Author: Lisa Wen Chun Chen, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan
Email: winginsn@hotmail.com
Published: September 2015
https://doi.org/10.22492/ije.3.2.04
Citation: Chen, L. W. C. (2015). Taiwanese EFL learners’ perceived use of Online Reading Strategies. IAFOR Journal of Education, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.22492/ije.3.2.04
Abstract
Reading strategies are beneficial to learners’ reading comprehension. The strategies can be divided into different categories, such as global reading strategies, problem solving strategies and support strategies. Most previous studies investigated the importance of reading strategies in the paper-based reading. However, relatively few studies examined online reading strategies and their 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 to use more global strategies, such as using contextual clues and observing tables, figures, and pictures in the on-line text to increase understanding. High level learners used more global and problem 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, are addressed in the present study.
Keywords
online reading, L2 reading strategies, reading comprehension, gender differences, proficiency-level differences