LINGUATECH –REVISTA INTERNACIONAL, VOL. II, NUM. II pág. 16
La instrucción en skimming y scanning para la comprensión
lectora en inglés como lengua extranjera: un estudio de aula
Skimming and Scanning Instruction for EFL Reading Comprehension:
A Classroom Study
Carlos Lenin Alvarez Llerena
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7263-2611
carlosa@student.elte.hu
Eötvös Loránd University
Hungría –Budapest
Juan Javier Navarro Macias
https://orcid.org/0009-0001-5069-4595
juan.navarrom@ube.edu.ec
Universidad Bolivariana del Ecuador
Ecuador - Durán
Article received: (10/06/2026) - Accepted for publication: 25/07/2026
Conflicts of interest: None to declare.
*Corresponding author
Suggested citation (APA, seventh edition)
Alvarez Llerena, C., Navarro Macias, J. (2026). Skimming and scanning instruction for
EFL reading comprehension: A classroom study. Linguatech, 2(2), pages 16-31.
RESUMEN
La lectura con un propósito exige que los estudiantes adapten su enfoque al texto y a la tarea. Este
estudio de acción de aula, de métodos mixtos, examinó una secuencia de cuatro semanas de
instrucción explícita en skimming y scanning para estudiantes de secundaria superior de inglés
como lengua extranjera con niveles aproximados A1-A2. Treinta y ocho estudiantes completaron
evaluaciones de lectura en el aula antes y después de ocho sesiones de 45 minutos; un registro de
encuesta de referencia independiente contenía 40 respuestas. Las lecciones combinaron
predicción, modelado docente, búsquedas cronometradas, identificación de la idea principal,
verificación colaborativa y razonamiento posterior a la lectura. El compuesto de seis partes
aumentó descriptivamente de 19.92 a 26.76 sobre 55, una ganancia de 6.84 puntos (34.3% en
relación con la línea base). Los mayores incrementos por componente se registraron en
pensamiento crítico (+3.29) e idea principal/detalles de apoyo (+2.84); el vocabulario (+1.37), la
inferencia (+0.60) y el reconocimiento de palabras (+0.29) también aumentaron, mientras que la
fluidez disminuyó (-1.55). Los temas de las entrevistas sugirieron una mayor conciencia
estratégica, confianza y transferencia percibida a otras asignaturas, aunque los estudiantes
también reportaron que la lectura rápida podía omitir detalles relevantes y que el scanning
requería tiempo. Los hallazgos respaldan la viabilidad de la instrucción explícita en estrategias
con un propósito definido, no un efecto causal. No se dispuso de grupo de control, puntajes a
nivel de participante, estimaciones de dispersión, medida diferida ni tamaño de la muestra de
entrevistas; los denominadores de la encuesta y de la evaluación también difirieron. La
investigación futura debería emplear pruebas paralelas, un modelo de puntuación preregistrado,
datos pareados, calificación independiente y una condición de comparación.
LINGUATECH –REVISTA INTERNACIONAL, VOL. II, NUM. II pág. 17
Palabras clave: skimming, scanning, comprensión lectora, inglés como lengua extranjera,
instrucción en estrategias, investigación-acción
ABSTRACT
Purposeful reading requires learners to match their approach to a text and task. This
mixed-methods classroom action study examined a four-week sequence of explicit
skimming and scanning instruction for upper-secondary EFL learners working around
CEFR A1-A2. Thirty-eight students completed classroom reading assessments before and
after eight 45-minute sessions; a separate baseline survey record contained 40 responses.
Lessons combined prediction, teacher modeling, timed searches, main-idea identification,
collaborative checking, and post-reading reasoning. The six-part composite increased
descriptively from 19.92 to 26.76 out of 55, a gain of 6.84 points (34.3% relative to
baseline). The largest component increases were recorded for critical thinking (+3.29)
and main idea/supporting details (+2.84); vocabulary (+1.37), inference (+0.60), and
word recognition (+0.29) also rose, whereas fluency decreased (-1.55). Interview themes
suggested greater strategic awareness, confidence, and perceived transfer to other
subjects, but learners also reported that rapid reading could omit relevant details and that
scanning required time. The findings support the feasibility of explicit, purpose-driven
strategy instruction, not a causal effect. No control group, participant-level scores,
dispersion estimates, delayed measure, or interview sample size was available; survey
and assessment denominators also differed. Future research should use parallel tests, a
preregistered scoring model, paired data, independent rating, and a comparison condition.
Keywords: skimming, scanning, reading comprehension, EFL, strategy instruction, action
research
INTRODUCTION
Reading in an additional language is not a single operation. Readers identify written
words, activate linguistic and topic knowledge, connect propositions, monitor
understanding, infer information that is not explicit, and regulate attention according to a
purpose. Contemporary accounts therefore treat comprehension as an interaction among
word recognition, language comprehension, knowledge, executive processes, motivation,
and the demands of a particular text and task (Duke & Cartwright, 2021; Perfetti &
Stafura, 2014). A learner may decode a sentence accurately yet fail to integrate its
meaning, or may understand a familiar topic while reading too slowly to complete a time-
limited task.
LINGUATECH –REVISTA INTERNACIONAL, VOL. II, NUM. II pág. 18
The challenge is intensified in English as a foreign language (EFL). Limited
vocabulary and grammatical knowledge place pressure on working memory, while
unfamiliar spelling-sound relationships can slow word recognition. Beginning readers
frequently respond by translating word by word or stopping at every unknown item. These
behaviors may be useful in a narrowly focused language-analysis task, but they are
inefficient when the purpose is to obtain an overview or locate a date, name, definition,
or supporting detail. Effective instruction should help learners decide what level of
attention a reading purpose requires.
Skimming and scanning are rapid, purpose-specific reading processes. Scanning
directs visual attention toward a target form or information category, such as a number,
name, location, or keyword. Skimming samples a text to construct a provisional
understanding of its topic, organization, or central message. Grabe and Yamashita (2022)
distinguish reading to search for information, quick understanding, learning, synthesis,
evaluation, and general comprehension. Skimming and scanning are appropriate for the
first two purposes, but neither replaces close reading when evidence must be interpreted,
evaluated, or remembered in depth.
This distinction is pedagogically important. A strategy is a deliberate, goal-directed
action selected and monitored by a reader; with practice, some strategic actions may
become more fluent skills (Afflerbach et al., 2008). Teaching learners simply to read
faster can therefore be counterproductive. Speed is useful only when paired with a clear
target, a suitable text, and a verification step. If learners skim without checking, they may
miss qualifications or confuse a striking detail with the main idea. If they scan without
understanding the task, they may locate a matching word but select the wrong
information.
At CEFR A2, readers are expected to understand short, simple texts on familiar,
concrete matters and to locate specific, predictable information in everyday material
(Council of Europe, 2020). A2 descriptors also recognize the value of exploiting layout,
numbers, dates, names, and typographic features to identify a text or topic. These abilities
align naturally with scanning and guided skimming, provided texts contain accessible
language and tasks do not demand proficiency beyond the learners' level. Strategy
instruction must therefore control both linguistic difficulty and cognitive purpose.
Research on comprehension instruction favors an integrated approach. Explicit
strategy teaching can improve comprehension, but instruction should also develop word
reading, vocabulary, knowledge, text-structure awareness, discussion, writing about
LINGUATECH –REVISTA INTERNACIONAL, VOL. II, NUM. II pág. 19
texts, and motivation (Duke et al., 2021). Word knowledge is especially central because
efficient lexical access supports the integration of meanings across sentences (Perfetti &
Stafura, 2014). A short intervention centered on skimming and scanning should thus be
understood as one component of a balanced reading program rather than a complete
theory of reading development.
Metacognition provides a second rationale. Skilled readers set a goal, select an
approach, notice when meaning breaks down, and change tactics. Self-report instruments
such as the Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory organize these
actions into global, problem-solving, and support strategies (Mokhtari & Reichard, 2002).
In instruction, the corresponding sequence is concrete: state the purpose, preview the text,
predict likely content, search or sample selectively, compare the result with the task, and
reread closely when confidence is low. Teacher modeling can make normally invisible
decisions available for observation and practice.
Classroom action research is useful for examining whether such instruction can be
implemented within an ordinary timetable and what learners appear to gain from it
(Burns, 2010). Its local and iterative character allows a teacher to diagnose a problem,
act, observe, and refine practice. The same characteristics limit causal inference. In a one-
group pretest-posttest design, improvement may reflect ordinary instruction, familiarity
with the assessment, maturation, teacher expectations, or contextual events as well as the
intervention. Transparent reporting must therefore separate observed change from proof
of effectiveness.
The present study evaluated an eight-session sequence that taught skimming and
scanning to upper-secondary EFL learners with basic proficiency. It addressed three
questions: (1) How did aggregate and component reading scores differ before and after
instruction? (2) What baseline habits and perceptions characterized the learners' reading?
and (3) How did learners describe the usefulness and limitations of the two strategies?
The analysis prioritizes internally consistent values, identifies unresolved data
limitations, and frames conclusions at the level supported by the design.
METHODS
Design
The study used a classroom action-research design with quantitative pretest-posttest
summaries and qualitative evidence from a baseline survey and open-ended interviews.
One intact class received the instructional sequence; no control or active-comparison
LINGUATECH –REVISTA INTERNACIONAL, VOL. II, NUM. II pág. 20
condition was available. The design was therefore treated as a single-group mixed-
methods evaluation of feasibility and descriptive change.
Quantitative and qualitative strands were integrated during interpretation.
Assessment means described performance before and after the program, survey responses
characterized the context in which instruction was introduced, and interview themes
helped explain how learners understood the strategies. Qualitative reports were used to
illuminate the numerical pattern, not to validate it independently or establish causality.
Context and participants
The project was conducted in an urban public upper-secondary school with limited
digital access. English was scheduled for three 45-minute periods per week. The
instructional class initially contained 42 learners; four were no longer available for the
final analytic cohort, leaving 38 students aged approximately 16-17. Their English
reading proficiency was described as ranging from CEFR A1 to A2. Convenience
sampling was used because the class was directly accessible to the teacher-researcher.
The baseline survey tables contained frequency totals corresponding to 40
respondents, whereas the pretest-posttest cohort was reported as 38. No record linked the
two additional survey responses to later attrition. Survey values are therefore reported
with N = 40 as contextual evidence and are not merged with the assessment data. The
participant count for the interview subset was not specified; qualitative findings are
consequently presented as themes without prevalence claims.
Table 1
Study components and analytic status
Component
Documented information
Use in the present analysis
Pretest-posttest
cohort
38 upper-secondary learners;
approximately 16-17 years; CEFR A1-
A2
Principal descriptive outcome
cohort
Baseline survey
14 items; tabulated frequencies sum to
40
Reported separately as N = 40
contextual evidence
Instruction
Eight 45-minute sessions across four
weeks; approximately six hours
Retained as the intervention
dosage
Interview
Nine open-ended questions;
participant count not stated
Themes reported without
percentages or saturation claims
Outcome record
Six component means; no individual
scores, SDs, or confidence intervals
Descriptive differences only; no
inferential test or effect size
Note. Different denominators were preserved rather than forced into a single sample. This separation limits
cross-source comparisons but avoids false precision.
LINGUATECH –REVISTA INTERNACIONAL, VOL. II, NUM. II pág. 21
Instructional sequence
The intervention comprised eight reading sessions delivered over four weeks, for
approximately six hours of contact time. Lessons were organized around pre-reading,
during-reading, and post-reading phases. Topics and text types were selected from
learners' stated interests, including stories, current issues, sports, and familiar school
subjects. Printed worksheets, visual prompts, board work, and occasional offline digital
resources were used to accommodate restricted internet access.
Before reading, the teacher introduced the task purpose, elicited relevant prior
knowledge, previewed titles and images, and activated key vocabulary. During reading,
the teacher modeled how to skim headings, opening and closing sentences, repeated
lexical items, and paragraph structure to propose a topic or main idea. Scanning tasks
required learners to identify a target category, predict its likely graphic form and location,
move through the text selectively, and verify the surrounding sentence. Pair work and
peer checking distributed participation and made strategy choices discussable.
After reading, learners answered literal questions, justified a selected main idea,
connected supporting details, made inferences, and responded to a short critical-thinking
prompt. The teacher used questions and temporary scaffolds when learners defaulted to
word-by-word translation. A recurring instructional message was that rapid reading is a
first pass rather than a complete substitute for close reading: learners were expected to
return to relevant passages when the task required evidence.
Table 2
Instructional routine for skimming and scanning
Phase
Teacher support
Learner action
Evidence of
performance
Set the
purpose
Specify whether the task
requires gist, a target
detail, or close
understanding
Restate the reading goal
Chosen approach
matches the task
Preview
Model use of title, images,
layout, headings, and
familiar words
Predict topic and activate
prior knowledge
Brief prediction
with a textual cue
Skim
Think aloud while
sampling informative
locations
Propose topic or main idea
without reading every
word
Main-idea statement
and selected support
Scan
Define target type and
likely visual form
Search selectively for
names, dates, terms, or
facts
Correct location
plus surrounding
context
LINGUATECH –REVISTA INTERNACIONAL, VOL. II, NUM. II pág. 22
Phase
Teacher support
Learner action
Evidence of
performance
Verify
Prompt rereading and
comparison of alternatives
Read the relevant passage
closely
Answer supported
by text evidence
Reflect
Ask which strategy was
used and why
Explain, revise, and
transfer the procedure
Metacognitive
explanation or peer
feedback
Note. The routine treats skimming and scanning as purposeful first-pass processes followed by verification, not
as indiscriminate speed reading.
Instruments
The classroom reading assessment contained six components: vocabulary, fluency,
word recognition, inference, main idea and supporting details, and critical thinking. The
component maxima were reported as 22, 7, 5, 5, 6, and 10 points, respectively, yielding
a 55-point composite. Items were assembled from basic-level practice materials and
curriculum texts. The critical-thinking task used an analytic classroom rubric. The
assessment package was reviewed by a subject specialist and piloted with three A2
learners outside the target class.
The pretest and posttest were described as similar, but formal parallel-form evidence
was not reported. The available record did not include item-level responses, individual
total scores, reliability coefficients, reading-rate data, administration equivalence, or
independent scoring. Fluency was represented as a scored section rather than a direct
words-per-minute measure with comprehension accuracy. All six component means
should therefore be interpreted as locally defined classroom indicators.
A 14-item baseline survey asked about reading frequency, purpose, weekly reading
time, preferred texts, use of prior knowledge, perceived ease of identifying ideas and
details, word-meaning recognition, word-by-word translation, and prediction. A nine-
question open-ended interview examined learners' definitions of the strategies, useful
activities, transfer, feelings, engagement, and perceived positive and negative aspects.
Interview responses were organized thematically into strategic knowledge, perceived
benefits, affective responses, and constraints.
Data analysis and integrity checks
Survey percentages were recalculated or checked against their frequencies using N =
40. Assessment change was calculated as posttest mean minus pretest mean for each
component. The composite means were reconstructed by summing the six component
LINGUATECH –REVISTA INTERNACIONAL, VOL. II, NUM. II pág. 23
means. Relative change was calculated as the mean difference divided by the pretest mean
and is reported only as a descriptive ratio.
The component sum yielded a pretest composite of 19.92 and a posttest composite
of 26.76. A separate summary value of 26.15 was not used because it did not equal the
reported component means. Likewise, summing percentage changes across components
was rejected because percentages with different denominators and score maxima are not
additive. No paired-samples test, standardized effect size, or confidence interval was
calculated because participant-level paired scores and dispersion estimates were
unavailable.
Interview excerpts were paraphrased and grouped by the recurring ideas reported in
the thematic summary. Because the number of interviewees, selection process, coding
audit, and frequency of each theme were not specified, the analysis avoids terms such as
most or all. Qualitative findings are used to identify possible mechanisms and cautions
rather than to estimate prevalence.
Ethical considerations
Learners were informed about the purpose and procedures, participation was
described as voluntary, and withdrawal was permitted without academic penalty.
Institutional and family authorization was obtained, and identities were protected in the
study records. The present report contains only aggregated data and removes personal,
institutional, geographic, and contact identifiers.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Baseline reading profile
The baseline survey suggested limited sustained reading. Sixteen of 40 respondents
(40.0%) reported reading only sometimes, eight (20.0%) rarely, and one (2.5%) never.
Twenty-three respondents (57.5%) reported less than one hour of reading per week, while
12 (30.0%) reported one to two hours. These figures describe exposure, not
comprehension ability, but they indicate that the intervention was introduced in a context
with relatively little voluntary reading time.
Reading also appeared to be driven substantially by external demands. Seventeen
respondents (42.5%) selected homework as their reason for reading, four (10.0%)
described it as mandatory, and three (7.5%) referred to classmates, while 14 (35.0%)
selected enjoyment and two (5.0%) selected another reason. A short strategy program can
LINGUATECH –REVISTA INTERNACIONAL, VOL. II, NUM. II pág. 24
make tasks more manageable, but durable development also requires a larger volume of
accessible reading and reasons to read beyond compliance (Nation, 2009).
Several responses revealed a gap between perceived ease and measured performance.
Thirty-two of 40 respondents (80.0%) described identifying a general idea as easy or very
easy, yet 63% of the assessment cohort fell in the lowest category for main idea and
supporting details at pretest. Similarly, 80.0% reported needing word-by-word translation
at least sometimes, and 85.0% reported identifying word meanings only usually or
sometimes. Self-report reflects awareness and confidence, not demonstrated
performance; the mismatch supports the use of behavioral tasks alongside questionnaires
(Mokhtari & Reichard, 2002).
Table 3
Selected baseline survey indicators
Indicator
Response grouping
%
Reading frequency
Sometimes, rarely, or never
62.5
Weekly reading time
Less than one hour
57.5
Reason for reading
Homework, mandatory, or
classmates
60.0
Use of prior knowledge
Always or usually
62.5
Identifying a general idea
Easy or very easy
80.0
Word-by-word translation
Always, usually, or sometimes
80.0
Importance of prediction
Always or usually
52.5
Note. N = 40 survey records. Grouped percentages were recalculated from frequencies. The survey
denominator differs from the N = 38 assessment cohort.
Composite and component outcomes
The reconstructed 55-point composite increased from 19.92 at pretest to 26.76 at
posttest. The absolute difference was 6.84 points, equivalent to 12.4 percentage points of
the full scale. Relative to the pretest mean, the change was 34.3%. Because individual
paired scores and variability were unavailable, this is a cohort-level descriptive change
rather than an inferential estimate.
The component pattern was uneven. Main idea and supporting details increased from
2.45 to 5.29 out of 6, and critical thinking increased from 3.10 to 6.39 out of 10.
Vocabulary increased from 7.21 to 8.58 out of 22. Smaller increases appeared in inference
and word recognition. Fluency decreased from 4.08 to 2.53 out of 7. The total gain
LINGUATECH –REVISTA INTERNACIONAL, VOL. II, NUM. II pág. 25
therefore coexisted with a substantial decline in one component, which argues against a
broad claim that every aspect of reading improved.
Table 4
Pretest and posttest component means
Component
Maxim
um
Change
Change as % of
maximum
Vocabulary
22
+1.37
+6.2
Fluency
7
-1.55
-22.1
Word recognition
5
+0.29
+5.8
Inference
5
+0.60
+12.0
Main idea and
supporting details
6
+2.84
+47.3
Critical thinking
10
+3.29
+32.9
Composite
55
+6.84
+12.4
Note. N = 38. Component changes were recalculated directly from the reported means. Percent-of-maximum
change provides a common descriptive scale; it is not an effect size.
Main idea, supporting details, and critical response
The largest proportional change occurred in main idea and supporting details. This
result is aligned with the intervention's strongest instructional emphasis: learners
repeatedly previewed texts, sampled informative positions, proposed a central statement,
and located details that supported or contradicted it. The gain is also consistent with a
task-specific practice effect. When teaching and assessment repeatedly target the same
procedure, improved performance may reflect both strategy learning and familiarity with
the response format.
Critical-thinking scores also increased. Post-reading questions required learners to
justify an answer, connect information, and respond to a problem after locating relevant
text. This sequence is instructionally plausible because strategic search can reduce the
effort required to find evidence, leaving more attention for reasoning. Nevertheless,
skimming and scanning do not themselves produce critical thinking. Evaluation depends
on vocabulary, background knowledge, inference, task understanding, and opportunities
to discuss competing interpretations (Duke et al., 2021).
LINGUATECH –REVISTA INTERNACIONAL, VOL. II, NUM. II pág. 26
Vocabulary, word recognition, and inference
Vocabulary improved by 1.37 points on a 22-point component, a modest 6.2% of the
component maximum. Preview activities and keyword searches may have increased
attention to recurring lexical items, but scanning for a word is not equivalent to knowing
its meaning. High-quality lexical knowledge includes form, meaning, grammatical use,
and integration with the sentence and discourse context (Perfetti & Stafura, 2014). A
longer program should include deliberate vocabulary review, morphology, context
comparison, and retrieval across multiple texts.
Word recognition increased only 0.29 points, and inference increased 0.60. Both
outcomes are credible in light of the short dosage. Efficient word recognition develops
through substantial exposure and accurate mapping of orthographic, phonological, and
semantic information; it is not likely to change markedly after six hours of strategy
practice. Inference likewise requires readers to combine textual cues with knowledge
while monitoring coherence. Skimming may help identify the topic, but learners still need
close reading when the evidence for an inference is distributed or implicit.
The fluency decline
Fluency decreased by 1.55 points, the only negative component change and the
largest loss relative to a component maximum. Contextual distractions and learner fatigue
were noted during the posttest, but these observations cannot determine the cause. Other
explanations include non-equivalent passages, a speed-comprehension tradeoff, unstable
scoring, or a mismatch between the taught strategies and the fluency task.
This result exposes a conceptual problem in equating skimming with general reading
fluency. Skimming is rapid because it samples information for a limited purpose; fluent
comprehension requires efficient word recognition, appropriate pacing, phrasing, and
meaning construction. A learner can skim successfully while reading connected prose
aloud with limited fluency, and faster reading can reduce comprehension when the task
demands detailed integration. Future assessment should report words correct per minute
together with comprehension accuracy and should use equated passages administered
under consistent conditions.
Learner perceptions
Interview themes indicated that learners could distinguish the general purposes of the
two strategies. They associated skimming with obtaining a central idea and scanning with
locating specific details such as dates, places, or keywords. They also described
LINGUATECH –REVISTA INTERNACIONAL, VOL. II, NUM. II pág. 27
applications to homework and text-heavy subjects beyond English. These reports suggest
emerging metacognitive knowledge: learners were beginning to name a strategy, connect
it to a purpose, and imagine transfer.
Positive affective themes included satisfaction after completing a difficult task,
greater confidence in approaching longer texts, and pride when relevant information was
found. Such responses matter because motivation and engagement influence whether
learners persist with texts and practice beyond a single lesson. However, the interview
design did not include a comparison or a validated motivation measure, so perceived
confidence should not be treated as evidence of durable achievement.
Learners also articulated boundaries that strengthen the interpretation. Rapid
skimming could cause important details to be overlooked, reading too quickly sometimes
reduced understanding, and careful scanning could take more time than expected. These
cautions reflect appropriate strategic awareness rather than failure. A reader who knows
when a strategy is insufficient is better positioned to slow down, reread, or switch to close
reading.
Table 5
Qualitative themes and instructional implications
Theme
Paraphrased learner perspective
Instructional implication
Strategic
knowledge
Skimming identifies an overall idea;
scanning locates targeted
information
Require learners to name the
purpose before choosing a
procedure
Transfer
The strategies may help with
homework and reading in other
subjects
Use varied text types and ask
learners to explain transfer
conditions
Confidence and
satisfaction
Locating information made longer
texts feel more manageable
Preserve achievable challenge
and visible evidence of progress
Loss of detail
A fast first pass may omit
information that later proves
important
Build in verification and close
rereading of relevant passages
Time and
comprehension
Scanning can be detailed and slow;
speed can reduce understanding
Assess accuracy with speed and
teach flexible pacing
Note. The interview sample size and theme frequencies were not reported; themes should not be interpreted as
prevalence estimates.
Integrated interpretation
Across strands, the most defensible conclusion is that the instructional sequence was
feasible and followed by higher performance on the locally defined composite, especially
on tasks involving main ideas, supporting details, and text-based responses. Baseline
LINGUATECH –REVISTA INTERNACIONAL, VOL. II, NUM. II pág. 28
evidence showed limited reading time, frequent translation, and a mismatch between
confidence and demonstrated performance. Learner comments suggested that explicit
naming and modeling helped them understand when each strategy could be useful.
The pattern is consistent with a purpose-driven account of reading. Skimming and
scanning reduce the amount of text that must receive immediate close attention, but they
do not eliminate the need for vocabulary, word recognition, inference, or comprehension
monitoring. This explains why gains concentrated in the skills practiced most directly,
while foundational components changed little and fluency declined. Strategy instruction
appears most useful when it helps learners allocate attention and then directs them back
to evidence.
The dosage also matters. Eight lessons can introduce a routine and provide early
practice, but reading development requires sustained encounters with varied texts. Nation
(2009) argues for a balanced program that includes meaning-focused input, language-
focused learning, fluency development, and substantial reading. Within such a program,
skimming and scanning can support navigation and task completion while extensive and
intensive reading build the knowledge and automaticity that rapid processing depends on.
Teacher modeling should make decision points explicit. A concise think-aloud can
demonstrate how a title changes a prediction, why a date is easier to scan than an abstract
idea, how a candidate main idea is checked against multiple paragraphs, and when an
initial answer must be revised. Gradual release should move from teacher demonstration
to guided pairs, independent practice, and explanation of strategy choice. The objective
is flexible regulation, not compliance with a fixed sequence.
Assessment should mirror this flexibility without conflating constructs. Separate
tasks can measure search accuracy, gist comprehension, detailed comprehension,
inference, and reading rate. Each task needs a clear maximum, scoring key, administration
time, and evidence of equivalence across occasions. When a critical response is scored,
at least two trained raters should use an operational rubric and report agreement. A single
composite may be convenient, but it can conceal opposite movements such as the gains
and fluency decline observed here.
The study's main limitation is the one-group design. Without a comparison condition,
the 6.84-point gain cannot be attributed uniquely to skimming and scanning instruction.
Test familiarity, ordinary English lessons, changes in effort, and contextual events remain
plausible explanations. A short implementation and convenience sample also limit
transfer to other classes, ages, proficiency levels, and text types.
LINGUATECH –REVISTA INTERNACIONAL, VOL. II, NUM. II pág. 29
Measurement limitations are equally consequential. Participant-level scores,
standard deviations, missing-data records, and a delayed assessment were unavailable.
The pretest and posttest were only described as similar, and the fluency measure lacked
a reported rate-and-comprehension definition. Survey and assessment denominators
differed, and the interview sample was unspecified. These conditions prevent paired
inference, standardized effects, reliability analysis, and estimates of how consistently
learners changed.
A stronger study could compare two intact classes receiving equal reading time: one
with explicit skimming and scanning instruction and one with an active alternative such
as conventional comprehension practice. Parallel forms should be counterbalanced, all
outcomes should be scored from one participant-level dataset, and assessors should be
blinded when feasible. A delayed test with unfamiliar texts would determine whether
learners retain the procedures and transfer them beyond rehearsed topics.
For classroom use, the sequence can be implemented with low-cost materials.
Teachers can select short, level-appropriate texts, state a precise purpose, model one
decision, time a search only when speed is relevant, and require evidence after the first
pass. Cooperative roles can prevent faster readers from dominating: one learner proposes
a target, another locates it, a third verifies the sentence, and a fourth explains the strategy.
Rotation turns speed into shared reasoning rather than competition.
Most importantly, learners should hear that strategic reading includes slowing down.
Skimming and scanning are not shortcuts around comprehension; they are ways to decide
where comprehension effort should be concentrated. The interview cautions about
omitted details and time provide a productive endpoint for instruction: effective readers
vary their pace, check their confidence, and return to the text when the first pass is not
enough.
CONCLUSIONS
A four-week program of explicit skimming and scanning instruction was followed
by a higher aggregate reading-comprehension score in an upper-secondary EFL
classroom. The reconstructed composite increased from 19.92 to 26.76 out of 55. Gains
were concentrated in main idea and supporting details and in the critical-response task,
while vocabulary, inference, and word recognition increased modestly and fluency
declined.
LINGUATECH –REVISTA INTERNACIONAL, VOL. II, NUM. II pág. 30
The findings support classroom feasibility and strategic awareness, not causal
effectiveness. Learners described clearer distinctions between reading for gist and
searching for details, possible transfer to other subjects, and greater confidence. They also
recognized that rapid reading can omit relevant information and that scanning may be
time-consuming. These cautions reinforce a flexible model in which skimming and
scanning are followed by verification and close reading when required.
Instructionally, teachers should align each strategy with a specific purpose, model
the decision process, use accessible texts, distribute participation, and ask learners to
justify answers with textual evidence. Strategy work should be embedded in a balanced
reading program that also develops vocabulary, word recognition, inference, fluency,
knowledge, and sustained reading volume.
Future evaluation should maintain one clearly defined analytic cohort, preserve
paired participant-level data, use parallel assessment forms, define fluency directly, report
reliability and rater agreement, include an active comparison condition, and measure
delayed transfer. These safeguards would determine whether the promising classroom
pattern represents durable improvement attributable to instruction.
REFERENCES
Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P. D., & Paris, S. G. (2008). Clarifying differences between
reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61(5), 364-373.
https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.61.5.1
Burns, A. (2010). Doing action research in English language teaching: A guide for
practitioners. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203863466
Council of Europe. (2020). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:
Learning, teaching, assessment - Companion volume. Council of Europe
Publishing. https://rm.coe.int/common-european-framework-of-reference-for-
languages-learning-teaching/16809ea0d4
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Duke, N. K., & Cartwright, K. B. (2021). The science of reading progresses:
Communicating advances beyond the simple view of reading. Reading Research
Quarterly, 56(S1), S25-S44. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.411
Duke, N. K., Ward, A. E., & Pearson, P. D. (2021). The science of reading
comprehension instruction. The Reading Teacher, 74(6), 663-672.
https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1993
Grabe, W., & Yamashita, J. (2022). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory
to practice (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
LINGUATECH –REVISTA INTERNACIONAL, VOL. II, NUM. II pág. 31
Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students' metacognitive awareness
of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249-259.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.249
Nation, I. S. P. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL reading and writing. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203891643
Perfetti, C., & Stafura, J. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading
comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 22-37.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.827687