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
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
Top Related