Students’ Preferences and Engagement Level with Various Traditional Reading Comprehension Strategies: A Quantitative Analysis
Corresponding Author(s) : Qyamudin Ziar
Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities,
Vol. 2 No. 2 (2025): April
Abstract
This study investigates undergraduate English majors' preferences and engagement levels regarding traditional reading comprehension strategies. It addresses a critical gap in educational research. Also, it emphasizes the importance of reading comprehension for academic achievement and long-term learning retention. Existing literature explores the effectiveness of various strategies. However, there is limited insight into which methods students favor and how these preferences impact their engagement. Without such understanding, instructional approaches risk disconnecting from learners’ needs, reducing effectiveness. The primary aim of this research is to bridge this gap by identifying students’ preferred comprehension strategies. It assesses their reported engagement and examines the relationship between the two. A quantitative survey was conducted among 72 English majors at a public university. It used a structured questionnaire with demographic details, strategy preference, and engagement measures. The data analysis indicates a strong preference for summarization and questioning strategies. Both of these factors show a positive correlation with higher engagement levels. These findings underscore the importance of aligning instruction with student preferences to enhance academic outcomes. The study offers meaningful insights into adapting traditional reading strategies to support learners better. It highlights the value of integrating student perspectives into instructional design. Ultimately, this research provides educators and curriculum developers with a foundational framework to create more engaging and effective reading instruction. It promotes stronger comprehension and academic success among undergraduates.
Keywords
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)BibTeX
- Aaker, D. A., Kumar, V., & Day, G. S. (2018). Marketing research (13th ed.). Wiley.
- Ahmed, Y., Francis, D. J., York, M., Fletcher, J. M., Barnes, M., & Kulesz, P. (2016). Validation of the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension in grades 7 through 12. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 44-45, 68–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.02.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.02.002
- Creswell, J. W. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage. https://shorturl.at/MYfce
- Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). Wiley. https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/cis/reis/2016/00000154/00000001/art00009 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781394260645
- Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 205-242). International Reading Association. https://shorturl.at/qtguE DOI: https://doi.org/10.1598/0872071774.10
- Elder, L., & Paul, R. (2009). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your professional and personal life. Pearson. https://shorturl.at/1gipI
- Elleman, A. M., & Oslund, E. L. (2019). Reading comprehension research: Implications for practice and policy. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 6(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732218816339 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732218816339
- Forster, N., Kawohl, E., & Souvignier, E. (2018). Short-and long-term effects of assessment-based differentiated reading instruction in general education on reading fluency and reading comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 56, 98-109. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959475217304504 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.04.009
- Fowler, F. J. (2014). Survey research methods (5th ed.). Sage Publications. https://shorturl.at/iwhLn
- Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
- Fredricks, J. A., Filsecker, M., & Lawson, M. A. (2019). Student engagement, context, and adjustment: Addressing definitional, measurement, and methodological issues. Learning and Instruction, 43, 1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.02.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.02.002
- Guthrie, J. T., Klauda, S. L., & Ho, A. N. (2019). Modeling the relationships among reading instruction, motivation, engagement, and achievement for adolescents. Reading Research Quarterly, 54(1), 73–89. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.201 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.201
- Kissau, S., & Hiller, F. (2013). Reading comprehension strategies: An international comparison of teacher preferences. Research in Comparative and International Education, 8(4), 437-454. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2304/rcie.2013.8.4.437 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2304/rcie.2013.8.4.437
- Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research methodology: Methods and techniques (2nd ed.). New Age International.
- Lutz, S. L., Guthrie, J. T., & Davis, M. H. (2019). Scaffolding for engagement in elementary school reading instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 100(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.100.1.3-20 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.100.1.3-20
- Muijs, D. (2011). Doing quantitative research in education with SPSS (2nd ed.). Sage Publications. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849203241
- Nadia, B. N. T. R. B., & Rizki, T. (2024). Exploring Reading Comprehension Strategies: Insights from Recent Studies. Journal of Educational Studies, 2(2).
- Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all teachers should know. American Educator, 36(1), 12-39. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ971753
- Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.55.1.68
- Schunemann, N., Sporer, N., & Brunstein, J. C. (2013). Integrating self-regulation in whole-class reciprocal teaching: A moderator–mediator analysis of incremental effects on fifth graders’ reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(4), 289-305. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0361476X13000210 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.06.002
References
Aaker, D. A., Kumar, V., & Day, G. S. (2018). Marketing research (13th ed.). Wiley.
Ahmed, Y., Francis, D. J., York, M., Fletcher, J. M., Barnes, M., & Kulesz, P. (2016). Validation of the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension in grades 7 through 12. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 44-45, 68–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.02.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.02.002
Creswell, J. W. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage. https://shorturl.at/MYfce
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). Wiley. https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/cis/reis/2016/00000154/00000001/art00009 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781394260645
Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 205-242). International Reading Association. https://shorturl.at/qtguE DOI: https://doi.org/10.1598/0872071774.10
Elder, L., & Paul, R. (2009). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your professional and personal life. Pearson. https://shorturl.at/1gipI
Elleman, A. M., & Oslund, E. L. (2019). Reading comprehension research: Implications for practice and policy. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 6(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732218816339 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732218816339
Forster, N., Kawohl, E., & Souvignier, E. (2018). Short-and long-term effects of assessment-based differentiated reading instruction in general education on reading fluency and reading comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 56, 98-109. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959475217304504 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.04.009
Fowler, F. J. (2014). Survey research methods (5th ed.). Sage Publications. https://shorturl.at/iwhLn
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059
Fredricks, J. A., Filsecker, M., & Lawson, M. A. (2019). Student engagement, context, and adjustment: Addressing definitional, measurement, and methodological issues. Learning and Instruction, 43, 1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.02.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.02.002
Guthrie, J. T., Klauda, S. L., & Ho, A. N. (2019). Modeling the relationships among reading instruction, motivation, engagement, and achievement for adolescents. Reading Research Quarterly, 54(1), 73–89. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.201 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.201
Kissau, S., & Hiller, F. (2013). Reading comprehension strategies: An international comparison of teacher preferences. Research in Comparative and International Education, 8(4), 437-454. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2304/rcie.2013.8.4.437 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2304/rcie.2013.8.4.437
Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research methodology: Methods and techniques (2nd ed.). New Age International.
Lutz, S. L., Guthrie, J. T., & Davis, M. H. (2019). Scaffolding for engagement in elementary school reading instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 100(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.100.1.3-20 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.100.1.3-20
Muijs, D. (2011). Doing quantitative research in education with SPSS (2nd ed.). Sage Publications. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849203241
Nadia, B. N. T. R. B., & Rizki, T. (2024). Exploring Reading Comprehension Strategies: Insights from Recent Studies. Journal of Educational Studies, 2(2).
Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all teachers should know. American Educator, 36(1), 12-39. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ971753
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.55.1.68
Schunemann, N., Sporer, N., & Brunstein, J. C. (2013). Integrating self-regulation in whole-class reciprocal teaching: A moderator–mediator analysis of incremental effects on fifth graders’ reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(4), 289-305. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0361476X13000210 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.06.002