Deregözü, A. & Üstün, B. (2021). A comparative study of reading strategies used by prospective language teachers. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 8(2). 1250-1262. Received : 23.11.2020 Revised version received : 14.02.2021 Accepted : 20.02.2021 A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF READING STRATEGIES USED BY PROSPECTIVE LANGUAGE TEACHERS1 Research article Aysel Deregözü Inonu University aysel.deregozu@inonu.edu.tr Bilal Üstün Neşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli University bustun@nevsehir.edu.tr Aysel Deregözü is an instructor at School of Foreign Languages of Inonu University. She received her Ph.D. degree in German Language Teaching from Marmara University. Language teaching methods, language teacher education and linguistics are among her fields of interest. Bilal Üstün is an instructor at School of Foreign Languages of Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli University. He received his Ph.D. degree in German Language Teaching from Anadolu University. Linguistics, migration, language teaching methods are among his fields of interest. Copyright © 2014 by International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET). ISSN: 2148-225X. Material published and so copyrighted may not be published elsewhere without written permission of IOJET. 1 This study was presented at the 2nd International Language and Literature Congress at Osmaniye Korkut Ata University in Turkey, 18-20 November 2020. http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8371-8047 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9490-3109 mailto:bustun@nevsehir.edu.tr International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(2), 1250-1262. 1251 A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF READING STRATEGIES USED BY PROSPECTIVE LANGUAGE TEACHERS Aysel Deregözü aysel.deregozu@inonu.edu.tr Bilal Üstün bustun@nevsehir.edu.tr Abstract The study investigated reading strategies used by prospective foreign language teachers studying at a foreign language department of an education faculty in Turkey. It was explored how these strategies differ in view of the variables such as gender, department, education experience, and proficiency levels. For this aim, the Reading Strategy Use Scale is implemented to prospective foreign language teachers studying at a German and English as a Foreign Language Department in a state university in Turkey. The data were collected from prospective foreign language teachers majoring at two departments (English and German) during the academic year 2020 – 2021. The data were analyzed by using the PASW Statistics 18 program. As the data showed normal distribution, the parametric statistical analyses Independent Samples t-Test and one - way ANOVA were used. The findings revealed that reading strategies used by prospective language teachers differ in terms of gender, but do not differ in terms of the department majored. Regarding education experience there were significant differences in planning and assisting strategies. Sophomores and seniors use more assisting strategies, while preparatory class student’s use less planning strategies compared to freshmen. Furthermore, prospective foreign language teachers with proficiency levels of C use more reading strategies in the construction category compared to A level. Based on the findings of this study, it can be recommended to provide explicit instruction on reading strategies in language teacher education. Keywords: Reading, reading strategies, language learning, prospective language teachers. 1. Introduction In language education, it is of vital importance that learners develop skills in speaking, listening, reading, and writing. Out of these skills, reading is outstanding as it functions in two ways: as a means of learning a language and reading as a purpose. Because of its importance, reading gets special attention in literature. It is emphasized that “High level of reading proficiency guarantees a more effective process of cognition not only linguistically, but socially” (Kung, 2017, p. 1-2). Besides that, when learners are exposed to comprehensible input by reading texts in the target language, their achievements are higher compared to learners’ without such an exposure. Hence, reading has positive effects on learners’ achievement (Krashen, 2007; Krashen, 2013). Moreover, written text incorporates various aspects of language and culture, which can be explored by learners and can enrich their learning experiences. Reading in general is described as “a complex undertaking and an impressive achievement” (Afflerbach, Pearson and Paris, 2008, p. 364). This statement refers to reading mailto:e@mail.com Deregozlu & Ustun 1252 in a native language; nevertheless reading in a foreign language seems to be a much more complex undertaking and impressive achievement as texts need to be decoded and messages understood in a foreign language. However, the view that reading is just text decoding and extract meaning is highly debated in literature, as it takes not the process but the product into consideration. It is emphasized that the nature of reading is much more sophisticated as to confine it to simple reading definition, and it is a dynamic process that needs readers’ active involvements (Roomy and Alhawsawi, 2019, p.34). From this point of view, reading in a foreign language is a process, which requires learners’ active involvement and the ability to extract the intended meaning in a desired way. Learners’ prior knowledge, interpretation capacity, knowledge in grammar, vocabulary and syntax are decisive and crucial components of this process (Lutjeharms, 2010, p.977 - 978). Yet, to understand messages containing aspects of language are a challenging issue for learners. Moreover, “As reading is viewed as a dynamic process not just a final product, it means that the process of reading calls for a wide range of strategies of which most inefficient readers are unaware” (Roomy and Alhawsawi, 2019, p.34). In this regard, strategies assist readers during the reading process and facilitate reading comprehension. Besides that, strategies can make learning efficient and effective (Oxford, Lavine and Crookall, 1989). But, what are strategies? When the meaning of strategies is examined in literature, it is evident that there are various definitions. Rubin (1975) defines it as “The techniques or devices, which a learner may use to acquire knowledge” (p.43). And, Garner explains it as “generally deliberate, planful activities undertaken by active learners, many times to remedy perceived cognitive failure” (1987, p. 50; cited in Tuncer, 2011, p.13). Oxford (1993) states it as “Tools for active, self-directed involvement that is necessary for developing L2 communicative ability” (p. 175). But, reading strategies in special are defined as “Mental operations involved when readers approach a text effectively and make sense of what they read” (Barnett, 1988, p. 150). Afflerbach, Pearson and Paris state it as “Deliberate, goal-directed attempts to control and modify the reader’s efforts to decode text, understand words, and construct meanings of text” (2008, p. 368). When the literature on reading strategies are viewed, it is evident that reading strategies are classified in different ways. Some researchers (Barnett, 1988; Saricoban, 2002) suggest reading strategies for three different stages: Pre -, while - and post- reading. Among suggested pre – reading activities are brainstorming for appropriate background knowledge or imagining text content from a title or illustrations. For while – reading activities discussing word formation and word meanings in context are given as examples. Post – reading requires global comprehension activities such as summarizing and getting the gist of a text (Barnett, 1988). Anderson (1991) defines several categories for processing strategies. These categories are supervising strategies, support strategies, paraphrase strategies for establishing coherence in text, and test – taking strategies (p.463). Mokhtari and Sheorey (2002) summarize reading strategies under the aspects global, problem – solving and support strategies. They describe global reading strategies as “Intentional, carefully planned techniques by which learners monitor or manage their reading, such as having a purpose in mind, previewing the text as to its length and organization, or using typographical aids and tables and figures”, problem solving strategies as “Actions and procedures that readers use while working directly with the text” and support strategies as “Basic support mechanism intended to aid the reader in comprehending the text such as using dictionary, taking notes, underlining, or highlighting textual information” (p.4). Examples for problem solving strategies are given by Mokhtari and Sheorey (2002, p.4) as “Adjusting one’s speed of reading when the material becomes International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(2), 1250-1262. 1253 difficult or easy, guessing the meaning of unknown words, and rereading the text to improve comprehension”. Whereas to Barnett (1988), problem solving techniques include “Guessing word meanings from context and evaluating those guesses, recognizing cognates and word families, skimming, scanning, reading for meaning, predicting, activating general knowledge, making inferences, following references, and separating main ideas from supporting details” (Barnett, 1988, p. 150). No matter how different the approaches in classifying the reading strategies are, the importance that these strategies favor learners reading achievement and should be explicit thematised in language education is undisputable. It is pointed out that reading strategies “Can and should be learned to the point of automaticity, after which they become skills, and that learners must know not only what strategies to use, but also when, where, and how to use them” (Mokthari and Reichard, 2002, p.250). Hence, it is suggested to provide explicit instruction on reading strategies (Afflerbach, Pearson and Paris, 2008, p. 370). But, arranging learning contexts appealing learners’ needs require knowing learners’ actual state. It is stated that far more research have been conducted on reading in L1 contexts (especially in English as a first foreign language) than in L2 contexts (Grabe and Stoller, 2002; cited in Yaylı, 2010). When research on reading strategies in L2 contexts are examined, it is evident that these studies mainly focus on reading strategies in English language learning (Huang and Nisbet, 2014; Kung, 2017; Madhumati and Ghosh, 2012; Roomy and Alhawsawi, 2019, Salataci and Akyel, 2002). Also, the studies on reading strategies of prospective foreign language teachers especially in Turkish educational context are limited and focus mainly on ELT students reading strategies. For instance, Ozek and Civelek (2006) investigated the use of cognitive reading strategies used by ELT students. Solak and Altay (2014) examined the metacognitive awareness of prospective English teachers regarding reading strategies. Yaylı (2010) investigated metacognitive and cognitive reading strategies of ELT students. Few studies were conducted with prospective German language teachers. Sönmez Genç and Ünal (2017) questioned to what extent explicit instruction on reading strategies affect reading comprehension of prospective German language teachers. Çelikkaya and Balkaya (2020) examined the pre- while- and post-reading strategies usage of prospective German language teachers in their first year of education. Hence, in-depth research on reading strategies used by prospective foreign language teachers is needed, as they are not just students but also prospective teachers. As students they need to know how to use reading strategies effectively and as prospective teachers they need to know, which reading strategies can be implemented in class. From this point of view, it is essential to find out to what extent prospective foreign language teachers use reading strategies and how these strategies differ in terms of some variables, which can give evidence on the state of reading strategies use and their preferences. Based on the findings, suggestions could be made for the use of reading strategies in language teacher education. This study is based on the following questions: 1. Do the reading strategies used by prospective English and German language teachers differ in terms of the variables gender? 2. Do the reading strategies used by prospective English and German language teachers differ in terms of the department majored? 3. Do the reading strategies used by prospective English and German language teachers Deregozlu & Ustun 1254 differ in terms of education experience? 4. Do the reading strategies used by prospective English and German language teachers differ in terms of proficiency levels? 2. Methodology 2.1. Participants The sample for this study consists of prospective foreign language teachers. The groups were determined with random sampling method. The data were collected from prospective foreign language teachers studying at Foreign Language Teaching Department of German and English languages at a state university in Turkey during the academic year 2020 – 2021. The study involved 160 participants. Out of the participants, 32 ones (20.3%) were at the preparatory class at the school of foreign languages. 139 of the participants (87.97%) attended one-year extensive language education at the preparatory class prior to their faculty education. Of the participants, 118 (74.7%) were females and 40 (25.3%) were males. Regarding their department, 66 (41.8%) participants were in German language teaching department and 92 (58.2%) participants in English language teaching department. When considering their education experience, 32 (20.3%) were at the preparatory class, 32 (20.3%) were freshmen, 31 (19.6%) sophomores, 32 (20.3%) juniors and 31 (%19.6) seniors. 2.2. Instruments The aim of this study is to examine prospective foreign language teachers’ reading strategies use. For this purpose, the Reading Strategies Use Scale was used, developed by Deane and Pereira – Laird (1997), adapted and developed by Tuncer (2011) so as to assess Turkish students’ usage of reading strategies while reading in a foreign language. The Reading Strategies Use Scale is in Likert - type form and consists of 28 items and six sub – categories. The sub – categories represent reading strategies in construction, management, assisting, visualization, self – regulation and planning. Respondents rated each item from ‘never’ (1) to ‘always’ (5). The Cronbach’s alpha value of the Reading Strategy Use Scale was found to be .89 in the adapted and developed form, and in this study the reliability was found to be .72, which indicates a sufficient reliability level. Furthermore, to evaluate participants’ demographic features a questionnaire was prepared and implemented to the participants. The consents of the participants, showing that they voluntarily participated in the study, were obtained, and necessary permissions for the implementation were officially taken from the institution. 2.3. Data Collection And Analysis The data were analyzed by using PASW Statistics 18. As the data showed normal distribution, the parametric statistical analyses Independent Samples t-Test and One - Way ANOVA were used. In case of statistical significant differences between groups in the One - Way ANOVA analysis results, the source of differences was examined with Post Hoc Scheffe test. 3. Results 3.1. Findings On Descriptive Statistics Of Reading Strategies Use In Table 1, the descriptive statistics based on the findings of reading strategies use are presented. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(2), 1250-1262. 1255 Table 1. Descriptive statistics results of reading strategies use N Min Max Mean Std. Deviation Constructing 158 1.20 5.00 3.55 .69 Planning 158 1.17 5.00 3.43 .68 Management 158 1.00 4.40 2.27 .70 Assisting 158 2.80 5.00 4.16 .52 Visualization 158 1.00 5.00 3.61 .90 Self - regulation 158 1.00 5.00 3.70 .73 RSU 158 2.39 4.57 3.43 .35 When the means are examined (See Table 1), it is evident that the assisting strategies category has the highest mean with an average of 4.16, and the management category has the lowest mean with an average of 3.43. 3.2. Findings On Reading Strategies Use According To Gender Independent Samples t - Test was applied to determine the differences between female and male participants in terms of reading strategies. Table 2. Results of the independent samples t – Test on reading strategies use according to gender Gender N x Sd t p Constructing Female 118 3.67 .67 3.86 .000* Male 40 3.22 .62 Planning Female 118 3.50 .70 2.28 .025* Male 40 3.25 .56 Management Female 118 2.17 .70 -3.25 .002* Male 40 2.56 .62 Assisting Female 118 4.22 .52 2.35 .021* Male 40 4.01 .47 Visualization Female 118 3.79 .77 4.22 .000* Male 40 3.06 1.01 Self - regulation Female 118 3.73 .75 1.04 .300 Male 40 3.60 .67 RSU Female 118 3.49 3.49 3.78 .000* Male 40 3.27 3.27 *p˂ .05 When Table 2 is examined, it is evident that the reading strategies use mean of females has been found ( x = 3.49) and males ( x = 3.27). In the comparison of mean points of two groups, significant differences has been found at *p ˂ .05 level (p = .000) in favor of females. This finding reveals that reading strategies used by females are higher than males. Deregozlu & Ustun 1256 3.3. Findings On Reading Strategies Use According To Department Independent Samples t - Test was applied to determine reading strategies use in terms of the variable department. Table 3. Results of the independent samples t – Test on reading strategies use according to department Department N x Sd t p Constructing German 66 3.44 .76 -1.77 .080 English 92 3.64 .62 Planning German 66 3.46 .71 .40 .687 English 92 3.41 .66 Management German 66 2.22 .76 -67 .501 English 92 2.30 .66 Assisting German 66 4.22 .54 1.09 .278 English 92 4.13 .49 Visualization German 66 3.59 .94 -.18 .860 English 92 3.62 .87 Self - regulation German 66 3.72 .66 .36 .722 English 92 3.68 .79 RSU German 66 3.42 .33 -.41 .684 English 92 3.44 .37 * p˂ .05 The results of the independent samples t – Test on strategies use according to department revealed that there were no statistical significant differences of prospective foreign language teachers’ reading strategies use in terms of the variable department (See Table 3). 3.4. Findings On Reading Strategies Use According To Education Experience One - Way ANOVA was applied to determine the differences of reading strategies use mean points in view of education experience. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(2), 1250-1262. 1257 Table 4. Results of the variance analysis on reading strategies use according to education experience Source of Variance df Sum of Squares Mean Square F p Constructing Between Groups 4 2.453 .613 1.32 .266 Within Groups 153 71.241 .466 Total 157 73.693 Planning Between Groups 4 5.807 1.452 3.36 .011* Within Groups 153 66.079 .432 Total 157 71.886 Management Between Groups 4 2.742 .686 1.42 .230 Within Groups 153 73.892 .483 Total 157 76.634 Assisting Between Groups 4 3.967 .992 4.01 .004* Within Groups 153 37.835 .247 Total 157 41.802 Visualization Between Groups 4 .410 .102 .12 .973 Within Groups 153 125.377 .819 Total 157 125.787 Self - regulation Between Groups 4 1.080 .270 .50 .737 Within Groups 153 82.873 .542 Total 157 83.953 RSU Between Groups 4 .521 .130 1.04 .389 Within Groups 153 19.201 .125 Total 157 19.723 *p˂ .05 When Table 4 is examined, it can be seen that there are significant differences between prospective foreign language teachers’ planning and assisting strategies use in terms of education experience at p ˂ .05 level (planning: F=3.36; p=.011; assisting: F=4.01; p=.004). Post Hoc Scheffe test was applied in order to find out the source of differences. Post Hoc Scheffe test results revealed that there were mean differences between preparatory class students and sophomores related to assisting reading strategies. There were also mean differences between preparatory class students and seniors in this category. Sophomores and seniors mean points were higher than of preparatory class students. Furthermore, the test revealed that there were mean differences between preparatory class students and freshmen in the planning category. Planning reading strategies of preparatory class students was found higher than of freshmen. 3.5. Findings On Reading Strategies Use According To Proficiency Level One - Way ANOVA was applied to determine the differences between the mean points of reading strategies use in terms of the variable proficiency level. Deregozlu & Ustun 1258 Table 5. Results of the variance analysis on reading strategies use according to proficiency level Source of Variance df Sum of Squares Mean Square F p Constructing Between Groups 2 3.871 1.935 4.30 .015* Within Groups 155 69.822 .450 Total 157 73.693 Planning Between Groups 2 .095 .047 .10 .903 Within Groups 155 71.791 .463 Total 157 71.886 Management Between Groups 2 .219 .109 .22 .801 Within Groups 155 76.415 .493 Total 157 76.634 Assisting Between Groups 2 .252 .126 .47 .626 Within Groups 155 41.550 .268 Total 157 41.802 Visualization Between Groups 2 1.754 .877 1.10 .337 Within Groups 155 124.033 .800 Total 157 125.787 Self - regulation Between Groups 2 2.622 1.311 2.50 .085 Within Groups 155 81.331 .525 Total 157 83.953 RSU Between Groups 2 .364 .182 1.46 .236 Within Groups 155 19.359 .125 Total 157 19.723 *p˂ .05 When Table 5 is examined, it can be seen that there is a significant difference at p ˂ .05 level of prospective foreign language teachers’ reading strategies use mean points in terms of proficiency level regarding constructing (F=4.30; p=.015). Post Hoc Scheffe test was applied to figure out the differences in means of constructing strategies of groups. The test results revealed that the differences in means are between prospective foreign language teachers on C and A level. Prospective foreign language teachers on C level used reading strategies in the category constructing more than prospective foreign language teachers on A level. 4. Discussion The aim of this study was to examine reading strategies used by prospective foreign language teachers. The findings of this study indicated that reading strategies used by prospective foreign language teachers differ in some sub – categories. According to mean points, not all reading strategies are preferred equally. Furthermore, the study revealed that females use on overall more reading strategies than males. When considering the results of reading strategies in constructing, planning, management, assisting, visualization categories it is evident that there were significant differences especially between females and males. However, regarding the self – regulation strategies, there were no significant differences between females and males. When this finding is compared with the finding of the study conducted by Tuncer (2011), it can be seen that the employed reading strategies in the sub – categories differ in terms of gender. In the study there were no significant differences in constructing, assisting, self- regulation and planning, but in management and visualization strategies used by females and males (Tuncer, 2011, p.41). Hence, the findings of this study International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(2), 1250-1262. 1259 and the findings of Tuncer’s study, where the same Reading Strategies Use Scale is used to specify reading strategies used by prospective foreign language teachers, differ in view of their results in the sub – categories constructing, assisting and planning. But the results on management and visualization strategies differences in terms of the variable sex shows consistency in both studies. Whereas, Solak and Altay’s (2014, p.86) findings elucidate that both gender prefer to take advantage of similar strategies in common, in the present study there seems not to be such a preference. With regards of department the study showed that there were no significant differences between prospective German and English language teachers’ reading strategies use. Hence, reading strategies used by prospective German and English language teachers are similar. The examination whether there is a significant difference in reading strategies usage in terms of education experience revealed that there were significant differences in planning and assisting strategies. But, in constructing, management, visualization and self - regulation there were no significant differences. Hence, it can be inferred that reading strategies in these categories are not developed during education. In this regard study results on reading strategies used by prospective foreign language teachers show similarities. Ozek and Civelek (2006) found that certain reading strategies are not employed by 1st and 4th year students effectively (p.23). The findings of reading strategies use in terms of proficiency level revealed that there were significant differences in the category constructing, but not in the other categories. Prospective foreign language teachers on a proficiency level C used constructing strategies more frequent compared to participants on level A. This finding is not consistent with the findings of prior studies, where it is stated that advanced learners use reading strategies more frequent than intermediate (Tuncer, 2011, p.51) and that high intermediate adult learners use the most strategies and advanced learners use the least strategies (Huang and Nisbet, 2014). 5. Conclusion The study conducted on prospective foreign language teachers’ reading strategies use revealed that there were significant differences in terms of gender, but not in terms of department. Whereas education experience affected reading strategies in the categories planning and assisting, proficiency level influenced reading strategies use in the category constructing. The study revealed that prospective foreign language teachers overall reading strategies use are moderate and not all strategies are preferred equally. Sönmez Genç and Ünal’s (2017) study indicated that explicit training of reading strategies has positive effects on the general use of strategies. Prospective German language teachers used after reading strategies training the trained strategies more frequent and adequate. Hence, explicit instruction on reading strategies are recommended. 6. Limitations and suggestions This study is limited to reading strategies defined in the Reading Strategies Use Scale (Tuncer, 2011) under the categories construction, management, assisting, visualization, self – regulation and planning. Further studies may examine other reading strategy categories and their development during language teacher education. This study was also limited with determining the state of reading strategies use and how they differ in terms of some variables. Further studies may investigate how these strategies can be implemented with activities supporting the use of reading strategies in these categories in class. Madhumati and Arijit (2012, p.137) state that high proficiency students are good at choosing appropriate strategies than compared to low proficiency students. The dissimilarities of study results regarding proficiency may be based on learning experiences, which may influence reading strategies Deregozlu & Ustun 1260 usage. But, this assumed relation needs to be proved by research findings. Hence, research, which are examining this relation, are recommended. For the development of reading skill in a foreign language, it is suggested to present different types of reading strategies to learners and to encourage them to use them actively for reading texts in a foreign language. Above all, prospective foreign language teachers need to be trained regarding reading strategies, not just to use them for reading texts, but also to use them as prospective foreign language teachers in their own classes. Raising awareness in this regard may contribute to develop positive attitude towards reading in the foreign language. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(2), 1250-1262. 1261 References Afflerbach, P., Pearson P. D., & Paris, S. G. (2008). Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61(5), 364 – 373. Anderson, N. T. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing. The Modern Language Journal, 75(4), 460 – 472. Barnett, M. V. (1988). Reading through context: How real and perceived strategy use affects L2 comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 72, 150 – 161. Çelikkaya, Ş., & Balkaya, Ş. (2020). Yabancı dil Almanca öğrencilerinin okuma becerileri dersinde kullandıkları okuduğunu anlama stratejilerine ilişkin görüşleri. Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International, 10(2), 989 – 1003. Genç, A. (1995). Yabancı dilde okuma alışkanlığı. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(11), 71 -74. Huang, J., & Nisbet, D. (2014). The relationship between reading proficiency and reading strategy use: A study of adult ESL learners. Journal of Adult Education, 43(2), 1- 11. Krashen, S. (2007). Extensive reading in English as a foreign language by adolescents and young adults: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 3(2), 23-29. Krashen, S. (2013). Second language acquisition. Theory, applications, and some conjectures. Mexico: Cambridge University Press. Kung, F. – W. (2017). Teaching second language reading comprehension: the effects of classroom materials and reading strategy use. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1- 11. Lutjeharms, M. (2010). Vermittlung der Lesefertigkeit. In H.-J. Krumm, C. Fandrych, B. Hufeisen, & C. Riemer (eds). Deutsch als Fremd- und Zweitsprache. Ein internationales Handbuch. (s.976 – 982). Göttingen: De Gruyter Mouton. Madhumati, P., & Arijit G. (2012). Awareness of reading strategy use of Indian ESL students and the relationship with reading comprehension achievement. English Language Teaching, 5(12), 131 – 140. Mokhtari, K., & Sheorey, R. (2002). Measuring ESL students’ awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Developmental Education, 2- 10. Mokthari, K. & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assesing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249 – 259. Oxford, R. L. (1993). Research on second language learning strategies. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 175 – 187. Oxford, R. L., Lavine, R. Z., & Crookall, D. (1989). Language learning strategies, the communicative approach, and their classroom implications. Foreign Language Annals, 22(1), 29 – 39. Ozek, Y., & Civelek, M. (2006). A study on the use of cognitive reading strategies by ELT students. The Asian EFL Journal, 1 – 26. Pereira – Laird, J. A., & Deane, F.P. (1997). Development and validation of a self – report measure of reading stratey use. Reading Psychology, 18(3), 185 – 235. Deregozlu & Ustun 1262 Roomy, M., & Alhawsawi, S. (2019). Understanding reading strategies of EFL Saudi students. English Language Teaching, 12(6), 33 - 44. Rubin, J. (1975). What the “Good language learner” can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 41 – 51. Salataci, R., & Akyel, A. (2002). Possible Effects of strategy instruction on L1 and L2 reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 14(1), 1- 17. Saricoban, A. (2002). Reading strategies of successful readers through the three phase approach. The Reading Matrix, 2(3), 1-16. Solak, E., & Altay, F. (2014). The reading strategies used by prospective English teachers in turkish ELT context. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 1(3), 78 - 89. Sönmez Genç, N., & Ünal Ç. D. (2017). Die Vermittlung von Lesestrategien und ihr Einfluss auf den Strategiegebrauch. Moderne Sprak, 111(1), 35 -58. Tuncer, U. (2011). The adaptation and development of “Metacognitive reading strategies questionnaire” and “reading use scale” for Turkish learners learning English as a foreign language (Unpublished master thesis). Mersin University Institute of Educational Sciences, Mersin. Yaylı, D. (2010). A think – aloud study: cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies of ELT department students. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 38, 234 – 251.