PREPRINT

SOCIAL SCIENCES & HUMANITIES

Journal homepage: http://www.pertanika.upm.edu.my/

Reading Strategies in Teaching and Learning English as a

Foreign Language: A Mixed-Method Study
Wen Min Sieo1, Mansour Amini2*, Kam Fong Lee1, Siew Eng Lin1, Jing Ni Tee3
and Ching Sin Siau4
1
Department of English Language and Communication, Faculty of Social Sciences and Liberal Arts, UCSI
University, 56000, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
2
School of Languages, Literacies and Translation, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800, Penang, Malaysia
3
Department of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences and Liberal Arts, UCSI University, 56000, Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia
4
Centre for Community Health Studies (ReaCH), Faculty of Health Sciences, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia,
50300, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

ABSTRACT
Reading strategies are essential for teachers and students, especially in an EFL classroom.
However, reading comprehension strategies and effective adoption of the strategies have
been challenging for both teachers and students in Malaysia. This study aimed to identify
the reading strategies used and not used by students and teachers when answering and
teaching reading comprehension questions and explore the discord between the responses
using an explanatory sequential mixed methods research design. The participants were
91 students and five teachers from a private university in Malaysia recruited using census
sampling methods. A questionnaire consisting of literal, reorganization, and inferential
reading comprehension questions was administered to the students, whereas interviews
and observation were used to examine the strategies targeted by teachers based on
Barrett’s reading taxonomy (1972). The findings revealed that EFL teachers used a vast
repertoire of strategies in teaching reading,
whereas students only used a small number
ARTICLE INFO
of strategies when answering reading
Article history:
Received: 08 July 2021 comprehension questions. This study
Accepted: 16 March 2022
Published: 30 May 2022 underscores the importance of the accord
DOI: https://doi.org/10.47836/pjssh.30.2.04 between the strategies taught and those
E-mail addresses: utilized by L2 readers. Students’ awareness
[email protected] (Wen Min Sieo)
[email protected] (Mansour Amini)
plays a key role in filling in this gap.
[email protected] (Kam Fong Lee)
[email protected] (Siew Eng Lin) Keywords: Inferential, literal, reading, reorganization,
[email protected] (Jing Ni Tee)
[email protected] (Ching Sin Siau) strategies
* Corresponding author

ISSN: 0128-7702
e-ISSN: 2231-8534 © Universiti Putra Malaysia Press
 Wen Min Sieo, Mansour Amini, Kam Fong Lee, Siew Eng Lin, Jing Ni Tee and Ching Sin Siau

INTRODUCTION essential when reading in a second language

Critical skills (such as connecting between (Yapp et al., 2021) or as a foreign language
sources of information and detailed meanings (Kazemi, 2021). However, language learners
and applying reading understanding to often struggle to master reading (Trudell,
reflect the social context) are vital requisites 2019). By recruiting suitable strategies
for reading comprehension. Reading for answering comprehension questions,
comprehension as part of EFL follows an students become autonomous readers
active mode of learning (Othman & Zare, (Cadena, 2006; James et al., 2018). Reading
2013). Reading comprehension skills are strategies are significant in assisting students
acquired through various comprehension in planning and monitoring their reading
strategies (Amini & Amini, 2017; Amini et comprehension. Language learners could use
al., 2016), modes of operation for achieving reading strategies to develop more strategic
an end, or plans for regulating information and flexible reading comprehension skills
(Brown, 2007). Readers develop the skill (Scheid, 1993).
to read and identify the intention of the English language is a second language in
text as their comprehension skill gradually Malaysia (Omar, 2011) and is a compulsory
advances (Amini & Amini, 2012; Yovanoff subject at all levels of education, including
et al., 2005). higher education in the country (Pillai &
The procedure of selecting reading Ong, 2018). Consequently, international
strategies can be generally summarized as students from non-English speaking
(a) ascertaining the reading objective; (b) countries who come to study in Malaysia
activating and applying one’s knowledge are mostly required to take up an English
based on the content of the text; (c) proficiency program at the tertiary level.
depicting the relationship between words, Moreover, English is the teaching medium
sentences, and paragraphs comprising the for several subjects from primary school
envisioning of information and creation of through university (Thirusanku & Melor,
representations; (d) exploring the nature 2012).
and form of different genres of texts; (e) However, there are many differences
discovering the theme and main ideas of a amongst university students entering their
text; (f) questioning and answering one’s first year of studying in the four macro-skills
uncertainty; (g) planning, monitoring and of reading, speaking, writing, and listening
rectifying one’s reading behavior; (h) (Humphreys et al., 2012). This scenario
assessing a text for its worth; (i) reflecting aggravates L2 students who are less exposed
on the reading processes that have been to reading academic materials in English
carried out and their outcomes (Pressley, prior to entering tertiary education (Hermida,
2000). 2009; Yapp et al., 2021). Consequently,
Higher education institutions perceived educators may face a critical situation
reading as the most fundamental academic when many foreign language learners
skill (Noor, 2011; Sattar & Salehi, 2014). It is struggle to read. Furthermore, teachers

PREPRINT
 Reading Strategies in English

and students may not have an adequate • How do students and teachers use
acquaintance with reading strategies different strategies in answering and
(Cadena, 2006). Thus, if this issue is not teaching reading comprehension
addressed adequately, the learners’ academic questions?
performance can be affected negatively. This study investigates reading
Previous studies, such as Humphreys et al. strategies in teaching and learning English
(2012), found that reading ability is strongly as a foreign language in the Malaysian EFL
interrelated to academic success. In addition, context. The following section summarizes
there is a gap in the literature about the studies conducted on reading strategies in
international students’ understanding and EFL and Malaysian contexts.
application of EFL reading comprehension
strategies in Malaysia. Reading is often LITERATURE REVIEW
taught directly and systematically using Reading comprehension strategies are
strategies. Reading strategies for young intentional plans and procedures that
learners could enhance learners’ familiarity proficient readers apply to comprehend the
with the aim, lexicon, comprehension text (Maine, 2013). Readers should equip
skills, and textual structures (Ng et al., themselves with multiple reading strategies
2020). Likewise, explicit instruction seems to comprehend a text effectively (Sohail,
necessary in teaching reading strategies to 2016). The complexity of the reading
expand phonemic and phonic knowledge, process is often associated with grasping the
spelling, and comprehension skills. Such intended meaning of the text (Yapp et al.,
explicit teaching could improve learners’ 2021). In addition, the process often involves
fluency, automaticity, and understanding “internal thinking” (Paris & Flukes, 2005).
(Javed et al., 2016). Since reading Reading strategies are thus employed by the
strategies are flexible tools designed to readers who deliberately attempt to monitor
facilitate text comprehension (Javed et and alter their initiatives in decoding the text,
al., 2016), comparing the strategies used comprehending words, and understanding
by instructors and learners could provide the meaning of the text (Afflerbach et al.,
an in-depth understanding enhancing 2008). These strategies enable readers
reading comprehension skills. Therefore, to identify the text’s main point from
the following research questions were the explicit and implicit information and
formulated based on the objectives of the synthesize the content effectively (Harvey &
study: Goudvis, 2007). Readers who read critically
• What strategies are utilized by can draw conclusions, find solutions,
students and teachers to answer form justifications, compare concepts,
and teach reading comprehension hypothesize, and evaluate different ideas and
questions in the Malaysian EFL circumstances (Tran, 2015). It demonstrates
context? how skilled readers are generally more

PREPRINT
 Wen Min Sieo, Mansour Amini, Kam Fong Lee, Siew Eng Lin, Jing Ni Tee and Ching Sin Siau

aware of employing reading strategies Cheng, 2004) and metacognitive strategies

effectively (L. Zhang, 2017). (Thongwichit & Buripakdi, 2021; M. Zhang,
Although reading is an important skill 2013) in enhancing students’ academic
for students (Trudell, 2019), it is especially reading performance. In addition, several
challenging for non-native English learners, studies (e.g., Phakiti, 2003; Sun, 2011; L.
given their distinctive linguistic, educational, Zhang, 2017) found that students adopted
sociocultural, and institutional backgrounds both strategies simultaneously in reading
(L. Zhang, 2017). The reading strategies comprehension.
are not merely about personal preferences Shah et al. (2007) investigated reading
but also conventional norms (Alghail strategies by Malaysian ESL students and
& Mahfoodh, 2016). Learners need to suggested that teachers should employ
compromise between the dimensions of the more reading strategies in teaching English.
depth and breadth of information by reading Similarly, Nordin et al. (2013) reported
the text (Wallace & Wray, 2021). using different reading strategies by
The common reading strategies include undergraduate ESL learners in Malaysia and
skimming (searching for key information), suggested effective use of reading strategies
scanning (glance for an overview), and to improve the reading proficiency level
intensive reading (a thorough read-through of low-proficient ESL learners. In another
of the text; Wallace & Wray, 2021). study, Mahmud (2008) examined the role of
Examining the effectiveness of teaching reading strategies used by ESL teachers in
collaborative reading strategies, Amjadi facilitating teaching and learning of reading
and Talebi (2021) found that students and found that the dominant strategies were
adopted various reading strategies, such as activating students’ background knowledge
previewing, scanning, skimming, guessing, and scanning for specific details. Finally,
grasping the central idea, and looking for using a quasi-experimental design, Choo
a synonym for unfamiliar words while et al. (2011) examined the efficacy of the
reading. reciprocal teaching strategies in teaching
Reading is largely facilitated by the reading comprehension among low achievers
interplay of cognitive and metacognitive form-sixth Malaysian students. The study
strategies used by the readers (Thongwichit reported that employing the strategies of
& Buripakdi, 2021). According to L. Zhang predicting, questioning, summarizing, and
(2017), metacognitive strategies consist of positively clarifying affected the learners’
planning, assessment, and monitoring. On comprehension.
the other hand, cognitive strategies entail It can be concluded that the previous
the strategies of progression, identification studies have mostly emphasized that reading
of the main point, integration of ideas, and comprehension strategies are deliberate
making inferences. Previous studies have plans and procedures that competent
supported the effectiveness of employing readers employ to decipher meaning.
cognitive strategies (N. J. Anderson & Moreover, examining how teachers apply

PREPRINT
 Reading Strategies in English

strategies can help students answer reading 2015) in collecting quantitative and
comprehension questions. Students who are qualitative data.
taught comprehension strategies become
more vigilant and engaged readers who Participants
oversee their reading comprehension. The study was conducted at UCSI University
The present study adapted Barrett’s Malaysia, Centre for Languages. At UCSI
(1972) Taxonomy. This taxonomy deals University, international students must
particularly with reading comprehension. complete ten levels of English for Tertiary
Barrett classified reading comprehension Education with at least a band score of 5.5
strategies into five levels of comprehension: in IELTS to enroll in the degree program.
1) literal, 2) reorganization, 3) inference, Therefore, the first group of participants
4) evaluation, and 5) appreciation. The in the study was students at the Centre for
levels of comprehension related to language Languages, UCSI University, Malaysia.
learning skills are literal, reorganization, Census sampling was used in this study to
and inferential comprehension. Evaluation recruit the maximum number of available
and appreciation levels are mostly used in EFL teachers and students at the center.
teaching literature. The first three levels Ninety-one out of 123 questionnaires were
are further divided into sub-categories, i.e., returned to the researchers (dropout rate =
reading comprehension strategies (Barrett, 26%).
1972). The present study adapted the three Table 1 shows the demographic
main types from Barrett’s taxonomy, i.e., information of students. The participants
literal, inferential, and organizational, were 35 female and 56 male students. The
to identify the reading comprehension age groups of students were divided into
strategies and how the EFL students and four categories: Below 18, 18 to 21, 22 to 25,
teachers used them. In the present study, and above 25 years old. Most of the students
EFL refers to the English language taught were from the second age group, i.e., 18 to
to international (non-Malaysian) students 21 years old (% 63.7). Students’ English
in Malaysia who intend to enter a degree proficiency levels were categorized into: 1
program. to 3, 5 to 8, and 9 to 10. More than half of the
The following section summarizes the students were from levels 5 to 8 (% 53.8).
design, participants, and the details of the Students mainly were from Arab-speaking
data collection and analysis procedure in countries, China and Indonesia.
the present study. The students had completed a reading
lesson prior to answering the questionnaire.
The student’s responses to the reading
METHODOLOGY
strategies were tallied with the teachers’
Study Design interviews and the classroom observations.
The current study enjoyed an explanatory As for the student’s proficiency level,
sequential mixed-method design (Creswell, the higher number represents the higher level

PREPRINT
 Wen Min Sieo, Mansour Amini, Kam Fong Lee, Siew Eng Lin, Jing Ni Tee and Ching Sin Siau

Table 1 Five teachers were purposively selected

Demographic characteristics of students
as respondents for the interview and their
Cumulative classroom observation. All teachers were
Frequency Percentage
percentage
female. They were aged 25 and above.
Gender
Female 35 38.5 38.5
Two teachers had less than seven years of
Male 56 61.5 100.0 experience, and three teachers had between
Total 91 100.0 8-15 years of teaching experience.
Age
< 18 4 4.4 4.4 Instruments
18–21 58 63.7 68.1
A questionnaire consisting of 32 questions
22–25 18 19.8 87.9
> 25 11 12.1 100.0 with a five-point Likert scale indicating
Total 91 100.0 ‘Never,’ ‘Rarely,’ ‘Sometimes,’ ‘Regularly,’
English proficiency level and ‘Often’ and three open-ended questions
1–4 5 5.5 5.5 were constructed based on Barrett’s (1972)
5–8 49 53.8 59.3 taxonomy of reading comprehension. The
9–10 37 40.7 100.0
32 multiple-choice and the three open-ended
Total 91 100.0
questions were categorized according to the
three main types of reading comprehension
of proficiency recorded in the placement
questions, i.e., literal comprehension,
test. Students are given a placement test
reo rg an i zat i o n co m p reh en s i o n an d
to identify their level at the language
inferential comprehension questions. Three
center. Therefore, not all students start their
items were categorized under demographics,
English course at level 1. It means that
nine items were categorized under literal
they were given different reading materials
comprehension, and ten items each under
appropriate for their level of proficiency.
reorganization comprehension, and
For example, students from level 10 can
inferential comprehension questions. For the
read more complex texts than students
internal consistency reliability coefficient,
from level 3. Therefore, only the former
Cronbach’s alpha was measured (α =.71),
students were taught reading strategies in
indicating an acceptable level of reliability
this example. Because of students’ different
(M. Alavi et al., 2020; Pallant, 2007). The
levels of English language proficiency,
procedure of validating the questionnaire
teachers might adopt or teach different
started with the face validation by having the
reading comprehension strategies to suit
test items validated by three content experts
the students’ proficiency levels. Hence, this
in the field. First, the irrelevant or confusing
might explain why the teachers do not use
statements were eliminated (Ahadzadeh et
certain strategies.
al., 2018). Then a pilot study was conducted
The second group of participants in
on 13 students, and the irrelevant questions
the study was teachers at the Centre for
were dropped based on the feedback from
Languages at UCSI University, Malaysia.

PREPRINT
 Reading Strategies in English

the respondents and the three experts. The the validation of instruments. Another
development of a valid content instrument constraint was conducting the pilot study
is usually achieved by a rational analysis of on a sufficient number of students in a
the instrument by raters (experts) familiar short time. Moreover, since the population,
with the construct of interest or experts i.e., the total number of students at the
on the research subject (M. Alavi et al., Center for Languages, UCSI University
2018; Sangoseni et al., 2013). Moreover, was not large enough for a questionnaire-
the convergent validity yielded similar based survey study, we decided to go for
results for the same concept measured the maximum number of participants from
(Smith, 2005), i.e., via the open-ended that population for the survey and opted
questionnaires, expert feedback, and pilot for a mixed methods research design to
test in the present study. use the qualitative findings after collecting
Observations were conducted using an and analyzing the quantitative data. This
observation checklist adapted from Javed merging and comparison of quantitative and
et al. (2016), originally designed based on qualitative data provided more valid results
Barrett’s Taxonomy. The checklist had 46 (Creswell, 2015).
items with three main categories: literal
comprehension strategies, reorganization Procedure
comprehension strategies, and inferential
All participants were briefed on the purpose
comprehension strategies. There were 11
of the study. Informed consent was obtained
strategies under literal comprehension,
from the participants before data collection.
19 strategies under reorganization
The students were from different levels,
comprehension, and 16 strategies under
which means they had been exposed to
inferential comprehension.
different reading materials and reading
Finally, interview questions were used
strategies during their study. It could affect
to explore the teachers’ experiences and
the consistency and trustworthiness of the
their elaborations and interpretations of
quantitative results. To address this issue,
the experiences (Rubin & Rubin, 2012).
we tried to give some additional reading
The questions were then validated for their
materials to the students from different
content by three experts in reading and
assessment. levels. We briefed them for about 30 minutes
There were several limitations and about reading strategies before distributing
constraints in validating the instruments. questionnaires.
The main challenge was finding qualified As for the qualitative phase of the study,
content experts willing to validate the structured interviews and ‘unobtrusive
instruments. It was tackled by obtaining a observations’ were conducted to explore
list of 10 experts and approaching them via the use of strategies by the teachers.
email and academic platforms. Eventually, Unfortunately, single classroom observation
three experts agreed to contribute to was insufficient, considering the long

PREPRINT
 Wen Min Sieo, Mansour Amini, Kam Fong Lee, Siew Eng Lin, Jing Ni Tee and Ching Sin Siau

checklist with 46 items. Therefore, the same analyzed using descriptive statistics (M.
teachers and classes were observed twice Alavi et al., 2017). Then, the data were
for about 90 minutes. Nevertheless, we tabulated according to the three main types
attempted to obtain an accurate view of the of literal, reorganization, and inferential
use of strategies by the five teachers with comprehension questions.
these considerations. Answers to the open-ended questions
The observation allowed us to analyze on the questionnaire from the students
the participants’ negligence or the reasons were coded and thematically analyzed. As
which contributed to this neglect (Kawulich, similar codes were grouped to form the main
2012). Furthermore, observations facilitated idea, themes were analyzed (Vaismoradi
further documenting what was important et al., 2015; Yap & Amini, 2020). As for
to the respondents, discovering the time the qualitative data from the teachers, the
spent on a certain task, observing non- emerging themes were categorized based
verbal cues, and ascertaining their social on the strategies adopted by teachers in
circle (Schmuck, 1997). Observations also teaching reading comprehension. Member
helped us verify unmentioned information checking and rereading were processed with
in the interviews (Marshall & Rossman, the teachers to check if the explanations
1995). Two observations were carried out were accurate and representative of the
for each teacher right after the survey was qualitative data. The reasons why particular
themes were more significant in the data and
administered, and the reading strategies
the selection process were reported. Finally,
that teachers applied during the lesson were
possible reasons for the connection between
taken down.
the qualitative and quantitative data were
After the observations were conducted,
explained. The results of the data analysis
face-to-face, in-depth interviews were
were then summarized and presented. The
conducted with each teacher. Follow-up
following section provides the findings of
questions (probing) were used after the
the present study in terms of the strategies
initial questions were asked to extract
used and not used by students and teachers,
further information on their responses. The
as well as how the strategies were utilized
interviews were recorded with the consent
differently by the instructors and students.
of the participants. The interviews were
then converted into transcripts which were
RESULTS
verbatim records of the respondents to the
questions asked by the interviewer. Strategies Used and Not Used by
Students and Teachers

Data Analysis The findings indicated differences between

the strategies used by the students and
The IBM SPSS software (v. 25) was used
teachers in answering and teaching reading
to process the quantitative data. First,
comprehension questions. The strategies that
the frequencies and percentages were
both students and teachers used to answer

PREPRINT
 Reading Strategies in English

and teach literal comprehension questions Students’ Use of Comprehension

were “read the questions first before reading Strategies When Answering Reading
Comprehension Questions
the passage,” “identify the keywords from
the questions,” “find the topic sentence,” Use of Literal Comprehension Strategies.
and “identify the keywords from the The results show that students practiced
passage,” “scan the text for a specific piece different strategies when answering the three
of information,” “locate supporting details types of literal comprehension questions,
from the keywords,” “distinguish between reorganization comprehension questions,
important and unimportant supporting and inferential comprehension questions
details” and “go through the text (skim) to (see Figure 1 and Table 2).
find out the main ideas/ concepts.” The students “read the questions first
Moreover, students applied “read the before reading the passage” when answering
signpost questions” and “locate answers literal comprehension questions. Based on
to the signpost questions through obvious the scale and open-ended questions, the
information from the text.” Finally, based on most frequent strategy used by students
the interviews, the teachers applied “guess,” “often” was reading the questions first
“understand the format of the questions,” as before reading the passage. This finding
well as “getting feedback from students.” is consistent with Oxford (1990) and Z.
On the other hand, the new strategy Zhang (1992), who concluded that reading
by students was “preview the text.” The with a purpose would remarkably enhance
strategies applied by the teachers were test results and efficiency. The results
counted as “used” when the teacher applied indicated that the students would prefer to
them during teaching reading. Therefore, all “identify the keywords from the questions”
strategies were employed by the teachers when answering literal and inferential
during reading comprehension class. comprehension questions. This strategy

30

25
Number of students

20

15

10

0
Read the Skim Identify Locate Scan
questions first keywords from supporting
the passage details
Strategies

Figure 1. Strategies used by students to answer questions clearly stated in the text

PREPRINT
 Wen Min Sieo, Mansour Amini, Kam Fong Lee, Siew Eng Lin, Jing Ni Tee and Ching Sin Siau

Table 2
Literal comprehension strategies used by students

No. Item Never Rarely Sometimes Regularly Often Mean SD

n* n* n* n* n*
1 I read the questions first before 10 (11) 2 (2.2) 27 (29.7) 16 (17.6) 36 3.73 1.31
reading the passage. (39.6)
2 I can identify the keywords 3 (3.3) 6 (6.6) 49 (53.8) 17 (18.7) 16 3.41 0.97
from the questions. (17.6)
3 I look for the topic sentence 2 (2.2) 5 (5.5) 37 (40.7) 22 (24.2) 25 3.69 1.01
when reading a text. (27.5)
4 I can identify the keywords 5 (5.5) 16 39 (42.9) 20 (22) 11 3.18 1.04
from the passage. (17.6) (12.1)
5 I can locate the supporting 4 (4.4) 10 (11) 45 (49.5) 18 (19.8) 14 3.31 1.01
details from the keywords. (15.4)
6 I can differentiate between 8 (8.8) 17 39 (42.9) 12 (13.2) 15 3.10 1.16
important and unimportant (18.7) (15.4)
supporting details.
7 I go through the text in detail 2 (2.2) 20 (22) 39 (42.9) 19 (20.9) 11 3.19 0.99
to find out the main ideas/ (12.1)
concepts.
8 I read the signpost questions 38 26 17 (18.7) 6 (6.6) 4 (4.4) 2.03 1.13
(questions indicated beside (41.8) (28.6)
the text.
9 I can locate answers to the 32 35 14 (15.4) 6 (6.6) 4 (4.4) 2.07 1.08
signpost questions through (35.2) (38.5)
obvious information from the
text.
10 Average Mean and SD 3.08 1.08
*Number of respondents. Values in parentheses indicate percentage.

was found in both scale and open-ended (2021) study, which reported that students
question responses, with a high percentage apply to skim during the reading test to grasp
of students using it when answering literal the central idea due to time limitations. This
comprehension questions. strategy also improved students’ results,
“Locate supporting details from the especially reading comprehension (Amjadi
keywords” was another strategy employed & Talebi, 2021).
by the students to answer literal and The students did not “preview the text”
reorganization comprehension questions. when answering literal comprehension
This finding was also supported by Lestari questions. Although this strategy was
et al. (2015), where students were “fairly” explicitly taught to students, the reason for
able to locate supporting details in a text. not “previewing” could be due to the time
“Go through the text thoroughly (skim) to factor and trying to answer the questions
find out the main ideas/concepts” was also straight away. However, Amjadi and Talebi
one of the strategies applied by the students. (2021) reported that students employed the
This finding aligns with Amjadi and Talebi’s preview strategy in answering the reading

PREPRINT
 Reading Strategies in English

test. This difference could be due to the can be seen in the study conducted by Sani
purpose, research designs, and methods used et al. (2011) on reading motivation and
in the present study. While the study was reading strategies used by undergraduates
merely eliciting the types of strategies used in Universiti Teknologi MARA. They
by the students, Amjadi and Talebi (2021) found that skimming the text to find out the
administered a reading test that required cause and effect is useful in strengthening
multiple strategies to deal with the reading students’ reading ability.
test effectively. Students did not “read the signpost
questions (questions indicated beside the
Use of Reorganization Comprehension text)” when answering reorganization
Strategies. The results indicated that the comprehension questions. The findings also
students “go through the text thoroughly revealed that the students did not “analyze
to find out the cause and effect” when the information to find the answers.” It
answering reorganization comprehension could be because the textbook that they were
questions (see Figure 2 and Table 3). A small using did not provide signpost questions,
number of students applied this strategy. It is or signpost questions were not part of their
in line with Torgesen (2002), i.e., identifying IELTS exam that they were supposed to take
main ideas is one of the difficulties students at the end of the proficiency course. Thus,
face when reading comprehension. they possibly found it irrelevant to their
Next, students “combine information studies. This finding is in line with the study
clearly stated from more than a single by Javed et al. (2016), which concluded that
source” when answering reorganization some reading strategies, such as reading
comprehension questions. The students the signpost questions, locating answers to
used this strategy “often” based on data the signpost questions, and analyzing the
from the scale analysis. The same result information to find the answers were not

20
Number of students

15

10

0
Reorganize Combine info Reread for Skim Scan Locate
information from sources supporting keywords
details
Strategies

Figure 2. Strategies used by students to answer questions related to keywords and chronological events

PREPRINT
 Wen Min Sieo, Mansour Amini, Kam Fong Lee, Siew Eng Lin, Jing Ni Tee and Ching Sin Siau

Table 3
Reorganization comprehension strategies used by students

No. Item Never Rarely Sometimes Regularly Often Mean SD

n* n* n* n* n*
1. I read the questions first before 2 8 (8.8) 21 (23.1) 26 (28.6) 28 3.77 1.06
reading the passage. (2.2) (30.8)
2. I can identify the key concept from 7 (7.7) 11 22 (24.2) 37 (40.7) 14 3.44 1.13
the questions. (12.1) (15.4)
3. I summarise the text to identify 6 (6.6) 20 (22) 38 (41.8) 17 (18.7) 10 3.05 1.06
supporting details. (11)
4. I go through the text thoroughly to 4 (4.4) 18 38 (41.8) 19 (20.9) 12 3.19 1.04
find out the cause and effect. (19.8) (13.2)
5. I can connect the previous 5 (5.5) 11 36 (39.6) 27 (29.7) 12 3.33 1.03
knowledge with learned (12.1) (13.2)
knowledge.
6. I can locate supporting details 6 (6.6) 22 13 (14.3) 38 (41.8) 12 3.31 1.17
from the keywords. (24.2) (13.2)
7. I can understand the information 12 17 43 (47.3) 12 (13.2) 7 2.84 1.07
that is not clearly stated in the text. (13.2) (18.7) (7.7)
8. I can combine information clearly 1 (1.1) 16 16 (17.6) 18 (19.8) 40 3.88 1.19
stated from more than a single (17.6) (44)
source.
9. I can combine information clearly 5 (5.5) 12 36 (39.6) 25 (27.5) 13 3.32 1.05
stated in the text to support the (13.2) (14.3)
main points.
10. I can formulate the correct answer 6 (6.6) 24 33 (36.3) 20 (22) 8 3.00 1.05
to the questions. (26.4) (8.8)
Average Mean and SD 3.31 1.09
*Number of respondents. Values in parentheses indicate percentage.

employed ideally by the teachers. Thus, it students did not “distinguish between
is no surprise that the students are unaware important and unimportant supporting
of these strategies. details” when answering reorganization
Students did not “identify difficult/new comprehension questions. Shah et al. (2007)
words to figure out their meanings with the reported that students never recognize their
contextual clues.” They did not “identify deprivation of concentration, split sentences
the key concepts from the passage” when into parts, and paraphrase a sentence. He
answering reorganization comprehension concluded that the students are probably
questions. This result was also found by ignorant about those strategies or are unsure
S. S. Alavi et al. (2015), Susanto (2017), of their application method.
and Yang (2002). It can be said that most
college students are still facing difficulties in Use of Inferential Comprehension
reading English textbooks due to insufficient Strategies. Figure 3 and Table 4 provide an
vocabulary knowledge. Moreover, the overview of the strategies used by students

PREPRINT
 Reading Strategies in English

to answer questions that are not stated Another identified strategy was “relate
in the text. Students “make assumptions the text to personal experience.” They
about the meaning of unfamiliar words” applied this strategy when answering
when answering inferential comprehension inferential comprehension questions.
questions. Students used this strategy However, this finding is inconsistent with
“often” based on the analysis of the scale Shah et al. (2007). They reported that
and open-ended questions. This finding students never related the sentences to
aligns with Amjadi and Talebi’s (2021) personal experience. A possible justification
finding. They reported that students make could be that the students were probably
predictions about the meaning of a word and aware or sure of how to use the strategy.
the text’s content. One possible explanation The students did not “identify the
for this might be that students are required contextual clues from the text” when
to accomplish and submit their reading tasks answering inferential comprehension
within a short time. Grasping the meaning of questions. Furthermore, they neither “try
the text within a “limited” time could be a to understand the writer’s intention” nor
major challenge for them, considering their “reformulate the assumptions” when
overall language proficiency. answering inferential comprehension
Students “reread the text to draw questions. Comprehension is the link between
conclusion” when answering inferential prior knowledge and new information.
comprehension questions. The analysis Thus, the readers who did not employ such
revealed that most of the students employed strategies as using contextual clues, revising
this strategy. This finding is in line with predictions, and understanding the purpose
the findings of Shah et al. (2007). They of the text are considered as reading but not
concluded that students often reread the text comprehending a text (R. C. Anderson &
to find relations among ideas. Pearson, 1984; Pearson & Johnson, 1978).

35

30
Number of students

25

20

15

10

0 Reread for Guess Keywords from Previous Personal

conclusion passage knowledge experience
Strategies

Figure 3. Strategies used by students to answer questions that are not stated in the text

PREPRINT
 Wen Min Sieo, Mansour Amini, Kam Fong Lee, Siew Eng Lin, Jing Ni Tee and Ching Sin Siau

Table 4
Inferential comprehension strategies used by students

No. Item Never Rarely Sometimes Regularly Often Mean SD

n* n* n* n* n*
1. I apply my previous knowledge 4 14 40 (44) 19 (20.9) 14 3.27 1.04
about the current topic when (4.4) (15.4) (15.4)
reading a text.
2. I read the questions first before 7 4 (4.4) 10 (11) 23 (25.3) 47 4.09 1.23
reading the passage. (7.7) (51.6)
3. I can identify the clue words from 4 15 24 (26.4) 34 (37.4) 14 3.43 1.08
the questions. (4.4) (16.5) (15.4)
4. I reread the text to conclude. 2 7 (7.7) 34 (37.4) 37 (40.7) 11 3.53 0.89
(2.2) (12.1)
5. I make assumptions about the 3 7 (7.7) 10 (11) 34 (37.4) 37 4.04 1.06
meaning of unfamiliar words. (3.3) (40.7)
6. I can justify the acceptance or 4 16 38 (41.8) 16 (17.6) 17 3.29 1.10
rejection. (4.4) (17.6) (18.7)
7. I can relate the text to personal 11 13 22 (24.2) 31 (34.1) 14 3.26 1.24
experiences. (12.1) (14.3) (15.4)
8. I can make multiple 5 22 38 (41.8) 15 (16.5) 11 3.05 1.06
interpretations of the conclusion. (5.5) (24.2) (12.1)
9. I can recollect information from 1 15 35 (38.5) 23 (25.3) 17 3.44 1.01
memory. (1.1) (16.5) (18.7)
10. I can conclude the text. 4 12 40 (44) 21 (23.1) 14 3.32 1.03
(4.4) (13.2) (15.4)
Average Mean and SD 3.47 1.07
*Number of respondents. Values in parentheses indicate percentage.

Teachers’ Use of Strategies When the students to anticipate what may be the
Teaching Reading Comprehension answer and predict logically.
Use of Literal Comprehension Strategies. The analysis revealed that teachers
The results indicated that the teachers “identify the keywords from the questions”
applied multiple strategies when teaching when teaching literal comprehension
literal comprehension questions, i.e., the questions. This strategy was applied by
pedagogical strategies used by teachers in all the teachers when they were observed.
teaching reading comprehension (see Figure The teachers believed that many keywords
4). Based on the analysis of the observations, could be identified from the questions,
all the teachers “read the questions first which would later help the students locate
before reading the passage” when teaching answers. Furthermore, the teachers used
literal and reorganization comprehension “identify keywords from the passage” to
questions during their lesson. According teach literal comprehension questions. One
to Palinscar and Brown (1984), teachers of the teachers mentioned she would ask
who read the questions first would allow the students questions to make them look at

PREPRINT
 Reading Strategies in English

100
Percentage (%)

80
60
40
20
0
t xt ds s
fir
s
te ns ce ge inf
o
or ail as
tio en sa c et ide
on th
e
ue
s
en
t s
cifi ey
w
p.
d
esti w q s pa e k p ain
qu vie m pic ro
m sp ro
m su rm
ad Pr
e ro to sf n
sf of fo
sf te rd ca
ail ce kim
Re rd ca wo
S
et n
y wo Lo y .d rta S
Ke Ke p po
Sup Im
Strategies

Figure 4. Strategies used and not used by teachers to teach literal comprehension questions
Note. Blue=Used; Red=Not used

certain words in the passage. Besides that, the signpost questions” and “locate answers
the teachers preferred to “locate supporting to the signpost questions through obvious
details from the keywords” when teaching information from the text.” Again, it could
literal and reorganization comprehension be due to the lack of signpost questions in
questions. The teachers applied this strategy the textbook. When teaching reorganization
when teaching literal comprehension comprehension questions, the teachers
questions based on the interview. Javed et al. did not use “read the signpost questions
(2016) stated that teachers employ various (questions indicated beside the text)” either.
reading strategies, particularly identifying
keywords from the questions, identifying Use of Reorganization Comprehension
keywords from the passage, and locating Strategies. The findings revealed that the
supporting details from the keywords. The teachers used the strategy of “identify the
present study’s findings also showed that key concepts from the questions” when
teachers “scan the text for a specific piece of teaching reorganization comprehension and
information” and “skim to find out the main “summarize the text to identify supporting
ideas or concepts” when teaching literal details” (see Figure 5). For example, one
comprehension questions. One teacher teacher mentioned that she would give
encouraged students to scan “because it the students a brief idea of what the text
saved their time.” Skimming and scanning is about answering the questions. It could
are common effective strategies that teachers imply that teachers should be encouraged to
can utilize to enhance students’ reading identify the main ideas and support details
comprehension (Wallace & Wray, 2021). to help students become proficient readers.
When teaching literal comprehension Another strategy was using “skim to find
questions, the teachers did not use “read out the cause and effect” when teaching

PREPRINT
 Wen Min Sieo, Mansour Amini, Kam Fong Lee, Siew Eng Lin, Jing Ni Tee and Ching Sin Siau

100
Percentage (%)

80

60

40

20

0
st xt ns st ils ge ds ct ct ge er er rds ils ext nfo es nfo er
fir te tio po eta sa or effe effe led sw nsw wo eta e t it i urc it i nsw
on
ti he
t es
n
ig . d s
a lt w d d w a n a ey p.d th plic so plic t a
es iew qu d s pp m p cu an an kno for for k up ad ex om ec rec
q u v m e a s u r o i ffi s e s e s e e m s r e e fr e r
d Pre fro R for ts f fy d au au iou lys niz fro of Re th fo bin co
ea t s p t i c c v a a i l s e d i n t e
R ep is
e
ce en fo
r r
fo t pr
e An rg ta nc ta
n e om la
nc ar on Id im an c eo de rta rs bin C mu
o m c k e R . p o e r
y
c
um Key S Sc nn p
up Im nd Com Fo
e S o S U
K C
Strategies

Figure 5. Strategies used and not used by teachers to teach reorganization comprehension questions
Note. Blue=Used; Red=Not used

reorganization comprehension questions. knowledge, and relevant words are pre-

This finding is consistent with Sani et al.’s taught (National Institute of Child Health
(2011) findings as they concluded that and Human Development, 2000).
skimming the text to find out the cause- The teachers applied the strategy of
and-effect relation should be employed by “understanding the information not clearly
teachers as a practical strategy. stated in the text.” When the teachers were
The data analysis indicated that teachers observed, they tried to ask students questions
“connect previous knowledge with the about the text’s implicit information. Javed
learned information.” For example, one et al. (2016) emphasized that teachers
of the teachers mentioned that she would frequently employ this strategy when
expose students to similar examples first teaching reorganization comprehension
before giving them questions so that they questions.
can connect what they have learned to the
new information. This finding is identical Use of Inferential Comprehension
to Johnson (1983) and Pardo (2004). They Strategies. The teachers used “identify
found that teachers activate students’ prior the contextual clues from the text” when
knowledge when teaching reorganization teaching inferential comprehension
comprehension questions. It should be noted questions (see Figure 6). Observation
that reading comprehension ability can be results also showed that the teachers applied
enhanced when the reader has relevant prior this strategy. Ahmad et al. (2018) reported

PREPRINT
 Reading Strategies in English

100

80
Percentage (%)

60

40

20

0
e

es t
ns

xt

er

on

ns

on

ns

ab ory

fro xt

xt
rs

on
dg

sio

io

nc
te

te
f
io

tio
fi

as enti

s
in

tt
m
i

ie

a
le

lu

pt

t
s

m
e

a
e

ou
e
o
n

r
ow

o w onc

j
um

aw info pret
fro

pe

m
t

re
tio

in
qu

e
su
kn

ex

nc om
dg

ar
es

’s

or

ss
se

n
c

er
m

on

sio
sh
r
w

le
qu
us

a
ite

l
clu

Re form ce

fr
nt
ro

a
a

i
ac ake

on

lu
aw lus
vio

to

i
wr
f

dr

n
ad

at

le
al

nc
s

Re pta
kn

rs

s
ul
rd
re

tip
to

M
nd
Re

tu

nt

co
pe

ct
wo

ce
tp

co
ex

or

ul
d

e
ta

lle
a

ud

m
i

o
s

nt

rs
pr
re
ue

co
t
Te

st
Co

de

e
te

Dr
Re

ify
e

Re
Cl

ak

Dr
Us

la

de
Un

st

M
Ju

ui
G

Strategies

Figure 6. Strategies used and not used by the teachers to teach inferential comprehension questions
Note. Blue=Used; Red=Not used

that identifying contextual clues from the strategy. Teachers also “asked students to
text by teachers could help students obtain conclude the text” when teaching inferential
the correct answer. Teachers should adopt comprehension questions. For example,
the strategies according to the student’s one teacher stated that she would ask the
proficiency level. students to share their personal experiences
Furthermore, it was found that teachers regarding a certain topic before she started
“make assumptions” about the meaning the lesson.
in the text when they teach inferential Analysis of the interviews indicated
comprehension questions. One of the that teachers “guide the students to share
teachers mentioned that she uses “a lot the reasoning regarding predictions.” The
of guessing when it comes to teaching teachers asked the students to share their
inferential comprehension questions.” opinions regarding certain questions using
Celce-Murcia (2001) and Bakhtiarvand this strategy. This finding is supported
(2006) confirmed that guessing by referring by Choo et al. (2011), which suggested
to the contextual clues and paraphrasing that teaching questioning and predicting
is an effective strategy to teach reading strategies drew positive outcomes for
comprehension. students. Effective questioning is a
Teachers’ use of “relating the text to constructive strategy for teaching reading
personal experience,” whereby the text comprehension (Primas, 2010).
would be linked to the students’ personal The teachers did not use the “reformulate
life by teachers, was another identified the assumptions” strategy when teaching

PREPRINT
 Wen Min Sieo, Mansour Amini, Kam Fong Lee, Siew Eng Lin, Jing Ni Tee and Ching Sin Siau

inferential comprehension questions. On the Students and teachers applied a few

contrary, Gersten et al. (2001) emphasized strategies when answering and teaching
that developing teachers’ assumptions literal comprehension questions. It could
helps improve students’ understanding of mean that students and teachers should
a text when teachers have relevant prior be introduced to more reading strategies.
knowledge. Teachers applied more strategies when
It can be concluded that teachers teaching than the number of strategies used
frequently relate the text to personal by students to answer literal comprehension
experience and make inferences about a questions. Such difference could imply that
passage, as supported by Javed et al. (2016). the students were unsure of the application
The following section discusses the findings method of the strategies taught by the
and relates them to previous studies on teachers.
reading strategies. The discussion section The strategies that the teachers can only
summarizes the theoretical and practical use are “identify the contextual clues from
implications of the study. the text,” “try to understand the writer’s
intention,” “guide the students to share the
DISCUSSION reasoning regarding predictions,” and “ask
The results indicated that students and the students to conclude the text,” and “use
teachers used slightly different strategies. of synonyms.”
This finding could imply that ongoing When answering and teaching
(formative) assessments should accompany reorganization comprehension questions,
comprehension strategies. In addition, the students and teachers employed
teachers should observe the application of reading comprehension strategies more
reading comprehension strategies among frequently. Most students and teachers found
students and their ability to comprehend reorganization comprehension questions
a text. more feasible than literal and inferential
The students used “read the signpost questions.
questions” and “locate answers to the For answering reorganization
signpost questions through explicit comprehension questions, the teachers
information from the text. However, none applied almost twice as many as the number
of the teachers used these two strategies. of strategies applied by the students. It
The teachers applied six strategies that could generally mean the strategies used by
students did not consider: “previewing the teachers were not considered as important,
text,” “providing examples,” “guessing,” effective, or feasible by the students.
“understanding the format of the questions,” Possibly the teachers did not notice the
“continuous assessment,” and “getting students’ negligence of the strategies.
feedback from students.” Therefore, teachers should consider
students’ weaknesses and adapt appropriate

PREPRINT
 Reading Strategies in English

teaching methods according to the student’s This study offers insights for students
assessment of their level of understanding, and teachers to strengthen their knowledge
needs, and expectations. Assisting students and practice a repertoire of strategies,
in utilizing various reading strategies and especially those overlooked by students
catering to them with a repertoire of reading and teachers. In addition, students are
materials could be useful for students and recommended to evaluate their preferences
teachers. for using strategies throughout the reading
About half of the strategies used by comprehension course.
teachers to teach inferential comprehension
questions were employed by students CONCLUSION
for answering inferential comprehension
Reading comprehension strategies play
questions. Teachers are recommended
an important role in an EFL classroom
to take the initiative to identify students’
for teachers and students. This study was
favorable strategies and apply effective
conducted to identify the use of strategies by
strategies selectively when teaching
students and teachers based on three types
inferential comprehension questions. The
of reading comprehension questions. The
awareness about the neglected strategies
analysis revealed that students occasionally
could be raised, and the changes in students’
employ a limited number of strategies to
reading comprehension skills could be
answer different reading comprehension
recorded.
questions. On the other hand, teachers
None of the students applied “preview
apply more diverse strategies when teaching
the text,” “identify the key concepts from the
different reading comprehension strategies.
questions,” “identify difficult/new words to
For example, using illustrations, guessing,
figure out their meanings with the contextual
and synonyms for unknown words could
clues,” “analyse the information to find the
strengthen students’ reading comprehension
answers,” or “distinguish between important
(Amjadi & Talebi, 2021).
and unimportant supporting details,” “relate
Furthermore, the analysis showed
the text to personal experience,” “read other
that identifying the main idea and making
materials to gain background knowledge,”
inferences could improve students’ reading
“use visual aids,” and “share knowledge
among students.” performance. This finding was also
Moreover, some strategies were supported by N. J. Anderson and Cheng
overlooked by students and teachers (2004).
when answering and teaching reading Another possible factor within the
comprehension questions. It suggests that reading strategies was the role of lexical
the strategies were probably unknown to knowledge. Vocabulary was identified as
the students and teachers, for example, a challenge for EFL students. This finding
when they were too new for the students was supported by Amini et al. (2018)
and teachers. and Thongwichit and Buripakdi (2021).

PREPRINT
 Wen Min Sieo, Mansour Amini, Kam Fong Lee, Siew Eng Lin, Jing Ni Tee and Ching Sin Siau

Ineffective use of reading comprehension Limitations and Recommendations

strategies by teachers (Torgesen, 2002), the The present study has a few limitations that
students’ deficiency of linguistic knowledge, should be highlighted. One limitation was the
or motivational issues to comprehend small number of the participants (teachers
English, in general, were other factors and students) from only one institution,
confirmed by the present study’s findings. making the findings less generalizable
Although previewing and pre-learning despite the efforts to obtain a maximum
were not identified in the present study, possible size. Furthermore, future studies
other studies found that they produce may consider exploring gender differences
mental representations before reading a in teaching and learning reading strategies
text (Burns et al., 2004). Previewing also among ESL learners to understand the
contributes to enhanced comprehension practicality of exploring this dimension of
(Cates et al., 2006) as they activate prior the efficacy of reading strategies. Also, as
knowledge. It could be because students this study only investigated teaching and
tend to employ fewer cognitive strategies in learning of reading strategies employing a
reading comprehension (Cates et al., 2006). mixed-method design, future researchers
are encouraged to conduct an experimental
Implications design to gauge a more holistic overview
Practically, curriculum developers and of the effectiveness of teaching or learning
syllabus designers can utilize the findings multiple reading strategies in the ESL/EFL
of this study in developing more effective contexts. It will also explore the differences
programs and course content for EFL in reading strategies used in various contexts.
learners. The neglected useful strategies need Besides, this study de-emphasized the
to be practiced more often by the students. types of the reading materials. Therefore,
The difference in the use of reorganization the study did not draw any conclusion in
and inferential comprehension strategies by determining the actual reading strategies
students and teachers could indicate their employed by the teachers and students in
different perceptions about the advantages other reading contexts. In terms of sampling
of the strategies or simply negligence. the materials, other researchers could also
Additional materials to use reorganization focus on specific types of reading materials
and inferential comprehension strategies only, such as research articles and reference
and monitoring the use of strategies by both books for informative texts, to construct a
students and teachers could enhance students’ more congruent outlook concerning reading
reading proficiency. The administrators are strategies.
recommended to organize more training
for teachers and students to improve their ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
knowledge of reading comprehension skills The authors wish to express their heartfelt
and strategies. gratitude to the UCSI University Malaysia

PREPRINT
 Reading Strategies in English

for the grant under PSIF Grant (PROJ-IN- 2(5), 25-41. https://doi.org/10.18415/ijmmu.
Fossla-008). v2i5.24

Alghail, A. A. A., & Mahfoodh, O. H. A. (2016).

REFERENCES Academic reading difficulties encountered by
international graduate students in a Malaysian
Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P. D., & Paris, S. G. (2008).
university. Issues in Educational Research, 26(3),
Clarifying differences between reading skills and
369-386.
reading strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61(5),
363-373. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.61.5.1 Amini, M., Alavi, S. S., & Zahabi, A. (2018).
The efficacy of procedural and declarative
Ahadzadeh, A. S., Rafik-Galea, S., Alavi, M., &
learning strategies on EFL students’ oral
Amini, M. (2018). Relationship between body
proficiency. The Journal of Applied Linguistics
mass index, body image, and fear of negative
and Applied Literature: Dynamics and
evaluation: Moderating role of self-esteem.
Advances, 4(1), 45-61. https://doi.org/10.22049/
Health Psychology Open, 1-8. https://doi.
JALDA.2018.26092.1036
org/10.1177/2055102918774251
Amini, D., & Amini, M. (2012). Teacher and learner
Ahmad, S. N., Muhammad, A. M., & Kasim, A. A. M.
in humanistic language teaching. Language in
(2018). Contextual clues vocabulary strategies
India, 12(7), 100-112. https://doi.org/10.22049/
choice among business management students.
JALDA.2014.13515
English Language Teaching, 11(4), 107-116.
https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v11n4p107 Amini, D., & Amini, M. (2017). Integrating emotional,
motivational and cognitive engagement to create
Alavi, M., Latif, A. A., Ninggal, M. T., Mustaffa, M.
state of flow in language learning tasks. Journal
S., & Amini, M. (2020). Family functioning
of Language and Communication, 4(1), 27-41.
and attachment among young adults in western
https://journalfbmk.upm.edu.my/ojs3/index.php/
and non-western societies. The Journal of
jlc/article/view/45
Psychology, 154(5), 346-366. https://doi.org/10
.1080/00223980.2020.1754153 Amini, D., Ayari, S., & Amini, M. (2016). The
effect of flow state on EFL learners’ vocabulary
Alavi, M., Mehrinezhad, S. A., Amini, M., &
learning. International Journal of Multicultural
Singh, M. K. P. (2017). Family functioning
and Multireligious Understanding, 3(5), 9-11.
and trait emotional intelligence among youth.
https://doi.org/10.18415/ijmmu.v3i5.54
Health Psychology Open, 4(2), 1-5. https://doi.
org/10.1177/2055102917748461 Amjadi, A., & Talebi, S. H. (2021). Extending the
efficacy of Collaborative Strategic Reading
Alavi, M., Seng, J. H., Mustafa, M. S., Ninggal, M.
(CSR) in teaching reading strategies: A socio-
T., Amini, M., & Latif, A. A. (2018). Attention,
cultural emotional perspective. Language
impulsiveness, and gender in academic
Teaching Research, Advance online publication.
achievement among typically developing
https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211011501
children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 126(1),
1-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031512518809163 Anderson, N. J., & Cheng, X. (2004). Exploring
second language reading: Issues and strategies.
Alavi, S. S., Foo, T. C. V., & Amini, M. (2015).
Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
L2 learners’ proficiency development through
noticing feedback. International Journal of Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-
Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding, theoretic view of basic processes in reading

PREPRINT
 Wen Min Sieo, Mansour Amini, Kam Fong Lee, Siew Eng Lin, Jing Ni Tee and Ching Sin Siau

comprehension. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. Choo, T. O. L., Eng, T. K., & Ahmad, N. (2011).
L. Kamil & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of Effects of reciprocal teaching strategies on
reading research (pp. 255-291). Longman. reading comprehension. Reading Matrix: An
International Online Journal, 11(2). 140-149.
Bakhtiarvand, M. (2006). The effect of contextual
guessing strategy on vocabulary recognition Creswell, J. W. (2015). Educational research:
in reading comprehension texts of Iranian Planning, conducting, and evaluating
EFL Junior High school students. The quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.).
International Journal of Language Learning Merrill.
and Applied Linguistics World, 2(2), 76-
Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., & Baker,
83. https://www.academia.edu/2424707/
S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension
T h e _ E ff e c t _ o f _ C o n t e x t u a l _ G u e s s i n g _
strategies to children with learning disabilities.
Strategy_On_Vocabulary_Recognition_in_
Review of Educational Research, 71(2), 279-320.
Reading_Comprehension_texts_of_Iranian_
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543071002279
EFLJunior_High_school_students
Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2007). Strategies that work:
Barrett, T. C. (1972). Taxonomy of reading
Teaching comprehension for understanding and
comprehension: Reading 360 Monograph.
engagement. Stenhouse Publishers.
Ginn & Co.
Hermida, D. (2009). The importance of teaching
Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning
academic reading skills in first-year university
and teaching. Pearson Education.
courses. SSRN E-Library. http://doi.org/10.2139/
Burns, M. K., Dean, V. J., & Foley, S. (2004). Pre- ssrn.1419247
teaching unknown keywords with incremental
Humphreys, P., Haugh, M., Fenton-Smith, B.,
rehearsal to improve reading fluency and
Lobo, A., Michael, R., & Walkinshaw, I.
comprehension with children identified as reading
(2012). Tracking international students’
disabled. Journal of School Psychology, 42, 303-
English proficiency over the first semester of
314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2004.04.003
undergraduate study. IELTS Research Reports.
Cadena, C. M. Z. (2006). Effectiveness of reading 1. 1-41. https://www.ielts.org/-/media/research-
strategies and improving reading comprehension reports/ielts_online_rr_2012-1.ashx
in young ESL readers [Unpublished master’s
James, O. E. & Tan J. Y. S. & Amini, M. (2018).
thesis]. Universidad Del Norte.
Translation strategies in the Chinese and
Cates, G. L., Thomason, K., Havey, M., & McCormick, Indonesian translations of English Christmas
C. (2006). A preliminary investigation of the carols. The Journal of Social Sciences Research,
effects of reading fluency interventions on Special Issue 6, 1097-1104.
comprehension: Using brief experimental
Javed, M., Eng, L. S., Mohamed, A. R., & Ismail, S.
analysis to select reading interventions. Journal
A. M. M. (2016). Identifying reading strategies
of Applied School Psychology, 23, 133-154.
to teach literal, reorganisation and inferential
https://doi.org/10.1300/J370v23n01_07
comprehension questions to ESL students.
Celce-Murcia, M. (2001). Teaching English as a Journal of Asia TEFL, 13(3), 204-220. http://doi.
second or foreign language (3rd ed.). Heinle & org/10.18823/asiatefl.2016.13.3.3.204
Heinle Publisher.

PREPRINT
 Reading Strategies in English

Johnson, P. (1983). Reading comprehension Noor, N. M. (2011). Reading habits and preferences
assessment: A cognitive basis. International of EFL post graduates: A case study. Indonesian
Reading Association. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-9.

Kawulich, B. B. (2012). Doing social research: A Nordin, N. M., Rashid, S. M., Zubir, S. I. S. S., &
global context. McGraw Hill. Sadjirin, R. (2013). Differences in reading
strategies: How ESL learners really read.
Kazemi, M. M. (2021). The effects of reading
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90,
for pleasure on EFL students’reading
468-477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
comprehension.  The Online Journal of New
sbspro.2013.07.116
Horizons in Education, 11(3), 125-129. https://
www.tojned.net/journals/tojned/articles/v11i03/ Omar, A. H. (2011). Post-imperial English in
v11i03-05.pdf Malaysia. In J. A. Fishman, A. W. Conrad & A.
Rubal-Lopez, (Eds.), Post-Imperial English (pp.
Lestari, S., Rahayu, P., & Kasyulita E. (2015).
513-534). De Gruyter Mouton.
An analysis of students’ skill on identifying
supporting details in reading text at fourth Othman, M., & Zare, P. (2013). The relationship
semester students of English study program in between reading comprehension and reading
University of Pasir Pengaraian. University of strategy use among Malaysian ESL learners.
Pasir Pengaraian. International Journal of Humanities and Social
Science, 3(13), 187-193. http://www.ijhssnet.
Mahmud. T. (2008). Teaching reading strategies
com/journal/index/1944
used by ESL teachers that facilitate teaching
and learning reading [Bachelor dissertation]. Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies:
Universiti Malaysia Sarawak. What every teacher should know. Heinle &
Heinle Publishers.
Maine, F. (2013). How children talk together to make
meaning from texts: A dialogic perspective on Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal
reading comprehension strategies. Literacy, teaching of comprehension-fostering and
47(3), 150-156. https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12010 monitoring activities. Cognition and
Instruction, 1, 117-175. https://doi.org/10.1207/
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1995). Designing
s1532690xci0102_1
qualitative research. Sage.
Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manual—A step
National Institute of Child Health and Human
by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for
Development. (2000). Report of the National
windows (3rd ed.). Open University Press.
Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003117407
evidence-based assessment of the scientific
research literature on reading and its Pardo, L. S. (2004). What every teacher needs to
implications for reading instruction: Reports of know about comprehension. The Reading
the subgroups. U.S. Government Printing Office. Teacher, 58(3), 272-280. https://doi.org/10.1598/
RT.58.3.5
Ng, S. H., Lin, S. E., Lee, C., & Amini, M. (2020).
ESL reading assessment tool for pre-schoolers Paris, S. G., & Flukes, J. (2005). Assessing
in Malaysia. Berjaya Journal of Services and children’s metacognition about strategic
Management, 14, 3-16. reading. In S. E. Israel, C. C. Block, K. L.
Bauserman & K. Kinnucan Welsh (Eds.),

PREPRINT
 Wen Min Sieo, Mansour Amini, Kam Fong Lee, Siew Eng Lin, Jing Ni Tee and Ching Sin Siau

Metacognition in literacy learning: Theory, Sciences and Practice, 11, 1-12. https://doi.
assessment, instruction, and professional org/10.46743/1540-580x/2013.1439
development (pp. 121-139). Erlbaum. https://doi.
Sattar, S., & Salehi, H. (2014). The role of teaching
org/10.4324/9781410613301-17
reading strategies in enhancing reading
Pearson, P. D., & Johnson, D. (1978). Teaching comprehension. International Journal of Current
reading comprehension. Holt, Rinehart & Life Sciences, 4(11), 10922-10928.
Winston.
Scheid, K. (1993). Helping Students become strategic
Phakiti, A. (2003). A closer look at gender differences learners: Guidelines for teaching. Brookline
in strategy use in L2 reading. Language Learning, Books.
53(4), 649-702. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-
Schmuck, R. (1997). Practical action research for
9922.2003.00239.x
change. IRI/Skylight Training and Publishing.
Pillai, S., & Ong, L. T. (2018). English (es) in
Shah, P. M., Yusof, A., Khuzaimi, A. M. H., Bataineh,
Malaysia. Asian Englishes, 20(2), 147-157.
K. B., Ong, M. N., & Ahmad, A. M., & Haron,
https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2018.1459073
A. I. (2007). Malaysian EFL students’ use of
Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension reading strategies. The International Journal
instruction be the instruction of? In M. L. Kamil, of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 2(4), 269-
P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), 276. https://doi.org/10.18848/1833-1882/CGP/
Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3; pp. 545- v02i04/52360
563). Erlbaum.
Smith, G. T. (2005). On construct validity: Issues
Primas. (2010). Asking questions that encourage of method and measurement. Psychological
inquiry-based learning. Centre for Research Assessment, 17(4), 396-408. https://doi.
in Mathematics Education, University of org/10.1037/1040-3590.17.4.396
Nottingham. https://primas-project.eu/wp-
Sohail, S. (2016). Academic reading strategies used by
content/uploads/sites/323/2017/10/primas_
Leeds Metropolitan University graduates: A case
pd_4_guide.pdf
study. Journal of Education and Educational
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative Development, 2(2), 115-133.
interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.)
Sun, L. (2011). Investigating Chinese English
Sage.
majors’ use of reading strategies: A study on
Sani, B., Wan Chik, M. N., Awg Nik, Y., & Raslee, N. the relationship between reading strategies and
A. (2011). The reading motivation and reading reading achievements [Doctoral dissertation,
strategies used by undergraduates in University Kristianstad University, Sweden]. http://www.
Teknologi MARA Dungun, Terengganu. Journal diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:430259/
of Language Teaching and Research, 2(1), 32-39. FULLTEXT01.pdf
https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.2.1.32-39
Susanto, A. (2017). The teaching of vocabulary: A
Sangoseni, O., Hellman, M., & Hill, C. (2013). perspective. Jurnal KATA, 1(2), 182-191.
Development and validation of a questionnaire to
Thirusanku, J., & Melor, M. Y. (2012). The many
assess the effect of online learning on behaviors,
faces of Malaysian English. International
attitude and clinical practices of physical
Scholarly Research Network, 1-14. https://doi.
therapists in United States regarding of evidence-
org/10.5402/2012/138928
based practice. Internet Journal of Allied Health

PREPRINT
 Reading Strategies in English

Thongwichit, N., & Buripakdi, A. (2021). A 14(1), 18-42. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/

glimpse of metacognitive reading strategy viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.531.1855&rep
instruction through modeling technique in ESP =rep1&type=pdf
class at the tertiary level. LEARN Journal:
Yap, S. C. W., & Amini, M. (2020). Secondary world
Language Education and Acquisition Research
infrastructures and Storyworld of The Little
Network, 14(1), 118-145.
Prince novella. Pertanika Journal of Social
Torgesen, J. K. (2002). The prevention of reading Science and Humanities, 28(1), 175-189.
difficulties. Journal of School Psychology,
Yapp, D., de Graaff, R., & van den Bergh, H. (2021).
40(1), 7-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-
Effects of reading strategy instruction in English
4405(01)00092-9
as a second language on students’ academic
Tran, T. (2015). Critical reading: A guidebook reading comprehension. Language Teaching
for postgraduate students. Hue University Research. Advance online publication. https://
Publishing House. https://www.researchgate. doi.org/10.1177/1362168820985236
net/publication/316888090_Critical_
Yovanoff, P., Duesbery, L., Alonzo, J., & Tindal,
Reading_A_Guidebook_for_Postgraduate_
G. (2005). Grade-level invariance of a
Students#fullTextFileContent
theoretical causal structure predicting reading
Trudell, B. (2019). Reading in the classroom and comprehension with vocabulary and oral reading
society: An examination of “reading culture” fluency. Educational Measurement: Issues and
in African contexts. International Review Practice, 24(3), 4-12. https://doi.org/10.1111/
of Education, 65(3), 427-442. https://doi. j.1745-3992.2005.00014.x
org/10.1007/s11159-019-09780-7
Zhang, L. (2017). Metacognitive and cognitive
Vaismoradi, M., Jones, J., Turunen, H., & Snelgrove, strategy use in reading comprehension. Springer.
S. (2015). Theme development in qualitative
Zhang, M. (2013). Supporting middle school
content analysis and thematic analysis. Journal
students’ online reading of scientific resources:
of Nursing Education and Practice, 6(5), 100-
Moving beyond cursory, fragmented, and
110. https://doi.org/10.5430/jnep.v6n5p100
opportunistic reading. Journal of Computer
Wallace, M., & Wray, A. (2021). Critical reading and Assisted Learning, 29(2), 138-152. https://doi.
writing for postgraduates. Sage. org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00478.x

Yang, Y. (2002). Reassessing readers’ comprehension Zhang, Z. (1992). English reading strategies.
monitoring. Reading in a Foreign Language, Transportation Press.

PREPRINT