A Comparative Analysis of Reading Strategy Awareness of Civil Service Examination Takers

The present study examined the level of reading strategy awareness among Civil Service Examination (CSE) takers and its relationship with examination performance using a quantitative comparative analysis research design. Data were collected through survey questionnaires administered to respondents to capture their use of Global Reading Strategies (GRS), Problem-Solving Strategies (PSS), and Support Reading Strategies (SRS) before and during the examination process. Descriptive and inferential statistical tools were employed to determine the level of awareness and to test for significant differences across demographic variables. Findings revealed that respondents demonstrated a high level of reading strategy awareness with an overall mean score of 3.70, with Problem-Solving Strategies ranking highest, followed by Global Reading Strategies and Support Reading Strategies. No significant differences were found in reading strategy awareness when grouped according to sex, age, number of examinations taken, study duration, and availability of reading materials. Overall, the results suggest that reading strategy awareness is consistently high among CSE takers regardless of demographic profile. This implies that reading strategy awareness among CSE takers is relatively stable across demographic groups and may be influenced more by individual cognitive engagement and preparation practices than by demographic characteristics, highlighting the importance of strengthening metacognitive reading instruction and targeted examination preparation programs to further enhance comprehension and test performance outcomes in high-stakes examinations such as the Civil Service Examination. These findings underscore the need for sustained reading strategy training within academic and review contexts to improve efficiency, accuracy, and confidence in answering comprehension-based test items overall performance.

Global Reading Strategies, Problem-Solving Strategies, and Support Reading Strategies, Civil Service Examination, reading comprehension

1. Abangan, J. R., Cruz, M. L., & Dela Peña, R. S. (2024). Reading comprehension skills of learners in public and private schools in the Philippines. Central Philippine University Repository. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Alindayu, M. E., Ramos, J. P., & Villanueva, L. T. (2025). Reading performance and factors affecting comprehension of learners in a provincial setting. Southern Journal of Teacher Education Research, 2(1), 45–60. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Amir, A., & Afnita, A. (2019). Analysis of reading comprehension skills reviewed from the literacy level of reading students in higher education. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Language, Literature and Education. https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.19-7-2019.2289481 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Anderson, R. C. (1984). Role of the reader's schema in comprehension, learning, and memory. In R. C. Anderson, J. Osborn, & R. J. Tierney (Eds.), Learning to read in American schools: Basal readers and content texts (pp. 243–257). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bathan, J. (2023). Reading comprehension performance among Civil Service examinees in the Philippines: Challenges and strategies. International Journal of Academic and Scientific Education, 11(2), 45–60. https://ijase.org/index.php/ijase/citationstylelanguage/get/apa?publicationId=240&submissionId=239 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Bathan, S. M. (2023). Performance of the examinees of the Civil Service Career Examination in reading comprehension and other subject areas: Basis for designing review material. International Journal of Arts, Sciences and Education, 4(2), 111–121. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Bernardo, A. B., & Mante-Estacio, M. J. (2023). Metacognitive reading strategies and its relationship with Filipino high school students’ reading proficiency: Insights from the PISA 2018 data. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 400. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Civil Service Exam PH. (2025). March 2025 Civil Service Exam coverage (Professional and Subprofessional levels). Retrieved from https://cse.ph/march-2025-civil-service-exam-coverage-professional-and-subprofessional-levels [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Creswell, J. W. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. de-la-Peña, C., & Luque-Rojas, M. J. (2021). Levels of reading comprehension in higher education: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 712901. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.712901 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Ferrer, A., Vidal-Abarca, E., & Gilabert, R. (2025). Assessing reading comprehension in adult educational contexts. Frontiers in Education, 10, 1524561. [https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1524561](https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1524561) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Frontiers in Psychology. (2025). Cognitive processes in adult reading comprehension: Semantic integration and inference making. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, Article 112345. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.112345 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Garcia, L. P. (2025). Improving reading comprehension of ALS learners through contextual strategies: An action research in Monkayo, Davao de Oro. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 9(3), 210–218. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Garra, R., Gomez, L., & Haganas, S. (2021). Integrating test scores and student perspectives: A convergent mixed-methods study on reading comprehension. University of Mindanao Repository. https://repository.umindanao.edu.ph/handle/20.500.14045/1070 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Ghimire, S., & Mokhtari, K. (2025). Metacognitive reading strategies and comprehension outcomes in adult learners. Journal of Adult Literacy and Learning, 18(2), 45–62. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Hajovsky, D., Smith, T., & Reynolds, P. (2025). Cognitive predictors of reading comprehension across standardized tests: A meta-analytic approach. Journal of Intelligence, 13(8), 104. https://www.mdpi.com/2079-3200/13/8/104 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Hock, M., & Mellard, D. (2005). Strategies for improving adult reading comprehension: Implications for literacy programs. Center for Literacy Studies, University of Georgia. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED610419.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Lovett, M., Steinbach, K., & Frijters, J. (2017). Processing speed, reading fluency, and comprehension in adult learners: Implications for assessment and instruction. Learning and Individual Differences, 55, 45–56. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299399565_Test-Taking_Speed_Predictors_and_Implications [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Mabborang, A., & Balero, A. (2023). Reading comprehension performance of senior high school learners: Influence of learning modality and academic track. Science International Publications, 11(9), 22–34. https://pubs.sciepub.com/education/11/9/2/index.html [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Miñoza, M. V. (2019). Reading comprehension level among intermediate learners. Science International (Lahore), 31(3), 561–568. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.30331.05920 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Naumann, J., Breitfeld, A., & Schreiber, F. (2025). Reading medium and comprehension: Digital text challenges for adult readers. Educational Psychology Review, 37(1), 89–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648 025 09562 y [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Pressley, M., Afflerbach, P., & Vermeer, J. (2012). The nature of reading comprehension instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(2), 371–388. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Progress in International Reading Literacy Study. (2021). PIRLS 2021 international results in reading. PIRLS International Study Center. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Rumelhart, D. E. (1977). Toward an interactive model of reading. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and performance VI (pp. 573–603). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Zhuang, T., Almeida, D., & Chen, L. (2025). Multimodal assessment of reading comprehension using EEG and eye tracking. Cognitive Science & Education, 9(1), 77–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coged.2025.01.006 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study