The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

Taiwanese EFL Learners’ Perceived Use of Online Reading Strategies

Lisa Wen Chun Chen

68The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

Abstract
Reading strategies are beneficial to learners’ reading comprehension. The strategies can bedivided into different categories, such as global reading strategies, problem solving strategies andsupport strategies. Most previous studies investigated the importance of reading strategies in thepaper-based reading. However, relatively few studies examined online reading strategies andtheir effects on reading comprehension. Online reading materials are important sources for EFL
students since an increasing number of learners read texts and learn through the Internet. EFL
learners in Taiwan, unfortunately, are reported to be overwhelmed with English online materials
on the Internet. Therefore, this study intends to examine EFL learners’ perceived use of online
reading strategies and whether their perceived strategy uses are different in terms of proficiency
levels and gender. There are 94 Taiwanese EFL learners (43% of them are males, n=40 and 57 %of them are females, n=54), who received the Online Survey of Reading Strategies (OSORS)
adapted from Anderson (2003) in the study. The result showed that EFL online readers tend touse more global strategies, such as using contextual clues and observing tables, figures, andpictures in the on-line text to increase understanding. High level learners used more global andproblem solving strategies than low level learners, which corresponds to previous studies.
Additionally, there is no difference of strategy use between males and females. Several
pedagogical implications, such as the need to raise students’ awareness of strategy use, areaddressed in the present study.
Keywords: Online reading; L2 reading strategies; reading comprehension; gender differences;proficiency-level differences.

69

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

Introduction
Reading strategies are beneficial to learners’ reading comprehension (Huang et al., 2009). The
strategies can be divided into different categories, such as global reading strategies, problem
solving strategies and support strategies. According to Sheorey and Mokhtari (2001), global
reading strategies refer to intentional techniques by which learners monitor their reading, such aspreviewing the text for its organization. Problem solving strategies are localized techniques thatreaders use when problems form in understanding textual information, such as guessing themeaning of unknown words. Additionally, support strategies are seemed as using some
supportive mechanisms, such as consulting an online dictionary. These reading strategies arecommonly discussed in previous research. Readers utilize these strategies to help them improvetheir reading comprehension. Most previous studies investigated the importance of reading
strategies in the paper-based reading (Bereiter and Bird, 1985; Singhal, 1999; Sporer et al., 2009;
Mokhtari and Reichard, 2004; Sheorey and Mokhtari, 2001; Ikeda and Takeuchi, 2006; Spörer,Brunstein and Kieschke, 2009; Huang, 1999). However, relatively few studies examined online
reading strategies and their effects on reading comprehension (Anderson, 2003; Foltz, 1993;
Huang et al., 2009; Singhal, 1999).
Online reading materials are important sources for EFL students since an increasing number oflearners read texts and learn through the Internet. EFL learners in Taiwan, unfortunately, arereported to be overwhelmed with English online materials on the Internet (Chen, 2003). Online
materials are usually composed of hypertext which is non-linear information, differing fromtraditional reading and resulting in difficulties for learners. The different feature of online
materials compared to paper-based reading may also lead to different online reading strategy uses,
which suggest that there is a need to conduct more research to further explore this issue.
Moreover, most of previous studies discussed EFL learners’ strategy use between learners in
different levels but relatively little research investigates gender differences in online reading
strategy use. This study intends to examine EFL learners’ perceived use of online reading
strategies and whether their perceived strategy uses are different in terms of proficiency levels
and gender.
Literature Review
In this section, previous studies of reading strategy use will be discussed in terms of electronic
literacies, paper-based second language reading strategies and online second language reading
strategies.
Electronic literacies
As technologies have evolved, the nature of literacy is changing rapidly. The definition of literacy
has expanded from traditional reading and writing to the ability of learning, comprehending andinteraction with technology meaningfully in online reading (Pianfetti, 2001). Electronic literacies
referring to screen-based literacies include understanding hypertext and multimedia information
as well as evaluating online resources by using computers (Park and Kim, 2011). Online readingmaterials are usually composed of text information, hypertext or hypermedia. Hypertext andhypermedia can provide annotations for readers to know more related information about theonline text. Hypertext refers to text with links which can provide additional information and also
make readers read between different sections or pages (Warschauer, 1999). These links, or
annotations, can allow readers to leave the primary material temporarily and then return after
finishing the annotation (Nielsen, 1995). Additionally, the term hypermedia is hypertext withmultiple forms of media, which can provide extra information in the form of pictures or videos.
The most prominent feature of hypertext is its nonlinear organization of presenting the text
(Akyel and Ercetin, 2009). Readers can choose their own pace when reading this online text

70

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

either sequentially or non-sequentially, that is, learners’ reading orders are unpredictable andunstable (Patterson, 2000). Therefore, readers should know how to integrate the text informationand non-text information in online reading (Coiro, 2005; Schmar-Dobler, 2003), which is more
complex and also differs from the traditional reading process. The different reading process may
result in different reading strategies in online reading environments, which will be discussed in
the review of studies about online reading strategies.
Paper-based second language reading strategies
Most of the previous studies exploring reading strategies have focused on readers’ use of penpaper reading strategies rather than online reading strategies in reading comprehension. Thesestudies discussed the effects of teaching reading strategies and the different use of reading
strategies between EFL learners and native speakers when they read texts. Some research hassuggested that when teachers conduct the training of reading strategies for learners in EFL
classrooms, it can be effective to enhance learners’ reading comprehension. For instance,
according to Bereiter and Bird (1985), they found that the group who received the explicit
instruction of reading strategies showed a significant gain in reading comprehension than thegroup without explicit instruction. In addition, Singhal (1999) observed that metacognitive
strategy training is effective in enhancing second language reading and the effectiveness ofstrategy training depends upon the way reading is measured. Similarly, the students who received
the intervention of training reading strategies gained higher scores on an experimenter-developed
task of reading comprehension and strategy use than the control group (Sporer, Brunstein andKieschke, 2009).
Other studies have investigated the similarities and differences of reading strategy use between
native speakers and EFL learners or discussed EFL learners’ individual differences towards
reading strategy use. A few researchers indicated that EFL learners may use certain reading
strategies more than native speakers. Mokhtari and Reichard (2004) stated that Moroccan
students reported using certain types of strategies more often than their American counterparts
did while Sheorey and Mokhtari (2001) found that both native and nonnative groups applied asimilar number of reading strategies. In terms of learners’ individual differences in reading
strategies, many studies revealed the different use of strategies among learners from various
proficiency levels. Ikeda and Takeuchi (2006) noticed that the differences between students in thehigh and low proficiency level are attributed to: (1) understanding the purpose of strategies; (2)effectively using strategies; and (3) knowing how to combine strategies. Additionally, highproficient readers tend to use global strategies while low proficient readers appeal to local
strategies (Huang, 1999).
Online second language reading strategies
Although many studies discussed paper-based reading strategies, relatively few studies discussed
online reading strategies. Readers have different mental processes when reading printed texts andonline texts since readers need to integrate text, visual and non-textual information, including
pictures, footnotes and links in online reading. In this way, they have more active engagement ofreading in online texts, which leads to deeper processing of information (Patterson, 2000). Whenreaders are involved in online reading, they not only interpret the writers’ stances and viewpoints,
but also integrate abundant materials by utilizing online strategies (Coiro, 2005; Schmar-Dobler,
2003), which indicates the important role of online reading strategies to help readers understandonline texts.
Previous research explored online reading strategies in terms of different perspectives, such ascomparing paper and online reading strategies, examining the relationship of online reading
strategies and web-based learning and discussing the individual differences in strategy use. In

71

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

terms of comparing online and paper-based reading strategies, readers may transfer their printbased reading strategies to hypertext reading but they will also need to use additional strategies inhypertext reading (Shapiro and Niederhauser, 2004; Schmar-Dobler, 2003). Similar results arealso found in other studies. Foltz (1993), for example, compared the strategy use by learners
when they read the text in the form of linear text and hypertext. He proved that readers use thesimilar numbers of strategies when reading these two types of texts but when they read thehypertext, they not only got involved in a reading process but also developed problem solving
strategies when dealing with unfamiliar texts. Additionally, Park and Kim (2011) investigated
ESL learners’ use of online reading strategies from a sociocultural perspective and they observedthat learners adopted their paper-based reading strategies in online reading, such as setting up
reading purposes and previewing. At the same time, they also adjust their strategies and use newstrategies for online reading materials, such as using hypermedia. Akyel and Ercetin (2009),
similarly, indicated that hypertext readers applied similar reading strategies as paper-based
reading but they used some other strategies, such as using navigation strategies or referring toannotations in their hypertext reading.
As for the relationship of online reading strategies and web-based learning, Singhal (1999)
showed that online reading strategies have a positive effect on Web-based learning and reading
comprehension. He investigated hypertext reading strategies among university students in a Webbased reading class and discovered that after Web-based reading instruction, students’ reading
comprehension made progress and their use of reading strategies increased as well. In Coiro’s(2007) study, the finding also revealed that successful Internet reading experiences appeared torequire complex applications of inferential reasoning strategies. Both studies suggested thatonline reading strategies play an important role in the success of web-based learning.
Some research discussed EFL learners’ use of online reading strategies and whether individual
differences will influence learners’ strategy use. Amer, Barwani and Ibrahim (2010) examined
whether there is a difference of online reading strategy use between Omani EFL university
students in a high proficiency level and those in a low proficiency level. The result found thathigh proficient readers used more global strategies than low-proficient readers did, corresponding
to Huang’s study (1999). In addition, a few studies discussed the role of prior knowledge inlearners’ online strategy use. Coiro and Dobler (2007) suggested that skilled readers usuallyreferred to their prior knowledge of the topic and printed informational text structures to guidetheir online reading. Moreover, previous research asserted that low knowledge participants
benefited more by following a high coherent reading order, whereas high-knowledge participantstended to read the hypertext in a low coherent order and read based on their interests (Salmerón,
Cañas, Kintsch and Fajardo, 2005; Akyel and Ercetin, 2009). These studies revealed theimportant role of students’ prior knowledge in exploring online reading strategies.
Although previous studies discussed online reading strategies broadly from different perspectives,
relatively few studies investigated Taiwanese EFL learners’ perceived online reading strategies.
Since EFL learners are reported to be overwhelmed with English online materials on the Internet(Chen, 2003) so their online reading strategy use would be our interest to further analyze.
Additionally, a lot of previous research explored the different uses of online reading strategies
between different proficiency levels but the factor of gender was seldom mentioned as well. Dueto these issues, there is a need for us to further discuss EFL learners’ perceived online reading
strategies and the differences of strategy use between learners in different levels and genders. The
following are the three research questions addressed in the present study:
1. What is the pattern of online reading strategy use by EFL learners?
2. Are there any differences of online reading strategy use between learners in the highproficiency level and low proficiency level?
3. Are there any differences of online reading strategy use between males and females?
72

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

Methodology
Participants
The subjects consisted of 94 EFL learners (43% of them are males, n=40 and 57 % of them arefemales, n=54) in the study. The average age was 22 years old, ranging from 19 to 26. Over halfof them were undergraduate or graduate students (n=58) and the rest of them just graduated fromuniversities (n=36). 72 learners have participated TOEIC test before and their data were analyzed
to see whether there was a difference of strategy use between learners in different proficiency
levels.
Instrument
The Online Survey of Reading Strategies (OSORS) adapted from Anderson’s (2003) study wasused in the study. The OSORS measured three dimensions of reading strategies, including global
strategies, problem solving strategies and support strategies. One support strategy, which refers towhether learners click on annotations when they read online English materials, was added in thepresent study because learners tend to use additional strategies when reading online materials andclicking on hyperlinks or annotations would be one of these additional strategies. Anderson (2003)
demonstrated the reliability of items in OSORS, proposing that the Cronbach’s alpha for theoverall OSORS was .92. There were 37 items in the survey, containing 16 items as global
strategies, 11items as problem solving strategies and 10 items as support strategies. Eachstatement in OSORS could be responded by the 5-point Likert Scale, ranging from 1 (never oralmost never use this strategy) to 5 (always or almost always use this strategy).
Procedure
The researcher collected data by online Google questionnaires. The link of questionnaire wasposted on the college social networks and also sent through instant messages and emails. The dataof participants above 26 years old would be eliminated since the focus of the participants in thepresent study were mainly college or graduate students. Then the mean scores of the items would
be calculated and the paired t-test would be conducted to observe whether there is a significant
difference of strategy use regarding proficiency differences and gender differences.
Results
The top ten and the bottom ten frequently used online reading strategies
Among the top ten most frequently used online reading strategies, half of them were global
strategies, three of them were problem solving strategies and two of them were support strategies,
as shown in Table 1. Although it seemed that learners seldom used support strategies compared toother two kinds of strategies, the most frequently used strategy was using an online dictionary tohelp readers understand online texts, which is a support strategy. It was not surprising that EFL
learners most frequently looked up an online dictionary when they read online reading materials
since previous L2 research showed that vocabulary is perceived to be the most difficult task
among EFL learners (Cheng, 1998; Chi & Chern, 1988) so it was no wonder that EFL learners
tended to look up new words when they encountered difficulties.
Table 1. Mean scores of top ten frequently used online reading strategies

73

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

The top ten frequently used online reading strategies

Meanscores14.

I use reference materials (e.g. an on-line dictionary) to help me

4.03

understand what I read on-line. (Support strategy)
19.

I use context clues to help me better understand what I am reading on-

3.99

line. (Global strategy)
10.

I try to get back on track when I lose concentration. (Problem solving

3.90

strategy)
29.

When I read on-line, I guess the meaning of unknown words or phrases.

3.88(Problem solving strategy)
17.

I use tables, figures, and pictures in the on-line text to increase my

3.80

understanding. (Global strategy)
25.

I try to guess what the content of the on-line text is about when I read.

3.78(Global strategy)
20.

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

3.78

read on-line. (Support strategy)
26.

When on-line text becomes difficult, I re-read it to increase my

3.68

understanding. (Problem solving strategy)
4.

I think about what I know to help me understand what I read on-line.

3.66(Global strategy)
31.

I scan the on-line text to get a basic idea of whether it will serve my

3.64

purposes before choosing to read it. (Global strategy)

As for the bottom ten online reading strategies used by learners, three of them were global
strategies, three of them were problem solving strategies and six of them were support strategies,
as shown in Table 2. Most of the infrequently used online reading strategies were support
strategies so EFL learners seldom used support strategies except for consulting an online
dictionary as mentioned before. This corresponds to Anderson’s (2003) study which indicatedthat the least frequently used online reading strategies were support strategies. The least
frequently used online reading strategy was participating in live chat with other learners ofEnglish, which is a global strategy. The reason why learners seldom live chatted with otherlearners may be because they tended to focus on the understanding of the online English
materials instead of social interaction with other readers.

74The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

Table 2. Mean scores of bottom ten online reading strategies used by learners
Mean

The bottom ten online reading strategiesscores1.

I have a purpose in mind when I read on line. (Global strategy)

21.

I try to picture or visualize information to help remember what I read on-

3.16

line. (Problem solving strategy)33.

I critically evaluate the on-line text before choosing to use information I

3.05

read on-line. (Problem solving strategy)
22.

I critically analyze and evaluate the information presented in the on-line

2.94

text. (Global strategy)
35.

When reading on-line, I look for sites that cover both sides of an issue.

2.67(Problem solving strategy)
27.

I ask myself questions I like to have answered in the on-line text. (Support
strategy)

36.

When reading on-line, I translate from English into my native language.
I take notes while reading on-line to help me understand what I read.

2.44(Support strategy)
11.

I print out a hard copy of the on-line text then underline or circle

2.37

information to help me remember it. (Support strategy)
2.

2.65
2.63

(Support strategy)
3.

3.15

I participate in live chat with other learners of English. (Global strategy)

1.96

Online reading strategy use in terms of different proficiency levels
The responses of 72 EFL learners who have participated TOEIC test were analyzed in this section.
They were divided into the high and low proficiency level based on their scores of TOEIC.
Learners who got over 700 scores were considered as higher level learners and those who got
scores below 700 were seemed as lower proficiency learners. In this way, 55 of them werelearners of the high level and 17 of them were in the low level. The result is shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Differences between high level students and low level students

Global strategy

Problem solving
strategy

Group

N

Mean

SD

T

P

High level

55

3.66

.495

7.520

.000

Low level

17

3.11

.491

High level

55

3.67

.418

5.479

.000

Low level

17

3.11

.345

75

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Support strategy

Total

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

High level

55

3.28

.666

Low level

17

3.07

.659

High level

55

3.56

.54

Low level

17

3.10

.49

2.010

.075

8.132

.000

As presented in Table 3, there was a significant difference of total strategy use between high level
students and low level students (p=.000). High level students tended to use more online reading
strategies than low level students, which can be expected. Also, the high proficiency group
employed more global strategies than the low proficiency group and there was a significant
difference between their mean scores of global strategies (p=.000). This finding was also found in
the previous L2 research indicating that high proficiency learners conducted more global
strategies than low proficiency learners (Huang, 1999; Mokhtari & Reichard, 2002; Shen, 2003).
As for problem solving strategies, the similar result as global strategies was found. The highproficiency group used more problem solving strategies than the low proficiency group and there
was also a significant difference between their means of problem solving strategies (p=.000).
However, there was no significant difference of support strategies between the means of support
strategies in high level learners and low level learners (p=.075). Both groups used relatively
fewer support strategies than global and problem solving strategies.
Online reading strategy use in terms of gender difference
There were 40 males and 54 females in the present study. The result indicated that there was no
significant difference of total strategy use between the male and female group. In addition, there
was no significant difference of each category of strategy use (global, problem solving andsupport strategies) between the male group and female group as well. This suggested that males
and females used the similar online reading strategies when they read online materials. The
finding corresponds to previous studies, such as Amer, Barwani & Ibrahim’s (2010) study whichinvestigated student teachers online reading strategy use and found that there was no significant
difference in terms of gender.
Table 4. Differences between males and females
Group

N

Mean

SD

T

P

male

40

3.36

.456

1.823

.088

female

54

3.44

.487

Problem solving

male

40

3.43

.360

-.245

.811

strategy

female

54

3.45

.404

Support strategy

male

40

3.16

.538

-.187

.856

female

54

3.17

.645

male

40

3.33

.454

-1.262.215

female

54

3.37

.513

Global strategy

Total

However, if we look at the individual strategy use in detail, it is suggested that females are more
active strategy user than males because more strategies used by females reached high frequency.
As shown in Table 5, the strategies with high frequency in females were more than those in males.
For example, the mean scores of top three frequently used strategies for females reached 4 points,
which means “I usually use this strategy” in the Likert scale. This indicated that females usually76

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

used references, contextual cues and the strategy of guessing unknown words when they read
English online reading materials. Nevertheless, in terms of males’ strategy use, none of thestrategies’ mean scores reached 4 points.
Table 5. Top ten frequently used strategies by males and females
Male

Mean

FemaleMean

10. I try to get back on track when I
lose concentration. (Problem solving
strategy)

3.93

14. I use reference materials (e.g.
an on-line dictionary) to help me
understand what I read on-line.
(Support strategy)

4.11

14. I use reference materials (e.g. an
on-line dictionary) to help me
understand what I read on-line.
(Support strategy)

3.93

19. I use context clues to help me
better understand what I am
reading on-line. (Global strategy)

4.09

19. I use context clues to help me
better understand what I am reading
on-line. (Global strategy)

3.85

29. When I read on-line, I guess themeaning of unknown words orphrases. (Problem solving strategy)

4.04

25. I try to guess what the content of
the on-line text is about when I read.
(Global strategy)

3.78

10. I try to get back on track when I
lose
concentration.
(Problemsolving strategy)

3.89

3.73

17. I use tables, figures, andpictures in the on-line text toincrease my understanding. (Global
strategy)

3.87

24. I check my understanding when
I come across new information.
(Global strategy)

3.73

20. I paraphrase (restate ideas in
my own words) to better
understand what I read on-line.
(Support strategy)

3.85

17. I use tables, figures, and picturesin the on-line text to increase myunderstanding. (Global strategy)

3.70

25. I try to guess what the content
of the on-line text is about when I
read.(Global strategy)

3.78

20. I paraphrase (restate ideas in myown words) to better understandwhat I read on-line. (Support
strategy)

3.68

26. When on-line text becomesdifficult, I re-read it to increase myunderstanding. (Problem solving
strategy)

3.78

29. When I read on-line, I guess themeaning of unknown words orphrases. (Problem solving strategy)

3.68

4. I think about what I know tohelp me understand what I read online. (Global strategy)

3.72

31. I scan the on-line text to get abasic idea of whether it will serve
my purposes before choosing to readit. (Global strategy)

3.63

13. When reading on-line, I decide
what to read closely and what toignore. (Global strategy)

8. I read slowly and carefully tomake sure I understand what I am
reading on-line.(Problem solving
strategy)

77

3.65

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

Discussion
The present study shows that EFL online readers tend to use more global strategies when theyread online texts, which is different from previous studies showing that EFL learners use more
problem solving strategies (Amer, Barwani & Ibrahim’s, 2010; Anderson, 2003). The possible
explanation is that there are more high proficiency learners in this study and high level students
tended to use more global strategies than low level students (Huang, 1999), which may lead tomore global strategy use in the present study. Additionally, the result shows that there is asignificant difference between high and low level learners, which is also found in previous
research (Huang, 1999; Mokhtari & Reichard, 2002; Shen, 2003). High level learners used moreglobal and problem solving strategies than low level learners but both groups employ the similar
numbers of support strategies. The possible interpretation of why the two group using similar
support strategies is that many support strategies are related to EFL learners’ first language,
including looking up an online English-Chinese dictionary and using L1 paraphrases. Most EFL
learners are accustomed to resort to their L1 as a meaning making process when they are reading
or writing (Freedman et al., 1983; Kobayashi and Rinnert, 1992), which might explain the uses of
support strategies between high and low level groups do not differ. The other finding is that there
is no significant difference between males and females but females seem to use certain strategies
with high frequency, which is also presented in Amer, Barwani & Ibrahim’s (2010) research.
This study demonstrates several findings which confirm the results in previous research and also
increase our understanding of Taiwanese EFL learners’ online reading strategy use.
Pedagogical Implications and Future Studies
The present study raises some implications for reading instruction. First, since the result of thepresent study indicates that high proficiency learners tend to use more global strategies toincrease their reading comprehension, it seems that global strategies are more efficient than theother two strategies. (Akyel & Erçetin, 2009). Teachers should therefore explicitly teach students
global strategies in their reading processes in EFL classrooms, such as using context clues,
predicting the content of the text, reading purposefully. For instance, teachers can design some
activities to ask students to predict what will happen in the content of the text, ask them to skim
the text to grasp the main idea of the text or ask them some questions before they begin to read sothat they can scan the answers for the questions when they are reading.
Additionally, teachers should pay attention to how to help students spontaneously utilize thosereading strategies when they read online English materials by raising their awareness of reading
strategy use through training before they are immersed in online reading materials. However,there are some limitations of the present study. First, the numbers of high proficiency learners
and low proficiency learners are not equal so future studies should have equal participants oflearners in different levels so that the result will be more valid. In addition, this study only
investigates learners’ perceived strategies, which may differ from their actual use of online
reading strategies so future researchers can compare whether there is a difference between
learners’ perceived strategy use and actual strategy use in order to provide more insight of EFL
learners’ strategy use.

78

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

References
Anderson, N. J. (2003). Scrolling, Clicking, and Reading English: Online Reading Strategies in a
Second/Foreign Language. Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 3(3).
Amer, A., Al Barwani, T., & Ibrahim, M. (2010). Student teachers' perceived use of online
reading strategies. International Journal of Education & Development using Information &Communication Technology, 6(4).
Akyel, A., & Erçetin, G. (2009). Hypermedia reading strategies employed by advanced learnersof English. System, 37(1), 136-152.
Bereiter, C., & Bird, M. (1985). Use of Thinking Aloud in Identification and Teaching of
Reading Comprehension Strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 2(2), 131-156.
Chen, H.-J. (2003). Developing a technology-enhanced self-access reading environment. In The
proceedings of the 2003 international conference on English teaching and learning in the
Republic of China (pp. 103–116). Taipei: Crane Publishing Company.
Coiro, J. (2005). Making sense of online text. Educational Leadership, 63(2), 30–35.
Foltz, P. W. (1993). Readers’ comprehension and strategies in linear text and hypertext.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado, Boulder.
Freedman, A., Pringle, I., Yalden, J., 1983. The writing process: three orientations. In: Freedman,
A., Pringle, I., Yalden, J. (Eds.), Learning to Write: First Language/Second Language.
Longman, London, pp. 1–47.
Huang, S.-H. (1999). A descriptive study of reading strategies used by Taiwanese EFL university
more and less proficient readers. Unpublished master’s thesis, Providence University,
Taichung, Taiwan.
Ikeda, M., & Takeuchi, O. (2006). Clarifying the differences in learning EFL reading strategies:
An analysis of portfolios. System, 34(3), 384-398.
Kobayashi, H., Rinnert, C., 1992. Eﬀects of ﬁrst language on second language writing: translation
versus direct composition. Language Learning, 42, 183–215.
Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. (2004). Investigating the strategic reading processes of first andsecond language readers in two different cultural contexts. System, 32(3), 379-394.
Patterson, N. (2000). Hypertext and the changing roles of readers. English Journal, 90, 74–80.
Singhal, M. (1999). The effects of reading strategy instruction on the reading comprehension,
reading process and strategy use of adult SL readers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Arizona, Tucson.
Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading
strategies among native and non-native readers. System, 29(4), 431-449.
Schmar-Dobler, E. (2003). Reading on the internet: The link between literacy and technology.
Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 47(1), 80–85.
Singhal, M. (2004). Teaching reading to adult second language learners. Mattoon, Illinois: UnitedGraphics Inc.

79

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume III - Issue II - Summer 2015

Spörer, N., Brunstein, J. C., & Kieschke, U. (2009). Improving students' reading comprehension
skills: Effects of strategy instruction and reciprocal teaching. Learning and Instruction,
19(3), 272-286.

80