An investigation into english reading strategies employed by ethnic minority junior first-Year english major students at tay bac university

the current thesis study tries to bridge by using O'Malley and Chamot's scheme to classify the reading strategies used by readers among the TBU students. As mentioned earlier, this scheme was developed by O'Malley and Chamot's (1990) based on their several descriptive studies on learning strategies in four English skills. It can reflect the actual reading process as it contains both top-down and bottom-up strategies within its categories. The top-down strategies included in this scheme are elaboration (relating prior knowledge to new information), transfer (using previous linguistic knowledge or prior skills to assist comprehension), inferencing (using the available information to guess meaning of new items and predict outcomes) and summarizing (making mental or oral summary of new information gained through reading). The bottom-up strategies are grouping (classifying words, terminology or concept according to their attributes or meanings), deduction (applying rules to understand the second language), recombination (constructing a meaningful sentence or larger language sequence by combing known elements in a new way), key word methods (remember a new word in the second language) and translation (using the first language as a base for understanding the second language). In addition, there are metacognitive strategies that involve executive processes in planning for reading, monitoring comprehension and evaluating how well one has achieved a reading activity. Therefore, this classification framework is quite comprehensive and applicable to examining reading strategies. In this study, the TBU subjects' reading strategies are classified according to this scheme. 2.6. Summary This chapter has reviewed related theories on learning strategies in general and reading strategies in particular. Some of the main points can be summarized as follows. Concerning the definition of learning strategies, there have been quite different points of views by different scholars. Some scholars see learning strategies as behaviors while others view them as thoughts and behaviors. However, it is generally agreed that O'Malley and Chamot's definition is the most convincing as it covers the significant features of learning strategies: both mental and behavioral (both observable and unobservable) and individual characterized. The classification of learning strategies is also a complex work done by a considerable number of researchers. Based on descriptive studies on learning strategies of ESL and EFL learners, Rubin (1975), Naiman et al (1978), Wenden (1983), Oxford (1990), O'Malley et al (1985a and 1985b) and O'Malley and Chamot (1990) have proposed useful schemes for classification of learning strategies. Of these schemes, O'Malley and Chamot's framework has been most useful and generally accepted to date. In O'Malley and Chamot's framework, three majors types including metacognotive, cognitive and social/affective strategies are distinguished in accordance with the information processing model, on which their research is based. Such a detailed and sufficient classification learning strategies is presented in table 2.1 and is going to be adopted for the investigation of reading strategies for this study. The second part of this chapter covers the important theories related to reading and an overview of studies on reading strategies of successful and unsuccessful learners. These theorists describe a process that moves both bottom-up and top-down, depending on the type of text as well as on the reader's background knowledge, language proficiency level, motivation, strategy use and cultural shaped beliefs about reading. In comparison to the bottom-up and top-down models, interactive models of reading provide a more accurate conceptualization of reading performance and describe exactly what really happens during the reading process. According to this interactive model, good reading can only result from a constant interaction between the bottom-up and the top-down processes. In other words, good readers are those who can "efficiently integrate" both of these processes. This view is now shared by a majority of researchers in a numerous number of studies on reading. The last part of the chapter discusses reading strategies, the focus of the thesis, in details. Most of the researchers have concluded that there are indeed differences between effective and ineffective readers in terms of strategy used. The more proficient readers often employed both top-down and bottom-up strategies but appear to use more top-down ones. A detailed description of reading strategies employed by effective readers is provided so as to serve as the basic for any research into reading strategies. The next chapter is the study on reading strategies used by the TBU students, which has been conducted in the light of the theories discussed above. CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY The previous chapter has provided a necessary theoretical background for the present study. This chapter presents the methodology used for the data collection and analysis in the study. It starts with a description of the participants and the setting of the study. It also provides information about the research method. It then describes data collection instruments and analysis procedures of the study. 3.1. The context of the study 3.1.1. Participants There are 54 students at the age of 17 to 22, of them 32 students are from different Ethnic Minority Groups including 14 students from Tay Group, 10 from Nung Group, 5 are from Muong Group, and the rest are from Thai Group. The participants in this study were among these 32 ethnic minority students. Of them there were 26 girls and 6 boys who mostly came from the countryside. Most of these students were 19 years old (16 students), 11 were 20 years old and only 5 students were 21 years old . All of them spent between 4-10 years learning English in which 20 students have been learning English for 8 years. Their proficiency levels were generally reported to be between elementary and pre-intermediate. Table 3.1. summarizes the background information about the participants such as genders, ages, number of years learning English and their self-assessed English proficiency. Total number of participants Gender Age (years) Number of years learning English English proficiency Male Female 19 20 21 4 7 8 10 Elementary Pre-intermediate 32 6 26 16 11 5 7 3 20 2 21 11 Table 3.1. Background information about the participants These junior students are now studying the second semester of the course majoring in English. The course for these students lasts from the first year to the third year of training at the university. They have to learn some professional subjects in English to become teachers of English after three years studying English at the university. Therefore, English in general and reading skills in particular play a very important role in their study at the university. There are some reasons for choosing these freshermen as the participants of this study. Firstly, the training quality of these students is always of great concern to both the authority and teachers at TBU. The findings of the study would provide essential information for teachers to improve TBU students' reading proficiency and hence contribute to enhancing the overall training quality of these students. Secondly, they are suitable participants for the study because they have already finished the first semester in English reading so their English reading proficiency is of great concern for me to conduct the study on reading strategies. In addition, as these students are ones who I have been directly teaching, it is feasible for me to have favourable conditions to carry out all the steps of the research process. 3.1.2. Setting of the study The present study was conducted from mid April to mid June when the participants were in the second semester of the first year. Up to the time of the study, they had been studying English at the university for nearly a year with 3 reading periods per week (nearly 90 periods). They had been learning some books including Practise your reading skills by Hoang Hai Anh-Quach Ngoc Anh-Le Thi Minh Hien, Cause and Effect by Partricia Ackert and some other materials adapted to suit their proficiency levels such as New Headway Pre-intermediate. All of the textbooks and materials aim to provide these students with basic knowledge of English. At the time of the study, they were learning Cause and Effect by Partricia Ackert as a textbook for the first-year junior English majored students at Tay Bac University to study reading skills. While using this book we found that the book matches the objectives of the learning program and students levels of proficiency because the book is for students who know the basic structures of English and have a vocabulary of about 2000 English words. The 25 lessons are in 5 units. The exercises provide practice with vocabulary, comprehension, inference, main idea, cause and effect, context clues, scanning, sequence, summarizing, word forms, articles, prepositions, two-word verbs, compound words, connecting words, and noun substitutes. The topics in the five units are quite interesting and learners-friendly. The book is also easy to study. However, most of tasks are designed in the same way and in the same order so that teachers have to redesign the tasks and the activities quite often to match students interests. Besides, teachers meet difficulties when they use this book because there is no teachers' book to support them and provide appropriate guidance to them. In addition, students' levels of proficiency are not equal. Among these students, 2 have spent 10 years learning English, 20 of them have learnt English for 8 years and the rest ones have learnt English for 4 to 7 years in both local high schools and at the university. In this term (15 weeks) they have to take part in 45 periods equal to 3 modules. Each lesson is often divided into 3 periods so that we have to choose 15 lessons among the five units to study in classroom and the rest is for home reading. During this time, I was the only teacher who directly taught the learner-participants and therefore, quite understand their strengths and weaknesses in English reading. This is a great advantage for me to conduct this study. 3.2. Research method This study is to be conducted as a descriptive study that utilized quantitative approach. The quantitative analysis is employed through the process of data collected from tests and a written questionnaire delivered to TBU first-year junior English-majored readers to examine their reading strategy use. 3.3. Instruments of data collection The present study utilized quantitative method including tests and survey questionnaires to collect data on the reading strategies employed by TBU students. First, the two reading comprehension tests were given to the subjects in order to identify their English reading proficiency levels. Then, the questionnaires were administered to find out their reading strategies. 3.3.1. Tests A test is a procedure to collect data on subjects' ability or knowledge of certain disciplines. In second language acquisition research, tests are generally used to collect data about the subjects' ability and knowledge of the second language in areas such as vocabulary, grammar, reading, metalinguistic awareness and general proficiency. As Vu and Do (2004) stated, all good tests should have five main characteristics including validity, reliability, discrimination, practicality and backwash in order to accurately assess the learners' ability. In this study, two reading comprehension tests taken from De thi tuyen sinh vao Dai hoc Hue- 2001 and De 4 tuyen sinh vao Dai hoc va Cao dang nam 2002 were given to the subjects in two periods. The reason for selecting them as the reading tests for my study is that both of these can be regarded as standardized tests. They were developed by experts and therefore considered to be well constructed. When deciding the tests for my students, I had to take into consideration their reading abilities. At the time of the study their English proficiency was at elementary level. Therefore, I only chose short and quite simple reading tasks which were more appropriate for my students. Based on the analysis of the test scores from these two tests, the students levels of proficiency were identified. 3.3.2. Questionnaires Questionnaires are printed forms for data collection, which include questions or statements to which the subject is expected to respond, often anonymously. Questions can range from those that ask for yes-no responses or indication of frequency (e.g. 'never', 'seldom', 'sometime', 'often' and 'always') to less structured questions asking respondents to describe or discuss language learning behavior in detail. It is believed that surveys are the most commonly used descriptive method in educational research. There are a few advantages to use survey questionnaire as a research method. "The main attraction of questionnaires is their unprecedented efficiency in terms of (a) researcher time, (b) researcher effort, and (c) financial resources." (Zoltan Dornyei, 2003: 9). In the history of learning strategy research, "the most frequently used method for identifying students' learning strategies is through questionnaires." (Chamot, 2005). As Selinger and Shohany (1989) pointed out, questionnaires have the following advantages. Firstly, they do not take so much time to administer as other procedures. Secondly, since the same questionnaire is given to all subjects at the same time, the data are more uniform, standard and accurate. Lastly, questionnaires can be easily quantified because multiple choice questions are used. Because of these advantages, I have used questionnaires as a main data collection method in my study. The questionnaire used in this study consists of two main parts. The first part required the subjects to give information about their names, ages, genders, the number of years learning English, their English certificates (if available) and their self-evaluated English proficiency levels. The second part contains 17 questions mainly about the participants' reading strategies and some questions about their views on reading comprehension. 3.4. Data collection procedures The data collection procedures commenced in mid April and ended in mid June 2008. All of the procedures involved the following steps. Step1: In April, the subjects were given a reading comprehension test one a week. This work is done in two weeks to get the test scores from two different reading comprehension tests. The test scores were collected and then analyzed to identify students' level of reading proficiency. Based on the results, effective and ineffective readers were classified. Step 2: In early May, a questionnaire that included 20 questions was developed and given to another group of 20 students for a trial purposes. Some ambiguous questions were identified and adjusted to improve the questionnaire. Then the questionnaires were administered to the TBU subjects to find out their reading strategies in general. After the data is analyzed and discussed, some conclusions will be drawn, and some suggestions will be raised in the thesis. All of these work was completed in June. 3.5. Data analysis One set of data was obtained from the data collection. The data set comprised 32 questionnaires answered by those readers who were identified based on the test scores. The following section reports the coding and analysis of the data set. 3.5.1. Coding of questionnaire data The questionnaire included 20 questions, in which 17 items were reserved for asking about the subjects' reading strategies. These reading strategies were coded into three main types of strategies including metacognitive, cognitive and social/affective strategies. Following is the reading strategies coding table used for the questionnaire. Strategy Definition Items included in the questionnaire A. Metacognitive strategies Advance organizers Previewing the main ideas and concepts of the material to be learnt, often by skimming the text for the organizing principle. Item 4: I preview the headings and illustrations to get the main idea of the text before reading. Item 8: I skim through the text to understand main ideas of the texts before focusing on details. Directed attention Deciding in advance to attend in general to a learning task and ignore irrelevant distracters Item 5: Before reading, I read the comprehension questions to decide important information that should be noted. Item 13: I skip the words that are not essential for comprehending the texts while reading. Selective attention Deciding in advance to attend to specific aspects of input, often by scanning for key word, concepts and/or linguistic markers. Item 10: I scan for key words or concepts that are closely related to the questions in order to answer them. Item 6: I choose reading strategies according to my reading purposes. Self-evaluation Checking the outcomes of one's own language against a standard after it has been completed. Item 19: I check if my answers to the questions are correct or wrong after reading. B. Cognitive strategies Resourcing Using target language reference materials such as dictionaries, encyclopedias, or textbooks. Item 11: I use a dictionary to look up words when encountering a new word while reading Grouping Classifying words, terminology or concepts according to their attributes or meaning. Item 16: I can determine the function of a word in a sentence while reading. Transfer Using previous linguistic knowledge or prior skills to assist comprehension or production. Item 14: I use my knowledge of grammar or vocabulary to help understand difficult parts in reading texts. Elaboration Relating new information to prior knowledge, relating different parts of new information to each other, or making meaningful personal associations with the new information. Item 7: I relate my prior knowledge to the information of the text I am reading. Inferencing Using available information to guess meanings of new items, predict outcomes or fill in missing information. Item 12: I guess meanings of new words using available information. Note taking Writing down key words or concepts in abbreviated verbal, graphic or numerical form while listening or reading. Item 18: I write down key words while reading. Translation Using the first language as a base for understanding and/or producing the second language. Item 9: I translate the reading text into Vietnamese to understand it more clearly. Summarizing Making a mental, oral or written summary of new information gained through listening or reading. Item 20: I mentally summarize the main ideas of the text after reading. C. Social/Affective strategies Question for clarification Eliciting from a teacher or peer additional explanation, rephrasing, examples or verification. Item 15: I ask my teacher or my friends to explain difficult parts in reading texts. Cooperation Working together with one or more peers to solve a problem, pool information, check a learning task, model a language activity, or get feedback on oral or written performance. Item 17: I work together with my classmate or friend to solve a problem in a reading text. Table 3.4. Questionnaire: Reading strategy coding categories adapted from O'Malley and Chamot (1990: 119) 3.5.2. Analytical procedures Based on the test scores and the answers from the questionnaire, the subjects' level of proficiency were identified. The analysis of these responses was carried out as follows. First, the responses to each question were coding using a scale (ranging from 1 to 5). For example, the first question asks about the importance of reading comprehension to the students' purpose for learning English and give 5 options A, B, C, D and E. Option A (not important at all) was coded 1, option B (not important) was coded 2, option C (a little important ) was coded 3, option D (important) was coded 4 and option E (very important) was coded 5. The same coding procedure was used for the rest of the questionnaire. The scores on the scale for the first three questions in the questionnaire were interpreted as follows. - From 1 to 1.4 Not important at all. - From 1.5 to 2.4 Not important. - From 2.5 to 3.4 A little important. - From 3.5 to 4.4 Important. - From 4.5 to 5 Very important. The same interpretations were applied to the rest of questions on the reading strategies. - From 1 to 1.4 Never. - From 1.5 to 2.4 Rarely. - From 2.5 to 3.4 Sometimes. - From 3.5 to 4.4 Often. - From 4.5 to 5 Very often. The questions in the questionnaire will be analyzed one by one in their strategies use by counting its percent. 3.6. Summary This chapter reported the methodology employed for the study in terms of data collection methods, participants, data collection procedures and data analysis. Firstly, detailed description of participants and settings of the study was given, Then, data collection instruments including tests and questionnaires were presented in details. Finally, coding scheme employed for data analysis was given and statistical procedures were explained. CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION The previous chapter presented the methodology used for the study including the participants, the data collection instruments and data analysis procedures. By using such instruments as tests and questionnaires, the study collected two sets of data. The first set of data identified the participants' levels of proficiency and the other is on their reading strategies. This chapter reports findings gained from the analysis of data elicited from each instrument. 4.1. Tests As mentioned earlier, the greatest advantage of tests is that they can measure the students' language proficiency. For this thesis, tests were used to identified the students' reading ability. Moreover, the test scores were marked objectively as they were multiple choice questions and blank-filling. Therefore, the test results were concise and objective enough to serve the purpose of the study. The major weakness of using test scores to assess students' language proficiency is that they do not always reflect students' real ability as some students may not perform well in tests due to some psychological factors such as nervousness or anxiety. To deal with this problem, I used not only one but two different reading tasks with different types of questions ranging from multiple choice to blank-filling. The students were regularly assessed through two reading tasks administered in two weeks. This helped avoid wrong identification of students' level of proficiency. Tables 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 summarizes the participants' test scores. Test scores 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Number of participants 0 0 1 4 8 9 6 2 2 0 0 Tables 4.1.1. Students' test scores of the multiple choice test Test scores 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Number of participants 0 0 0 3 13 12 2 1 1 0 0 Tables 4.1.2. Students' test scores of the blank -filling test Based on the test scores, the subjects' proficiency levels were generally reported to be between elementary and pre-intermediate. 4.2. Questionnaires The questionnaire that was administered 32 TBU readers including 20 questions, of them, the first three questions asked students' personal opinions on the importance of reading comprehension, their evaluation on their own reading speeds, their ideas of some factors affecting reading comprehension. The rest of 17 questions investigated their reading strategies. 4.2.1. TBU reader's attitudes to reading comprehension Question 1 asks the TBU readers how importance reading comprehension is to their purpose for English learning by circling the most suitable option. Options Numbers of participants Percent A. Not important at all. 0 0% B. Not important. 0 0% C. A little important. 0 0% D. Important. 9 28.125% E. Very important 23 71.875% Table 4.2.1. Analysis of questionnaires (percent): Question 1 The answers to question 1 show that most of the informants thought that reading comprehension was important to their purpose for learning English. As shown in table 4.2.1, there was no significant difference among the readers' attitude to reading comprehension. 71.875% (23 students) thought that reading comprehension is very important and 28.125% (9 students) found reading comprehension important to them Question 2 asks the TBU readers how they evaluate their reading speeds by circling the most suitable option. Options Frequency Numbers of participants Percent A. Very slow 5 15.625% B. Slow 16 50% C. Average 10 31.25% D. Fast 1 3.125% E. Very fast 0 0% Table 4.2.2. Analysis of questionnaires (percent): Question 2 The data in table 4.2.2 indicates a significant difference among the readers' responses to the second question. In this question, the readers generally evaluated their speeds as very slow (15.625%), slow (50%) and average (31.25%) whereas only one student judged his speed as fast (3.125%). Question 3 asks the TBU readers to indicate the importance of the following factors to reading comprehension by circling the most suitable option. A. have a large English vocabulary 1 2 3 4 5 B. have a good knowledge of English grammar 1 2 3 4 5 C. have a good knowledge of the reading topic 1 2 3 4 5 D. have effective reading strategies 1 2 3 4 5 1. very important 2. important 3. a little important 4. not important 5. not important at all Frequency Participants 1 2 3 4 5 N P N P N P N P N P A 6 18.75% 3 9.375% B 3 9.375% 4 12.5% C 2 6.25% 3 9.375% 2 6.25% 2 6.25% D 3 9.375% 4 12.5% Table 4.2.3. Analysis of questionnaires (percent): Question 3 As indicated in the table, there were 9 responses given by two groups to question 3A including 6 readers (18.75%) thought that a large English vocabulary was very important to reading comprehension while those of 3 participants (9.375%) evaluated it as important. For the question 3B, only 3 students (9.375%) thought that a good knowledge of English grammar was very important to reading comprehension while those of 4 participants (12.5%) judged it as important. There was significant difference among the responses given by the readers to question 3C. There were 5 students thought that a good knowledge of the reading topic was very important (6.25%) and important (9.375%) whereas those of 2 participants (6.25%) evaluated it as a little important and the same responses (6.25%) claimed that a good knowledge of the reading topic was not important to reading comprehension As opposed to the results of the above questions, the last question concerned to the importance of reading strategies on reading comprehension shows that among 32 participants there were only 3 readers (9.375%) claimed that effective reading strategies were very important and those of 4 (12.5%) thought that they were important to reading comprehension. 4.2.2. Reading strategies The next 17 questions were about the subjects' reading strategies. these strategies were classified into metacognitive, cognitive and social/affective strategies on the basic of O'Malley and Chamot's framework (1990). The following analysis utilized this framework in order to clarify the reading strategies employed by the TBU subjects. 4.2.2.1. Metacognitive reading strategies The first part deals with the analysis of TBU subjects' metacognitive reading strategies. As discussed in the previous chapter, the metacognitive reading strategies were categorized into three subtypes including advance organizers, directed attention and selective attention and there were two questions for each subtype. Table 4.2.4 presents the responses given by TBU subjects for metacognitive reading strategies. Metacognitive strategies Participants Never Rarely Sometimes Often Very often N P N P N P N P N P 1. Advance organizers Item 4: I preview the headings and illustrations to get the main idea of the text before reading. Item 8: I skim through the text to understand main ideas of the texts before focusing on details. 8 25% 14 43.75 % 10 31.25% 1 3.125% 1 3.125% 5 15.625% 15 46.875% 10 31.25% 2. Directed attention organizers Item 5: Before reading, I read the comprehension questions to decide important information that should be noted. Item 6: I choose reading strategies according to my reading purposes. 5 15.615% 3 9.375% 15 46.875% 8 25% 1 3.125% 2 6.25% 18 56.25% 7 21.875% 5 15.625% 3. Selective attention Item 10: I scan for key words or concepts that are closely related to the questions in order to answer them. Item 13: I skip the words that are not essential for comprehending the texts while reading. 3 9.375% 15 46.875% 14 43.75% 6 18.75% 9 28.125% 8 25% 6 18.75% 3 9.375% 4. Self-evaluation Item 19: I check if my answers to the questions are correct or wrong after reading. 2 6.25% 9 28.125% 11 34.375% 10 31.25% * N = number of subjects, P = percent Table 4.2.4. Analysis of questionnaires (percent): Metacognitive reading strategies For advance organizers, the first subtype of metacognitive reading strategies, there were two questions, question 4 and question 8. The answers to question 4 indicated that most readers often (43.75%) and very often (31.25%) previewed the headings and illustrations to get the main ideas of the text before reading whereas only 25% sometimes did this. As can be seen from the results of question 8, almost of the subjects skimmed through the text to understand main ideas before focusing on details with high frequency (15.625% sometimes, 46.875% often, 31.25% very often), only 3.125% never and the same number of subjects (3.125%) rarely did this. In the second subtype of metacognitive reading strategies, directed attention was discussed with two questions (question 5 and 6). The results in question 5 showed that most of the subject did not pay enough attention to reading the comprehension questions to decide the important information before reading (15.61% never, 9.375 rarely, 46.875 sometimes) compared to that of 25% often and 3.125% very often employed this strategy. The answers to question 6 indicated that only 15.615% often chose reading strategies according to their purposes while 56.25% sometimes, 21.875% rarely and 6.25% never did it. The third type of metacognitive strategies was selective attention (question 10 and 13). Not to our surprise for question 10, there was no significant difference in the answers given by the students. In general, almost of them hardly ever scanned for key words or concepts that are closely related to the questions in order to answer them. However, question 13 showed a variety in the answers. This indicated that 18.75% never, 28.125% rarely, 25% sometimes, 18.75% often and 9.375% very often skipped the words that are not essential for comprehending the text. The last type of metacognitive strategies was self-evaluation (question 19), which showed that most of the subjects sometimes checked if their answers were right or wrong after reading (34.375% sometimes and 31.25% often) while there were 9 students counted to 28.125% rarely and 6.25% never used this strategy. 4.2.2.2. Cognitive reading strategies The second part analyzes the cognitive reading strategies employed by the TBU readers. These cognitive strategies were also discussed on the basis of the O'Malley and Chamot's framework (1990). They were categorized into 8 subtypes including resourcing, grouping, transfer, elaboration, inferencing, note-taking, translation and summarizing. Table 4.2.5 presents the percentage given by the readers regarding their use of the cognitive strategies. Cognitive strategies Subjects Never Rarely Sometimes Often Very often N P N P N P N P N P 1. Resourcing Item11: I use a dictionary to look up words when encountering a new word while reading 1 0.32% 4 12.5% 12 37.5% 10 31.25% 5 15.6% 2. Grouping Item 16: I determine the function of words in a sentence while reading. 0 0% 6 18.75% 16 50% 7 21.875% 3 9.37% 3. Transfer Item 14: I use my knowledge of grammar or vocabulary to help understand difficult parts in reading texts. 0 0% 5 15.625% 14 43.75% 12 37.5% 1 3.12% 4. Elaboration Item 7: I relate my prior knowledge to the information of the texts I am reading. 2 6.25% 4 12.5% 18 56.25% 8 25% 0 0% 5. Inferencing Item 12: I guess meanings of new words using the available information. 0 0% 5 15.625% 11 34.375% 13 40.625% 3 9.375% 6. Note-taking Item 18: I write down key words while reading. 2 6.25% 9 28.125% 12 37.5% 7 21.875% 2 6.25% 7. Translation Item 9: I translate the reading text into Vietnamese to understand it more clearly. 0 0% 4 12.5% 9 28.125% 12 37.5% 7 21.875% 8. Summarizing Item 20: I mentally summarize the main ideas of the texts after reading. 1 3.125 % 8 25% 16 50% 7 21.875 % 0 0% * N = number of subjects, P = percent Table 4.2.5. Analysis of questionnaires (percent): Cognitive reading strategies Concerning the strategy of resourcing, the results did not indicate a significant difference in the frequency (37.5% sometimes, 31.25% often, 15.625% very often), only 0.32% never and (12.5%) rarely. This confirmed the fact that almost the readers used a dictionary to look up words when encountering new words while reading. With regards to the grouping strategy, the answers to question 16 indicated that half of the readers (50%) sometimes and (21.875%) often and (9.375%) very often determined the function of words in a sentence while reading whereas not any student never did this and only 18.75% rarely used this strategy. For the strategy of transfer, question 14 showed a variety in the answers. 15.625% rarely, 43.75% sometimes, 37.5% often and 3.125% very often used their knowledge of grammar and vocabulary to help understand difficult parts in the reading text while not any students (0%) never did this. For the next strategy, there were some similarities in the answers given by the TBU readers to other items. The frequency of using elaboration strategy was quite various. In general, the readers sometimes (56.25% ) relate their prior knowledge to the information of the texts they are reading while 6.25% never, 12.5% rarely, 25% often and 0% very often used this strategy. Quite the same conclusion could be drawn for the learners' use of the strategy of inferencing. This indicated that those readers who are more successful often guessed the meanings of new words using available information (40.625% often and 9.375% very often) whereas those less successful ones differed from one other in terms of strategy uses (15.625% rarely, 34.375% sometimes). For the strategy of note-taking, it can be said that the readers rarely and sometimes write down key words while reading. The answers to this item showed that 28.125% rarely, 37.5% sometimes, 21.875% often and 6.25% very often while only 6.25% never employed this strategy. The results in item 9 showed the some similarities in the frequency of using translation strategy as in those of note-taking one. This indicated that the subjects often and very often translated the text into Vietnamese to understand it more clearly (37.5% often and 21.875% very often) while only 12.5% rarely and 28.125% sometimes did the same. The last strategy mentioned in this cognitive subtype was summarizing. The responses to item 20 given by the subjects also varied greatly. 25% rarely, 50% sometimes, 21.875% often and only 3.125% never used this strategy. This confirmed the fact that the readers sometimes mentally summarized the main ideas of the text after reading. 4.2.2.3. Social/affective reading strategies The last type of reading strategies to be discussed was social/affective strategies. They were classified into two subtypes namely question for clarification and cooperation. Table 4.2.6 illustrates the responses concerning two subtypes of social/affective strategies. Social/affective strategy Participants Never Rarely Sometimes Often Very often N P N P N P N P N P 1. Question for clarification Item 15: I ask my teacher or my friends to explain difficult parts in the reading text. 1 3.1% 11 34.37% 12 37.5% 5 15.62% 3 9.375% 2. Cooperation Item 17: I work together with my classmate or friend to solve a problem in the reading text. 1 3.125% 6 18.75% 14 43.75% 5 15.625% 6 18.75% * N = number of subjects, P = percent Table 4.2.6. Analysis of questionnaires (percent): Social/affective reading strategies As indicated in table 4.2.6, the answer to question 15 showed a variety in the answers. There was only one student (3.125%) never asked the teacher or friends to explain difficult part in the reading text while among the others 34.375% rarely, 37% sometimes, 15.625% often and 3.975% very often employed this strategy. This showed that almost of the TBU subjects rarely and sometimes used question for clarification strategy. The second and also the last strategy mentioned in this social/affective subtype was cooperation, the frequency of using cooperation strategy was quite various. In general, the readers sometimes (43.75% ) work together with classmate or friend to solve a problem in the reading text while 3.125% never and the frequency use in other scales are quite the same, 18.75% rarely, 15.625% often and 18.75% very often used this strategy. 4.3. Summary In conclusion, this chapter reports findings gained from the analysis of data elicited from each instrument. Overall, the TBU subjects’ strategy use was quite different. They used metacognitive and cognitive strategies more frequently than social/affective strategies. However, the frequency of those strategy use by the subjects was quite the same. CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION The objectives of the study was to investigate the reading strategies employed by 32 ethnic minority junior first-year English majored readers at Tay Bac University. This chapter draws conclusions based on the findings of the study, discusses the implications and the limitations of the study and proposes some suggestions for further research. 5.1. Conclusions As stated in Section 1.2.2, Aims of the study, the research question: What are the reading strategies employed by readers among TBU ethnic minority junior first-year English-majored students? has now been addressed and the following are some concluding remarks based on the findings of the study. In general, based on the analysis of the questionnaire data, there were several significant points found in the reading strategies employed by TBU readers. Overall, they used metacognitive and cognitive strategies more frequently than social/affective strategies. However, the frequency of those strategy use by the subjects was quite the same. Regarding the metacognitive strategies including advanced organizers, directed attention, selective attention and self-evaluation in the questionnaire, the results indicated that the frequency of strategy use was various. The TBU readers often previewed the headings and illustrations to guess the main ideas of the text before reading; chose reading strategies according to their reading purposes; and almost of them often checked if their answers were right or wrong after reading. However, almost of them rarely scanned for key words or concepts that are closely related to the questions in order to answer them. In general, they only sometimes read the questions to decide important information that should be noted and skipped inessential words for comprehending the text. Concerning the cognitive strategies, the frequency use of grouping, inferencing, note-taking, summarizing, elaboration and rereading strategy were also varied. According to the questionnaire analysis, almost the readers often used a dictionary to look up words when encountering new words. Half of them sometimes tried to find out the function of words in a sentence while reading; used their knowledge of grammar and vocabulary to help understand difficult parts and related their prior knowledge to the information of the texts they are reading. They translated the text into Vietnamese to understand it more clearly and mentally summarized the main ideas of the text after reading with high frequency. For the two subtypes of social/affective strategy, the responses given by the TBU readers showed that almost of them rarely and only sometimes asked the teacher and friends to explain difficult parts in the reading text. In general, they sometimes work together with classmates or friends to solve a problem in the reading text. Basically, the outcome of the present study partly confirmed the findings of the previous study (see Chapter 2). The TBU readers who were at the lower proficiency levels mostly used more bottom-up strategies. The findings of questionnaire confirmed that the readers rarely or sometimes employed top-down or tended to combine top-down and bottom-up strategies. They hardly ever or sometimes read questions to know what to focus on while reading, determined suitable strategies according to their reading purposes, scanned for key information, skipped unimportant words, guessed meanings of new words in context, wrote down key words while reading or mentally summarized main ideas and checked their answers after reading. In contrast, they frequently employed the translation strategy. During the reading process, they tried to translate the text into Vietnamese but lost the general meaning of the text. Concerning the strategy of resourcing, the findings confirmed the fact that almost the readers used a dictionary to look up words when encountering new words while reading. This abuse of the translation and resourcing strategies might slow down their reading speed and badly affect their reading comprehension. 5.2. Implications of the study The study has made some contributions to the learning and teaching of English reading at TBU. It has attempted to categorize the learners' reading strategies based on O'Malley and Chamot's framework (1990) that has been adapted to fit the specific data of the study. This categorization scheme can be applied to other studies on reading strategies. In addition, the study has found out the reading strategies used by the TBU subjects. Based on these findings, some recommendations can be made to the teachers as follows. As shown in the study, the significant point is that the ineffective readers used metacognitive and cognitive strategies with low frequency so that they were not very successful in reading comprehension. This indicated that these reading strategies can be considered one of the most important factors that affect the students' reading proficiency. Therefore, it is necessary for a teacher to be aware of this factor and think of ways to improve his/her students' reading proficiency by providing them instruction on reading strategies. Besides, reading motivation, habits and problems are important factors that might influence the students' reading proficiency and their use of reading strategies. Therefore, for the first meeting, especially in the big size classes, the teacher should spend time on a pre-test to examine students' reading motivation, habits and their views on reading strategies as well as the factors affecting reading comprehension so that he/she can divide the class into groups according to the students' levels of proficiency. Before conducting such a strategy-based instruction, the teacher should examine the students' reading strategies to identify what gaps they have in their strategies. Then, a number of metacognitive and cognitive strategies can be taught to students to develop their reading comprehension. These strategies may include advanced organizers (i.e. previewing the title, the text and illustration), selective attention (i.e. scanning for specific information), evaluation of one's own comprehension, elaboration of prior knowledge, making inferences about meanings of new words, taking notes, producing oral or written summary and so on. In addition, the teacher can also consult other studies on the training of reading strategies. Perhaps, one of the most effective strategy-based instruction model to date that the teacher can refer to is Learning Strategies Taught in The Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach Model developed by O'Malley and Chamot (1990). This model is applicable to develop four language skills for limited English proficient students and very useful and valuable that the teacher can make use of in order to enhance his students' reading proficiency. 5.3 Limitations and suggestions for further research While the study provides some implications for teachers and researchers in general, it is not free from limitations. These limitations are found in the number of participants and the data collection instruments. Due to the limited time for conducting the study, only 32 TBU students were chosen as the participants of the study. Only questionnaire data collection instrument of this small number of participants could be insufficient to ensure the reliability of the study findings. Besides, as the reading tasks used in the pre-test are short and quite simple, the reading strategies employed by the readers were not very varied, which could limit the findings of the study. As the present study only investigated the reading strategies used by the students of the same English major at TBU, it would be useful if further research considers examining reading strategies employed by students of different majors to see whether there is any dissimilarity among those students' strategies. In addition, it would be of greater value if further studies investigate the impacts of reading strategy-based instruction on English learners' reading proficiency. Based on the findings of the present study and others on reading strategy, researchers may conduct instruction on metacognitive and cognitive reading strategies and determine whether such explicit instruction would improve students' reading comprehension. REFERENCES Aebersold J,A & Field, L, M (1997). From Reader to Reading Teacher. CUP. Ackert (1998). Concepts and Comments-An ESL Reader. CUP. Anderson, N, J (1999). Exploring Second Language Reading: Issues and Strategies. Heinle & Heinle Publisher. Anderson, N, J (1999). Improving Reading Speed, English Teaching Form. 21, pp.2-4. Anderson, J.R. (1985). Cognitive Psychology and Its Implication. (2nd edn). W.H. Freeman. Barnet, M.A (1988). Reading Through Context: How Real and Perceived Strategy Use Affects L2 Comprehension, Modern Language Journal. 72, pp. 150-160. Block, E. (1986). The Comprehension Strategies of Second Language Readers, TESOL Quarterly, 20, pp. 319-341. 1992. See How They Read: Comprehension Monitoring of L1 and L2 Readers, TESOL Quarterly, 26, pp. 319-341. Brantmeier C (2002). Second Language Reading Strategy Research at the Secondary and University Levels: Variations, Disperities and Generalizability, The Reading Matrix, Vol.3, pp. 1-14. Brown, J.D. (1988). Understanding Research in Second Language Learning. CUP. Brown, J.D & Rodgers T.S (2002). Doing Second Language Research. OUP. Brown, H.D (1994). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Prentice Hall. Carel, P, J.Devine and D. Eskey (eds). (1988). Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading. CUP. Cohen, A (1998). Strategies in Learning and Using Second Language. Longman. Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. OUP. Hosenfield, C (1977). A Preliminary Investigation of the Reading Strategies of Successful and Unsuccessful Second Language Learners, System, 5, pp. 11-123. Jones et al. (1987). Strategic Teaching and Learning: Cognitive Instruction in the Content Area. Alexandria, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Mc Donough, S.H. (1995). Strategy and Skill in Learning a Foreign Language. Edward Arnold. Nunan, D. (1990). Research Methods in Language Learning. CUP. Nunan, D. (1991). Language Teaching Methodology. Prentice Hall International Ltd. O'Malley, J.M & Chamot, A.U (1990). Learning Strategies in Second language Acquisition. CUP. Oxford, R.L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know, Newbury House. Rubin, J & Thompson, I. (1994). How To be a More Successful Language Learner. Heinle and Heinle Publisher. Rumelhart, D.E. (1977). Toward an Interactive Model of Reading, Attention and Performance 6, pp. 573-603. Samuel, S and M.Kamil (1988). Models of the Reading Process, in Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading, pp. 22-34. CUP. Sarig (1987). High-level Reading in the First and in the Foreign Language: Some Comparative Process Data, in Joan devine, P.L. Carrel & D.E. Eskey (Eds), Research in Reading in English as a Second Language, Washington, TESOL, pp. 102-120. Stanovich, K, E (1980). Toward an Interactive-Compensatory Model of Individual Differences in the Development of Reading Fluency, Reading Research Quarterly 16 (1), pp. 32-71. Stern, H.H. (1975). What Can We learn From The Good Language Learner?. Canadian Modern Language Review 31, pp. 285-295. Tarone, E. (1981). Some Thoughts on The Notion of Communication Strategy, TESOL Quarterly 15, pp. 285-295. Wenden, A.L. (1985). Learner Strategies, TESOL Quarterly 19 (5), pp. 1-7. Widdowson, H.G (1978). Teaching Language As Communication. OUP. 1983. Learning Purpose and Language Use. OUP.