Ramos, E. Teodoro Jr. B. (Jet) MA in English

Language Education (MAELED)

RDG633M – Dr. Ma. Joahna M. Estacio

Submitted on: April 2nd, 2012 (Monday)

FRESHMAN COLLEGE STUDENTS' STRATEGIES IN READING BOTH

NARRATIVE AND EXPOSITORY TEXTS: A COMPARISON OF TWO

ENGLCOM CLASSES FROM TWO COLLEGES

I. INTRODUCTION

Reading is a skill that every human develops constantly. It

entails the use of the brain, the eyes, and the upper limbs.

Persons read for a variety of purposes: (a) to be informed; (b)

to be entertained; (c) to fulfill scholastic requirements; and,

(d) to succeed in one’s career. Every day, people read different

literature for varied purposes (Schutte and Malouff, 2007); in

terms of the type of medium, they read from print (e.g.

newspapers, magazines, and paperback novels) and online sources

(e.g. web sites, online magazines, and online newspapers).

1

Depending on the level of difficulty, people expend time and

effort in understanding the texts they read. In the academic

setting, students from all levels read mainly academic text, such

as textbooks and workbooks. These types of literature are used as

aids and as bases for teaching and learning; thus, they are used

extensively.

Expository and narrative texts are two (2) out of the other

common text types found in academic texts. Hermosa (2002) states

that expository texts are informational and refer to those that

intend to demonstrate a concept. Every expository text contains a

main idea, in the form of a topic sentence, with subordinate and

auxiliary ideas; all of these are in logical order.

Contrastingly, narrative texts are meant to tell a story or a

first-hand account of an event. According to Hermosa (2002),

subordinate ideas in every narrative text consist of the

characters, the scenes, the setting/s, and even the lines uttered

by the characters. In the academic context, expository texts are

more frequent in terms of the number of subjects, since they

cover subjects such as history, language arts, science, and other

2

similar subjects. On the other hand, narrative texts are common

in literature and in history. In terms of writing styles,

expository texts are often written in a formal manner, and in a

third-person point of view. Contrastingly, some narrative texts

are written in an informal manner; some narratives are written in

the first-person point of view while others are in the third-

person point of view. Narrative and expository texts are also

found in publications other than books, such as magazines,

newspapers, internet blogs, and even in online versions of

magazines and newspapers.

Skilled readers employ strategies in their digression of a

text, whether they may be familiar or unfamiliar. Though they may

not know the actual terms that refer to the strategies, they

apply them in their reading. Skilled readers do not just

understand every text they read; they also exercise discretion in

their choice of reading materials. Contrastingly, there are some

readers who find difficulty in reading because of their lack of

knowledge and application of reading strategies. Another

attribution could be their lack of exposure to proper reading

3

skills, especially in the home setting when there is a dearth of

reading materials. Lastly, readers’ attitudes toward reading,

especially negative attitudes, affect their reading. When one

avoids reading, especially difficult texts, he/she tends to avoid

reading altogether and to negate the importance of reading in

everyday life.

Found on the next page is a table depicting the common

reading strategies students employ, together with their

respective descriptions (The National Capital Language Resource

Center, 2004 and Monash University, 2005).

READING STRATEGY BRIEF DESCRIPTIONa) Visualization Readers form mental images of the

concepts in the text.b) Previewing Readers look at the title, the

pictures and illustrations, andthe bibliographical information ofa text, especially if it is abook.

c) Using context clues Readers deduce the meaning ofunfamiliar words based on thecontext of the reading material.

d) DRTA (Direct Reading-ThinkingActivity)

Readers guess the context and thecontent of a text before reading,and verify information afterreading.

e) Summarizing and paraphrasing Readers obtain the gist of thetext as well as deduce theconcepts of the text, based ontheir own understanding and using

4

their own words.f) Skimming and scanning Readers quickly preview the text

to obtain the gist and/or tosearch for specific information.

g) Asking questions Readers create questions in regardto the text and/or the author andhis/her intention.

h) Comparing texts of the sametopic

Readers compare and contrast theactual text with texts of the samecategory and topic.

i) Reflecting on one’s values andbeliefs in contrast or similarityto the text

Readers read the text and reflecton whether the values and conceptshe/she adheres to

j) Thinking aloud Readers verbalize the contents ofthe text while thinking about theconcepts.

k) Think-pair-share Readers pair together and read thetext; afterwards, they share theconcepts they have learned.

l) Taking notes (self-explanatory)m) Using graphic organizers Readers write concepts and

organize them using tables,semantic webs, and other similargraphic organizers.

n) Outlining Readers create an outline based onthe text, with supporting detailsunder their respective sub-headings.

TABLE 1. Common reading strategies employed by students.

Millis and King’s (2001) study delved on strategic reading

of expository texts by psychology majors. Based on the results,

the participants were generally found to have incorporated

strategic reading throughout the reading process, in between

readings. In contrast, Veveiros’ (2010) thesis on expository

5

reading strategies used in science texts revealed that most of

the participants lacked reading strategies when encountering

science-related texts. Williams et al (2005) tested the

effectiveness of a reading instruction program on 2nd graders,

and it was found that most of them were able to comprehend

expository texts, particularly comparison and contrast, without

experiencing difficulty in obtaining newer information.

Concerning narrative texts, van den Broek and Lynch et al (2003)

examined grade school and high school students’ ability to

determine the main concept of every narrative text. The results

showed that both younger and older students were able to identify

the main idea; however, the older students did so more

effectively than the younger ones. On perceiving one’s own

reading skills, Schutte and Malouff (2007) devised a reading

motivation scale, which emphasized on one’s perception on reading

in terms of importance and of interest. On the other hand, Durik,

Vida, and Eccles (2006) focused on self-concept in terms of one’s

reading ability. The authors’ study also delved on the importance

of reading among the participants of the study.

6

The current study intends to determine freshman college

students’ common reading strategies when reading both expository

and narrative texts. It also intends to determine the students’

common methods in dealing with difficult and/or unfamiliar texts,

as well as their intended strategies in dealing with such texts

subsequently.

The following are the research questions of this study:

1. What are the most common reading strategies employed by

freshman DLSU students when reading:

a) Narrative texts

b) Expository texts

2. How do the students read texts that are difficult or

unfamiliar to them?

3. What are the strategies that the students believe they

have to develop when reading expository or narrative

texts?

4. What are the steps that the students intend to implement

when they are to read difficult and/or unfamiliar

expository and narrative texts in the future?

7

II. METHODOLOGY

A. Participants

The participants of the study were composed of freshman

college students belonging to two (2) EnglCom sections from two

(2) different colleges, during the 3rd term of AY 2011-2012. The

classes were selected by the researcher himself. The two (2)

EnglCom classes were under the School of Business (SB) and the

College of Computer Studies (CCS). Hence, the sections were given

the codes SchBusiness (for the EnglCom class composed of SB

students) and CompStudies (for the EnglCom class composed of CCS

students), in order to ensure the confidentiality of the actual

section codes. The SchBusiness section was composed of 18

participants, while the CompStudies section was composed of 24

participants. At the time the survey was distributed, each

section had one (1) absent student.

The table below depicts the number of students by gender.

PARTICIPANTS'GENDER

ENGLCOM CLASS (by college)CompStudies SchBusiness

1) Male15 62.50% 7 38.89%

8

2) Female 9 37.50%11 61.11%

TOTAL (N)24 100.00%

18 100.00%

TABLE 2. Participants by gender.

As seen on the table above, the majority of the participants

belonging to the CompStudies section were males (N=15). In

contrast, the majority of the participants belonging to the

SchBusiness section were female (N=11).

9

Found below is a table illustrating the number of

participants by age.

Participants'Age

CompStudies SchBusinessN % N %

1) 16 years old 4 16.67% 0 0.00%

2) 17 years old12 50.00% 8 44.44%

3) 18 years old 6 25.00% 3 16.67%4) 19 years old 1 4.17% 5 27.78%5) 20 years old 1 4.17% 0 0.00%6) No stated age 0 0.00% 2 11.11%

TOTAL24 100.00%

18 100.00%

TABLE 3. Participants by age.

Apart from gender, the participants were categorized

according to age. In most EnglCom classes, the participants are

in their freshman year and are usually aged 16 to 19. In the case

of the CompStudies section, 50% of the participants were 17 years

old, the average age of a college freshman, followed by 25%, who

were aged 18 at the time of the study. Similar to the CompStudies

section, the majority of the SchBusiness section participants

(44.44%) were also aged 17; however, the second most common age

of the participants was 19 years old (27.78%). Two (2) of the

participants from the SchBusiness section did not indicate their

age.10

B. Materials

The Reading Strategy Scale-Questionnaire was devised by the

researcher himself. The first part of the questionnaire contained

a total of 14 reading strategies with their respective

explanations; these were found on the first column of the scale.

Skimming, scanning, paraphrasing, and summarizing were given

individual items, since skimming and scanning are distinct from

one another in terms of the type of information searched by the

reader (skimming helps one search for a text’s gist; scanning

helps one search for specific information) and that summarizing

and paraphrasing are distinct in terms of a text’s coverage

translated into one’s own words (summarizing covers an entire

text while paraphrasing covers a specific concept within the

text). The second and third columns contained the frequencies

based on a Likert scale, and were divided into two (2) headings:

Expository and Narrative. Under each heading were five (5)

columns containing the scales. Below are the scales and their

respective legends, in tabular form.

SCALE LEGEND1) 5 Always used

11

2) 4 Often used3) 3 Sometimes used4) 2 Seldom used5) 1 Never used/not applicable/invalid

answerTABLE 4. The scales and their corresponding legends as used

in the Reading Strategy Scale.

The second part of the questionnaire contained items on

students’ methods in encountering difficult and/or unfamiliar

texts. The first portion of the second part was a checklist,

which required participants to check the items, which consisted

of common methods in dealing with difficult and/or unfamiliar

texts, applicable to them. Examples of the items were, in order:

(a) I avoid reading the text; (b) I research on the topic of the

text; (c) I become frustrated or angry when I don’t understand

the text; and, (d) I read on my own even if the text is difficult

for me. The second portion consisted of the reading strategies

(similar to the strategies listed on the first part of the scale-

questionnaire) that the participants believe they have to improve

on when reading narrative and/or unfamiliar texts. Lastly, the

third portion contained an open-ended question in which

participants were required to list three (3) to five (5) methods12

on how to deal with difficult and/or unfamiliar texts in the

future.

C. Procedures

The researcher first searched for EnglCom sections from two

(2) different colleges. He then obtained the consent of the

professors of the two (2) sections. Upon being allowed by the two

(2) professors, the researcher gave 30 copies each to the

professors. He instructed them to inform the students of the

survey they were going to answer; he stated that the students

were to be given 15 to 20 minutes to fill in the survey. A day

after the surveys were filled, the researcher himself gathered

the surveys, which were categorized by section, and tabulated all

the results. As for the third and last portion of the second part

“Dealing With Difficult Texts and Improving On One’s Own Reading

Strategies”) of the scale-questionnaire found in the Reading

Strategy Scale-Questionnaire, which consisted of an open-ended

question, the statements were categorized, with every category

labeled by the researcher himself based on the commonalities of

the statements; the statements that contained two (2) methods

13

within them were divided into two (2) parts, and each part was

placed in its appropriate category.

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A. Common reading strategies applied

The common reading strategies included in the Reading

Strategy Scale-Questionnaire (under “Frequently Used Reading

Strategies”) applied to both expository and narrative texts. The

participants were asked to rate their frequency of use of all the

14 reading strategies included in the scale. Most of the

strategies, except for previewing, are done during the reading

process. The table below compares the results of the scale, by

college, in terms of the strategies used when reading expository

texts in general.

14

Expository

READING STRATEGY(EXPOSITORY)

CompStudies (N=24) SchBusiness (N=18)

5(A

lway

s)4

(Oft

en)

3(S

omet

ime

2(S

eldo

m)

1(N

ever

/NA

5 4 (Oft

en)

3(S

omet

ime

2(S

eldo

m)

1(N

ever

/NA

1) Visualization 4 8 11 1 0 4 9 5 0 02) Previewing 10 8 6 0 0 7 8 2 1 03) Using contextclues

6 10 5 3 0 4 5 6 3 0

4) DRTA 5 8 8 2 1 3 6 8 1 05) Summarizing 3 5 10 6 0 3 8 1 5 16) Paraphrasing 1 11 8 3 1 3 8 4 2 17) Skimming 5 11 5 1 2 6 11 1 0 08) Scanning 5 12 6 0 1 4 8 5 0 19) Asking questions

2 3 7 11 1 2 6 5 5 0

10) Thinking aloud

2 3 7 5 7 2 1 6 5 4

11) Think-pair-share

1 7 4 6 6 0 3 4 4 7

12) Taking notes 3 3 4 6 8 0 3 2 8 513) Using graphic organizers

2 4 8 5 5 1 2 2 7 6

14) Outlining 3 1 11 4 5 0 5 5 2 6TABLE 5. Reading strategies employed when reading expository

texts (by college).

Based on Table 5, the results revealed that, among the

participants belonging to the CompStudies section, the always-

used reading strategy in expository texts was, in terms of the

number of participants, previewing (N=10). Next, the most often-

15

used reading strategies (under “often”) were: a) scanning (N=12);

b) skimming (N=11); c) paraphrasing (N=11); and, d) using context

clues (N=11). The use of the aforementioned strategies could be

due to the students’ desire to understand the text, starting with

the literal level, particularly when it came to scanning,

skimming, and using context clues. Another reason could be that

since expository texts tend to be long and/or difficult, the

participants could have previewed the text in order to start

developing interest in the topic of the text and in the text

itself. Contrastingly, the most prevalent seldom-used strategies

were: asking questions (N=11), summarizing (N=6), and think-pair-

share (N=6). One of the possible reasons why the participants

seldom use the aforementioned strategies could be their tendency

to read expository texts alone most of the time, especially when

reading academic texts related to their respective majors.

Another reason could be that, in most situations within the

EnglCom class, participants were seldom exposed to reading with a

partner. As in the case of summarizing, some of the participants

could have lacked training and exposure to the proper method of

16

summarizing ideas especially outside the EnglCom context. The

most prevalent never-used strategies, in terms of the number of

responses, were taking notes (N=8) and thinking aloud (N=7). A

possible explanation behind this result could be that the

participants were exposed to reading silently, thus the non-

application of the thinking-aloud strategy. As for taking notes,

the participants could have lacked the time to digress every

expository text they read, thus tending to seldom write and

organize ideas from the text graphically.

On the other hand, among the participants from the

SchBusiness section, the always-used reading strategies were

previewing (N=7) and asking questions (N=6). The often-used

reading strategies (under “often”) were visualization (N=11),

skimming (N=9), and scanning (N=8). The explanations behind the

results could be the participants’ desire to digress the text and

understand it beyond the literal level, especially when the

expository text is related to their major or when the topic of

the text stimulates their interest. Another possible reason could

be that the participants have developed the motivation to prepare

17

themselves for reading expository texts in general. In contrast,

the most prevalent seldom-used strategies were taking down notes

(N=8) and using graphic organizers (N=7). One possible reason

behind this could be the participants’ lack of exposure to

organizing their thoughts in a graphical manner; as in the case

of taking down notes, they could have lacked the training in

noting only pertinent information based on the expository texts

they read. The most prevalent never-used reading strategy was

think-pair-share (N=5). One factor behind this could be the

participants’ tendency to read expository texts alone across all

their classes. Another possible factor could be that some of them

find learning easier when reading texts alone; a possibility

could be one’s prior negative experience in reading together with

a partner. Generally, people could avoid reading together with a

partner if the other person tends to undermine his/her capability

to understand a text. Furthermore, some people read expository

texts alone when they perceive the texts as needing much time to

understand them, for they could view reading with someone else as

cumbersome.

18

Generally, both classes from different colleges were found

to have used previewing, skimming, and scanning, since these

strategies could have enabled the participants to comprehend

expository texts, regardless of difficulty level and of relevance

to them as students. The results of the study mirror that of

Mienko and Wolfe (2007), whose results of their study revealed

that people who utilized reading strategies in tandem with their

schemata tended to comprehend expository texts more than those

who did not.

19

Narrative

READING STRATEGY(NARRATIVE)

CompStudies (N=24) SchBusiness (N=18)

5(A

lway

s)4

(Oft

en)

3(S

omet

ime

2(S

eldo

m)

1(N

ever

/NA

5 4 (Oft

en)

3(S

omet

ime

2(S

eldo

m)

1(N

ever

/NA

1) Visualization 6 8 7 3 0 4 11 3 0 02) Previewing 11 5 7 1 0 9 6 2 1 03) Using contextclues

4 10 8 1 1 4 4 8 2 0

4) DRTA 4 8 7 4 1 3 6 7 1 15) Summarizing 7 3 10 3 1 3 9 2 3 16) Paraphrasing 3 8 10 2 1 4 7 4 2 17) Skimming 5 14 2 1 2 8 8 2 0 08) Scanning 5 11 6 1 1 7 7 3 0 19) Asking questions

2 7 7 7 1 4 2 6 5 1

10) Thinking aloud

2 4 6 6 6 2 2 5 5 4

11) Think-pair-share

3 1 8 5 7 0 3 4 4 7

12) Taking notes 2 5 3 6 8 0 2 6 5 513) Using graphic organizers

0 6 8 5 5 1 2 3 3 9

14) Outlining 4 1 11 3 5 0 5 4 2 7TABLE 6. Reading strategies employed when reading narrative texts

(a comparison).

The results of the reading scales showed that, among the

participants of the CompStudies section, the most frequently used

reading strategies in comprehending narrative texts were

previewing (N=11), summarizing (N=7), and visualization (N=6).

20

The often-used strategies that came next were skimming (N=14),

scanning (N=11), and using context clues (N=10). The results were

somewhat similar to Price, van Kleeck, and Huberty’s (2009)

study, whose results indicated that pre-school children, together

with their parents, comprehended narrative texts with more

facility than expository texts. A reason behind the use of the

aforementioned strategies could be the participants’ exposure to

reading narrative texts both inside and outside the classroom

setting. Another reason could be their innate interest in reading

narrative texts, since the participants could have perceived the

subjects of the texts as relevant to their experiences as

individuals. And, in the case of context clues, it could be that

the participants had the desire to unlock difficult words in

order to understand the narrative texts they read and at the same

time develop their vocabulary skills. As for visualization, it

could be that the participants used mental images in order to

stimulate their interest in reading narrative texts. In contrast,

the most prevalent seldom-used reading strategy was asking

questions (N=7). The never-used reading strategies with the most

21

number of participants who indicated as such were taking notes

(N=8) and think-pair-share (N=7). Similar to the results under

the expository text sub-heading, a reason could be the students’

lack of exposure to reading together with a partner. Another

possible reason could be that, similar to that of other classes,

most of EnglCom’s activities are individual. One last possible

reason could be that the participants could comprehend narrative

texts with minimal effort, even when reading alone.

On the other hand, the results revealed that, among the

participants of the SchBusiness section, the most frequently used

reading strategies were previewing (N=9) and skimming (N=8). The

often-used strategies, which came next, were a) visualization

(N=11); b) summarizing (N=9); c) scanning (N=7); and, d)

paraphrasing (N=7). Similar to the results among the majority of

the CompStudies participants, a possible factor could be the

participants’ innate interest in narrative texts, especially

those texts whose characters and experiences parallel those of

the participants. Another factor could be the level of difficulty

of the narrative texts the participants read. Even if a narrative

22

text may be difficult for the reader, it could be comprehended

for as long as the reader himself/herself displays positive

attitudes towards reading. Oppositely, the seldom-used reading

strategies that were most prevalent in terms of responses were

asking questions (N=5), thinking aloud (N=5), and taking notes

(N=5). Lastly, the never-used strategies with the most number of

responses were using graphic organizers (N=9), think-pair-share

(N=7), and outlining (N=7). One of the possible reasons behind

the results could be that, in the case of asking questions and

thinking aloud, the participants could have found it easier to

understand narrative texts while reflecting on the theme and the

message of the texts. Another reason could be that, in the case

of outlining and using graphic organizers, the participants could

have found reading narratives easy because of the manner the

narratives were written, as well as the presence of pictures.

Lastly, in the case of asking questions, it could be that the

participants could have understood the text easily and found the

theme and the message in line with their values and beliefs as

readers and individuals. The results coming from both sample

23

classes (CompStudies and SchBusiness) were almost similar to that

of Egidi and Gerrig (2006), especially in the visualization

aspect, which enables readers to empathize and identify with the

characters of every narrative text.

B. Dealing with difficult and/or unfamiliar texts in general

METHODS OF DEALING WITH DIFFICULT AND/ORUNFAMILIAR TEXT

CompStudies(N=24) SchBusiness (N=18)

N(response

s) %

N(responses

) %1) Avoiding reading of the text 1 4.17% 0 0.00%2) Courageous reading of the text 18 75.00% 16 88.89%3) Struggling with reading despite efforts 15 62.50% 8 44.44%4) Asking for help from someone who knows the topic 12 50.00% 11 61.11%5) Researching on the topic of the text 15 62.50% 18 100.00%6) Feeling like giving up in the middle of reading 7 29.17% 5 27.78%7) Expressing frustration or anger when text is difficult 6 25.00% 6 33.33%8) Reading on one's own even if text is difficult 18 75.00% 9 50.00%

TABLE 7. Methods participants currently and usually implementwhen dealing

with difficult and/or unfamiliar texts.

The table above depicts methods the participants of the two

(2) Englcom classes implement in dealing with difficult and/or

unfamiliar texts, whether expository or narrative. The results

indicated that, in the CompStudies class, the majority of the

24

participants (75%) stated that they read through a difficult

and/or unfamiliar text courageously and that they read a

difficult/unfamiliar text on their own until they achieve full

comprehension. On the other hand, all of the participants

belonging to the SchBusiness class indicated that they research

on the topic of a difficult and/or unfamiliar text. The majority

(88.88%) also indicated that they read the text courageously,

similar to the participants from the CompStudies class. Results

from both sample classes were similar to the study conducted by

O’ Reilly and McNamara (2007) on high school students in their

science classes; the results of the study revealed that knowledge

of reading strategies aided students in comprehending scientific

texts unfamiliar and/or difficult for them. One of the reasons

behind the results could be the participants’ positive attitudes

towards reading difficult texts, due to their training in reading

as well as in research. Another reason could be the participants’

intrinsic motivation in digressing difficult and/or unfamiliar

texts in a manner that best suits their learning styles and their

tolerance for difficult and/or unfamiliar texts. In the case of

25

the CompStudies participants, it could be that they are used to

working individually, especially in reading. Generally, in major

courses as well as minor courses across all degree programs,

there would be instances when some of the texts would be

unfamiliar and/or difficult to students. It is universally

accepted that if a reader is positively motivated, he/she would

tend to read a difficult and/or unfamiliar text with minimal

effort and less anxiety.

26

C. Reading strategies the participants perceive as those that need

improvement

STRATEGIES THAT NEED IMPROVEMENTCompStudies (N=24) SchBusiness (N=18)

N(responses) %

N(responses) %

1) Visualization 12 50.00% 11 61.11%2) Previewing 7 29.17% 5 27.78%3) Using context clues 16 66.67% 10 55.56%4) DRTA 7 29.17% 6 33.33%5) Summarizing 16 66.67% 11 61.11%6) Paraphrasing 13 54.17% 9 50.00%7) Skimming 12 50.00% 7 38.89%8) Scanning 14 58.33% 10 55.56%9) Asking questions 12 50.00% 11 61.11%10) Thinking aloud 13 54.17% 4 22.22%11) Think-pair-share 8 33.33% 6 33.33%12) Taking notes 14 58.33% 5 27.78%13) Using graphic organizers 13 54.17% 8 44.44%14) Outlining 11 45.83% 5 27.78%

TABLE 8. Reading strategies that participants believe needimprovement.

As shown on the table above, the results manifested that the

majority of the participants from the CompStudies class (66.67%)

indicated that they believe they need improvement both in using

context clues and in summarizing. Meanwhile, the majority of the

participants from the SchBusiness class (61.11%) stated that they

need to improve on visualization and on asking questions about

the text, the author, and the author’s intention. Similar to the

results of the CompStudies class, many (61.11%) also indicated27

that they need to improve on their summarizing skills. In the

case of the participants of the CompStudies class, even if the

results indicated that they often summarize narrative texts, they

believed that they need to do so in expository texts, especially

if there are many concomitant ideas within the text. And, despite

using context clues being one of the most often-used strategies

in both narrative and expository texts, the majority of the

CompStudies participants believed that they need improvement.

Contrastingly, in the case of the SchBusiness participants, the

results are somewhat consistent with those of the narrative and

expository portions, since visualization and asking questions

about the text were not indicated as the most frequently used

strategies at the least. The results could also mirror that of

the study by Anjum and Ullah (2011), where the participants of

the experimental group that developed awareness of the strategies

they need to develop and adopted new reading strategies were

found to have achieved more in their reading skills than those

from the controlled group.

28

Perceiving one’s reading strategies as those that need to

be improved reflects a positively motivated reader, since he/she

is aware of his/her capabilities and areas of improvement as a

reader. Nevertheless, if a reader exerts minimal effort in

improving his/her reading strategies, it would take a longer time

for him/her to understand difficult and/or unfamiliar texts.

D. Strategies to be implemented when reading difficult and/or

unfamiliar texts in the future

CATEGORY OF RESPONSESCompStudies (N=24) SchBusiness (N=18)

N(responses) %

N(responses) %

1) Developing positive attitude towards reading 8

33.33% 5

27.78%

2) Preparing for reading 1041.67

% 738.89

%3) Unlocking difficult words contained in the text 22

91.67% 10

55.56%

4) Actual reading and rereading 1666.67

% 844.44

%5) Performing research about the textand its topic 8

33.33% 12

66.67%

6) Interacting with peers and authorities on the topic 10

41.67% 7

38.89%

7) Listing and organizing concepts within the text 2 8.33% 7

38.89%

TABLE 9. Steps that participants intend to employ in readingdifficult/unfamiliar texts

The table above indicates the various categories of

responses by the students, based on the open-ended question under

29

the heading “Dealing with Difficult Texts and Improving On One’s

Own Reading Strategies”. The majority of the responses from the

CompStudies participants were under Categories 3 (Unlocking difficult

words contained in the text) and 6 (Actual reading and rereading). Examples of

indicated future strategies under Category 3 were as follows: a)

looking for the meaning of a word in a dictionary; b) using

context clues; c) looking for words that surround a difficult

word, for clues; and, d) being resourceful when encountering

difficult words. Some examples of future strategies under

Category 6 were slow but sure reading, rereading until

comprehension is achieved, and scanning before reading.

On the other hand, among the participants from the

SchBusiness class, the majority of their responses were placed

under Categories 5 (Performing research about the text and its topic) and 3,

almost similar to responses of most of the CompStudies

participants. Category 5 had the following examples of

strategies, which consisted of knowing the genre of a text and

researching on the topic of the text.

30

Despite the disparate results, it could be said that both

sample classes were oriented towards preparing themselves for

reading, since researching and unlocking difficult words enable

every reader to develop readiness for reading difficult and/or

unfamiliar texts in the future, similar to Anjum and Ullah’s

(2011) study, where the more strategic and flexible readers were

the ones who had increased self-awareness and self-direction.

Furthermore, it could be observed that generally, participants

from both sample classes are strategic in terms of encountering

difficulties, particularly in preparing for the reading of a

difficult/unfamiliar text.

IV. CONCLUSION

Developing comprehension in both expository and narrative

texts is necessary for readers across all levels. In the case of

both sample EnglCom classes, different strategies were applied by

the participants in their reading of both narrative and

expository texts. Generally, participants from both classes

utilized strategies such as using context clues, skimming,

31

scanning, and previewing. These strategies are important in

reading texts, whether narrative or expository. However, it was

also widely observed that the majority of the participants seldom

or never applied strategies such as thinking aloud, summarizing,

outlining, and using graphic organizers. An implication of such

results could be that the participants are generally

individualistic and spontaneous when reading texts; whatever they

remember from the text shall either be stored in their long-term

or short-term memory, depending on the situation. If a text is

read for the purpose of complying with academic requirements in

minor subjects, students tend to forget the ideas after the class

for the semester is over. Contrastingly, if a text is read as

part of one’s major or as part of a hobby, then the concepts of

the text could be part of the reader’s long-term memory,

especially if the concepts are useful to the reader in his/her

profession and every day life.

It was manifested in most of the participants that, in terms

of encountering difficult or unfamiliar texts, they had the

motivation to deal with such texts, especially when reading texts

32

within the classroom setting. Also, it was observed that they

still maintain a positive attitude even when reading difficult

and/or unfamiliar texts. As for the listing strategies on how to

deal with such texts in the future, it was observed among the

participants that they were prepared to read even texts beyond

their schemata and comprehension level. Once an individual

develops an objective awareness of his/her strengths and

limitations as a reader, he/she tends to become more strategic by

starting to list and to eventually implement the strategies that

he/she could find assistive and convenient.

An implication of the overall results could be that reading

strategies must be taught across all levels. It is necessary that

students be taught how to utilize different reading strategies,

and these strategies must be appropriate according to the type of

text. Moreover, teachers themselves must properly model the

appropriate reading strategies, in order for the students to

learn more effectively through modeling instead of mere

lecturing. Another implication of the overall results could be

that, even outside classroom contexts, students must consistently

33

implement reading strategies in texts, especially informative

ones such as newspapers and magazines. For students to naturally

adopt various reading strategies, they must be encouraged to

implement these even if some texts may be difficult for them. One

last implication could be that readers, even while in pre-school,

must be taught how to read strategically for them to cope with

their academic requirements, especially reading, as they progress

from one grade level to another.

It is recommended in future similar studies that at least

two (2) to three (3) samples classes per college be used. This is

in order to have a true representation per college, since in the

current study, only one (1) class for each college was used.

Another recommendation is that narrative and expository texts of

the same topic and of the same sentence length and writing style

be used, in order to objectively determine the reading strategies

students use in reading both text types. A last recommendation is

that this study be replicated in both the grade school and high

school levels, with the texts adjusted according to the students’

34

current levels and reading interests in order to yield more

objective and comparable results.

35

V. REFERENCES

Anjum, T. and Inam Ullah, H. (2011). The Reciprocal Reading Strategy to Improve Reading

Comprehension in Self Directed Learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary

Research In Business, 3 (3), pp. 1315-1323.

Durik, A.M., Vida, M., and Eccles, J.S. (2006). Task Values and Ability Beliefs as Predictors of

High School Literacy Choices: A Developmental Analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98 (2), pp. 382-393.

Egidi G. and Gerrig, R.J. (2006). Readers’ Experiences of Characters’ Goals and

Actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 32(6), 1322-1329.

Hermosa, N.N. (2002). The Psychology of Reading. Quezon City: University of the Philippines

Open University.

Millis, K.K. and King, A. (2001). Rereading Strategically: The Influences of Comprehension

Ability and a Prior Reading on the Memory for Expository Text. Reading Psychology,

22, pp. 41-65.

Monash University (2005). Efficient Reading Strategies. Retrieved on March 17th, 2012

from http://www.monash.edu.au/lls/llonline/quickrefs/12-efficient-reading.xml

Price L.H., van Kleeck, A., and Huberty, C.J. (2009). Talk duringBook Sharing between Parents

and Preschool Children: A Comparison between Storybook and Expository Book Conditions. Reading Research Quarterly. 44(2), 171-194.

36

Schutte, N.S. and Malouff, J.M. (2007). Dimensions of Reading Motivation: Development

of an Adult Reading Motivation Scale. Reading Psychology, 28, pp.469-489.

The National Capital Language Resource Center (2004). Strategies for Developing Reading

Skills. Retrieved on March 16th, 2012 from http://www.nclrc.org/essentials/reading/stratread.htm

van den Broek, P., Lynch, J.S., Ievers-Landis, C.E., Naslund, J.,and Verduin, K. (2003). The

Development of Comprehension of Main Ideas in Narratives: Evidence from the

Selection of Titles. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95 (4), pp. 707-718.

Veveiros, J. (2010). The Effects of Teaching Expository Reading Strategies During Science

Instruction on Content Knowledge and Overall Reading Ability (Master’s Thesis).

Retrieved from http://csus-dspace.calstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10211.9/587/Jennifer%20Veveiros%20-%20Final%20%20Formatted%20Revised.pdf?sequence=1

Williams, J.P., Hall, K.M., Lauer, K.D., Stafford, K.B., DeSisto,L.A., and

deCani, J.S. (2005). Expository Text Comprehension in the Primary Grade Classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(4), pp.538-550.

Wolfe, M. and Mienko, J. (2007). Learning and memory of factual content from narrative and

expository text. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, pp. 541-564.

37

38