PLAGIARISM FREE WRITING SERVICE
We accept
MONEY BACK GUARANTEE
100%
QUALITY

Reading Understanding Strategies And Reading Skills English Language Essay

Content
  1. Literature review
  2. 2. 1. Reading understanding strategies and reading skills
  3. 2. 2. The relationship between reading strategies and reading comprehension
  4. 2. 3. Earlier research on reading comprhension strategies
  1. Methodology
  2. 3. 1. Research questions
  3. 3. 2. Explanations of variables
  4. 3. 2. 1. Indie variables
  5. 3. 2. 2. Dependent adjustable:
  6. 3. 3. The info collection devices:
  7. 3. 3. 1. Test
  8. 3. 3. 2. Questionaire:
  9. 3. 3. 3. Think aloud interviews
  10. 3. 4. Participants in the analysis:
  11. 3. 5. Procedure
  12. Data research and findings
  13. 4. 1. The result of the questionaire
  14. 4. 1. 1. Demographic Data
  15. Subject
  16. Frequency
  17. Percentage
  18. Total
  19. N
  20. %
  21. Gender
  22. Male
  23. 9
  24. 17. 6
  25. 51
  26. 100
  27. Female
  28. 42
  29. 82. 4
  30. Level
  31. Lower proficiency
  32. 32
  33. 63. 7
  34. Higher proficiency
  35. 19
  36. 36. 3
  37. Years of
  38. English learning experience
  39. 2
  40. 3
  41. 5. 9
  42. 51
  43. 100
  44. 4
  45. 9
  46. 17. 6
  47. 5
  48. 15
  49. 29. 4
  50. 6
  51. 11
  52. 21. 6
  53. 7
  54. 6
  55. 11. 8
  56. 8
  57. 2
  58. 3. 9
  59. 9
  60. 4
  61. 7. 8
  62. 10
  63. 1
  64. 2. 0
  65. Reading time per week
  66. 2
  67. 3
  68. 4
  69. Over 4
  70. N
  71. %
  72. N
  73. %
  74. N
  75. %
  76. N
  77. %
  78. Higher skills students
  79. (N =19)
  80. Very important
  81. 2
  82. 10. 5
  83. 5
  84. 26. 3
  85. 6
  86. 31. 6
  87. 3
  88. 15. 8
  89. important
  90. 1
  91. 5. 3
  92. 2
  93. 10. 5
  94. Not important
  95. Lower
  96. proficiency students
  97. (N =32)
  98. Very important
  99. 6
  100. 18. 8
  101. 7
  102. 21. 9
  103. 5
  104. 15. 6
  105. important
  106. 4
  107. 12. 5
  108. 5
  109. 15. 6
  110. 4
  111. 12. 5
  112. Not important
  113. 1
  114. 3. 1
  115. 4. 1. 2. Conclusions for Research Question One
  116. When I read English materials,
  117. Mean
  118. Mean
  119. SD
  120. Rank
  121. 1.
  122. I read a stand of material, and then read the contents
  123. 1. 82
  124. 1
  125. . 90
  126. 2.
  127. I give attention to the first word of every paragraph for helping me understand the primary points of the complete paragraph
  128. 2. 51
  129. 7
  130. . 12
  131. 3.
  132. I underline the key points as i am reading
  133. 2. 03
  134. 4
  135. . 97
  136. 4.
  137. I write Vietnamese on the margin for vocabulary words I hardly understand during reading
  138. 1. 86
  139. 2
  140. . 90
  141. 5
  142. I skim over the entire text message, and then read details
  143. 1. 88
  144. 3
  145. . 92
  146. 6
  147. I use life experience aiding me understand the meaning of texts
  148. 1. 86
  149. 2
  150. . 90
  151. 7
  152. I use the backdrop understanding of the English culture to comprehend the contents
  153. 2. 57
  154. 8
  155. 1. 03
  156. 8
  157. I use key phrases or phrases to guess the main idea of the articles
  158. 1. 88
  159. 3
  160. 1. 08
  161. 9
  162. After reading each paragraph, I ask myself easily understand what I read before, and paraphrase the primary idea, then keep reading another paragraph
  163. 2. 25
  164. 5
  165. 1. 09
  166. 10
  167. I discuss what I read with classmates
  168. 2. 45
  169. 6
  170. 1. 05
  171. When I do not understand a vocabulary,
  172. Mean
  173. Mean
  174. SD
  175. Rank
  176. 11
  177. I check the dictionary immediately
  178. 2. 37
  179. 3
  180. 1. 1
  181. 12
  182. I tag and move it, keep reading and then go back
  183. 2. 33
  184. 2
  185. 1. 08
  186. 13
  187. I use other words in the word to infer the meaning of vocabulary
  188. 2. 09
  189. 1
  190. . 87
  191. 14
  192. I review its suffix and prefix to get its meaning
  193. 3. 00
  194. 4
  195. 1. 21
  196. When I do not understand a sentence,
  197. Mean
  198. Mean
  199. SD
  200. Rank
  201. 15
  202. I use the context (topic, subject) to derive this is of every sentence
  203. 1. 86
  204. 1
  205. . 91
  206. 16
  207. I translate word for word into Vietnamese to raised understand the meaning of the sentences
  208. 2. 35
  209. 4
  210. 1. 12
  211. 17
  212. I take grammar research (ex: finding subject and verb etc. ) to understand this is of the sentences
  213. 2. 33
  214. 3
  215. 1. 02
  216. 18
  217. I examine the framework of sentences (ex girlfriend or boyfriend: sample sentence, adjective clause, or adverb clause, etc. )to derive the meaning of sentence
  218. 2. 37
  219. 5
  220. . 97
  221. 19
  222. I will review the verb tense (ex: past tense or future tense) or verb disposition (ex: subjunctive feeling or imperative mood) for better understanding
  223. 2. 27
  224. 2
  225. . 95
  226. When I hardly understand (including vocabulary and phrases, ) except above reading strategies,
  227. Mean
  228. Mean
  229. SD
  230. Rank
  231. 20
  232. I check catalogs (ex girlfriend or boyfriend: grammar literature or encyclopedia) for references
  233. 2. 16
  234. 2
  235. 1. 14
  236. 21
  237. I continue the web to find related information
  238. 1. 98
  239. 1
  240. . 92
  241. 22
  242. I ask educators or classmates for clarification
  243. 2. 27
  244. 3
  245. 1. 03
  246. 23
  247. I read the difficult parts several times
  248. 2. 63
  249. 5
  250. 1. 12
  251. 24
  252. I read the contents orally several times
  253. 2. 47
  254. 4
  255. . 94
  256. 25
  257. I will memorize the vocabulary pertaining to the material before reading
  258. 2. 16
  259. 2
  260. . 99
  261. 4. 1. 3. Findings for Research Question Two
  262. when I read British materials,
  263. Lower proficiency students
  264. Higher proficiency students
  265. T
  266. p
  267. (N=19)
  268. (N=32)
  269. Mean
  270. SD
  271. Mean
  272. SD
  273. 1.
  274. I read a table of details, and then browse the contents
  275. 2. 00
  276. 1. 054
  277. 1. 72
  278. . 813
  279. . 999
  280. . 322
  281. 2.
  282. I concentrate on the first word of every paragraph for aiding me understand the main points of the whole paragraph
  283. 2. 16
  284. 1. 118
  285. 1. 78
  286. . 792
  287. 1. 288
  288. . 20
  289. 3.
  290. I underline the key points whenever i am reading
  291. 2. 00
  292. 1. 105
  293. 2. 06
  294. . 914
  295. -. 208
  296. . 84
  297. 4.
  298. I write Vietnamese on the margin for vocabulary words I hardly understand during reading
  299. 2. 79
  300. 1. 084
  301. 2. 78
  302. 1. 069
  303. . 026
  304. . 98
  305. 5.
  306. I skim over the full content material, and then read details
  307. 2. 05
  308. 1. 026
  309. 1. 78
  310. . 870
  311. . 965
  312. . 34
  313. 6.
  314. I use life activities aiding me understand this is of texts
  315. 1. 89
  316. . 937
  317. 1. 84
  318. . 917
  319. . 189
  320. . 85
  321. 7.
  322. I use the background understanding of the English culture to understand the contents
  323. 2. 05
  324. 1. 129
  325. 2. 86
  326. . 871
  327. -2. 729
  328. . 00**
  329. 8.
  330. I use key term or sentences to guess the main notion of the articles
  331. 2. 37
  332. 1. 261
  333. 1. 59
  334. . 911
  335. 2. 412
  336. . 02*
  337. 9.
  338. After reading each paragraph, I ask myself if I know very well what I read before, and paraphase the main idea, then continue reading the next paragraph
  339. 2. 00
  340. 1. 202
  341. 2. 53
  342. . 983
  343. -1. 630
  344. . 11
  345. 10.
  346. I discuss what I read with classmates
  347. 2. 53
  348. 1. 264
  349. 2. 41
  350. . 946
  351. . 359
  352. . 72
  353. When I really do not understand a vocabulary,
  354. Higher effectiveness students
  355. Lower effectiveness students
  356. t
  357. p
  358. (N=19)
  359. (N=32)
  360. Mean
  361. SD
  362. Mean
  363. SD
  364. 11.
  365. I check the dictionary immediately
  366. 3. 32
  367. . 749
  368. 1. 81
  369. . 896
  370. 6. 432
  371. . 00**
  372. 12.
  373. I make and go away it, continue reading and then go back
  374. 2. 89
  375. 1. 1
  376. 2. 06
  377. . 878
  378. 2. 809
  379. . 00**
  380. 13.
  381. I use other words in the phrase to infer the meaning of vocabulary
  382. 2. 05
  383. . 911
  384. 2. 13
  385. . 871
  386. -. 279
  387. . 78
  388. 14.
  389. I analyze its suffix and prefix to get its meaning
  390. 2. 84
  391. 1. 344
  392. 3. 13
  393. 1. 07
  394. -. 782
  395. . 44
  396. When I really do not understand a word,
  397. Higher proficiency students
  398. Lower effectiveness students
  399. t
  400. p
  401. (N=19)
  402. (N=32)
  403. Mean
  404. SD
  405. Mean
  406. SD
  407. 15.
  408. I use the context (topic, subject matter) to derive the meaning of each sentence
  409. 1. 89
  410. 1. 1
  411. 1. 84
  412. . 808
  413. . 176
  414. . 86
  415. 16.
  416. I translate word after word into Vietnamese to raised understand the meaning of the sentences
  417. 3. 21
  418. 0. 976
  419. 1. 84
  420. 0. 884
  421. 5. 005
  422. . 00**
  423. 17.
  424. I take grammar examination (ex: finding subject matter and verb etc. ) to comprehend this is of the sentences
  425. 2. 16
  426. 1. 167
  427. 2. 44
  428. . 948
  429. -. 885
  430. . 38
  431. 18.
  432. I examine the composition of sentences (ex girlfriend or boyfriend: sample word, adjective clause, or adverb clause, etc. )to derive this is of sentence
  433. 1. 84
  434. . 898
  435. 2. 69
  436. . 896
  437. -3. 253
  438. . 00*
  439. 19.
  440. I will examine the verb tense (ex: past tense or future tense) or verb feeling (ex: subjunctive ambiance or imperative feeling) for better understanding
  441. 1. 84
  442. . 898
  443. 2. 53
  444. . 915
  445. -2. 630
  446. . 01*
  447. When I don't understand (including vocabulary and sentences, ) except above reading strategies,
  448. Higher skills students
  449. Lower proficiency students
  450. t
  451. p
  452. (N=19)
  453. (N=32)
  454. Mean
  455. SD
  456. Mean
  457. SD
  458. 20.
  459. I check literature (ex girlfriend or boyfriend: grammar literature or encyclopedia) for references
  460. 2. 32
  461. 1. 157
  462. 2. 06
  463. 1. 162
  464. . 755
  465. . 45
  466. 21.
  467. I go on the Internet to find related information
  468. 2. 05
  469. . 970
  470. 1. 94
  471. . 914
  472. . 419
  473. . 68
  474. 22.
  475. I ask teachers or classmates for clarification
  476. 2. 16
  477. 1. 214
  478. 3. 25
  479. . 984
  480. -3. 326
  481. . 00**
  482. 23.
  483. I browse the difficult parts several times
  484. 3. 37
  485. . 761
  486. 2. 19
  487. 1. 091
  488. 4. 54
  489. . 00**
  490. 24.
  491. I read the material orally several times
  492. 2. 53
  493. . 905
  494. 2. 44
  495. . 982
  496. . 328
  497. . 74
  498. 25.
  499. I will memorize the vocabulary pertaining to the material before reading
  500. 2. 05
  501. 1. 312
  502. 2. 22
  503. . 792
  504. -. 501
  505. . 62
  506. 4. 4. The results of the interviews
  507. conclusion
  508. Appendix 1
  509. III. The usage of reading strategies
  510. When I read English material,
  511. ----
  512. ----
  513. ----
  514. ----
  515. ----
  516. ----
  517. ----
  518. ----
  519. ----
  520. ----
  521. When I really do not understand a vocabulary,
  522. ----
  523. ----
  524. ----
  525. ----
  526. When I really do not understand a sentence,
  527. ----
  528. ----
  529. ----
  530. ----
  531. ----
  532. When I don't understand (including vocabulary and phrases, ) except above reading strategies,
  533. ----
  534. ----
  535. ----
  536. ----
  537. ----
  538. ----
  539. Appendix 2
  540. PHIU I»U TRA
  541. III. V» vi»c s» d»ng chin l »c ˜»c greetings»u:
  542. Khi tґi ˜»c t i li»u ting Anh,
  543. ----
  544. ----
  545. ----
  546. ----
  547. ----
  548. ----
  549. ----
  550. ----
  551. ----
  552. ----
  553. Khi m  tґi khґng hi»u t» v»±ng,
  554. ----
  555. ----
  556. ----
  557. ----
  558. Khi tґi khґng hi»u ˜on vn,
  559. ----
  560. ----
  561. ----
  562. ----
  563. ----
  564. Khi tґi khґng hi»u (bao g»"m c t» v»±ng v  cu), tr» nh»‡ng chin l »c ˜»c » trЄn,
  565. ----
  566. ----
  567. ----
  568. ----
  569. ----
  570. ----
More...

Hammadon (1991) says: "Reading understanding is not only understanding words, phrases, or even text messages, but will involve a intricate interartion of the reader's preceding knowledge, dialect profiency and their learning strategies" (p. 30). So reading strategies are extremely important to achieve the comprehension. Various kinds of reading strategies are unveiled to guide students of most different levels. However, there were few researchers who investigate the relationship of reading understanding strategies and reading comprehension of students. At HETC, reading has an integral place in any English training when students examine English not only as the interest but also the demand for enhancing their review and promoting in their opportunities to attain the long-term goals, especially some of them were allocated to have and work overseas. Within their learning process, almost the students meet great issues when interacting with the reading text messages. They usually do not understand text messages and cannot complete the jobs so they feel worn out in reading lessons. Therefore, what are the main causes of this current situation? To be able to discover the solution, the researcher began a review on the reading comprehension strategy use. For teachers at HETC, it is hoped that this research may offer them the ways on how to identify strategies used by the students and they can make a decision what they must do to market their students' reading comprehension and in their learning as well.

Literature review

2. 1. Reading understanding strategies and reading skills

Oxford (1990) provides detailed definition of language learning strategies: " Learning strategies are specific actions used by the learner to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective, and more transferable to new situations" (p. 8) and referred to concretely how learning strategies are applied to the four vocabulary skills: listening, speaking, writing and reading. Regarding to her, four strategies: tuning in strategies, , or reading strategies are those learning strategies themselves that put on each of the four skills.

Of course, skills and strategies are two big words and common conditions of the reading activities, as well. Nutall (1982) remarked that reading was certainly an activity of the readers, who used strategies to work with the meaning of the texts actively and then made sense from them. By interesting interactions from the visitors and texts, more and more researchers keep working to research the relationship between your use of reading strategies and reading comprehension.

However, strategy and skill, are they different? Yes, it was actually obvious that they were different. Strategy intended people used the designed methods and implements to achieve their goals, but skill was known as a schedule. Furthermore, strategy was the consequence of conciously work towards goals. It helped visitors to understand this is of contents in order to determine the answer or get yourself a certain performance level in reading that they want for themselves (Gagn, 1985). However, it isn't always easy to make such a definite differnces between both of these conditions. Grabe and Stoller (2002) said that "many capabilities that are generally discovered as strategies are relatively programmed in their use by fluent visitors (e. g. missing an unknown expression while reading, rereading to reestabilsh wording so this means" (p. 15) Paris et al (1991) meant " an emerging skill can become more efficient and developmentally advanced when they become generated and applied automatically as skills" (p. 61). Sometimes this difference is not clear by any means because that is area of the characteristics of reading. In such a study, reading strategies are used to show specific activities, steps and strategies that students conciously apply in their reading process to boost their comprehension.

2. 2. The relationship between reading strategies and reading comprehension

Reading understanding must occur rapid in almost any purposeful framework, and the quicker a words is read, the better reading processes are to influence. Those specific operations must be applied effectively in combo to ensure the reading comprhension. Reading comprehension requires the reader be strategic. The reader must identify processing troubles, address amounts between content material information and backdrop knowledge, choose for monitoring comprhension, and shifing goals for reading. When a good reader use strategies, they can read fluently, adaptable in line with changing purpose and then continue monitoring the comprehension. Similarly, reading is an process that assessing the audience, who must decide if the reading information is coherent and finds out the purpose for reading. Alderson (2003) said reading as the relationship of four things. He claimed that the reader and the text alongside one another must be fluent reading or " the capability to reach at a proper rate with satisfactory comprehension", or " the ability of the audience to use a wide selection of reading strategies to accomplish a purpose for reading" (p. 149). So discovering the best methods and strategies are the way a good learner apply throughout a reading process.

2. 3. Earlier research on reading comprhension strategies

Grellet, F. (1981) published a reserve "Developing Reading Skills". This e book showed the important role of reading and provided some techniques that assist learners improve their reading skill.

Nutal, C. (1989) proved reading is " to permit students to read without help new authentic text messages at appropriate swiftness, silently with sufficient understanding".

Ozek, O. (2006) investigated " A study on the usage of Cognitive Reading Strategies by ELT Students". This review carried out to find out which reading strategies are generally employed by ELT students while reading a content material, and which reading strategies are needed to be developed to comprehend the text better, and to continue educational studies effectively.

San San Kung (2007) does an investigation in to the romantic relationship between reading understanding and the utilization of reading strategies among EFL students in universities in Taiwan. Through the study, the researcher understood the actual reading strategies the EFL students use pretty much and what the distinctions between different grade students.

Methodology

This section will describe research methods used to gather data to answer the study questions and then make clear how and why the methods are utilized.

3. 1. Research questions

This study aims to discover reading strategy use of HETC's students. This also has objectives to find if there are any differences in strategy use between lower and higher proficiency visitors, as well. Then to suggest some suggestions to improve students' awareness of using reading understanding strategies in the class. It is aimed at answering the following questions:

What reading strategies are being used by students at HETC?

What are the differences in the use of reading strategies between lower and higher effectiveness readers?

3. 2. Explanations of variables

3. 2. 1. Indie variables

In this review, the independence variables were the students at HETC. 51 students were chosen as staff of this particular group sudents to acquire needed data. These 51 students were divided into four groups where students will be the members of higher and lower proficiency groups. These 2 categories were chosen to get information to answer the next research question ( More details about these organizations and about higher and lower proficiency readers will be within 3. 3. 1 and 3. 4. 2)

3. 2. 2. Dependent adjustable:

The dependent changing in this research were the strategies applied in reading comprehension, i. e. reading understanding strategies.

3. 3. The info collection devices:

This study uses a combibation of 3 data collection tools:

General English Skills Test (GEPT)

Questionaire

Think-aloud interviews

As one of the aims of this research is to learn if there are any dfferences in the strategy use between higher effectiveness (HP) and lower effectiveness (LP) viewers. The test was used to separate the topics into difference organizations in which sets of higher and lower proficiency were chosen to collect the data.

Think-aloud interviews targeted at getting qualitative data and quesionaire was used to get quantiative data. The author can collect a big information of all mentioned strategies and the info from students who talk about their considered strategy utilization in the think-aloud interviews. Naturally, the think a noisy interviews in this research can be one of the best ways to reaffirm the result acquired from the questionaire. For example, in the questionaire, the themes article that they use life experiences to understand this is of texts or read the first and previous paragraphs and then get back to browse the paragraphs; the author will know they use these strategies or not in the interview.

3. 3. 1. Test

A General English proficiency test is a procedure taken to gather data on students' capacity or the data of disciplines as " Information regarding people's language potential is often very helpful and necessary" (Nunan, 1992). The GEPT was taken form the e book "IELTS for Academic Purpose: A short insentive course" (start to see the appendix 3). Predicated on the result of the test, the content were categorised into 4 groupings. Group 1 is composed students who just acquired from mark one to two 2. 5; group 2 has those who acquired mark from 3 to 5 5. The students in these 2 communities are LP learners. On the other hand, the students who are in group 3 received symbol from 5. 5 to 6. 5 - they are at medium levels. As well as the last group - group 4 includes HP ones who acquired mark from 7 and over. After getting the consequence of the test, the author decided to decided group 2 and 4 to accumulate the data to answer the second research question. So are there 51 themes in these 2 groupings. The author didn't choose group 1 because their proficiency were too low plus they were only 1% of the subjects. Information on the test can be found in Appendix 1.

3. 3. 2. Questionaire:

Questionaire is the next data collection device in this study. That is also a pretty popular method of data collection. Many experts guess that using questionaire in dialect research has many advantages. First, questionaire can be given to plenty of students at exactly the same time which is self-administered. Second, to protect the privacy and keep the fairness, the things' names might not be appeared on the questionaire. So content tend to share the info more naturally, even some very sensitive information. Third, the data collected will be more correct because questionaire is usually given to all the topics at exactly the same time.

This review used one study questionaire to assemble the information about reading strategies as well as the variations in strategy use between these two kinds of viewers. Based on the consequence of the questionaire (and interviews), the athor can make some advice to help students improve their reading abilities. The quesionaire was designed based on the questionaire of Shan Shan Kung (2007). This part is made up 3 parts. Of couse, in this study, the author modified the first part - personal information part. Another part - concept of reading got 3 questions to explore the perceptions of British reading. The last part had thirty - eight questions of strategy use. Initially of third section, thirty - four questions applied a Liker - Scale point systems. The themes were asked to react to each statement by choosing among four answers: 1) usually; 2) sometimes; 3) hardly ever; 4) never. Each section has four to six questions (except section 1 has 10 questions because of sensing the reading process). Through the survey, the writer discovered which strategies actually actracted HP viewers more than LP visitors.

3. 3. 3. Think aloud interviews

In addition to the quetionaire, interviews are being used to obtain information by actually talking to the topic. The interviewer asks questions and the topic responds. Interviews are the good way for collecting data as Seliger, H. W. (1989) stated " Interviews are customized and therefore permit a level of in-depth information - gathering, free response and versatility that cannot be obtained by other strategies" (p. 166). However, it can be costly and time consuming. In this review, think - aloud interviews were used to collect the data about the students' reading strategy. The Interviewer Guide for Reading Strategies produced by Honsenfeld et al. (1981). In oder to help make the Guide befitting aims of thi analysis, the researcher has made some changes in the strategies they posed ( see Appendix 3).

3. 4. Participants in the analysis:

At enough time the analysis was carried out, the subjects got just completed an English course. Their textbook was Therefore, their commonly assumed skills was intermidiate. They were associates of three classes. One course included 25 students, 24 in the other school and 21 within the last one and they stuied the same textbook. Their age ranges ranged from 19 to 24. Almost all of students experienced at least three years of learning English before this course. They were shipped a reading skills test to be split into higher and lower skills readers.

In this study, gender has minimal influence on the results because the number of male students is quite small in the full total of the topics.

3. 5. Procedure

The data were accumulated by the researcher during a week in autum 2009. After contacting the British professors of the topics personally to get authorization for requesting their students to participate in the study, the researcher pre-arranged the time. The researcher went to English classes to administer the tests. The students were asked to complete the test in 60 minutes. The British educators and the researcher supervised and proclaimed the test papers later.

The 2 times after, subjects were distributed the questionanires. The researcher gave some directions to the subjects and of then motivated students to ask for any clarifications they could need and every other extra time when they filled out the questionaire. And of couse, the researcher wanted to protect the privateness and the students' fairness, therefore the students' names would not complete the questionaires. In order to advoid misunderstanding the questions, the questionaire were translated into Vietnamese which were enclosed with the British version. The questionaire supervision took about thirty minutes in each school.

For days later, six chosen students were interviewed independently at the researcher' s office in HETC. The reseacher pre-arranged the time and contacted to the students by the telephone. Prior to the interview, the reseacher provided the instructions and explained the goal of the study to students so they could understand what that they had to do evidently. Each interview had taken from 10 to quarter-hour.

Data research and findings

4. 1. The result of the questionaire

4. 1. 1. Demographic Data

Table 4. 1

Demographic Information of Students (N=51)

Subject

Frequency

Percentage

Total

N

%

Gender

Male

9

17. 6

51

100

Female

42

82. 4

Level

Lower proficiency

32

63. 7

Higher proficiency

19

36. 3

Years of

English learning experience

2

3

5. 9

51

100

4

9

17. 6

5

15

29. 4

6

11

21. 6

7

6

11. 8

8

2

3. 9

9

4

7. 8

10

1

2. 0

Look at the stand 4. 1, of the 51 students taking part in the study, 9 (17. 6%) were guys and 43 (82. 4%) were females. Of this 19 HP students (36. 3%) and 32 (63. 7%) were LP students.

When requesting about years of English learning experience, just 1 students (2. 0%) has been studying English for a decade. 9 students (17. 6%) have been studying English for four years, 15 students (29. 4%) have been studying British for five years, 11 students (21. 6%) have been studying British for six years, 6 students (11. 8%) have been studying British for seven years, 2 students (3. 9%) have been learning English for eight years, 4 students (7. 8%) have been studying British for nine years.

Because spanish in general and English specifically were given into institution from sixth level in secondary university, and from tenth class in high school ( in some remote control areas), the most students' years of English learning experience were between four and seven years.

To answer the next portion of the questionnaire about concepts of reading, the results were shown in Stand 4. 2.

Table 4. 2

The Relationship between your Important of Reading for Words Learning and Reading Time weekly by higher and lower proficiency students

Reading time per week

2

3

4

Over 4

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

Higher skills students

(N =19)

Very important

2

10. 5

5

26. 3

6

31. 6

3

15. 8

important

1

5. 3

2

10. 5

Not important

Lower

proficiency students

(N =32)

Very important

6

18. 8

7

21. 9

5

15. 6

important

4

12. 5

5

15. 6

4

12. 5

Not important

1

3. 1

According to the illustration of Stand 4. 2, HP students who thought reading was very important for terminology learning were 2 (10. 5%) put in two hours per week on reading, 5(26. 3%) for three hours weekly, 6 (31. 6%), for four hours weekly and 3 (15. 8%) for over four time per week. HP students who thought reading was very important to terminology learning were 1 (5. 3%) spent two hours per week on reading, 2 (10. 5%) for four hours per week. There have been no students who thought reading was not important for words learning.

In the LP group, 6 (18. 8%) students thought reading was very important for terminology learning and spent two hours per week for this, 7 (21. 9%) spent three hours for reading, 5 (15. 6%) spent four time for reading. These LP students meant reading was very important to terms learning were 4 (12. 5%) spent two hours per week on reading, 5 (15. 6%) for three hours per week. There was 1 (3. 1%) students said reading had not been important for words learning but nonetheless spent two hours per week on it.

4. 1. 2. Conclusions for Research Question One

The research question one was "What reading understanding strategies are being used by students at HETC ?" After collecting data, it exhibited what the same or different strategies were used pretty much by HP or LP students for helping them understand the contents of the reading materials in different reading situations and were ranked from low to high to symbolize which strategy would be used pretty much by the students throughout their reading process in various situations. The results were posted in the next by most of students' reading potential levels when they used reading strategies in various reading situations.

The total results originated from the 51 students in Table 4. 3, 4. 4, 4. 5 and 4. 6.

Table 4. 3

Means, Rates, and Standard Deviations of the Uses of Reading Strategies in First Section by students at HETC

When I read English materials,

Mean

Mean

SD

Rank

1.

I read a stand of material, and then read the contents

1. 82

1

. 90

2.

I give attention to the first word of every paragraph for helping me understand the primary points of the complete paragraph

2. 51

7

. 12

3.

I underline the key points as i am reading

2. 03

4

. 97

4.

I write Vietnamese on the margin for vocabulary words I hardly understand during reading

1. 86

2

. 90

5

I skim over the entire text message, and then read details

1. 88

3

. 92

6

I use life experience aiding me understand the meaning of texts

1. 86

2

. 90

7

I use the backdrop understanding of the English culture to comprehend the contents

2. 57

8

1. 03

8

I use key phrases or phrases to guess the main idea of the articles

1. 88

3

1. 08

9

After reading each paragraph, I ask myself easily understand what I read before, and paraphrase the primary idea, then keep reading another paragraph

2. 25

5

1. 09

10

I discuss what I read with classmates

2. 45

6

1. 05

In Desk 4. 3, the effect mentioned which strategies the 51 students used pretty much when they read English materials. The table showed the info with mean, mean get ranking, and standard deviation.

As illustration of Table 4. 3, the mean was from 1. 82 to 2. 51 and the rank was S1 (1. 82) < S4 = S6 (1, 86) < S5= S8 (1. 88) < S3 (2. 03) < S9 (2. 25) < S10 (2. 45) < S2 (2. 51) < S7 (2. 57). The data exhibit that strategy 1 possessed lowest mean scores. It recommended that strategy 1 "I browse the table of details, and then browse the items" most students would like to use to help them understand the material during reading process. On the other hand, they used both least strategies: strategy 2 and strategy 7.

Table 4. 4

Means, Ranks, and Standard Deviations of the Uses of Reading Strategies in First Section by students at HETC

When I do not understand a vocabulary,

Mean

Mean

SD

Rank

11

I check the dictionary immediately

2. 37

3

1. 1

12

I tag and move it, keep reading and then go back

2. 33

2

1. 08

13

I use other words in the word to infer the meaning of vocabulary

2. 09

1

. 87

14

I review its suffix and prefix to get its meaning

3. 00

4

1. 21

Through Desk 4. 4, strategy 13 "I take advantage of other words in the phrase to infer the meaning of vocabulary" was most employed by the students when they didn't understand a vocabulary during the reading process. On contrary, strategy 14 "I review its suffix and prefix to get its interpretation" was the strategy which most students used least in this reading situation.

Table 4. 5

Means, Ranks, and Standard Deviations of the Uses of Reading Strategies in First Section by students at HETC

When I do not understand a sentence,

Mean

Mean

SD

Rank

15

I use the context (topic, subject) to derive this is of every sentence

1. 86

1

. 91

16

I translate word for word into Vietnamese to raised understand the meaning of the sentences

2. 35

4

1. 12

17

I take grammar research (ex: finding subject and verb etc. ) to understand this is of the sentences

2. 33

3

1. 02

18

I examine the framework of sentences (ex girlfriend or boyfriend: sample sentence, adjective clause, or adverb clause, etc. )to derive the meaning of sentence

2. 37

5

. 97

19

I will review the verb tense (ex: past tense or future tense) or verb disposition (ex: subjunctive feeling or imperative mood) for better understanding

2. 27

2

. 95

In Desk 4. 5, those strategies possessed close mean ratings between each other, but it addittionally described the differences from 2. 27 to 2. 37, except the strategy 15 possessed the mean credit score less 1. 86. It identified that strategy 15 "I use the context (topic, subject) to derive the meaning of each phrase" were the most used by the students when they did not understand a word during reading process. Vice versa, the means of the strategy 16 and strategy 18 to derive this is of phrase" recommended that these were used least than other strategies in this section.

Table 4. 6

Means, Rates, and Standard Deviations of the Uses of Reading Strategies in First Section by students

When I hardly understand (including vocabulary and phrases, ) except above reading strategies,

Mean

Mean

SD

Rank

20

I check catalogs (ex girlfriend or boyfriend: grammar literature or encyclopedia) for references

2. 16

2

1. 14

21

I continue the web to find related information

1. 98

1

. 92

22

I ask educators or classmates for clarification

2. 27

3

1. 03

23

I read the difficult parts several times

2. 63

5

1. 12

24

I read the contents orally several times

2. 47

4

. 94

25

I will memorize the vocabulary pertaining to the material before reading

2. 16

2

. 99

According to the info, it offered that strategy 21 " I continue Internet to find related information" was employed by almost students. The info technology nowaday becomes very popular to students so they wish to search home elevators the web. The S20 = S25 (2. 16) both stood the second position. The strategy that students used least was strategy 23 " I read difficult parts several times".

4. 1. 3. Findings for Research Question Two

Research question two was "What exactly are the variations in the use of reading strategies of the higher and lower effectiveness students at HETC?" Through mean, standard deviation, t-tests and p value, the info analysis depicted comprehensive information about the distinctions of reading strategy performance between these two sets of students. The comparative communities centered on higher and lower effectiveness student.

Table 4. 7

Means, Standard Deviations, t-Tests and p Value between higher and lower proficiency students at HETC

when I read British materials,

Lower proficiency students

Higher proficiency students

T

p

(N=19)

(N=32)

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

1.

I read a table of details, and then browse the contents

2. 00

1. 054

1. 72

. 813

. 999

. 322

2.

I concentrate on the first word of every paragraph for aiding me understand the main points of the whole paragraph

2. 16

1. 118

1. 78

. 792

1. 288

. 20

3.

I underline the key points whenever i am reading

2. 00

1. 105

2. 06

. 914

-. 208

. 84

4.

I write Vietnamese on the margin for vocabulary words I hardly understand during reading

2. 79

1. 084

2. 78

1. 069

. 026

. 98

5.

I skim over the full content material, and then read details

2. 05

1. 026

1. 78

. 870

. 965

. 34

6.

I use life activities aiding me understand this is of texts

1. 89

. 937

1. 84

. 917

. 189

. 85

7.

I use the background understanding of the English culture to understand the contents

2. 05

1. 129

2. 86

. 871

-2. 729

. 00**

8.

I use key term or sentences to guess the main notion of the articles

2. 37

1. 261

1. 59

. 911

2. 412

. 02*

9.

After reading each paragraph, I ask myself if I know very well what I read before, and paraphase the main idea, then continue reading the next paragraph

2. 00

1. 202

2. 53

. 983

-1. 630

. 11

10.

I discuss what I read with classmates

2. 53

1. 264

2. 41

. 946

. 359

. 72

p<. 05*, p<. 01**

As suggested in Stand 4. 7, strategy 7 and strategy 8 taken care of the factor level (p<. 05) which designed there have been significant variations in usage between your two groups of students. Taking a look at the method of strategy 1, 2, 5, 10 the analyzing data confirmed that good students acquired lower frequency useful than lower ones. Meanwhile, take a look at strategy 9, HP students experienced higher frequency to use these ways of help their read than LP students For the others strategies in this section, there have been no significant distinctions between two communities.

Table 4. 8

Means, Standard Deviations, t-Tests and p Value between higher and lower effectiveness students at HETC

When I really do not understand a vocabulary,

Higher effectiveness students

Lower effectiveness students

t

p

(N=19)

(N=32)

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

11.

I check the dictionary immediately

3. 32

. 749

1. 81

. 896

6. 432

. 00**

12.

I make and go away it, continue reading and then go back

2. 89

1. 1

2. 06

. 878

2. 809

. 00**

13.

I use other words in the phrase to infer the meaning of vocabulary

2. 05

. 911

2. 13

. 871

-. 279

. 78

14.

I analyze its suffix and prefix to get its meaning

2. 84

1. 344

3. 13

1. 07

-. 782

. 44

p<. 05*; p<. 01**

In stand 4. 8, strategy 11 and strategy 12 taken care of the significant different level (p<. 05). That meant that both strategies both experienced significant variations on frequencies useful between HP students' and LP students' mean ratings. Good students acquired higher frequency to use the technique to solve their vocabulary problems through the reading process. The mean rating of strategy 11 demonstrated that HP students would like to utilize it for dealing with their vocabulary problems, but LP students did not. Other strategies in this part, there have been no significant dissimilarities.

Table 4. 9

Means, Standard Deviations, t-Tests and p Value between higher and lower effectiveness students

When I really do not understand a word,

Higher proficiency students

Lower effectiveness students

t

p

(N=19)

(N=32)

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

15.

I use the context (topic, subject matter) to derive the meaning of each sentence

1. 89

1. 1

1. 84

. 808

. 176

. 86

16.

I translate word after word into Vietnamese to raised understand the meaning of the sentences

3. 21

0. 976

1. 84

0. 884

5. 005

. 00**

17.

I take grammar examination (ex: finding subject matter and verb etc. ) to comprehend this is of the sentences

2. 16

1. 167

2. 44

. 948

-. 885

. 38

18.

I examine the composition of sentences (ex girlfriend or boyfriend: sample word, adjective clause, or adverb clause, etc. )to derive this is of sentence

1. 84

. 898

2. 69

. 896

-3. 253

. 00*

19.

I will examine the verb tense (ex: past tense or future tense) or verb feeling (ex: subjunctive ambiance or imperative feeling) for better understanding

1. 84

. 898

2. 53

. 915

-2. 630

. 01*

p<. 05*, p<. 01**

As mentioned in Stand 4. 9, strategy 18 and strategy 19 attended to significant different level (p<. 05). These strategies acquired significant differences between the two groups. With the mean score, we realize these significant dissimilarities were that HP students preferred to utilize this strategy more often to help them reading fluently, but LP ones didn't. However, in strategy 16 "I translate word for word into Vietnamese to raised understand this is of the sentences", LP students preferred this strategy to HP students.

Table 4. 10

Means, Standard Deviations, t-Tests and p Value between higher and lower effectiveness students

When I don't understand (including vocabulary and sentences, ) except above reading strategies,

Higher skills students

Lower proficiency students

t

p

(N=19)

(N=32)

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

20.

I check literature (ex girlfriend or boyfriend: grammar literature or encyclopedia) for references

2. 32

1. 157

2. 06

1. 162

. 755

. 45

21.

I go on the Internet to find related information

2. 05

. 970

1. 94

. 914

. 419

. 68

22.

I ask teachers or classmates for clarification

2. 16

1. 214

3. 25

. 984

-3. 326

. 00**

23.

I browse the difficult parts several times

3. 37

. 761

2. 19

1. 091

4. 54

. 00**

24.

I read the material orally several times

2. 53

. 905

2. 44

. 982

. 328

. 74

25.

I will memorize the vocabulary pertaining to the material before reading

2. 05

1. 312

2. 22

. 792

-. 501

. 62

p<. 05*, p<. 01**

In stand 4. 10, strategy 22 and strategy 23 taken care of the factor level (p<. 05). It supposed that both strategies experienced significant variations on frequency of use between efficient pupil and less reliable student mean score. It seemed that HP students prefer to use the strategy 22 when they don not understand their reading. Vice versa, the LP students prefer to use strategy 23 " I browse the difficult part several times" even it could waste of their own time. Other strategies didn't have significant differences between these two groups.

In order to know the futher information about the strategy of the two groups. There have been think-aloud interviews to conduct the results.

4. 4. The results of the interviews

As brought up in 3. 3. 3, in this study, six students with 1 females and 3 males received think alound interviews to get more info about their reading strategy use and to reaffirm the results of the quetionaire. Among them, 2 are successful and 2 don't succeed.

The first trend the researcher got notes is the use of strategies of skimming and checking by both goood and poor students. When students were asked "When you read a word such as this, what do you usually do?" each of them answered "First, I look through the text to get the main ideas of computer. From then on, I browse the required tasks and come back to the text to get the answers". It looked like that most of them did in this manner automatically. And All of them don't know that these were using reading strategies in their reading process.

The second style is usually that the students used translating strategy at a lower rate than they responded in the questionaire. Both two poor visitors claimed these were trying to translate the written text into Vietnamese to understand it and do the task easily. While students read, they always got a pencil in their hands and underlined the new words: they then viewed dictionary or glossary. Their physical patterns made the reseacher no surprise. They opened up the dictionary when they met a fresh words. They said: "There are a lot of new words and I have to use it. If not, I can't understand the text". Only 1 strongest students never used the glossary and done reading in a quarter-hour with comprehension as good as or much better than others who required more than 20 minutes to read the article while using their dictionary. He said: " I only use the dictionary as the last resort".

During the intervies, no person ask the teacher for help. This isn't like what they actually have in thr class where they certainly make questions when they do not understand something. So the strategies " I ask tutor or classmates for clarifications" were not directly observed in the interviews because the students were interviewed singularly.

conclusion

In conclusion, The goal of this research was to research the use of reading strategies by higher and lower proficiency students, to discover the common and unusual strategies employed by these students at HETC. The findings might use to forecast the possible students' viewpoints of understanding how to read in Vietnam. Although the analysis was tied to fifty-one students via HETC, The main emered from the analysis:

Most students had English learning activities from four to seven years, so they actually understood the important role of reading in Enlish dialect acquisition, but they still didn't spend much time on it. The main reason might be most instructors in Vietnam would mainly focus on teaching grammar. Because they thought it was useful for the tests.

Most students (even fewer learning encounters ones) could choose appropriate ways of help them read effectively when they cannot understand the text or met some reading problems.

The HP students understood how to use more ways of help them read better and apply more strategies than LP students because they thought that reading strategies were ideal for helping reading comprehension.

Thereforce, from the conclusions of this analysis and from the teaching and learning framework at HETC, the researcher recommends that educator should increase their students knowing of using learning strategies in keeping, especially reading strategies, show them how to use strategies correctly and encourage them to use the strategies more regularly not only in the classroom but also in new contexts. Future research can investigate if educating particular reading strategies brings about better reading scores on standardized checks.

Appendix 1

Survey questionnaire

The questionnaire is aimed to investigate reading comprehension strategies. Were grateful for your goodwill and cooperation in truthfully doing the questionnaire. Please react to each question as honestly and accurately as is feasible. Thank you very much!

Personal information (please complete the blanks with volumes)

You are in group: _________ (1) GE2/08/2 _________ (2) GE2/22/4

Gender ___________(1) man ___________(2) female

How a long time have you analyzed English? _________

Concepts of reading (please complete the blanks with statistics)

Do you think that reading is important for terminology learning?

__________ (1) very important, __________ (2) important, __________ (3) not important, __________ (4) not so important.

Do you read English materials apart from the instructors' assignments?

_______(1) yes _______(2) no

How many hours do you may spend reading English very week? (including textbooks)

______(1) two hours ______ (2) three hours ______ (3) four hours ______ (4) over four time.

III. The usage of reading strategies

Please complete the blanks with ( ) matching to how offen you use a certain reading strategy : 1 = usually

2 = sometimes

3 = less

4 = never

When I read English material,

1 2 3 4

1.

I read a stand of details, and then browse the contents

----

2.

I give attention to the first sentence of every paragraph for supporting me understand the main points of the whole paragraph

----

3.

I underline the primary points once i am reading

----

4.

I write Vietnamese on the margin for vocabulary words I don't understand during reading

----

5.

I first skim the text then go back and read carefully

----

6.

I use life experiences helping me understand the meaning of texts

----

7.

I use the background knowledge of the English culture to understand the contents

----

8.

I use key words or sentences to guess the key notion of the articles

----

9.

After reading each paragraph, I ask myself if I know very well what I read before, and paraphase the main idea, then keep reading another paragraph

----

10.

I discuss what I read with classmates

----

When I really do not understand a vocabulary,

11.

I check the dictionary immediately

----

12.

I symbol and move it, continue reading and then go back

----

13.

I use other words in the sentence to infer this is of vocabulary

----

14.

I examine its suffix and prefix to get its meaning

----

When I really do not understand a sentence,

15.

I use the context (topic, subject matter) to derive this is of every sentence

----

16.

I translate word after word into Vietnamese to raised understand the meaning of the sentences

----

17.

I take grammar examination (ex: finding subject and verb etc. ) to understand this is of the sentences

----

18.

I review the framework of sentences (ex girlfriend or boyfriend: sample sentence, adjective clause, or adverb clause, etc. )to derive the meaning of sentence

----

19.

I will assess the verb tense (ex: past tense or future tense) or verb mood (ex: subjunctive mood or imperative mood) for better understanding

----

When I don't understand (including vocabulary and phrases, ) except above reading strategies,

20.

I check literature (former mate: grammar books or encyclopedia) for references

----

21.

I go on the web to find related information

----

22.

I ask educators or classmates for clarification

----

23.

I read the difficult parts several times

----

24.

I browse the details orally several times

----

25.

I will memorize the vocabulary regarding the contents before reading

----

Appendix 2

PHIU I»U TRA

Phiu ˜i»u tra n y ˜i»u tra v» chin l »c ˜»c hi»u c»a sinh viЄn. Chєng tґi rt bit  n s»± thi»n ch v  h»p tc c»a bn ho n th nh phiu ˜i»u tra n y. Xin vui lng tr l»i nh»‡ng cu h»i d »i ˜y m»t cch trung th»±c v  chnh xc nht. Chєng tґi xin cm  n s»± giєp ˜» c»a cc bn.

I. Thґng tin c nhn (xin vui lng ˜i»n v o khong tr»˜ng theo ch»‡ s»˜)

1. Bn h»c l»p _________ (1) K19a1_________ (2) K19a3

2. Gi»i tnh ___________(1) nam _________ (2) n»‡

3. Bn h»c ting Anh ˜ »c bao nhiЄu nm? ___________

II. Cc quan ni»m v» k» nng ˜»c hi»u (xin vui lng ˜i»n v o khong tr»˜ng theo ch»‡ s»˜)

1. Bn c ngh r±ng k» nng ˜»c hi»u l  quan tr»ng trong vi»c h»c ngoi ng»‡ khґng?

____________(1) rt quan tr»ng, ___________(2) quan tr»ng, ____________(3) khґng quan tr»ng, ___________(4) rt khґng quan tr»ng.

2. Bn c ˜»c cc t i li»u ting Anh nhi»u h n so v»i cc b i tp m  thy cґ giao cho bn khґng?

_______(c) _______(khґng)

3. M»-i tun bn d nh bao nhiЄu ting ˜» ˜»c ting Anh? (bao g»"m c sch gio khoa)

________(1) hai ting ________ (2) ba ting________ (3) b»˜n ting ________(4) h n b»˜n ting

III. V» vi»c s» d»ng chin l »c ˜»c greetings»u:

Xin vui lng ˜i»n du ( ) v o khong tr»˜ng theo m»c ˜» t» 1 ˜n 4 l  :

1 = th »ng xuyЄn s» d»ng

2 = th»nh thong s» d»ng

3 = t khi s» d»ng

4 = ch a t»ng s» d»ng

Khi tґi ˜»c t i li»u ting Anh,

1 2 3 4

1.

Tґi th »ng ˜»c phn m»c l»c, sau ˜ ˜»c phn n»i dung

----

2.

Tґi th »ng tp trung v o cu ˜u c»a m»-i ˜on ˜» giєp tґi hi»u Ѕ chnh c»a to n ˜on

----

3.

Tґi th »ng gch chn nh»‡ng Ѕ chnh trong khi tґi ˜»c

----

4.

Tґi th »ng vit nh»‡ng t» m»i trЄn l» khi m  tґi khґng hi»u trong khi ˜»c

----

5.

Tґi ˜»c l »t qua to n ˜on, sau ˜ ˜»c chi tit

----

6.

Tґi s» d»ng nh»‡ng kinh nghi»m c»a cu»c s»˜ng ˜» giєp tґi hi»u Ѕ ngha c»a b i ˜»c

----

7.

Tґi s» d»ng hi»u bit v» n»n vn ho Anh ˜» hi»u n»i dung

----

8.

Tґi s» d»ng nh»‡ng t» ho·c nh»‡ng cu chnh ˜» ˜on Ѕ chnh

----

9.

Sau khi ˜»c m»-i ˜on, tґi t»± h»i li»u tґi c hi»u nh»‡ng g m  tґi ˜Ј ˜»c » phn tr »c ch a, v  di»n gii b±ng cch khc nh»‡ng Ѕ chnh, sau ˜ tip t»c ˜»c ˜on tip theo

----

10.

Tґi tho lun nh»‡ng g tґi ˜»c v»i bn c№ng l»p

----

Khi m  tґi khґng hi»u t» v»±ng,

11.

Tґi tra t» ˜i»n ngay lp t»c

----

12.

Tґi ˜nh du v  tip t»c ˜»c, sau ˜ quay li nh»‡ng t» v»±ng ˜

----

13.

Tґi s» d»ng nh»‡ng t» khc » trong cu ˜» suy ra ngha c»a t»

----

14.

Tґi phn tch phn ti»n t»˜ v  hu t»˜ ˜» bit ngha c»a t»

----

Khi tґi khґng hi»u ˜on vn,

15.

Tґi s» d»ng b»˜i cnh (tiЄu ˜», ch» ˜») ˜» hi»u ngha c»a m»-i ˜on

----

16.

Tґi d»ch t»ng t» ra ting Vi»t ˜» hi»u h n ngha c»a ˜on vn

----

17.

Tґi phn tch ng»‡ php (v d» nh  tm ch» ng»‡, ˜»ng t») ˜» hi»u ngha c»a cu

----

18.

Tґi phn tch cu trєc c»a cu (v d» nh  cu mu, m»nh ˜» tnh ng»‡, m»nh ˜» trng ng»‡) ˜» hi»u ngha c»a cu

----

19.

Tґi phn tch th»i c»a ˜»ng t» (th»i qu kh», th»i t  ng lai) ho·c l  tnh thi c»a ˜»ng t» (gi ˜»nh th»c ho·c m»nh l»nh th»c) ˜» hi»u h n

----

Khi tґi khґng hi»u (bao g»"m c t» v»±ng v  cu), tr» nh»‡ng chin l »c ˜»c » trЄn,

20.

Tґi tra sch(sch ng»‡ php ho·c t  ˜i»n bch khoa to n th ) ˜» tham kho

----

21.

Tґi v o mng ˜» tm thґng tin liЄn quan

----

22.

Tґi h»i thy cґ ho·c bn bЁ gii thch

----

23.

Tґi ˜»c nh»‡ng phn kh hi»u nhi»u ln

----

24.

Tґi ˜»c to phn n»i dung nhi»u ln

----

25.

Tґi nh» t» v»±ng g‡n v»i phn n»i dung tr »c khi ˜»c

----


More than 7 000 students trust us to do their work
90% of customers place more than 5 orders with us
Special price $5 /page
PLACE AN ORDER
Check the price
for your assignment
FREE