A study on the use of English reading strategies of the second-year students at Bangkok University

Abstract

The purpose of this research were to 1) investigate the use of English reading strategies of second-year students at Bangkok University 2) compare the use of English reading strategies between the low-achievers and high achievers 3) compare the use of English reading strategies of second-year students classified by their gender, faculty, English learning experience, and reading behavior outside class. The instruments used for collecting data were a questionnaire, a reading comprehension test, an in-depth interview. Proportional stratified random sampling was employed to formulate a sample of 370 students from mine faculties of Bangkok University. The data were statistically analyzed in terms of mean and standard deviation. A t-test analysis was used to find the difference between two groups (male and female students, low and high achievers on the use of reading strategies. In addition, One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the use of reading strategies of students with different faculty, English learning experience, and reading behavior outside class. For the in-depth interview, six students with highest scores and six with the lowest scores were randomized through a simple random sampling technique to give their opinions on three questions provided, and the data were collected to assure the results of the study. The results of this study were as follows: 1. The overall use of reading strategies of second-year students at Bangkok University was at medium level (x̄ = 3.45). Three strategies were used at an extensive level : scanning (x̄ = 3.84), making inference (x̄ = 3.55), and schema (x̄ = 3.54) and five strategies were used at a medium level : skimming (x̄ = 3.49), identifying main ideas and supporting details (x̄ = 3.42), using context clues (x̄ =3.41), using grammatical clues (x̄ = 3.21), and using word parts (x̄ =3.12) 2. There was statistically significant difference between two groups of achievers (low and high) in the overall strategy usage at the level of.05. That is, high achievers had an extensive level of strategy usage (x̄ =3.73) while low achievers had a medium level of strategy usage (x̄ = 3.32) 3. There was no statistically significant difference between male and female students in the overall strategy usage and in each strategy at the level of .05. 4. Significant differences among nine faculties were found at the level of .05.in the overall strategy and in each strategy. That is, faculties which had an extensive level of strategy usage included Humanities (x̄ =4.39), Fine and Applied Arts (x̄ =3.54), and Engineering (x̄ =3.50). Faculties which had a medium level of strategy usage included Law (x̄ =3.44), Business Administration (x̄ =3.44), Communication Arts (x̄ =3.43), Accounting (x̄ = 3.29), Economics (x̄ = 3.24), and Science and Technology (x̄ = 3.22) 5. The students who had different English learning experience had different usage of reading strategies at the significance level of .05. That is, the students with English learning experience of less than 8 years and 8-12 years had medium level of strategy usage (x̄ = 3.13 and x̄ =3.30) while the students with English learning experience of more than 12 years had an extensive level of strategy usage (x̄ = 3.52). 6. The students who had different reading behavior outside class employed different overall reading strategies at the significance level of .05. That is, the students who often read outside class had an extensive level of strategy usage (x̄ = 3.86) while the students who sometimes and never read outside class had a medium level strategy usage (x̄ = 3.42 and x̄ =3.27).