Solak, E. & Altay, İ. F. (2014). The reading strategies

used by prospective English teachers in Turkish ELT

context. International Online Journal of Education

and Teaching (IOJET), 1(3). 251-260.

http://iojet.org/index.php/IOJET/article/view/52/71

THE READING STRATEGIES USED BY PROSPECTIVE ENGLISH TEACHERS IN

TURKISH ELT CONTEXT

Ekrem Solak

Amasya University

ekremsolak@gmail.com

İ.Fırat Altay

Hacettepe University

ifaltay@hacettepe.edu.tr

Biodata

Ekrem SOLAK (Ph.D.) has been an Assistant Professor at ELT Department at Amasya

University, Turkey. His major is teaching language skills, teaching reading skill, material

development, syllabus design and learning strategies. He has publications in both national

and international indexed journals and publication houses on various topics of language

teaching and learning.

İ.Fırat ALTAY (Ph.D.) has been an Assistant Professor at ELT Department at Hacettepe

University, Turkey. He has also been the vice head of prep school at Hacettepe University.

elsewhere without the written permission of IOJET.

http://iojet.org/index.php/IOJET/article/view/52/71
mailto:ekremsolak@gmail.com
mailto:ifaltay@hacettepe.edu.tr

International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2014, 1(3), 251-260.

251

THE READING STRATEGIES USED BY PROSPECTIVE ENGLISH

TEACHERS IN TURKISH ELT CONTEXT

Ekrem SOLAK

ekremsolak@gmail.com

İ. Fırat ALTAY

ifaltay@hacettepe.edu.tr

Abstract

The purpose of this research was to determine what types of reading strategies prospective

English Teachers used to accomplish in their reading assignments and activities. The study

was conducted at a state-run University, English Language Teaching Department in Turkey.

The participants were 130 prospective English Teachers majoring English Language

Teaching and taking up the lecture of teaching language skills. The Metacognitive Awareness

of Reading Strategies Inventory (MARSI) was used to collect data about the use of reading

strategies while reading academic or school-related materials. The data collected was

measured in SPSS program. The results indicated that participants used each strategy

effectively. As the most striking strategy, subjects underlined or circled information in the

text to help them remember the information. While both genders preferred to take advantage

of similar strategies in common, they mostly preferred to use problem solving strategies

compared to other strategies.

Keywords: Reading strategies, prospective English teacher’s reading strategies

1. Introduction

Reading was the primary focus of language learning and teaching via Grammar

Translation Method till 20
th

century. At that time, the aim of language learning was to read

scientific texts in Latin. The 1929 Coleman Report proposed a new approach to the reading

and recommended that reading in the target language without any translation was

encouraged. The aim was to develop an idea of independent silent reading and to increase

reading speed of individuals. Krashen (1985) viewed reading skill as a comprehensible input

and claimed that reading gave rise to competence in speaking and writing. Krashen (1985)

also maintained that voluntary reading could be a means from communicative language

competence to academic language competence. Goodman et al. (1995) highlighted a

psycholinguistic view of reading in which reading was viewed as an interactive process

between the reader and the writer.

Reading can be considered probably the most important skill for language learners to

major in academic contexts. Reading is an interactive process because learners make use of

several sub skills to reach an understanding of written material such as recalling background

knowledge, having an aptitude of text schema, lexical and grammatical awareness, L1-related

knowledge and real-world knowledge, including their own personal purposes and goals.

(Grabe, 1991)

Since the reading skill can be considered one of the most important skills in academic

context, this research focuses on to determine the types of reading strategies used by

prospective English teachers. By this means, it is believed that the implications of this study

will give ideas to syllabus designers, material developers and lesson planners in reading

mailto:ekremsolak@gmail.com
mailto:ifaltay@hacettepe.edu.tr

Solak & Altay

252

activities in English teaching context. This research is conducted in a Turkish setting on

Turkish prospective English teachers which makes this study different from the current

literature.

2. Conceptual Framework

2.1. Reading, the Reading Process, Reading strategies

Ransom (1978: 14) defines reading as “a conversation between the writer and the reader.”

Nuttall (1996: 4) regards reading as “the process of getting out of the text as nearly as

possible with the message the writer puts into it.” Williams (1996: 2) states reading as “a

process through which one looks at and understands a written text.” According to Goodman

(1995), reading is a psychologically guessing game. Reading is described as a complicated

process of drawing meaning from a text for different purposes in various contexts (Allen &

Bruton, 1998). Additionally, in the reading process, readers make use of their background

and their linguistic knowledge about the topic to achieve their purpose for reading (Peregoy

& Boyle, 2001).

Garner (1987) defines reading strategies as an action or series of actions employed in

order to construct meaning. Readers take advantage of a variety of strategies to help them

with the acquisition, storage and retrieval of information. Readers can face some

comprehension problems and use strategies to overcome their difficulties. Each reader

benefits from various strategies and some of them lead to target in a faster and clearer way.

(Tercanlıoğlu, 2004)

It has been observed that students, especially ESL and EFL learners, confront a variety of

difficulties while reading. These difficulties comprise inadequate vocabulary, lexical

inefficiency, structural complexity, language inaccessibility, poor reading skills, lack of

schemata, and so on. Students’ lack of interest is another major cause of their failure in

reading.

2.2. Types of Reading

2.2.1. Academic Reading

A student has to pass various examinations during his/her whole course of academic life.

Understanding a given passage is the goal for a reader to answer any kind of questions in the

examinations because readers comprehend the text properly if they extract the required

information as effectively as possible. (Grellet, 1996)

2.2.2. Non-academic Reading

Besides academic reasons, there are various non-academic reasons for reading. In an

academic reading, students tend to read texts because of the syllabus and the thought of

passing the examinations. But non-academic reading is open and readers get an opportunity

to choose from a vast range of books according to their interest, options for choice and

opportunity to spending time.

2.2.3. Intensive Reading

In intensive reading, readers extract specific information in shorter texts. Brown (1989)

resembles intensive reading to a zoom lens strategy and states that “intensive reading calls

attention to grammatical forms, discourse markers and other surface structure details for the

purpose of understanding literal meaning, implications, rhetorical relationships.”

International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2014, 1(3), 251-260.

253

2.3.4. Extensive Reading

Williams (1984) describes extensive reading as the “relatively rapid reading of long texts.”

According to Nuttall (1996), extensive reading is essentially a private activity and the reader

dwells in his/her private world of reading for his/her own interest. Nuttall (1996) has pointed

out two reasons for extensive reading. The first reason is that extensive reading helps to

improve the reading skills of the students. The second reason is that extensive reading not

only serves a different atmosphere for the students but also provides them with enjoyment.

2.3. Approaches to Reading

Top-Down and Bottom-Up are the two ways which readers process the text. Bottom-up

can be defined as processing a text to figure out the meaning by reading word for word and

letter for letter. On the other hand, Top- Down processing is to comprehend the global

meaning of the text through clues in the text and the reader’s good schema knowledge.

Expectations of the reader play a crucial role in this process. The reader brings his/her

personal experiences and views with him/her, and those aspects largely affect the way of

interpreting a text. While bottom-up process is text-driven, top-down approach uses the

meaning brought by the reader, namely, it is reader-driven. The most effective model is the

interactive model which is a combination of both bottom-up and top down elements.

(Anderson, 1999)

3. Method

The purpose of this study is to determine what types of reading strategies the prospective

teachers use to accomplish in their reading assignments and activities. It is believed that

implications of the research will inspire syllabus designers, material developers and lesson

planners in English teaching context especially in reading activities. This study will answer

the following research questions:

1. What are the most and least reading strategies used by the prospective teachers?

2. What groups of strategies do the prospective teachers prefer?

3.1. Subjects

The study was conducted at a State-run University, English Language Teaching

Department in Turkey. The participants were 130 prospective teachers majoring English

Language Teaching and taking up the lecture of teaching language skills during 2012-2013

academic year. The group had similar characteristics with respect to age and educational

background. Gender distribution was 100 females and 30 males.

3.2. Instruments

In this research, Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory (MARSI)

Questionnaire was used to collect data about the readers’ awareness and use of reading

strategies while reading academic materials. The MARSI Questionnaire (Mokhtari and

Reichard, 2002) measures three categories of reading strategies including:

(1) Global Reading Strategies (GLOB), which can be classified as generalized or global

reading strategies aiming to set the stage for the reading act.

(2) Problem-Solving Strategies (PROB), which can be defined as focused problem solving

or repair strategies used when problems emerge in understanding textual information, and (3)

Support Reading Strategies (SUP), which is composed of using the support mechanisms

aimed at sustaining responsiveness to reading.

Solak & Altay

254

The 30-item questionnaire was validated by Mokhtari and Reichard (2002) and the

internal consistency reliability coefficient ranged from 0.89 to 0.93. Five point likert scale

ranging from 1 (I never or almost never use this strategy) to 5 (I always or almost always use

this strategy) was used to collect data about the reading strategies. The data collected was

measured in SPSS program as frequency, means and standard deviation.

4. Findings and Results

The following table presents the most and the least used reading strategies by prospective

English teachers.

Table 1. Reading Strategies Reported Being Used MOST and LEAST

Items
Reading

Strategy
N M SD

I underline or circle information in the text to help me

remember it.
sup 130

4,2

8
1,02

When text becomes difficult, I pay closer attention to what I

am reading.
prob 130

4,2

5
0,93

When text becomes difficult, I reread to increase my

understanding.
prob 130

3,9

7
1,05

I adjust my reading speed according to what I am reading. prob 130
3,9

5
1,18

I try to get back on track when I lose concentration. prob 130
3,8

9
0,94

I take notes while reading to help me understand what I read. sup 130
3,0

2
1,27

I skim the text first by noting characteristics like length and

organization.
glob 130

2,9

9
1,22

I ask myself questions I like to have answered in the text. sup 130
2,9

8
1,15

When text becomes difficult, I read aloud to help me

understand what I read.
sup 130

2,9

2
1,38

I discuss what I read with others to check my understanding sup 130
2,8

8
1,19

Table 1 shows the five reading strategies used most and least by the participants. There

were totally 130 subjects participated in the study. The most used reading strategy used by

the readers at an average of 4,28 was that readers were to underline or to circle information to

help them remember it. The second most used strategy was that the readers paid closer

attention to what they were reading when the text became difficult. This item had a rate of

4,25 mean. Similarly, subjects reread to increase their understanding when text became

difficult and this was the third item marked most at a rate of 3.97. On the other hand, the item

'subjects discuss what they read with others to check their understanding' was the least used

strategy by the participants at a rate of 2,88. The next least used strategy was that subjects

read aloud to help them understand what they read when the text became difficult. Finally,

the other least used strategy was that subjects asked themselves questions, they liked to have

answered in the text and this item had an average of 2,98. While most used reading strategies

were generally Problem-Solving Strategies (PROB), least used strategies were mostly

Support Reading Strategies (SUP). Moreover, the average of all the reading strategies was

3,53.

International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2014, 1(3), 251-260.

255

Table 2. Three Most and Least Used Reading Strategies Reported by males and females

Items

Reading

Strategy

Group

(male) M SD

female) M SD

When text becomes

difficult, I pay closer

attention to what I

am reading. prob 30 4,26 0,94 100 4,25 0,92

I underline or circle

information in the

text to help me

remember it. sup 30 4 1,14 100 4,36 0,96

I adjust my reading

speed according to

what I am reading. prob 30 3,96 0,8 100 3,94 1,27

I discuss what I read

with others to check

my understanding sup 30 2,8 0,92 100 2,91 1,25

I take notes while

reading to help me

understand what I

read. sup 30 2,76 1,04 100 3,1 1,32

I skim the text first

by noting

characteristics like

length and

organization. glob 30 2,73 1,11 100 3,1 1,32

Table 2 indicates the most and least common three Reading Strategies used by male and

female participants. Both groups paid closer attention to what they were reading when text

became difficult. The mean for this item was 4,25 for two groups. The second item which had

the highest rate of mean for both groups was that they underlined and circled information in

the text to help them remember it. The next most marked item by two groups was that they

adjust their reading speed according to what they were reading. The mean for this item was

3,95. On the other hand, as the least rated item, subjects discussed what they read with others

to check their understanding. Following this, the item 'I take notes while reading to help

understand what they read.' got the lowest mean together with the item 'I skim the text first by

noting characteristics like length and organization.' Comparing this Table with Table 1, most

and least rated items exhibited the same characteristics at a large extent. All of the most rated

items in Table 2 were the same with those in Table 1. So were the least rated items. While

most used reading strategies by both genders were generally Problem-Solving Strategies

(PROB), least used strategies were mostly Support Reading Strategies (SUP).

Solak & Altay

256

Table 3. Item Statistics of Global Reading Strategies

Table 3 presents 12 Global Reading Strategies from the highest to the lowest mean. The

item which had the highest mean, 3,78, was that subjects had a purpose in mind when they

read. Following this, the participants used typological aids like boldface and italics to identify

key information. The mean for this item was 3,75. The next highest mean,3,72, belonged to

the item ' I think about what I know to help me understand what I read.’ On the other hand,

the item which had the lowest mean, 2,99, was that participants skimmed the text first by

noting characteristics like length and organization. The second item with the lowest mean,

3,22, stated that subjects used tables, figures, and pictures in text to increase their

understanding. The next lowest graded item with a mean of 3,53 was that participants

critically analyzed and evaluated the information presented in the text. Finally, the average of

all the global reading strategies was 3,53.

Table 4. Item Statistics of Support Reading Strategies (SUP)

Items N M SD

I underline or circle information in the text to help me remember it. 130 4,28 1,02

I go back and forth in the text to find relationship among ideas in it. 130 3,73 1,17

I paraphrase (restate ideas in my own words) to better understand what I

read. 130 3,45 1,08

I use reference materials such as dictionaries to help me understand what

I read. 130 3,25 1,08

I summarize what I read to reflect on important information in the text. 130 3,08 1,09

I take notes while reading to help me understand what I read. 130 3,02 1,27

I ask myself questions I like to have answered in the text. 130 2,98 1,15

When text becomes difficult, I read aloud to help me understand what I

read. 130 2,92 1,38

I discuss what I read with others to check my understanding 130 2,88 1,19

Total 3,29

Items N M SD

I have a purpose in mind when I read. 130 3,78 1,1

I use typological aids like boldface and italics to identify key information. 130 3,75 1,21

I think about what I know to help me understand what I read. 130 3,72 1,01

I preview the text to see what it is about before reading it. 130 3,63 1,11

I decide what to read closely and what to ignore. 130 3,63 1,14

I check my understanding when I come across conflicting information. 130 3,62 1,08

I use context clues to help me better understand what I am reading. 130 3,58 1,18

I check to see if my guesses about the text are right or wrong. 130 3,53 1,28

I try to guess what the material is about when I read. 130 3,48 1,01

I critically analyze and evaluate the information presented in the text. 130 3,39 1,07

I use tables, figures, and pictures in text to increase my understanding. 130 3,22 1,09

I skim the text first by noting characteristics like length and organization. 130 2,99 1,22

Total 3,53

International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2014, 1(3), 251-260.

257

Table 4 shows nine support reading strategies from the highest to the lowest mean. The

highest mean, 4,28, belonged to the item ' I underline or circle information in the text to help

me remember it.' Next, subjects went back and forth in the text to find relationship among

ideas in it. This item had a mean of 3,73. Following this, the item 'I paraphrase to better

understand what I read.' got the highest mean as 3,45. On the other hand, as the items which

got the lowest means in this group, first, participants discussed what they read with others

with a mean of 2,88. The next item getting the lowest mean, 2,92, was that ' When text

becomes difficult, I read aloud to help me understand what I read.' finally, participants asked

themselves questions they liked to have answered in the text. The mean for this item was

2,98. All in all, the mean for all support reading strategies was 3,29.

Table 5. Item Statistics of Problem-Solving Strategies (PROB).

Items N M SD

When text becomes difficult, I pay closer attention to what I am reading. 130 4,25 0,93

When text becomes difficult, I reread to increase my understanding. 130 3,97 1,05

I adjust my reading speed according to what I am reading. 130 3,95 1,18

I try to get back on track when I lose concentration. 130 3,89 0,94

I read slowly but carefully to be sure I understand what I am reading. 130 3,72 1,11

I try to picture or visualize information to help remember what I read. 130 3,68 1,13

I stop from time to time and think about what I am reading. 130 3,60 1,05

I guess the meaning of unknown words by separating different parts of a

word.

130 3,59 0,99

I think about whether the content of the text fits my reading purpose. 130 3,39 1,09

Total 3,78

Table 5 presents nine problem solving strategies from the highest to the lowest mean. The

first item which got the highest mean, 4,25, was that subjects paid closer attention to what

they were reading, when text became difficult. Second highest mean belonged to the item

saying ' I reread to increase my understanding, when text becomes difficult' with a mean of

3,97. Thirdly, subjects adjusted their reading speed according to what they were reading and

it had a mean of 3,95. On the other hand, as the lowest three items, the first one was that

participants thought about whether the content of the text fit their reading purpose with a

mean of 3,39. Secondly, subjects guessed the meaning of unknown words by separating

different parts of a word. Its mean was 3,59. Finally, as one of the items getting the lowest

mean, 3,60, subjects stopped from time to time and thought about what they were reading.

All in all, the average of all problem solving strategies was 3,78 which was the highest of

three reading strategies group.

5. Discussion and Conclusion

Reading is an essential skill to master in academic context. Since prospective teachers are

exposed to reading in many efforts, they must be proficient good readers to fulfill

requirements in academic studies. According to the data collected, there is a moderate

awareness of all the strategies. In other words, there is a kind of balance about the choice of

reading strategies and each skill is essential for the readers. As the most striking strategy,

subjects underline or circle information in the text to help them remember the information. In

addition, they pay closer attention to what they are reading and reread the text, when text

becomes difficult. Hsu (2007) also investigated the English reading strategy use of four-year

technical college students in Taiwan. According to the results, the most often used category is

metacognitive strategy category. This category was followed by social/affective strategy

category. In addition, he also found that the effective learners tend to use specific kinds of

strategies and use strategies more frequently than ineffective learners do.

Solak & Altay

258

As of genders’ choice of reading strategy, both prefer to take advantage of similar

strategies in common. Although both groups mostly use problem solving strategies, they do

not prefer to use support reading strategies. While both pay closer attention to what they are

reading and underline and circle information in the text, they do not prefer to skim the text

first. The reason for the similarity can be the same educational background. The findings of

Amer et al. (2010) are in line with results of the present study and they revealed that there

was no statistically significant difference with reference to gender. However, Li’s findings

(2010) are not in consistent with the results of the present study. He found that females show

higher use of reading strategies than males in each individual category, as well as in the

combined sub-categories. In addition, while the males are more adventurous and bolder, the

females are more careful and considerate. Moreover, Ozek and Civelek ( 2006) studied

reading strategies used while reading a text by ELT students between the 1st and 4th year

students in ELT Department at a state-run university in Turkey. They found that different

reading strategies were used at pre-reading, while-reading, and post-reading stages. The

results proved that there were some significant differences on the use of cognitive reading

strategies in term of students’ gender, age, and proficiency in reading, school source, and

duration in learning English. This finding is not consistent with the results of the present

study. The findings of Hsu (2007) are in consistent with the results of the present study in

terms of gender. He found no significant difference between male and female students in

terms of overall strategy use. However, females use cognitive strategies and social/affective

strategies more often than males do.

In the present research, participants mostly prefer to use problem solving strategies

compared to others. They pay closer attention to what they are reading and reread the text to

increase their understanding. Following this, as global reading strategies, they have a purpose

in mind when they read and they use typological aids like boldface and italics to identify key

information. As from the support reading strategies, participants underline and circle

information in the text to help them remember better. Moreover, they go back and forth in the

text to find relationship among ideas. The findings of this study are in line with Li’s results.

(2010) He investigated the students’ awareness of reading strategy use at the senior middle

school level in Cheese context. Based on his findings, there is a moderate awareness of all the

strategies and the students hold a preference for Problem Solving Reading Strategies,

followed by Global and Support Reading Strategies. On the other hand, Amer et al. (2010)

investigated the online reading strategies of Omani EFL university first-year students and

senior student teachers. Results of their study showed a statistically significant difference

between fourth-year students and first-year students only in global strategies. In other words,

while high-proficient readers use more global strategies than low-proficient readers do, first-

year students reported using more support strategies than senior students did. In another

study, Sarıçoban (2002) examined the strategies effective readers employ in pre-reading,

reading and post-reading stages of instruction in classroom language learning at a state- run

university ELT Department. The result proved that successful readers preferred global

reading strategies first then moved to smaller units such as words, sentences and paragraphs.

The reading strategies analyzed above can be transferred to classroom setting and even to

the free time activity as intensive and extensive reading. Since we consider the subject group

as very good and good readers, following their choice of strategy can lead other readers to

success in reading efforts. Adaptation of these strategies to each reading activity in the

language classroom makes reading classes more meaningful and purposeful. However, which

strategy is more appropriate for pre-, while and post reading stages for various ages can be

the focus of other studies.

International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2014, 1(3), 251-260.

259

References

Allan, J. & Bruton, A. (1998). Squeezing out the juice: Perceptions of reading in the

secondary school. Retrieved on August 5, 2008, from http:/www.scre.ac.uk /spotlight/

spotlight61.html

Amer,A., Al Barwani, T. & Mahmoud Ibrahim, M. (2010). Student teachers’ perceived use

of online reading strategies. International Journal of Education and Development

using Information and Communication Technology. (IJEDICT) 6(4), 102-113.

Anderson, N. (1999). Exploring second language reading: Issues and strategies.

Boston:Heinle.

Carrell, P. (1989). Metacognitive awareness and second language reading. The Modern

Language Journal, 73(2), 121-134

Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood. NJ: Ablex

publishing.

Goodman, K.S. (1995). The reading process. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Grabe, W. (1991). Current developments in second language reading research. TESOL

Quarterly, 25(3), 375-406.

Greenwood, J. (1998). Class readers. Hongkong: Oxford University Press.

Grellet, F. (1996). Developing reading skills: A practical guide to reading comprehension

exercises. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hsu, S. C. (2007). Reading Strategies Used by EFL Technical Students. English Teaching e-

Monthly, 22.

Karbalaei A. (2010). A Comparison of the Metacognitive Reading Strategies Used by EFL

and ESL Readers. The Reading Matrix, 10(2), 165-180.

Krashen, S. (1985). Insights and inquirie. Hayward, CA: Alemany Press.

Li, F. (2010). A Study of English Reading Strategies Used by Senior Middle School

Students. Asian Social Science, 6(10).

Mokhtari, K. & Reichard, C. (2002). Assessing students metacognitive awareness of reading

strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249-259

Nuttall, C. (1996). Teaching Reading Skills in a foreign language. Oxford: Heinemann.

Ozek, Y.& Civelek, M. (2006). A Study on the Use of Cognitive Reading Strategies by ELT

Students. The Asian EFL Journal, 14 1-26.

Pang, S., Muaka, A., Bernhardt, B., & Kamil, M. L. (2003). Teaching reading. Belgium:

International Academy of Education.

Peregoy, S. F. & Boyle, O. F. (2001). Reading, writing, & learning ESL. New York:

Longman.

Ransom, G.A. (1978). Preparing to Teach Reading. Boston: Little Brown Company.

Saricoban A. (2002). Reading strategies of successful readers through the three phase

approach. The Reading Matrix,1-16.

Tercanlioglu, L. (2004). Postgraduate students’ use of reading strategies in L1 and ESL

contexts: Link to success. International Education Journal, 5(4).

Solak & Altay

260

Urquhart, S. & Weir, C. (1998). Reading in a second language: Process, product and

practice. London: Longman.

Williams, E. (1996). Reading in the language classroom. Malaysia: Modern English

Publications.