Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 717

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Comprehension Strategies of Second Language Readers

Block, Ellen·1986·TESOL Quarterly

Abstract

Think-aloud protocols, a version of verbal report in which participants state their thoughts and behaviors, have become increasingly popular as a means of studying the comprehension processes of native English speakers. The study reported in this article used think-alouds to examine the comprehension strategies used by college-level students-both native speakers of English and nonnative speakers--enrolled in remedial reading classes as they read material from a college textbook. Poor readers (those who had failed the college's reading proficiency test) were chosen for study because they are the ones at whom college remedial reading programs are aimed. Furthermore, their use of comprehension strategies has not attained the degree of automaticity found in fluent readers. Thus, they may be more aware of how they solve the problems they encounter as they read. Some of the strategies used by the ESL and native-speaking readers in the study are described. Strategy use is related to measures of memory and comprehension and to academic performance, and implications for teaching are discussed. The thoughts that wander or rush through the minds of readers, the searches and struggles for meaning, the reflections and associations, are hidden from the outside observer. Yet this struggle and search for control are the core of reading comprehension. For teachers, knowledge of the components and management of this internal process is extremely important. Without it, educators must resort to designing reading programs based on intuitions and guesses about students' problems. Without it, classroom teachers are left commiserating with Eskey (1973), who described the maddening experience of having a student who appears to understand every sentence and yet cannot answer the simplest question about a passage as a whole (p. 177). Knowledge about the process, not just the product of reading, is needed if we are to move

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/3586295

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 717

Metadata

Authors
Block, E.
Venue
TESOL Quarterly
Publisher
JSTOR
Published
1986-09
Volume
20
Issue
3
Pages
463
ISSN
0039-8322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2067009645
Cited by
717
References
1
FWCI
9.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Comprehension Strategies of Second Language Readers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/3586295
The paper
Block, E. (1986). The Comprehension Strategies of Second Language Readers. TESOL Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586295

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.