ESL/L2) students use while reading. Some
empirical investigations have been conducted on reading strategies and their relationships
to successful and unsuccessful L2 reading (Block, 1986; Hosenfeld, 1977; Jimenez,
Garcia, & Pearson, 1995). In addition, reading strategy research has begun to focus on
metacognition, knowledge about cognition. For example, researchers have examined
strategies and the relationships among awareness or perception of strategies, strategy use,
and reading comprehension (Barnett, 1988; Carrell, 1989). Moreover, research in second
language (L2) reading suggests that readers use a variety of strategies to assist them with
the acquisition, storage, and retrieval of information (Rigney, 1978). However, the ways
in which L2 readers’ use reading strategies during the process of reading is not
completely understood.
Surprisingly, even fewer studies have investigated the reading strategy use of
English as a foreign language (EFL) readers, who study English in their own countries.
EFL students, who learn English in their own countries, are different from those who
learn English in English-speaking countries. The two groups are different not only in
terms of motivation to learn English, but also in English background knowledge and
socioeconomic status (Krashen, 1985; Valdes, 1991). These variables likely impact the
way students approach the L2 written texts, how rapidly they advance in reading, how
much they read, and ultimately what reading strategies they use and how well they use
them (Fitzgerald, 1995). Thus, investigating those factors when designing research on L2
3
reading is indeed important. While a few studies on reading strategies of secondary
school students learning to read English have been conducted in Thailand, no research
has been conducted using verbal protocol analysis in investigating the reading strategies
of university engineering students. The current study is designed to fill in that gap. Since
the English learning environment is remarkably different from the learning environment
in an English-speaking country, Thai natives university students learning English may
use or prefer different strategies in reading English. Either result, consistent with or
different from the previous research, will deepen our understanding of Thai individuals’
reading English as a foreign language.
In essence, English is the major foreign language taught in primary schools
(Grade 5), secondary schools and university levels in Thailand. It has been taught in 80%
to 95% of the schools (Office of the National Education Commission, 1997). For
university levels, English, especially reading, plays an incredibly important role in
learning activities. Students need reading skills in both academic and occupational
settings. Particularly, most academic texts are written in English. The better Thai students
can read English well, the better they can gain knowledge, understand ideas, attitudes,
cultures, and catch up with the world movement (Angwattanakul, 1992). Thus, reading in
L2 (English language), is now seen to be more than just a tool to gain access to modern
technology; it is a crucial key to professional success (NIER, 1994). This argument is
compatible with Anderson’s statement (Anderson, 1999):
Reading is an essential skill for English as a second/foreign language (ESL/EFL)
students, and for many, reading is the most important skill to master. With
4
strengthened reading skills, ESL/EFL readers will make greater progress and
attain greater development in all academic areas (p. 1).
Grabe (1991) also points out that reading comprehension is essential to academic
learning areas, to professional advancement and to lifelong learning. The crucial
importance of reading skills in academic contexts underscores the importance of research
on reading in a second and or foreign language. Levine, Ferenz and Reves (2000), state
that:
the ability to read academic texts is considered one of the most important skills
that university students of English as a second language (ESL) and English as a
foreign language (EFL) need to acquire (p.1).
Statement of the Problem
Reading involves the reader, the text, and the interaction between the reader and
text (Rumelhart, 1977). Reading is also interactive in the sense that many skills work
together simultaneously in the process (Anderson, 1990; Grabe, 1991). There are a
variety of factors that may have an impact on L2 learners' English reading ability
(Carrell, 1989; Carrell & Floyd, 1987; Kasper, 1993). One crucial factor is the efficiency
in using reading strategies (Carrell, 1989).
In essence, strategies are defined as learning techniques, behaviors, problem-
solving or study skills which make learning more effective and efficient (Oxford &
Crookall, 1989). In the context of ESL/EFL learning, a distinction can be made between
two main strategies: learning strategies and reading or comprehension strategies.
Learning strategies are strategies that make learning more effective. Reading or
comprehension strategies are strategies that improve comprehension. Such strategies

5
indicate how readers perform a task, how they make sense of what they read, and what
they do when they don't understand. In short, such strategies are processes used by the
learner to enhance reading comprehension and overcome comprehension failures. There
are six types of strategies used by learners: cognitive strategies: memory strategies,
compensation strategies, metacognitive strategies, affective strategies, and social
strategies (Oxford, 1990).
Cognitive strategies are used by learners to transform or manipulate the language.
These strategies include using context clues, predicting, paraphrasing, note taking,
summarizing, and analyzing. Memory strategies are techniques that help the learner to
remember and retrieve information. These include creating mental images through
grouping and semantic mapping, using keywords, and placing new words into context.
Compensation strategies include inferencing, guessing while reading, or using references
such as dictionaries. Metacognitive strategies are behaviors that the learners undertake to
plan, arrange, and evaluate their own learning. These strategies include setting goals and
objectives, organization, self-monitoring and correction of errors, and self-evaluation,
Affective strategies are strategies that learners use to lower anxiety, and encourage
learning. Such strategies include self-encouraging behavior. Lastly, social strategies are
those that involve other individuals in the learning process and refer to cooperation with
peers, questioning, asking for correction, and feedback.
However, the categories of reading strategies are divided differently. Anderson
(1991) suggests that reading strategies can be classified only into three main categories:
(a) cognitive reading strategies, (b) metacognitive reading strategies, and (c)
compensating reading strategies. Each category is comprised of specific reading

6
strategies. For example, cognitive reading strategies include prediction, finding main
idea, guessing meanings from context, creating graphic organizers, and summarizing.
Metacognitive reading strategies include setting goals, vocabulary listing, reviewing, and
evaluating. Finally, compensating reading strategies include note-taking, reviewing the
purpose and tone of a reading, reviewing key ideas and details, and classifying words into
meaningful groups.
Additionally, reading or comprehension strategies can be used either to facilitate
learning, or facilitate comprehension. For example, a learner can use the memory strategy
of grouping in order to learn vocabulary words more quickly and more effectively.
Similarly, grouping can also be used to facilitate the understanding and meaning of
words. Furthermore, such strategies will vary according to the reading ability that the
learner obtains (Anderson, 1991; Barnett, 1988; Oxford, 1990; Paris et al., 1983). That is
to say, good or skilled readers may interact and extract meaning from the written texts
and comprehend the information effectively. Poor or unskilled readers, in contrast, may
have difficulty in interpreting and comprehending the texts appropriately. In addition,
good readers are always changing their reading processes in response to the text they are
reading (Anderson, 1999; Coady, 1979; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Based on specific
needs, good or skilled readers make choices about what to read. When they have trouble
with comprehension, they use different strategies to overcome their difficulties.
Much of the research in the area of reading strategies has stemmed from first
language studies (Baker & Brown, 1984; Brown, 1981; Palinscar & Brown, 1984). Some
have investigated the reading strategies in a second language learning (Block, 1986;
7
Hosenfeld, 1977). But few are done with learning English as a foreign language, like the
situation in Thailand.
Additionally, considering an increasing need to enhance students with high
English reading ability as a crucial prerequisite for both academic and occupational
success in Thailand, English is a mandatory subject for all students at the tertiary level,
with one of the main goals of enhancing Thai university students’ English reading
proficiency. However, research reveals that Thai university students and graduates have
difficulties in comprehending text written in English and cannot use English well to
fulfill their job requirements in the work market (Savangvarorose, 1992). The low level
of English proficiency, especially in reading, among Thai students is due to many
reasons. According to Klangchanee (1986), one factor that contributes to the failure in
reading comprehension is the lack of qualified Thai teachers of English, many of whom
are inadequately prepared in teaching reading methods and procedures. This is supported
by Nuttall (1996) who criticizes that there are widespread misconceptions among EFL
teachers about what procedures are helpful in teaching reading. Some EFL teachers
always translate English texts into students’ mother tongue immediately when their
students encounter reading problems. Therefore, it is likely that Thai students have less
opportunity to practice reading skills by themselves during their reading lessons. A
considerable number of Thai students cannot apply some important reading skills—
predicting the content, making inferences, and summarizing—to help them to make sense
of a written text (Nuttall, 1996).
Though there are studies on reading strategies for EFL/ESL reading, very few
focus on the contexts in which English is neither used as a medium of instruction nor as
8
an official language, such as the situation of teaching EFL in universities in Thailand.
Carrell (1989) focuses on specific reading strategies applied directly for ESL university
students studying ESL in an American university. Barnett (1988) emphasis is on
university students studying French as a foreign language in an American university.
Tercanlioglu (2004) compares the reading strategies of ESL students studying in the
United Kingdom with those of native English-speaking British postgraduate students.
Different learners seem to approach reading tasks in different ways, and some of these
strategies seem to lead to better comprehension. If the strategies of more successful
readers can be described and identified, it may be possible to train less successful EFL
learners to develop improved reading strategies. That is to say, making the EFL learners
aware of the reading strategies used by successful readers will help the learners become
skilled and independent readers.
Moreover, in considering studies on reading strategies in the context of teaching
English as a foreign language (EFL) at upper primary and secondary levels in Thailand,
there are even fewer studies that investigated reading strategies among EFL students who
are speakers of Thai and studying engineering in a university in Thailand. Thus, the use
of verbal protocols to observe reading processes for Thai undergraduate engineering
students in the EFL environment is novel. To the researcher’s knowledge, there is no
research that makes use of this methodology for the undergraduate engineering students
in Thailand.
Therefore, the present study was designed to investigate reading strategies used
by Thai undergraduate engineering students in the context of expository texts written in
English, using verbal protocols analysis. Additionally, since some paths of reading
9
strategies appear to lead to better success in comprehension, another goal of this study
was to investigate whether Thai engineering students scoring high and those scoring low
appear to be using the same kinds of strategies while reading the expository text or not.
Finally, a goal of this study was to determine whether significant interaction exists
between differing levels of reading ability and gender on students’ use of reading
strategies.
Statement of Purpose
The purposes of this study are:
1. To examine the reading strategies used by Thai university first year
engineering students in understanding their expository texts in English.
2. To determine if reading strategies differ among Thai university first year
engineering students of differing English reading abilities.
3. To investigate if reading strategies differ among Thai university first year
engineering students of differing gender: male and female.
4. To examine if levels of reading ability has a significant influence on the use of
reading strategies.
5. To determine if there are significant differences in the use of reading
strategies by male and female students while reading expository text.
6. To examine if there is a significant interaction between gender and reading
abilities on students’ use of reading strategies.
Research Questions
The following research questions were formulated in order to guide this study:
10
1. What are the reading strategies used by Thai university first year engineering
students?
2. What are the reading strategies used by students with different reading
abilities while reading an expository text?
3. What are the reading strategies used by male and female subjects while
reading an expository text?
4. Do the levels of reading ability have a significant influence on the use of
reading strategies?
5. Does gender have a significant influence on the use of reading strategies?
6. Is there any significant interaction between gender and reading ability on
students’ use of reading strategies?
Significance of the Study
This study will be useful for increasing EFL teachers’ awareness of reading
strategies used by Thai university engineering students. Language teachers could enhance
their students’ English reading ability by teaching them reading skills. They may foster
learning environments that encourage students to be active learners. Additionally, the
finding will be useful for improving English programs and syllabi provided for Thai
university engineering students. Moreover, the findings will also help guide the
development of reading strategies so that Thai students could become not only more
efficient at comprehending texts in a classroom context, but also more capable of self-
directing in reading in the environment outside classroom. Finally, the result of this study
will make significant contributions to those who want to examine what reading strategies
Thai university students use when comprehending texts written in English.

11
Definition of Terms
The terms used throughout this study were defined as follows:
Reading Strategies: any method, behavior, or process that the reader uses while
reading in order to be able to read and comprehend the written texts effectively.
Verbal Protocols of reading: a precise methodology for eliciting reading strategies
through verbal reports-- students thinks aloud of what strategies they are currently
consciously thinking about during their reading processes.
EFL student: an English language student whose mother tongue is not English,
and for whom English is not spoken or used as an official language or on a daily basis in
his or her country, region, or area.
ESL student: an English language student whose mother tongue is not English,
but for whom English is spoken or used as an official language, in addition to his or her
native language.
L1: a person’s first language
L2: a person’s second language, which can be any language, used after the first
language has been learned.
Schema: a mental representation about objects, people, actions or sequence of
actions, and other phenomena in one’s background experiences.
Content schema: one’s background or prior knowledge relative to the content
domain or subject matter of reading texts.
English proficiency: students’ English abilities, measured by the 2004 Thai
National Entrance Examination.

12
Expository texts: text written to give factual information, using different
organizational patterns, such as, description, comparison/contrast, sequence, cause/effect.
Limitations of the study
Limitations of this study include:
1. Subjects participating in this study are limited to only first year full-time
undergraduate computer and electrical engineering students, studying at King
Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, Bangkok, Thailand, during
the 2005 academic year.
2. This study focuses on only Thai: cannot be generalized to other languages.
3. The sample in this study deals with small sample size.
4. The instrument used in this study is one time measure of strategies with one
text.
5. The method is limiting. Only audio taping is provided. Non-verbal behaviors
can be observed just during the subjects’ verbal reports session.

13
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE
Introduction
This study was designed to study reading strategies of Thai university engineering
students by using verbal protocols to observe their reading processes in the English
expository text. In this chapter, the review of related literature to this study includes the
following topics. First, the notion of reading strategies is presented. Second, the
distinction between skilled and unskilled readers is discussed. Third, verbal protocols in
reading process are explained. Finally, research related to reading strategies using verbal
protocols in L2 learners is reviewed.
Reading Strategies
Text and reader interaction expands by means of the use of strategies. According
to Garner (1987), reading strategies are defined as “generally deliberate, planful activities
undertaken by active learners, many times to remedy perceived cognitive failure” (p. 50).
Similarly, Brown (1980) concurred that reading strategies may be characterized as any
deliberate and planned control of activities, which lead to comprehension. Readers
approach reading activities and make use of different processes, which allow them to
understand the text. In other words, reading strategies facilitate reading comprehension.
As Guthrie and Wigfield (1999) stated “a person is unlikely to comprehend a text by
accident. If the person is not aware of the text, not attending to it, not choosing to make
meaning from it, or not giving cognitive effort to knowledge construction, little
comprehension occurs” (p. 199).

14
Like other researchers (Brown, 1980; Garner, 1982, 1994; Garner, Macready &
Wagoner, 1984; Guthrie & Wigfield, 1999; Winograd & Hare, 1988), Anderson (1991)
concurred that “[S]trategic reading is not only a matter of knowing what strategy to use,
but the reader must know how to use a strategy successfully and orchestrate its use with
other strategies. It is not sufficient to know about strategies; a reader must also be able to
apply them strategically” (p 468-9). According to Anderson (1991), reading strategies
can be classified into three main categories: (a) cognitive reading strategies, (b)
metacognitive reading strategies, and (c) compensating reading strategies. Each category
is comprised of specific reading strategies as follows:
Cognitive Reading Strategies:
1. Prediction: predicting the content of an upcoming passage or section of the
text.
2. Grammar concentration: concentrating on grammar to help understand
unfamiliar construction
3. Finding the main idea: identifying the main idea to comprehend the entire
reading.
4. Expanding vocabulary and grammar: expanding vocabulary and grammar to
help readers increase their reading.
5. Guessing meanings from context: guessing meanings of unfamiliar words or
phrases to let readers use what they already know about English
6. Analyzing theme, style, and connections: analyzing theme, style, and
connections to improve reader’s comprehension.

15
7. Distinguishing between opinions and facts: distinguishing between opinions
and facts to aid in understand reading.
8. Break down larger phrases into smaller parts: break down larger phrases into
smaller parts to help readers understand difficult passages.
9. Translation: linking what readers know in their first language with words in
English or vice versa, translate the words in English into their first language.
10. Creating graphic organizers: Creating a map, diagram, or drawing of related
ideas to enable you to understand the relationships between words and ideas.
11. Summarizing: writing a short summary of what readers read to help them
understand the main ideas.
Metacognitive Reading Strategies:
12. Setting goals: having purposes in reading to help improve areas that are
important to the reader.
13. Vocabulary listing: making lists of relevant vocabulary to prepare for new
reading.
14. Working with classmates: working with classmates to help reader develop
their reading skills.
15. Reviewing: Taking opportunities to practice what readers already know to
keep readers progress steady.
16. Evaluating: evaluating what readers have learned and how well they are doing
to help them focus their reading.
Compensating Reading Strategies
17. Relying on what readers know: relying on what readers already know to
16
improve their reading comprehension.
18. Note-taking: taking notes to help readers recall important details.
19. Remembering: trying to remember what readers understand from a reading to
help them develop better comprehension skills.
20. Reviewing the purpose and tone of a reading: reviewing the purpose and tone
of a reading passage so reader can remember more effectively.
21. Picturing scenes in readers’ mind: picturing scenes in readers’ mind to help
them remember and understand their reading.
22. Reviewing key ideas and details: reviewing key ideas and details to help them
remember.
23. Using physical action: to using physical action help readers remember
information they have read.
24. Classifying words into meaningful groups: to classifying words into
meaningful groups to remember more clearly.
Additionally, current reading research that focuses on the interactive, constructive
nature of reading reveals the need for all students to become “constructively responsive”
readers (Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995, p. 83) who know what and why they do during the
process of reading, and “thoughtfully literate” individuals (Allington, 2000, p. 94) who
are engaged in reading and control of their own learning (Alvermann & Guthrie, 1993).
This type of constructively responsive, thoughtful, and engaged reading clearly requires
students to have much more than the ability of good decoding skills, adequate reading
vocabulary, and ability to recall what the text said. Learning from text, like all learning,
17
requires readers who are “strategically engaged in the construction of meaning”
(Alexander & Jetton, 2000, p. 295 emphasis in original).
In essence, Pressley and Afflerbach’s (1995) notion of constructively responsive
reading, is in accordance with well-known theories of reading such as Rosenblatt’s
(1978) reader response theory, in which the transaction between readers and texts is
emphasized. The concept of constructively responsive reading consists of key principles
of the top-down processing model of reading reflected in schema theory (Anderson &
Pearson, 1984), bottom-up processing emphasized by Van Dijk and Kintsch (1983), and
the comprehension monitoring processes supported by several researchers (Baker &
Brown, 1984; Garner, 1987; Paris & Winograd, 1990
Researchers suggest that reading strategies can be taught through carefully
devised instructional techniques (Anderson, 1991; Brown, Armbruster, & Baker, 1986;
Carrell (1989); Garner, 1994; Paris & Winograd, 1990; Wixon, 1994). Further, reading
strategies can and should be learned to the point of automaticity, after which they become
skills, and that learners must know not only what strategies to use but also when, where,
and how to use them (Garner, 1994; Paris, Lipson, & Wixson, 1994). Pressley and
Afflerbach (1995) present a very helpful thumbnail sketch of various strategies that
skilled readers use before, during, and after reading. These strategies include:
 Overview before reading.
 Paying attention to important information and relating it to one another in
order to understand the text as a whole.
 Activating, relating, and using prior knowledge to interpret and/or predict the
content of the text.

18
 Reconsidering and/or revising hypotheses and prior knowledge based on the
content of the text.
 Making inferences to comprehend the text
 Using strategies to remember text such as underlining, note taking,
summarizing, paraphrasing, self-questioning
 Changing reading strategies when comprehension is not smooth
 Evaluating and reflecting the text, such as, reviewing and deciding to accept
or reject one’s understanding of a text.
 Anticipating or planning to use the knowledge from the text
The Distinction between Skilled and Unskilled Readers
Skilled readers are also termed as good, fluent, efficient, proficient, expert,
strategic, stronger, more able, or successful readers while unskilled readers are sometimes
termed as less skilled, less proficient, less able, nonproficient, nonsuccessful, novice,
beginning, weaker, or poor readers (see e.g., Anderson, 1991; Block, 1986, 1992; Carrell,
1989; Paris & Winograd, 1990; Pressley and Afflerbach, 1995; Snow, Burns, and Griffin,
1998). Skilled readers often skip parts of the text based on what they are able to predict
from their knowledge of text structure. Additionally, relying on textual structure and their
prior information about the subject, skilled readers can infer meanings and understand the
main ideas of the text they are reading. Paris and Jacobs (1984) distinguish between
skilled and unskilled readers as follow:
Skilled readers often engage in deliberate activities that require planful thinking,
flexible strategies, and periodic self-monitoring. They think about the topic, look forward
and backward in the passage, and check their own understanding as they read. Beginning
19
readers or poor readers do not recruit and use these skills. Indeed, novice readers often
seem oblivious to these strategies and the need to use them. (p. 2083)
Snow, Burns, and Griffin (1998) indicate that good or skilled readers are good
comprehenders. They differ from unskilled readers in “their use of general world
knowledge to comprehend text literally as well as to draw valid inferences from texts, in
their comprehension of words, and in their use of comprehension monitoring and repair
strategies” (p. 62). Pressley and Afflerbach (1995) state that skilled readers approach the
reading task with specific responses depending on the goals of reading and the nature of
the text being read. They tend to be aware of what they are reading; why they are reading;
and when to use tentative plans or strategies for handling potential problems and for
monitoring their comprehension of textual information. In contrast, unskilled readers are
quite limited in their metacognitive knowledge about reading (Paris & Winograd, 1990).
They do relatively little monitoring of their own memory, comprehension, and other
cognitive tasks (Flavell, 1979; Markman, 1979) and are likely to focus on reading as a
decoding process rather than as a meaning-getting process (Baker & Brown, 1984). In
addition, they are less likely than skilled readers to become aware of contradictions or
resolve inconsistencies in understanding text (Snow et al., 1998). Finally, they do not
seem to realize that they do not understand (Garner & Reis, 1981) and accordingly fail to
organize and exercise their reading processes (Wagner & Sternberg, 1987).
Pearson, Roehler, Dole, and Duffy (1992) developed seven components of
comprehension to be the factors that distinguish between skilled and unskilled readers.
The seven components are:

20
1. Activate prior knowledge: skilled readers use what is known about the topic
and the organization of the text to check their comprehension and make
connections between new information and their existing or prior knowledge.
2. Monitor comprehension: when skilled readers need to understand different
kinds of text, they adjust their reading rate and use different strategies.
3. Repair comprehension: when meaning has been lost, fix-up strategies, such as
rereading and skipping are used by skilled readers in order to understand the
text.
4. Determine important ideas: skilled readers use predicting and identifying main
ideas before, during, and after reading.
5. Synthesize: summarizing is a way to check comprehension for skilled readers.
6. Draw inferences: skilled readers combine prior knowledge with new ideas
to make inferences about the text. As a result, gaps in understanding are
filled in through predictions, inferences, and new ideas from the text.
7. Ask questions: questions are developed and answered by skilled readers
throughout the reading of the text to activate prior knowledge, check
comprehension, clarify ideas, and focus attention.
Research reveals that classroom instruction in these components can help
students develop better comprehension abilities (Duke & Pearson, 2002).
Verbal Protocols in the Reading Process
Comprehending text is not to simply state the right information, but to describe
the thinking that resulted from that reading. Students should know what they think and
21
why they think while they read the printed texts. One way to investigate what students are
thinking during their reading and why they are thinking such is through verbal protocols.
Verbal protocols are generally defined as verbal reports of subjects' conscious
mental processes. They are research methods in which subjects think aloud as they read,
solve problems, or perform a task. They are all about the relation of peoples’ words to
their thoughts. Verbal reporting is bringing thoughts into consciousness, making the ideas
verbal if needed and then verbalizing them (Ericsson & Simon, 1984). Pressley and
Afflerbach (1995) state that “spoken language is the data used in protocol analysis and
the richness and variability of language are the greatest assets and liabilities of the verbal
reporting methodology” (p. 2). When a subject provides verbal reports, there is the built-
in language variation that is part of the individual’s personality and ways of interacting
with words and how they construct meaning from a text, or response to reading (Ericsson
and Simon 1987; Pressley and Afflerbach 1995; Pressley and Hilden, 2004). Pontecorv
(1993) describes verbal protocols based on the idea that: "forms of discourse become
forms of thinking" (p. 191). Cohen (1990) suggested that as readers verify what strategies
they are using they become more aware of the “full array of options open” to them to
improve their reading (p73). Kucan and Beck (1997) state that:
When students participate in discourse environments and engage in dialogue or
communication, their learning is not confined to knowledge constructed as a product in
such a context, but also includes a developing understanding of an ability to use the
processes by which such knowledge is constructed. For example, in discussion about text
in which students communicate their developing understanding of text ideas and listen as
other students do the same, students would be expected to construct not only an
22
understanding of the text content but also an understanding about the process of
constructing meaning from text (p. 290).
Verbal protocols have long been adopted by the area of applied linguistics and
have become an important method in investigations of reading in a second or foreign
language (Anderson, 1991; Cohen & Hosenfeld, 1981; Faerch & Kasper, 1987;
Hosenfeld, 1977; Pressley and Afflerbach 1995). According to Pressley and Afflerbach
(1995), verbal protocols have been used to provide detailed descriptions of processing
during reading and to help inform researchers and educators of readers’ use of
metacognitive strategies to achieve their reading goals. Verbal reports allow “insight into
the dynamic and interactive nature” of the language learning process (MacLean &
d’Anglejan, 1986, p. 814). Getting students to think aloud and use verbal reports is a
beneficial metacognitive activity. Irwin (1991) stated that
when students think aloud or hear others think aloud, their metacognitive
awareness of options for responding to text increases. It can also help them to
become aware of how much thinking goes into comprehending a text (p.203).
Undoubtedly, research on reading is one of the chief fields in which verbal
protocols are used (Afflerbach & Johnston, 1984; Anderson, 1991; Block, 1992; Ericsson
and Simon, 1987; Horiba, 1990; Hosenfeld, 1977; Levine and Reves, 1998; Pressley &
Afflerbach, 1995; Sarig, 1987; Young and Oxford, 1997). Anderson (1991) emphasizes
that verbal reports are a tool for the classroom teacher in getting readers to verify what
they are doing while they are reading. Afflerbach & Johnston (1984) stated that verbal
protocols used in think-aloud studies have the following advantages. First, they provide
direct, rather than indirect, information on the reader’s cognitive processes and responses
23
to the reading. Second, the reports often give access to the processes of reason underlying
“sophisticated cognition, response, and decision making” (Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995,
p. 4). Finally, verbal reports allow for the examination of effective processes of reading
as well as cognitive processes and their relation to affective processes. Similarly,
Ericsson and Simon (1987) have demonstrated the validity of verbal protocols analysis
and argue that concurrent reports are a valid method to collect data about thinking
processes. They also stated that think-aloud or verbal report procedures do not influence
the sequence of subjects' thoughts and that the resulting data can be treated as objectively
as any other data. Information is collected from short-term memory while subjects are
prompted to keep talking with minimal interference from the experimenter. Thus, verbal
protocols are now one of the available data-collecting instruments that enable researchers
to observe the reader's processes during his or her activity of text comprehension.
Reading Strategies Using Verbal Protocols in L2 Learners
This following section reviews research related to reading strategies using verbal
protocols as the main instrument for investigating strategies use. Further, since this study
was designed to deal with L2 learners, especially EFL learners who study at the
university level, this section focuses on research in which subjects were L2 learners,
studying at least at the high school level. However, both research in ESL learners and
EFL learners are discussed.
Additionally, the research in ESL learners reviewed will be discussed in the
following three main categories: (a) strategies and individual differences, (b) reading
strategies used by successful and unsuccessful ESL learners, and (c) reading strategies
and gender. For the research on EFL learners, to the researcher’s knowledge, using verbal
24
protocols to determine the relationship between reading strategies and gender of EFL
high school or university students is novel. Therefore, only the notions of strategies and
individual differences, and reading strategies used by successful and unsuccessful EFL
learners are presented.
Research on ESL learners
Strategies and individual differences
Anderson (1991) carried out a study to investigate the individual differences in
strategy use by adult second language learners while performing two reading tasks:
taking a standardized reading comprehension test and reading academic texts. To
examine this issue, Anderson posed two important questions: Will there be differences in
strategy use when students only read a passage versus when they take a reading test? Will
weaker students differ from stronger students in their use of strategies while doing each
task? The subjects in this study were 28 Spanish-speaking students, 18-34 years of age,
from the Southwestern United States who were enrolled in an university level intensive
ESL program between 9 weeks to 9 months. Their English proficiency level as
determined by a placement tests ranged from beginning to advanced level. Students were
given two forms of tasks to complete: the Descriptive Test of Language Skills (DTLS)
and The Textbook Reading Profile (TRP). The questions on the DTLS were set into
clusters according to the types of reading skill being measured: understanding main ideas,
understanding direct statements, and drawing inferences. The subjects were asked to give
comment on strategies used while doing the test. The TRP questions asked the subjects to
use think aloud protocols as they responded to comprehension questions at the end of the
passage. Analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data revealed that weaker students
25
were quite different from stronger students in their reading abilities. Students who were
better readers reported using significantly more strategies in their think-aloud comments.
It was likely that students who used more strategies comprehended better. However, there
was no significant relationship between the amount of unique strategies and
comprehension. In other words, there was no single set of processing strategies that
significantly contributed to success on these two reading measures. Both high and low
scoring readers seemed to be using the same kinds of strategies while reading and
answering the comprehension questions on both measures. However, high scoring
students appeared to be applying strategies more effectively and appropriately.
Reading strategies used by successful and unsuccessful ESL learners
Hosenfeld (1977) investigated the reading strategies of successful and
nonsuccessful second language learners. Subjects were 40 high school (9th grade)
students in the US reading French, German, or Spanish. Twenty students were classified
as the successful L2 learners, and the rest were nonsuccessful L2 learners. During the
reading process, each subject of either group performed think-aloud in English. The
results found that successful L2 readers used different reading strategies from
nonsuccessful L2 readers. The successful L2 readers kept the meaning of the passage in
mind during reading. They did not read word by word, but read in what she termed
"broad phrases.” They skipped words, which were unimportant to total phrase meaning.
Finally, they had a positive self-concept as a reader. By contrast, the unsuccessful L2
readers lost the meaning of sentences as soon as they were decoded. They read in short
phrases. They seldom skipped words as unimportant and viewed words as equal in their
contribution to total phrase meaning. Finally, they had a negative self-concept as a reader.
26
Block (1986) investigated reading strategies of nonproficient readers. Subjects
were 9 university levels native and ESL students enrolled in freshman remedial reading
courses in the U.S. By providing think-aloud report for each sentence the subjects read,
she found four main characteristics that seemed to differentiate the more successful from
the less successful of these nonproficient readers. These four characteristics were: (a)
integration, (b) recognition of aspects of text structure, (c) use of general knowledge,
personal experiences, and associations, and (d) response in an extensive as opposed to a
reflexive mode. In the reflexive mode, readers relate affectively and personally, directing
their attention away from the text and toward themselves, and focusing on their own
thoughts and feelings rather than on the information in the text. In the extensive mode,
readers attempt to deal with the message conveyed by the author, focus on understanding
the author's ideas, and do not relate the text to themselves affectively or personally. From
the results of this research, she divided the nonproficient readers into two subgroups:
integrators and nonintegrators, Integrators were nonproficient readers who integrated
information, were generally aware of text structure, responded in an extensive mode, and
monitored their understanding consistently and effectively. They also made greater
progress in developing their reading skills and demonstrated greater success after one
semester in college. By contrast, the nonintegrators failed to integrate, tended not to
recognize text structure, and seemed to rely much more on personal experiences,
responding in a reflexive mode. They also made less progress in developing their reading
skills and demonstrated less success after one semester in college. In short, Block
concluded that more successful readers use “general” strategies such as anticipating
content, recognizing text structure, identifying main ideas, using background knowledge,
27
monitoring comprehension, and reacting to the text as a whole. Less successful readers
rely on “local” strategies such as questioning the meaning of individual words and
sentences, seldom integrating background knowledge with the text, and not focusing on
main ideas.
Block (1992) investigated the reading process of first and second language
readers of English. The subjects were 25 college freshmen, of which 16 subjects were
proficient and the other 9 were non-proficient readers of English. The results of a
standardized test (Descriptive Test of Linguistic Skills) determined the proficiency levels
of the students. Of all 16 proficient readers, 8 subjects were L1 and the rest were L2
readers. For the 9 non-proficient readers, 3 of them were L1 and 6 of them were L2
readers. While reading an expository text, the participants were asked to think aloud, to
“say everything they understood and everything they were thinking as they read each
sentence” (p. 323). The results revealed that when facing a vocabulary problem,
proficient ESL readers used background knowledge, decided on whether the word
contributes to the overall meaning of the passage, reread the sentence, and used syntactic
clues. These meaning-based strategies are classified as global strategies. On the other
hand, non-proficient ESL readers focused on identifying lexical problems and did little to
figure out the meaning of words. These meaning-based strategies are classified as local
strategies.
Reading strategies and gender
Young and Oxford (1997) examined the differences in comprehension strategies
used by males and females while reading in a L2. The subjects were 49 native English
speaking men and women (26 females and 23 males) while reading two Spanish texts and
28
one English text. Three different passages were taken from textbooks used at the
university-level courses of the participants and included topics such as economics, the
presence of foreign cultures in work, leisure, and history. The subjects read the passages,
rated their degree of familiarity with the passage topic, and then completed a think-aloud
protocol. These strategies were then coded as either global or local. The local strategies
were similar to bottom-up processing behaviors, for example, skipping specific unknown
words, translating a word or a phrase, paraphrasing, and breaking lexical items into parts.
The global strategies were similar to bottom-up processing behaviors, such as integrating
information, recognizing text structure, using background knowledge, and anticipating
content. The results demonstrated no overall significant differences by gender in the use
of global versus local strategies. However, there were significant gender differences in
the frequency of using specific strategies. Males monitored their reading pace and
paraphrased more often than females with the Spanish passages. Females utilized one
strategy more often than males while reading the texts: solve vocabulary problems. With
regard to the recall scores, no significant differences by gender were reported for all
three-text topics. In addition, there were no differences by gender in the familiarity
ratings with passage topics or background knowledge of any of the passages. In short,
Young and Oxford’s (1997) study revealed no significant differences by gender in
general reading strategies, recall scores, and topic familiarity ratings while reading L2
texts.
In summary, the results of the research on the reading strategies use of ESL
students are quite similar to research on L1 readers. For example, the results of the
research on ESL learners suggested that it was likely that ESL students who used more
29
strategies comprehended better. High scoring ESL learners or more successful ESL
readers seemed to have positive self-concepts as readers and appeared to be applying
strategies more effectively and appropriately. Additionally, like L1 readers, ESL readers
seemed to be using different reading strategies than the less successful ESL readers. For
example, they seemed to skip words, which were unimportant to total phrase meaning. In
other words, more successful readers seemed to use “general” strategies such as
anticipating content, recognizing text structure, identifying main ideas, using background
knowledge, monitoring comprehension, and reacting to the text as a whole. In contrast,
less successful ESL readers seemed to rely on “local” strategies such as questioning the
meaning of individual words and sentences, seldom integrating background knowledge
with the text, and not focusing on main ideas. However, there were no overall significant
differences by gender of ESL learners in the use of global versus local strategies.
Research on EFL Learners
Strategies and individual differences
Levine and Reves (1998) examined reading strategies, especially the word-
treatment strategies employed by university students reading academic texts in English as
a Foreign Language. The subjects were 42 Israeli students of an EAP (English for
Academic Purposes) advanced reading comprehension course at Bar-Ilan University,
Israel. The following instruments were adopted for the study: a word-treatment
experiment, an open questionnaire, self-observation reports (verbal protocols), text-
summary and verbatim translation into L1. In the word-treatment experiment, the
subjects were asked to read a text for global and close reading comprehension and to
underline words unknown to them. The results were that (1) readers whose reading habits
30
and problem solving abilities were more developed and whose inferencing skills were
more alert, were also more self- confident in reading. (2) There was the relationship
between reading task and vocabulary treatment strategies. (3) There were significant
correlations (Pearson-correlation analysis) between criterion variables of the study (i.e.,
the grades on Global Reading and on Close Reading), and predictor variables (i.e., the
strategies applied in the two reading tasks). These correlations confirm the assumption
that Global Reading requires different skills than Close Reading. Close Reading is much
more dependent on bottom-up skills: readers disregard a considerable number of
unknown words. They used top-down skills, aiming at a more general, overall
comprehension of the text and making inferences for its implications. (4) Statistical
analysis of the subjects' verbal reports showed that there were significant relationships
between rationale justification offered for the choice of word treatment strategies on the
one hand, and reading tasks and reader profile variables, on the other. However, no
significant correlations were found between the justification of the use of this strategy
and the task of Global Reading. These findings suggested that students could not
verbalize why they had to use dictionary in Global Reading. Finally, there were
noticeable differences among readers with different reading profiles in the justification of
the use of word-treatment strategies. The treatment of unknown vocabulary was affected
by the type of reading task: the skills of locating the unknown word and decoding it
within the text were crucial in Close Reading, while these bottom-up skills were less
needed for text comprehension in Global Reading.
Horiba (1990) compared reading strategies of L1 and L2 readers, whether (1)
there were individual differences in strategies use between L1 and L2 learners, and (2) L2
31
readers were more attentive to their mental states during reading. The subjects were a
group of native Japanese speakers and a group of native English speakers learning
Japanese (advanced level in college). Half of the students in each language group read a
10-sentence story using a Think-aloud technique and the other half did not use the think-
aloud technique. With the think-aloud technique, subjects were asked to report their
thoughts after every two sentences in the passage. The L2 readers were then asked to read
the story and write what they recalled in their native language. (This procedure was
followed twice for each learner.) The results were: (1) of all the reading strategies
categories that were generated through the think-aloud procedure, the ones that appeared
to discriminate individual differences between L1 and L2 readers were the (relative)
frequency of comments on their own behavior, inferences, and general knowledge and
associations. The L2 readers were more likely to comment on their own behavior, less
likely to make inferences, and less likely to make comments related to their general
knowledge of the topic. However, these two groups, in general, did not differ in terms of
the frequency of using predictions, questions, comments on text structure, confirmation
of predictions, and references to antecedent information. (2) Even though L1 and L2
readers were similar in terms of the frequency of using content questions, only the L2
readers formulated questions on vocabulary and sentence meaning. The L2 readers’
comments on their own behaviors were mostly focused on using language mechanics
with conscious monitoring of word recognition and understanding. Finally, even though
there were differences among inferences that each L2 readers used, the inferences that the
L2 readers made were generally similar to those of the L1 readers.
Reading strategies used by successful and unsuccessful EFL learners

32
Sarig (1987) compared high-level reading in the first and in the foreign language.
Subjects were 10 female native Hebrew readers studying English as a foreign language.
The method used in this study was the subjects’ think-aloud reports while reading native
language texts and foreign language texts. Four different codes were identified: (a)
technical aid, such as skimming, scanning, using glossary, (b) clarification and
simplification such as decoding meanings of words, paraphrasing, syntactic
simplification, (c) coherence detection such as identification of text type and use of prior
content schemata, and (d) monitoring moves such as mistake correction, slowing down
and identification of misunderstanding. The results found that: (a) when reading, subjects
transferred strategies from L1 into L2 reading, (b) both successful and unsuccessful
readers used global strategies, and (c) clarification and simplification strategies
contributed to unsuccessful reading comprehension in L1 and L2. The findings suggested
that due to the two strategies, global and local, only global strategies used without local
strategies did not lead to successful comprehension. Sarig’s findings contribute to the
notion that to comprehend written text, successful readers use both bottom-up and top-
down strategies.
Cheng (1998) studied reading strategies used by Chinese students. The subjects
were 10 students who studied various fields in the US at Kansas University. The
instruments provided were think-aloud method, interview, and questionnaire. The result
found that there were two main types of reading strategies: bottom-up and top-down. The
successful readers used the combination between bottom-up and top-down while the less
successful readers used bottom-up more than top-down. The researcher concluded that
the differences between using these two types of reading strategies might be influenced
33
by having differences in experiences, aptitude, levels of language proficiency, level of
interest in studying English language, differences in fields of study, including having
different purposes in reading of each reader.
Jirijitpaibul (2002) compared the reading strategies of Thai Mathayom Suksa
five (Grade 10) students with different English reading comprehension abilities:
advanced and low reading. The subjects were 48 students from different schools in
Bangkok, with 24 students in advanced and 24 students in low levels of English reading
comprehension ability. The instrument used in this study was the English reading
comprehension test constructed by the researcher and a self-report analysis. The students
verbalized their thoughts immediately after completing the reading comprehension test.
The data were tape recorded, transcribed, coded by the researcher and her research
assistant, and then analyzed for mean, frequencies, percentage and Chi-square analysis.
The results were that (a) Mathayom Suksa five students used the cognitive reading
strategy more frequently than any other strategies and the affective reading strategy was
the least frequently used strategy, (b) in both advanced and low reading students, the
cognitive strategy was the most frequently used strategy while the use of affective
strategies was reported as the least one, and (c) the Mathayom Suksa five students with
advanced and low reading comprehension ability significantly differed in their use of
cognitive, metacognitive and compensatory reading strategies at the .05 level.
The results of research on EFL learners support the findings of those on ESL
learners. It was likely that successful EFL students seemed to use the combination
between bottom-up and top-down while the less successful learners appeared to use
bottom-up more than top-down. Further, EFL readers whose reading habits and problem
34
solving abilities were more developed and whose inferencing skills were more alert were
also more self-confident in reading. However, there were individual differences between
L1 and EFL readers in the frequency of comments on their own behavior, inferences, and
general knowledge and associations. Compared to L1 learners, the L2 readers seemed to
be more likely to comment on their own behavior, less likely to make inferences, and less
likely to make comments related to their general knowledge of the topic.
It seems clear that research has addressed questions related to reading strategies
using verbal protocols as the main instrument for investigating strategies use in L2
learners. However, no studies using verbal protocol analysis in investigating the reading
strategies of Thai university engineering students have been conducted. The current study
is designed to fill that gap. Further, taking into consideration that English learning
environment is remarkably different from the learning environment in an English-
speaking country—Thai native university students learning English may use or prefer
different strategies in reading English—the researcher, therefore, will examine the
reading strategies used by Thai university first year engineering students in understanding
their expository texts in English.

35
CHAPTER 3
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
This chapter described the methods and procedures for investigating the reading
strategies used by Thai university first year engineering students. Descriptive statistics:
percentages, standard deviations, and frequency of the three reading categories
(metacognitive reading strategies, cognitive reading strategies, and compensating reading
strategies), reading ability levels (the high and low reading ability levels), and gender
(male and female) were calculated. Moreover, readers’ levels of reading ability, and
gender were the two independent variables. The three categories of reading strategies
(cognitive, metacognitive, and compensating reading strategies) were the dependent
variables used in this study. The significant influence of the independent variables on
dependent variables and the significant interaction between the independent variables and
the dependent variables were studied as well.
This chapter includes five sections: (a) research questions, (b) selection of the
subjects, (c) instruments, (d) procedures, and (e) data analysis. The research questions
consist of the six questions formulated to guide this study. The selection of the subjects
section consists of a description of the subjects. The instruments section provides detailed
information on the instruments used in this study. The procedures section explains
methods of collecting data. Finally, the data analysis section deals with statistical
methods used in analyzing the data.
Research Questions
The following research questions were formulated in order to guide this study:
students?
36
reading strategies?
Selection of the subjects
Forty-eight subjects, 28 male and 20 female, were selected for this study. All
subjects were Thai full time first year computer and electrical engineering students whose
ages range from 18 to 20 years old. The subjects chosen were students at Faculty of
Engineering, King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, Bangkok, Thailand.
Subjects were chosen from this university because in the field of engineering, the
university is ranked among the top-three of all Thai public universities. Additionally, the
researcher also teaches at that university. It should be of value to explore what students
there think and perform during the reading process. Furthermore, computer and electrical
engineering students were selected because generally both study similar basic subjects,
and compared to students in other fields: mechanical engineering, telecommunication
engineering, etc, the computer and electrical engineering students are in majority.
In order to control consistency, all subjects participating in this study had to have
similar backgrounds. Also, the participating was voluntary. Thus, there were only 23.20%
37
of all first year computer and electrical engineering students participating in this study.
The similar backgrounds that all subjects shared in common were: they were all Thai,
thus sharing their native background. They had graduated from both secondary schools
and high schools in Thailand. None of the subjects chosen have been to a foreign country
where people use English as a native language like the US, England, or Australia. All
subjects had approximately the same number of years of English learning experience and
the same degree of exposure to the English language both inside and outside classroom
situations. In Thailand, they started learning English in schools in the fifth grade. While
in the secondary schools, they had studied English approximately four to six hours per
week for 6 years. Before entering the university, all subjects were required to pass the
2004 Thai National English Proficiency Entrance Examination. Additionally, these
subjects were also required by the university to take at least six credits hours of English
language. Basically, they were offered English lessons three hours per week.
Of the 48 subjects chosen to participate, 24 students were high- readers, and the
other 24 students were low-readers. These designations were based on the results of the
2004 Thai National English Proficiency Entrance Examination. This examination was a
multiple-choice test in which results were used as criterion to determine the reading
ability of students in relation to a task performed in a limited time frame. In order to pass
the test, students had to be able to read and comprehend various passages including
answering comprehension questions very quickly in an accurate manner.
Based on the results of the 2004 Thai National English Proficiency Entrance
Examination, the high-readers in this experiment possessed the following characteristics:
they had to obtain a score at least 75% on the 2004 Thai National English Proficiency
38
Entrance Examination. In contrast, the low-readers possessed the following
characteristics: they had to obtain a score of no more than 65% on the 2004 Thai National
English Proficiency Entrance Examination.
Instruments
The instrument utilized in this study consisted of the verbal protocols procedure
used with an expository text to measure students’ reading strategies.
Verbal protocols
Verbal protocols were used as an important instrument in this study because
protocols analysis is a rigorous methodology for eliciting verbal reports of thought
sequences as a valid source of data on thinking (Ericsson, 2002). In other words, it is
commonly assumed that the content of verbal reports reflects what is available in
working memory, accessible to consciousness, and codable in language (Ericsson &
Simon, 1984; 1987). In addition, verbal reports provide accurate pictures of processing
during the reading process. “Spoken language is the data used in protocol analysis and
the richness and variability of language are the greatest assets and liabilities of the verbal
reporting methodology” (Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995, p. 2). Research with college
students reveals that students’ think-alouds provide access to what students do when they
face difficulties in text (Leslie & Caldwell, 2001). As a result, in this study, verbal
protocols, a research method in which subjects think aloud as they read, solve problems,
or perform a reading task, were employed as an ideal tool in investigating the subjects’
reading strategies during their L2 reading.
Subjects were asked to produce verbal reports on their thinking generally in their
most comfortable language—English, the combination of English and Thai, or only

39
Thai—during their reading process. They were asked to verbalize whatever they were
thinking and why they were thinking such, as thoughts naturally come to mind, during the
process of their L2 reading. No limited time frame was provided during each student’s
verbal reports.
Prior to the start of the experiment, the researcher met the subjects individually.
To create familiar and relaxed atmosphere, the researcher greeted the subject, and had
some conversation on general topics with him/her for a few minutes. For example, “What
are you doing today?” “Do you like computers?” “What is your favorite subject?” After
the subject felt comfortable, he/she was thoroughly briefed on the aims of the experiment
and the procedure, and what was expected from him/her.
Expository text
Expository text was chosen to measure the subjects’ reading strategies during the
reading process. The text utilized in this study consisted of 9 paragraphs, 49 lines, and
was approximately 498 words in length (Appendix A: Reading passage). To avoid
content bias, the text was excerpted from Java software solutions: Foundations of
program design (Lewis & Loftus, 2003, p. 38-41), which is still one of the college-level
textbooks used for computer and electrical engineering students. The content of the
expository passage was also selected from a basic topic with which computer and
electrical engineering students generally have been exposed. Based on the Flesch
readability formula (Flesch, 1997), the passage had a Flesch readability score of 34.8,
indicating an average readability level. With the Flesch-Kincaid Grade level formula, a
formula for converting the reading ease score to a US grade-school level, the passage was
parallel to the grade level of 12.8. Thus, the passage was suitable for the subjects of this
40
study who all just finished Grade12 and became first year undergraduate computer and
electrical engineering students. Additionally, with the same formula, the passage had the
approximate reading age of 18. Since the ages of all the subjects were between 18-20
years, the passage would be appropriate to be used with the subjects.
The passage was untitled to encourage the participants to use strategies and to
make inferences. No specific points were marked in the passage to indicate a stopping
place for participants to express their thoughts. By allowing the participants this choice, it
was hoped that verbalizations would be natural and that any possible distractions that
would be caused by think-aloud procedures, such as prompts for stopping, would be
minimized. Since the passage was relevant to topics familiar to computer and electrical
engineering, prior knowledge would not be considered to constitute a major obstacle to
comprehension.
Procedures
This study was conducted for Thai full time, male and female, first year computer
and electrical engineering students, studying at KMITL, Bangkok, Thailand. The initial
contact with the president of the university was made by the researcher. At the initial
contact, the president was asked if he was willing to cooperate in the study. With his
verbal agreement, he was told the purpose and the procedures of the study on the phone.
After permission for conducting research activities involving human subjects, approval
was obtained from the SIUC Human Subjects Committee; the researcher visited the
KMITL president at his office. The president was given the letter of consent (See
Appendix B: Letter of Consent) and was asked to sign it. After agreeing to cooperate in
this study, he provided information about the study to the heads of Computer and
41
Electrical Engineering Departments and asked them to call for first year computer and
electrical engineering students who would willingly participate in this study and meet the
researcher during their free time at the researcher’s office in the Department of
Languages and Social Sciences. The researcher met all subjects individually. They were
informed of the purpose and the procedures of the study and what was expected from
them (See Appendix C: Instructions on the “Think Alouds” procedure.) To make sure
that the subjects understood the “Think Alouds” procedure well, the researcher also
provided the instructions in Thai language. (See Appendix D: Instructions on the “Think
Alouds” procedure, Thai version.) Then, they were informed that participation was
voluntary, and that their verbal reports would be recorded on audiotape and transcribed.
They were also asked to read the Consent Form (See Appendix E: Student’s Consent
Form) before signing the consent to participate in research (See Appendix F: Consent to
Participate in Research) and before completing the Demographic Questionnaire (See
Appendix G: Demographic Questionnaire). After that, the subject was asked to verbalize
his or her thoughts aloud while reading the assigned expository text. (See: Appendix A:
Reading passage) Each subject was asked to verbalize whatever he or she was thinking
and why he or she was thinking such, as thoughts naturally came to mind, during the
process of his or her reading the expository text. To encourage subjects to provide a full
response, and to eliminate students’ difficulty in verbalization or reporting their reading
process in case they had limited English language skills, which would probably occur
with Thai students when reporting in a foreign language (i.e., English language), the
subjects were allowed to report in either their native language (Thai language), a
combination of native and foreign languages (Thai and English), or only in a foreign
42
language (English). However, all subjects preferred to report in Thai. Even if their verbal
reports were all in Thai language, for convenience in reporting some examples of
research results; the subjects' protocols were translated, and reported in English.
After the subjects understood the purpose and the procedure of the study, they
were given a text to read. The subject was asked to verbalize his or her thoughts aloud
while reading the assigned text. The researcher, acting as a guide, sat beside the subject
and recorded his or her verbal reports on audiotape. If the subject kept silent for a long
period of time or was stuck in constructing meaning of the reading, the researcher
prompted him or her to describe his or her thoughts by asking such questions as "What
are you thinking?” "Why have you stopped here?” "Which sentence are you reading?"
and so forth. The role of the researcher was not to provide explanations of the text but to
act as a counselor and to encourage and lead the subject to continue and complete the
think-aloud procedure.
As the subject verbalized his or her thoughts aloud while reading the assigned
text, the researcher not only recorded his or her thoughts on audiotape, but also noted
nonverbal behaviors. These nonverbal behaviors included features of speech production
(such as false starts, self-repairs, pauses with no explanation by the subject) prosodic
shifts in stress or intonation, and paralinguistic features (such as sighs, laughter, or throat
clearing). All might aid in providing important information related to cognitive
processing (Kasper, 1993).
In addition, the subject was asked two or three think-aloud interview questions if
there were any clarification regarding his or her responses and any word-related
difficulties he or she had encountered during the reading. These questions included “Say
43
again, please”, “Please modify what you just said”, “Louder, please” or “What do you
mean by that?” Finally, the subject was given one more opportunity to express any other
thoughts with indirect prompts, such as “Can you tell me more?” or “Anything else?” to
encourage the student’s self-report of the thinking done during reading, and to make sure
the subject’s verbal report was complete.
Data Analysis
The present study was designed to analyze the strategies readers use when reading
an expository text. The 24 reading strategies framework utilized in this study was based
on Anderson’s reading strategy checklist (Anderson, 1991) since it is believed that it
contains common reading strategies that teachers might want to consider when teaching
reading (Anderson, 1999). The reading strategies framework was as follow:
Cognitive Reading Strategies:
1. Prediction: predicting the content of an upcoming passage or section of the
text.
2. Grammar concentration: concentrating on grammar to help understanding
unfamiliar construction
3. Finding the main idea: identifying the main idea to comprehend the entire
reading.
4. Expanding vocabulary and grammar: expanding vocabulary and grammar to
help readers increase their reading.
5. Guessing meanings from context: guessing meanings of unfamiliar words or
phrases to let readers use what they already know about English
44
6. Analyzing theme, style, and connections: analyzing theme, style, and
7. Distinguishing between opinions and facts: distinguishing between opinions
and facts to aid in understand reading.
8. Break down larger phrases into smaller parts: break down larger phrases into
smaller parts to help readers understand difficult passages.
9. Translation: linking what readers know in their first language with words in
English or vice versa, translate the words in English into their first language.
10. Creating graphic organizers: Creating a map, diagram, or drawing of related
ideas to enable you to understand the relationships between words and ideas.
11. Summarizing: summarize what readers read and / or writing a short summary
of what readers read to help them understand the main ideas.
Metacognitive Reading Strategies:
12. Setting goals: having purposes in reading to help improve areas that are
13. Vocabulary listing: making lists of relevant vocabulary to prepare for new
reading.
14. Working with classmates: working with classmates to help reader develop
their reading skills.
15. Reviewing: Taking opportunities to practice what readers already know to
keep readers progress steady.
16. Evaluating: evaluating what readers have learned and how well they are doing
to help them focus their reading.

45
Compensating Reading Strategies:
17. Relying on what readers know: relying on what readers already know to
improve their reading comprehension.
18. Note-taking: taking notes to help readers "recall important details.
19. Remembering: trying to remember what readers understand from a reading to
help them develop better comprehension skills.
20. Reviewing the purpose and tone of a reading: reviewing the purpose and tone
of a reading passage so reader can remember more effectively.
21. Picturing scenes in readers’ mind: picturing scenes in readers’ mind to help
them remember and understand their reading.
22. Reviewing key ideas and details: reviewing key ideas and details to help them
remember.
23. Using physical action: using physical action help readers remember
24. Classifying words into meaningful groups: classifying words into meaningful
groups to remember more clearly.
Analysis of Verbal protocols
After the verbal reports sessions were completed, transcripts of the reports were
coded. Following Miles and Huberman’s (1994) guidelines, the researcher created a list
of codes related to the research questions and the 24 reading strategies framework
utilized in this study. The coding system had the following three categories: (a) Cognitive
Reading Strategies (CRS), which included: Prediction (P), Grammar concentration (GC),
Finding the main idea (FM), Expanding vocabulary and grammar (EVG), Guessing
46
meanings from context (GMC), Analyzing theme, style, and connections (ATSC),
Distinguishing between opinions and facts (DOF), Break down larger phrases into
smaller parts (BLP), Translation (T), Creating graphic organizers (CGO), Summarizing
(S); (b) Metacognitive Reading Strategies (MRS) which included: Setting goals (SG),
Vocabulary listing (VL), Working with classmates (WC), Reviewing (Rev), Evaluating
(E); and (c) Compensating Reading Strategies (CoRS) which included: Relying on what
readers know (RWRK), Note-taking (NT), Remembering (Rem), Reviewing the purpose
and tone of a reading (RPT), Picturing scenes in readers’ mind (PS), Reviewing key
ideas and details (RID), Using physical action (UP), and Classifying words into
meaningful groups (CW).
Coding of the transcribed verbal protocols was accomplished by dividing the
student responses into ideas units. Each idea unit reflects what the subject thinks while
reading; and is defined as an occurrence, roughly equivalent to statement, or clause, that
ended when a change in the idea or focus of attention occurred (Block, 1968; Green,
1998). Using the list of codes that the researcher created, each idea unit was; therefore,
transcribed and analyzed into one of the twenty-four codes representing what reading
strategies the reader used while reading (See Appendix H)
In addition, to obtain validity in analyzing the data, the data were coded by two
raters. Inter-rater reliability was calculated at 98.6% by using the inter-rater formula
suggested by Miles and Huberman (1994):
Numbers of Agreement
Reliability 
Total Numbers of Agreement  Disagreement
47
Data Treatment
For research questions 1-3, percentages and frequency were reported for each
category. Furthermore, percentages and frequency for the three categories were reported
both by their reading ability levels (the high reading ability, n = 24; and the low reading
ability, n = 24); and by gender (male, n = 28; and female, n = 20). All these analyses were
conducted by using the SPSS program.
For research questions 4-6, a factorial ANOVA (analysis of variables) was
computed. The subjects’ reading ability levels: high reading ability (HRA) and low
reading ability (LRA) along with gender: male (M), and female (F) were treated as fixed
factors (independent variables). On the other hand, each of the three categories of reading
strategies: cognitive reading strategies (CRS), metacognitive reading strategies (MRS),
and compensating reading strategies (CoRS), was treated as dependent variable.
Additionally, Lavene’s test of equality of error variance was computed to reveal whether
or not the assumption of equal variances was observed on those 3 categories of reading
strategies: CRS, MRS, and CoRS. Finally, the profile plot was conducted to examine
whether there was any significant interaction between gender and reading ability on
students’ use of reading strategies. All these analysis were conducted by using the SPSS
program as well.
48
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to examine the reading strategies used by Thai
university first year engineering students by using verbal protocols to observe their
reading processes while reading an English expository passage. This chapter discusses
the results of the investigation. The report of the results is organized based on the six
research questions posited to guide this study:
students?
reading strategies?
In considering the first three research questions: (a) What are the reading
strategies used by Thai university first year engineering students? (b) What are the
reading strategies used by students with different reading abilities while reading an
expository text? (c) What are the reading strategies used by male and female subjects
while reading an expository text?, the results were as follows.

49
Results of research question1
Table 1.
The use of reading strategies by Thai university first year engineering students
Number
Strategies Sum of Total
of Categories f Percentages
(N=24) f Percentages
Students
48 P 176 6.05%
48 GC 143 4.92%
48 FM 180 6.19%
48 EVG 134 4.61%
48 GMC 249 8.56%
48 CRS ATSC 49 1663 1.68% 57.17%
48 DOF 48 1.65%
48 BLP 168 5.77%
48 T 284 9.76%
48 CGO 79 2.72%
48 S 153 5.26%
48 SG 74 2.54%
48 VL 105 3.61%
48 MRS WC 93 491 3.20% 16.88%
48 Rev 111 3.82%
48 E 108 3.71%
48 RWRK 154 5.29%
48 NT 141 4.85%
48 Rem 124 4.26%
48 RPT 46 1.58%
CoRS 755 25.95%
48 PS 63 2.17%
48 RID 101 3.47%
48 UP 43 1.48%
48 CW 83 2.85%
TOTAL 2909 2909 100% 100%
N: Total numbers of reading strategies S: Summarizing
f: Frequency SG: Setting goals
CRS: Cognitive reading strategy VL: Vocabulary listing
MRS: Metacognitive reading strategy WC: Working with classmates
CoRS: Compensating reading strategy Rev: Reviewing
P: Prediction E: Evaluating
GC: Grammar concentration RWRK: Relying on what readers know
FM: Finding main idea NT: Note-taking
EVG: Expanding vocabulary and grammar Rem: Remembering
GMC: Guessing meanings from context RPT: Reviewing the purpose and tone
ATSC: Analyzing theme, style, and connection of a reading
DOF: Distinguishing between opinions and facts PS: Picturing scenes in readers’ mind
BLP: Break down larger phrases into smaller parts RID: Reviewing key ideas and details
T: Translation UP: Using physical action
CGO: Creating graphic organizers CW: Classifying words into groups
50
Based on the results presented in Table 1, the total frequency of the 24 reading
strategies used by the students was 2,909. Further, of the three categories of reading
strategies: cognitive reading strategy (CRS), metacognitive reading strategy (MRS)
and compensating reading strategy (CoRS), the CRS was the category used most
frequently by the students (1663 times or 57.17%). CoRS was the second top rank
(755 times or 25.95%). Finally, MRS was the least frequently used category by the
students (491 times or 16.88%).
Within the category of cognitive reading strategy (CRS), T (translation) was
used most frequently (284 times or 9.76%). The second most frequently used strategy
was GMC (guessing meaning from context) (249 times or 8.56%) and the third was
FM (finding main idea) (180 times or 6.19%). The reading strategies that the students
rarely used were ATSC (analyzing theme, style, and connection) and DOF
(distinguishing between opinions and facts) (49 times or 1.68% and 48 times or
1.65%, respectively).
Within the category of metacognitive reading strategy (MRS), Rev
(reviewing), E (evaluation) and VL (vocabulary listing) were used more than the WC
(working with classmates) and SG (setting goals). That is, the Rev, E and VL were
used 111 times (3.82%), 108 times (3.71%) and 105 times (3.61%) while the WC and
SG were used 93 times (3.20%) and 74 times (2.54%), respectively.
Within the category of compensating reading strategy (CoRS), RWRK
(relying on what readers know) was used most frequently (154 times or 5.29%). The
other three reading strategies frequently used were NT (note-taking), Rem
(remembering) and RID (remember key ideas and details). That is, NT were used 141
51
times or 4.85%, Rem were used 124 times or 4.26%, and RID were used 101 times or
3.47%. The strategies used the least were UP (using physical action) (43 times or
1.48%) and RPT (reviewing the purpose and tone of a reading) (46 times or 1.58%).
Results of research question 2
Table 2.
The use of reading strategies between the HRA and LRA students
HRA (N=24) LRA (N=24)

Categories Strategies f Sum % Total f Sum % Total
of % of %
f f
P 104 5.78 72 6.48
GC 100 5.56 43 3.87
FM 119 6.62 61 5.49
EVG 81 4.51 53 4.77
GMC 164 9.12 85 7.65
CRS ATSC 32 981 1.78 54.56 17 682 1.53 61.39
DOF 30 1.67 18 1.62
BLP 98 5.45 70 6.30
T 100 5.56 184 16.57
CGO 53 2.95 26 2.34
S 100 5.56 53 4.77
SG 51 2.84 23 2.07
VL 76 4.23 29 2.61
MRS WC 23 311 1.28 17.30 70 180 6.30 16.20
Rev 80 4.45 31 2.79
E 81 4.50 27 2.43
RWRK 103 5.73 51 4.59
NT 99 5.51 42 3.78
Rem 81 4.51 43 3.87
RPT 31 1.72 15 1.35
CoRS 506 28.14 249 22.41
PS 40 2,22 23 2.07
RID 71 3.95 30 2.70
UP 19 1.05 24 2.16
CW 62 3.45 21 1.89
TOTAL 1,798 1,798 100% 100% 1,111 1,111 100% 100%

HRA: high reading ability students Sum of f: The sum of frequency used in each category
LRA: low reading ability students Total %: The total percentages of each category
52
Based on the result provided in Table 2, the total frequency of the 24 reading
strategies used by high reading ability students was 1,798 while of the low reading
ability students was 1,111. Of all the three categories: cognitive reading strategy
(CRS), metacognitive reading strategy (MRS) and compensating reading strategy
(CoRS); the CRS was the category that both the high reading ability (HRA) and low
reading ability (LRA) students used most frequently (HRA: 981 times or 54.56% and
LRA: 682 times or 61.39%). Metacognitive reading strategy (MRS) was the least
used category of strategies by both the HRA and LRA (HRA: 311 times or 17.30%
and LRA: 180 times or 16.20%).
Within the category of cognitive reading strategy (CRS), GMC (guessing
meanings from context) was the reading strategy used most frequently by HRA
students (164 times or 9.12%) while T (translation) was the reading strategy used
most frequently by LRA students (184 times or 16.57%). ATSC (analyzing theme,
style, and connections) and DOF (Distinguishing between opinions and facts) were
the reading strategies used least by both HRA and LRA students. That is, HRA
students used ATSC 32 times or 1.78%, and DOF 30 times or 1.76% while LRA
students used ATSC 17 times or 1.53% and DOF 18 times or 1.62%.
In analyzing the transcripts concerned with the results of the use of the
translation strategy, the researcher found that T (translation) was reported by all
subjects but the frequency of using Translation by the high reading ability (HRA)
students was much lower than the low reading ability (LRA) students. That is HRA
students used translation strategy 100 times or only 5.56 % while LRA students used
translation strategy 184 times or 16.57 % In addition, the HRA students used this
53
strategy in a more effective way. For example, HRA students avoided breaking the
reading flow, even when they came across unknown or unfamiliar words. In contrast,
LRA readers relied much more on literal or word-by- word translation. Thus, it is
important to distinguish between two types of translation: word-for-word which
indicates lack of syntactical and structural cohesion and integrative translations which
have many cohesive functions, such as assisting in processing the meaning of the
whole sentence, or maintaining reading flow (Kern, 1994). This finding is compatible
with Block who classified reading as extensive (surface-bound) and reflexive
(inference-based) reading (Block, 1986).
In this study, LRA readers reported 171 word-for-word translation items and
only 13 integrative translation items. HRA readers, on the other hand, reported 22
word-for-word translation items and 78 integrative translation items. This indicates
that LRA readers relied much more on word-for-word translation than HRA readers
who might only use it to clarify comprehension in particular complex conditions.
The following text provides an example of the different ways in which the
subjects used the translation strategy. (From paragraph 3, sentence 1: Machine
language code is expressed as a series of binary digits and is extremely difficult for
humans to read and write.)
Subject 1 (LRA subject): word-by- word translation
“lakh-than-song” would be “binary digits” in English. A series of binary
digits” , then should be “A-nu-krom- lakh-than-song”, “expressed” would be “sa-
daeng-oak-maa-waa”, “extremely difficult” is “yak-maak-maak”, “human” is: “ma-
nut”, “read” is “aan” “write” is “khien” and machine language” means “pa-sa-
54
khriang”. So, this sentence should mean “pa-sa-khriang” “ sa-daeng ook-maa pen”
“lakh-than-song” “ tii yak-maak-maak” “ tii ma-nut” “-cha-aan” “ laeh-khien".
Subject 1 (HRA subject): integrative translation
“I think it’s not hard to catch the meaning of the whole sentence. I recognize
that “lakh-than-song” means “binary digits” in English. So, I think if I put the
meaning together the whole sentence should interpret that “a-nu-krom- lakh-than-
song” makes “pa-sa-khriang” hard for us to understand.”
For the category of metacognitive reading strategy (MRS), the highest
frequency of reading strategies used by the HRA was E (evaluating) (81 times or
4.50%). The second highest was Rev (reviewing) (80 times or 4.45%). In contrast,
WC (Working with classmate) was the highest frequency of reading strategies used
by the LRA (70 times or 6.30%) while it was the least frequently used strategy by the
HRA (23 times or 1.28%). SG (setting goals) was the least strategy used by the LRA
(23 times or 2.07%).
For the category of compensating reading strategy (CoRS), RWRK (relying
on what readers know) was the reading strategy used most frequently by both HRA
and LRA (103 and 51 times respectively). The strategy used least frequently by the
HRA was UP (using physical action) (19 times or 1.05%) while the strategy used
least frequently by the LRA was RPT (reviewing the purpose and tone of a reading)
(15 times or 1.35%).

55
Table 3.
The use of reading strategies between male (N=28) and female (N=20)
Male Sum of Female Sum of

Categories Strategies (N=28) % f (N=20) % f
f (%) f (%)
P 103 6.18 73 5.87
GC 79 4.74 64 5.15
FM 97 5.82 83 6.68
EVG 74 4.44 60 4.83
GMC 134 8.04 115 9.25
CRS ATSC 29 1.74 947 20 1.61 716
DOF 26 1.56 (56.8%) 22 1.77 (57.6%)
BLP 98 5.88 70 5.63
T 174 10.4 110 8.85
CGO 44 2.64 35 2.82
S 89 5.34 64 5.15
SG 40 2.40 34 2.73
VL 60 3.60 45 3.62
286 205
MRS WC 58 3.48 35 2.81
(17.2%) (16.4%)
Rev 65 3.90 46 3.70
E 63 3.78 45 3.62
RWRK 90 5.40 64 5.15
NT 82 4.92 59 4.74
Rem 71 4.26 53 4.26
RPT 26 1.56 433 20 1.61 322
CoRS
PS 37 2.22 (26.0%) 26 2.09 (26.0%)
RID 60 3.60 41 3.29
UP 24 1.44 19 1.52
CW 43 2.58 40 3.22
Based on the result presented in Table 3, the strategy use both categorically
and individually was similar for both male and female. For example, the percentages
of the use of cognitive reading category of reading strategy (CRS) for male and
female were 56.8% and 57.6%, respectively. The percentages of the use of
metacognitive reading category of reading strategy (CRS) for male and female were
56
17.2% and 16.4%, respectively. The percentages of the use of compensating reading
category of reading strategy (CoRS) for male and female were 26.0%.
To answer the last three research questions: (a) do the levels of reading ability
have a significant influence on the use of reading strategies?, (b) does gender have a
significant influence on the use of reading strategies?, and (c) is there any significant
interaction between gender and reading ability on students’ use of reading strategies?;
two-way ANOVA (analysis of variables), that is, a univariate analysis of variance: a
factorial ANOVA, was conducted to: (a) examine the significance of the levels of
English reading ability: high and low, (b) investigate whether there was the
significance of gender: male and female, and (c) explore the significance of
interaction between gender and levels of reading ability on students’ use of reading
strategies in each category: cognitive reading strategy (CRS), metacognitive reading
strategy (MRS) and compensating reading strategy (CoRS). The results were as
follows.
57
Table 4.
Summary of analysis of variance for main effects and interactions of students’ use of
cognitive reading strategy (CRS)
Source df SS MS F Sig
Reading
1 1767.101 1767.101 158.943 .000
ability
Gender 1 45.672 45.672 4.108 .049
RA x G 1 9.601 9.601 .864 .358
Error 44 489.186 11,118
Computed using alpha = .05

RA = reading ability
G = gender
RA x G = the interaction between reading ability and gender.
Table 5.
metacognitive reading strategy (MRS)
RA 1 333.929 333.929 60.213 .000
Gender 1 .015 .015 .003 .959
RA x G 1 4.929 4.929 .889 .351
Error 44 244.014 5.546

G = gender
RA x G = the interaction between reading ability and gender
58
Table 6.
compensating reading strategy (CoRS)
RA 1 1242. 872 1242.872 222.419 .000
Gender 1 4.715 4.715 .844 .363
RA x G 1 62.872 62.872 11.251 .002
Error 44 245.871 5.588

G = gender
RA x G = the interaction between reading ability and gender
Based on the result given in Table 4, there was a statistically significant
difference in the use of CRS (cognitive reading strategies) between students with
different reading ability level: high and low, F (1, 44) = 158.943, p = 0.000 < 0.05.
Thai is, students with high reading ability level used statistically significantly more
CRS than students with low reading ability level.
Based on the result given in Table 5, there was a statistically significant
difference in the use of MRS (metacognitive reading strategies) between students
with different reading ability level: high and low, F (1, 44) = 60.213, p = 0.000 <
0.05. That is, students with high reading ability level used statistically significantly
more MRS than students with low reading ability level.

59
Similarly, based on the result given in Table 6, there was also a statistically
significant difference in the use of CoRS (compensating reading strategies) between
students with different reading ability level: high and low, F (1, 44) = 222.419, p =
0.000 < 0.05. That is, students with high reading ability level used statistically
significantly more CoRS than students with low reading ability level.
Based on the result given in Table 4, there was only a significant difference in
the use of cognitive reading strategies between students with different gender: male
and female. F (1, 44) = 4.108, p = 0.049 < 0.05.
Based on the result given in Table 5, there was no statistically significant
difference in the use of metacognitive reading strategies between students with
different gender: male and female, F (1, 44) = .003, p = .959 > 0.05.
Similarly, based on the result given in Table 5, there was no statistically
significant difference in the use of compensating reading strategies between students
with different gender: male and female, F (1, 44) = .844, p = .363 > 0.05.
Based on the result given in Table 4, there was no statistically significant
interaction between gender and reading ability on students’ use of cognitive reading
strategies, F (1, 44) = .864, p = .358 > 0.05.
In addition, based on the result given in Table 5, there was no statistically
metacognitive reading strategies, F (1, 44) = .889, p = .351 > 0.05.

60
However, based on the result given in Table 6, there was a statistically
compensating reading strategies, F (1, 44) = .11.251, p = .002 < 0.05.
In addition, Table 7 and Figure1 are given to describe how different reading
ability (high and low) and gender (male and female) interact on the use of
compensating reading strategies.
Table 7.
Interactions between students’ reading ability and gender on compensating reading
strategies
Reading ability *Gender

Dependent Variable: Compensating reading strategy
95% Confidence Interval
RA Gender Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound
1 1 21.786 .632 20.512 23.059
2 20.100 .748 18.593 21.607
2 1 9.143 .632 7.870 10.416
2 12.100 .748 10.593 13.607
RA: reading ability: 1: high reading ability 2: low reading ability

Gender: 1: male 2: female
61
Figure 1. Profile Plots: The significant interaction between gender and reading ability
on students’ use of compensating reading strategy
According to Figure 1, male high reading ability students used more
compensating reading strategies than female high reading ability students (mean:
21.786 for male high reading ability and 20.100 for female high reading ability
students). However, male low reading ability students used fewer compensating
62
reading strategies than female ones (mean: 9.143 for male low reading ability and
12.100 for female low reading ability students).
Summary and Conclusion
The investigation on the use of reading strategies of Thai KMITL first year
engineering students while reading an expository text revealed the following results.
First, the subjects used all the three categories of reading strategies: cognitive
reading strategy (CRS), metacognitive reading strategy (MRS) and compensating
reading strategy (CoRS). However, students used these reading strategies with
different frequencies. The CRS was the category that all students used most
frequently while the MRS was the category that was used least frequently.
Within the CRS category, T (Translation) was used most frequently.
However, it was the reading strategy that was used mostly by low reading ability
students and male students, not by high reading ability or female students. Further,
analysis of transcripts showed that HRA and LRA students used T (translation) in
different ways. That is, LRA students appeared to use word-for-word translation
while the HRA seemed to use integrative translation. GMC (guessing meanings from
context) was more frequently used than FM (binding main idea) by all groups of
students: HRA, LRA, male and female. On the other hand, the reading strategies that
the students rarely used were ATSC (analyzing theme, style, and connection) and
DOF (distinguishing between opinions and facts).
For the category of metacognitive reading strategy (MRS), both male and
female used Rev (reviewing) most frequently. In addition, students with high reading
ability male students used the Rev, E and VL more than the WC and SG. However,
63
students with low reading ability used WC the most. Apparently, SG (setting goal)
was the strategy least used by both male and female students.
For the category of compensating reading strategy (CoRS), either students
with differing English reading ability ( HRA and LRA) or male and female, used
RWRK (relying on what readers know) most frequently. The other three reading
strategies frequently used in this category were NT (note-taking), Rem
(remembering) and RID (reviewing key ideas and detail). The least used strategy was
UP (using physical action).
Second, there was a statistically significant difference in the use of cognitive
reading strategies between students with different reading ability level as well as a
statistically significant difference in the use of metacognitive and compensating
reading strategies between those students. That is, differing levels of reading ability
influenced students’ use of reading strategies on all three categories of reading
strategies: cognitive reading strategy, metacognitive reading strategy, and
compensating reading strategy.
Third, for gender, only a statistically significant difference occurred in the use
of cognitive reading strategies between students with different gender: male and
female. However, the different numbers of male and female (male: 28, female: 20)
might lead to the appearance of that statistically significant difference. Additionally,
based on the results presented in Table 3, the strategy used, both categorically and
individually, was similar for both male and female. Furthermore, no statistically
significant differences in the use of metacognitive or compensating reading strategies

64
between male and female students were found. Thus, overall, it is possible to
conclude that gender had no influence on the use of reading strategies.
Finally, the results showed that there was a significant interaction between
gender and reading ability on students’ use of compensating reading strategies. That
is, there is the opposite direction in the use of compensating strategies: male high
reading ability students used more strategies than female high reading ability students
while male low reading ability students used fewer strategies than female ones.
65
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In this chapter, a summary of the major findings is first presented. Then, the
discussion related to the research findings is provided. Finally, recommendations for both
pedagogical implications (i.e. recommendations for EFL reading instruction) and further
study are also suggested.
Summary of Findings
In this study, the use of reading strategies had been examined with a particular
focus on the 24 reading strategies of the three main categories: Cognitive, Metacognitive,
and Compensating reading strategies. Verbal protocols methodology was used to elicit
verbal data from Thai first year university students of differing gender and levels of
reading ability. Furthermore, the study aimed to investigate whether or not differing
English reading ability: high and low and also gender: male and female had significant
influences on students’ use of reading strategies.
Results from the analysis of the data obtained through the verbal protocols
indicated that while reading the expository text, subjects in this study appeared to be
using strategies from all three categories of reading strategies (cognitive, metacognitive,
and compensating reading strategies). However, they used them with different
frequencies. The category of cognitive reading strategies was the category that the
subjects used most frequently while metacognitive reading strategies were the least used
strategies. Interestingly, even though the subjects used the reading strategies in differing
frequencies, there were the common or overlapping reading strategies across high and
low reading ability students and across male and female students. These strategies were
66
Translation, Guessing meaning from contexts, and Finding main idea. By contrast, of the
least reported strategies across different reading ability and gender were Using physical
action, Reviewing the purpose and tone of a reading, Distinguishing between opinions
and facts, and Analyzing theme, style, and connections.
Interestingly, the analysis of transcripts showed that readers of differing levels of
reading ability (i.e., high and low) used Translation in different way. The HRA were
likely to use integrative translation while the LRA seemed to concentrate on literal or
word-for-word translation. Thus, it is possible to say that the HRA students could use
translation strategy more effectively than the LRA.
Next, the study indicated that different levels of English reading ability had
significant influence on the use of reading strategies in all the three categories: CRS,
MRS and CoRS. However, this was not the case with gender. It was likely that there was
no overall significant difference by gender on the subjects’ use of reading strategies. This
finding supports the previous research, which revealed that no significant differences by
gender on general reading strategies while reading L2 texts (Young & Oxford, 1997).
Lastly, this study indicated that there was significant interaction between gender
and reading ability on students’ use of Compensating reading strategies. However, the
interaction was in opposite tendency. That is, male high reading ability students used
more strategies than female high reading ability students while male low reading ability
students used fewer strategies than female low reading ability students.
Discussion
The present study has provided several interesting findings. First, the results of
this study showed that students appeared to be using the same strategies while reading the
67
expository text, but they used them in differing frequencies and made use of some
strategies in different ways. These findings support the findings of many studies (Baker
& Brown, 1984b; Bouvet, 2002; Carrell, 1989; Paris & Jacobs, 1984; Paris & Myers,
1981; Tercanlioglu; 2004).
Second, readers tended to use cognitive reading strategies more than
metacognitive one. This finding is parallel with the results obtained by Torut, (1994).
This may be because Thai students are not sufficiently trained in the use of metacognitive
strategies in reading in L1. Thus, these skills are not transferred to L2 effectively. Tthe
main problem seems to either be that students are unable to effectively apply what they
know about metacognitive awareness or knowledge to their reading tasks, or the reading
tasks in their L2 classes may not be relevant to the metacognitive strategies they know.
On the other hand, this finding might imply that since the expository text utilized for this
study was relevant to the subjects’ field, the passage, in general, was not too difficult for
them. According to many studies (Carrel, 1989; Erickson, Stahl &Rinehart, 1985; Flavell,
1976; May, 1990), metacognitive strategy awareness and skills were related to or
influenced by the difficulty level of the reading tasks. Difficult reading tasks require
metacognitive strategies while simple reading tasks do not. As a result, the readers
reported using more cognitive reading strategies than metacognitive reading strategy.
Third, this study indicated that differing levels of reading ability influenced the
EFL students’ use of reading strategies. That is, high reading ability students tended to
use more strategies and could use those strategies more effectively than low reading
ability students. These findings also support previous studies (Anderson, 1991; Block,
1986, 1992; Carrell, 1991; Horiba, 1990; Hosenfeld, 1977; Jarijitpaibul, 2002; Jimenez,
68
Garcia, & Pearson, 1995; Paris & Myers, 1981; Pressley & Hilden, 2004). That is, their
findings reveal that strategy use and awareness of reading strategies are different in HRA
and LRA readers. HRA readers use various types of strategies, and they use them in more
efficient ways. Additionally, according to the result that HRA students used Translation
strategy differently from the LRA, it might be possible that HRA readers appeared to rely
on integrative translation to a certain extent, as a means of ensuring / confirming
comprehension, or integrating a part of text into a wider section. LRA students, in
contrast, might rely much more on word-for-word translation because of lack of
knowledge in English language itself and/or having difficulty in transferring L1 into L2.
That is, if the LRA have sufficient knowledge in L2 (English) language, they might use
translation strategy more efficiently.
Finally, results indicated clearly that there was significant interaction between
gender and reading ability on students’ use of Compensating reading strategies.
Interestingly; however, the interaction was in opposite tendency. Male high reading
ability students used more compensating reading strategies than female high reading
ability students while male low reading ability students used fewer compensating reading
strategies than female. This might occur by chance or this might show that somehow
females did better than the males. In addition, this might also be concerned with
pedagogical ways of interacting with males and females. However, since this study dealt
with small sample, only 20 females were in this study, the amount of this sample might
be too small to measure the significant interaction effectively. Further investigation,
therefore, is recommended to focus on this interaction with a larger number of subjects.

69
Recommendations
Pedagogical implications: Recommendations for EFL reading instruction
Based on the results of this study, the following are implications for reading
instruction in Thai EFL classroom setting.
1. The use or lack of use of reading strategies might affect the academic success
of the student. If the course of study in school is to be meaningful, then it is essential that
instruction lead students to be aware of how they learn and about the factors affecting
their own learning, thinking, and problem solving (Gaskins, 1994). Teachers should
observe students as they read in order to determine students' strengths and weaknesses in
terms of strategy use, which in turn, will help provide effective and appropriate strategy
instruction.
2. In order to enhance EFL students with high English reading ability, the
knowledge base relative to the use of reading strategies by first year engineering
students’ needs development. Supervised classroom practice may be employed so that
students can become adept at using those strategies that would best fit their reading
needs. In addition, examining their reading strategy use in other academic content areas
matched to students’ interests, along with having consideration of affective variables,
including levels of motivation and self-esteem are necessary. Simultaneously, teachers
should think about how a particular strategy is best applied and in what contexts. They
also should present strategies as applicable to texts and tasks in more than one content
domain so that strategies can be applied appropriately and effectively in a variety of
reading situations and contexts. Failing to teach students strategies they do not use is to
70
fail the students, to neglect to show them ways of reaching reading (Aebersold &
Fielding, 1997; Garner, 1987; Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995).
3. This research recognized the significance of different frequencies and the
different ways on the use of reading strategy by selected university students in the
engineering field. Optimistically, administrators and educators will be encouraged to
create more individualized learning environments for their students.
Recommendations for Further Research
There is still a dearth of research on the field of engineering in EFL settings. The
following are recommendations for further research in this area.
1. Further studies dealing with (a) the reading strategies of Thai students with
different ages and grade levels and (b) the relationship between students’ use of reading
strategies and their comprehension should be conducted in order to further verify the
findings of the present study.
2. Additional research is also needed to examine Thai university students’ reading
strategies for different text genre (e. g., narrative vs. expository). This would strengthen
the generalizability of the reading strategies used among Thai university students.
3. According to the results of this study, Translation strategy was found as one of
the most frequently used strategies by students. Translation is, in other words, one of the
important tools for EFL students in comprehending text. Cook (1992) states that all
second language learners access their L1 while processing the L2. "The L1 is present in
the L2 learners' minds, whether the teacher wants it to be there or not. The L2 knowledge
that is being created in them is connected in all sorts of ways with their L1 knowledge"
(Cook, 1992, p. 584). The different use of Translation strategy between high and low
71
reading ability students may be explained with the ability to integrate meaning and
construct text in a cohesive and synthetic fashion. Translation is, therefore, obviously an
important dimension of reading and should be the focus of further investigation.
4. Since only the use of reading strategies of Thai university students in the
English text was investigated in the present study, further study is needed to test the
transfer hypotheses of reading. Esling and Downing (1986) claimed that once a person
acquires reading skills in any language, he or she can apply those skills to any other
languages. They pointed out that, “The skill of literacy like the skill of oracy is learned
only once in an individual’s lifetime though he or she may transfer those skills to other
specific languages” (p.60). Accordingly, research should be conducted to compare
whether or not Thai students who are good in reading skills in Thai language (L1) would
also comprehend well during their reading in English language (L2) texts.
72
REFERENCES
Afflerbach, P.P., & Johnston, P.H. (1986). What do expert readers do when the main idea
is not explicit? In J.F. Baumann (Ed.), Teaching main idea comprehension
(pp. 49-72). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Anderson, N. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading

and testing. Modern Language Journal, 75, 460-472.
Anderson, N (1999). Exploring second language reading: Issues and strategies. Toronto:
Heinle& Heinle Publishers.
Anderson, R. C. (1994). Role of the reader’s schema in comprehension, learning, and

memory. In R. B. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and
processes of reading (pp. 469-482). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1988). A Schema-theoretic view of basic processes in

reading comprehension. In P. L. Carrel, J. Devine, & D. E. Eskey (Eds.),
Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp. 37-55). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson
(Ed.), Handbook of reading research, Vol. 1. ( pp. 353-394). New York:
Longman.
Barnett, M. A. (1988). Reading through context: How real and perceived strategy use
affects L2 comprehension. Modern Language Journal, 72, 150-160.
Bamett, M.A. (1989). More than meets the eye, foreign language reading theory and
practice. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Bernhardt, E. B. (1983). Syntactic and lexical /semantic skill in foreign language reading
comprehension: The immediate recall protocol. Applied Linguistics, 16, 27-
33.
Bernhardt, E. B. (1991). Reading development in a second language. Norwood, NJ:

Ablex.
Block, E. (1986). The comprehension strategies of second language readers. TESOL

Quarterly, 20, 463-494.
Block, E. (1992). See how they read: Comprehension monitoring of L1 and L2 readers.
TESOL Quarterly, 26 (2), 319-341.
73
Brantmeier, C. (2000). The relationship between readers’ gender, passage content,

comprehension and strategy use in reading Spanish as a second language.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Indiana University at Bloomington, IN.
Brown, A. (1981). Metacognition in reading and writing: The development and

facilitation of selective attention strategies for learning from texts. In M.
Kamil (Ed.), Directions in reading research and instruction (pp. 21-43).
Washington D.C.: National Reading Conference.
Brown, A., Armbruster, B. and Baker, L. (1983). The role of metacognition in reading
and studying . In J. Orsany (Ed.) Reading comprehension: From research to
practice (pp. 49-75). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaunWashington D.C.:
National Reading Conference.
Brown, A., & Palincsar, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and

comprehension monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117-
175.
Brown, A., & Palincsar, A. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual
knowledge acquisition. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and
instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 393-451). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brown, H. D. (1994). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Brown, N. (1980) Meta-cognitive development and reading., In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce,

& W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension:
perspectives from cognitive psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence, and
education (pp. 453-481). Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Carrell, P. L. (1985). Facilitating ESL Reading my Teaching Text Structure. TESOL

Quarterly, 18, 441-469.
Carrell, P.L. (1989). Metacognitive awareness and second language reading. Modern
Language Journal, 73, 121-133.
Carrell, P. L. (1991). Strategic reading. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University

Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1991: Linguistics and language
pedagogy: The state of the art (pp. 167-178). Washington, DC: Georgetown
University Press.
Carrell, P. L. (1992). Awareness of text structure: Effects on recall. Language Learning,

42, 1- 20.
74
Carrell, P.L. (1998). Can reading strategies be successfully taught? The Language
Teacher. Retrieved July 22, 2003 from
http://langue.hyper.chubu.ac.jp./jalt/pub/tlt/98/mar/carrell.html
Carrell, P.L. and Floyd, P. (1987). Effects on ESL reading of teaching cultural content
schemata. Language Learning, 37, 89-108.
Carrell, P.L., Pharis B. G. and Liberto, J. C. (1989). Metacognitive strategy training for
ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 647–677.
Charlene Yau, J. (2005). Two Mandarin readers in Taiwan: characteristics of children

with higher and lower reading proficiency levels. Journal of Research in
Reading 28 (2), 108-124.
Cheng, C. K. (1998) A descriptive study of reading strategies used by Chinese ESL

students from Taiwan, R. O. C. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of Kansas.
Cohen, A.D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. London:
Longman.
Cohen, A.D. & Hosenfeld, C. (1981) Some users of mentalistic data in second language
research. Language Learning, 31(2), 185-313.
Duke, K & Mallette, M.(Eds.). (2004). Literacy research methodologies. New York:
Guilford Press
Duke, N.K., & Pearson, P.D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading
comprehension. In A.E. Farstrup & S.J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to
say about reading instruction (3rd ed.) (pp. 205–242). Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Ericsson, K., & Simon, H. J. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87,
215- 251.
Ericsson, K., & Simon, H. J. (1984). Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Ericsson, K. & Simon, H. J. (1987) Verbal reports on thinking. In: C. Faerch & G. Kasper
(eds.) Introspection in second language research (pp. 24-53). Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
75
Ericsson, K., & Simon, H.J. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Esling, J. & Downing, J. (1986). What do ESL students need to learn about reading?
TESL Canada Journal, 1, 55-68.
Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (1987). From product to process. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper,
(Eds), Introspection in second language research (pp.1-23). Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Flavell, J. (1978). Metacognitive development. In J. M. Scandura & C. J. Brainerd (Eds.),

Structural/process theories of complex human behaviour (pp. 213-245). The
Netherlands: Sijthoff and Noordhoff.
Flavell, J. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new era of cognitive-

development inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.
Flesch, R. F. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32,

221-33.
Fry, E. (1977). Fry's readability graph: clarifications, validity and extension to level 17.
Journal of Reading, 20, 240-252.
Fujita, M.S.L.J., Nardi, M.I.A., and Fagundes, S.A.F. (2003) Observing documentary
reading by verbal protocol. Information Research, 8 (4). Retrieved October,
03,2003, from http://informationr.net/ir/8-4/paper155.html
Garner, R. (1980). Monitoring of understanding: An investigation of good and poor

readers' awareness of induced miscomprehension of text. Journal of Reading
Behavior, 12, 55-63.
Garner, R. (1994). Metacognition and executive control. In R. B. Ruddell,

M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of
reading (4th ed.). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex

Publishing.
Garner, R., & Krauss, K. (1982). Good and poor comprehender differences in knowing
and regulating reading behaviors. Educational Research Quarterly, 6, 5-12.
Gaskins, I.W. (1994). Classroom applications of cognitive science: Teaching poor readers
how to learn, think, and problem solve. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom
lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 129-154).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
76
Golinkoff, R. M. (1975). A comparison of reading comprehension processes in good and

poor comprehenders. Reading Research Quarterly, 11, 623–659.
Grabe, W. (1991). Current developments in second language reading research. TESOL

Quarterly, 25, 375–406.
Guthrie, J., & Wigfield, A. (1999). How motivation fits into a science of
reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 199–205.
Hauptman, P. C. (1979). A comparison of first and second language reading strategies

among English-speaking university students. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin,
4, 173-201.
Horiba, Y. (1990). Narrative comprehension processes: A study of native and non-native

readers of Japanese. Modern Language Journal, 74(2), 188-202.
Horiba, Y. (1996a). Comprehension Processes in L2 Reading: Language Competence,

Textual Coherence, and Inferences. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
18(4), 433-473.
Hosenfeld, C. (1977). A preliminary investigation of the reading strategies of successful

and nonsuccessful second language learners. System 5, 110-123.
Isabel, M., Nardi, A. & and Fagundes, S. A. (2003). Observing documentary reading by
verbal protocol. Information Research, 8 (4), 249–259.
Jacobs, J. E., & Paris, S. G. (1987). Children’s metacognition about

reading: Issues in definition, measurement, and instruction. Educational
Psychologist, 22, 255–278.
Janzen, J. (1996). Teaching strategic reading. TESOL Journal, 6(1), 6-9.
Jarijitpaibul, D. (2002) A study on English reading strategies of mathayom suksa five

students with different English reading comprehension abilities. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok.
Kasper, G. (1998). Analysing verbal protocols. Tesol Quarterly, 32(2), 358-361.
Kasper, L.F. (1993). The keyword method and foreign language vocabulary learning: A
rational for its use. Foreign Language Annals, 26, 244-251.
Knight, S. L., Padron, Y. N., & Waxman, H. C. (1985). The cognitive reading strategies
of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 789-792.
77
Knowles,T.,&Brown, D. F. (2000).What every middle school teacher should know.

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann/National Middle School Association.
Kucan, L., & Beck, I.L. (1997). Thinking aloud and reading comprehension research:
Inquiry, instruction, and social interaction. Review of Educational Research,
67(3), 271-299.
Leslie, L. & Caldwell, J. (2001). Qualitative Reading Inventory 3. New York: Addison
Wesley Longman.
Levine, A., Ferenz, O. and Reves, T. (2000). EFL academic reading and modern
technology: How can we turn our students into independent critical readers?
TESL-EJ, 4, 1-9. Retrieved August, 16,2002, from
http://www.writing.berkely.edu/TESL-EJ/ej16/a1.html
Liontas, J. I. (1999). Developing a pragmatic methodology of idiomaticity: The

comprehension and interpretation of SL vivid phrasal idioms during reading.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Arizona, Tucson. AZ.
McLain, K. V. M., Gridley, B. E., & McIntosh, D. (1991). Value of a scale

used to measure metacognitive reading processes. Journal of Educational
Research, 85, 81–87.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded

sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mokhtari, K. (2000). Metacognitive-awareness-of-reading-strategies inventory (MARSI).

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University, Oklahoma.
Mokhtari, K.,&Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students’metacognitive awareness of

reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249-259.
Myers, M., & Paris, S. (1978). Children's metacognitive knowledge about reading.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 680-690.
National Education Commission, Office of the Prime Minister. (1992). The National
scheme of education. Bangkok: Office of the Prime Minister.
National Institute for Educational Research (NIER). (1994). Foreign/Second Language

Education in Asia and the Pacific (Report of a Regional Seminar, 22 June-8
July 1994). Tokyo: NIER.
Olshavsky, J.E. (1977). Reading as problem solving: An investigation of strategies.

Reading Research Quarterly, 4, 654-674.
78
Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New
York: Newbury House Publishers.
Oxford, R. & Crookall, D. (1989). Research on language learning strategies: Methods,

findings, and instructional issues. Modern Language Journal, 73, 404-419.
Oxford, R. & Shearin, J. (1994). Language learning motivation: expanding the theoretical
framework. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 12–28.
Palinscar, A. and Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching: A means to a meaningful end.

In J. Osborn and P.T. Wilson (Eds.), Reading education: Foundations for a
literate America, 310. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Lexington.
Paris, S. G., Cross, D. R., & Lipson, M. Y. (1984). Informed strategies for learning: A
program to improve children's reading awareness and comprehension. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 6, 1239-1252.
Paris, S. G.& Jacobs, J. (1984). The benefits of informed instruction for children's
reading awareness and comprehension skills. Child Development, 55, 2083-
2093.
Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 293-316.
Paris, S.G.& Myers, M. (1981). Comprehension monitoring, memory and study strategies
of good and poor readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 13, 5-22.
Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1990). How metacognition can promote academic learning
and instruction. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and
cognitive instruction (pp. 15-51). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pearson, P.D., Roehler, L.R., Dole, J.A., & Duffy, G.G. (1992). Developing expertise in
reading comprehension. In S.J. Samuels & A.E. Farstrup (Eds.), What
research has to say about reading instruction (2nd ed., pp. 145–199). Newark,
DE: International Reading Association.
Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M.

Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading
research (Vol. 3, pp. 545–561). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of
constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pressley, M. & Hilden, K. (2004). Verbal protocols of reading. In N. Duke & Marla H.
Mallette (Eds.), Literacy research methodologies (pp. 308-321). New York:
The Guilford Press.
79
Pressley, M., Snyder, B., & Cariglia-Bull, B. (1987). How can good strategy use be
taught to children? Evaluation of six alternative approaches. In S. Cormier &
J. Hagman (Eds.), Transfer of learning: Contemporary research and
application (pp. 81-120). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Pritchard, R. (1990). The effects of cultural schemata on reading processing strategies.

Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 273-295.
Rigney, J.W. (1978). Learning strategies a theoretical perspective. In H.F. O'Neil (Ed.),
Learning strategies (pp. 445-456). New York: Academic Press.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The reader: The text: The poem. Carbondale, IL: Southern
Illinois University.
Sarig, (1987). High-level reading in the first and in the foreign language: Some
comparative process data. In Joanne Devine, P. L. Carrell, & D. E. Eskey
(Eds.) Research in reading in English as a second language (pp. 105-120).
Washington: TESOL Quarterly, 105-120.
Sarig, G., & Folman, S. (1987). Metacognitive awareness and theoretical knowledge in
coherence production. Unpublished paper presented at the Communication
and Cognition International Congress, Ghent, Belgium.
Saville-Troike, M. (1989). The ethnography of communication: An introduction (2nd

ed.). New York: Blackwell.
Shuyun, L. and Munby, H. (1996). Metacognitive strategies in second language academic

reading: A qualitative investigation. English for Specific Purposes, 15 (3),
199-216.
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young
children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Thailand. National Eduction Commission, Office of the Prime Minister. (1992). The
National scheme of education ,1992. Bangkok: Office of the Prime Minister.
Thailand. Office of the National Education Commission. (1997). Education in Thailand.

Bangkok: Office of the National Education Commission.
Tercanlioglu, L. (2004). Postgraduate students’ use of reading strategies in L1 and ESL

contexts: links to success. International Education Journal, 5 (4), 562-570.
van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. Orlando,
FL: Academic Press.
80
Wade, S.E. (1990). Using think alouds to assess comprehension. The Reading Teacher,
43, (7), 442-451.
Wagner, R. K., & Sternberg, R. J. (1987). Executive control in reading comprehension. In

B. K. Britton & S. M. Glyn (Eds.), Executive control processes in reading (pp.
1–21). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 20-26). Tokyo: JACET.
Waxman, H.C and Padron, Y. (1987). The effect of ESL students' perceptions of their
cognitive strategies on reading achievement. Presented at the Annual Meeting
of the Southwest Educational Research Association, Dallas.
Weinstein, C., & Underwood, V. (1985). Learning strategies. In J. Segal & S. Chipman
(Eds.), Thinking and learning skills. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Winograd, P., & Hare, V. C. (1988). Direct instruction of reading comprehension

strategies: The nature of teacher explanation. In C. E. Weinstein, E. T. Goetz,
& P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Learning and study strategies: Issues in assessment
instruction and evaluation (pp. 121-139). San Diego: Academic Press.
Wongsothorn, Achara (1996). National Profile of Language Education: Thailand. Paper

presented at the 11th World Congress of Applied Linguistics, Finland, 5 - 9
August.
Wolf, D. (1993). A comparison of assessment tasks used to measure FL reading

comprehension. Modern Language Journal, 77, 473-89.
Young, D. J., & Oxford, R. (1997). A gender-related analysis of strategies used to

process input in the native language and a foreign language. Applied
Language Learning, 8, 43-73.
APPENDICES
81
APPENDIX A
READING PASSAGE
82
Reading Passage
A problem can be solved by writing a program in one of many programming
languages: Java, Ada, C, C++, Pascal, and Smalltalk. The purpose of the program is
essentially the same no matter which language is used, but the particular statements used
to express the instructions, and the overall organization of those instructions, vary with
each language. Furthermore, a computer must be able to understand the instructions in
order to carry them out.
Programming languages are often categorized into the following four groups.
These groups basically reflect the historical development of computer languages:
machine language, assembly language, high-level languages, and fourth-generation
languages.
In order for a program to run on a computer, it must be expressed in that com-
puter's machine language. Each type of CPU has its own language, and each machine
language instruction can accomplish only a simple task. For example, a single machine
language instruction might copy a value into a register or compare a value to zero.
However, a computer can do millions of these instructions in a second, and therefore
many simple commands can be quickly executed to accomplish complex tasks.
Machine language code is expressed as a series of binary digits and is extremely
difficult for humans to read and write. Originally, programs were entered into the
computer using switches or some similarly tedious method. Early programmers found
these techniques to be time consuming and error prone.
These problems gave rise to the use of assembly language, which replaced
binary digits with mnemonics, short English-like words that represent commands or data.
83
It is much easier for programmers to deal with words than with binary digits. However,
an assembly language program cannot be executed directly on a computer. It must first be
translated into machine language.
Generally, each assembly language instruction corresponds to an equivalent
machine language instruction. Therefore, similar to machine language, each assembly
language instruction accomplishes only a simple operation. Although assembly language
is an improvement over machine code from a programmer's perspective, it is still tedious
to use. Both assembly language and machine language are considered low-level
languages.
Today, most programmers use a high-level language to write software. A high -
level language is expressed in English-like phrases: similar to an algebraic expression,
and thus is easier for programmers to read and write. A single high-level language
programming statement can accomplish the equivalent of many-perhaps hundreds-of
machine language instructions. Java is a high-level language, as are Ada, C, C++, and
Smalltalk.
High-level language code must be translated into machine language in order to
be executed. A high-level language insulates programmers from needing to know the
underlying machine language for the processor on which they are working.
Some programming languages are considered to operate at an even higher level
than high-level languages. They might include special facilities for automatic report
generation or interaction with a database. These languages are called fourth-generation
languages, or simply 4GLs, because they followed the first three generations of computer
programming: machine, assembly, and high-level.

84
APPENDIX B
LETTER OF CONSENT
85
November, 26, 2005
Dear President of King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang (KMITL):
I am Assoc. Prof. Pattaraporn Thampradit, a full-time faculty member at your university.

I am now conducting a research study as part of the requirements for my doctoral degree
in the department of Curriculum and Instruction at Southern Illinois University at
Carbondale (SlUC), Illinois with a concentration in Reading and Language studies. I am
asking you to give me a permission to conduct my study with our students in our
university. The main purpose of this study is to discover what reading strategies KMITL
students use while reading expository text written in English. The result of this study will
contribute valuable information for Thai teachers of English regarding how they can help
increase Thai students’ English reading ability.
Participation is voluntary. If a student chooses to participate in the study, it will take

approximately 20-45minutes. He/She will be asked to verbalize his or her thoughts aloud
while reading the assigned expository text. Their reports will be recorded on audiotape.
All his/her responses will be kept confidential within reasonable limits. Only those
directly involved with this project will have access to the data.
If you have any questions about the study, please do not hesitate to contact me or to my
supervising professor, Prof. Dr. Marla Mallette, Department of Curriculum and
Instruction, SlUC, Carbondale, II.,62901. Phone (618) 453-4254.
This project has been reviewed and approved by the SlUC Human Subjects Committee.
Questions concerning your rights as a participant in this research may be addressed to the
Committee Chairperson, Office of Research Development and Administration, SlUC,
Carbondale, II., 62901-4709. Phone (618) 453-4533.
Thank you very much for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
(618)351-8704
[email protected]
I understand the parameters of this project and agree allow the research to proceed with
the study in my university.
_____________________________________ ___________________
President's signature Date
86
APPENDIX C
INSTRUCTIONS IN THE “THINK ALOUDS” PROCEDURE

87
Instructions on the "Think Alouds" procedure
What we are going to do now is to introduce you with the technique of data
collecting which will be used in our research. This technique is called think-alouds
process.
All you have to do is to read the text that will be handed to you, in the same way
you are used to do reading while you are alone: reading and thinking loudly to construct
the meaning from the text. It is a very simple and natural way.
During the entire reading task, you have to "think aloud". Try to imagine you are by
yourself in a room, reading a text. In such situations, you are thinking aloud
spontaneously and almost unconsciously: saying words, giving your reasons, your
thoughts, questionings, searching for problems of comprehension you may have, in order
to get the meaning and understand the text.
This process is similar to when you "think aloud" spontaneously while working out
a mathematical problem. Could you have an idea of how that technique works? It
corresponds to your verbalizing your internal speech, your thoughts.
Now, I will provide a passage to you. You may find it clear and easy to understand,
or you may require a "short stop" to think and efforts to understand. All depends on your
own way of doing it.
You must remember that whenever you stop to think a little more or to solve any
problem, you must try to verbalize, to say, whatever comes into your mind.
If at any moment, you find difficult to speak and think at the same time, you can
give an explanation on how you understood such a passage or how you found a solution
for a comprehension problem.

88
Try to make effort to "think alouds": verbalize everything you are thinking about
and doing as you read. It is a unique process where speaking is thinking.
Try to take no notice of me (the researcher). I will be present only to remind you
that you ought to "think aloud" all the time and to control the audio recorder.
Try to act naturally as much as you can, as if you were by yourself, and try to
concentrate only on the task you have to perform.

89
APPENDIX D
INSTRUCTIONS ON THE “THINK ALOUDS” PROCEDURE
(THAI VERSION)
90
คําชี้แนะ
กระบวนการในการคิดออกมาดังๆ
("Think Alouds" procedure)
ตอไปนี้จะแนะนําวิธีการเพื่อใหนักศึกษาคุนเคยกับเทคนิคที่จะนํามาใชในการเก็บขอ
มูล เพื่อใชในงานวิจัยครั้งนี้ เทคนิคนี้เรียกวา "Think-alouds"
สิ่งที่นักศึกษาจะตองทําคือ อานเรื่องที่กําหนดให ใหอานใหเปนธรรมชาติ คืออาน

และคิดออกมาดังๆ เพื่อใหตัวเองเขาใจเรื่องที่อาน เสมือนกับวา นักศึกษาอานอยูตามลําพัง
ในระหวางที่อาน นักศึกษาจะตองคิดออกมาดังๆ พยายามคิดวา นักศึกษาอาน

หนังสือ อยูลําพังคนเดียวในหอง คิดออกมาดังๆ พูดเกี่ยวกับคําศัพท วลี หรือ ประโยค
แลวใหเหตุผล วาทําไมคิดเชนนั้น นักศึกษาคิดอยางไร มีคําถามอะไรเกี่ยวกับเรื่องที่อาน
ตองการทําอยางไร เพื่อใหเขาใจความหมายของเรื่องที่อาน ใหนักศึกษาคิด และ
พูดออกมาดังๆ
กระบวนการนี้ คลายคลึงกับเวลาที่นักศึกษาคิดออกมาดังๆ เพื่อแกปญหาโจทย

คณิตศาสตร คิดวานักศึกษาคงจะพอเขาใจวิธีการของเทคนิคนี้แลว สิ่งที่นักศึกษาคิดที่จะ
แกโจทยในใจก็คือ สิ่งที่นักศึกษาพูดออกมาดังๆ เพื่อทําโจทย คณิตศาสตรนั้นๆ นั่นเอง
ตอนนี้ จะใหนักศึกษาอานเรื่องที่กําหนดให นักศึกษาอาจจะรูสึกวาเรื่องที่อานงาย

หรืออาจจะรูสึกวายาก อาจจะตองหยุดอานบอยๆ เพื่อคิดและพยายามที่จะเขาใจเนื้อเรื่อง
นักศึกษาจะหยูดอานตรงประโยคไหน วลีไหน หรือคําไหน แลวคิดออกมาดังๆ ก็ไดทั้งนั้น
ทั้งนี้ขึ้นอยูกับตัวนักศึกษาเอง
สิ่งที่นักศึกษาตองใสใจเสมอก็คือ เมื่อไรที่นักศึกษาหยุดอานเพื่อคิด หรือแกขอ

ของใจ เพื่อใหเขาใจเรื่องที่อาน ทุกสิ่งที่นักศึกษาคิดในใจ นักศึกษาจะตองพยายามคิด
และพูดออกมาดังๆเสมอ
ไมวาชวงไหนที่อานเรื่องที่กําหนดให เมื่อนักศึกษารูสึกวายาก ก็ใหคิดและพูด

ออกมาดังๆ ใหนักศึกษาอธิบายวา ทําอยางไรที่นักศึกษาจะแกไขขอของใจนั้นๆ เพื่อให
เขาใจเรื่องที่อาน
ใหนักศึกษาพยายามพูดออกมาดังๆ พูดเกี่ยวกับทุกสิ่งทุกอยาง ที่นักศึกษา คิด

ขณะที่อาน กระบวนการนี้เนนวา สื่งที่นักศึกษาพูดออกมาดังๆ ก็คือสิ่งที่ นักศึกษาคืดนั่นเอง
ใหนักศึกษาพยายามไมใสใจวา ผูวิจัยนั่งอยูดวย ผูวิจัยเปนเพียงผูที่จะเตือน

และกระตุนใหนักศึกษา "คิดออกมาดังๆ" ถานักศึกษาหยูดคิดดังๆในขณะที่นักศึกษาอาน
และเปนผูที่ทําหนาที่ดูแลการบันทึกเทปเสียงเทานั้น
ใหนักศึกษาพยายามอาน และคิดออกมาดังๆ ใหเปนธรรมชาติมากที่สุด เสมือน

กับวานักศึกษาอานและคิดออกมาดังๆ เมื่ออานอยูตามลําพัง พยายามมีสมาธิในการอาน
และคิดออกมาดังๆ ใหมากที่สุดในขณะที่อานเรื่องที่กําหนดใหนี้
91
APPENDIX E
STUDENT’S CONSENT FORM
Consent Form
92
I am Assoc. Prof. Pattaraporn Thampradit. I am now conducting a research study as part

of the requirements for my doctoral degree in the department of Curriculum and
Instruction at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.
I am asking you to participate in my research study. The main purpose of this study is to
discover what reading strategies you use while reading text written in English. The result
of this study will contribute valuable information for Thai teachers of English regarding how
they can help increase Thai university students’ English reading ability.
Please be noted that your participation in this study is voluntary and you are free to
withdraw during the verbal report at any time without penalty. If you choose to
participate in this study, please verbalize every thing you think aloud while you read the
assigned text. You can choose which language you want to response: Thai, a combination
of English and Thai, or English. You can stop at any word, phrase, or sentence to report
what you think while you are reading. It will take around 20-45 minutes, depending on
how much time you spend to finish reporting the whole reading. Your reports will be
recorded on audiotape, and the tape will be transcribed.
All your responses will be kept confidentially within reasonable limits. Only those
directly involved with this project will have access to the data. I can assure you that in
any reports of this research, I will not link your name with any specific responses.
Questions concerning this research study can be addressed directly to me, Pattaraporn
Thampradit, at 1640 Logan Dr, Apt. 11, Carbondale, IL 62901, telephone (618) 351-
8704, e-mail: [email protected]. You may also address the questions concerning this
research study to my supervising professor, Prof. Dr. Marla Mallette, Southern Illinois
University at Carbondale, IL 62901, telephone (618) 453-4254.
This research study has been reviewed and approved by the SIUC Human Subjects
Committee. If you have questions concerning your right as a participant in this research,
please contact the Committee Chairperson, Office of Research Development and
Administration, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901-4709, telephone
(618) 453-4533. E-mail: [email protected]

93
APPENDIX F
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH

94
Consent to Participate in Research
I, ___________________________________, agree to participate in this research project

being conducted by Pattaraporn Thampradit, Doctor’s candidate in the Department of
Curriculum and Instruction at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale (SlUC), Illinois.
The main purpose of this study is to discover what reading strategies you use while
reading text written in English. The result of this study will contribute valuable
information for Thai teachers of English regarding how they can help increase Thai
university students’ English reading ability.
Please verbalize every thing you think aloud while you read the assigned text. You can
choose which language you want to response: Thai, a combination of English and Thai,
or English. You can stop at any word, phrase, or sentence to report what you think while
you are reading. It will take around 20-45 minutes, depending on how much time you
spend to finish reporting the whole reading. Your reports will be recorded on audiotape,
and the tape will be transcribed. Before verbalize your thoughts, please provide some
information about yourself (name, age, sex).
Please be noted that your participation in this study is voluntary and you are free to
withdraw during the verbal report at any time without penalty.
The tape and the transcription will be kept in the strictest confidence and your identity
will never be known to any individual through your report or any means; neither will it be
associated in any way with repeated results. Please be assured that the confidentiality of
your report will be maintained within legal limits.
Questions concerning this research study may be addressed to my supervising professor,

Prof. Dr. Marla Mallette, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, IL 62901, telephone
(618) 453-4254.
This research study has been reviewed and approved by the SIUC Human Subjects
Committee. If you have questions concerning your right as a participant in this research,
please contact the Committee Chairperson, Office of Research Development and
Administration, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901-4709, telephone
(618) 453-4533. E-mail: [email protected]
Sincerely,
(618)351-8704
[email protected]
95
I have read the information above, and any questions I asked have been answered to my
satisfaction. I agree to participate in this activity and know that my response will be tape
recorded. I understand a copy of this form will be made available to me for the relevant
information and phone numbers.
I understand the parameters of this project. I also agree to participate in this activity and
know that my responses will be recorded on audio/videotape.
Name of participant _____________________________ Age ________ Sex ________
__________________________ ________________________
Signature of participant Date
I agree_____ I do not agree_____ that you may use my name on the tapes and transcripts.
What name would you like to be appeared on the tapes and transcripts? ______________
96
APPENDIX G
DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONAIRE
97
Demographic Questionnaire
1. You are: (1) Male ______ (2) Female_____
2. How old are you? ____________________
3. Are you first year computer engineering student? (1) Yes _______ (2) No ________
4. Have you graduated from both secondary school and high school in Thailand?
(1) Yes________ (2) No_________
5. Did you start learning English in Grade5? (1) Yes________ (2) No_________
5. Have you ever been to a foreign country where people use English as a native
language like the US, England, or Australia? (1) Yes________ (2) No________
6. Have you ever had an English course at the American Language Center or English
language Center in Thailand? (1) Yes________ (2) No________

98
APPENDIX H
EXAMPLES OF CODIFYING IDEA UNITS

99
Examples of Codifying Idea Units
The following provides some examples of idea units (equivalent to sentence or
clause) of students’ verbal reports and specific reading strategies that are codified.
Cognitive Reading Strategies (CRS):
1. Prediction (P): predicting the content of an upcoming passage or section of the
text.
Example 1
“I guess the second paragraph is going to tell me something concerns with the
main idea of the passage.”
Example 2
“From the second paragraph, the following paragraphs should give us
details of all 4 kinds of computer programming language.
Example 3
“Because the author introduces the 4 categories, he, I guess, will explain how the
similarity and differences between each one.”
Example 4
“From the last paragraph, I think that the next paragraph should deal with the
application of these 4 computer programming languages.”
2. Grammar concentration (GC): concentrating on grammar to help
understanding unfamiliar construction
Example 1
“Categorized, I see… category, categorize, then, something is categorized”
Example 2
100
“Umm…we translate the assembly program. Well,…in other words, the program
is translated or changed into the machine language.”
(From the sentence: It must first be translated into machine language.)
Example 3
“I see many sentences using passive voice structure. (laugher)”
Example 4
(sigh)…I have to figure out its main subject and its real verb.”
(From the sentence: Machine language code is expressed as a series of binary
digits and is extremely difficult for humans to read and write.)
3. Finding the main idea (FM): identifying the main idea to comprehend the
entire reading.
Example 1
“The main thing is I should know what the author is talking about.”
Example 2
“Well, I think the first paragraph shows the purpose of writing a computer
program”
Example 3
“Umm…the fourth-generation languages or 4GLs should be the main
idea of the last paragraph”
Example 4
“I’m sure the main idea of this reading is about how to categorize the computer
programming language.”
101
4. Expanding vocabulary and grammar (EVG): expanding vocabulary and
grammar to help readers increase their reading.
Example 1
“Machine language code… this should mean the code, not of anything else, but of
the language, the machine language.
Example 2
“This might mean that the code, the machine language code, is written in a series,
a binary digits series which is complicated to read or write.”
(From the sentence: Machine language code is expressed as a series of binary
digits and is extremely difficult for humans to read and write.)
Example 3
“Huuh….binary digits are replaced by the so called mnemonics…(throat
clearing)…and mnemonics refers to the short English-like words which is easier to
understand than the binary digits.”
(From the sentence: These problems gave rise to the use of assembly language,
which replaced binary digits with mnemonics, short English-like words that represent
commands or data.)
Example 4
“Well, … a passive construction that have two processes: translate high-level
language, and implement them in the computer.”
(From the sentence: High-level language code must be translated into machine
language in order to be executed)

102
5. Guessing meanings from context (GMC): guessing meanings of unfamiliar
words or phrases to let readers use what they already know about English.
Example 1
“Then it has hyphen. / So, after hyphen should be its meaning.”
Example 2
Well, there is colon after this phrase. / The meaning of this phrase, therefore,
should occur after the colon.
Example 3
“tedious” (laugher)…according to this sentence it should mean it is still complex,
and not interesting to use.”
Example 4
“Umm…it should mean that from a programmer’s opinion assembly language is
better than a machine language.”
(From the sentence: Assembly language is an improvement over machine code
from a programmer's perspective.)
6. Analyzing theme, style, and connections (ATSC): analyzing theme, style, and
Example 1
“Well… this passage frequently uses passive voice which makes sense to me. / I
think the author wants to concentrate on information of what is done, not who does it.”
Example 2
“Huhh... (throat clearing)..I need time to figure out what is what in those long
sentences, or else I cannot see the connection of ideas that the author wants to explain.
103
Example 3
“Huuh…the last paragraph still goes on introducing the last category, not the
conclusion.”
Example 4
“I think this passage has a good order, step by step explanation of the 4 kinds of
programming language.”
7. Distinguishing between opinions and facts (DOF): distinguishing between
opinions and facts to aid in understand reading.
Example 1
“This passage is not a kind of reading for fun. / All are information, the fact, to
know and understand.”
Example 2
“This is only the fact that every programming language must first be translated
into machine language.”
Example 3
“This passage is good to get information. But it does not entertain me much. I
prefer the fun stuff.”
Example 4
“This passage contains basic information. / It is the fact about ways to write
computer programming languages.”
8. Break down larger phrases into smaller parts (BLP): break down larger
phrases into smaller parts to help readers understand difficult passages.
Example 1
104
“What a long sentence it is! / I think I better divide it into clauses or else I might
get the wrong idea.”
(From the sentence: These problems gave rise to the use of assembly language,
which replaced binary digits with mnemonics, short English-like words that represent
commands or data.)
Example 2
“The best way for me is to split those very long sentences into simple sentences in
order that I will not get lost of what the author intend to say.”
Example 3
“A single machine language instruction might come from 3 nouns pull together:
machine, language, and instruction, which means a single instruction for machine
language.”
Example 4
Umm…I think I can get the meaning of a long sentence only when I divide it into
the shorter ones.”
(From the sentence: These languages are called fourth-generation languages, or
simply 4GLs, because they followed the first three generations of computer
programming: machine, assembly, and high-level.)
9. Translation (T): linking what readers know in their first language (Thai) with
the words in English or vise versa, translate the words in English into their first language
(Thai).
Example 1
105
“A problem can be solved by writing a program” Umm…“Pan-haa sa-mart kae-
khai dai duay karn khien pro-gram.”
Example 2
This word, “essentially” should mean “cham-pen”
Example 3
“In order for a program to run on a computer” should mean pia-hai pro-gram sa-
mart run bon com-pu-ter
Example 4
“I know “lakh-than-song” means “binary digits” in English. / So,“a series of
binary digits” should means “A-nu-krom- lakh-than-song”
10. Creating graphic organizers (CGO): Creating a map, diagram, or drawing of
related ideas to enable you to understand the relationships between words and ideas.
Example 1
“I think I’ll draw a tree diagram of the four categories of these programming
languages to help me understand what the information I get”
Example 2
“In my idea, one way to help me remember of what the passage is about is to put
the information, the types of computer programming languages, into a chart.”
Example 3
“I think it’s better to draw a table. / Then, I can put the information either the
similarity or the differences of each one into the table.”
Example 4
106
“Umm…lots of terminology… pull the words into a chart may help me
understand better.”
11. Summarizing (S): summarize what readers read and / or writing a short
summary of what they read to help them understand the main ideas.
Example 1
“If I have to read this passage, I’ll read it all then summarize it. / And in short,
it’s likely that this passage is about computer program writing”
Example 2
“Well…I like to summarize every thing I read. / (throat clearing) if I summarize
the first paragraph, I’ll say that this is only the introduction.”
Example 3
“Umm… if I summarize this passage, I’m sure this is about the four categories of
computer programming language: machine, assembly, high level, and 4GLs.”
Example 4
“Well… I think I can understand better if I summarize it into a short paragraph.”
Metacognitive Reading Strategies (MRS):
12. Setting goals (SG): having purposes in reading to help improve areas that are
Example 1
“Umm, I think that I should better read more on how to program computer
languages.”
Example 2
107
“After reading this passage, I know that in fact I have a bit of knowledge about
my field. / I must read more to gain better understanding.”
Example 3
“I wish to have some more reading passage like this …I think this is a way to
practice my reading.”
Example 4
“From now on, I have to read more.”
13. Vocabulary listing (VL): making lists of relevant vocabulary to prepare for
new reading.
Example 1
“After reading, I think I’d better group verbs that are related in meaning, such as,
execute, carry on, run on.”
Example 2
“(throat clearing)… There’re groups of words frequently used in this passage: be
expressed, be considered, and be called.
Example 3
“Interesting… Java, Ada, C, C++, and Smalltalk, all are in a list of a high-level
language category.”
Example 4
“I think I should make a complete list of names of computer programs that can be used in
each 4categories.”
14. Working with classmates (WC): working with classmates to help reader
develop their reading skills.

108
Example 1
“I wish I had my friends help me understanding this sentence.”
Example 2
“Well, if my friend is here, I’m sure he can help me understand better.”
Example 3
“Wow…too many long sentences, reading in small group is better than reading
alone.”
Example 4
“If I read with my friends, they can help me with these difficult words.”
15. Reviewing (Rev): Taking opportunities to practice what readers already know
to keep readers progress steady.
Example 1
“If I don’t read again I’ll not know that “these languages” means the higher level
languages, the fourth-generation languages, the 4GLs.”
Example 2
“Now I know that if I talk about the category of high-level language, Java, C, and
C++ will be pop-up in my mind”.
Example 3
“Before going to the next paragraph, I think I should reread the previous
paragraphs to get clear understanding of what I read.”
Example 4
“Well, I have to read the sentences before and after this paragraph again to make
sure of what it means.”

109
(From the sentences: However, an assembly language program cannot be
executed directly on a computer. It must first be translated into machine language.)
16. Evaluating (E): evaluating what readers have learned and how well they are
doing to help them focus their reading.
Example 1
“I’m not good in English.. (Laugh)…so, it’s hard for me to get the clear
understanding of this passage. ”
Example 2
“Reading this passage is like making sure of what I know and understand from
various computer texts.”
Example 3
“Even though I have some knowledge in computer, it’s not easy for me to
understand this passage.”
Example 4
“I enjoy reading this passage: the terms and the content are familiar.
Compensating Reading Strategies (ComRS):
17. Relying on what readers know (RWRK): relying on what readers already
know to improve their reading comprehension.
Example 1
“I think I should better pull the knowledge from what I already know to help me
understand this passage.”
Example 2
“If I don’t study computer engineering, I may not understand this passage well.”
110
Example 3
“According to the previous paragraph, I’m sure that every programming language
code has to be translated to machine language.”
Example 4
“I know Java, and C language, and I think such knowledge might help
comprehending my reading.”
18. Note-taking (NT): taking notes to help readers recall important details.
Example 1
“I like to note something in front of each paragraph to make less time when I read
it again.”
Example 2
“Usually I make a short note of each paragraph when I read.”
Example 3
“I think one way to help me understand of what I read is to take note.”
Example 4
“Well, the second paragraph is easy to take note. The shortest note should be
“categories of programming languages.”
19. Remembering (Rem): trying to remember what readers understand from a
reading to help them develop better comprehension skills.
Example 1
“Umm… four kinds of programming language, the latter always are developed
from the former.”
Example 2
111
“Different types of programming language… wow…there is similarity in their
differences.”
Example 3
“I must remember that Java, C, C++, or Pascal is a high-level language.”
Example 4
“Well…I think now I can remember the development of computer languages from
the first to the fourth generation.”
20. Reviewing the purpose and tone of a reading (RPT): reviewing the purpose
and tone of a reading passage so reader can remember more effectively.
Example 1
“Umm… I remember that the author points out again and again about the
similarity and the differences of the first to the fourth generation languages”
Example 2
“Does the author give any examples of programming languages? / Oh, yes, here,
lots of important information that I should remember.”
Example 3
“Wow, ... the ending supports what the author wants to tell.”
Example 4
“After rereading, I think the purpose of the author is to give basic information of
programming languages.”
21. Picturing scenes in readers’ mind (PS): picturing scenes in readers’ mind to
help them remember and understand their reading.
Example 1
112
“I think now I can figure out different types of programming languages in my
mind.”
Example 2
“If I am able to illustrate what is what in my mind, that’ll help my memory.”
Example 3
“There are sentences re-explaining the detail information of high level language
of which I can imagine what is what in my mind.”
Example 4
“I’d better draw some pictures in my mind so that I can understand whether
Smalltalk is in the fourth generation or not.”
22. Reviewing key ideas and details (RID): reviewing key ideas and details to
help them remember.
Example 1
“I should figure out what the author’s talking about “Machine language code” in
the previous paragraph.”
Example 2
“I can’t think of any examples of the fourth generation languages. May be I’d
better reread the whole passage.”
Example 3
“If talking about types of computer language, I think, now, I know what they are.”
Example 4
“I’d like to read again to review what important ideas I get.”
23. Using physical action (UP): using physical action help readers remember
113
Example 1
“It seems that I can concentrate more if I play with my hair while reading.”
Example 2
(throat clearing) “If I point to the words while reading, I can focus on what I
read.”
Example 3
“I think it’s fun to play with pen in my hand while reading.”
Example 4
“I like to speak to myself to make sure of what I read.”
24. Classifying words into meaningful groups (CW): classifying words into
meaningful groups to remember more clearly.
Example 1
“If I have time I’ll organize the words that have similar meaning together.”
Example 2
“I wish I had a list of important vocabulary. .”
Example 3
“The word “categorized” should be put under the word “category”, what else
should I put in?”
Example 4
Well…let me group those long or compound words together.”

114
VITA
Graduate School
Southern Illinois University
Pattaraporn Thampradit Date of Birth: September 27, 1955
1640 Logan Dr. Apt.11, Carbondale, IL 62901
Department of Languages and Social Sciences, Faculty of Industrial Education,

King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, Bangkok, Thailand 10520
Prince of Songkhla University, Thailand

Bachelor of Arts (1st Class Hons.), English Language, March 1977
Chulalongkorn University, Thailand

Master of Arts, Linguistics, June 1981
Hiroshima University, Japan

Certificate, Pedagogy, 1984

Certificate, Comparative Studies, 1986

Certificate, Higher Education, 1988
Regional Language Center (RELC), Republic of Singapore

Certificate, Language Syllabuses and Language Learning, 1991
College of St. Mark & St. John, United Kingdom

Certificate, English for Specific Purposes, 1994
Special Honors and Rewards:
2001-2006 Thai Government, Thailand

1997 Hiroshima International Center, Japan
1994 British Council, Thailand
1991 Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization (SEAMEO)
1988-1985 Ministry of Education (MONBUSHO), Japan
1984 YMCA, Japan
Dissertation title:
115
Major Professors: Dr. Marla H. Mallette

Dr. James E. Jackson
Publications:
“Materials Development: The sample materials task for an Engineering Program in a

Thai University.” A paper presented in the ITBE (Illinois TESOL·BE): 30th
Annual State Convention 2004, Chicago.
English for Technicians. (1996). Bangkok: Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University

Press.
English for Engineering II. (1995). Bangkok: King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology
Ladkrabang Press.
Industrial English. (1994). Bangkok: King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology

Ladkrabang Press.
Technical English I. (1994). Bangkok: King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology

Ladkrabang Press.
The Use of Phonetics Characteristics of High Vowels in a Dialect Survey of Trang,

Krabi, Phang-nga, and Phuket. (1992). Pasa, 14 (6), 34-36.
Study Skills in English. (1991). Bangkok: King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology

Ladkrabang Press.
English for Engineering I. (1990). Bangkok: King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology

Ladkrabang Press.

A Study of Reading Strategies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Study of Reading Strategies

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Study of Reading Strategies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A STUDY OF READING STRATEGIES USED BY THAI

UNIVERSITY ENGINEERING STUDENTS

B.A. (1st Class Hons.) Prince of Songkhla University, Thailand, 1977

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

Department of Curriculum and Instruction

UMI Microform 3215042

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

A STUDY OF READING STRATEGIES USED BY THAI UNIVERSITY

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of

in the field of Curriculum and Instruction

(Reading and Language Studies)

Marla H. Mallette, Chair

Southern Illinois University at Carbondale

Major Professors: Marla H. Mallette

Anderson’s framework (Anderson, 1991).

frequently. Furthermore, there was a statistically significant difference in the use of

influence the subjects’ use of reading strategies. Similarly, no statistically significant

interaction between gender and reading ability on students’ use of cognitive or

significant interaction between gender and reading ability on students’ use of

would not have been feasible. First, I am tremendously grateful to my co-committee

professionalism, time commitment, valuable assistance, caring, and supportive

completed without her.

I would like to express my thanks and appreciations to the president of King

Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, who allowed me to do this study,

I would also like to extend my gratitude to my family, especially to my eldest

provided inexhaustible support and shown implausible patience throughout my study.

would have been so proud.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE ........................................ 13

CHAPTER 3 METHOD AND PROCEDURES.............................................................. 35

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................65

1. The use of reading strategies by Thai university first year engineering

4. Summary of analysis of variance for main effects and interactions of

5. Summary of analysis of variance for main effects and interactions of

6. Summary of analysis of variance for main effects and interactions of

7. Interactions between students’ reading ability and gender on

1. Profile Plots: The significant interaction between gender and reading

reader's background knowledge (Janzen, 1996).

A vast amount of research in first language (L1) reading has focused on

Jacobs (1984) state:

flexible strategies, and periodic self-monitoring... [while] novice readers often

Similarly, research in L1 reading has found that good readers differentiate

understandable (Baker & Brown, 1984; Garner, 1980).

to successful and unsuccessful L2 reading (Block, 1986; Hosenfeld, 1977; Jimenez,

metacognition, knowledge about cognition. For example, researchers have examined

reading is indeed important. While a few studies on reading strategies of secondary

in an English-speaking country, Thai natives university students learning English may

reading English as a foreign language.

In essence, English is the major foreign language taught in primary schools

university levels, English, especially reading, plays an incredibly important role in

technology; it is a crucial key to professional success (NIER, 1994). This argument is

compatible with Anderson’s statement (Anderson, 1999):

Reading is an essential skill for English as a second/foreign language (ESL/EFL)

attain greater development in all academic areas (p. 1).

learning areas, to professional advancement and to lifelong learning. The crucial

importance of reading skills in academic contexts underscores the importance of research

that university students of English as a second language (ESL) and English as a