Journal of Adult Education

Volume 43, Number 2

2014

The Relationship Between Reading Proficiency and Reading Strategy Use:

A Study of Adult ESL Learners

Jiuhan Huang & Deanna Nisbet

Abstract

This article explores the relationship between reading strategy use and reading proficiency among 121 adult ESL learners.
Reading strategy use was measured by the SORS, and reading proficiency was determined by the CASAS Reading Test and
BEST Literacy Test. Findings of the study reveal that (a) adult ESL learners are active strategies users; (b) they favor
problem-solving strategies more than other strategies; (c) high intermediate learners use the most strategies and advanced
learners use the least strategies; and (d) problem-solving and support strategies are more predictive of the reading
proficiency. These findings provide implications for teachers of adult ESL students.

According to the U.S. Department of Education, autonomy in the process of language learning (Benson &
44% of students in federally funded adult education Voller, 1997).
programs in the United States are English as a second Over the past decade, increased attention has been
language (ESL) learners (Institute for Educational given to measuring ESL students’ language learning
Sciences, 2010). Many of these learners are at low strategy use in specific skill areas, including reading.
proficiency levels, and they often face the dual challenge Studies have found that skilled readers use a wide range
of developing basic literacy skills as well as proficiency in of reading strategies with high frequency, while unskilled
English (IES, 2010). Reading is an essential skill for adult readers use fewer strategies and use them less frequently
ESL learners. For many of these learners, it is the most (Mokhtary & Sheorey, 1994). This type of research is
important skill to master in order to pursue their goals in important because instructors need adequate tools for
life, some of which include acquiring and succeeding in assessing reading stills and teaching students how to read
work, participating in their children’s education, efficiently and effectively (Mokhtari & Sheorey, 2002).
becoming involved in community activities, and pursuing In spite of the importance of reading strategy use
further education (Marshall, 2002). among adult ESL learners, little research to date has
Helping students become more autonomous in their addressed this population. The purpose of this study is to
learning has been one of the more prominent themes in identify the reading strategies used by adult ESL learners
the literature on the theory and practice of second and explore the relationship between reading proficiency
language acquisition (Benson, 2011). Although learner and strategy use.
autonomy in language learning includes several Review of Literature
dimensions and factors, research in autonomous language
learning has drawn heavily upon research on language Learner Autonomy
learning strategies (Benson, 2011). Language learning Learner autonomy has been a major area of interest
strategies are seen as a means of learners’ achieving in language learning and teaching for over 30 years

1
(Benson, 2007). As noted by Brown (2007), success in largely upon research on learning strategies (Benson,
mastering a foreign language depends to a large degree on 2011). In Pennycook’s (1997) words, autonomy “is based
“learners’ autonomous ability both to take initiative in the very much on developing strategies, techniques or
classroom and to continue their journey to success beyond materials… in order to promote individual self-
the classroom and the teacher” (p. 70). One of the most development” (p. 45).
important principles of language teaching and learning is
the principle of autonomy. There are many claimed Language Learning Strategies
benefits of learner autonomy in language acquisition. Language learning strategies are specific actions or
Some of these benefits are: (a) improving the quality of steps on the part of learners that facilitate the acquisition
language learning, (b) promoting democratic societies, (c) of a second or foreign language (Chamot & O’Malley,
preparing individuals for life-long learning, and (d) 1996; Oxford, 1990). They can be effectively employed
allowing learners to make the best use of learning to enhance performance on a variety of language tasks in
opportunities in and out of the classroom (Borg & Al- the domains of listening, speaking, reading, and writing.
Busaidi, 2012). As noted by Lessard-Clouston (1997), some strategies are
There have been many definitions for learner visible (i.e., observable behaviors, steps, or techniques),
autonomy over the years; however, Holec's definition whereas others are unseen (i.e., mental processes or
(1981) has proven to be robust and the most widely-cited thoughts). For example, strategies such as using flash
definition in the field (Benson, 2007). According to cards to memorize vocabulary or asking clarifying
Holec, learner autonomy is "the ability to take charge of questions in a purposeful way involve observable
one’s learning … to have, and to hold, the responsibility actions/behaviors on the part of the leaner. On the other
for all the decisions concerning all aspects of this hand, strategies such as visualizing information while
learning" (1981, p.3). Examples of such decisions reading, or guessing the meaning of unknown words or
identified by Holec include (a) determining objectives, (b) phrases are unseen. Whether visible or unseen, however,
selecting methods and techniques to be used, and (c) language learning strategies must be consciously deployed
monitoring the procedure of acquisition. and carefully orchestrated in order to be effective tools
Benson (2011) defined learner autonomy as the (Chamot & O’Malley, 1996; O’Malley, Chamot, Stewner-
capacity to control one's own learning and proposed that Manzanares, Russo,& Kupper, 1985; Oxford, 1990).
there are at least three dimensions of learner control: Several systems for classifying language learning
learning management, cognitive processes, and learning strategies have been developed over the years, with
content. However, since researchers and practitioners Rebecca Oxford’s (1990) being the most widely
often attach more importance to one dimension than recognized and utilized. Oxford’s taxonomy contains six
another, it is helpful to consider each dimension major categories of strategies: (a) memory strategies, (b)
separately. What are then the most important components cognitive strategies, (c) compensation strategies, (d)
of autonomy in language learning? In attempting to metacognitive strategies, (e) affective strategies, and (f)
answer this question, Benson (2003) argues the following: social strategies. Numerous studies have examined the
Autonomy is perhaps best described as a relationship between language learning strategies and
capacity… because various kinds of abilities English proficiency using Oxford’s Strategy Inventory for
can be involved in control over learning. Language Learning (SILL), and results have consistently
Researchers generally agree that the most demonstrated a significant correlation in a variety of
important abilities are those that allow settings worldwide (Oxford & Burry-Stock, 1995).
learners to plan their own learning activities,
monitor their progress and evaluate their Language Learning Strategies and Reading
outcomes (p. 290). Over the past decade, increased attention has been
Autonomy has been closely aligned with language given to measuring ESL students’ language learning
learning strategies (Little, 2000; Palfreyman, 2003). strategy use in specific skill areas, including reading. In
Research on autonomous language learning has drawn 2002, Mokhtari and Reichard developed an inventory to
2
identify students’ metacognitive awareness of and use of This study investigated the following research
language learning strategies specific to the domain of questions:
reading. This instrument, the Metacognitive-Awareness- 1. What reading strategies do adult ESL learners use
of-Reading-Strategies Inventory (MARSI), was validated most frequently when reading?
with a native English-speaking population. Using the 2. What is the relationship between the use of
reading strategy categories and reading proficiency level?
MARSI as a foundation, Mokhtari and Sheorey (2002)
3. Which reading strategy categories are useful
then developed the Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS) predictors of reading proficiency score?
for use with adolescent and/or adult learners of English as
a second or foreign language. The SORS identifies three Methodology
distinct categories of reading strategies: global strategies,
problem-solving strategies, and support strategies. Participants
Mokhtari and Sheorey (2002) describe each type of A non-random sample of 121 students enrolled in
strategy as summarized below: ESL classes at an adult learning center in northern
Global strategies are “intentional, carefully planned Virginia participated in this study. Participants were 99
techniques by which learners monitor or manage their females and 22 males, ranging in age from 19 to 67 at the
reading” (p. 4). Examples include having a purpose in time of data collection. As a group, they reported
mind while reading, or trying to predict what a given text speaking 20 different native languages, with the top three
is about. Problem-solving strategies are “actions and languages represented being Spanish (N = 87), Arabic (N
procedures that readers use while working directly with a = 10), and French (N = 4). In response to a question
text; these are localized, focused techniques for use when regarding length of time spent studying English,
problems develop in understanding textual information” participants indicated a range from one month to 10 years.
(p. 4). Strategies such as reading a portion of a text Sixty-seven students reported their CASAS reading test
slowly to ensure comprehension, or guessing the meaning scores and 54 reported their BEST Literacy scores.
of unknown words fall under this category. Finally,
support strategies are “basic support mechanisms Instrumentation
intended to aid the reader in comprehending the text, such This study examined the variables of reading strategy
as using a dictionary, taking notes, underlining, or use and English proficiency through scores generated
highlighting textual information” (p. 4). from the following instruments: (a) the Survey of Reading
A number of studies have utilized the SORS to Strategies (SORS), (b) the Comprehensive Adult Student
examine reading strategy use among learners of English Achievement Systems (CASAS) Reading Test, and (c) the
as a second or foreign language over the past decade. BEST Literacy Test.
These investigations have primarily been conducted English proficiency was measured using scores from
among university students, and findings have generally the Comprehensive Adult Student Achievement Systems
indicated a positive relationship between reading (CASAS) Life and Work Reading Test, and the BEST
proficiency level and strategy use (e.g., Madhumathi & Literacy Test. The CASAS Life and Work Reading Test
Ghosh, 2012; Park, 2010; Shoerey & Babcoczky, 2008; is a standardized reading assessment designed to measure
Sheorey, Kamimura, & Freiermuth, 2008). In other student progress in both adult ESL programs and Adult
words, learners at higher reading proficiency levels tend Basic Education Programs. Test items are focused on
to use more strategies, particularly global strategies (e.g., everyday life and workplace reading skills (CASAS, n.d.).
Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001, Sheorey & Baboczky, 2008, Like all CASAS tests, the Life and Work Reading test has
Sheorey, Kamimura, & Freiermuth, 2008). A search of undergone rigorous test development and validation
the literature revealed no studies which addressed reading procedures (CASAS, 2011). The BEST Literacy Test is a
strategy use and proficiency among learners of English as 68-item assessment which measures adult English reading
a second or foreign language in an adult education setting. and writing skills, using authentic situations as the basis
for test questions.

3
 Developed by the Center for Applied Linguistics, the of paper containing his or her proficiency score. Each
test is designed for use in placement, instructional student then transferred his or her score to the appropriate
planning, and determination of progress of adult ESL section of the survey data form. From that point forward,
students. Extensive data concerning the validity, a coded numbering system was utilized to identify
reliability, and measurement precision of the instrument participants in order to maintain confidentiality.
are provided in the BEST Literacy Technical Report
(Center for Applied Linguistics, 2008). The report is Data Analysis
available for download at http://calstore.cal.org/store/p- Descriptive statistics, including means and standard
224-best-literacy-technical-report-electronic-version.aspx. deviations, were computed in order to identify overall
Both the CASAS Life and Work Reading Test and the strategy use. Paired sample t tests were used to see if there
BEST Literacy Test are aligned with the National were significant differences among the different strategy
Reporting System (NRS) and the Student Performance categories. To determine if there were any significant
Level ESL descriptors (Center for Applied Linguistics, differences among learners of different proficiency levels
2010), and scores within this study are interpreted using with regard to strategy use, a one-way multivariate
those descriptors. analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted.
Reading strategy use was measured using The Survey Analyses of variance (ANOVA) were then conducted as
of Reading Strategies (SORS), developed by Mokhtari follow-up tests to the MANOVA, using a traditional
and Sheorey (2002). This valid and reliable instrument Bonferroni procedure to control for Type I error. Finally,
contains 30 likert-scale items, and it generates a measure a multiple regression analysis was conducted to determine
of overall strategy use, as well as scores on three which reading strategy categories were more predictive of
subscales: Global Reading Strategies, Problem-Solving reading proficiency measured by CASAS Life and Work
Reading Strategies, and Support Reading Strategies. As Reading Test.
reported by the instrument’s authors, the internal estimate Findings
of reliability for the scale using Cronbach’s coefficient
alpha was .89; and the instrument is valid and reliable for The first research question concerned the frequency of
use with adolescent and adult non-native speakers of strategy use. Descriptive statistics revealed that overall
English. See Mokhtari and Sheorey (2002) and Sheorey strategy use was high (M=3.67, SD = .65). Students
and Mokhtari (2001) for additional information on the favored problem-solving strategies the most (M=3.98, SD
development and validation of the SORS. The instrument, = .76), followed by support strategies (M=3.77, SD = .71).
along with its scoring guide, is available as a free Their least-used strategies were global strategies (M=3.48,
download at SD = .69).
http://laurenyal.myefolio.com/Uploads/Survey2002Mokht Paired sample t tests comparing the adjacent strategy
ari.pdf. means (see Table 1) revealed significant differences
among the three strategy categories. The mean use of
Procedures problem-solving strategies was significantly higher than
Students enrolled in ESL classes at the adult learning the mean use of support strategies and global reading
center were invited by their teachers to participate in this strategies. The mean use of support strategies was
study at the end of a regular class session. They were significantly higher than that of global strategies. To
informed that their involvement was voluntary and that all avoid Type I error with repeated t tests, the Significance
information would be confidential. Those who agreed to Level was changed from .05 to .017 (.017 was chosen by
participate were asked to complete the Survey of Reading dividing .05 by 3, the number of t tests conducted) (Green
Strategies (SORS), provide demographic information, and & Salkind, 2011). The results indicated that the p value is
report their scores from a standardized English smaller than the Significance Level (p = .000).
proficiency test that they had taken earlier in the semester. According to Green and Salkind (2011), d values of
To aid in the reporting process, teachers who administered .2, .5, and .8 are interpreted as small, medium, and large
the surveys also provided each student with a separate slip effect sizes, respectively. The d values for the differences
4
between problem-solving/support strategies, problem- were .37, .99, and .62 respectively, indicating medium
solving/global strategies, and support/global strategies to large effect sizes.

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics for the Strategy Categories and Paired Sample t-Tests for Mean Difference between
the three Strategy Categories (N = 121)

Str. Mean Rank S. D. Min. Max. Paired t- t

Categories test

PROB 3.98 1 .76 1.38 5 PROB 4.05**

- SUP

SUP 3.77 2 .71 1.67 5 PROB 10.90**

-GLOB

GLOB 3.48 3 .69 1.46 4.8 SUP 6.77**

-GLOB

Total 3.67 .65 1.5 4.9

Note. **p =.000 GLOB = Global Reading Strategies, PROB = Problem-Solving Strategies, SUP = Support Strategies

Table 2 shows the use of reading strategies arranged in had mean scores ranging from 2.5 to 3.49, indicating
descending order by mean score (that is, from the most medium-frequency use of the strategies. Among the 17
frequently used to least used strategies). As shown in strategies that learners used with high frequency (3.5 and
Table 2, overall, students in this study reported medium to above), eight fall under the category of problem-solving
high use of reading strategies. Seventeen of the 30 strategies, and six under the category of support strategies.
strategies (57%) fell in the high usage group (mean score Interestingly, only three of the top 17 (displayed in Table
of 3.5 or above), while the remaining 13 strategies (43%) 2) are global strategies.

Table 2

Distribution of Strategy Use

Strategy Strategy Category Mean

1. Reread the text PROB 4.32

2. Read slowly to make sure I understand PROB 4.25

High Use

3. Translate from English into native language SUP 4.20

4. Pay close attention to reading PROB 4.18

5. Try to get back on track PROB 4.11

6. Think about information in English and native language SUP 4.09

5
 7. Underline or circle information SUP 4.04

8. Use dictionaries SUP 3.94

9. Check understanding GLOB 3.90

10. Check if guesses are right or wrong GLOB 3.83

11. Stop from time to time and think PROB 3.78

12. Ask myself questions SUP 3.70

13. Guess the meaning of unknown words PROB 3.70

14. Adjust reading speed PROB 3.69

15. Paraphrase SUP 3.69

16. Think about what I know GLOB 3.65

17. Try to picture information PROB 3.62

18. Use context clues GLOB 3.49

19. Review the text first before reading GLOB 3.42

20. Take an overall view of the text before reading GLOB 3.41

21. Have a purpose in mind GLOB 3.38

22. Take notes while reading SUP 3.38

23. Think about whether the text fits my purpose GLOB 3.36
Medium Use

24. Go back and forth to find relationships SUP 3.34

25. Decide what to read closely and what to ignore GLOB 3.31

26. Critically analyze and evaluate information GLOB 3.31

27. Use typographical features like bold face and italics to GLOB 3.29
identify key information

28. Try to guess what the text is about GLOB 3.27

29. Read aloud SUP 3.21

30. Use tables, figures, and pictures to increase understanding GLOB 3.13

NOTE. GLOB = Global Reading Strategies, PROB = Problem-solving Strategies, SUP = Support Strategies
High Use (mean score of 3.5 or higher): Items #1-17, Medium Use (mean score of 2.5 to 3.49): Items #18-30

6
 The second research question aimed to explore the (MANOVA) was calculated to determine if there were
relationship between levels of reading proficiency and use any significant differences among learners of various
of reading strategy categories. Table 3 contains the means levels in regard to their strategy use. The three categories
and the standard deviations on the dependent variables for of reading strategies and overall strategy use were used as
the four proficiency levels. Figure 1 shows strategy use by dependent variables, with reading proficiency level as the
reading proficiency level. independent variable. Significant differences were found
Although Figure 1 indicates that Level 3 learners used among proficiency levels on the four strategy categories,
more strategies across the categories than did Level 4 Wilks’s Lambda = .78, F(12, 302) = 2.48, p < .01. The
learners, a one-way multivariate analysis of variance partial η2 based on Wilks’ Lambda was .08.

Table 3

Means and Standard Deviations on the Dependent Variables for the Four Proficiency Levels

GLOB PROB SUP TOTAL

Levels M SD M SD M SD M SD

1 3.44 .85 3.82 .89 3.85 .77 3.66 .81

2 3.50 .59 3.91 .81 3.80 .70 3.70 .63

3 3.69 .54 4.31 .49 3.93 .54 3.93 .45

4 3.17 .67 3.83 .68 3.35 .71 3.40 .58

7
 Analyses of variance (ANOVAs) on the dependent is interesting to note that the beta coefficient for support
variables were conducted as follow-up tests to the strategies is negative, which means the higher the reading
MANOVA. In order to control for Type I error, we used a score, the lower score of support strategy use.
traditional Bonferroni procedure and tested each ANOVA
at the .0125 significance level (.05 divided by 4, the Discussion and Implications
number of ANOVAs conducted), (Green & Salkind,
2011). None of the ANOVAs conducted on the dependent Few studies have examined the relationship between
variables was significant at the .0125 level. Consequently, reading strategy use and reading proficiency among adult
no further post hoc analyses were conducted. learners of English as a second language (ESL). This
To answer the research question regarding which study revealed some similar findings, as well as some
reading strategy categories were more predictive of different findings when compared with investigations
reading proficiency, a multiple regression analysis was conducted in other settings. Data analysis revealed several
conducted. The predictors were the three strategy significant findings. First, the adult learners in this study
categories of global, problem-solving, and support indicated that they are active users of reading strategies;
strategies, while the criterion variable was reading and they reported preferring problem-solving strategies
proficiency. Only the CASAS Reading Test scores were over other strategies. Secondly, high intermediate ESL
used to measure reading proficiency. Since the BEST learners used more strategies in all categories than
Literacy is a reading and writing test, which is not solely a advanced learners. Finally, problem-solving strategies and
reflection of students’ reading proficiency, it was not support strategies were found to be useful predictors of
included in the multiple regression analysis. reading proficiency.
Based on the CASAS Reading scores (n = 67), the
Overall Strategy Use
regression model revealed that the linear combination of Overall, students in this study reported medium to
the three strategies was significantly correlated with the high use of reading strategies. Students favored problem-
reading proficiency measure, R2 =.14, R2adj =.10, F (3, 63) solving strategies, followed by support strategies. Global
= 3.35, p < .05. Approximately 14% of the variance of the strategies were the least used. This finding is somewhat
reading proficiency measure in the sample can be different from the findings of other studies examining
accounted for by the linear combination of the strategy reading strategy use among native and non-native
categories. The prediction equation is as follows: speakers in a variety of settings, most of which were
YPredicted CASAS Score = 217.15 – 3.17 (x1) + 8.24 (x2) – conducted in university settings. The overall trend of
6.95 (x3) strategy use in these studies (e.g. Anderson, 2003, Poole,
2008, Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001) is that students
where Y represents the predicted CASAS reading generally favor problem-solving strategies, followed by
score, x1 represents global strategies, x2 represents global strategies and support strategies.
problem-solving strategies, and x3 represents support The fact that the adult ESL learners in this study did
strategies. According to Cohen (1988), the effect size of not favor global strategies (although they are still in
R2 =.14 is in the medium range. medium use range) might be indicative of the different
Beta coefficients express coefficients in terms of the characteristics of adult ESL learners in comparison with
same standard deviation units; they are useful in university students. Global strategies are metacognitive in
comparing the relative importance of each IV to the nature, and play a more significant role in language
regression model (Rovai, Baker, & Ponton, 2014). Since learning than other strategy types (Anderson, 2005).
the beta weights of the problem-solving strategies (β = Metacognitive strategies involve functions such as
.55, p=.008) and the support strategies (β= -.42, p = .032) overseeing (e.g. having a purpose in mind or previewing
are substantially larger than that of the global strategies the text before reading), regulating (e.g. deciding what to
(β= -.176, p = .417), they are more important predictors. It read closely and what to ignore), and evaluating (e.g.

8
critically analyzing and evaluating information). These Sheorey, Kamimura, & Freiermuth, 2008; Sheorey &
strategies correlate with what university students use in Mokhtari, 2001) revealed that higher proficiency readers
academic learning and can be transferred to language used more strategies. In addition, higher proficiency
learning. Adult ESL learners might be less aware of these readers used more global strategies than lower proficiency
strategies due to a lack of higher level academic learning readers.
experiences. Interestingly, studies that used other language
Another possible explanation is that strategy use learning strategy instruments such as the SILL generally
varies by cultural group (Oxford, 1996). Culture includes revealed a curvilinear relationship between strategy use
beliefs, perceptions, and values, which affect language and L2 proficiency (Park, 1997), which is similar to our
learning and the use of learning strategies. Although there finding. A possible interpretation of our finding is that
have been studies examining the cultural differences in advanced learners might be more autonomous in their use
language learning strategy use in general (e.g. Oxford & of reading strategies. They also may be using more global
Burry-Stock, 1995; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990), there has strategies than they are consciously aware of or focused
been little research examining the effect of culture on the on while reading, considering the important role that
use of reading strategies. Given the fact that 20 different metacognitive strategies play in language learning. At the
languages are represented by the participants of this study, same time, they may not need support strategies such as
cultural differences might be a partial explanation for the using dictionaries, reading aloud, or thinking about
different patterns of strategy use. information in both English and the native language.
These findings suggest that adult ESL learners may This finding suggests that task difficulty and level of
benefit from strategy training aimed at enhancing reading language proficiency have a major effect on the strategies
strategy awareness, including awareness for global that students use. Therefore, strategy training should focus
strategies. Research has indicated that metacognition, on the different needs of learners and the characteristics of
which includes knowledge of strategies that students use reading tasks at various proficiency levels. Students need
and should use, is related to reading comprehension to understand the characteristics of a given reading task
(Anderson, 2005). Students with greater metacognitive and be able to identify and use appropriate strategies for
awareness know the strategies required for successful task completion. With appropriate training, students will
learning, and anticipate success as a result of knowing be able to choose an appropriate strategy to help them
"how to learn." complete a reading task.
An implication for future research is to identify the It is important, however, to note that the finding is
relationship between cultural background and reading based on the current study and might not be generalizable.
strategy use among adult ESL learners. More studies involving different measures of reading
proficiency and with larger sample sizes should be
Strategy Use by Reading Proficiency Level conducted.

Although the differences in strategy use by Strategies Predictive of Reading Proficiency

proficiency level were not statistically significant,
participants in this study showed a clear pattern of The multiple regression model revealed that the three
strategy use. High intermediate learners used more reading categories of global, problem-solving, and support
strategies across all categories, while advanced learners reading strategies as a whole explained approximately
used the least strategies. Beginning and low intermediate 14% of the variance in reading proficiency, as measured
learners used all the strategies at approximately the same by students’ CASAS reading scores. The categories of
rate. This finding is somewhat different from other studies problem-solving and support, however, were found to be
that utilized the Survey of Reading Strategies or SORS better predictors, as the beta weights of the problem-
(Mokhtari & Sheorey, 2002). Several studies conducted in solving and the support strategies were substantially
university settings (e.g. Sheorey & Baboczky, 2008; larger than that of the global strategies.

9
 This finding indicates the importance of active mental References
engagement while reading texts through problem-
solving strategies such as paying close attention to reading, Anderson, N. (2003). Scrolling, clicking, and reading
trying to get back on track, guessing the meaning of English: Online reading strategies in a second/foreign
unknown words, and adjusting reading speed. Why global language. The Reading Matrix, 3(3), 1-33.
Anderson, N. (2005). L2 learning strategies. In E. Hinkel
strategies were not a significant predictor of reading
(Ed.), Handbook of research in second language
proficiency is not clear, particularly considering the teaching and learning (pp. 757-771). Mahwah, NJ:
important role that metacognitive strategies play in reading Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
proficiency. One speculation, as we indicated earlier, is Benson, P. (2003). Learner autonomy in the classroom. In
that advanced learners might be more autonomous, and Nunan, D. (Ed.) Practical English language teaching.
they might not be consciously focused on their own use of New York: McGraw Hill.
higher order strategies of monitoring, regulating, and Benson, P. (2007). Autonomy in language teaching and
learning. Language Teaching, 40 (1), 21-40.
evaluating while reading. In addition, adult ESL learners
Benson, P. (2011). Teaching and researching autonomy.
might be less familiar with global reading strategies due to London: Longman.
a lack of higher level academic learning experiences. Benson, P., & Voller, P. (1997). Introduction: Autonomy
This finding points to a need for future research on the and independence in language learning. In P. Benson
relationship between learner autonomy and reading & P. Voller (Eds.), Autonomy and independence in
strategy use. Theoretically, language learning strategies, language learning, (pp. 1-11). London: Longman.
including reading strategies, are essential for cultivating Borg, S., & Al-Busaidi, S. (2012). Learner autonomy:
English language teachers’ beliefs and practices. ELT
learner autonomy, and autonomous learners should be able
Research Paper, British Council 2012. Retrieved from
to apply appropriate strategies in completing reading tasks. http://englishagenda.britishcouncil.org/sites/ec/files/B
The specific relationships identified between learner 459%20ELTRP%20Report%20Busaidi_final.pdf
autonomy and reading strategy use will help us understand Brown, D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive
the nature of the relationships in order to help all students approach to language pedagogy. White Plains, NY:
become better language learners. Pearson.
CASAS. (n.d.). Life and work reading. Retrieved from
Conclusion https://www.casas.org/product-
overviews/assessments/life-and-work-reading.
This study aimed to identify the reading strategies that CASAS. (2011). What is CASAS? Retrieved from
adult ESL learners favored the most and the least, and https://www.casas.org/docs/pagecontents/whatiscasas.
pdf
explored the relationship between reading strategies and
Center for Applied Linguistics. (2010). BEST Literacy
reading proficiency. Considering that students’ use of Test Usage Policy. Retrieved from
reading strategies was identified through a self-report http://www.cal.org/aea/assets/bl_testusage.pdf.
survey, and the ANOVAs (after the Bonferroni correction Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, M. J. (1996). The cognitive
procedure was applied) examining the relationship academic language learning approach: A model for
between reading proficiency levels and strategy use were linguistically diverse classrooms. Elementary School
not significant, one should be cautious in making Journal, 96(3), 295-273.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the
generalizations based on the findings of the study.
behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Nevertheless, for this sample of adult ESL learners, the Lawrence-Erlbaum.
study does show that (a) adult ESL learners were active Green, S., & Salkind, N. (2011). Using SPSS for Windows
strategies users; (b) they clearly favored problem-solving and Macintosh: Analyzing and understanding data.
strategies more than other strategies; (c) high intermediate Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
learners used the most strategies and advanced learners Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy in foreign language learning.
used the least strategies; and (d) problem-solving and Oxford: Pergamon.
support strategies were useful predictors for reading
proficiency scores.

10
Institute for Education Sciences, (2010). The impact of a Park, G. P. (1997). Language learning strategies and
reading intervention for low-literate adult ESL English proficiency in Korean University students.
learners: Executive summary. Retrieved from Foreign Language Annals 30(2), 211-221.
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20114003/index.asp on Palfreyman, D. (2003). Expanding the discourse on
Dec. 20, 2013. learner development: A reply to Anita Wenden.
Lessard-Clouston, M. (1997). Language learning Applied Linguistics 24 (2), 243-248.
strategies: An overview for L2 teachers. The Internet Pennycook, A. (1997). Cultural alternatives and
TESL Journal, 3(12), 1-5. autonomy. In P. Benson & P. Voller (Eds.), Autonomy
Little, D. (2000). Strategies, counseling and cultural and independence in language learning, (pp. 35-53).
difference: Why we need an anthropological London: Longman.
understanding of learner autonomy. In R. Ribe (ed.), Poole, A. (2008). Awareness of reading strategies among
Developing learner autonomy in foreign language male and female college students when reading
learning, (pp.17 – 33). Barcelona: University of online. Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction,
Barcelona. 15(1), 127-140.
Marshall, B. (2002). Preparing for success: A guide for Rovai, A., Baker, J., & Ponton, M. (2014). Social science
teaching adult English language learners. research design and statistics (2nd ed.). VA,
Washington, DC & McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Chesapeake: Watertree Press.
Linguistics & Delta System. Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the
Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C.A. (2002). Assessing metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among
students’ metacognitive awareness of reading native and non-native speakers. System, 29(4), 431-
strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 449.
249-259. Sheorey, R., & Baboczky, E. S. (2008). Metacognitive
Mokhtari, K. & Sheorey, R. (1994). Reading habits of awareness of reading strategies among Hungarian
university ESL students at different levels of English college students. In K. Mokhtari & R. Sheorey (Eds.),
proficiency and education. Journal of Research in Reading strategies of first- and second-language
Reading, 17(1), 46-61. learners: See how they read (pp. 161-173). Norwood,
Mokhtari, K. & Sheorey, R. (2002). Measuring ESL MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers.
students’ awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Sheorey, R., Kamimura, Y., & Freiermuth, M.R. (2008).
Developmental Education, 25(3). 2-10. Reading strategies of the users of English as a library
O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., language: The case of Japanese ESP students. In K.
Russo, R. P., & Kupper, L. (1985). Learning strategy Mokhtari & R. Sheorey (Eds.), Reading strategies of
applications with students of English as a second first- and second-language learners: See how they
language. TESOL Quarterly, 19(3), 557-584. read (pp. 175-184). Norwood, MA: Christopher-
O’Malley, J.M., & Chamot, A.U. (1990). Learning Gordon Publishers.
strategies in second language acquisition. New York:
Cambridge University Press. Jiuhan Huang is an assistant professor of the
Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What TESOL Program in the School of Education at
Regent University, Virginia Beach, Virginia. She
every teacher should know. Boston, MA: Heinle and has taught ESL/EFL to adult learners both in
Heinle. China and the US for over 20 years. Her research
Oxford, R.L. (1996). Why is culture important for interests include grammar instruction, reading
language learning strategies? In R. Oxford (ed), strategy, and authenticity in language classrooms.
Language learning strategies around the world: Cross-
cultural perspectives. University of Hawaii: Second
language teaching and curriculum center technical
Dr. Deanna Nisbet is an associate professor and
report 13, ix-xv.
faculty chair of the TESOL Program at Regent
Oxford, R.L., & Burry-Stock, J.A. (1995). Assessing the University. Her areas of expertise and research
use of language learning strategies worldwide with include second language acquisition, vocabulary
the ESL/EFL version of the strategy inventory for development, and literacy among second
language learning (SILL). System, 23, 153-175. language learners.

11