Educational Research Review 29 (2020) 100308

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Educational Research Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/edurev

A comprehensive review of research on reading comprehension

T
strategies of learners reading in English-as-an-additional language
Kwangok Songa,∗, Bokhee Nab, Hyun Joo Kwonc
a
Department of Curriculum and Teaching, The University of Kansas, 1122 West Campus Rd. Rm. 321, Lawrence, KS, 66045, USA
b
Chonnam National University, 77 Yongbong-ro, Buk-gu, Gwangju, 61186, South Korea
c
St. Mary's University, Chaminade Tower, Rm. 105, One Camino Santa Maria, San Antonio, TX, 78228, USA

1. Introduction

The dramatic increase of learners reading in English-as-an-additional language (EAL) across the world has urged educators to
develop ways to provide rigorous support for these learners' academic engagement and achievement. Despite continuous scholarly
efforts to support linguistically diverse students' academic achievement, however, it has been reported that many linguistically
diverse students continue to fall behind and experience unequal opportunities in schools at least in the United States (Coady, Harper,
& de Jong, 2016; Pettit, 2011; Verdugo & Flores, 2007). One of many reasons for such inequity may derive from a limited under-
standing or a misconception about EAL learners' academic abilities (Gandara, Maxwell-Jolly, & Driscoll, 2005; Kanno & Kangas,
2014; Reeves, 2006). To help educators better understand EAL learners, we aimed to demonstrate the complexities in EAL readers’
approaches and strategies in reading comprehension, as evidenced in previous literature. Because reading comprehension is critical
to academic learning, the findings of this review can encourage educators to develop and refine instructional supports to meet the
needs of EAL readers.

1.1. Reading comprehension processes and strategies

Reading comprehension as thinking at multiple levels involves complex processes (McNamara & Magliano, 2009; Pearson &
Raphael, 1990). To comprehend a written text, not only do readers engage in decoding processes at the word-level by applying their
linguistic knowledge, but they also analyze discourse features and structures and integrate their schemata with what they learn from
written texts to make sense (Anderson & Pearson, 1984; Graesser, 2007; Lesgold & Perfetti, 1978; McVee, Dunsmore, & Gavelek,
2005; Ruddell & Unrau, 2013). Additionally, reading comprehension includes deeper-level thinking about a text through inter-
preting, evaluating, and synthesizing information (Fox & Alexander, 2009). Automaticity in word recognition and syntactic structures
can help readers pay close attention to text-meaning and engage in inferential and evaluative meaning making because readers gain
more cognitive flexibility in comprehension processes (Cartwright, 2009).
To facilitate their reading comprehension processes, readers deliberately use various strategies with a goal in mind (Afflerbach,
Pearson, & Paris, 2008; Alexander, Graham, & Harris, 1998). Cognitive reading strategies help readers resolve issues in constructing
the meaning of a text, whereas metacognitive strategies allow readers to monitor and appraise reading processes (Schallert & Martin,
2003). The use of comprehension strategies occurs at multiple levels (Nassaji, 2003). Lower-level comprehension strategies including
word identification and analysis of phoneme-grapheme and syntactic features can help readers recall and paraphrase literal, surface-
level information (Bernhardt, 1991; Block, 1986). Higher-order comprehension strategies encompass both cognitive strategies to
analyze, synthesize, and evaluate information and metacognitive strategies to assess and monitor reading processes (Afflerbach, Cho,
& Kim, 2015).

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ksong@ku.edu (K. Song), bokheena@gmail.com (B. Na), hkwon1@stmarytx.edu (H.J. Kwon).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100308
Received 5 November 2018; Received in revised form 14 December 2019; Accepted 15 December 2019
Available online 28 December 2019
1747-938X/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
K. Song, et al. Educational Research Review 29 (2020) 100308

Readers' use of comprehension strategies depends on various factors such as readers' linguistic knowledge, text genres, the nature
of a reading task, readers' beliefs about reading, and the degree of readers' topic familiarity (van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983). Among these
factors, varying degrees of reading skills necessary for comprehension processes have been proven to impact the choice of reading
comprehension strategies (Paris & Myers, 1981). Whereas readers with lower reading proficiency need to access lower-level com-
prehension strategies to help them resolve issues with word identification and sentence structures, proficient readers can engage in
higher-order thinking during reading and monitor their comprehension processes (Denton et al., 2015; Paris & Myers, 1981; Pearson
& Raphael, 1990). Additionally, text structures and types (e.g., narratives, expository, research papers) affect readers' comprehension
processes and selection of comprehension strategies (Kucan and Beck, 1996; Langer, 1990a; Olson, Mack, & Duffy, 1981). Readers are
likely to use particular types of comprehension strategies more than the others when reading particular genres due to their familiarity
with particular text structures and goals for reading. Finally, because reading is a goal-oriented task, readers use and coordinate
different strategies to meet their reading goals (Alexander et al., 1998; Stahl, Hynd, Britton, & McNish, 1996). Individuals' reading
goals could change depending on the goal settings in a reading task, types of reading materials, and individuals’ beliefs about reading
(Afflerbach, Cho, Kim, Crassas, & Doyle, 2013).
Reading in an additional language (L2) involves more complex processes than reading in one's first language. During reading in
L2, readers need to activate their phonological abilities, vocabulary knowledge, and syntactic knowledge in two language systems
while integrating their background knowledge in order to construct meaning and engage in higher-order thinking (Hiebert & Bravo,
2010; Verhoeven, 2011). Additional challenges may arise in reading in L2 when readers are not familiar with the background
knowledge necessary for constructing meaning from a text written in L2 (Langer, 1990b). Therefore, to support students who learn to
read in their L2, it is critical for teachers to understand the complexities, opportunities, and challenges that readers of an additional
language would experience.

1.2. Previous reviews of literature

Previously, several research reviews synthesized the findings of studies on learners' reading processes when reading in EAL.
Fitzgerald’s (1995) comprehensive review summarized the key aspects of ELLs' comprehension strategies discussed in studies pub-
lished in 1979–1993 in the United States. The studies using readers' oral reading did not reveal any particular patterns in ESL readers'
use of cueing systems (i.e., grapho-phonic, syntactic, and semantic cues) and the L1 influence on readers' strategy use (Goodman,
1967). However, the studies using think-alouds revealed that ESL readers monitored their reading processes and used various
comprehension strategies at multiple levels, but they did not show any influence of L1 backgrounds on EAL readers' strategy use.
Other research syntheses showed that EAL readers actively used (meta)cognitive strategies to make sense of what they read while
transferring comprehension strategies from their L1 reading experiences to their L2 reading (Dressler & Kamil, 2006; García, 2000).
Additionally, EAL readers' linguistic backgrounds, prior knowledge, and L1 reading proficiency could influence their use of com-
prehension strategies when reading in L2 (Brantmeier, 2002; Cisco & Padrón, 2012; Singhal, 2001; Verhoeven, 2011). These
syntheses provided a somewhat partial understanding of EAL readers' comprehension strategies not only because the scope of the
reviews was established only on a particular group of EAL readers (e.g., adolescents, college students), but also because EAL readers'
comprehension strategy use was examined as one subset of reading processes. Building on the previous scholarly efforts, we aimed to
investigate the characteristics of EAL readers' strategy use, as evidenced in the studies published since Fitzgerald's (1995) review.
With a comprehensive overview of EAL readers' (meta)cognitive strategies during reading, we hope to share the knowledge generated
in previous studies conducted in a wide range of EAL learning contexts.

2. Method

2.1. Data collection

In this review of EAL readers' use of reading comprehension strategies, we focused on the studies that: (a) were conducted in
bilingual, English-as-a-second-language (ESL), or English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) contexts; (b) focused on reading comprehen-
sion in reading coherent passages rather than at the sentence or word level, and; (c) did not focus on the effectiveness of instructional
approaches to promote EAL readers’ use of comprehension strategies.
Fig. 1 PRISMA flow chart (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, & Altman, 2009) shows our data collection and analysis processes. To locate
studies published in peer-reviewed journals, we first used three databases, including Educational Research Information Center
(ERIC), Academic Search Complete (ASC), and Language and Linguistic Behavior Abstract (LLBA). Because studies examining EAL
readers' comprehension strategies were published in a wide range of journals in various disciplinary areas (e.g., linguistics, reading,
psychology, and English language learning), these three databases allowed us to access comprehensive lists of articles. Because
Fitzgerald's (1995) review included studies published until 1993, we limited our search to the articles published between 1993 and
2019. The search terms included bilingual*, biliterate*, multilingual*, multiliterate*, English-as-a-second-language (ESL), English-as-
a-foreign-language (EFL), English language learner* (ELL), English-as-an-additional language (EAL), reading process*, reading
strateg*, comprehension strateg*, metacognitive strateg*, reading comprehension, and cognitive strateg*. The initial search resulted
in approximately 5370 items across three databases.
Considering the selection criteria discussed above, we first identified approximately 268 studies from the focal databases by
reviewing titles and abstracts. Within the list of identified studies, we re-examined purposes and research questions to finalize the
focal studies for this review (N = 179). We also examined references of articles identified for the current review and previous

2
K. Song, et al. Educational Research Review 29 (2020) 100308

Fig. 1. The data collection and analysis process.

research syntheses on ESL reading processes to search for additional studies. Our choice of peer-reviewed journals might have
resulted in missing some studies in research anthologies, but the breath of the studies included in this review may compensate for this
limitation.

2.2. Data sources and analysis

We finalized our identification process with 179 studies. In our pilot review with the studies (n = 21) conducted in the U.S., we
developed categories to group studies by considering purposes, research questions, and findings. As we categorized the rest of the
corpus with the categories developed in our pilot review, we compared and contrasted the categories to modify and refine them by
adding subcategories and consolidating some categories into one. It was necessary to categorize some studies into two or three
different clusters because they addressed more than one aspect of EAL readers’ strategy use. We discussed the finalized categories in
the findings.
After sorting the studies, we identified each study's participants, participants' L1, research questions, methodological approaches
(i.e., data collection approaches, text types, data analysis), and key findings to examine similarities and differences across studies. In
this process, we noticed there were two significant methodological trends in examining EAL readers' comprehension strategies. By
using questionnaires or surveys, one group of studies focused on measuring participants' metacognitive awareness of their use of
comprehension strategies. The other group examined readers' actual use of comprehension strategies during a reading task through
qualitative approaches (e.g., think-aloud protocol, cloze test, observation, and retrospective interview after a reading task). Although
a questionnaire provides an extensive list of possible comprehension strategies that readers may use, it may not fully demonstrate
how readers coordinate strategies during a reading task (Afflerbach & Cho, 2009). Approaches to examine on-task reading strategies
can provide an understanding of EAL readers' intricate and sophisticated ways of using comprehension strategies (Afflerbach & Cho,

3
K. Song, et al. Educational Research Review 29 (2020) 100308

Table 1
Distribution of studies across clusters by contexts.
Themes K-12 Postsecondary

Bilingual/ESL EFL ESL EFL

EAL Readers' Characteristics & Comprehension Strategy Use L1 vs. L2 reading 7 2 6 3

EAL readers vs. monolinguals 2 1 1 0
Different L1s 0 0 2 0
Role of Languages 1 1 4 0
Reading Proficiency & strategy use 6 3 3 14
Task Types & Comprehension Strategy Use Reading for specific goals 0 0 6 12
Online reading 2 0 5 3

2009; Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995). Therefore, we focused only on the studies using qualitative approaches that examined on-task
reading comprehension strategies. With the final 70 studies, we examined and synthesized the findings within each category and
contexts (i.e., bilingual, ESL, EFL). We organized the findings by each category developed in our analysis. Appendix A presents the
summaries of the studies included in this review.

3. Findings

The target population in the focal studies encompassed K-12 students and those in postsecondary education in bilingual, ESL, and
EFL contexts. Among seventeen studies conducted in K-12 settings (2nd-12th grades), thirteen were set in either bilingual or ESL
contexts (e.g., Malaysia, Singapore, U.S.A.), and four in EFL contexts (e.g., China, Netherlands, Taiwan). The population identified as
bilinguals included those who had experiences in transitional bilingual education in the United States and those who spoke other
languages at home but started receiving formal education in English in Singapore. However, students who spoke languages other than
English but received ESL service were identified as ELLs.
Adult participants in focal studies (n = 53) included students seeking degrees in higher education and those enrolled in an English
language program. Twenty-five studies were conducted in ESL contexts (e.g., Canada, Malaysia, U.K., U.S.A.), whereas 28 were in EFL
contexts (e.g., China, Iran, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Taiwan). The population in postsecondary education varied in their ages
(17–67 years old), L1 backgrounds (e.g., Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Spanish, Persian), educational backgrounds (e.g., under-
graduates, graduates, adult education), and experiences with learning EAL.
Considering the research foci and findings, we identified seven categories: (a) comparison of the strategy use in L1 and L2 reading;
(b) comparison of EAL readers' and monolinguals' comprehension strategy use; (c) different L1 groups' strategy use; (d) the role of languages in
the strategy use; (e) the relationship between reading proficiency and comprehension strategy use; (f) strategies in reading with goals, and; (g)
online reading. Table 1 shows the distribution of the studies across categories by contexts. Please note that some studies were coded
more than once. In the following section, we present the findings by grouping the categories into two themes. The first theme focuses
on the impact of EAL readers’ characteristics on the comprehension strategy uses, whereas the second theme addresses the influence
of task types on the comprehension strategy use.

3.1. Learner characteristics and comprehension strategy use

The studies in this theme highlighted how EAL readers' linguistic backgrounds influenced their use of comprehension strategies
and how EAL readers' L2 reading proficiency was related to their use of comprehension strategies. The studies in this theme generally
used narrative, expository, and argumentative texts, but the studies conducted in postsecondary settings employed expository texts or
academic texts more frequently than narrative texts. Five categories belonged to this theme: (a) the comparison of the strategy use in
L1 and L2 reading; (b) comparison of EAL readers' and monolinguals' comprehension strategy use; (c) different L1 groups’ com-
prehension strategy use; (d) the role of languages in the comprehension strategy use; and (e) the relationship between reading
proficiency and comprehension strategy use. The following sections present the findings of each category in this theme.

3.1.1. Comparison of the strategy use in L1 and L2 reading

The studies in this category examined differences and similarities in EAL readers' comprehension strategy use in L1 and L2 reading
across all learning contexts. The focal studies drew on the notion of transfer that explains the influence of L1 reading experiences,
expertise, and skills on L2 reading. In these studies, participants' L1 was considered as a stronger language, whereas English (L2) was
developing. First, most studies in this cluster found that EAL readers used similar reading strategies when reading in L1 and L2
(Bakhshalinezhad, Nikou, & Bonyadi, 2015; Calero-Breckheimer & Geotz, 1993; Davis & Bistodeau, 1993; García, 1998; Jiménez,
García, & Pearson, 1996; Kong, 2006; Lin & Yu, 2015; Maeng, 2005; Pritchard & O'Hara, 2008; Stevenson, Schoonen, & de Glopper,
2007; Tang, 1997; Yamashita, 2002; Yau, 2009). Some studies concluded that such similarities explained the transfer of compre-
hension strategies developed in L1 to L2 reading. However, the other studies discussed that it was difficult to prove how such transfer
occurred because it was challenging to prove which strategies were transferred from one language to the other without understanding
the ontogeny of the reading strategy development.

4
K. Song, et al. Educational Research Review 29 (2020) 100308

Second, some studies revealed that EAL readers used a more extensive range of reading strategies more frequently in L2 reading
than in L1 reading to resolve issues in reading, showing that in L1 reading, readers encounter fewer problems at the lower-level
processes (Alsheikh, 2011; Alsheikh & Mokhtari, 2011; Hardin, 2001; Lin & Yu, 2015; Perry, 2013; Tang, 1997). Furthermore, several
studies indicated that EAL readers used particular types of strategies more frequently when reading in one language than the other.
For example, metacognitive reading strategies to monitor and evaluate reading processes and higher-level cognitive comprehension
strategies (e.g., evaluating the coherence of a text, monitoring reading processes) were more frequently used in L1 reading than L2
(Hardin, 2001; Jiménez et al., 1996; Lin & Yu, 2015; Pritchard & O'Hara, 2008; Stevenson et al., 2007; Yamashita, 2002; Yau, 2009).
However, EAL readers tended to use more lower-level strategies such as guessing unfamiliar words, analyzing syntactic features, and
rereading or paraphrasing when reading in L2 than in L1 (Kong, 2006; Lin & Yu, 2015; Maeng, 2005; Pritchard & O'Hara, 2008;
Stevenson et al., 2007; Yamashita, 2002).
Overall, because EAL readers may encounter more comprehension problems in L2 reading than in L1, they may use compre-
hension strategies more frequently in L2 reading than in L1 reading. EAL readers may not need to use as many strategies in L1 reading
as in L2 reading because L1 reading is more automatic than L2 reading. EAL readers can access higher-level comprehension strategies
in L1 reading but tend to rely on lower-level comprehension strategies in L2 reading more frequently than in L1 reading to resolve
comprehension problems.
Several studies demonstrated that reading proficiency in both languages seemed to be related to EAL readers' strategy use across
languages (Gómez & Sanjosé, 2012; Hardin, 2001; Lin & Yu, 2015; Yamashita, 2002). Overall, L1 reading proficiency was positively
related to the strategy use in L2 reading, implying that readers with higher L1 reading proficiency were likely to use more com-
prehension strategies when reading in L2 than readers with lower L1 reading proficiency because they knew how to use various
comprehension strategies. However, not all EAL readers with higher L1 reading proficiency used comprehension strategies in L2
reading more effectively than those with lower L1 reading proficiency. Instead, EAL readers’ L2 reading proficiency had a stronger
effect on L2 reading strategy use than their L1 reading proficiency. Thus, low L2 reading proficiency might hinder EAL readers from
applying their reading strategies developed in L1 reading to L2 reading.

3.1.2. Comparison of EAL readers' and monolinguals’ comprehension strategy use

Four studies examined differences and similarities between EAL readers' and monolingual readers’ operation of comprehension
strategies. Whereas three studies (i.e., Jiménez, García, & Pearson, 1995, 1996; Carrell, Carson, & Zhe, 1993) compared readers
speaking EAL and monolingual English speakers, one study (i.e., Stevenson et al., 2007) compared monolingual Dutch middle school
students and Dutch-Turkish bilinguals in reading EFL texts. Across the studies, it was evident that both groups used similar types of
cognitive and metacognitive comprehension strategies. Although there are only a few studies in this cluster, this aspect was also
similar to the findings reported in the previous research syntheses (i.e., Cisco & Padrón, 2012; Dressler & Kamil, 2006; Fitzgerald,
1995).
Across three studies, the differences between those EAL readers and monolingual English speakers in their comprehension
strategy use seemed to be related to their choices and ways of coordinating strategies. For example, EAL readers paid more attention
to unfamiliar words and the surface meaning of a text than monolingual readers, whereas monolingual readers were likely to reflect
on and reinterpret content more than EAL readers did. Additionally, EAL readers appeared to encounter more comprehension pro-
blems and use strategies more visibly than monolingual counterparts as revealed in their think-alouds, whereas monolingual readers
were likely to resolve comprehension problems more frequently than bilingual readers. Finally, EAL readers used additional strategies
that allowed them to activate their linguistic experiences and resources. These strategies included translating, using cognates, and
transferring prior-knowledge obtained in L1 to L2 reading. The studies focusing on EAL readers' language use in their comprehension
processes further expanded EAL readers’ additional strategies for meaning construction in reading.

3.1.3. Different L1 groups’ reading strategy use

Two studies examined the strategy use of EAL readers with different L1s when reading in L2, focusing on postsecondary learners
in order to understand how differences in L1 backgrounds influenced their choice of comprehension strategies. These studies hinted
that each group of learners speaking in different L1s relied on different types of comprehension strategies (Abbott, 2006; Bang &
Zhao, 2007). By focusing on Chinese adult ESL learners' and Arabic learners’ comprehension strategy use during a reading test,
Abbott (2006) suggested that Chinese learners tended to focus on figuring out the lexical meaning of unfamiliar words and analyzing
syntactic structures while paying attention to local details. However, Arabic speakers relied on strategies to help them focus on the
gist, main idea, and embedded meaning of a text. Comparing the strategy use of Mandarin and Korean speaking international
graduate students in a U.S. based university, Bang and Zhao (2007) discussed differences in the types of comprehension strategies
used by these L1 groups. Korean readers used bilingual strategies such as translating to make sense of what they read and consulting
with a bilingual dictionary while engaging in word analysis by using their knowledge of phoneme-graphene relationships. Con-
trastingly, Chinese readers tried to avoid translation in recalling and used context clues to figure out unfamiliar words by creating
mental images. Such differences may be guided by their experiences with L1 literacy and the characteristics of the L1 writing system,
L2 learning contexts, and linguistic backgrounds (Parry, 1996). However, due to the paucity of research, it was challenging to
determine the reasons why such differences existed between learners from different L1 backgrounds.
Comparing different L1 groups' comprehension strategy use in reading L2 could provide insights into how differently EAL readers'
first language and literacy experiences may influence their use and preferences of comprehension strategies when reading in L2.
However, an in-depth analysis of different L1 groups' strategy use in L2 reading may require insider knowledge of each L1 group's
linguistic characteristics, sociocultural experiences, and educational experiences in L1 and L2. Additionally, such a comparison

5
K. Song, et al. Educational Research Review 29 (2020) 100308

should be made cautiously not to create a stereotypical understanding of different L1 groups' use of comprehension strategies.

3.1.4. The role of languages in the strategy use

Seven studies focused on EAL readers' use of their two languages, as evidenced in their think-alouds during reading in order to
examine how EAL readers took advantage of bilingual strategies (e.g., translating, using cognates) and other linguistic resources
(García & Godina, 2017; Kwon & Schallert, 2016; Seng & Hashim, 2006; Upton, 1997; Upton & Lee-Thompson, 2001; Yau, 2011). The
studies were conducted both in K-12 and postsecondary ESL contexts, but not in postsecondary EFL contexts. Across the studies, it
was evident that EAL readers used their linguistic resources from both languages to make sense of a text when reading in L2. EAL
readers used translation and code-mixing to deconstruct and rephrase the meaning of unfamiliar or challenging words and phrases in
texts written in L2 by constructing their thinking in their L1. Furthermore, participants used their L1 to fix content-related difficulties
and to monitor and evaluate their reading processes. In their study with advanced EAL readers (Korean international graduate
students), Kwon and Schallert (2016) particularly noted that participants accessed both of their two languages to refine and clarify
meaning in L1 reading as well as in L2 reading. Furthermore, EAL readers' use of their L1 during L2 reading in their think-alouds
appeared to reduce affective barriers when they handled cognitive challenges (Seng & Hashim, 2006). In sum, EAL readers’ L1 and L2
languages play an integrative and facilitative role in their meaning-making processes during reading.
In examining EAL readers' access to their two languages in connection with their L2 proficiency, studies showed somewhat
contradictory phenomena. Some studies reported that less proficient readers relied more on translating and using their L1 in their
think-alouds than proficient readers did (Ghavamnia, Ketabi & Tavakoli, 2013; Lin & Yu, 2015; Upton, 1997; Upton & Lee-Thompson,
2001). By comparing postsecondary students in an ESL program with those in degree programs, Upton (1997) and Upton and Lee-
Thompson (2001) confirmed that ESL learners used their L1 more frequently than their counterparts, insinuating that the extent of
EAL readers' reliance on L1 during L2 reading might depend on their L2 reading proficiency. Contrastingly, Yau (2011) reported that
proficient high school EFL readers employed translation more often than less proficient readers to facilitate their meaning-making
processes. Other studies also alluded that accessing both languages during a reading process may be an individual reader's deliberate
and strategic choice regardless of their language proficiency (García & Godina, 2017; Hardin, 2001; Kwon & Schallert, 2016; Seng &
Hashim, 2006; Zhang, 2001).
In sum, the studies in this group illuminated EAL readers' use of L1 and L2 as essential to their use of (meta)cognitive compre-
hension strategies across age groups. EAL readers' access to both of their languages during reading seems to activate their cognitive
flexibility not only when resolving problems such as unfamiliar words and difficulties with ideas during reading, but also when
engaging in higher-order thinking and managing their comprehension processes. However, more research is necessary to understand
how EAL readers’ proficiency in L2 is related to their use of linguistic resources from their L1 and L2 in their reading processes.

3.1.5. The relationship between reading proficiency and strategy use

EAL readers' use of comprehension strategies according to reading proficiency was examined most frequently in the focal studies
across all four contexts. Nine studies were conducted in K-12 ESL and EFL contexts, and 17 in postsecondary EFL and ESL contexts.
Most studies in this category compared students with advanced reading proficiency in L2 with those with developing L2 reading
proficiency. Hardin (2001) and Yamashita (2002) considered reading proficiency in learners' both languages as criteria for grouping
participants, whereas Stevenson et al. (2007) only considered participants’ L1 reading levels. Two studies (i.e., Brooks, 2016; Kamhi-
Stein, 1998) focused only on students identified as long-term ELLs with limited reading proficiency in English.
Overall, most studies demonstrated that proficient L2 readers used a more comprehensive range of comprehension strategies than
less proficient L2 readers, relying on different types of comprehension strategies from those used by less proficient readers
(Ahmadian, Poulaki, & Farahani, 2016; Alkhaleefah, 2017; Atari & Radwan, 2009; Bakhshalinezhad et al., 2015; Campos, 2012;
Ghavamnia, Ketabi, & Tavakoli, 2013; Gómez & Sanjosé, 2012; Green, 2004; Hardin, 2001; Hijikata, Nakatani, & Shimizu, 2013;
Jiménez et al., 1996, 1995; Kasemsap & Lee, 2015; Ketabi, Ghavamnia, & Rezazadeh, 2012; Khonamri & Kojidi, 2011; Kim, 2019; Li
& Chun, 2015; Lin & Yu, 2015; Phakiti, 2003; Rao, Gu, & Zhang, 2007; Wang, 2016; Yamashita, 2002; Yang, 2006; Yau, 2009; Zhang,
Gu, & Hu, 2008). For example, proficient readers tended to use higher-order thinking strategies to help them analyze, evaluate,
question, and infer, while undertaking complex, multilevel processes to access the in-depth meaning of a text. Additionally, they
monitored their reading processes more frequently by identifying and resolving problems and confirming their understanding than
less proficient readers. Contrastingly, less proficient readers engaged in surface-level, local processing by attempting to decode
unfamiliar words and identifying the literal meanings of a text. Even if less proficient L2 readers used metacognitive strategies to
evaluate their reading processes intermittently, they might fail to resolve problems or recheck their problem-solving. Nevertheless,
Brooks (2016) and Kamhi-Stein (1998) further demonstrated that bilingual students identified as long-term English language learners
with lower reading proficiency in English were capable of engaging in a complex meaning-making process in reading by using various
reading strategies.
Regarding the frequency of proficient readers' and less proficient readers’ comprehension strategy use, the focal studies de-
monstrated somewhat conflicting findings. Several studies indicated that proficient readers employed comprehension strategies more
frequently than less proficient readers. Interestingly, however, a few studies demonstrated that less proficient readers used reading
strategies more frequently than proficient readers because they encountered more problems due to their limited linguistic knowledge
(Hijikata et al., 2013; Yang, 2006).
A few studies examined the developmental aspects of L2 readers' use of reading strategies. Zhang et al. (2008) compared different
age groups of elementary students in Singapore to demonstrate that older readers utilized a more extensive range of reading strategies
more frequently than younger readers. Whereas older readers could facilitate reading strategies to control their reading processes and

6
K. Song, et al. Educational Research Review 29 (2020) 100308

comprehend text, younger readers tended to focus on decoding unknown words and hardly used metacognitive strategies. Examining
the comprehension strategy use of undergraduate translator trainees at different levels in Saudi Arabia, Atari and Radwan (2009)
demonstrated that students in higher tracks tended to use more metacognitive strategies than those at the lower tracks. To sum, these
two studies seemed to suggest that as biliterate students’ linguistic knowledge develops and as their experience with L2 reading
increases, they further develop an ability to coordinate comprehension strategies to manage their reading processes and to engage in
more profound meaning-making in reading.
Overall, research in this cluster demonstrated that EAL readers' L2 reading proficiency is relevant to their strategy use in L2
reading. The higher EAL readers develop their L2 reading proficiency, the higher-level comprehension strategies including meta-
cognitive strategies they would use more effectively. As shown in studies comparing the strategy use in L1 and L2 reading, proficient
L2 readers' language knowledge in L2 may allow them to facilitate reading strategies in a sophisticated way to pursue a deeper
meaning and monitor their meaning-making processes while transferring knowledge and strategies acquired previously.
Contrastingly, less proficient L2 readers’ limited language knowledge may lead them to encounter more problems with unknown
words and unfamiliar syntactical features. Although they can use various reading strategies, they employ basic thinking strategies to
figure out local meaning more frequently than higher-level comprehension strategies.

3.2. Task types and comprehension strategy use

The studies in this theme explored EAL readers' comprehension strategy use in different task types. The studies in this theme
employed various reading activities such as reading multiple texts, reading with specific purposes, reading web-based articles, and
searching for information. Some studies in this cluster examined how reading tasks in a specific goal-setting impacted EAL readers’
comprehension strategy use, whereas the other focused on the reading of online materials. Two categories were included in this
theme: (a) strategies in reading with goals, and (b) comprehension strategy use in online reading.

3.2.1. Strategies in reading with goals

Eighteen studies in this cluster examined EAL readers' comprehension strategy use in relation to reading goals. All studies in this
cluster were conducted in higher education contexts. Three studies examined the EAL readers' preference in comprehension strategies
in connection with their goal orientations (He, 2008; Noor, 2010; Zhou, 2011). The other studies examined how EAL readers used
comprehension strategies in various reading tasks such as reading for academic purposes (Chou, 2013; Hijikata et al., 2013; Li &
Munby, 1996; Trenchs Parera, 2006), writing-integrated reading tasks (McCulloch, 2013; McGrath, Berggren, & Mežek, 2016;
McCulloch. 2013; Plakans, 2009; Zhao & Hirvela, 2015), comprehension tests (Abbott, 2006; Ahmadian et al., 2016; Chou, 2013;
Cohen & Upton, 2007; Lee, 2015; Phakiti, 2003), reading tasks with specific goals (Horiba, 2013), and reading multiple texts for
information synthesis (Karimi & Alibakhshi, 2014). Overall, the types of reading strategies identified in the focal studies were the
same as those discussed in the other studies, indicating that reading with specific goals demanded similar cognitive and metacog-
nitive operations. That is, readers' goal orientations and different task types may influence readers' selection of particular compre-
hension strategies for their reading tasks and their ways of orchestrating those strategies throughout reading processes. Below, we
discuss the characteristics of readers’ comprehension strategy use in L2 reading with specific goals.
First, EAL readers' goal orientation or readers' reading goals influenced their choice of comprehension strategies. He (2008)
indicated that Taiwanese college EFL readers with strong mastery goals were prone to use higher-level comprehension strategies and
metacognitive strategies. In contrast, those with strong performance goals and low mastery goals relied on lower-level strategies and
hardly engaged in meaning-making and monitoring their comprehension. Similarly, Noor (2010) demonstrated that Malaysian
college ESL readers with intrinsic motivation engaged in deeper-level meaning-making of a text by using higher-order comprehension
strategies, whereas those with extrinsic motivation were prone to seek surface-level meaning. Zhou’s (2011) study with Chinese
university EFL readers showed that readers with a goal to learn were inclined to use strategies to help them identify the global
meaning of a text. Contrastingly, readers with a goal to improve their English proficiency tended to use strategies to resolve issues
with lower-level meaning-making by guessing the meaning of unfamiliar words and paraphrasing. Thus, EAL readers' goal-setting
facilitates comprehension processes differently, guiding readers to choose different comprehension strategies.
Additionally, a particular reading task elicited specific comprehension strategies more than the others, and different tasks in-
fluence the ways learners configured and coordinated strategies to complete tasks. Generally, reading for discipline-specific purposes
elicited more cognitive and metacognitive strategies than reading for general academic purposes because EAL readers engaged in
meaning-making with disciplinary-specific terms and discourse features and structures (Chou, 2013; Hijikata et al., 2013; Li &
Munby, 1996; Trenchs Parera, 2006). When reading for different purposes, EAL readers relied on the strategies to evaluate and
analyze the text in a reading task requiring critiquing, whereas they tended to use strategies to analyze words and sentences in a
reading task to find words expressions or to visualize (Horiba, 2013). Reading multiple texts for information integration elicited a
more exhaustive range of strategies than reading a single text (Karimi & Alibakhshi, 2014). During writing-integrated reading tasks,
not only did EAL readers pay attention to text features and structures of texts, but they also analyzed and evaluated ideas in texts
intending to use these text features and ideas in their writing (McCulloch, 2013; McGrath et al., 2016; Plakans, 2009; Zhao & Hirvela,
2015). Furthermore, EAL readers coordinated different comprehension strategies across different reading and writing stages by
selecting appropriate strategies to support specific tasks in each stage (Trenchs Parera, 2006).
Finally, in a test-taking context, each test item elicited different types of comprehension strategies due to a target skill to be tested
in the item (Abbott, 2006; Cohen & Upton, 2007; Lee, 2015). For example, EAL readers tended to use higher-level comprehension
strategies for the items focusing on main ideas, themes or concepts, whereas the items asking about lexical meaning and literal

7
K. Song, et al. Educational Research Review 29 (2020) 100308

meaning evoked lower-level comprehension strategies. Furthermore, test management strategies are employed to support readers’
monitoring of test-taking processes (Chou, 2013; Lee, 2015). These strategies included rereading test items for clarification, elim-
inating options to look for a correct answer, using peripheral information on the test, and using the prior-knowledge about a test
format.

3.2.2. Comprehension strategy use in online reading

Ten studies examined EAL readers’ use of comprehension strategies while reading online materials in two different forms: the
strategy use while reading hyper-texts on the screen (Akyel & Erçetin, 2009; Chou, 2012; Huang, Chern, & Lin, 2009; Ketabi,
Ghavamnia, & Rezazade, 2012; Konishi, 2003; Poole, 2011); and searching for and reading web-based materials (Park & Kim, 2011,
2017a, 2017b; Park, Yang, & Hsieh, 2014). Eight studies were conducted in postsecondary contexts and two with upper elementary
ESL students. Text types used in the studies included informational texts and essays published on the Internet. All studies reported
that similar cognitive and metacognitive comprehension strategies were used in online reading and in reading printed materials.
These studies concluded that because online reading, like print-based reading, involves written texts, the strategies acquired in
printed reading contexts could be transferred and adjusted to the online reading contexts. However, the online text environment
evoked additional strategies necessary to navigate resources and engage in constant decision-making to select appropriate resources
and to go back and forth between different subtopics within a text (Park & Kim, 2011, 2017a, 2017b; Akyel & Erçetin, 2009; Konishi,
2003; Park et al., 2014). EAL readers also accessed online resources such as glossaries, bilingual online dictionaries, other relevant
references, and language services to assist their comprehension and to facilitate their search processes (Park & Kim, 2011, 2017a,
2017b; Chou, 2012; Park et al., 2014; Poole, 2011). They also used cognitive strategies to compare, contrast, and synthesize in-
formation from multiple texts and multimodal resources encountered in the online reading environment (Konishi, 2003; Park & Kim,
2011; 2017a; 2017b). A few studies have noted that EAL readers seemed to use more comprehension strategies to aid them in
overcoming challenges during online reading and monitoring their reading processes than in printed-text reading because they felt
constraints on their reading comprehension in an online text environment (Chou, 2012; Huang et al., 2009; Ketabi, Ghavamnia, &
Rezazade, 2012; Poole, 2011).
Overall, the studies in this cluster provided insights into EAL readers’ application of comprehension strategies to online reading
and their utilization of additional strategies to assist the navigation of hyperlinked texts and the selection of necessary information.
Additionally, using bilingual online resources (e.g., dictionary, websites in languages other than English) can be considered as unique
strategies that EAL readers may use in an online context.

4. Discussion

Overall, the focal studies in this review revealed several aspects of EAL readers' use of comprehension strategies. EAL readers (a)
use similar types of comprehension strategies as monolingual readers do; (b) use similar comprehension strategies when reading in
their two languages but rely on different kinds of strategies in L1 reading from in L2 reading, (c) use higher-order comprehension
strategies more frequently as they develop higher reading proficiency in L2; (d) access their two languages during L2 reading to make
sense of texts; (e); select and coordinate comprehension strategies when reading for specific purposes, and; (f) use specialized
strategies to access the online hypertexts. The research addressed in this review suggests that no particular characteristics that could
differentiate EAL readers' use of comprehension strategies in a particular age group or a specific learning context, as evidenced in
previous research syntheses (i.e., Cisco & Padrón, 2012; Dressler & Kamil, 2006; Fitzgerald, 1995; García, 2000). As for young
bilingual students who acquired two languages at the relatively earlier stage in their life, a paucity of the studies made it challenging
to distinguish any distinctive features of young bilingual readers’ comprehension strategy use. The similar findings across different
contexts might suggest that the comprehension strategy use by individuals using two languages during reading may share more
similar qualities rather than differences regardless of their ages and language learning contexts. Even if the studies were conducted
not in all contexts, these studies could still provide pedagogical considerations for EAL readers in different contexts.
Among these six aspects of EAL readers' comprehension strategy use discussed above, the research described in this review
underscored the influence of EAL readers' linguistic experiences as biliterate readers on their strategy use. Notably, the notion of
translanguaging may be useful to explain this specialness of EAL readers' reading processes. As García and Wei (2014) noted, EAL
readers mobilize their linguistic repertoires to strengthen and deepen their meaning-making in social interactions. As noted in several
studies in this review, during reading, EAL readers use bilingual reading strategies (e.g., translating, using cognates, code-mixing
during think-alouds) and linguistic resources from their two languages to make sense of what they read in L2 (Bernhardt, 2011). EAL
readers' use of their two languages can mediate and facilitate their meaning-making, evaluating, and monitoring in reading, playing a
critical role in their L2 reading comprehension processes (John-Steiner, 1985; Vygotsky, 1986). Therefore, in a classroom context,
EAL readers should be encouraged to capitalize on their literacy experiences and linguistic resources for strengthening their com-
prehension in L2 reading (Creese & Blackledge, 2010; Lewis, Jones, & Baker, 2012). Although using two languages for reading
processes may not be explicitly taught in certain learning contexts, teachers can acknowledge the value of EAL readers’ access to their
first language for meaning-making so that EAL readers can utilize their linguistic repertoires and bilingual strategies to deepen their
understanding of a text.
Additionally, it was evident that EAL readers are active meaning makers during reading by using various cognitive, metacog-
nitive, and bilingual specific strategies. As revealed in a few studies and previous research syntheses (i.e., Fitzgerald, 1995; Dressler &
Kamil, 2006), EAL readers may rely more on lower-level strategies to access local meaning (e.g., analyzing unknown words) than
monolingual English-speaking readers when reading in English. EAL′ readers' use of lower-level strategies could be considered as EAL

8
K. Song, et al. Educational Research Review 29 (2020) 100308

readers’ strengths as readers rather than their weaknesses because it may show that EAL readers actively try to make sense of the
literal meaning of a text. However, such an inclination may hinder them from accessing deeper processing of textual meaning and
engaging in analyzing, synthesizing, interpreting, and transforming information. As demonstrated in focal studies focusing on the
relationship between reading proficiency and strategy use, EAL readers can develop their skills to use higher-order thinking strategies
as their reading proficiency improves. However, this does not mean that EAL readers need to wait until they develop reading
proficiency in L2 to engage in deeper-level thinking. Instead, higher-order cognitive strategies and metacognitive strategies could be
taught and practiced while EAL readers develop their reading proficiency. In order to encourage EAL learners to activate and co-
ordinate higher-order comprehension strategies in reading in L2, it is imperative for teachers to employ instructional approaches to
scaffold EAL readers to engage in using higher-level comprehension strategies and to provide reading tasks that could encourage EAL
readers to engage in higher-order thinking.
In continuation of the previous point, we noticed that a goal setting and task types (e.g., integrated reading and writing tasks,
reading with a goal, online reading) seem to facilitate EAL readers’ choice and coordination of various comprehension strategies for
deeper-level meaning-making. The focal studies, albeit conducted mostly in postsecondary settings, revealed that when engaging in a
reading task with a specific goal, EAL readers tend to use strategies to analyze, interpret, and evaluate what they read. Assigned goals
could mediate learning processes by activating a goal-setting and self-efficacy because goal specificity can strengthen and promote
learning, self-regulatory, and evaluative reactions (Locke & Latham, 2002; Schunk, 1996, 2003). Thus, EAL readers could benefit
from authentic reading tasks with specific goals or writing integrated reading tasks because these tasks require EAL readers to engage
in higher-order thinking.

5. Implications for future research

The research discussed in this review suggests that EAL readers engage in complex meaning-making processes during reading by
using comprehension strategies at multiple levels and utilizing their knowledge in L1 and L2. However, additional aspects still need to
be considered to expand our understanding of the complexities of EAL readers' comprehension strategy use and to generate peda-
gogical implications. Despite the increasing number of K-12 students learning EAL both in ESL and EFL contexts across the world,
there is a paucity in the research on K-12 EAL readers. We still do not know much about how K-12 learners develop skills and
strategies to read in their additional language. Particularly, EAL readers' use of comprehension strategies in reading tasks with
specific goals has hardly been examined in research. In an era of high-stakes accountability, all K-12 learners, including EAL readers,
are expected to read multiple texts and to complete integrated reading-writing tasks for career and college readiness. Therefore,
future research can examine how K-12 EAL readers select and coordinate comprehension strategies in reading tasks with a specific
goal (e.g., reading multiple texts to synthesize information, writing-integrated reading) to provide an understanding of how reading
with goals could impact K-12 EAL readers’ engagement in reading.
Although research has examined adult EAL readers' use of comprehension strategies in reading online texts to some degree, EAL
readers' strategy use to navigate online sources still needs to be examined further. The current research on EAL readers' online reading
has a few limitations to be considered. In several studies, an online reading task was referred to reading texts downloaded from
websites on a screen or reading texts designed with features such as hyperlinks and annotations. Online reading, however, entails
more than reading online materials with hyperlinks on screen. Instead, it encompasses navigating, selecting, evaluating, and com-
paring information on a topic by using multiple sources (Cho, 2014; Cho & Afflerbach, 2017; Coiro & Dobler, 2007). Secondly, many
studies focusing on online reading paid more attention to EAL readers' reading in L2 in the online context than their reading of
multilingual texts. Although English is the most common language on the Internet (Internet World Stats, 2019), EAL readers, as
indicated briefly in a few studies, may access online resources by using their linguistic repertoires for different purposes in different
contexts (Song & Cho, 2019). Therefore, it is particularly imperative to understand ways that EAL readers navigate, analyze, and
synthesize the information of plurilingual and multimodal online resources for their learning (Castek et al., 2008). This line of
research can encourage teachers to understand EAL readers' challenges and opportunities in reading multilingual texts and to develop
ways to incorporate EAL learners’ skills and strategies to explore online resources into the classroom.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100308.

References

∗Abbott, M. L. (2006). ESL reading strategies: Differences in Arabic and Mandarin speaker test performance. Language Learning, 56(4), 633–670.
Afflerbach, P., & Cho, B.-Y. (2009). Identifying and describing constructively responsive comprehension strategies in new and traditional forms of reading. In S. E.
Israel, & G. G. Duffy (Eds.). Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 69–90). New York, NY: Routledge.
Afflerbach, P., Cho, B.-Y., & Kim, J.-Y. (2015). Conceptualizing and assessing higher-order thinking in reading. Theory Into Practice, 54, 203–212.
Afflerbach, P., Cho, B.-Y., Kim, J.-Y., Crassas, M. E., & Doyle, B. (2013). Reading: What else matters besides strategies and skills? The Reading Teacher, 66(6), 440–448.
Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P. D., & Paris, S. G. (2008). Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61(5), 364–373.
∗Ahmadian, M., Poulaki, S., & Farahani, E. (2016). Reading strategies used by high scoring and low scoring IELTS candidates: A think-aloud study. Theory and Practice
in Language Studies, 6(2), 408–416.
∗Akyel, A., & Erçetin, G. (2009). Hypermedia reading strategies employed by advanced learners of English. System: An International Journal of Educational Technology
and Applied Linguistics, 37(1), 136–152.
Alexander, P., Graham, S., & Harris, K. (1998). A perspective on strategy research: Progress and prospects. Educational Psychology Review, 10(2), 129–154.

9
K. Song, et al. Educational Research Review 29 (2020) 100308

∗Alkhaleefah, T. A. (2017). Saudi EFL learners' reported reading problems and strategic processing of text types: A think-aloud case study. Reading Psychology, 38(7),
687–730.
∗Alsheikh, N. O. (2011). Three readers, three languages, three texts: The strategic reading of multilingual and multiliterate readers. The Reading Matrix: An International
Online Journal, 11(1), 34–53.
∗Alsheikh, N. O., & Mokhtari, K. (2011). An examination of the metacognitive reading strategies used by native speakers of Arabic when reading in English and Arabic.
English Language Teaching, 4(2), 151–160.
Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal
(Vol. Eds.), Handbook of reading research V: Vol. 1, (pp. 255–291). New York: Longman, Inc.
∗Atari, O. F., & Radwan, A. A. (2009). A cross-sectional study of translator trainees' L2 reading comprehension skills and strategies. The Interpreter and Translator
Trainer, 3(2), 225–256.
∗Bakhshalinezhad, L., Nikou, F. R., & Bonyadi, A. (2015). Using the think-aloud technique for determining different reading strategies used by Iranian EFL learners.
Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 6(3), 15–22.
∗Bang, H. J., & Zhao, C. G. (2007). Reading strategies used by advanced Korean and Chinese ESL graduate students: A case study. The Reading Matrix, 7(1), 30–50.
Bernhardt, E. B. (1991). Reading development in a second language: Theoretical, empirical, & classroom perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Bernhardt, E. B. (2011). Understanding advanced second language reading. New York, NY: Routledge.
Block, E. (1986). The comprehension strategies of second language readers. Tesol Quarterly, 20(3), 463–494.
Brantmeier, C. (2002). Second language reading strategy research at the secondary and university levels: Variations, disparities, and generalizability. The Reading
Matrix, 2(3)http://www.readingmatrix.com/articles/brantmeier/article.pdf.
∗Brooks, M. (2016). “Tell me what you are thinking”: An investigation of five Latina LTELs constructing meaning with academic texts. Linguistics and Education, 35,
1–14.
∗Calero-Breckheimer, A., & Goetz, E. T. (1993). Reading strategies of biliterate children for English and Spanish texts. Reading Psychology: International Quarterly, 14(3),
177–204.
∗Campos, C. S. (2012). The use of metacognitive strategies in L2 reading. Lenguas Modernas, 40, 125–147.
∗Carrell, P., Carson, J. G., & Zhe, D. (1993). First and second language reading strategies: Evidence from cloze. Reading in a Foreign Language, 10(1), 953–965.
Cartwright, K. B. (2009). The role of cognitive flexibility in reading comprehension: Past, present, and future. In S. E. Israel, & G. G. Duffy (Eds.). Handbook of research
on reading comprehension (pp. 115–139). New York, NY: Routledge.
Castek, J., Leu, D. J., Coiro, J., Gort, M., Henry, L., & Lima, C. (2008). Developing new literacies among multilingual learners in the elementary grades. In L. Parker
(Ed.). Technology-mediated learning environments for young English learners: Connections in and out of school (pp. 111–153). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Cho, B.-Y. (2014). Competent adolescent readers' use of internet reading strategies: A think-aloud study. Cognition and Instruction, 32(3), 253–289.
Cho, B.-Y., & Afflerbach, P. (2017). An evolving perspective of constructively responsive reading comprehension strategies in multilayered digital text environments.
In S. Israel (Ed.). Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 109–134). (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Publications.
∗Chou, I.-C. (2012). Understanding on-screen reading behavior in academic contexts: A case study of five graduate English-as-a-second language students. Computer
Assisted Language Learning, 25(5), 411–433.
∗Chou, M.-H. (2013). Strategy use for reading English for general and specific academic purposes in testing and non-testing contexts. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(2),
175–197.
Cisco, B. K., & Padrón (2012). Investigating vocabulary and reading strategies with middle grades English language learners: A research synthesis. Research in Middle
Level Education, 36(4), 1–23.
Coady, M. R., Harper, C., & de Jong, E. J. (2016). Aiming for equity: Preparing mainstream teachers for inclusion or inclusive classrooms? Tesol Quarterly, 50(2),
340–368.
∗Cohen, A. D., & Upton, T. A. (2007). “I want to go back to the text”: Response strategies on the reading subtest of the new TOEFL. Language Testing, 24(2), 209–250.
Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the
Internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2), 214–257.
Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? The Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 103–115.
∗Davis, J. N., & Bistodeau, L. (1993). How do L1 and L2 reading differ? Evidence from think-aloud protocols. The Modern Language Journal, 77(4), 459–472.
Denton, C., Wolters, C. A., York, M. J., Swanson, E., Kulesz, P. A., & Francis, D. J. (2015). Adolescents' use of reading comprehension strategies: Differences related to
reading proficiency, grade level, and gender. Learning and Individual Differences, 37, 81–95.
van Dijk, T., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Dressler, C., & Kamil, M. (2006). First- and second-language literacy. In D. August, & T. Shanahan (Eds.). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the
national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth (pp. 197–238). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
Fitzgerald, J. (1995). English-as-a-second-language learners' cognitive reading processes: A review of research in the United States. Review of Educational Research,
65(2), 145–190.
Fox, E., & Alexander, P. A. (2009). Text comprehension: A retrospective, perspective, and prospective. In S. E. Israel, & G. G. Duffy (Eds.). Handbook of research on
reading comprehension (pp. 227–239). New York, NY: Routledge.
Gandara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Driscoll, A. (2005). Listening to teachers of English language learners: A survey of California teachers' challenges, experiences, and
professional development needs. Santa Cruz: CA: The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning.
∗García, G. E. (1998). Mexican-American bilingual students' metacognitive reading strategies: What's transferred, unique, problematic? National Reading Conference
Yearbook, 47, 253–263.
García, G. E. (2000). Bilingual children's reading. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Vol. III, (pp. 813–
834). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
∗García, G. E., & Godina, H. (2017). A window into bilingual reading: The bilingual reading practices of fourth grade, Mexican American children who are emergent
bilinguals. Journal of Literacy Research, 49(2), 273–301.
García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
∗Ghavamnia, M., Ketabi, S., & Tavakoli, M. (2013). L2 reading strategies used by Iranian EFL learners: A think-aloud study. Reading Psychology, 34(4), 355–378.
∗Gómez, Á., & Sanjosé, V. (2012). Effectiveness of comprehension monitoring strategies in EFL of nonbilingual Spanish university students’ reading science texts.
RAEL: Revista Electronica de Linguistica Aplicada, 11, 87–103.
Goodman, K. S. (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of Reading Specialist, 6, 126–135.
Graesser, A. C. (2007). An introduction to strategic reading comprehension. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.). Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and
technologies (pp. 3–26). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
∗Green, C. (2004). Profiles of strategic expertise in second language reading. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 1–16.
∗Hardin, V. B. (2001). Transfer and variation in cognitive reading strategies of Latino fourth-grade students in a late-exit bilingual program. Bilingual Research Journal,
25(4), 539–561.
∗He, T. H. (2008). Reading for different goals: The interplay of EFL college students' multiple goals, reading strategy use and reading comprehension. Journal of
Research in Reading, 31(2), 224–242.
Hiebert, E. H., & Bravo, M. (2010). Morphological knowledge and learning to read in English. In D. Wyse, R. Andrews, & J. Hoffman (Eds.). The Routledge international
handbook of English, language and literacy teaching (pp. 87–97). New York, NY: Routledge.
∗Hijikata, Y., Nakatani, Y., & Shimizu, M. (2013). Japanese EFL students' reading processes for academic papers in English. Journal of Education and Learning, 2(1),
70–83.
∗Horiba, Y. (2013). Task-induced strategic processing in L2 text comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 25(2), 98–125.

10
K. Song, et al. Educational Research Review 29 (2020) 100308

∗Huang, H.-C., Chern, C.-I., & Lin, C.-C. (2009). EFL learners' use of online reading strategies and comprehension of texts: An exploratory study. Computers & Education,
52(1), 13–26.
Internet World Stats (2019, April, 30). Internet world users by language. Retrieved from https://www.internetworldstats.com/stats7.htm.
∗Jiménez, R. T., García, G. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1995). Three children, two languages, and strategic reading: Case studies in bilingual/monolingual reading. American
Educational Research Journal, 32(1), 67–97.
∗Jiménez, R. T., García, G. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1996). The reading strategies of bilingual Latina/o students who are successful English readers: Opportunities and
obstacles. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(1), 90–112.
John-Steiner, V. (1985). The road to competence in an alien land: A vygotskian perspective on bilingualism. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.). Culture, communication, and
cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 348–371). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
∗Kamhi-Stein, L. (1998). Profiles of underprepared second-language readers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 41(8), 610–619.
Kanno, Y., & Kangas, S. E. N. (2014). “I'm not going to be, like, for the AP”: English language learners' limited access to advanced college-preparatory courses in high
school. American Educational Research Journal, 51(5), 848–878.
∗Karimi, M. N., & Alibakhshi, G. (2014). EFL learners' text processing strategies across comprehension vs. integration reading task conditions. System, 46, 96–104.
∗Kasemsap, B., & Lee, H. Y. (2015). L2 reading in Thailand: Vocational college students' application of reading strategies to their reading of English texts. The Reading
Matrix, 15(2), 101–117.
∗Ketabi, S., Ghavamnia, M., & Rezazadeh, M. (2012). Hypermedia reading strategies used by Persian graduate students in TEFL: A think-aloud study. The Reading
Matrix: An International Online Journal, 12(1), 39–49.
∗Khonamri, F., & Kojidi, E. K. (2011). Metacognitive awareness and comprehension monitoring in reading ability of Iranian EFL learners. Profile, 13(2), 99–111.
∗Kim, D. (2019). Elementary English learners' use of reading strategies with culturally relevant and culturally distant stories. Journal of Language, Identity and
Education, 18(2), 73–91.
∗Kong, A. (2006). Connections between L1 and L2 readings: Reading strategies used by four Chinese adult readers. The Reading Matrix, 6(2), 19–45.
∗Konishi, M. (2003). Strategies for reading hypertext by Japanese ESL learners. The Reading Matrix, 3(3), 97–117.
Kucan, L., & Beck, I. L. (1996). Four fourth graders thinking aloud: An investigation of genre effects. Journal of Literacy Research, 28(2), 259–287.
∗Kwon, H. J., & Schallert, D. L. (2016). Understanding translanguaging practices through a biliteracy continua framework: Adult biliterates reading academic texts in
their two languages. Bilingual Research Journal, 39(2), 138–151.
Langer, J. A. (1990a). The process of understanding: Reading for literary and informative purposes. Research in the Teaching of English, 24(3), 229–260.
Langer, J. A. (1990b). Meaning construction in school literacy tasks: A study of bilingual students. American Educational Research Journal, 27(3), 427–471.
∗Lee, J.-Y. (2015). Language learner strategy by Chinese-speaking EFL readers when comprehending familiar and unfamiliar texts. Reading in a Foreign Language, 27(1),
71–95.
Lesgold, A. M., & Perfetti, C. A. (1978). Interactive processes in reading comprehension. Discourse Processes, 1(4), 323–336.
Lewis, G., Jones, B., & Baker, C. (2012). Translanguaging: Origins and development from school to street and beyond. Educational Research and Evaluation, 18(7),
641–654.
∗Li, J., & Chun, C. K. W. (2015). Metacognitive knowledge of tertiary-level EFL reading: Case studies in an acquisition-poor context. Chinese Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 38(2), 166–187.
∗Li, S., & Munby, H. (1996). Metacognitive strategies in second language academic reading: A qualitative investigation. English for Specific Purposes, 15(3), 199–216.
∗Lin, L.-C., & Yu, W.-Y. (2015). A think-aloud study of strategy use by EFL college readers reading Chinese and English texts. Journal of Research in Reading, 38(3),
286–306.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57, 705–717.
∗Maeng, U. (2005). A comparative study of reading strategies in L1 and L2: Case study of five Korean graduate students. Language Research, 41(2), 457–490.
∗McCulloch, S. (2013). Investigating the reading-to-write processes and source use of L2 postgraduate students in real-life academic tasks: An exploratory study.
Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(2), 136–147.
∗McGrath, L., Berggren, J., & Mežek, Š. (2016). Reading EAP: Investigating high proficiency L2 university students' strategy use through reading blogs. Journal of
English for Academic Purposes, 22, 152–164.
McNamara, D., & Magliano, J. (2009). Towards a comprehensive model of comprehension. In B. Ross (Vol. Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Vol. 51, (pp.
297–384). New York, NY: Elsevier Science.
McVee, M. B., Dunsmore, K., & Gavelek, J. R. (2005). Schema theory revisited. Review of Educational Research, 75(4), 531–566.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA
statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed1000097.
Nassaji, H. (2003). Higher-level and lower-level text processing skills in advanced ESL reading comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 261–276.
∗Noor, N. M. (2010). ESL learners' reading approaches of an academic expository text. 3L. The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 16(2), 19–46.
Olson, G. M., Mack, R. L., & Duffy, S. A. (1981). Cognitive aspects of genre. Poetics, 10, 283–315.
Paris, S. G., & Myers, M. (1981). Comprehension monitoring, memory, and study strategies of good and poor readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 8(1), 5–22.
∗Park, H. R., & Kim, D. (2011). Reading-strategy use by English as a second language learners in online reading tasks. Computers & Education, 57, 2156–2166.
∗Park, H., & Kim, D. (2017a). English language learners' strategies for reading online texts: Influential factors and patterns of use at home and in school. International
Journal of Educational Research, 82, 63–74.
∗Park, H., & Kim, D. (2017b). English language learners' strategies for reading computer-based texts at home and in school. CALICO Journal, 33(3), 380–409.
∗Park, J., Yang, J., & Hsieh, Y. C. (2014). University level second language readers' online reading and comprehension strategies. Language, Learning and Technology,
18(3), 148–172.
Parry, K. (1996). Culture, literacy, and L2 reading. Tesol Quarterly, 30(4), 665–692.
Pearson, P. D., & Raphael, T. E. (1990). Reading comprehension as a dimension of thinking. In B. F. Jones (Ed.). Dimensions of thinking (pp. 209–240). NJ: Erlbaum.
∗Perry, D. (2013). Comprehension strategies while reading expository texts in Spanish (L1) and English (L2). Psicologia Educativa, 19(2), 75–81.
Pettit, S. K. (2011). Teachers' beliefs about English language learners in the mainstream classroom review of the literature. International Multilingual Research Journal,
5(2), 123–147.
∗Phakiti, A. (2003). A closer look at the relationship of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use to EFL reading achievement test performance. Language Testing, 20(1),
26–56.
∗Plakans, L. (2009). The role of reading strategies in integrated L2 writing tasks. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(4), 252–266.
∗Poole, A. (2011). The online reading strategies use by five successful Taiwanese ESL learners. Asian Anthropology, 10, 65–87.
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
∗Pritchard, R., & O'Hara, S. (2008). Reading in Spanish and English: A comparative study of processing strategies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51(8),
830–838.
∗Rao, Z., Gu, P. Y., Zhang, L. J., & Hu, G. (2007). Reading strategies and approaches to learning of bilingual primary school pupils. Language Awareness, 16(4),
243–262.
Reeves, J. (2006). Secondary teacher attitudes toward including English-language learners in mainstream classrooms. Journal of Educational Research, 99(3), 131–142.
Ruddell, R. B., & Unrau, N. J. (2013). Reading as a motivated meaning-construction process: The reader, the text, and the teacher. In D. E. Alvermann, N. J. Unrau, & R.
B. Ruddell (Eds.). Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 1015–1067). (6th ed.). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Schallert, D. L., & Martin, D. B. (2003). A psychological analysis of what teachers and students do in the language arts classroom. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. R. Squire, & J.
M. Jensen (Eds.). Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (pp. 31–45). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schunk, D. H. (1996). Goal and self-evaluative influences during children's cognitive skill learning. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 359–382.
Schunk, D. H. (2003). Self-efficacy for reading and writing: Influence of modeling, goal setting, and self-evaluation. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19, 159–172.

11
K. Song, et al. Educational Research Review 29 (2020) 100308

∗Seng, G. H., & Hashim, F. (2006). Use of L1 in L2 reading comprehension among tertiary ESL learners. Reading in a Foreign Language, 18(1), 29–54.
Singhal, M. (2001). Reading proficiency, reading strategies, metacognitive awareness and L2 readers. The Reading Matrix, 1(1)http://www.readingmatrix.com/
articles/singhal/index.html.
Song, K., & Cho, B.-Y. (2019). Translanguaging as a (meta)cognitive tool for navigating and learning in the multilingual online environment. In D. G. Pyles, R. M. Rish,
& J. Warner (Eds.). Negotiating place and space through digital literacies (pp. 77–94). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Stahl, S. A., Hynd, C. R., Britton, B. K., & McNish, M. M. (1996). What happens when students read multiple source documents in history? Reading Research Quarterly,
31(4), 430–456.
∗Stevenson, M., Schoonen, R., & de Glopper, K. (2007). Inhibition or compensation?: A multidimensional comparison of reading processes in Dutch and English.
Language Learning, 57, 115–154.
∗Tang, H. (1997). The relationship between reading comprehension processes in L1 and L2. Reading Psychology, 18(3), 249–301.
∗Trenchs Parera, M. (2006). Reading strategies and strategy awareness in three EFL educated readers on English literary texts. Atlantis, 28(2), 69–87.
∗Upton, T. A. (1997). First and second language use in reading comprehension strategies of Japanese ESL students. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second
Language, 3(1)http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume3/ej09/ej09a3/.
∗Upton, T. A., & Lee-Thompson, L. (2001). The role of the first language in second language reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23(4), 469–495.
Verdugo, R. R., & Flores, B. (2007). English-language learners: Key issues. Education and Urban Society, 39(2), 167–193.
Verhoeven, L. (2011). Second language reading acquisition. In M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. B. Moje, & P. P. Afflerbach (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Vol.
IV, (pp. 661–683). New York, NY: Routledge.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). In A. Kozulin, & Rev (Eds.). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
∗Wang, Y.-H. (2016). Reading strategy use and comprehension performance of more successful and less successful readers: A think-aloud study. Educational Sciences:
Theory and Practice, 16(5), 1789–1813.
∗Yamashita, J. (2002). Reading strategies in L1 and L2: Comparison of four groups of readers with different reading ability in L1 and L2. ITL: Review of Applied
Linguistics, 135–136, 1–35.
∗Yang, Y. (2006). Reading strategies or comprehension monitoring strategies? Reading Psychology, 27(4), 313–343.
∗Yau, J.-L. C. (2009). Reading characteristics of Chinese-English adolescents: Knowledge and application of strategic reading. Metacognition and Learning, 4(3),
217–235.
∗Yau, J.-L. C. (2011). Roles of mental translation in first and foreign language reading. International Journal of Bilingualism, 15(4), 373–387.
∗Zhang, L. J. (2001). Awareness in reading: EFL students' metacognitive knowledge of reading strategies in an acquisition-poor environment. Language Awareness,
10(4), 268–288.
∗Zhang, L. J., Gu, P. Y., & Hu, G. (2008). A cognitive perspective on Singaporean primary school pupils' use of reading strategies in learning to read in English. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 245–271.
∗Zhao, R., & Hirvela, A. (2015). Undergraduate ESL students' engagement in academic reading and writing in learning to write a synthesis paper. Reading in a Foreign
Language, 27(2), 219–241.
∗Zhou, R. (2011). The impact of reading purposes on text processing strategies. I-Manager’s Journal of English Language Teaching, 1(3), 23–29.
Asterisked articles indicate those included in the current review.

12