The Skimming and Scanning Instruction for EFL Reading Comprehension: A Classroom Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.66836/7r616846Keywords:
skimming, scanning, reading comprehension, EFL, strategy instruction, action researchAbstract
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
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Carlos Lenin Alvarez Llerena, Juan Javier Navarro Macias (Author)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.


