A Comparative Study of Successful and Unsuccessful

College ESL Readers in Their Use of Reading Strategies

Ma Rong
Beijing Technology and Business University
Ma Xiaomei
Xian Jiaotong University

I. Introduction
Since the late 1970s, many ESL researchers have begun to recognize the
importance of the strategies ESL students use while reading. There has been a
shift in attention from a focus on the product of reading (such as a score on a
reading comprehension test) to an emphasis on determining the strategies that
readers use in various reading contexts. A number of exploratory researches have
been made in those years (e.g. Hosenfeld, 1977; Block, 1986; Sarig, 1987; Lv &
Tu, 1998; etc.)
However, there are many unsatisfying points existing in the previous
researches, mainly summarized as the following aspects: firstly, the research
method of reading strategies used in one study was onefold, either quantitative
such as questionnaire or qualitative such as think-aloud protocol; secondly, the
researches were conducted with relatively a small group of subjects involved in,
usually in one university or even in one class and less then 50 students; thirdly, the
reading strategies in the researches are not comprehensive, some are only
cognitive strategies while others are only metacognitive ones; fourthly, the
previous studies did not pay enough attention to reading process; lastly, very few
researches were on the strategies of good and poor learners, which also did not
give a clear classification on what are good learners and what are poor learners
and cannot offer a satisfying result.
As a result, the present study was carried out to:
1) identify the range and variety of reading strategies used by successful and
unsuccessful ESL readers.
2) determine if successful and unsuccessful ESL readers use different reading
strategies and what are differences and similarities in reading strategy use between
successful and unsuccessful ESL readers.
3) determine if successful ESL readers share common reading strategies and if
there are notable differences; if unsuccessful ESL readers share common reading
strategies and if there are notable differences and unsuccessful ESL readers.

II. Method
In the present study, both metacognitive and cognitive strategies in reading
are involved, as well as social and affective strategies. Besides, the present study
is also a combination of product research and process research.
The research questions are as follows:
1. What kinds of reading strategies do Chinese ESL readers use more
frequently in English reading?
2. What are the differences between successful and unsuccessful Chinese
ESL readers in reading strategy use?
3. What common features do successful ESL readers share and what are the
distinct differences in their use of reading strategies? What common features do
unsuccessful ESL readers share and what are the distinct differences?
The quantitative research was conducted in September 2002 to find out
what kinds of reading strategies are frequently used by Chinese college ESL
readers and what kinds of strategies are more relevant to reading proficiency. In
order to get comprehensive and authentic data, 200 third-year undergraduates of
non-English major were chosen as our subjects. They came from various
specialties of four universities in Xian, China, i.e., Xian Jiaotong University,
Shaanxi Normal University, Xian University of Technology and Xian University
of Electronic Science and Technology (Xidian university). At that time, they had
just completed two years study of English and taken the CET-4 in June 2002.
They are classified half as successful readers and half as unsuccessful readers
according to their scores of CET-4 and their self-rated English reading ability.
Specifically, successful readers ranged in their scores of CET-4 between 96 and 85,
with an average score of 87.8; and unsuccessful readers between 54 and 32, with
an average score of 49.3. The two groups of subjects are significantly different in
their L2 proficiency levels.
The instrument used here is a questionnaire (for details, see Appendix I)
which was developed primarily on the basis of a survey of the available literature
on the strategies (mainly Rubin, 1975; OMalley 1985; 2001; Hosenfeld, 1977;
SILL, Oxford, 1990). The questionnaire consists three parts: background
information, general reading approach, and reading strategies that form the main
part. In the analysis of the result, the items of reading strategies were categorized
into three broad groups, that is, metacognitive reading strategies, cognitive
reading strategies, social and affective reading strategies.
The raw data were processed by means of SPSS Software. After the
descriptive statistics, independent-sample t-test was taken to further testify the
real existence of the differences between the successful and the unsuccessful
readers in their use of reading strategies.
The qualitative study includes the interview and the think-aloud protocol.
The subjects of the interview are 20 third-year undergraduates. Among them, 10
are successful readers and 10 unsuccessful readers. They were chosen from the
students who had taken part in the investigation of questionnaire, and
approximately the top 10 of successful readers and the bottom 10 of unsuccessful
readers. The data collection instrument used here is an interview guideline with
consulting some previous interview guide (for example, see Hosenfeld, 1977;
Barnett, 1988). The participants were interviewed on the following aspects:
personal background, attitudes and approaches to reading, their in-class and
after-class reading practice, their reading process, their preferred reading
strategies when dealing with particular reading task.
And as for the think-aloud protocol, we selected six subjects from those who
had been involved in the interview. They were also divided into two groups:
successful readers and unsuccessful readers. The material used in the study is an
article about tourists impressions of America (from, Yorkey, 1970). The passage
is authentic, neither adapted nor shortened and was used as the think-aloud
material by Carrell, Pharis and Liberto in their study of Metacognitive Strategy
Training for ESL Reading in 1989. Whats more, the length of the passage is
proper and the words in the article are within the scope of CET-4 vocabulary.
Therefore, this passage was chosen as the material in the present study. The
subjects were asked to read the passage in English and verbally report their
thoughts while reading the passage. Considering the subjects are just
intermediate-level English learners and not very proficient in organizing and
expressing their idea in English, the think-aloud were conducted in Chinese, but
English expression was also welcomed. The think-aloud protocol was conducted
in accordance with established procedures used in the most current verbal report
research literature (e.g., Block, 1986, 1992; Fawcett, 1993; Garner, 1987; Kletzien,
1991; Olson, Duffy, & Mark, 1984).

3. Results and Discussion
3.1 Statistical results
Table 1 depicts the descriptive statistics including mean, mode and standard
deviation of each item on the reading strategy questionnaire. The statistical data of
the questionnaire can also be illustrated clearly in bar charts, which supply a
directviewing impression of both successful and unsuccessful subjects' responses
to the gamut of reading strategy questionnaire. The differences and similarities
between these two groups of subjects are presented legibly. For details, please see
Figure 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Table1: The descriptive statistics of the reading strategy questionnaire
Successful Unsuccessful
Item Strategy
Me S.D. Mo Me S.D. Mo
1 Having plans of reading 1.92 .98 1 1.79 .87 1
2 Reading outside the class 3.23 .99 3 2.45 .90 3
3
Reading the text whose difficulty is
proper
3.47 1.09 3 2.74 1.09 3
4
Choosing interested and familiar ones
to read
3.36 1.05 4 3.06 1.01 3
5 Setting time before reading 2.37 1.21 2 2.35 1.10 2
6 Reducing anxiety by various means 2.01 1.21 1 2.39 1.25 2
7 Setting purpose for reading 3.30 1.18 4 2.95 1.20 2
8
Using different reading approach and
technique
3.56 1.10 4 2.73 1.14 2
9
Dividing sense groups and reading
according to it
2.29 1.10 2 2.15 1.06 2
10
Classifying words according to their
importance
2.45 1.19 1 2.39 1.13 2
11 Looking up dictionary and glossary 2.86 1.01 3 3.11 1.10 4
12
Guessing meaning from the interpretive
clues
3.54 .86 4 3.07 .99 3
13
Guessing meaning from logical relation
of context
3.56 .84 4 3.08 .96 3
14 Guessing meaning through association 3.49 .87 3 3.00 .96 3
15
Guessing from the main idea and the
structure
3.58 .88 4 3.18 .96 3
16
Guessing meaning through
word-building
3.35 .94 4 2.09 .99 3
17 Discovering connotative meaning 3.12 .91 3 2.50 .99 2
18 Noting echo of words 3.15 1.00 3 2.48 .96 2
19 Noting the use of pronouns 3.42 1.06 4 3.02 1.09 3
20 Skipping unknown words and sentences 3.92 .99 4 3.48 .86 4
21
Noting the ellipsis of some parts in
sentences
3.10 .99 3 2.69 .92 3
22 Using graphs, pictures, punctuation, etc 3.61 1.02 3 3.14 .89 3
23 Using discourse symbols 3.82 .95 4 3.22 1.06 3
24 Rereading the difficult sentences 3.04 1.01 3 3.19 .97 4
25 Reading aloud when text becomes hard 2.26 1.17 1 2.39 1.18 2
26 Paraphrasing with own words 2.37 1.13 2 2.37 1.04 2
27 Translating while reading 2.14 1.13 1 2.91 1.19 4
28 Looking backward from time to time 2.47 .87 2 3.02 .95 3
29 Visualizing the content in mind 3.39 .90 3 2.96 1.04 4
30
Associating prior knowledge to
understanding
3.68 .82 4 3.27 1.00 4
31
Associating previous experience with
content
3.19 1.00 3 2.74 1.03 3
32 Responding emotionally 3.50 .92 4 3.05 1.03 3
33 Taking notes while reading 1.90 .95 1 1.92 .94 2
34 Underlining the key words or sentences 3.18 1.23 4 3.00 1.15 3
35
Choosing to use different reading
techniques
3.39 1.05 4 2.66 1.08 3
36 Adjusting reading rate and style 3.84 .85 4 2.98 1.14 3
37
Looking for the topic sentence and the
main idea
3.38 1.16 4 3.00 1.05 3
38
Evaluating and correcting
misunderstanding
3.42 .91 4 3.04 .96 3
39 Raising questions 3.00 .99 3 2.62 1.15 3
40
Summarizing and memorizing similar
content and structure
2.21 1.01 2 2.15 .93 2
41
Summarizing main idea, structure, etc
after reading
2.42 1.11 2 2.35 .96 2
42 Reviewing texts and words termly 2.34 1.03 2 2.41 .94 3
43
Summarizing reading skills
aperiodically
2.57 .96 2 2.39 1.02 2
44
Doing some exercises to test own
understanding
2.85 1.15 3 2.68 1.12 3
45
Reading questions first and then the
passage
3.37 1.14 4 3.07 1.09 3
46 consulting teachers and classmates 2.42 1.05 3 2.58 1.00 2
47
Exchanging ideas with teachers and
classmates
2.44 1.14 2 2.27 .94 2
48
rewarding oneself when make some
achievement
2.46 1.21 2 2.46 1.07 3
49 Encouraging oneself when fail 3.57 1.12 4 3.28 1.12 4
50
Learning cultural background
knowledge
3.40 1.18 4 2.38 1.09 3





Figure 2:
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 40 41
Item
(Cognitive reading strategies)
M
e
a
n
successful readers
unsuccessful readers


Figure 3:
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
1 2 3 4 5 7 8 10 18 19 20 21 35 36 37 38 39 42 43 44 45 50
Item
(Metacognitive reading strategies)
M
e
a
n
successful readers
unsuccessful readers


Figure 4:
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
6 46 47 48 49
Item
(Social & affective reading strategies)
M
e
a
n
successful readers
unsuccessful readers


As for the think-aloud protocol, Table 2 presents an overview of the reading
strategies used by the subjects during the experiment. Besides, Table 3 shows the
quantity of reading strategies used by the subjects while reading.

Table 2: reading strategies classification scheme
COG 1 Using of gloss or dictionary
COG 2 Solving vocabulary problem
COG 3 Translating a word or phrase into L1
COG 4 Identifying, through circling, underlining, or placing an
arrow, words/phrases not understood
COG 5 Skimming for the general idea
COG 6 Making predictions
COG 7 Integrating information
COG 8 Reacting to the text information
COG 9 Visualizing the information in the text
COG 10 Summarizing main idea of the text or paragraphs
COG 11 Using background knowledge about the topic
COG 12 Using context clues
COG 13 Using key words
COG 14 Using prior knowledge
COG 15 Paraphrasing
COG 16 Reading the title
COG 17 Using typographical aids (e.g. italics)
COG 18 Rereading the difficult parts
MET 1 Questioning the meaning of a word, a clause or sentence
MET 2 Recognizing familiar words/phrases
MET 3 Being aware of knowledge of syntax and punctuation or
other grammar
MET 4 Skipping unknown words
MET 5 Monitoring reading behavior
MET 6 Adjusting reading rate
MET 7 Monitoring comprehension and correcting
misunderstanding
MET 8 Commenting
MET 9 Noting the text structure
MET 10 Confirming prediction
MET 11 Identifying key words and topic sentences
MET 12 Continuing to read on with partial understanding
S & A 1 Consulting others
S & A 2 Discussing with others



Table 3: The quantity of reading strategies used by the subjects

Group Unsuccessful Successful
Name DLZ DWN WG LP XHJ YH
COG 11 7 9 16 18 16
MET 7 6 6 12 11 11
S&A 1 0 0 2 1 0

* COG = cognitive reading strategies
MET = metacognitive reading strategies
S&A = social and affective reading strategies

3.2 Discussion of the results
By means of quantitative research and qualitative research, rich and valuable
findings are acquired, and both quantitative and qualitative analysis of the data
showed evidence that there do exist some differences on the use of reading
strategies between successful readers and unsuccessful readers. Generally
speaking, those successful readers could grasp the general meaning thoroughly,
understand most details well and use more interactive strategies. However, the
unsuccessful readers struggled at a word-for-word or sentence-for-sentence level
and had great difficulties getting an overall meaning.
Followings are some tentative conclusions about the research questions
advanced at the beginning of this thesis:
1). What kinds of reading strategies do Chinese ESL readers use more
frequently in English reading?
The result of the study indicated that both the successful readers and the
unsuccessful readers identified and reported use of an extensive variety of reading
strategies. These reading strategies can be classified into three groups according to
O'Malley's theory, namely, cognitive reading strategies, metacognitive reading
strategies, social and affective reading strategies. In this study, it is found that the
subjects use reading strategies frequently in ESL reading, especially guessing
meaning through various means of textual context, predicting what will come next,
rereading difficult parts for better understanding, associating the content with
prior knowledge or personal experience, underlining the key points, adjusting
reading rate and techniques, choosing to read, selective attention, self-monitoring,
so on and so forth. Obviously, cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies are
much more often used than social and affective reading strategies. For instance,
the subjects seldom consult or discuss with teachers or classmates, and less often
make relaxation or encouragement. In addition, some other reading strategies like
having reading plans, setting time for reading, reviewing and summarizing what
have read, writing down key words and concepts, are also not used frequently by
these readers in reading English.
2). What are the differences between successful and unsuccessful Chinese
ESL readers in reading strategy use?
According to the results, we found some obvious differences between
successful and unsuccessful Chinese EFL readers in using the reading strategies
that are summarized as follows:
Firstly, in the reading process, successful readers are interacting with text
more often while unsuccessful readers are only decoding the text word-by-word
or sentence-by-sentence. Successful readers dont only elicit information from the
text but also actively combine relative background knowledge and their own
experience with the text. They respond emotionally to the content and visualize
what they read in their mind. On the contrary, unsuccessful readers are tied to the
text. They decode the text in small units and receive the given information
passively, making no effort to guess the unstated facts and implied meanings. The
differences are well reflected in the use of inferring and elaborating strategies.
Secondly, successful readers focus most attention on comprehension of the
overall text, while unsuccessful readers always rest on small units, such as single
word or phrase. The think-aloud experiment showed this aspect quite clearly.
Successful readers take a top and global view in the reading, skip those words and
sentences which they think unimportant, and are capable of integrating individual
information together to form a whole perspective of the text. Unsuccessful readers
focus on the small parts of the reading, e.g., words, minor details and individual
sentences. They seldom combine them together to have an overall idea, which
thus does not do any good to the understanding.
Thirdly, successful readers tend to use metacognitive reading strategies more
frequently and consciously than unsuccessful readers do. The successful readers
are more aware of knowledge of syntax or other grammar and noting the text
structure. Besides, the successful readers often monitor their reading behavior and
comprehension and correct misunderstanding as soon as when they find the
mistakes, as shown by their use of self-monitoring as a strategy. Lastly, they are
aware not only of which strategies to use, but they also tend to be better at
regulating the use of such strategies while reading. In other words, they know
which strategies to use and how to use them and the conditions under which the
strategies ought to be used. In contrast, unsuccessful readers are generally
deficient in reading strategies and seldom use the strategies consciously and
effectively.
Fourthly, during reading, the successful readers translate much less than the
unsuccessful readers. It is showed in all the three studies that successful readers
often substitute his/her own words for the original wording of the text, not
translating into Chinese. Some of them were even able to paraphrase the sentences
in English. In contrast, unsuccessful readers always put what they read into
Chinese subconsciously. They like to translate what they read into Chinese, such
as Oh, I think this maybe means in Chinese, The Chinese meaning of this
word should be, etc.
Fifthly, the differences not only show up in the quantity of strategies they use,
but also in qualities, i.e., how they use the strategies flexibly and appropriately. It
can be verified distinctly in the use of word-attack skill. Unsuccessful readers
sometimes may use the same strategy as successful readers do, nevertheless, the
successful readers and the unsuccessful ones might use it in different way. For
example, when they wanted to use the strategy of guessing a word by breaking it
into parts, the successful readers could distinguish what kind of words could be
broken up, whereas the unsuccessful ones often misused such strategy. One of the
unsuccessful readers even tried to break the word interview into inter and
view, and then looked up the dictionary for the two words inter and view
respectively. As a result, she could not understand the word and the sentence
ultimately.
The above differences may be the main reasons that cause difference of
reading proficiency. Besides, there are still some other differences existing
between these two types of subjects. For instance, the successful readers were
more frequent to predict what content will occur in succeeding portions of text
and summarize main idea of the text or paragraphs than the unsuccessful readers.
However, some other factors, such as motivation, painstaking, anxiety, etc. should
not be neglected. For example, unsuccessful readers show very low motivations in
reading because they cant get any enjoyment except for frustration and anxiety;
successful readers usually spend more time on practicing reading after the class
and once read, they can concentrate on the reading.
3. What common features do successful ESL readers share and what are the
big differences in their use of reading strategies? What common features do
unsuccessful ESL readers share and what are the big differences?
Surely there are some but not very remarkable differences existing in the
group of the successful readers and of unsuccessful readers respectively. For
example, some successful readers set purpose for reading and choose to read the
texts whose difficulty is proper, while some others just read without paying
attention to what they are reading; some like to read sentence by sentence while
others skim for main idea and do not read every word or sentence. As for
unsuccessful readers, some behave like successful readers, such as translating few,
elaborating, discovering connotative meaning and so on.
Comparatively speaking, the present findings have something in common
with what former researches did. For example, successful readers use reading
strategies more frequently, more appropriately, with greater variety, which
contribute to their successful completion of the reading task; unsuccessful readers,
on the other hand, not only have fewer strategy types in reading, but also
frequently use strategies that are inappropriate to the task or that lead to a failure
in reading. However, some new findings were also achieved in the study,
especially in students use of metacognitive reading strategies, and social and
affective reading strategies. The study also examined and revealed the difference
and the similarities of reading strategies use existing within the same group. In
addition, some other factors that may have some impact on students English
reading were also taken into consideration in the study.

4. Conclusion
The present study is a preliminary attempt and has some drawbacks and
limitations, many avenues remain to be explored in the further researches on
learning strategies. For example: the study only investigates some reading
comprehension strategies used by students from four universities in one city.
Therefore, if other types of strategies are included and more subjects are sampled
from more universities (or even from middle schools) in different cities, we can
establish the validity of Chinese ESL students (not only college students, but also
middle school students) learning strategies in reading comprehension. Hence, the
researches will be more comprehensive and representative; besides, the study
demonstrates that successful readers apply strategies more frequently than
unsuccessful readers do. Further studies can be conducted to investigate why
ineffective readers are reluctant to use these strategies.
In order to reach the goal of teaching reading -- to help our students develop
as strategic and proficient readers, many helpful implications for both ESL
teachers and ESL learners are suggested, such as 1) teachers need to pay much
more attention to learning strategies as opposed to teaching strategies; 2) students
should be informed of the importance of reading strategies and then strategy
instruction should be emphasized while teaching reading comprehension; 3)
students, especially unsuccessful ones, should be encouraged and motivated to use
strategies effectively in reading, etc.
To sum up, the present study has showed the close relationship between
using reading strategies and students' reading proficiency. Then, ESL teachers and
students should strengthen the awareness of the importance of reading strategies;
reading strategy instruction should be integrated with regular classroom reading
activity.



References
Barnett, M. A. 1988. Reading through context: How real and perceived strategies
use affects L2 comprehension [J]. The Modern Language Journal 72 (2):
150162.
Block, E. 1986. The comprehension strategies of second language readers [J].
TESOL Quarterly 20 (3): 463494.
Block, E. 1992. See how they read: comprehension monitoring of L1 and L2
readers [J]. TESOL Quarterly 26 (2): 319343.
Carrell, P. L., Pharis, B. G., & Liberto, J. C. 1989. Metacognitive strategy training
for ESL reading [J]. TESOL Quarterly 23 (4): 647678.
Cohen, A. D. 2000. Strategies in learning and using a second language [M].
Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Fawcett, G. 1993. Using students as think-aloud models [J]. Reading research and
instruction 33: 95104.
Garner, P. 1987. Metacognition and reading comprehension [M]. New Jersey:
Ablex.
Hosenfeld, C. 1977a. A learning-teaching view of second-language instruction:
the learning strategies of second-language learners with reading-grammar tasks
[D]. Ohio State University.
Hosenfeld, C. 1977b. A preliminary investigation of the reading strategies of
successful and nonsuccessful second language learners [J]. System 5 (2):
110123.
Kletzien, S. B. 1991. Strategy use by good and poor comprehenders reading
expository text of differing levels [J]. Reading Research Quarterly 26: 6786.
Olson, G. M., Duffy, S. A., & Mack, R. I. 1984. Think-out-aloud as a method for
studying real-time comprehension processes [A]. In D. Kieras & M. A. Just (eds).
New methods in reading comprehension research [C]. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum. Pp. 253286.
OMalley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner Manzanares, G., Kupper, L., &Russo, R.
P. 1985. Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate ESL students [J].
Language Learning 35: 2146.
OMalley, J. M. & Chamot, A. U. 2001. Learning strategies in second language
acquisition [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Oxford, R. 1990. Language learning strategies: what every teacher should know
[M]. New York: Newbury House / Harper Collins.
Rubin, J. 1975. What the good language learner can tell us [J]. TESOL Quarterly
9 (1): 4151.
Sarig, G. 1987. High-level reading in the first and in the foreign language: some
comparative process data [A]. In J. Devine, P. L. Carrell, & D. E. Eskey (eds).
Research in reading in English as a second language [C]. Washington, DC:
TESOL. Pp. 105120.
, 1998, [J]
4 7481

Appendix I Questionnaire









1
1 2 3 4
2
1 2 3 4 5
3
1 2 3 4 5
4 40
1 0 -- 11 2 12 -- 23 3 24 -- 33 4 34 -- 40
5.
6



1
1
2

3



2
1
2
3
4
5
6













1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
, ( )
7. , ,
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
( )
13.

14.
( )
15.
16.
17.
18.
( )
19. I think so,
so
20.
21.
22.
( )
23.
( )
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.

33.

34.
35.
( )
36.
37.
38.

39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
( )
44.

45. ( )
46.

47.
48.

49.
50.