The effects of reading strategy training on students’ reading strategy use and critical reading ability in EFL reading classes

Abstract

This research examined the impact of explicit reading strategy training on Ethiopian university students’ reading strategy use and critical reading ability in the English as a Foreign Language (EFL) context. Two intact classes, a control group (n = 35) and an experimental group (n = 45), participated in the study. The experimental group received 12 weeks of reading strategy training integrated into their English reading skills I classes. A mixed-method quasi-experimental design was employed, using a reading strategy questionnaire, a critical reading ability test, and a think-aloud technique for data collection. Students who received reading strategy instruction demonstrated notable improvements in reading strategy use and critical reading ability. The independent sample t-test and a paired sample t-test showed significant differences in both areas. Qualitative data highlighted compensation and memory strategies, which were not captured quantitatively. The think-aloud data revealed the predominant use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies, along with affective, social, memory, and compensation strategies. Cognitive strategies deepen understanding, and metacognitive techniques enhance interpretation in reading. These findings shed light on the responses of Ethiopian university students to explicit reading strategy training, emphasizing its significance in improving reading strategy use and critical reading ability in an EFL context.

Keywords:

• Critical-reading
• think-aloud
• learning-strategy
• reading-strategy
• language-proficiency

REVIEWING EDITOR:

• Lawrence Jun Zhang, University of Auckland Faculty of Education and Social Work, Auckland, New Zealand

SUBJECTS:

• Teachers & Teacher Education
• Teaching Assistants
• Theory of Education
• Theories of Learning
• Adult Education and Lifelong Learning
• Bilingualism/ESL
• Classroom Practice
• Higher Education

1. Introduction

In the field of English as a Foreign Language (EFL), fostering deep reading skills is crucial for effective language acquisition. Learning strategies are behaviors, techniques, or actions used by students, often consciously, to enhance their learning (Oxford, 1990). This study aims to explore the cognitive, metacognitive, affective, memory, compensation, and social strategies used in reading and how these strategies promote deep reading in the EFL setting.

Students engage in mental processes during reading, referred to as cognitive strategies. Some of the strategies include visualizing, predicting, summarizing, and questioning, which in turn enhance comprehension and facilitate a deeper understanding of EFL texts. Students who utilize these strategies demonstrate higher levels of engagement, critical thinking, and analysis (Hong, 2003; Grabe, 2009; Anderson, 2020).

According to Flavell (1979), metacognitive strategies involve thinking about one’s thinking. Metacognitive strategies include setting objectives, monitoring understanding, and evaluating comprehension. EFL learners who apply metacognitive strategies exhibit improved reading performance and more capable of constructing meaning from texts. Using these strategies allows students to regulate their reading processes, leading to a deeper understanding of the content (Chen & Graves, 2019; McLeod, 2019; Paris & Winograd, 1990).

Furthermore, affective strategies involve students’ attitudes, motivations, and emotions towards reading. Deep reading engagement is facilitated by developing techniques including motivation, creating a comfortable reading atmosphere, and lowering fear. It has been demonstrated that EFL students who approach reading with a positive mindset are more likely to invest cognitive effort, resulting in enhanced comprehension and critical thinking (Oxford, 1990; Smith & Nguyen, 2018).

Ghatala (1990) propose that memory strategies such as visualization, association, and repetition are instrumental in enhancing reading comprehension. These techniques aid students in storing and retrieving information. Strategies such as note-taking, highlighting, and using mnemonic devices can improve reading comprehension. Likewise, Harper et al. (2021) demonstrated that EFL learners who apply memory strategies are more capable of recalling important details, analyzing complex information, and making deeper connections within a text. These strategies support the development of meaningful reading experiences (Ernesto, 2001; Macaro, 2001).

As Lee et al. (2020) indicated, compensation strategies help EFL students overcome gaps in their linguistic knowledge or understanding. Students can use strategies like guessing meaning from context, using dictionaries, or seeking assistance from peers when encountering unfamiliar words or structures. Several studies have reported that compensatory reading strategies contribute to high comprehension and promote deeper engagement with EFL texts (Lee et al., 2020).

Vygotsky (1978) also emphasized the importance of social interaction in learning, where students construct meaning through negotiation, shared perspectives, and collaboration. Students interact with others while reading, and they can use social strategies such as collaborating in reading groups, discussing texts, and sharing interpretations. Wang and Jiang (2021) found that engaging in social reading strategies enhances comprehension, promotes critical thinking, and encourages deeper engagement with EFL texts. Group discussions provide opportunities for constructing meaning and understanding texts in diverse perspectives.

Several studies have investigated the effectiveness of reading strategy interventions in improving reading skills in EFL/ESL contexts (e.g. Grabe & Stoller, 2011; Dooley & Levin, 2017). As one of the general goals of education policy in Ethiopia is to foster deep (or critical) thinking, creativity, problem-solving skills, and independent learning (ETP, April 1994), students are therefore expected to analyze material in depth. This goal also serves as the foundation for developing reading contents at various grade levels (ETP, 1994).

Students who regularly employ reading strategies are more successful in comprehending texts (Chamot, 2005; Habok & Magyar, 2019). However, studies indicate that there is lack of strategy use and metacognitive awareness in adult learners (Cubukcu, 2008; Mokharti & Reichard, 2002; Pressley, 2000; Shokrpour & Fotovatian, 2009). It is one of the most worrying issues in language learning and instruction (Bergey et al., 2017). University students and graduates are expected to manifest behavior that demands them to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate information (Brten & Braasch, 2017; Siemens, 2004).

Much attention has not been given to critical reading ability pedagogy in EFL settings. A systematic study between 2001 and 2021 in Turkey and the United States contexts has given more attention than in other parts of the world (Li et al., 2022).

In a similar vein, there is a dearth of research on students’ reading strategy use and its impact on reading skills in higher institution settings in Africa, particularly Ethiopia.

In nations like Ethiopia, where English is the dominant language of instruction at all educational levels, the capacity to speak and read the language, particularly the ability to do critical reading, has emerged as one of the top priorities for every student. The mean English score fell below the required level in both the 10th and 12th grades, according to the National Agency for Examinations (NAE) 2010 data. Similar issues exist between students’ academic expectations in the curriculum and their level of reading competency (Eshetie, 2010; Yigzaw, 2012). Recently, universities admitted that a minimum score of 50% of the total exam result was set as a standard. In line with this, in the most recent survey, only 3.3% of test takers who achieved a 50% or higher score were admitted to Ethiopian public universities (NEAEA, 2023). The Ministry of Education (MoE) indicated that students’ low English skill is one of the contributing factors to least achievement; the problem is still persistent (ETP, August 2020).

Several local researchers, such as Mulatu and Regassa (2022), who found that misalignment of reading instruction contributed to grade 9 students’ inadequate reading skills, corroborated this claim.Another descriptive and interpretive study by Nurie (2017) revealed that teachers’ pedagogical choices in reading classes correlated with poor-level reading comprehension. According to reports, there is a discrepancy between Ethiopian university students’ reading proficiency and academic needs, even if they have been learning English for over 12 years (Eshetie, 2010; Jeylon, 2010).

Despite the fact that a large amount of research has recently dealt with reading in the domain of EFL teaching and learning, most of it has been conducted among primary or high school students (e.g. Yigzaw, Rahel & Alemayehu, 2018; Eshetie, 2010; Jeylon, 2010). While light has been shed on a number of issues, this research is limited to the extent that it can only report on higher institution students’ reflections on their reading strategy use and its impact, if any, on critical reading ability. It leaves open the question of how adult students perform reading tasks and what strategies they employ when they comprehend EFL texts. The objective of this study is to fill this gap and to suggest theoretical and practical implications for the EFL reading skills on the basis of the findings.

2. Research questions

Drawing from the problem and existing literature, this research attempts to examine the impact of reading strategy training on strategy use and critical reading ability. In line with this, the following research hypotheses were posed:

1. There is a statistically significant difference in the reading strategy use of students who are given training in reading strategies and those who are not.

2. There is a statistically significant difference in the critical reading ability of students who are given training in reading strategies and those who are not.

3. Methods

The purpose of this study was to examine whether there is a statistically significant difference in reading strategy use and critical reading ability between students who received training in reading strategies and those who did not

3.1. The research design

This design involves collecting quantitative data first (pre- and post-test from the two intact groups) and then using qualitative methods (think-aloud technique) to further explain the quantitative findings. The integration of quantitative and qualitative data leads to mixed methods quasi-experimental design.It provides a deeper understanding of the research questions and enhances the validity of the findings.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with random assignment are not always feasible or ethical in quasi-experimental designs. For instance, it would be unethical to deny a group of students access to a potentially beneficial intervention. Logistical constraints may also hinder random assignment, particularly when interventions are defined by pre-existing conditions such as second year EFL majoring students and Reading Skills I. Quasi-experimental designs are commonly used to study natural variations or interventions that have already taken place. When comparing outcomes across different classrooms with diverse teaching methods, random assignment is not employed. Quasi-experimental designs provide a practical alternative, utilizing intact classrooms or schools as comparison groups, allowing researchers to gather valuable data and insights (Cook & Campbell, 1986; Shadish et al., 2001; Creswell & Creswell, 2017).

When combined with quantitative data in a quasi-experimental design, qualitative data can reduce biases, address internal validity challenges, and enhance understanding of study findings (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). By analyzing the qualitative data, the researchers gained a deeper understanding of how the students applied the reading strategies, how they perceived their effectiveness, and any challenges or barriers they encountered. This qualitative analysis complemented the quantitative findings by providing a more nuanced interpretation of the results and shedding light on the underlying factors influencing the students’ reading strategy use and critical reading skills (Creswell & Creswell, 2017).

3.2. Participants and setting

Participants, totaling 83, consisted of undergraduate EFL-majoring students from two Ethiopian universities—Wachemo and Wolkite—enrolled in the Reading Skills I Course in Semester 1, 2022. Both groups had comparable English backgrounds, having completed similar university courses in their first year, including Logic and Critical Thinking Skills. Throughout the study, they were also enrolled in speaking and listening courses. The control group initially comprised 33 students, increasing to 38 in the post-test, while the experimental group started with 40 participants, increasing to 45. All students met the proficiency level required for implementing Oxford’s (1990) Language Learning Strategy model, suitable for intermediate and advanced learners.

Wachemo University housed the experimental group, while Wolkite University hosted the control group, selected to prevent data contamination. These universities shared similarities: established in the same year, comparable EFL instructors’ numbers and qualifications, technological support, and accessible libraries, supporting students’ cognitive and academic development.

3.3. Instruments

3.3.1. Questionnaire

The Oxford’s (1990) Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) assessed reading strategy use, aiming to identify techniques enhancing language learning. Ellis (1994) hailed it as the most comprehensive strategy classification. Reliability tests yielded coefficients ranging from 0.89 to 0.98, with a Cronbach alpha of 0.787 pre-test and 0.783 post-test in this study. The SILL's validity lies in its predictive link with language performance and sensory preferences.

Initially 50 strategies, the SILL was refined to 35 and then 30 items aligned with reading strategies, grouped into six subclasses. Specialists validated these strategies, ensuring clarity and appropriateness. Participants completed the questionnaire, assessing reading strategy use pre- and post-test, each session lasting 35 minutes. The 30-item survey covered six reading categories, aiming to correlate strategy use with critical reading ability scores.

The SILL employed a 5-point Likert scale (1 to 5) to gauge learners’ responses regarding strategy descriptions. Oxford delineated the scale from 'Never true of me’ to 'Always true of me'. Adapted items fell into six categories: Memory strategies (5 items) like visualization, association, and repetition are aimed at improving reading comprehension. For instance, grouping, sound representation, structured reviewing, and highlighting Cognitive strategies (8 items) indicate deep processing, linking new information with existing schemata, and analyzing it. Examples include repetition, quick idea grasp, analysis, and note-taking. Compensation strategies (4 items) focus on filling language knowledge gaps through methods like guessing and gestures, employing other clues, seeking help, or using synonyms. Metacognitive strategies (5 items) help with organizing, planning, and self-evaluation in learning. Such as linking new and known information, seeking practice, and self-monitoring. Affective strategies (5 items) address feelings, attitudes, and motivations. Techniques include anxiety reduction, self-encouragement, and discussing feelings with others. Social strategies (3 items) aim at interaction, questioning, and cooperation in the learning process, promoting classification, cultural understanding, and collaboration.

3.3.2. Critical reading ability test

The purpose of the test was to assess the impact of reading strategy training on students’ critical reading skills, as mentioned in Section 3.5. To achieve this, twenty-five multiple-choice items were chosen from sixteen short paragraphs, ranging in length from three to seven sentences. The test aimed to evaluate students’ abilities in analyzing, evaluating, and creating, based on Bloom’s revised higher-order thinking skills. These skills align with the requirements outlined in the Reading Skills I syllabus for English majors.

For the critical reading ability test, items from Mikulecky and Jefferies’ ‘Advanced Reading Power’ and ‘More Reading Power’ (1996, 2007) were adapted. Multiple-choice questions were added to eight rewritten paragraphs, focusing on determining the author’s intent, point of view, identifying the author’s bias, and summarizing the text. Additionally, seven items were derived from sections dedicated to ‘Thinking Skills’ in ‘More Reading Power’, emphasizing deductive and inductive reasoning, inferring from text, identifying summary sentences, and completing paragraphs. Furthermore, ten items were taken from short paragraphs on the ‘High School Regents Examinations’ website, assessing main idea identification through skimming, guessing, referencing, and understanding paragraph intent.

The test served as a systematic approach to gather and quantify the critical reading skills of second-year EFL-majoring university students. It followed a scoring system of zero (0) for incorrect responses and one (1) for correct responses. The test design adhered to Bloom’s higher-order thinking skills and aligned with the Reading Skills I syllabus for students majoring in English.

3.3.3. Think-aloud procedure

Data collection through think-aloud method consisted of several steps. Firstly, the researcher led the reading tasks and a video-man recorded the events. The researcher introduced the think-aloud method and warm-up exercises. The warm-up activities included rearranging disordered sentences and a jigsaw activity where students constructed a full story. These tasks aimed to establish group cohesion and set a safe and focused atmosphere for the session.

For about 10 to 15 minutes, the researcher demonstrated the think-aloud process using a text, with students having a copy of the text in front of them. Students were instructed to take notes and make a list of the different strategies the researcher was using to understand the text. Following this, the students were asked to think aloud as they completed the task, expressing everything that was going on in their minds and the specific strategies they used. During the think-aloud, only a follow up questions were posed by the researcher for further explore students thinking.

The students were then asked to verbally recall information from the text, and any additional statements were prompted to be included. Verbal recall took less than 5 minutes. In addition, students were informally interviewed to clarify any confusion that may have arisen during the think-aloud. The whole classroom event was recorded while the data gathering process carried out.

Finally, the recordings were transcribed, with speakers being coded as s1, s2, etc., and all utterances were transcribed into English. However, nonsense voices, sounds, and nonrelated words were not transcribed. The transcription was categorized based on specific reading strategies, which were then grouped into learning strategy constructs. Selected data based on the reading strategy category were presented in italic form, followed by the coded speaker (Bell, 2001; Yin, 2013).

3.4. Experimental procedure

3.4.1. Preparation of teaching material

For this study, a reading strategy training manual with more than 25 reading strategy activities was modified and adapted from the book ‘More Reading Power’ (Mikulecky & Jefferies, 2007). The book was selected based on its authenticity in academic content and intended to teach Cognitive, metacognitive, memory, affective, social and compensation reading strategies to undergraduate students of English Language and Literature. The definition and exercises for the reading strategy constructs and its sub-reading skills, such as skimming, scanning, guessing, making inference, summarizing, and evaluating, were also parts of the reading activities that were adapted for the training.

Integrated and explicit approaches were used to create the reading strategy training manual based on the reading skills I course syllabus. It was adapted using Oxford’s (1990) model. The model is the most comprehensive and simple-to-understand is; therefore, favored by many ESL/EFL researchers. In particular, learning strategies such as cognitive, metacognitive, affective, memory, compensation and social were the focus of the training manual. Each reading strategy was introduced and explained followed by examples. Self -assessment exercises and reading strategy exercises were considered when the manual was prepared. To validate the training manual, comments were obtained from advisor, colleagues and from the pilot study. The implementation of the model is described in the second phase of the current study (see section 3.5).

3.4.2. Pilot study

A pilot study was conducted with 28 first-year students from Social Science and Humanities Colleges, mirroring the main study’s participants. Experts with over a decade of EFL experience reviewed and refined reading tests, aided by the Cathoven AI CEFR checker to assess difficulty. Passages were adjusted to suit language skill levels between A9.9 and C1.2, modifying questions identified as native-level.

The training manual underwent a four-week pilot with student feedback and input from colleagues and supervisors, ensuring a progressive task sequence and accommodating time constraints for the main study.

The SILL questionnaire was administered, yielding consistent Cronbach’s alphas of 0.78 at pre-test and 0.783 at post-test, meeting the minimum reliability requirement (Table 1). With values surpassing the acceptable 0.60 threshold, the SILL demonstrated satisfactory reliability.

Table 1. SILL reliability.

Strategy	N of Items	Pre	Post
		Cronbach’s Alpha	Cronbach’s Alpha
Affective	5	.794	0.789
Social	3	.703	0.800
Cognitive	8	.736	0.824
Compensation	4	.741	0.822
Memory	5	.804	0.760
Meta cognitive	5	.717	0.811
Summary	30	.787	0.783

3.5. Strategy training in main study

To explore the effectiveness of the instruction, in the first phase, for the pre-test, all participants in both groups completed the reading comprehension test and reading strategies. Students were allocated 90 minutes to complete the reading comprehension test and 35 minutes to complete the SILL. Instructions for completing the questionnaire were provided, along with some examples. The Likert rating scale and the response options were also explained. Students were encouraged to select their responses carefully. In addition, students were familiarized with the format and style of the critical reading ability test to ensure they completed all test components. The participants in both groups undertook the exact two tests as a post-test at the end of the 12-week training program.

In the second phase, the intervention commenced, and participants in the experimental group completed 90 minute of eight instructional sessions in which they explored and practiced reading strategies. At the beginning of the training, the students were introduced to all six learning strategies with its specific reading strategies. They were made aware of the benefits of employing those strategies in the process of reading that enable them better comprehend the reading material prescribed in the course and in real-life situation. At every training session, three learning strategies specific to reading were introduced for instruction. The students were assigned reading tasks to demonstrate appropriate reading strategies. That was followed by a discussion of the efficacy of the strategies as explained in the training model and action plan of training. Finally, the instructor encouraged the participants to tackle the critical reading questions provided in each reading text.

The strategy training framework presented here is specific to reading and adapted from comprehensive language learning strategy training model, focusing on cognitive, metacognitive, memory, affective, compensation and social learning strategies that lead students to a genuine readers (Oxford, 1990; Cohn, 1990). The training was implemented as follows:

1. Determine learners’ needs and the time available. The researcher determined level of students, assessed students strengths and weaknesses and checked time availability. Assessed the types of strategies that could have been manifested and are needed further practice to make balance of strategies (cognitive, metacognitive, memory, affective, compensation and social) (Oxford,1990) for holistic reading development.

2. Prepare or Select appropriate reading materials that match the students’ language levels and interests.

3. Define and Provide explicit instructions on learning strategies specific to reading skills such as skimming, predicting, questioning, summarizing, guessing and making inference. At this stage the trainer explicitly talks with the learners about the need for greater self-direction and teaches strategies explicitly. The trainer informs fully how the strategies are useful in a new context and how they are transferred from task to task; how students can evaluate the success of the strategy.

4. Provide guided practice in all six strategies. Participants practiced reading strategy tasks through guided practice techniques.

5. Encourage and provide opportunities for independent reading. Participants were encouraged and provided to perform independent reading. This led them to self-awareness and may cooperate with others while working the strategies independently.

6. Monitor and adjust instruction. The trainer monitored students’ progress and adjusted instruction as needed to meet individual needs. The trainer observed, interviewed, and employed think-aloud procedure during the intervention to monitor students’ progress.

   Strategy training made teachers more ‘learner oriented’ and more aware of their students’ needs. Teachers also begin to scrutinize how their teaching techniques relate (or fail to relate) to their students’ learning strategies, and sometimes teachers choose to alter their instructional patterns as a result of such scrutiny (Oxford et al., 1990).

7. Give feedback. Provide feedback to students on their reading strategy use and offer suggestions for improvement.

The control group followed the usual method of instruction in which the learning process revolved around the instructor. The students received embedded instruction without any deliberate or explicit explanation of the strategies. According to the usual approach, for the students to achieve improved reading comprehension, the instructor should repeatedly expose them to reading texts and questions until they reach the desired level of mastery. The English language instructor for the control group possessed an equivalent formal qualification and experience as that of the experimental group language instructor.

4. Reliability and validity

The tests, training procedure and teaching materials were made available to the research project supervisors, an educational psychologist and two experienced EFL teachers from the university. Next, four week pilot study to keep the reliability and validity of instruments, training manuals and training framework. Besides, Cathoven AI CEFR version2022 checker was employed to determine text difficulty of the passage of the reading tests and the linguistic difficulty of each reading test items. All expert comments were duly noted and taken into account to improve the instruments and materials prior to conducting the study. Accordingly, the reliability Cronbach’s alpha of the questionnaire was .78 and .783 at pre and post- test context which is consistent and acceptable requirement for the main study (see pilot section). To keep valid the qualitative data, several steps had been carried out to employ think-aloud technique. Introducing the purpose of the instrument and warming up helped to get students’ attention and later the event was recorded by a video man who was informed that the record was for research purpose.

5. Ethical considerations

The researchers decided not to involve the participants’ regular English teacher in this research. It is understood that teachers are at the forefront of education and have understanding of students learning difficulties. Teachers are also need to be exposed to different teaching methods to improve their own teaching methods.

However, involving teachers in research can have unintended consequences on the quality of this study. The central point of the intervention is ‘reading strategy’ that has different definition by different scholars and hence teachers may possess different understanding. The regular teachers may have different understanding on ‘reading strategy’ and classroom practice may deviate the study protocol. The belief and lack of knowledge about the intervention, assessment technique (think-aloud) or other factors may distort the intervention. This could potentially threaten the validity of the research (Gorard, 2002b; Marsden, 2007).

Considering the above factors, the regular English teacher was not invited to participate in this study. This prevents any potential contamination of the intervention and data collection process. In line with this, the researcher, who had the necessary ethical clearance from Hawassa University, where the research project based, took on the role of both the classroom instructor (trainer) and researcher. This ensured that the intervention and data gathering schedule were in line with the normal classroom schedule, minimizing any disruptions to the study (Gorard, S., 2002). Furthermore, the researchers made sure that the participants in the study had no discomfort by taking precautions to maintain their privacy, confidentiality, and anonymity throughout the data gathering and analysis processes (Creswell & Creswell, 2007).

When a piece of research requires the use of a non-instructional control group, the instruction(s) to the experimental group may have beneficial effects. In this circumstance, the control group may be denied the right of equal access to the instruction. This ethical consideration has inevitably arisen in the current study, and so several measures to address this issue were taken, including obtaining the consent of the head of the department of the participating department. Additionally, delayed access to the intervention was allowed for all the participants. The training materials were offered to the department after the end of this study so that the participants could get access to them if they wished to Trochim (2001).

Finally, the goals of the study, the voluntary nature of the participation, and any possible dangers or advantages were all explained in detail to the participants. Accordingly, the participants gave their informed consent, guaranteeing that they were fully aware of the study and that their decision to join was made voluntarily and free from undue influence or pressure. Additionally, the participants were pre-informed by the researchers about proper data processing, storage, and protection practices, as well as adherence to the ethical rules and principles outlined in Ethiopia Federal Ministry of Science and Technology (2023).

6. Data analysis method

Data from pre and post- tests were computed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 21. First, the researchers investigated the reliability of reading strategies. For all statistical analyses, an alpha level of P < 0.05 was set .Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) of the variables were calculated .The statistical analysis of independent samples t-test was carried out to compare mean difference, and paired-samples t-test was also calculated to examine the difference of pre- and post-test data of the experimental group. To check the magnitude of difference Cohn’s d effect size was calculated when the difference was significant. The criteria as that defined by Cohen (1988) is being used in which d ≥ 0.2 is a small effect, d ≥ 0.5 is a medium effect, and d ≥ 0.8 is a large effect.

Following the quantitative data analysis, qualitative data (think-aloud technique), as supplementary, was interpreted. Data from think-aloud procedure were transcribed, coded and arranged based on the six reading strategies. Then it was analyzed qualitatively and triangulated with the quantitative findings.

7. Findings

7.1. Reading strategy use

7.1.1. Independent sample t-test at pre- test context

The results of an independent samples t-test revealed no statistically significant difference at pre-test context. Furthermore, there was no discernible difference between the two groups according to the independent samples t-test summary mean number for each reading strategy. During the pre-test, the experimental and control groups performed a mean of 2.83 (SD = 0.69) and 2.87 (SD = 0.72), respectively, with t (71) = 0.245, p >.05 as shown in Table 2 below before the intervention was given. This indicated second year EFL students were at similar awareness in using each reading strategies while they were engaging reading texts.

Table 2. Pre-test comparison of reading strategy use.

Reading strategy	Group	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	T	df	Sig. (2-tailed)
Affective	Experiment post	40	2.91	0.75	0.240	71	0.811
	Control post	33	2.87	0.57
Cognitive	Experiment post	40	2.73	0.78	−0.528	71	0.599
	Control post	33	2.81	0.56
Compensation	Experiment post	40	3.23	0.62	0.200	71	0.842
	Control post	33	3.20	0.57
Memory	Experiment post	40	2.83	0.75	0.117	71	0.907
	Control post	33	2.81	0.49
Social	Experiment post	40	2.70	0.79	−1.171	71	0.245
	Control post	33	2.91	0.72
Meta cognitive	Experiment post	40	2.59	0.77	−0.445	71	0.657
	Control post	33	2.67	0.82
Summary	Experiment post	40	2.83	0.69	0.245	71	0.321
	Control post	33	2.87	0.72

*P<0.05

7.1.2. Independent sample t-test at post test context

The independent samples t-test overall mean score result between the experimental group (Mean = 3.28; SD = 0.26) and the control group (Mean = 2.98; SD = 0.41) in Table 3 below demonstrates that there was generally increased awareness of the various reading strategies that students employed. The two groups’ mean scores continued to indicate differences. The T-test results also showed significant differences between the experimental and control groups for the following reading strategies: affective (t(81)=3.327, p < 0.05), cognitive(t(81)=2.422, p < 0.05), memory (t(81)=3.688, p < 0.05), social (t(81)=4.238, p < 0.05), and metacognitive (t(81)=2.864, p < 0.05). Additionally, the T-test’s overall summary of reading strategies revealed statistically significant differences (t(81)=4.05, p < 0.01) between the experimental and control groups. The magnitude of the difference was approximately 0.89 and indicated a large effect size. Likewise, there was a substantial difference between the experimental and control groups and a considerable improvement in both groups’ usage of reading strategies, and resulted students’ self-perceived awareness in their strategy use compared to the pre-test results. In a similar vein, the experimental and control groups adopted significantly different reading strategies.

On the other hand, the compensation reading strategy mean scores displayed the experimental and the control groups did not differ in their strategy use (t(81)=0.704, p > 0.05). This showed that, despite an increased mean score as compared to the pre-test data, the intervention did not statistically significantly affect their compensation reading strategy use. See table-3 below.

Table 3. Post-test comparison of reading strategy use.

Reading Strategy	Group	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	T	df	Sig. (2-tailed)
Affective	Experiment post	45	3.24	0.63	3.327	81	0.001
	Control post	38	2.68	0.90
Cognitive	Experiment post	45	3.22	0.40	2.422	81	0.018
	Control post	38	2.88	0.85
Compensation	Experiment post	45	3.16	0.72	−0.704	81	0.483
	Control post	38	3.26	0.56
Memory	Experiment post	45	3.24	0.63	3.688	81	0.000
	Control post	38	2.74	0.59
Social	Experiment post	45	3.40	0.59	4.238	81	0.000
	Control post	38	2.70	0.92
Meta cognitive	Experiment post	45	3.47	0.73	2.864	81	0.005
	Control post	38	2.96	0.89
Summary	Experiment post	45	3.28	0.26	4.054	81	0.000
	Control post	38	2.98	0.41

7.1.3. Paired sample t-test at post-test context

Furthermore, the paired samples t-test in Table 4 below reveals that there were significant differences between the pre-test and post-test results of the same experimental group. Reading strategies such as affective (t(39)=−2.259, p<.05), cognitive (t(39)=−3.734, p<.01), social (t(39)=−5.536, p<.01), and meta-cognitive (t(39)=−4.659, p<.01) indicated significant differences. The aggregate mean scores between the pre-test (mean = 2.94; SD = 0.32) and the post-test (mean = 3.28; SD = 0.26) indicated a significant difference at t(39) = −5.454, p<.001. Similarly, the approximate effect size was calculated as d = 1.15, suggesting that the mean difference between pre- and post-tests in reading strategy use was large after reading strategy training was given.

In contrast, the t-test result (t) 39 = 0.476, p > 0.635, of the compensation reading strategy used as shown in Table 4 below explains why the experimental group’s pre- and post-test results did not differ significantly. Conversely, the memory reading method was explained by the fact that there was no statistically significant difference (t(39)=1.750; p = 0.084 > 0.05) between the experimental group’s pre- and post-test results. This suggested that students’ memory and compensation reading strategies did not significantly improve despite twelve weeks of intervention training given to the experimental group.

Table 4. Paired sample T-test of reading strategy use.

Dimension	Group	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	T	df	Sig. (2-tailed)
Affective	Experiment Pre	40	2.91	0.75	−2.259	83	0.026
	Experiment post	45	3.24	0.63
Cognitive	Experiment Pre	40	2.73	0.78	−3.734	83	0.000
	Experiment post	45	3.22	0.40
Compensation	Experiment Pre	40	3.23	0.62	0.476	83	0.635
	Experiment post	45	3.16	0.72
Memory	Experiment Pre	40	3.49	0.71	1.750	83	0.084
	Experiment post	45	3.24	0.63
Social	Experiment Pre	40	2.59	0.77	−5.536	83	0.000
	Experiment post	45	3.40	0.59
Meta cognitive	Experiment Pre	40	2.70	0.79	−4.659	83	0.000
	Experiment post	45	3.47	0.73
Reading Strategy Summary	Experiment Pre	40	2.94	0.32	−5.454	83	0.000
	Experiment post	45	3.28	0.26

7.2. Critical reading ability

7.2.1. Independent sample t-test at pre-test context

The independent sample t-test in Tables 5 and 6 below displays a slight test score difference between the experimental (M = 43.1; SD = 6.26) and control groups (M = 45.9; SD = 7.43) in the pre-test context. However, the t-test value (t(71) = −1.752, p > 0.05) indicated that there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the pre-test context. This suggested that both groups’ students’ critical reading abilities were comparable.

Table 5. Descriptive statistics of critical reading ability.

	Group	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error Mean
Score	Experimental	40	43.1000	6.26263	.99021
	Control	33	45.9091	7.43877	1.29492

Table 6. Independent Samples T-Test of pre-test critical reading Ability.

	Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances		t-test for Equality of Means
	F	Sig	T	Df	Sig. (2-tailed)	Mean Difference	Std. Error Difference	95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
								Lower	Upper
Equal variances assumed	1.836	.180	−1.752	71	.084	−2.80909	1.60333	−6.00605	.38786
Equal variances not assumed			−1.723	62.75	.090	−2.80909	1.63013	−6.06690	.44872

7.3. Critical reading ability at post-test

7.3.1. Independent sample t-test

Even though Table 6's t-value indicated that there was no significant difference between the two groups’ pre-test score, but the post-test score was explained differently. There was a mean score difference in critical reading ability between the experimental (M = 51.68; SD = 7.01) and control (M = 46.68; SD = 8.60) groups, as the descriptive data shown in Table 7 below. Similarly, Table 8 demonstrates a significant difference in the critical reading skills of the two groups (t (81)=2.92, p<.005). The effect size (d = 0.64) suggests a moderate effect, but indicated a meaningful difference appeared between the groups after reading strategy training was implemented.

Table 7. Descriptive statistics of Critical reading ability.

Group statistics
	Group	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error Mean
Score	Experimental	45	51.6889	7.01240	1.04535
	Control	38	46.6842	8.60266	1.39554

Table 8. Independent samples T-test of critical reading ability.

	Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances		t-test for Equality of Means
	F	Sig	T	df	Sig. (2-tailed)	Mean Difference	Std. Error Difference	95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
								Lower	Upper
Equal variances assumed	1.525	.220	2.92	81	.005	5.0046	1.7138	1.5946	8.4147
Equal variances not assumed			2.87	71.29	.005	5.0046	1.7436	1.5282	8.4811

*P < 0.05.

7.3.2. Paired sample t-test

Similarly, Tables 9 and 10 below indicated that the experimental group’s test score at pre-test and post-test context was compared to examine if the intervention had an impact on students’ critical reading ability. Accordingly, the mean score of pre-test (M = 43.10; SD = 6.26) and post-test (M = 52.52; SD = 6.66) of same experimental group showed there was difference in their average score. The t-test value t(39)=3.598; p < 0.001) indicated highly significant difference between pre-test and post-test scores in students’ critical reading ability. Furthermore, the effect size of 1.28 suggests a large effect and indicates that reading strategies had a significant and substantial impact on the critical reading ability of the participants. Overall, the results suggest that the intervention or treatment had a positive impact on the students’ critical reading ability, as their average scores significantly improved from the pre-test to the post-test.

Table 9. Paired samples statistics of critical reading.

		Mean	N	Std. Deviation	Std. Error Mean
Pair 1	1	52.5250	40	6.66405	1.05368
	2	43.1000	40	6.26263	.99021

Table 10. Paired samples T-test of critical reading ability.

		Paired Differences					t	df	Sig. (2-tailed)
		Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error Mean	95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
					Lower	Upper
Pair 1	1–2	9.42500	5.50472	.87037	7.66451	11.18549	10.829	39	.000

* P < 0.001.

8. Discussion

In this study, the pre-test results from Table 2 reveal no significant differences in reading strategy use between the experimental and control groups of EFL majoring students. All significance levels were above the cut-off p-value of 0.05, indicating the absence of statistically significant variations. This suggests that both groups initially had similar proficiency in employing reading strategies. Consequently, any subsequent differences observed after the intervention cannot be attributed to pre-existing disparities in strategy use. These findings necessitate exploration of other factors contributing to the divergent outcomes, such as intervention quality, individual differences, or unmeasured variables.

The study explored the effect of explicit reading strategies training on strategy use and critical reading ability of EFL students. The strategy training intervention improved reading strategy use and produced statistically significant gains in critical reading ability of second year EFL majoring students in Ethiopia. The results revealed better performance on the critical reading achievement test for the experimental group who received explicit training on reading strategies compared to the control group who did not receive such instruction. The paired samples t-test results for the experimental group show that the effect size is large. For reading strategy use, the magnitude of the difference was 1.15 implies strong difference was observed. Thus, the impact of the training affected significantly. Therefore, the current research findings indicated that exposure to explicit instruction reading strategies results in improved awareness and reading strategy use in EFL majoring students.

Specifically, the metacognitive reading strategy was the most preferred strategy, with the highest mean value among the six SILL subclasses at the post-test context. Nearly the same attention for the social reading strategy was given by the students because as testified in paired sample t-test (Table 4) in post-test context. Furthermore, students in the study had shown interest in using strategies such as cognitive, affective and memory respectively. This is consistent with other previous studies that have indicated that reading strategy training results various reading strategy use and increase students reading comprehension (e.g. Paris et al, 1991; Dabarera, 2014; Mudra, 2018; Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001).

Contrarily, the reading strategies such as compensation and memory did not show improvement in the post-test context, though the reading strategy training was equally emphasized during the intervention. The significant change in the paired t-test value for the memory strategy in the post-test context indicated no improvement in its implementation within the same group of participants. Conversely, there was a difference in the independent t-test value, suggesting significant variations in memory strategy utilization between the two groups. This implies that the intervention resulted in improvements in the participants’ utilization of the memory strategy between groups; however, limited improvement was recorded after the intervention. Similarly, the compensation strategy’s t-test result (p > 0.05) did not show a significant difference in paired and independent samples t-test, indicating that the intervention did not significantly improve the strategy’s execution. The intervention did not provide appreciable gains, despite attempts to increase the participants’ use of the compensatory technique. It is also in congruence with previous studies that revealed strategy training interventions did not result in improved compensation or memory strategies (Smith et al., 2018). Likewise, Oxford et al. (1990) explained that training seemed to have had little effect (in terms of either statistical significance or subjective judgment) and revealed methodological problems that might have contributed to the lack of training success: the short period of training, the disproportionate ease or difficulty of the training task, the lack of integration of the training into normal language classwork, and the resulting perceived irrelevance of the training.

In similar manner, the pre-and post-test score result of the critical reading ability indicated significantly improved after the intervention had done. The effect size of 1.28 suggests there is a large effect is observed on students’ critical reading ability after they had taken reading strategies. This was also proved by the p-value that is less than 0.001 signifies the change was highly significant. The content analysis also supported the findings gained though statistical analysis. It is clear that students had manifested the features of critical reading content (making inference, summarizing, identifying conclusion sentence, predicting). These specific reading skills are generally manifestation of higher-order thinking skills (analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating). A through content analysis and interpretation of the think-aloud data, as shown below, depicted that students had manifested reading skills such as: identifying implied idea, identifying references, identifying the summary sentence, identifying the concluding sentences. This finding is incongruent with previous studies that focused on the effect of learning strategies on critical reading ability and critical thinking skills (Oxford, 1990; Afflerbach et al., 2015).

To best gain access to a reader’s sophisticated process of strategy use, thinking aloud provides a powerful means to obtain this mental data and complements the questionnaire in this study. Accordingly, students responded how they have been thinking while they were performing the given reading tasks (a passage contained elven multiple choice questions).

‘Q1.what is the main topic of the passage?’

Teacher: what have you been thinking/doing to answer the Q1?

S1…hmm…I read the first line of each paragraphs and…up to last paragraph. whenever I find the of the passage …I just read quickly sentences by jumping throughout the passage to understand what the passage is about.

Teacher: why did you do that?

S1:That helps me to give the topic of the passage.

Teacher: ….so what is your choice?

S1: It is ‘B’. ‘Adaptations of desert animals’

Teacher: How?

S1:I read a few sentences of the first and second paragraphs. It is all about desert animals coping up the desert. It is common idea in the sentences.so ‘B’ (‘Adaptations of desert animals’) is nearest answer.

S2….I read all the paragraphs main idea …I read by jumping sentences and searching for similar ideas of sentences. …I read quikly searching for repeated words in the passage.

Teacher: Good job. Why did you think this? Or why did you do that?

S2. …’Um’…I did this…because…to find the most repeated idea.It is easy finding the ‘topic’ of the passage [from the ‘most repeated idea’].

S1 employed skimming, extracting the passage’s topic by identifying recurring themes, focusing on desert animals’ adaptations. S2 employed a technique skimming for key concepts, seeking comparable ideas across paragraphs. Both used cognitive methods, requiring active mental processing. S1 demonstrated metacognitive awareness, employing effective reading methods to grasp the topic. S2's approach involved cognitive processing to identify repeated concepts, showcasing metacognitive control over comprehension, constantly adjusting reading techniques.

Their methods—cognitive and metacognitive—align with previous studies (e.g. Wenden, 1989; Oxford, 1990). S1 and S2's distinct strategies—skimming for themes and seeking recurrent concepts—demonstrate their use of cognitive and metacognitive methods in reading comprehension.

Another reading task was also provided for students to respond writer’s implication on ‘What does the author imply about desert adapted mammals’? Accordingly they responded as follows:

S10…ok…I read last paragraph and last sentence. I think…the last sentence is conclusion and…talks desert animals and human lose ‘apatite’ under conditions of moderate thirst.

Techer: why did you go those parts of the paragraph?

S10:simply to author’s information

Teacher: what does ‘information’ mean?

S10:umm…I said based on the question ‘What does the author imply about desert adapted mammals?’

Teacher: what new information did you get from the conclusion part?

S10: …‘ehh’…I think…the writer gives his conclusion about the topic.

S22: …I reread last paragraph to find desert animals adaptation…

S10 focused on reading the last paragraph and the last sentence. By specifically targeting these sections, S10 was attempting to gain an understanding of the conclusion and the main topic related to desert animals and human loss of appetite under conditions of moderate thirst. In a similar vien, S22 chose to reread the last paragraph to locate information about desert animals’ adaptations. By rereading, S22 aimed to review and reinforce their understanding of the paragraph, specifically focusing on the details related to desert animal adaptations.

Stemming from these, S10 demonstrates cognitive engagement in analyzing the text. The recognition of the writer’s conclusion also indicates an affective strategy of considering the author’s viewpoint and evaluating the overall message (Chamot, 2005; Oxford, 1990). S22's reading strategy aligns primarily with a memory strategy. Rereading the last paragraph helps consolidate information in memory and strengthens comprehension. By reviewing the paragraph, S22 aims to retain and recall the details about desert animal adaptations (Oxford, 1990).

Furthermore, the researcher also would like students to know what they had been thinking while finding out the correct answer of ‘why light coloring is an advantage to large desert animals?’ Accordingly,

S6. ….I search for paragraph talking about ‘light colouring and desert animals’. Then searching sentences talking for ‘advantage for desert animals’

S10: … I did not read all sentences but I read first paragraph then the third…until I found…‘because to reflect rather than absorb the Sun’s rays’.

S14: …I jumped paragraphs and sentences in search for reasons about advantage of light colouring in the passage. I compared and contrasted sentences meanings to arrive at the correct choice.

S6 employed a specific search strategy by looking for a paragraph that discussed ‘light coloring and desert animals’ and then searched for sentences that mentioned the ‘advantage for desert animals’. This strategy involved scanning for specific information related to the advantage of light coloring in desert animals. This aligned primarily with cognitive and metacognitive strategies. The targeted search and scanning demonstrate cognitive engagement .Additionally, the comparison and contrasting of sentences indicate metacognitive strategies of analyzing and evaluating different options to arrive at the correct choice (e.g. Li et al., 2022; Oxford, 1990).

Similarly, S10 employed a partial reading strategy by reading the first paragraph and then jumping to the third paragraph. The aim was to locate information related to light coloring and its purpose of reflecting rather than absorbing the Sun’s rays. This was also similar case of S14.S10's reading strategy aligns with a combination of cognitive and affective strategies. By selectively reading specific paragraphs and sentences, S10 demonstrates cognitive engagement in searching for relevant information. Additionally, the recognition of the purpose of light colouring and its reflection aligns with affective strategies involving the evaluation and understanding of the significance of the information (e.g. Li et al., 2022; Chamot, 2005). By comparing and contrasting the meanings of sentences, S14 aimed to arrive at the correct choice. Thus, the jumping between paragraphs and sentences indicated cognitive engagement and active searching for specific information. The comparison and contrasting of sentences demonstrate metacognitive strategies of analyzing, evaluating, and selecting the most appropriate information based on the context (e.g. Li et al., 2022; Chamot, 2005; Oxford, 1990).

From these, it is possible to infer that the respondents used higher-order thinking skills based on their reading strategies. Higher-order thinking skills involve cognitive processes that go beyond basic comprehension and involve critical thinking, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation (e.g. Elis, 1994; Oxford, 1990).

Students were also asked to retrieve what they have been doing mentally while they were performing a task in finding the correct answer of the word ‘maintaining’ in line 3. Accordingly,

S8:I underlined the word.

T:why did you that?

S8:I did it simply

T:okay…did you get its meaning?

S8: ….I asked my friend to get answer,

T: why?

S8:in case she may know the meaning. but she was not sure.

T:so, what did you do then?

S8:I tried to reread line 3. First[I] tried understanding the whole sentence[line 3]. I go through the next sentence that gave clue as ‘instead of … keep down the body temperature…’.So, ‘preserving’ choice ‘C’ is answer

S9: I used my phone dictionary

S12: ….I tried to understand the sentence that the word was found. Understanding the sentence would help me to guess the meaning of word.

S1…I saw dictionary in my phone

S2. I try to find out the parts of speech in the sentence, but all[alternatives] are in gerund form. I talked to my friend and I selected choice ‘C’(preserving).

Several students (S8, S9, S12, S1, S2) utilized distinct reading strategies to decipher the word ‘maintaining’ in line 3. S8 sought a friend’s help, reread the line for comprehension, and used contextual clues to select ‘C’ (preserving), employing cognitive and compensation strategies in line with previous studies (Dabarera, 2014).

Similarly, S9 and S1 resorted to phone dictionaries to grasp the word’s meaning, showcasing a compensation strategy involving external resources for vocabulary enhancement. S12 focused on understanding the sentence context, aligning with a cognitive strategy utilizing context clues for word inference, as suggested by previous research.

Conversely, S2 analyzed the sentence’s parts of speech containing ‘maintaining’ before consulting a friend and choosing ‘C’ (preserving). This approach combined compensation strategies (analyzing grammatical structures) and social strategies (seeking external help), fostering grammar understanding, vocabulary acquisition, and critical thinking, in line with studies (Oxford, 1990).

One of the reading tasks was also to find out why the author used ‘Grant’s gazelles’ as an example in the passage. Accordingly, students responded differently.

S5: ….I reread paragraph 1…and associate the type of animal. ….so, Grant’s gazelles is example of desert animal….

S21: …I think the author mentioned Grant’s gazelles to indicate desert animals.

Teacher: …how did you know this?

S21: …‘hmm’…‘ehh’ …paragraph 2 talks …. ‘a desert animal that can withstand high body temperatures’ .It [Grant’s gazelles] seems camel.

S5 mentioned rereading paragraph 1 and making associations with the type of animal mentioned. He specifically identified ‘Grant’s gazelles’ as an example of a desert animal. S5's reading strategy aligns with memory strategies. Rereading and making associations demonstrate cognitive engagement in understanding the text. The ability to identify Grant’s gazelles as an example of a desert animal reflects memory strategies drawing connections between information (e.g. Oxford, 1990).

S21 inferred the connection between ‘ Grant’s gazelles’ and desert animals based on the mention of Grant’s gazelles in the text. He further supported his inference by referring to paragraph 2, which discusses a desert animal that can withstand high body temperatures. S21's reading strategy aligns with memory strategies. Inference-making based on textual clues demonstrates memory engagement and critical thinking skills. The ability to connect information from different parts of the text reflects memory strategies of analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating information (e.g. Chamot, 2005; Li et al., 2022).

A similar reading task was provided for students to reply ‘What causes water intoxication?’ in the given passage. Students reported as:

S24….alcohol comes to my mind when I see ‘intoxication’

S26….‘1^st how intoxication happen on human?’ comes in my mind. I try to relate to water intoxication. I search for sentences talking about water intoxication …and…just read it. dehydration is reason

S24 mentioned that the word ‘intoxication’ reminded them of alcohol. They made a personal association with the word based on their prior knowledge or experiences. This aligns with a cognitive strategy of making personal connections. Personal associations can aid in understanding and remembering vocabulary. By linking ‘intoxication’ to alcohol, S24 demonstrates the use of prior knowledge, which is a valuable language learning strategy (Shih & Reynolds, 2018).

S26's reading strategy combines cognitive and metacognitive strategies. By generating a question related to intoxication and water intoxication, and specifically searching for sentences discussing water intoxication, S26 actively engages in cognitive processing. The ability to make connections between different concepts and actively seek relevant information demonstrates metacognitive strategies such as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. These strategies contribute to language learning by promoting critical thinking, comprehension, and the ability to make connections between different pieces of information (Chamot, 2005 & Li et al., 2022). Likewise, respondents S24 and S26 employ cognitive and metacognitive strategies in their reading approaches. These strategies involve making personal associations, generating questions, actively searching for specific information, and making connections between concepts. These reading strategies contribute to vocabulary development, critical thinking skills, comprehension, and the ability to make connections and draw inferences based on prior knowledge and textual evidence. By actively applying these strategies, the respondents engage in effective language learning experiences and enhance their overall language proficiency (e.g. Shih & Reynolds, 2018; Oxford, 1990).

Students also reported how they had been reading or thinking while they were performing the task ‘When is the internal temperature of a large desert mammal lower?’ Accordingly a few selected responses were presented as follows:

S15: … I search for sentences talking about body temperature…of mammals. and focused on time and body temperature. I searched throughout the passage. I reread [the passage] when I do not get the answer and when the answer confuses me. I got the answer by reading again some paragraphs.

S15's reading strategy involves a combination of cognitive and metacognitive strategies. By searching for sentences specifically discussing body temperature in mammals and focusing on the concepts of time and body temperature, S15 engaged in cognitive processing. The active search throughout the passage demonstrates a targeted search strategy to find the desired information. Additionally, the use of rereading when the answer is not initially obtained or when confusion arises indicates metacognitive strategies such as self-monitoring and self-correction.

S15's reading strategies align with various domains. The cognitive strategies employed, such as targeted search and rereading, contribute to reading comprehension and the ability to extract specific information from the text. The metacognitive strategies, including self-monitoring and self-correction through rereading, enhance metacognitive awareness and promote effective learning experience (Oxford, 1990).

By actively applying these reading strategies, S15 demonstrates a thoughtful approach to language learning. The combination of cognitive and metacognitive strategies contributes to the development of reading skills, comprehension, and the ability to extract relevant information from the text (Ellis, 1994; Oxford, 1990).

Additionally, students were encouraged to respond with their ideas to the question, ‘Which of the following is NOT mentioned as an adaptation of large desert animals?’ near the bottom of the section. As a result, most students replied, with a small number of them saying the following:

S3: …I thought, first, desert animals characteristics. then I read the given alternatives compared what [sic] them with what I read. Then choice ‘A’ is correct answer.

S6: …simply I read the given alternatives, and I compared them each other to find out the different characteristic of desert animal .based on the passage information ‘Variation in body temperatures’ is answer.

S9: …first, I read the given alternatives then tried to see the passage. so, I think…desert animals maintain their body temperature .so, ‘Variation in body temperatures’ is not characteristic of adapting the desert.

S7: …I read the alternatives first. Confused me and asked my friend .so, ‘Eating while dehydrated’ is answer.

The reading strategies employed by the respondents (S3, S6, S9, and S7) involve a combination of cognitive and metacognitive strategies.S7 tried himself but confused then seek help as a compensation strategy. These strategies contribute to language learning and align with various domains of the language learning taxonomy.

S3's reading strategy involves cognitive engagement by considering the characteristics of desert animals first and then comparing them to the given alternatives. This strategy demonstrates critical thinking and analysis skills, contributing to comprehension and the ability to make connections between information.

Similarly, S6's reading strategy focuses on comparing the given alternatives to identify the different characteristics of desert animals. This strategy involves cognitive processing and analysis, promoting comprehension and the ability to discern relevant information.

S9's reading strategy involved a combination of cognitive and metacognitive strategies. By first reading the given alternatives and then referring back to the passage, S9 engaged in cognitive processing. The ability to analyze the passage and make connections between the information contributes to comprehension and critical thinking skills.

In order to get outside help when confused, S7 uses the reading approach of asking a buddy. As an example, the social learning strategy uses questioning friends. Similarly, metacognitive strategy shows that one is conscious of asking for help and using outside resources to make sense of what one knows (Oxford, 1990; Chamot, 2005).

These reading strategies, in combination with social, cognitive and metacognitive elements, enhance language learning experiences. They contribute to vocabulary acquisition, critical thinking, comprehension, and the ability to make connections and draw inferences based on textual evidence (Oxford, 1990; Afflerbach et al., 2015).

Overall, the think-aloud data revealed reading strategies that could not be captured by quantitative data alone. The quantitative analysis, particularly the paired sample t-test, did not indicate a significant change or improvement in compensation and memory strategies. The t-values did not show any significant differences in these strategies. However, the independent sample t-test did show some improvement in memory strategies, although there was still no improvement in compensation strategies. Despite these quantitative findings, the qualitative analysis revealed a different perspective. A few students (S7, S8, S9) employed compensation strategies to aid their comprehension, such as underlining words and seeking assistance from friends or using a phone dictionary (e.g. Lee et al., 2020). Similarly, other students (S22, S24) utilized memory strategies by making associations, forming mental links, and conducting further research to enhance their understanding. This was in agreement with the previous studies such as Harper et al. (2021). These cognitive and metacognitive strategies, including skimming, scanning, comparing and contrasting information, analyzing sentence meanings, and making connections, were the most prominent among the responses. Elements of social and affective strategies were present in some responses in the given data. Therefore, the qualitative analysis suggests that despite the absence of change in compensation strategies and limited improvement in memory strategies observed in the quantitative analysis, students applied while they were reading texts.

9. Conclusion and pedagogical implication

To sum up, this study aimed to assess the influence of explicit reading strategy training on Ethiopian university second-year EFL students’ reading strategies and critical reading ability. The pre- and post-tests demonstrated a significant positive impact of the instruction on both aspects. Compensation and memory strategies were revealed in the qualitative data that could not be captured during quantitative analysis. Think-aloud data revealed the key strategies—cognitive, metacognitive, affective, social, memory, and compensation—contributing to enhanced comprehension and critical thinking skills. Cognitive and metacognitive elements were the most reflected during the think-aloud. Cognitive strategies like targeted search and deducing word meanings fostered deeper comprehension and reasoning, while metacognitive methods improved interpretation skills by actively seeking information and comparing sentences. These findings offer insights into second-year undergraduate EFL-majoring Ethiopian university students’ responses to strategic reading instruction, emphasizing the importance of explicit strategy training in EFL contexts.

The study’s theoretical implications highlight how explicit training bolsters reading strategies and critical reading among Ethiopian EFL-majoring undergraduate students, advocating for strategic instruction in EFL pedagogy. It uncovers the dimensions and impact of cognitive, metacognitive, affective, memory, compensation and social strategies on critical reading, emphasizing metacognition’s role in fostering higher-order thinking.

Practically, educators should integrate explicit reading strategies training in EFL classrooms to enhance reading and critical abilities. Collaborative learning and peer support can enrich affective strategies and boost comprehension. Policymakers should allocate resources and time for effective reading strategy training in EFL curricula. Teachers should struggle to better understand the mental processes that support EFL students’ attempts to comprehend a text; we should also aid them, especially struggling readers, in becoming actively involved in the reading process. Increasing students’ awareness of their reading comprehension processes is the most important step toward becoming strategic, thoughtful learners.

10. Limitation

A number of limitations in this study need to be recognized. A relatively small sample size (83) of students participated in this reading strategy training; they were all second year English major students from two universities. In line with this, the findings of this study may not be representative of all Ethiopian university EFL students. Expanding the participant pool to include a more diverse range of demographics, such as different age groups, educational backgrounds, or cultural contexts would increase its generalizability.Secondly, collecting quantitative data before qualitative might bias subsequent qualitative exploration, influencing participants’ reflections during the think-aloud technique. And, hence, preceding quantitative assessments might influence participants’ awareness or behavior during subsequent qualitative sessions, impacting the authenticity of their responses. Third, the time gap between pre-tests, interventions, post-tests, and qualitative sessions could affect participants’ recall accuracy or perception of their experiences. The intact group design may limit generalizability. To mitigate potential biases, employing randomization techniques in participant selection and applying longer time intervention would alleviate the limitation. Finally, future studies might consider diverse participant samples to enhance the design’s applicability to broader populations.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported by Hawassa and Wachemo Universities.

Notes on contributors

Asalifew Mekuria

Asalifew Mekuria, an assistant professor at Wachemo University, is conducting a PhD research project at Hawassa University in Ethiopia. Supervised by Dr. Elias Woemego Bushiso, the study focuses on the impact of reading strategy training on students’ reading strategy use and critical reading ability in EFL reading classes.

This research project aims to improve teaching practices and enhance students’ reading proficiency by investigating the effectiveness of targeted training interventions. Asalifew’s study contributes to broader projects in the field of ELT, emphasizing the importance of effective reading strategies and critical reading skills in comprehending and analyzing English texts.

The findings of this research have implications for pedagogical approaches and curriculum development, benefiting English language learners and educators not only in Ethiopia but also worldwide. Asalifew collaborates with experienced academic and research advisor Dr. Hailu Wubshet, showcasing a dedication to advancing the field of ELT through research, teaching, and mentorship.