The Skimming and Scanning Instruction for EFL Reading Comprehension: A Classroom Study

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.66836/7r616846

Keywords:

skimming, scanning, reading comprehension, EFL, strategy instruction, action research

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.

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.

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

Downloads

Published

2026-09-02

Issue

Section

Artículos

How to Cite

The Skimming and Scanning Instruction for EFL Reading Comprehension: A Classroom Study. (2026). Buckingham Linguatech Journal, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.66836/7r616846

Similar Articles

1-10 of 16

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.