Digital Academic Reading: A Comparative Study of Reading Strategies Used among Undergraduates in Malaysia

Digital Academic Reading: A Comparative Study of Reading Strategies Used among Undergraduates in Malaysia

Maryam Azizan¹, Afina Nazira Afnizul^2*, Nur Farahanim Mohd Fauzi³, Sofea Azlena Tung⁴, Nik Siti Maisarah Abd Rahman⁵

^1,2,4,5Academy of Language Studies, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM), Selangor, Malaysia

 ³School of Education and Social Sciences, Management and Science University (MSU), Selangor, Malaysia

^*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.908000264

Received: 11 August 2025; Accepted: 20 August 2025; Published: 05 September 2025

ABSTRACT

Digital reading is the process of using electronic devices and platforms to access and comprehend written content. These tools are frequently reinforced with interactive elements. Readers must pay attention to structural textual elements, understand the intended meanings of the texts, and assess the relevance of certain textual passages in relation to the context while using informational texts in particular. Therefore, reading strategies play a crucial role in online reading comprehension. To address this phenomenon, this study explores the strategies of online reading employed by undergraduates in Malaysia with varying English proficiency levels when dealing with digital text. Data were collected from 180 ESL learners, =90 high proficiency students (MUET Band 4-6) and =90 low proficiency students (MUET Band 1-2) and the data were analysed and compared using the Online Survey of Reading Strategies (OSORS) adapted from Anderson (2003). Findings have indicated that both groups actively employ all three strategies embedded in OSORS, which are Global, Problem-Solving and Support strategies, with varying preferences. High proficiency students relied more on re-reading, focusing on complex sections, using contextual clues, which are approaches embedded under Problem-Solving strategies, suggesting metacognitive flexibility. Low proficiency learners, on the other hand, approach digital text by guessing content, paraphrasing and scanning, indicating surface-level comprehension. These results indicated the need for explicit instruction in online reading strategies, specifically for low proficiency students, to support their screen-based reading. This study also highlights the significance of integrating digital literacy into ESL pedagogy and suggests future research to consider qualitative methods to better understand learners’ cognitive processes during online learning.

Keywords: Reading Strategies, Online Reading Strategies, Online Survey of Reading Strategies, OSORS, Digital Literacy

INTRODUCTION

Reading skill is a fundamental skill for an individual to acquire to decode and attain information. For English as a Second Language (ESL) learners, reading serves as the preliminary skill to master before conquering the other skills, i.e writing, speaking and listening. It also bears the most significant impact on academic performance and individual growth. Having literacy and reading skills can pave the way for learners to achieve academic success and lifelong learning. Thus, it is aimed to fulfil Malaysia’s education system that is guided by the National Education Policy (NEP) and the Education Blueprint (2013 – 2025) in addressing the national educational goals to improve the learning outcome (Sangeetha & Hanim, 2024). Sangeetha et al., (2024) also stated that extensive reading practices that utilise reading skills can enhance the intended learning outcome as proposed in the Education Blueprint. Therefore, it is crucial to find proper strategies for aspects like identifying main ideas, locating specific facts, making inferences, understanding references and identifying the meaning of words to assist the learners’ abilities to comprehend the text and consequently make them achieve academic success (Sangeetha & Hanim, 2024). Reading is described as an active cognitive process in which the reader deciphers a writer’s meaning through analysis, reasoning, thinking, imagining, and judgement in developing the learners’ intellect, boosting their academic achievements and lifelong learning (Smith & Robinson, 1980; Schiefele et al., 2012). Reading is also defined as a fluid thinking process in which the reader actively engages in the meaning-making process using various reading techniques to deduce meaning from a text (Abeeleh & Al-Sobh, 2021). Affendi (2020) also associates reading with a significant impact on a person’s intellectual and emotional development. Suparjit (2019) describes reading strategies, on the other hand, as a specific method of approaching a task to achieve and understand a reading material and ways to manage the obtained information. However, Abbas & Anthony (2024) define reading as the method of looking at and reading a sequence of words, sentences and paragraphs to understand the meaning of the material. Thus, the inability to read or failure to comprehend reading materials may consequently affect one’s social and academic performance (Rajab, Zakaria, Rahman, Hosni & Hassani, 2012). The ability to read effectively in English is an essential academic skill for one to master, as it serves as a measure of one’s proficiency in English. Therefore, adopting appropriate reading strategies is pivotal for one as part of the language learning process.

Online reading has secured its place in academic settings. Compared to traditional reading, online reading demands that learners be equipped with digital literacy skills, develop digital wisdom, gear up for new challenges and have ethics when utilising the Internet for academic purposes (Rahman et al., 2023). Studies across Asia have also continuously compared learners’ preferences and comprehension between print and digital reading among young adults, revealing mixed outcomes. While some revealed that EFL learners comprehend digital text better as it is more mobile (Subarti et al., 2023) and offers interactive features to scaffold learning (Peras et al., 2023), others argue otherwise, highlighting that printed reading offers tactile experiences that enhance reading comprehension (Loh & Sun, 2018) and also support heavy academic reading (Subaveerapandiyan & Sinha, 2021). Given the expanding needs for independent reading, it is essential to explore how ESL learners engage with online text. This study attempts to explore the online reading strategies employed by students with different English proficiency levels by using the Online Survey of Reading Strategies (OSORS) as a focal point. By identifying and comparing the strategies frequently used by both high and low achiever learners, this study aims to contribute findings that might help educators to support students in navigating online reading.

Zooming into the Malaysian context, Malaysian educational institutions consistently strive to provide support to the ESL learners in Malaysia. The English Language Education Reform in Malaysia: The Roadmap 2015-2024 by the Ministry of Education has demonstrated the country’s commitment to significantly improving Malaysians’ English language proficiency (Mohd Don & Abdullah, 2019). However, despite the dedicated initiative, an analysis of the 2022 national examination SPM revealed that 14.3% of candidates, totalling 52,674 individuals, did not attain a passing grade in English. Additionally, an examination of the Malaysian University Entrance Test (MUET) results from Session 3/2022 indicated that only 1.6% and 15.61% achieved the Common European Framework (CEFR) bands C1+ and C1, respectively, for the 800/3 Reading component (Malaysian Examinations Council, 2023). Therefore, it is crucial to investigate the underlying factors contributing to the persistent challenge, with a specific focus on addressing reading difficulties.

The post-pandemic era has changed the reality of education in many countries, including Malaysia. The most significant impact is the migration of teaching and learning to be more hybrid and/or blended. This has escalated the difficulties mentioned by Jusoh and Abdullah (2015), which has noted that the shift from printed reading material to online material has made the mastery of the skill more challenging. Online reading calls for the development of new skills to understand, analyse and synthesise online information, questioning the relevance of conventional reading strategies. This calls for careful consideration from educators to place higher emphasis on teaching and learning online material as ‘comprehension processes and decoding processes must be learned and taught so that these changes can be reflected in readers’ and authors’ strategies for comprehension and response’ (Kinzer and Leander, 2007, p. 547). Consequently, both learners and educators need to address their reading behaviours to equip themselves with digital literacy.

Also, Rahmat, Arepin and Sulaiman (2020) conducted a study that explored the cycle of academic reading fear among undergraduates in  Malaysia (n=25). It was revealed that readers’ fears of reading can be caused by a variety of factors, including background and culture, general reading proficiency, vocabulary, grammar and instructional approaches. This proves that the aforementioned contributing factors consequently lead to academic reading anxiety. While many studies focus on online reading strategies, there is still a scarcity of studies that conduct comparative analyses between the high and low proficiency students, particularly in the post-pandemic context in Malaysia. Rooted in this issue, this study aims to analyse the reading strategies that students employ during reading, specifically when reading online material for academic purposes using the OSORS framework. Upon realising the research aim, this study answers the following questions: (i) What are the online reading strategies employed by high proficiency students? (ii) What are the online reading strategies employed by low proficiency students? and (iii) How do the online reading strategies employed by high and low proficiency students differ?

LITERATURE REVIEW

While reading is often perceived as a passive mental activity, reading requires multifaceted cognitive processes such as comprehension, analysis and evaluation. In an academic context, especially for ESL learners, these processes are further hampered by linguistic, cognitive and affective challenges. Despite formal instruction and reforms in Malaysia, the reading component’s performance continues to reveal a significant number of students struggling with the English language. Linguistic difficulties are said to be intensified, as Carell and Grabe (2002) reported that the lack of foundation in cultural and social knowledge that is common in English texts often challenges second language (L2) readers. This makes it difficult for them to connect with the text because they do not have the prior knowledge to understand, construct meaning and predict the likely meaning of the text (Vacca, 2002; Nozen et al., 2017) due to the lack of exposure to the culture and social context utilised in the reading materials. The lack of linguistic expertise in interpreting social and cultural jargon in English texts can make it more difficult for L2 readers to understand them.

Singhal (2001) denotes that the learners undertake metacognitive behaviours to plan, arrange, and evaluate their learning. Such strategies include focused attention and self-evaluation, organisation, goal planning and achievement, and seeking to practise opportunities. Self-monitoring and error correction are two other examples of metacognitive strategies in the context of reading. Sheorey and Mokhtari (2001) then categorised metacognitive reading strategies into three groups: Global strategies, Problem-solving strategies, and Support strategies. Global strategies are for managing the reading process. For example, determining the length of the text, determining whether it is written effectively in terms of its objectives, determining whether an acceptable language is used in terms of its register, and determining the purpose of reading the text. Problem-solving strategies are associated with the steps taken while dealing directly with the text. For example, re-reading the text to better understand it, attempting to guess unknown terms from context, adjusting one’s reading pace, reading the book loudly or silently to make it more cognitively significant. Support strategies refer to the outside assistance and support that readers and learners receive, such as using a dictionary, translation, and highlighting, as well as writing notes on the margins of the page.

Learners nowadays depend on various textual materials to gather information for their study. Those materials also include any texts presented on any electronic device that can be accessed wherever they are. Reading textual material on electronic devices is considered to be reading from an online source, where a hypertext, which comprises hyperlinks and nodes, is connected to form a complete, readable material (Ruhil et al. 2017). However, learners of today’s generation are not systematically trained to effectively read digital materials (Brun-Mercer, 2019; Carioli & Peru, 2019). Hence, there will be differences in strategies in processing information from online texts with printed ones (Spiro, 2004; Coiro & Dobler, 2007). It has been proven in some studies to investigate the usage of reading strategies when engaging with online academic texts for ESL learners.

The study by Zailani and Liza (2015) investigated the extent of strategies used when reading online in an academic setting and whether there are differences in the use of strategies between students from different fields. 102 respondents from two different faculties from Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin (UniSZA) in Malaysia participated in answering the questionnaire on the Online Survey of Reading Strategies (OSORS). The findings show that while there are no significant differences in the usage of strategies between different academic disciplines, the most popular group of strategies preferred by the students was problem solving as they have to pivot to the materials constantly to truly strengthen their understanding (Leu et al., 2004; Taki & Soleimani, 2012; Omar, 2014).

Another study by Zaidatul, Ismail, Mohd Shukri and Zainurin (2020) on assessing the metacognitive awareness of online reading strategies among 495 pre-university students in a Malaysian public university was conducted by using the Survey of Online Reading Strategies (OSORS). The findings of this study revealed that all participants were aware of most online reading strategies, albeit with varying levels of awareness. Furthermore, problem-solving strategies were the highest utilised strategy, while support strategies like live chatting, note taking and using visuals were the lowest. This research highlights that initiatives should be taken from the institution and the academics to improve the situation to foster proficient readers with high metacognitive strategies (Magogwe, 2013; Zaidatul et al., 2020).

Next, a study by Nur Syafiqah and Hanita (2025) was conducted to investigate the use of metacognitive online reading strategies among 45 ESL secondary school students in Malaysia, specifically targeting 16 and 17-year-old learners. The study used the Online Survey of Reading Strategies (OSORS), and the findings reveal that most respondents utilised problem-solving strategies such as visualising information and adjusting reading speed, while support strategies like paraphrasing were the least favoured by them. Additionally, this study also identified that older students demonstrate higher strategic awareness in reading online academic texts. The results from these studies emphasised the need for continuous effort in promoting a balanced and effective use of metacognitive strategies and the need to foster greater awareness of these online reading strategies to assist the learners in improving their online reading comprehension.

Conceptual Framework

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework

This study utilises the Online Survey of Reading Strategies (OSORS) by Anderson (2003), which was adapted from the Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS) by Sheorey and Mokhtari (2001). According to Sheorey and Mokhtari (2001), there are three categories of SORS to measure the metacognitive reading strategies of second language learners, engaging in academic reading materials (refer to Fig. 1). In global strategies, readers apply the strategies themselves to organise their reading materials and monitor their understanding (Izyani et al., 2008). In other words, readers plan their reading by previewing the text and using their prior knowledge before reading in detail. The next category is problem-solving strategies, where readers apply actions to understand a text or when there is an obstacle that hinders their comprehension, such as guessing the meaning of words or rereading them (Ruhil et al., 2017). The final category of SORS is the support strategies. This strategy uses support mechanisms or aids to assist the learners in reading, such as using dictionaries, taking notes and reading aloud (Izyani et al., 2008; Ruhil et al., 2017). Anderson (2003) adapted SORS and evolved it into OSORS while maintaining the three categories of strategies. In total, OSORS contains thirty-eight online reading strategies, with eighteen items on global reading, eleven on problem-solving and nine items on support strategies. Out of the thirty-eight items, eight new ones were added to reflect on the suitability of the context of online reading strategies.

METHOD

This quantitative study is done to compare the reading strategies employed by ESL learners during online academic reading. 275 undergraduates responded to the survey. The respondents were 87 (31.6%) female and 188 (68.4%) male students aged between 20-25 years old. For this study, the sample is divided into three categories according to their score in the Malaysian University English Test (MUET). These three categories are: LOW (Band 1-2), INTERMEDIATE (Band 3) and HIGH (Band 4-6). According to Arshad et al. (2008) and Rethinasamy and Chuah (2011), MUET is a valid indicator to reflect one’s proficiency in the English language. The data gathered and later categorised as LOW= 95, INTERMEDIATE = 85 and HIGH=95. To obtain the result of the comparative analysis, 85 (Band 3) respondents were excluded from the analysis.

The instrument used is a 5 Likert-scale survey and is adapted from Anderson’s (2003) Online Survey of Reading Strategies (OSORS), which was an adaptation of the Survey of Reading Strategies (Mokhtari & Sheorey, 2002). The survey contains four embedded sections (Table 1), which entail A) demographic profile- 4 items, B) Global Reading Strategies – 10 items, C) Problem Solving Strategies – 10 items and D) Support Reading Strategies – 10 items. However, based on the pilot study conducted, eight items were excluded from this study. Oxford’s (1990) three-group classification is used for the analysis of the mean score: 1-2.33 (low usage), 2- 2.34-3.66 (medium usage) and 3- 3.67-5.00 (high usage).

Table 1. Distribution of Items in OSORS

Table 2. Cronbach’s Alpha for Instrument

Table 2 shows the internal reliability of the instrument = 0.86, thus revealing a high reliability of the instrument used. To answer the research questions of the study, the data collected is analysed using SPSS version 23 to note the frequency of the mean score.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Reading Strategies Used during Online Reading

This section shows the highest mean values calculated in the global reading strategies, problem-solving reading strategies, and support reading strategies. Table 3 presents the three highest mean values for each online reading strategy, illustrating the reading strategies preferred by readers during the online reading materials activity.

Table 3. Reading Strategies Used during Online Reading

* Based on a 5-point Likert scale

Based on the global reading strategies, Item 9 scored the highest mean value of 4.64, showing that most readers tend to create assumptions and make guesses related to the online text. Meanwhile, there are only a few value differences between the other two items, as Item 8 scored 4.28 and Item 4 scored 4.25 mean values. These two high-mean-value items display how the readers review their understanding towards the reading materials by cross-checking with the reading content and ensuring it fits their learning objectives. This data further accentuates that these reading strategies play an important role as mediators between students’ reading motivation and their learning aims in reading comprehension, as mentioned by Wang, Jia and Yin (2020).

In comparison to the problem-solving reading strategies, the readers used a few similar strategies that eased their online reading process. According to Table 3, Item 6 shows a mean value of 4.74, indicating that many high and low proficiency readers learnt how to use their visualisation skills to conceptualise the online reading content. Besides that, the second-highest mean value under Item 7 (4.34) presents the readers’ ability to decide when to re-read for better comprehension. Meanwhile, Item 4, with a mean value of 4.32, shows how the readers are able to control their concentration skills when reading complex online reading content, a finding consistent with Mahadzir et al. (2024).

In the support reading strategies, the three highest calculated mean values display how the readers combine appropriate skills to assist them during the online reading activity. As stated in Table 3, Item 8 shows the highest mean value of 4.59, showing how the readers use their skimming and scanning skills to read the online text. The second-highest mean value of 4.56 (Item 7) presents the readers’ capability to monitor and regulate their comprehension. Meanwhile, the third-highest mean value of 4.47 (Item 5) shows the constant use of paraphrasing skills among the low and high proficiency students. The findings indicated that the readers employed their metacognitive learning strategies, as underlined by Sheorey & Mokhtari (2001).

Reading Strategies Employed by High Proficiency Learners

This section provides a clear display of the reading strategies used by high proficiency students. Table 4 below consists of each reading strategy with its highest three mean values, showing the reading techniques preferred by the high proficiency students in this study.

Table 4. Reading Strategies Employed by High Proficiency Learners

* Based on a 5-point Likert scale

According to the global reading strategies, Item 6 has the highest mean value of 4.35, which shows that high proficiency students are portrayed to have better reading comprehension as they are more skilled in identifying context clues. Furthermore, there are only 0.08 differences between the three main values under the global reading strategies. Item 9, with a mean value of 4.27, shows that high proficiency students prefer to use their assumption skills when comprehending the keys in the reading text. This result differs from Zaidatul et al. (2020), where global reading strategy is not the most significant strategy utilised by the learners. Meanwhile, the third-highest item (Item 10) has a mean value of 4.19, indicating that high proficiency students are capable of integrating their scanning skills, which reveals their goal-directed reading ability when navigating an online text.

Furthermore, based on problem-solving reading strategies, high proficiency students prefer to use their re-reading skills as one of the strategies to comprehend complex online reading texts. It can be seen in Item 7 as it contains a mean value of 4.68, which shows a high number of high proficiency students who have a better apprehension of when to use the specific skill during their online reading activity. Besides re-reading skills, high proficiency students also tend to tackle reading complexities by focusing on every detail in the text. As stated in Item 4, with a mean value of 4.64, the data shows that the students prefer to focus on both explicit and implicit meanings of the reading material and context. The data may imply that students with high proficiency tend to employ visualising techniques to improve their understanding since this technique helps them to create more distinct mental images and better retain the information they read. In accordance with Leu et al. (2004), reading online requires students to solve problems by going back and forth while trying to understand the content. This clarifies the reasons for students’ preference for problem-solving techniques.

According to the calculated data, the highest mean value in the support reading strategies relates to Item 4 in the problem-solving reading strategies. Item 2 in the third reading strategy exhibits how high proficiency students build their focus on the reading text by reading aloud. Furthermore, as stated in Item 8, with a mean value of 4.18, most high-proficiency readers prefer to scan and connect the gist of the online text to their reading purposes before interpreting each word and phrase in the chosen reading content. Finally, the students also applied their self-reflection skills by constructing questions and finding answers to the online text to improve reading comprehension.

Reading Strategies Employed by Low Proficiency Learners

This section provides data on reading strategies used by low proficiency students. Table 5 below shows the three highest mean values in each reading strategy calculated among low proficiency students.

Table 5. Reading Strategies Employed by Low Proficiency Learners

* Based on a 5-point Likert scale

According to the global reading strategies, low proficiency students predict the subjects and main ideas of the text during the reading process, showing their preference for assuming the context. Hence, Item 9 had the highest mean value of 5.00, revealing the respondents’ most common global reading strategy. Meanwhile, the other two items (Item 8 and Item 4) in this category have the same mean value of 4.5,1, displaying the students’ competence in better grasping the online reading text. In the problem-solving strategies, Item 6, with the highest mean value of 5.00, shows that low proficiency students prefer to utilise their recalling skills by visualising the information obtained from the reading content. Furthermore, the remaining mean values in this category display how low proficiency students prioritise reading strategies that increase their focus during the online reading process. As stated in Table 5 above, each of the three items tabulated in the support reading strategies category scored similar higher mean values of 5.00. These identical mean values represent that the low proficient students prefer to use support reading strategies during online reading compared to high proficient students. This is an interesting finding as the majority of the least popular reading techniques often fall into the support strategy category, as reported by Zailani and Liza (2015) and Nor Fazlin, Saadiyah and Nadzrah (2011). This phenomenon was explained by Taki and Soleimani (2012), who attribute the unpopularity of support strategies to the time commitment and consumption required to apply during the reading comprehension process.

Comparison between the Reading Strategies Employed by Low Proficiency and High Proficiency Learners

This section provides data on reading strategies used by both low proficiency and high proficiency students. Table 6 below shows the average mean of each reading strategy used by the students.

Table 6. Average Mean of Each Reading Strategy

* Based on a 5-point Likert scale

According to the calculated data in Table 6, low proficiency students prefer global reading strategies as the average mean value is 0.13 greater than the high proficiency students. In further comparison, the average mean value stated above for the second reading strategy indicates that the high proficiency students employed more problem-solving reading strategies. Meanwhile, in the third reading strategy, it shows that the average mean value of 4.20 of the low proficiency students prefer support reading strategies when they are deciphering online reading texts.

Comparing two proficiency level groups, high proficiency students reported relying more on Problem-Solving strategies, such as re-reading challenging text, paying more attention to complex passages and utilising the contextual clues to deduce meaning. It has been demonstrated that this group of learners have higher flexibility and metacognitive awareness when reading online, a finding consistent with Mahadzir et al. (2024). In contrast, low proficiency students showed higher means in both global and support strategies, which suggests a strong effort to comprehend an online academic text despite having limited comprehension. The strategies include guessing the content before reading, checking their understanding, visualising and refocusing, paraphrasing, and scanning to support comprehension. It is important to highlight that low proficiency students employed more reading strategies compared to the proficient students, especially for Support strategies. It could be suggested that a need to enhance impactful and effortful reading behaviour to target and support low proficiency students. These findings are in accordance with Dillah (2023), who reported that learners with limited language proficiency frequently rely on surface-level strategies to comprehend English academic content.

These findings are also consistent with Singh et al. (2023), which indicate that while the World Wide Web provides learners with diverse reading resources, it also opens up an additional layer of challenges, especially for learners with limited language proficiency and digital literacy. The results also highlight the significance of equipping learners with explicit online-specific reading strategies to support understanding. Overall, these findings highlight the importance of equipping both low and high proficiency students with the appropriate reading strategies to support their digital reading.

CONCLUSION

This study explored the online reading strategies employed by undergraduates in Malaysia across English proficiency levels, focusing on how they navigate through online reading materials. The findings indicated that learners actively employed all three types of strategies, particularly outlined in the OSORS model, which includes Global, Problem-Solving and Support strategies when reading online. The embedded strategies consist of visualising information to activate schemata, making academic guesses before reading, scanning for relevance and attempting paraphrasing to improve understanding. These strategies are significant, particularly when engaging with online academic text, which not only focuses on comprehending the input but also processing screen-based reading behaviour.

This study has shed some light on ESL learners’ experience through digital reading for academic purposes. It has been indicated that there is a pressing need to fine-tune the current pedagogical approach to support learners with online academic reading. With the digital environment continuously conquering the teaching and learning post-pandemic, it is necessary to acknowledge that online academic reading might demand another layer of cognitive and metacognitive demands compared to traditional reading. Firstly, it is essential to highlight that both high and low proficiency ESL learners adapt their reading strategies during online academic reading, but this might not be executed effectively. Many low proficiency students relied heavily on Support strategies, suggesting high dependency on surface-level strategies. To address and further support this group of learners, explicit instruction in online reading strategies must be considered. This may include filtering relevant information, managing screen-based reading fatigue and utilising digital tools to highlight, annotate and note-taking, which may be different from the traditional methods. Instructional materials could be redesigned to cater to hybrid classrooms. It is worth highlighting that educators must not assume the learners are equipped to engage with online reading materials and also integrate the element of screen-based competence in the lesson, particularly for courses with a high focus on reading.

This study also offers several avenues for future investigation. A more in-depth understanding of learners’ difficulties during reading online could be assessed thoroughly via qualitative methods such as interviews and observations. These approaches may offer valuable insights into the pedagogical approach that might be relevant to support digital classrooms. While this study only addresses the online reading strategies by learners, it is also worth considering the other skills, like online listening, speaking and writing.  This might offer insights into how learners integrate multiple skills when engaging with academic content online. Also, there is an opportunity to make a comparative analysis of how different devices (laptops, tablets, smartphones) might support or disrupt learners’ reading environment. In essence,  providing these findings could serve as a foundation to innovate the current teaching practices to support a diverse learning environment.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The completion of this research was supported by Geran Terbuka Akademi Pengajian Bahasa 2023, 600-APM (GT.1/15).

REFERENCES

1. Abdullah, N. S., & Ismail, H. H. (2025). Click, think, read: Investigating the use of metacognitive online reading strategies among Malaysian ESL students. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, IX(II), 308–320. https://doi.org/10.47772/ijriss.2025.9020026
2. Abeeleh, T. W. A., and Al-Sobh, M. (2021). Reading comprehension problems encountered by EFL Students at Aljoun National University. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 8(1), 6-15. Retrieved from https://ijllnet.com/journals/Vol_8_No_1_March_2021/2.pdf
3. Anderson, N. J. (2003). Scrolling, clicking, and reading English: Online reading strategies in a second/foreign language. The Reading Matrix, 3(3), 1–15.
4. Arshad Abd Samad, Sharifah Zainab Syed Abd Rahman & Siti NorbaitiSamad (2008). Refining English language tests for university admission: A Malaysian example. Asean Journal University of Education, 4(1). 57–68. Retrieved from http://eprints.ptar.uitm.edu.my/342/1/vol4no1_2008_pg_57_to_68.pdf.
5. Azmuddin, R. A., Nor, N. F. M., & Hamat, A. (2017). Metacognitive online reading and navigational strategies by Science and Technology University students. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 17(3), 18–36. https://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2017-1703-02
6. Baba, J., & Affendi, F. R. (2020). Reading habit and students’ attitudes towards reading: A study of students in the Faculty of Education UiTM Puncak Alam. Asian Journal of University Education, 16, 109-122. https://doi.org/10.24191/ajue.v16i1.8988
7. Brun-Mercer, N. (2019). Online Teaching Strategies for the Classrooms. English Teaching
8. Carioli, S. & Peru, A. (2019). Teaching online reading strategies using the think aloud technique. Evidence from an experimental study. Italian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(3), 279-294.  https://doi.org/10.17471/2499-4324/1100
9. Coiro, J. and E. Dobbler. 2007. Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by 6th grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the Internet. Reading Research Quarterly 42: 214–257. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.42.2.2
10. Dillah, D., Hamid, N. B. A., Afrin, J. F., Subramaniam, N., & Rahmat, N. H. (2023). Exploring reading difficulties and online reading strategies employed by Pre-University English as a Second language (ESL) learners. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 13(10). https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarbss/v13-i10/18976
11. Edward, E. I., Kamlun, K., Din, W. A., & Pudin, C. S. J. (2021). Reading difficulties among Malaysian andergraduate ESL learners: A preliminary study. International Journal of Education Psychology and Counseling, 6(43), 62–70. https://doi.org/10.35631/ijepc.643006
12. Hamid, Z. A. A., Ahmad, I. S., Nordin, M. S. & Rahman, Z. A. (2020). Assessing the metacognitive awareness of online reading strategies among pre-university students. International Journal of Language, Literacy and Translation 3(2), 19-31.https://doi.org/10.36777/ijollt2020.3.2.035
13. Jusoh, Z., & Abdullah, L. (2016). Online survey of reading strategies (OSORS): Students’ online reading in academic context. Malaysian Journal of Distance Education, 17(2), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.21315/mjde2015.17.2.5
14. Kinzer, C.K., & Leander, K.M. (2003). Reconsidering the technology/language arts divide: Electronic and print-based environments. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J.R. Squire, & J.M. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (pp. 546–565). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. Leu, D. J, C. K. Kinzer, J. L. Coiro and D. W. Cammack. (2004). Towards a theory of new literacies emerging from the internet and other information and communication technologies. In Theoretical models and processes of reading, eds. R. B. Ruddel and N. J. Unrau, 1570–1613. Delaware: International Reading Association.
16. Loh, C. E., & Sun, B. (2018). “I’d still prefer to read the hard copy”: Adolescents’ print and digital reading habits. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 62(6), 663–672. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.904
17. Magogwe, J.M. (2013). Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies of University of Botswana English as Second Language Students of Different Academic Reading Proficiencies. Reading & Writing, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.4102/rw.v4i1.29
18. Mahadzir, N., Anuar, N. H. M., Afnizul, A. N., & Azizan, M. (2024). Comparative analysis of reading strategies among tertiary ESL learners: A case study. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 8(10), 251–259. https://doi.org/10.47772/ijriss.2024.8100020
19. Malaysian Examinations Council. (2022). MUET 2022 Reports and Insights. Pelangi.
20. Mohamad, Z., I., Hassan, F., (2008). ESL students’ online and offline reading strategies: Scrolling, clicking, flipping and reading. Asian Journal of University Education (AJUE) 4(2), 61 – 78. https://education.uitm.edu.my/ajue/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Chapter-3-ESL-Students%E2%80%99-Online-and-Offline-Reading-Strategies-Scrolling-Clicking-Flipping-and-Reading.pdf
21. Mohd Don, Z., & Abdullah, M. H. (2019). The Reform of English Language Education in Malaysia. https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2019/05/22/the-reform-of-english-language-education-in-malaysia/
22. Nozen, S. Z., Kalajahi, S. A. R., Abdullah, A. N., & Jabbarzadeh, H. (2017). An investigation of the impacts of teaching writing skill through extensive short story reading. Journal of Nusantara Studies, 2(1), 53-70. https://doi.org/10.24200/jonus.vol2iss1pp53-70
23. Nor Fazlin Mohd Ramli, Saadiyah Darus & Nadzrah Abu Bakar. (2011). Metacognitive online reading strategies of adult ESL learners using a learning management system. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 1(3): 195–204. http://dx.doi.org/10.4304/tpls.1.3.195-204
24. Omar, N. A. (2014). Online metacognitive reading strategies use by postgraduate Libyan EFL students. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering 8(7). http://waset.org/publications/9998887.
25. Peras, I., Mirazchiyski, E. K., Pavešić, B. J., & Recek, Ž. M. (2023). Digital versus paper reading: A systematic literature review on contemporary gaps according to gender, socioeconomic status, and rurality. European Journal of Investigation in Health Psychology and Education, 13(10), 1986–2005. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe13100142
26. Rahman, S. a. S. A., Yunos, D. R. M., Whanchit, W., Rahmat, N. H., & Ngadiran, N. M. (2023). Perceived difficulties and use of online reading strategies: A study among undergraduates. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 13(7). https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarbss/v13-i7/17414
27. Rahmat, N. H., Arepin, M., & Sulaiman, S. (2020). The cycle of academic reading fear among undergraduates. Asian Journal of University Education, 16(3), 265. https://doi.org/10.24191/ajue.v16i3.9730
28. Rajab, A., Zakaria, W. Z., Rahman, H. A., Hosni, A. D., & Hassani, S. (2012). Reading anxiety among second language learners. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 66, 362–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.279
29. Rethinasamy, S. & Chuah, Kee-Man. (2011). The Malaysian University English Test (MUET) and its use for placement purposes: A predictive validity study. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 8(2), 234–245. Retrieved from http://e-flt.nus.edu.sg/v8n22011/rethinasamy.pdf
30. Sangeetha, S., & Hanita, H., H., (2024). Second language learners’ difficulties in reading comprehension: A review. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 13(4), 3840 – 3852.http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/v13-i4/23972
31. Schiefele, U., Schaffner, E., Möller, J., & Wigfield, A. (2012). Dimensions of reading motivation and their relation to reading behavior and competence. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(4), 427-463.
32. Sheorey, R. & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies among Native and Non-Native Readers. System. 29(4), 431-449.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00039-2
33. Singh, K. K., Leong, I. Y., Mohd Bee, A. A., Lourdanathan, J., Keat, Y. C., & Rahmat, N. H. (2023). The relationship between reading difficulties and reading strategies among ESL learners in Malaysia. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 13(5). https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarbss/v13-i5/17035
34. Singhal, M. (2001). Reading Proficiency, Reading Strategies, Metacognitive Awareness and L2 Readers. The Reading Matrix, 1.
35. Smith, N. & Robinson, H. (1980). Reading Instruction for Today’s Children, Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
36. Sheorey, R. and K. Mokhtari. 2001. Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among native and non-native speakers. System, 29(4) 431–449. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00039-2
37. Spiro, R. J. (2004). Connectivism: a Learning Theory for the Digital Ageprincipled Pluralism for Adaptive Flexibility in Teaching and Learning Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (5th ed., pp. 654-659). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
38. Subaveerapandiyan, A., & Sinha, P. (2021). Digital literacy and reading habits of the central university of Tamil Nadu students: a survey study. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal), 6087.
39. Suraprajit, P. (2019). Bottom-up vs Top-down Model: The Perception of Reading Strategies among Thai University Students. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 10(3), 454- 460. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1003.07
40. Taki, S. and H. Soleimani. (2012). Online reading strategy use and gender differences: The case of Iranian EFL learners. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 3. 173–184.10.5901/mjss.2012.v3n2.173
41. Abbas, T. & Anthony, E. M., (2024). Reading difficulties by ESL tertiary learners of Pakistan. Asean Journal of Teaching & Learning in Higher Education, 16(2), 470-494. https://doi.org/10.17576/ajtlhe.1602.2024.14
42. Vacca, Richard. (2002). From efficient decoders to strategic readers. Educational leadership: Journal of the Department of Supervision and Curriculum Development, N.E.A. 60. 6-11.
43. Wang, X., Jia, L., & Jin, Y. (2020). Reading amount and reading strategy as mediators of the effects of intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation on reading achievement. Frontiers in psychology, 11, 586346.
44. Zailani Jusoh & Liza Abdullah. (2015). Online survey of reading strategies (OSORS): Students’ online Reading in academic context. Malaysian Journal of Distance Education, 17(2), 67–81.http://dx.doi.org/10.21315/mjde2015.17.2.5