Investigation of Reading Strategies at Hinde High School

This study aimed to investigate students' perceptions of using reading strategies. To

do so, descriptive case study design was applied to 152 students who were chosen

using simple random sampling technique to fill out the questionnaire. In contrast, five

students and five teachers were selected to participate in the interview. Data were

collected through questionnaires and interviews. A 37-item questionnaire was

adapted from Oxford’s Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) and the

Mokhtari and Sheorey’s Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS) and administered to all

selected students. The collected data was then fed into Statistical Package for Social

Science (SPSS) version 20, where mean, standard deviation, and correlation

coefficient were calculated and interpreted in words. In addition, the interview was

conducted with students and teachers and was transcribed, coded, categorized

thematically, and interpreted. During the discussion, data collected through the

questionnaire were cross-checked against data collected through interviews. The

study's findings revealed that students perceive the use of reading strategies as

inappropriate, whereas cognitive reading strategies were used most frequently.

Furthermore, there is a strong and significant relationship between students'

perceptions and their use of reading strategies. Thus, students should be encouraged

and given a variety of reading strategies.

Author(s) retain the copyright of this article Copyright© 2024 VEDAPublications Author(s) agree that this article remains permanently open access under the terms of the Creative Commons

Attribution License 4.0 International License

49 Misgana Duresa Birra

VEDA’S JOURNAL OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE (JOELL)

An International Peer Reviewed(Refereed) Journal Impact Factor (SJIF) 6.018 http://www.joell.in

Vol.11, No. 2 (April-June)

2024

Reading takes on meaning when students understand

and apply a range of appropriate reading strategies.

More diverse strategies are employed by effective

language learners in a way that is appropriate for the

language learning task (Kumaravadivelu, 2006). Good

comprehension is the outcome of using reading

strategies effectively, and this leads to the

improvement of students' reading abilities

When students employ appropriate and effective

reading strategies, they read effectively. Effective

reading strategies are woven into the very fabric of

‘reading for meaning’ and the development of this

cognitive ability, which improves comprehension and

boosts readers' confidence (Gruyter, 2006). Put

another way, it's thought that effective foreign

language reading requires the self-regulated

application of comprehension strategies.

Research findings showed that students struggle

to employ a variety of efficient reading techniques. It

was noted by Nadiah (2016) and Oakley (2011) that

students prioritize reading comprehension products

over using reading strategies to practice reading. This

is similar to the notion that students struggle to apply

various reading strategies successfully since their

goal is to comprehend what they read without using

strategies. Poor comprehension is the outcome of

reading without using reading strategies.

Students at Hinde high school appear to be in a

similar situation practically speaking. According to

the researcher's perspective and his experience of

teaching English at Hinde High School, students

appear to struggle with understanding and applying

reading strategies in a constructive and appropriate

manner. Put another way, when they are seen, it

appears that they are odd for applying effective

reading techniques in a suitable manner, whether at

school or not.

As far as the researcher is aware, not many

research on students' perceptions and their

application of effective reading strategies have been

done in Ethiopia. In his research, Belilew (2015)

studied on the relationship between reading strategy

use and comprehension among Ethiopian EFL

learners, and found that learners can be classified as

medium readers of strategies. Additionally, Dagne

and Gemechis (2014) investigated how EFL teachers

applied reading strategies to help their students

improve as readers and discovered that there were

no issues with the use of reading strategies by the

teachers. Moreover, Yohannes (2013) studied how

teachers perceived and used their teaching

strategies, and concluded that the majority of

students require intensive instruction in the

application of metacognitive and cognitive reading

strategies.

However, the current study differs from the

previous research in that the perception of students

utilizing effective reading strategies has not been

examined in any of the aforementioned studies. In

order to accomplish this goal, the research looked for

answers to the following queries.

1. How do students perceive efficient reading

strategies?

2. What are the reading strategies students

use?

3. Is there a relationship between students’

perception and their reading strategy use?

Reading strategies are particular steps that a learner

takes to facilitate learning and help them become

more self-directed, comfortable in new

environments, easier, faster, and enjoyable. They are

deliberate, conscious processes by which readers

attempt to overcome a reading difficulty and improve

their reading skills; they are efficient means of

understanding the author's message; or they are

problem-oriented actions and techniques used to

achieve production goals (Leyla, 2004; Anderson,

2008). These are cognitive operations that occur

when readers approach a text to make sense of what

they read.

50 Misgana Duresa Birra

VEDA’S JOURNAL OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE (JOELL)

An International Peer Reviewed(Refereed) Journal Impact Factor (SJIF) 6.018 http://www.joell.in

Vol.11, No. 2 (April-June)

2024

Reading strategies can be categorized in to three

main areas: cognitive, metacognitive and affective or

social reading strategies.

Meta-cognitive reading strategies include thinking

about the reading process, planning and monitoring

reading as it occurs, self-evaluation of reading after

reading activities, and paraphrasing (Gruyter, 2006;

Alderson, 2001; Troike-Saville, 2006). As a result,

meta-cognitive reading strategies are a high-level

thinking process that involves planning and

evaluating reading tasks. Metacognitive reading

strategies also include the following sub-elements.

Purpose-oriented reading strategies that involve

planning what to do next, reminding oneself the

purpose of reading, evaluating information in terms

of whether it leads to one's purpose and deciding

whether a text is relevant to one's purpose (British

Council, 1987).

Cognitive reading strategies is another term

which includes deliberate methods of approaching

learning materials and linguistic input. They are

strategies used by students to become interested in

and manipulate what they are learning. These include

mentally repeating words or phrases, outlining and

summarizing what has been learned from reading

and using keywords, and associating new target

language words with familiar words (Alderson, 2001;

Larsen-Freeman, 2000). Cognitive reading strategies

also involve strategies involving different ways of

reading quickly (scanning and skimming), reading

slowly, re-reading, ignoring specific texts or parts of a

text, reading out loud, and reading selectively.

Getting the idea quickly (scanning and skimming)

strategies are related to the reading speeds at which

students grasp the message by skimming the text.

Scanning is looking for a specific piece of information

(Alderson, 2001; Ur, 2009; Greenall and Swam, 2007).

Affective and social strategies are the third

category which are ways to interact with others to

leach (Larsen-Freeman, 2000). These include:

creating situations for others to practice the target

language, using self-talk, receiving feedback,

completing tasks, and cooperating with others to

share information. In relation to this, cooperation

plays a great role in this context and it is

collaborating with peers to solve problems (O'Malley,

1990; Oxford, 1990).

Atkins et al. (1996) demonstrated that the type of

strategy that students prefer is influenced by their

perception. For example, students believe that

learning English (to read) is more difficult than

learning other languages or skills. Students with such

perceptions or view may develop a negative attitude

toward reading. Students believe that rather than

using a variety of reading strategies, it is sufficient to

read the text word for word in order to comprehend

each individual idea. Edge (1993) stated that some

students are hesitant to move on from a text until

they have understood every detail. This means that

because students are unaware of various reading

strategies, they prefer to read for specific ideas.

Richards (1996) added that students neglect

learning to read from their peers in groups. The

evidence suggests that, while affective and social

reading strategies are important in improving

students' reading skills, it is critical to reject the

benefit of working or reading together, and that

everything should be done by the teacher. As a

result, they see themselves a passive reading strategy

user.

The ability to use appropriate and effective reading

strategies is a characteristic of an effective reader.

Gruyter (2006) discovered that effective readers are

aware of various reading strategies and use them

while reading to comprehend what they are reading.

However, there is evidence that students do not use

reading strategies (Chen and Chen, 2015).

Students' perceptions influence the type of strategy

they use. If students perceive efficient reading

strategies incorrectly, they will be unable to use them

effectively. On the other hand, when they see

reading strategies in an appropriate way, such as

51 Misgana Duresa Birra

VEDA’S JOURNAL OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE (JOELL)

An International Peer Reviewed(Refereed) Journal Impact Factor (SJIF) 6.018 http://www.joell.in

Vol.11, No. 2 (April-June)

2024

believing that efficient use of reading strategies

speeds up their reading, their reading becomes

effective.

When students use effective and appropriate

reading strategies, the situation assists them in

determining appropriate attitudes and purposes

towards text. This may lead to improved

comprehension (British Council, 2015; Gruyter,

2006). In contrast, when they employ inefficient

reading strategies, reading becomes poor and

ineffective.

To address the intended objective, a descriptive case

study research design with a mixed-method

(quantitative and qualitative) approach was used.

This is because conducting a descriptive case study

using a mixed-method approach appears to be more

convenient than using one of the two methods in a

single school (Creswell, 2012), and enables the

researcher to reach valid conclusions.

The study's target population was Hinde High School

students in grade nine during the 2019 academic

year. From a total of 508 (253 male and 255 female)

grade nine Hinde high school students, 30% were

chosen as a sample based on Neuman (2007), who

proposed that the sample size for a small and

homogeneous population (under 1000) should be

determined to 30% and that a small population is

sufficient for qualitative study in a descriptive case

study research design. Five teachers were randomly

chosen to answer interview questions. Thus, 152 (75

male and 77 female) students were chosen to fill out

the questionnaire. Five students were taken using a

simple random technique, and five teachers were

taken comprehensively to respond to the questions

identified for the interview.

The student respondents were selected using a

simple random probability sampling technique, which

ensures that every person in the population has an

equal chance of being chosen (Cresswell, 2012). To

select the sample respondents, all members of the

population (students) were identified and assigned a

number. The sample was then randomly selected

using the lottery method until the required

population was included.Five students and five

teachers were selected using simple random and

comprensive sampling technique to answer interview

questions.

Closed-ended questions are useful because everyone

can answer the question using the options provided

(Creswell, 2012). As a result, based on a review of

related literature and stated research objectives, 37

questions were adapted to answer the first and

second research questions respectively from Oxford's

Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) and

Mokhtari and Sheorey's Survey of Reading Strategies.

The questions were adapted through a pilot study,

and were distributed to fifty students followed by

some modifications to ensure the questionnaire's

validity. To assist students in understanding the

information clearly and easily, two master's degree

holder English teachers from Hinde High School

translated the questions into students’ mother

tongue. These two teachers were chosen to translate

the questions because they had taught English as a

major subject and Afan Oromo as a minor subject at

Hinde High School for many years. Besides, they had

experience of translating research questions while

conducting their own study. In addation, the

researcher realized their translation experience when

they assisted in translating other teachers' research

questions. Furthermore, because the researcher is an

English teacher who has taught Afan Oromo as a

minor subject in school, he oversaw the translation

process. For questions 1-6, a five-point likert-scale

ranging from 1 to 5 "Strongly Disagree(1),

Disagree(2), Undecided(3), Agree(4), and Strongly

Agree(5)" were used to indicate students'

perceptions of reading strategies, whereas a five-

point scale "I Never or almost never do this(1), I do

this only Occasionally(2), I Sometimes do this (3), I

Usually do this(4), and I Always or almost always do

this(5)" was used. (Mokhtari & Sheory, 2002) were

52 Misgana Duresa Birra

VEDA’S JOURNAL OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE (JOELL)

An International Peer Reviewed(Refereed) Journal Impact Factor (SJIF) 6.018 http://www.joell.in

Vol.11, No. 2 (April-June)

2024

used for questions 7–37, which indicated the reading

strategies used by students.

Interview is used to gather specific information and

elicit more reliable information from the

interviewees (Dawson, 2002). So, semi-structured

interview was used to gather qualitative data from

both students and teachers to answer research

questions one and two. Interview was designed on

the basis of a questionnaire so as to keep its validity.

Besides, before conducting interview it was given to

trained persons (language teachers) for comment,

and they suggested some translation parts and the

researcher made some modifications. Interview was

also translated into students’ mother tongue by the

same teachers who translated the questionnaire.

The researcher collected data using the procedures

outlined below. The researcher first informed the

respondents about the study, after which he assigned

selected sample respondents and provided those

questions. After they had finished filling the

questions, the researcher collected the questions

back. The questionnaire data was then entered into a

computer and analyzed with SPSS version 20.

Concerning interview, the researcher contacted

respondents when they were available and

interviewed them individually, and notes were taken

as the interviewees explained and expressed their

thoughts on the perception and application of

reading strategies.

Mean and standard deviation of each item related to

the research questions was computed using the

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) to

determine how students perceive reading strategies

and the strategies they use. Pearson correlation was

calculated at p<.01 to determine if there is a

significant relationship between students'

perceptions and reading strategy use. Then, the

results of SPSS analysis were interpreted in words. In

addition, the interview results were transcribed,

coded, categorized and interpreted to supplement

the data obtained from the students' questionnaire.

Finally, a summary of key findings, conclusions, and

recommendations were developed.

Table 1: Students’ Perception about using efficient reading strategies

Perc1 As to me efficient reading strategies are techniques

used to approach the text during reading to read

effectively.

152

2.34

1.52292

Perc2 I believe using varied reading strategies with purpose

of the text makes me read effectively.

152

2.39

1.53182

Perc3 I read more when I apply different reading strategies

to what I read.

152

2.22

1.47920

Perc4 I prefer to read in my first language rather reading in

English.

152

1.93

1.03644

Perc5 For me, it is merely important to go through the text

word to word when reading.

152

2.34

1.30260

Perc6 I believe working to read with my friends makes me

read easily.

152

4.05

.91195

Overall 152 2.55 1.19038

To begin the discussion, item 1 was designed to

collect information about how students perceive the

concept of English reading strategies. As shown in

table 1, the majority of respondents (M=2.34) stated

53 Misgana Duresa Birra

VEDA’S JOURNAL OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE (JOELL)

An International Peer Reviewed(Refereed) Journal Impact Factor (SJIF) 6.018 http://www.joell.in

Vol.11, No. 2 (April-June)

2024

that reading strategies were unusual for them. The

responses from students and teachers to item 1 of

the interview also revealed that they misunderstood

the concept of reading strategies. Teachers stated,

"Reading strategies are a bottom-up and top-down

process." This means that they have a limited

understanding of the concept of reading strategies,

and this implies they are not familiar with reading

strategies

Item 2 in table 1 was created to collect

information about how students perceive using

various reading strategies based on the purpose of

the text they are reading. So, students indicated

(M=2.39) that they did not know how and use various

reading strategies in accordance with the purpose of

the text. This finding agrees with Jing’s (2018) finding

that claims students’ perception of the effectiveness

of reading strategies was closely tied to assessment

rather than for overall understanding. This indicates

that they perceive that using reading strategies is to

do examinations. Students lack how to use some

reading strategies appropriately (Souhila, 2014), and

his could be due to a lack of training in how to

practice reading strategies relevant to the reading

purpose. Furthermore, responses from both students

in interview item 5 and teachers in interview item 3

indicated that they use reading strategies based on

the purpose of the reading. However, they simply

replied "yes" without explanation. This indicates that,

while their response appears to be positive, it

actually refers back to item 1.

Item 3 was designed to ask the respondents to

collect data on students' perceptions of using various

reading strategies to better understand the text. As a

result, the data revealed that students did not use a

variety of reading strategies to better understand the

text (M=2.22) which is supported by the findings that

students do not employ varied reading strategies

(Belilew, 2015).This implies that students could not

use different reading strategies depending on the

text they are reading. That is, they lack knowledge of

how to use reading strategies with the text. Aside

from that, the interview item 4 results showed that

students agreed that using various reading strategies

is important to them. However, because they were

unable to correctly label the reading strategies they

used, they are unaware of the use of various reading

strategies. They do not understand the importance of

reading strategies which means they do not apply to

text. In line with this, in interview item 3, students

indicated that they frequently use grammar as a

reading strategy. However, they did not give any

reason, and this indicates that they know very limited

reading strategies.

Item 4 in table 1 was designed to collect data on

whether students prefer to read in their first

language (Afan Oromo) rather than in English. As a

result, the mean value of the responses is (M=1.93)

indicated that students were eager to read in English

in this language. As a result, given that the data

revealed that students are interested in reading in

English, there may be other factors, such as a lack of

training, that contribute to students' unawareness of

reading strategies.

In item 5 of table 1, respondents were asked to

report on whether they believe that simply reading a

text word for word is important or not. As a result,

they reported (M=2.34) that they were unfamiliar

with the strategy. This means reading word-for-word

only is not important. Chen’s & Chen’s (2015) in their

finding put idea in similar way that reading word-for-

word is not crucial. Based on the response, it is

possible to conclude that using alternative strategies

such as context clues rather than looking at each

word is important.

As shown in table 1, item 6 was designed to

collect information on whether reading with friends

is important in increasing comprehension of a text.

Respondents indicated (M=4.05) that they were

aware of the use of reading together and have no

concerns about viewing this strategy negatively. Lee’s

(2012) finding is consistent with this finding in that

students think that they understand the text more

when they read with their friends. This implies that

most of the students read the text with their friends

to understand more.

In sum, from the above result and discussion, it is

possible to conclude that students perceive reading

strategies in inappropriate way. However, regarding

preferring to read in first language and working to

54 Misgana Duresa Birra

VEDA’S JOURNAL OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE (JOELL)

An International Peer Reviewed(Refereed) Journal Impact Factor (SJIF) 6.018 http://www.joell.in

Vol.11, No. 2 (April-June)

2024

read with friends is good for them. That is, they like

to read in English language and they are interested in

reading together.

Table 2: The Metacognitive Reading Strategies Used by Students

Mcog7 I have a purpose in mind when I read. 152 2.32 1.57556

Mcog8 I adjust my reading speed according to the purpose of

reading.

152

2.30

1.29102

Mcog13 I evaluate the information presented in the text. 152 2.26 1.25933

Mcog14 When the text becomes difficult, I reread it to increase

my understanding.

152

2.39

1.31244

Mcog19 I underline or circle information in the text to help me

remember it.

152

2.13

1.27992

Mcog20 I have a plan to read constantly. 152 4.30 .84602

Mcog25 I Paraphrase to better understand when I read. 152 2.07 1.46333

Mcog29 I summarize what I read to reflect on important

information in the text.

152

4.26

.91157

Overall 152 2.75 1.09738

Item 7 in table 2 was designed to collect data on

whether study participants read with a specific

purpose in mind. Their response (M=2.32) indicated

that they had lack of reading purpose in mind, and

the researcher concluded that students simply read

without considering why they are reading the text

provided to them. As a result, they are said to use

this strategy infrequently.

In item 8, participants were asked to report

whether they adjust their reading speed based on the

purpose of their reading. The statistical analysis in

table 2 for this question revealed (M=2.30) that

students were unable to adjust their reading speed.

As a result, they were unsure how to adjust their

reading speed based on the reading purpose. In

addition, the responses from both students in

interview item 5 and teachers in interview 4

demonstrated that they use reading strategies based

on the purpose of the reading despite the fact that

they simply replied in a brief response with no

explanation while only one student reasoned out

appropriately. This indicates that though their

response seems positive the fact goes back to (item

1) which showed that they could not use reading

strategies with a purpose without understanding

what reading strategies mean.

Item 13 was designed to determine whether

students evaluated the information presented in the

text. As shown in table 2, the subjects' responses

were low in frequency (M=2.26). This demonstrates

that few students assess the text presented in the

text, and the majority of students rated "I

never/almost never do this" on the rating scale. This

strategy is also one of the least commonly used

metacognitive reading strategies.

The purpose of item 14 was to gather information

on whether study participants reread the text to

improve their understanding. The majority of

participants (M=2.39) stated that they lacked the

ablity to reread the text to improve their

understanding because the mean value falls in the

low frequency range (1.00-2.40). Dawaideh and Al-

Saadi (2013) and Jing (2018) in contrast found that

most students frequently reread the text.

Item 19 in table 2 above attempted to collect data

on whether students circled or underlined important

information in the text to better understand it. As a

result, their response (M=2.13) indicated that they

did not circle the information to improve their

understanding. The finding of Lee (2012) conversely

concluded that most students, especially male

students are high users of this strategy. However, for

55 Misgana Duresa Birra

VEDA’S JOURNAL OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE (JOELL)

An International Peer Reviewed(Refereed) Journal Impact Factor (SJIF) 6.018 http://www.joell.in

Vol.11, No. 2 (April-June)

2024

this study, it was found that students used the

strategy at low frequency level.

In item 20, respondents were asked to report on

whether they have a regular reading plan. As shown

in table 2, because the mean value obtained from the

respondents' responses is (M=4.30), they have a

regular reading schedule. This also indicates that the

majority of students rated this as "I always/almost

always do." It can be concluded that students use this

strategy frequently. In line with this finding, Lee

(2012) found that most students are high users of

this strategy whereas Jing (2018) in contrast found

that few students have reading plan.

Item 25 in table 2 was designed to ask

respondents if they paraphrase the text in their own

words when reading. According to students’ response

(M=2.07), the text was not paraphrased by students

in their own words. Thus, they are considered as low

users of this strategy, as evidenced by the low

frequency level of the mean average obtained from

their responses.

Item 29 asked respondents to report whether

they summarized the general idea of the text and

reflected on important information. The data

obtained from their responses revealed (M=4.26)

that a large number of students summarized the text

as they read. The previous study Jing (2018) in

contrast found that students do not summarize what

they read. Because the mean average high, students

employ this strategy frequently.

Generally, the above discussion indicates that

meta-cognitive reading strategies used among

students in the range between low and high

frequency excluding medium frequency. Having

reading plan and summarizing are used in high

frequency while the rest fall in low frequency.

Paraphrasing is the least used strategy from the

category in contrast. However, there is no reading

strategy which is used at medium frequency level.

From this, it is possible to infer that few students use

the reading strategies at high frequency whereas

most of them use the strategy at low frequency level.

Table 3: The Cognitive Reading Strategies Used by Students

Cog9 I read carefully to make sure I understand what I am

reading.

152

4.45

.78764

Cog10 I use context clues to help me better understand

what I am reading.

152

4.38

.85300

Cog11 When reading, I decide what to read closely and

what to ignore.

152

4.52

.89124

Cog15 I use typographical features like bold face and italics

to identify key information.

152

2.34

1.37675

Cog16 I go back and forth in the text to find relationships

among the idea in it.

152

2.30

1.19069

Cog17 When the text becomes difficult, I pay closer

attention to what I am reading.

152

2.17

1.14958

Cog21 I ask myself questions I like to have answered in 152 4.26 .95249

Cog22 I use reference materials (e.g. dictionary) to help me

understand what I read.

152

4.38

.87506

Cog23 When reading, I translate from English in to my first

language.

152

4.43

.83469

Cog26 I think about what I already know to help me

understand what I read.

152

2.15

1.49949

Cog27 I adjust my prediction about the text while reading. 152 2.22 1.40575

56 Misgana Duresa Birra

VEDA’S JOURNAL OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE (JOELL)

An International Peer Reviewed(Refereed) Journal Impact Factor (SJIF) 6.018 http://www.joell.in

Vol.11, No. 2 (April-June)

2024

Cog28 I take the overall view of the text to see what it is

about before reading.

152

4.30

1.08597

Cog30 I analyze the grammar of long complex sentences for

better understanding

152

2.22

1.48243

Cog33 When a text becomes difficult, I read aloud to help

me understand what I read.

152

4.18

1.01916

Cog34 I use tables, figures and pictures to increase my

understanding.

152

4.23

1.01296

Cog37 When a text becomes difficult, I read aloud to help

me understand what I read.

152

4.40

.92256

Overall 152 3.56 .89289

As shown in table 3, item 9 was designed to collect

information on whether students were reading

carefully to ensure their comprehension. Their

response revealed that most of them (M=4.45) used

the strategy frequently. This means that students

have no problems with using this strategy.

In response to item 10, students were asked to

gather information about using context clues to

improve understanding. The collected data showed

(M=4.38) that the majority of students were familiar

with the strategy. Similarly, Chen and Chen (2015)

and Jing (2018) stressed that students relay a lot on

using context clues in their reading. Therefore, for

this study, the result showed similarity in that most

students employ context clues highly.

Students were asked in table 3 by item 11 to

provide information on whether they choose what to

read and what they ignore. As a result, they reported

that the majority of them (M=4.52) chose what to

read and what to ignore while reading. Lee’s (2012)

finding in relation to using this strategy showed

similarity in that students decide what to read and

ignore when they read.

The goal of item 15 in table 3 was to collect data

on whether students use topographical features such

as boldface and italics to identify important

information. Accordingly, the majority of students

are unfamiliar with the concept, as evidenced by

their reported mean value (M=2.34). This means they

did not rely on topographical features to identify

important information. As a result, this study's

participants use the strategy infrequently.

Regarding item 16, as shown in table 3 above,

study participants were asked to provide feedback on

going back and forth in the text to find relationships

between ideas. As a result, they stated (M=2.30) that

they did not go back and forth to discover

relationships between ideas. This also indicates that

they use the strategy rarely.

Item 17 in table 3 attempted to collect data on

whether students pay more attention to the text.

They demonstrated (M=2.17) that they were unable

to pay close attention while reading. Using this

strategy is common only among female students

whereas male students do not use the strategy

(Poole, 2005). However, for this study, most students

did not employ the strategy.

As shown in table 3 above, item 21 aimed to

ensure whether students asked themselves the

questions they needed to ask themselves. The

collected data revealed (M=4.26) that the majority of

them rated "I always/almost always", implying that

they used the strategy frequently. Poole’s (2009)

finding also supports that students use this strategy

at medium frequency though the present study

concluded that students used at high frequency.

Item 22 in table 3 attempted to identify whether

study subjects used reference materials such as

dictionaries. The result obatained showed that they

(M=4.38) that they use reference materials when

they read in most cases. Conversely, Dawaideh & Al-

Saadi (2013) found that students use reference

materials at lowly whereas Jing (2018) concluded

they use the strategy highly, and the present study

supports the latter finding.

Respondents were asked to respond to item 23 by

reporting whether they translated what they

understood into their first language (Afan Oromo) for

57 Misgana Duresa Birra

VEDA’S JOURNAL OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE (JOELL)

An International Peer Reviewed(Refereed) Journal Impact Factor (SJIF) 6.018 http://www.joell.in

Vol.11, No. 2 (April-June)

2024

better understanding. Table 3 shows that the

majority of students have no problems with this

strategy. The response to this item yielded a mean

score (M=4.43), implying that students translate

what they understand in English into their first

language for better understanding.

Item 26 was created as one of the items designed

for cognitive reading strategies in order to collect

data on whether study participants think about what

they already know. They (M=2.15) reported that they

did not consider their prior knowledge while reading.

As shown in table 3, item 27 was created to elicit

information about adjusting predictions about the

text. The analysed dxata showed that the majority of

students did not change their predictions based on

what they read. This means that because the

response is generalized (M=2.22), it indicates that the

strategy was rarely used.

In response to item 28, respondents were asked

to provide feedback on their overall impression of

the text and majority of them (M=4.30) used the

strategy frequently. This means that the mean value

is within a high frequency range, and it is reasonable

to assume that they are familiar with the strategy.

In table 3 above, item 30 was designed to collect

reliable data on whether students analyze the

grammar of long complex sentences. They stated

that (M=2.22) they did not analyze the grammar of

long sentences in order to better understand their

meaning. Contrary to this finding, Jing (2018) and Lee

(2012) found that students often analyze the

grammar of long complex sentences. To the findings

of interview item 2, students and teachers employ

tenses as reading strategies. However, simply using

grammar does not imply that they have analyzed it,

because they did not show in data obtained from

questionnaire.

As shown in table 3, item 33 was created to ask

respondents whether they read aloud to improve

their comprehension. Poole (2009) found that

reading aloud is higher only among male students

However, the analysis of the collected data revealed

that the majority of respondents read aloud (M=4.18)

to improve their comprehension. This also tells most

students rated in the rating scale “I always/almost

always do this” with respect to the mean value.

Item 34 was designed to collect data to ensure

whether study participants used tables, figures, and

pictures while reading. The participants (M=4.23)

stated that they make extensive use of tables,

figures, and images which is consistent with Jing‘s

(2018) findings that put students often use this

strategy.

Item 37, one of the cognitive reading strategies,

was created to elicit information from respondents

regarding note-taking. As shown in table 3, the

analysis concluded that the response has a high

frequency (M=4.40), indicating that students take

their own notes while reading. In support of this

finding, Lee (2012) found that taking note is used at

highly among students.

In general, students used the cognitive reading

strategies in the range between low and high

frequency. Deciding what to read closely and what to

ignore is the most highly used strategy whereas

thinking about prior knowledge was applied in

contarst.

Table 4: The Affective and Social Reading Strategies Used by Students

Aff12 I encourage myself to read even when I am afraid of

making mistakes in sharing what I understand with

my friends.

152

2.18

1.36222

Aff18 I reward myself when I read well. 152 2.20 1.36822

Aff24 I talk to someone else about how I feel when I read. 152 2.02 1.43960

Aff31 I ask other students to verify that I have understood. 152 4.20 .88654

58 Misgana Duresa Birra

VEDA’S JOURNAL OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE (JOELL)

An International Peer Reviewed(Refereed) Journal Impact Factor (SJIF) 6.018 http://www.joell.in

Vol.11, No. 2 (April-June)

2024

Aff32 I discuss what I understand with my friends. 152 4.13 1.05675

Aff35 I practice reading with other students. 152 4.56 .72545

Aff36 I have regular reading partner. 152 4.38 .78000

Overall 152 3.38 .88565

Item 12 was designed to measure students' self-

encouragement while reading. As a result, they

demonstrated (M = 2.18) that they did not motivate

themselves when reading. The analyzed data also

revealed that the mean value occurred in a low

frequency range.

Item 18 asked respondents to explain how they

rewarded themselves. The students' responses in

table 4 showed a low mean frequency score

(M=2.20), indicating that they were unfamiliar with

self-encouragement and did not use it while reading,

and one can infer that they do not use such strategy

in their reading.

Item 24 in table 4 above was designed to

determine whether students discuss how they feel

while reading. Responses from respondents in this

study are relied on items 12 and 18. This implies that

students' performance is nearly as low (M=2.02) as

that of items 12 and 18.As a result, it is ossible to

conclude that students do not communicate while

reading.

Table 4 above includes item 31 for students to ask

if they asked other students to confirm their

understanding. Participants in this study (M=4.20)

responded that they had no difficulty of using this

strategy, and they did with other students to help

them understand while reading.

Table 4 depicts an attempt to collect data on

whether students share their understanding with

their friends. Respondents reported (M=4.13) that

they frequently discuss their understanding with

their friends while reading. Lee’s (2012) finding is

consistent with this finding in that students use the

strategy highly.

Item 35 is another social reading strategy that

seeks information about practicing reading with

other students. Most of respondents (M=4.56)

reported that practicing reading with friends was

common among them. As a result of this finding, one

can conclude that students use this strategy

frequently, as the mean value is high.

Item 36, the final question in the affective and

social reading strategies, was created to gather

information on whether students have a regular

reading partner. As shown in table 4, most of

students (M=4.38) reported having a regular reading

partner was known among them since the majority of

them rated "I always/almost always do this", and this

indicates that they used the strategy frequently.

The discussion revealed that students used the

affective and social reading strategies in the range

between low and high frequency though they did not

use the strategy at medium frequency. Besides,

practicing reading with other students is the most

frequently used strategy whereas talking to someone

is the least used strategy.

Table 5: Correlation between students’ perception about using reading strategies and Reading Strategy Use

59 Misgana Duresa Birra

VEDA’S JOURNAL OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE (JOELL)

An International Peer Reviewed(Refereed) Journal Impact Factor (SJIF) 6.018 http://www.joell.in

Vol.11, No. 2 (April-June)

2024

Table 5 shows a significant between students'

perception and their use of metacognitive (r = -.981,

n = 152, p <.001), cognitive (r = -.893, n = 152, p

<.001) and affective/social (r = -.908, n = 152, p

<.001) reading strategies. That is, there is a strong

correlation between students' perceptions and use of

reading strategies. That is, students' inaccurate

perceptions of using reading strategies resulted in

inefficient use of reading strategies.

According to the study's findings, students viewed

the concept and application of efficient reading

strategies as nothing, and there are no specific

reading strategies used at a medium frequency by

students. On the other hand, students used cognitive

reading strategies more frequently than

metacognitive and affective/social reading strategies.

Furthermore, there is a strong and statistically

significant relationship between students'

perceptions and their use of reading strategies. As a

result, they should be made aware of the importance

of using efficient and effective reading strategies.

Students should also be encouraged and provided

with a variety of reading strategies so that they can

use them more effectively, which should be followed

by encouragement and continued practice.

The author would like to thank teachers and students

who participated in this study.

This research did not receive any specific grant from

funding agencies.

Data are available from the corresponding author on

reasonable request.

All procedures performed in the study were in

accordance with the ethical standards of the

institutional research committee. Informed consent

was obtained from all the individual participants

included in this study.

The author declares that there is no conflict of

interest in this work.

Alderson, C.J. (2001). Assessing reading. Cambridge: CUP.

Anderson, N. J. (2008). Practical English language teaching:

Reading. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Atkins, J., Banteyerga, H. & Mohammed, N. (1996). Skill

development part II. Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa

University Press.

Perception Metacognitive Cognitive Affective/social

Perception Pearson Correlation 1 .981** .893** .908**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000

N 152 152 152 152

Metacognitive Pearson Correlation .981** 1 .922** .932**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000

N 152 152 152 152

Cognitive Pearson Correlation .893** .922** 1 .964**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000

N 152 152 152 152

Affective

/social

Pearson Correlation .908** .932** .964** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000