A Closer Look at Gender and Strategy Use in L2 Reading

Language Learning53:4,December2003,pp.649–702A Closer Look at Gender and Strategy Usein L2ReadingAek PhakitiUniversity of MelbourneThis study examines gender differences in cognitive and metacognitive strategy use in the context of anEnglish as a foreign language reading comprehensiontest.Three hundred eighty-four Thai university studentstook a multiple-choice reading comprehension test,thencompleted a questionnaire on their strategy use.Genderdifferences were analyzed using multivariate analysis ofvariance.Males and females did not differ in their readingcomprehension performance and their use of cognitivestrategies.Unexpectedly,males reported significantlyhigher use of metacognitive strategies than females.Within the same achievement groups(highly successful,moderately successful,and unsuccessful),however,therewere no gender differences in either reading performanceor use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies.The articlediscusses the implications for future gender-basedresearch.In the past decades,considerable advances have been made in understanding the nature of second language(L2)reading, and these changes have influenced how L2reading has beenThe following people played a crucial role during the process of completing the present article:Paul Gruba,Brian Lynch,Tim McNamara,Carsten Ro¨ver,Nick Ellis,Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig,Paul Russell,and the anonymous Language Learning reviewers.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Aek Phakiti,Department of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics,University of Melbourne,Victoria,3010,Australia.Internet:aekmaejo@649650Language Learning Vol.53,No.4taught,learned,and assessed(see Alderson,2000;Grabe,1999). Successful reading comprehension is generally referred to as a complete grasp of meaning in a written text in which a dynamic and growing appreciation of interrelationships in the text is required(Yang,2002).In the current views of L2reading, much of what the readers do is the same as when they read in their first language(L1).However,L2reading could be some-what slower and less successful than L1reading,for example, because of range and size of vocabulary knowledge and cultural or background knowledge of L2and the extent of differences from L1(A.D.Cohen,1994;Grabe,1999).Furthermore,reading success depends on factors such as the levels of readers’profi-ciency,types of text,text difficulty,and task demands(Alderson, 2000).Lower-level reading includes,for example,automatic word recognition and automatic recognition of syntactic structures and parts of speech.Skillful readers can perform certain basic reading procedures,such as decoding and rereading without directed attention,with minimal expenditure of cognitive effort. Some reading processes can be highly automatized,particularly in familiar environments or after extensive practice.By contrast, higher-level reading includes aspects of deliberation,goal-directed attention,and problem solving.For example,L2readers occasionally confront an unfamiliar word,syntactic structure,or topic that requires them to consciously or intentionally evaluate the sound/symbol relationships,examine alternative sources, or use context clues.Higher-level reading includes the use of strategies.Given the notion of interactions between L2learners and cognitive tasks,researchers have attempted to understand the nature of strategies in L2contexts(e.g.,O’Malley&Chamot, 1990;Oxford,1990;Purpura,1999).L2reading strategy research has also revealed how strategic readers interact with a written text and how their strategic behavior is related to effective reading comprehension(e.g.,Anderson,1991;Barnett, 1988;Bernhardt,1986;Block,1986,1992;Carrell,1984,1989,Phakiti6511991;Salataci&Akyel,2002).Cognitive and metacognitive strat-egies are viewed as relevant to L2reading performance.Cogni-tive strategies are directly related to the target language and world knowledge of the learners,which allow them to construct meaning from text and to perform the given tasks.Cognitive strategies include making predictions,translating,summariz-ing,linking with prior knowledge or experience,applying gram-mar rules,and guessing meaning from contexts.Metacognitive strategies are related to self-management or self-regulation in a given reading activity.Metacognitive strategies include plan-ning and monitoring strategies.Planning strategies refer to L2learners’actions of previewing or overviewing tasks to develop directions of what needs to be done,and how and when to do it.Monitoring strategies are learners’actions undertaken to check,monitor,and evaluate their thinking and reading performance.Recently,researchers have aimed to investigate how male and female learners differ in L2reading performance and strat-egy use(e.g.,Bu¨gel&Buunk,1996;Chavez,2001;Young& Oxford,1997).It is hoped that understanding the ways in which the strategic reading behavior of males and females influ-ences L2reading comprehension will result in the rigorous con-struction of a sound L2reading theory.Chavez(2001)points out that the ultimate goals of understanding gender differences in strategy use are,for example:(a)to make us aware of how gender can affect development and achievement in L2reading;(b)to enable L2teachers to use this awareness to help their students of either gender to achieve gains in L2reading compre-hension;(c)to encourage further research into the role of gender in L2reading;and(d)to accommodate individual students’needs,given that males and females deserve an equal chance of learning success.To date,there has not been sufficient research that exam-ines the connection between gender differences in L2reading comprehension performance and those in strategy use(as dis-cussed in the following section).If males and females do indeed652Language Learning Vol.53,No.4differ both in their strategy use and L2reading performance,it is important to understand the correlation between differences in strategy use and differences in reading comprehension per-formance.Furthermore,there is a need for continued research that can add to our understanding of the specific conditions and variables that influence males’and females’cognitive and meta-cognitive strategy use and L2reading comprehension.The pres-ent study looks at cognitive and metacognitive strategy use by gender in an official reading test used to make high-stakes decisions regarding students’achievement at a Thai university. The next section discusses some previous research on gender differences in L2reading comprehension performance and learn-ing strategy use.This review follows Chavez(2001),which pro-vides an extensive discussion of the literature.Review of the LiteraturePrevious Research on Gender Differences in L2Reading ComprehensionThe literature on gender differences in L2reading perfor-mance is relatively scarce,and its findings are not consistent.In some studies,gender differences were not detected.Spurling and Ilyin(1985)found no gender differences in reading test perfor-mance among L2learners.Other studies have found that females outperformed males.Gardner and Lambert(1972) found that females performed better than males in French voca-bulary.Wen and Johnson(1997)found that females demon-strated higher levels of performance than males on a standardized national proficiency test.Chavez(2001)found that regardless of topics and genres,females scored higher than males in a multiple-choice reading test.Yet another set of studies found that males perform better than females.Boyle(1987)found that although female Chinese university students of English as a foreign language(EFL) scored higher overall in a language proficiency test,males scoredPhakiti653higher than females on listening vocabulary,which might be related to reading comprehension.Scarcella and Zimmerman (1998)found that males performed significantly better than females on specific types of vocabulary tests.Bu¨gel and Buunk (1996)found that males also performed significantly better than females in a reading test that was composed of a gender-neutral passage.To sum up,research in this area has not produced conclusive evidence of gender differences in L2reading performance,which suggests the need for further research in the area.Previous Research on Gender Differences in Strategic BehaviorIt should be noted that the nature of research in strategy use may differ from study to study depending on the specific language skills being examined.For example,strategy use research that is conducted in an oral,communicative setting can differ from that conducted in a silent environment of read-ing.Most studies investigating gender differences in strategic behavior are based on the Strategy Inventory of Language Learning(SILL)approach(Oxford,1990).Language learning strategy research focuses on perceived strategy use divorced from a concrete task(i.e.,context-free;Chavez,2001).Few stud-ies,however,look at gender differences in actual strategy use in specific L2settings.In this article,SILL-based and SILL-related research on gender differences will be discussed first,followed by research on actual strategy use in a specific L2use context.SILL-based or SILL-related research.Despite some limita-tions in SILL-based studies on gender(e.g.,their tendency to look at broad patterns of strategy use;see Green&Oxford, 1995),these studies make up the bulk of research on gender differences in learning strategy use.Oxford and Nyikos(1989), Oxford,Park-Oh,Ito,and Sumrall(1993),and Oxford,Lavine, Felkins,Hollaway,and Saleh(1996)found that females reported more use of cognitive strategies than males.A number of studies654Language Learning Vol.53,No.4(e.g.,Bacon,1992a,1992b;Ehrman&Oxford,1989;Green,1991; Green&Oxford,1995;Kaylani,1996;Oxford,1993;Oxford, Nyikos,&Ehrman,1988;Sheorey,1999)found that females reported significantly higher use of metacognitive strategies than males.In brief,a sizable body of SILL-based research has shown that females report more use of learning strategies than males(see Chavez,2001;Young&Oxford,1997,for detailed discussion).Research on actual strategy use in a specific L2use context.In contrast to the comparatively plentiful SILL gender-based research,little research has examined gender differences in actual strategy use in a specific L2task.Vandergrift(1997) employed think-aloud protocols to study gender differences in listening strategy use among21high school learners of French. He found that there were very few differences when reported strategy use in the given listening tasks for all male and all female participants was compared.Females used slightly more metacognitive strategies than males,whereas males used more cognitive strategies than females.However,Vandergrift did not establish a relationship between gender differences in strategy use and differences in listening performance.Young and Oxford(1997)investigated strategy use by23 males and26females in processing text in both their L1 (English)and a foreign language(Spanish).Their reading com-prehension was assessed in open-ended oral recall protocols.The students were also asked to report their comprehension level and the use of background knowledge.Young and Oxford found that males and females did not differ from one another signifi-cantly in comprehension of the three passages.They also found no significant overall differences in strategy use between males and females.However,males reported monitoring their reading pace,reading strategies,and paraphrasing strategies more often than females on one L2passage.Females,by contrast,tried to solve vocabulary problems and acknowledged their lack of back-ground knowledge more often than males.Young and Oxford concluded that gender-based differences in strategic behaviorPhakiti655might not reside in general categories,but rather at the level of specific strategies.They suggested that some strategies might be gender-related.In summary,a review of the literature reveals a void that future research should be designed to fill.Establishment of a relationship between strategic behavior by gender and L2read-ing comprehension performance is what has been missing in gender research.Implications for the Present StudyA number of theoretical and methodological implications can be drawn from the literature.First,despite the number of studies that show how strategy use is related to L2reading comprehension performance,the connection between gender dif-ferences in L2reading performance and those in strategy use has not been investigated sufficiently or with enough respect to quality,quantity,and variety in research methodology and focus (Chavez,2001).If males and females do indeed tend to use strategies differently,future research needs to investigate the relationship of their actual strategy use to their L2reading comprehension performance.Second,considering learners as representative of one or the other of a pair of dichotomous types(male or female)may not be sufficient for the development of a gender-based theory, because aggregation over participants(regardless of achieve-ment levels)may alter the findings on gender differences in performance and strategy use.Conclusions based on such aggregation need to be considered with caution.Hence,the present study also attempts to look at males and females as highly successful,moderately successful,or unsuccessful(as discussed in the Method section).Third,in the area of methodological approaches,most previous research analyzed the differences between males and females in learning strategy use and/or L2performance by656Language Learning Vol.53,No.4means of,for instance,frequency counts,analysis of variance (ANOVA),or t-tests.Applications of multivariate analysis of variance(MANOVA),however,seem to better suit an investiga-tion of gender differences in L2performance and strategy use when several dependent factors(e.g.,reading comprehension performance and cognitive and metacognitive strategies)and independent factors(e.g.,achievement levels and gender)need to be considered simultaneously.The present study aims to employ this type of statistical analysis.Finally,as regards contextual issues,there is a lack of empirical research investigating gender differences in cogni-tive and metacognitive strategy use under high-stakes read-ing test conditions.Although Young and Oxford(1997)found no gender differences in either reading comprehension per-formance or strategy use,their study was situated in a non-test,low-stakes reading context.In a high-stakes test situation,learners’strategy use may be different because the test has a gatekeeping function wherein access to certain achievement grades is restricted(see A. D.Cohen,1998a, 1998b,for discussion of differences between tests as research elicitation tools and tests as decision-making devices;see Shohamy,2001,for discussion of impacts of tests).In add-ition,some strategies are specifically used in test-taking con-texts(e.g.,how test takers proceed through the test to produce answers to questions or test tasks wisely;see A.D.Cohen,1998a,1998b,for discussion of test-taking strat-egy research).Purpura(1997,1999)has shown empirically how cognitive and metacognitive strategies are related to L2 test performance.However,gender differences in strategy use and L2performance were not the focus of his studies. Accordingly,without knowing whether strategy use differs between test conditions and regular reading conditions and whether there are gender differences that interact with read-ing comprehension,the reliability and validity of an L2read-ing test cannot be fully asserted.Since each study adds to our understanding of the specific conditions and variables thatPhakiti657influence males’and females’cognitive and metacognitive strategy use and reading comprehension,continued research in this area is needed.Research QuestionsThe present study aims to answer the following research questions:1.Are there statistically significant gender differences inL2reading comprehension performance assessed by a multiple-choice reading comprehension test?2.Are there statistically significant gender differences inthe use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies for the completion of such a test?3.How do males and females at the same achievementlevels differ in reading comprehension performance and in cognitive and metacognitive strategy use?MethodBackground and ParticipantsThe study was carried out at one of the major government universities in the north of Thailand using a required basic English course(Fundamental English I).The data were gathered during a final examination.The final reading test accounted for 40%of the overall course assessment.Other achievement assessments included a midterm reading test(35%),listening comprehension tests(15%),quizzes(5%),and other take-home assignments(5%).Five hundred twenty students voluntarily agreed to partici-pate in this study.The learners took the university’s final examination in English,immediately followed by a questionnaire (described in the next section)on their strategy use.However,658Language Learning Vol.53,No.4because of incomplete questionnaire data for some test takers and the elimination of misfitting test takers1based on test analy-sis,the number of the participants dropped to384.The384 Thai,non–English major,first-year undergraduates were made up of173males(45%)and211females(55%).For the purposes of this study,students who obtained scores of70%or above on the examination were classified as highly successful,those who scored between45%and69%were classified as moderately successful,and those who scored below45%were classified as unsuccessful.Among the384participants,there were75highly successful(43females and32males),256moderately successful (144females and112males),and53unsuccessful(24females and29males)test takers.The learners were between the ages of 17and21and had been studying English in Thailand for approximately8years.Based on their English test scores from their university entrance examination,their English proficiency levels ranged from advanced beginners to intermediate.Students were given3hr to complete the reading test.Measurement InstrumentsTwo research instruments were used in the study:a multiple-choice reading comprehension test and a cognitive-metacognitive strategy questionnaire.Assessing reading comprehension.According to Alderson (2000),different testing techniques for reading may permit the measurement of different aspects of reading constructs.Based on Alderson(2000),there is no one best format for reading tests, and each format has its own strengths and weaknesses. Although a number of test formats such as cloze tests,gap-filling tests,multiple-choice tests,constructed-response tests,free-recall tests,and summary tests have been developed and used to assess reading comprehension,in the present study,a multiple-choice test format was selected for use.Despite some limitations(see Bennett&Ward,1993;Weir,1993),the multiple-choice format is a popular conventional test format forPhakiti659assessing L2reading comprehension because it is convenient to administer and there are well-established procedures for analyzing multiple-choice test items(Alderson,2000;Wesche& Paribakht,1996).It should be noted that at the university in which the study was conducted,the authorities decided that the multiple-choice format was most suitable for assessment purposes. This test format is thought to have certain advantages over other test formats including efficiency and inexpensive scoring.It also allows broad content coverage and control of the range of possible answers to comprehension questions.To some degree,it controls test takers’thinking processes when they are responding to the test tasks.There are also statistical supports for the analysis of multiple-choice tests and straightforward interpretations of test analysis results.The reading test was composed of two main sections, namely,a gap-filling cloze and a reading comprehension section (see Appendix A for the objectives of the basic English course and information about the test).Prior to the actual test admin-istration,this test was developed and piloted for content by the researcher and the teachers of the course,and reliability analyses were conducted.After the test was implemented in the main study and scored and the scores were double-checked, the test data were entered into a computer and analyzed using the Rasch model of item response theory(IRT;see,e.g.,McNamara, 1996,for discussion of Rasch IRT)using the Quest program (ACER,1996).The following analyses were performed:internal consistency(i.e.,reliability),item difficulty(i.e.,the proportion of candidates getting an item correct),person ability(i.e.,the relative threshold levels of the test taker’s ability),and item discrimination analysis(i.e.,how well the test’s distracters work).The results of the IRT analysis(see Table1)indicated an approximate reliability of0.88(Part1:0.80,Part2:0.78).The correction-for-attenuation correlation(Hatch&Lazaraton,1991, p.444)between parts1and2was0.82,which provided some evidence of construct validity.The relationship found in thisstudy between the scores on the multiple-choice cloze and the multiple-choice reading comprehension test is similar to that found by Chapelle and Abraham (1990).The item difficulty and person ability map of the IRT model indicated a reasonably good match between the test takers’ability levels and the test items.Assessing cognitive and metacognitive strategy use.The preliminary cognitive and metacognitive taxonomy used in the present study is presented in Appendix B.The distinction made in this taxonomy between planning and monitoring strategies is similar to that employed in O’Malley and Chamot’s (1990)tax-onomy.Goal setting is viewed as part of planning,whereas evaluation is considered part of monitoring.From both a meth-odological and an ethical perspective,strategies used by test takers in an official test situation may need to be investigated after test takers have completed the test,rather than during the test itself,for the following reasons:1.Requiring the test takers to perform the secondary task of identifying strategies while taking the test may interfere with the primary task of reading and completing the test.The nature of the high-stakes test-taking situation would thus raise ethical concerns were the participants asked to report on their strategy use during the test.2.Relative-frequency (cumulative)strategy use for the whole test was investigated.Relative-frequency strategyTable 1Summary statistics for the reading comprehension testParts 1and 2Part 1Part 2Number of items 85.0045.0040.00Maximum raw score 77.0041.0036.00Mean logit score 00.6700.6800.66SD (logits)00.7400.8000.80Person separation reliability (equivalent to KR-20)00.8800.8000.78660Language Learning Vol.53,No.4Phakiti661use implies the degree to which test takers used strategies overall,rather than the number of times they used a par-ticular strategy in completing the test.When reflecting on and assigning strategy use after the fact on the question-naires employed in this study,test takers are assumed first to retrieve from memory the degrees of the concurrent strategy frequencies and second to express them on an ordinal scale.This method reflects ecological factors per-taining to the entire test,such as the characteristics of reading passages,test questions,and difficulty.3.Having the test takers assess strategy use after the testallows the researcher to assume that test takers’overall reading comprehension performance is directly influenced by their strategy use in a natural way.Methods typically used to collect data for use in under-standing the nature of strategies include verbal reports(e.g., think-aloud protocols,retrospective interviews;see A. D. Cohen,1996)and self-reported questionnaires(see Oxford, 1996).In the present study,despite some limitations,the choice of questionnaires to elicit strategy use was considered suitable because of:1.the practical and ethical concerns discussed above2.the difficulty or impossibility of tape-recording all infor-mants during the test3.the complexity of verbal-report methodology4.issues of statistical comparability of learners across groupsMany scholars(e.g.,O’Malley&Chamot,1990;Oxford, 1996;Purpura,1999)have supported the use of strategy ques-tionnaires to assess the construct of cognitive and metacognitive strategies.The questionnaire used in this study allowed learners to mark strategy use on a5-point Likert scale:1(Never), 2(Sometimes),3(Often),4(Usually),and5(Always).The length of time needed to complete the questionnaire ranged from5to662Language Learning Vol.53,No.410min.The following steps were taken to reduce the potential for invalidity associated with this method:1.Strategy items used on the questionnaire were drawnfrom the literature on L2reading,learning strategies,and test-taking strategies,and items were embedded in a model of human information processing(Gagne´,Yekovich,& Yekovich,1993).2.Questionnaire items were presented to participants inThai(back translation was incorporated).3.The questionnaire was piloted with the same populationduring their midterm reading test for item-level analysis (see Phakiti,2003).Volunteers from among the students were asked to reflect on how well they understood the strategy items on the questionnaire.4.Two experts in metacognition not involved in the presentstudy were asked to determine to which category each strategy item included on the questionnaire belonged(i.e., cognitive or metacognitive;see Appendix C for the ques-tionnaire used).Their responses were scored as1or0in association with the strategy categories assumed.Experts1 and2had91.4%and85.7%agreement with the strategy categorizations,respectively.5.An exploratory factor analysis(EFA)was employed toextract cognitive and metacognitive strategy factors from the strategy questionnaire data(see Phakiti,2003,for further discussion of the EFA validation procedures used in the present study).Table2presents the composites for cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies with the estimates of the reliability of the questionnaire instrument.The approximate overall reliability estimate for the strategy items was acceptable(0.88)given the number of the items and the underlying constructs.The composites of the metacognitive and cognitive strategiespresented in the table will be used in the MANOVAs and post hoc tests.Data AnalysesA significance level of 0.05(p <0.05)was set.Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)version 10for personal computers (SPSS Inc.,2001)was used to compute descriptive statistics and perform reliability analyses,EFA,and MANOVA.(For further discussion of MANOVA,see Diekhoff,1992;Stevens,1996).Following Bollen and Lennox (1991),the data in the pres-ent study can be considered an emergent variable system in which the underlying (or emergent)construct (the resultant com-position of the outcome variables)is dependent on the observed variables.MANOVA is well suited for use with emergent variable systems (e.g.,Bollen &Lennox,1991;Cole,Maxwell,Arvey,&Salas,1993).Based on the criteria given by J.Cohen (1992),the sample size in this study is adequate for attaining the desired statistical power in MANOVA.To answer the first and second research questions,learners were categorized as males or females.To answer the third research question,learners were further classified by achievement levels,with the following groups resulting:(a)highly successful females,(b)moderately successful females,(c)unsuccessful females,(d)highly successful males,(e)moderately successful males,and (f)unsuccessful males.Table 2Composites of cognitive and metacognitive strategies with reliability estimatesStrategies Number of items Items usedReliability Cognitive52,6,7,8,90.75Metacognitive 1014,15,19,21,22,24,30,31,32,330.85Total150.88Phakiti 663。