In a South African context, the need for a reading strategy instruction should be seen against the poor reading performance of the learners at primary, high school and tertiary level. According to Pretorius (2002), reading is a powerful learning tool, a means of constructing meaning and acquiring new knowledge. Moreover, reading is the cornerstone of instruction for all learners regardless of their ability level because it sets the foundation for future progress and success in virtually all other facets of life (Scott 2010; Luckner & Handley 2008). However, poor reading comprehension is cited as a fundamental feature of academic underperformance in South Africa (Pretorius 2002; Granville 2001; Dreyer 1998). Many learners in the high schools demonstrate a low level of strategy knowledge and lack of metacognitive control (Dreyer 1998; Strydom 1997). According to Nel, Dreyer and Kopper (2004:95), many South African students enter higher education underprepared for the reading demands that are placed upon them. Analysing the reading assessment profiles of a group of first-year university students at Potchefstroom, Nel, Dreyer and Kopper (ibid: 95) revealed that those students experienced problems across all aspects of the reading process (i.e. vocabulary, fluency, reading comprehension and reading strategy use). Yet, there is little evidence to suggest that learners at any level will acquire the reading skills and strategies that can improve their reading comprehension if they have not been taught (Tannenbaum, Torgesen &Wagner 2006).

The literature has revealed that awareness and monitoring of one’s comprehension processes are important aspects of skilled readers (Alexander & Jetton 2000; Makhtari &Reichard 2002). The same authors further point out that such awareness and monitoring processes are often referred to in the literature as metacognition, which can be thought of as the knowledge of the reader’s cognition about reading and the self-control mechanisms they exercise when monitoring and regulating text comprehension. One of the objectives of the current study is to explore whether reading strategies awareness is a better predictor of reading comprehension. The results of a similar study conducted by Ilustre (2011) in the Philippines showed that amongst the three subscales of metacognitive reading strategies, only problem solving strategies correlated positively with text comprehension.

1. What does the reading comprehension and reading strategy use profile of the Grade11 ESL learners portray?
2. Do learners in the experimental group who received strategic reading instruction attain statistically and practically significantly higher scores on the reading comprehension test and do they differ significantly in terms of their use of reading strategies?

The literature on strategy instruction has shown that there are two different approaches to teaching reading strategies. These are explicit instruction and implicit instruction. According to Hall (2009), explicit instruction is a systematic instructional approach that includes a set of delivery and design procedures derived from effective schools research merged with behaviour analysis. Hall further points out that there are two essential components to well-designed explicit instruction:

1. Visible delivery features are group instruction with a high level of teacher and student interactions.
2. This concerns the less observable, instructional design principles and assumptions that make up the content and strategies to be taught. According to Van Keer (2004), explicit reading strategies instruction and engaging learners in interaction with the text promotes learners’ reading comprehension ability.

In addition, Van Keer states that even when children do not use effective comprehension strategies on their own, explicit reading strategies instruction is a feasible tool for teaching learners to apply them successfully. The current study has been triggered by this view because it seeks to improve the reading comprehension and strategy use of disadvantaged learners. The literature reveals that explicit instruction in reading comprehension is the widely recommended method of improving learners’ reading comprehension and strategy use (Franco-Fuenmayor, Kandel-Cisco & Padron 2008).

On the other hand, the US Department of Education (2008) points out that implicit learning is acquisition of knowledge about the underlying structure of a complex stimulus environment by a process which takes place naturally, simply and without conscious operations. In addition, Dalton and Proctor (2007) point out that implicit reading strategy instruction refers to a reading environment that provides the learner with a variety of embedded features that are designed to support individual learning needs whilst being sensitive to the interactive nature of the reading process. Dalton and Proctor further point out that those learners who struggle with creating meaning are supported in an apprentice model of reading strategy instruction where scaffolds decrease as learners’ understanding and self- regulation improves.

Systematic Evaluations conducted recently on the reading performance of learners in South Africa showed no improvement. The Systematic Evaluations conducted by the Department of Education, provincial Departments of Education as well as international bodies, show that learners in South African schools performed poorly when tested for their ability to read at age-appropriate levels (National Reading Strategy 2008:5). Specifically, the results of the Systemic Evaluation held in 2005 amongst the Intermediate Phase learners, showed that 14% of learners were outstanding in their language competence; 23% were satisfactory or partly competent, but a large majority of 63% were below the required competence for their age level (South African National Reading Panel 2008:6)

The above-mentioned reading comprehension results are a cause for concern. Specifically, the current study has been triggered by the above-mentioned state of affairs as far as reading comprehension is concerned in South Africa. Amongst the factors that improve learners’ reading comprehension is training in the use of reading strategies. In the literature review the benefits of training learners to be strategic readers has been highlighted. Thus, the current study seeks to examine the effect of reading strategies instruction in order to inform instructional practice in reading comprehension.

A quasi-experimental pre-test and post-test control group design was used in this study. According to Moore (2008), a quasi-experimental study is a type of evaluation which aims to determine whether a programme or intervention has the intended effect on a study’s participant. In this study there were both a control and experimental groups. The reading comprehension test scores for each group were compared before and after the study. The reading comprehension scores were also compared for both groups before and after the study.

• The Reading Performance Test in English Advanced Level (Roux 1996) was used to determine the students’ reading comprehension in English within the range of Senior Secondary Performance Levels (i.e. Grades 10, 11 and 12). This standardised test consists of 50 items. Questions are based on prose, passage, advertisements, a film review, a cartoon and two close-test passages. All the questions are in multiple-choice form consisting of four options per item. This test was used as a pre-test and a post-test.

• A Reading Strategies Questionnaire based on the work of Oxford (1990) and Pressley and Afflerbach (1995), was used to determine learners’ use of reading strategies. This test was also used as a pre-test and a post-test.

1. How to use the strategy.
2. Why, when and where the strategy should be used in actual reading.
3. Teacher modelling. This entailed the use of Think-Aloud on how to perform the strategy in the actual context of reading.
4. Teacher scaffolding. This entailed the use of strategies on a temporary basis so that once the learners were able to accomplish the task successfully, the scaffold was gradually decreased or removed. Learners practised what they were capable of doing on their own and the teacher intervened only when support was needed.
5. Independent learner practice. Learners practised the use of strategies independently and verified the use of procedures.
6. Integrated use with other materials. The teacher gave ample practise with school materials and integrated the use of Think-Aloud with other lessons and content reading. The aim was for learners to apply these strategies independently and think in their heads whenever they encounter a text.

The strategies to be developed were presented in the following format:

• ‘Before Reading’ (e.g. making inferences and predicting what is to come in a text)
• ‘During Reading’ (e.g. guessing the meaning of words from the context, identifying the main idea in a text and rejecting or confirming predictions and inferences)
• ‘After Reading’ (e.g. summarising).

The major focus in the reading strategy instruction was on explaining the main features of a particular strategy and explaining why that strategy should be learned (i.e. the potential benefits of use). The benefit of use was linked to the learners’ reading profiles. In this way, students could see the necessity of reading strategy use, as well as the link to their reading comprehension.

An example of the instructional procedure followed in this study is available in Appendix A.

Small effect          d = 0.2
Medium effect       d = 0.5
Large effect          d = 0.8

The pre-test reading comprehension scores of the Grade 11 ESL learners in the experimental and control groups indicated that there was not a statistically significant difference in their mean scores on the reading comprehension test (cf. Table 3).

The learners in the experimental group improved their performance in the comprehension test significantly after the intervention, whereas the learners in the control group did not improve their performance on the comprehension test. Thus, the findings portray the intervention as a viable method for enhancing the reading comprehension of the Grade 11 ESL learners. The findings in this study support the previous studies on the effect of reading strategy instruction on learners’ reading comprehension (Alexander & Jetton 2000; Dale, Duffy, Roehler & Pearson 1991; Glaser 1990; Wittrock 1998).

To determine whether the instruction affected the use of the reading strategies, the frequencies with which the participants used reading strategies before and after instruction were compared in both groups. Findings also revealed that explicit instruction in the use of reading strategies was essential to bring about increased use of reading strategies for learners in the experimental group. Considering that the more the strategies were used the better the results for students in the experimental group demonstrated that there was a need to promote strategy awareness and application in the learning and teaching of the English language. Specifically, the following reading strategies were utilised more frequently by learners in the experimental group:

• I briefly skim the text before reading.
• I often look for how the text is organised and pay attention to headings and sub-headings.

These results are congruent with previous research confirming the positive effect of explicit strategies instruction on reading comprehension achievement (e.g. Li 2010; Cubukcu 2007; Van Keer & Verhaeghe 2005; Pressley et al. 1989). The results of this study also indicated that the learners’ ability to use reading strategies is the most critical factor determining their reading comprehension. Thus, the close relationship between strategy use and reading comprehension provided support for the possibility that educators should enhance learners’ reading comprehension through explicit reading strategies instruction.

The study further revealed the importance of training students in the use of reading strategies. The literature has shown that strategic awareness and monitoring of the comprehension process are critically important aspects of skilled reading. As a result of the reading strategy instruction, some strategies were utilised significantly more frequently by learners in the experimental group after the intervention. Thus, this study provided the English Second Language teachers with a better understanding of the benefits of reading strategy instruction.

Alfassi, M., 1998, Reading to learn: Effects of combined strategy instruction on high school students, Bar-Han University, Israel.

Anderson, N.J., 1999, Exploring second language reading: Issues and strategies, Heinle and Heinle, New York.

Antoniou, F. & Souvignier, E., 2007, ‘Strategy instruction in reading comprehension: An intervention study for students with learning disabilities’, Learning Disabolities: A Contemporary Journal 5 (1), 41- 57.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C. & Razavieh, A., 2005, Introduction to research in education, 7th edn., Wadsworth / Thomson Learning, California.

Carrell, P.L., Pharis, B.G. & Liberto, J.C., 1989, ‘Metacognitive strategy training for ESL reading’, TESOL Quarterly 23(4), 647–678.

Cohen, J., 1977, Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences, revised edn., Academic Press, New York.

Coleman, M.F., 2003, Promoting reading comprehension competence among English Second Language high school learners in a disadvantaged community, Med Dissertation, UNISA.

Cubukcu, F., 2007, ‘An investigation of reading strategies employed by trainee teachers’, GEMA Online Journal of Language studies 7(2), 95–110.

Dale, J.A., Duffy, G.G., Roehler, L.R. & Pearson, P.D., 1991, ‘Moving from the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction’, Review of Education Research 61, 239–264.

Dalton, B. & Proctor, C.P., 2007, ‘Reading as Thinking: Integrating strategy instruction in a universally designed digital literacy environment’, in D.S. McNamara (ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies, pp. 421–439, Lawrence Erlbaum Association Inc. Mahwah, NJ,

Dreyer, C., 1998, ‘Improving learners’ reading comprehension by means of strategy instruction’, Journal for Language Teaching 31(1), 18–29.

Durkin, D., 1993, Teaching them to read, Allyn & Bacon Boston, MA, .

Fan, Y., 2010, The effect of comprehension strategy instruction on EFL learners’ reading comprehension, Canadian Center of Science and Education.

Franco-Fuenmayor, S.E., Kandel-Cisco, B.E. & Padron, Y.N., 2008, Improving reading comprehension in dual language programmes, Reading Research Quarterly 41 (40), 524–539.

Garrigus, R., 1999, Design in reading, Allyn and Bacon, New York.

Grabe, W. & Stoller, F.L., 2002, Teaching and researching reading, Pearson Education Limited, Great Britain.

Glazer, R., 1990, ‘The re-emergence of learning theory within instructional research’, American Psychologist 45, 29–39.

Granville, S., 2001, ‘Comprehension or comprehending? Using critical language awareness and interactive reading theory to teach learners to interact with texts’, Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 19, 13–21.

Hall, T., 2009, Explicit instruction, Center on Accessible Instructional Material, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Ilustre, C.A., 2011, ‘Beliefs about reading, metacognitive reading strategies and text comprehension among college students in a Private University’, Philippine English Second Language Journal 7, 28–36.

Kern, R., 1989, ‘Second language reading strategy instruction: Its effects on comprehension and word inference ability’, Modern Language Journal 73, 135–149.

Kliewer, C. & Landis, D., 1999, ‘Individualizing literacy instruction for young children with moderate to severe disabilities’, Exceptional Children 66, 85–100.

Lau, K. & Chan, D.W., 2003, ‘Reading strategy use and motivation among Chinese good and poor readers in Hong Kong’, Journal of Research in Reading, 2, 177–190.

Lei, S.A., 2010, ‘Strategies for improving reading skills among college students’, Reading Improvement 2(1), 1-15.

Li, F., 2010, ‘A study of English reading strategies used by senior middle school students’, Asian Social Science 6 (10), 184–192.

Luckner, J.L. & Handley, C. M., 2008, ‘A summary of the reading comprehension research undertaken with students who are deaf or hard of hearing’, American Annals of the Deaf 1, 6–36.

National Reading Panel, 2008, Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read, Washington, D.C. : National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Clearinghouse.

MacMillan, J.E. & Schumacher, S., 2001, Reseach design: A conceptual introduction, Harper Collins, New York.

McKeown, M.G., Beck, I.L. & Blake, G.K, 2009, ‘Reading comprehension instruction:Focus on content or strategies?’ Perspectives on Language and Literacy 2(4),28-31.

Medina, S.L., 2011, ‘Effects of strategy instruction in an EFL reading comprehension course: A case study’, Profile 14(1), 79–89.

Makhtari, K. & Reichard, C.A., 2002, ‘Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies’, Journal of Educational Psychology 94(2), 249–259.

Moore, K.A., 2008, Quasi-experimental evaluations: Child trends, Heile and Heinle, Washington.

Nel, C., Dreyer, C. & Kopper, M., 2004, ‘An analysis of the reading profiles of first-year students at Potchefstroom University: A cross-sectional study and a case study’, South African Journal of Education (1), 95–103.

Oxford, R., 1990, Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know, Newbury House Publishers, New York.

Paris, S.G., & Winograd, P., 1990, ‘How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction’, in B.F. Jones and L. Dol (eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction, pp. 15– 51, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.

Pressley, M. & Afflerbach, P., 1995, Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.

Pretorius, E.J., 2002, ‘Reading and applied linguistics: A deafening silence?’ Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 20, 91–103.

Pritchard, R.E., Romeo, G.C., Muller, S.A.B., 1999, ‘Integrating reading strategies into the accounting curriculum’, College Student Reading 33(1), 77–82.

Rings, S., 1994, The role of computer technology in teaching critical reading, viewed 23 March 2011, from http://www.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/critR

South African National Reading Panel, 2008, Department of Education, Republic of South Africa, Pretoria.

Salataci, R. & Akyel, A., 2002, ‘Possible effects of strategy instruction on L1 and L2 reading’, Reading in Foreign Language 14(1), 1–17.

Scott, R.M., 2010, ‘Word study instruction: Enhancing reading comprehension’, The Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat.

Shanakan, T., Callison, K., Carriere, N.K., Duke, N.K., Pearson, P.D., Schatschneider, C. & Torgesen, J., 2010, Improving reading comprehension in Kindergarten through 3rd Grade, Institute of Education Sciences.

Strydom, J.F., 1997, The counselling needs of students in a resource-based learning programme. Unpublished dissertation, University of Free State, Bloemfontein.

Tannenbaum, K.R., Torgesen, J.K. & Wagner, R.K., 2006, ‘Relationship between word knowledge and reading comprehension in Third Grade children’, Scientific Studies of Reading 10 (4), 381–398.

United States Department of Education, 2008, Institute of Education Sciences National Assessment of Educational Progress, Long-Term Trend Reading Assessment.

Van Keer, H., 2004, ‘Fostering reading comprehension in Fifth Grade by explicit instruction in reading strategies and peer tutoring’, British Journal of Education 74, 37–70.

Van Keer, H. & Verhaegher, J.P., 2005, ‘Comparing two teacher development programmes for innovating reading comprehension instruction with regard to teachers’ experiences and student outcomes’, Teaching and Teacher Education 21, 543–562.

Wilhelm, J., 2001, Improving comprehension with think-aloud strategies, Scholastic Professional Books, New York.

Wittrock, M.C., 1998, ‘Cognition and subject matter learning’, in N.M Lambert, & B.L. McComb (eds.), How students learn: Reforming schools through learner-centered schooling, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 31-120.