The relation between test taking strategy use and reading test proficiency: The case of Dire Dawa University
This study investigates the impact of test-taking strategies on reading comprehension among 40 Ethiopian university students learning English as a Second Language (ESL). Utilizing a questionnaire and a TOEFL reading test, the research reveals that students prefer metacognitive strategies (mean score of 3.12) over cognitive strategies (mean score of 2.73), indicating a greater inclination towards self-regulation and planning. Correlation analyses show that while both strategy types contribute to reading scores, their combined use is the most effective (r = 0.635). Notably, retrieval strategies, despite frequent use (mean score of 3.18), surprisingly correlate negatively with reading scores (r = -0.069), suggesting that rote recall may hinder comprehension in this context. Similarly, the monitoring subscale of metacognitive strategies shows a weak correlation (r = 0.063), indicating that awareness of performance does not translate into effective strategic adjustments. In contrast, comprehension and memory strategies within cognitive approaches moderately correlate with reading outcomes (r = 0.339). The average reading score of 26.65 highlights a diverse proficiency level among students, emphasizing the need for targeted instructional strategies, particularly for those struggling. Overall, the findings advocate for an integrated approach that combines cognitive and metacognitive strategies to enhance reading comprehension, suggesting future research should examine how cultural and contextual factors influence strategy effectiveness in diverse EFL settings.
Authors
- Taye Regassa
- Mesfin Mmao
Institutions
- Dire Dawa University (ET)
- Addis Ababa University (ET)
Publication Details
- Journal
- Celtic A Journal of Culture English Language Teaching Literature and Linguistics
- Published
- 2025-06-02
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.22219/celtic.v12i1.40697
- Primary Topic
- African Education and Politics
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 0.00