This paper examines whether and how L2 learners’ reading strategies vary depending on the task type or on the measure of eliciting strategy use. Participants were 28 college students in a Korean university. Two reading tasks (i.e., reading for comprehension vs. reading for summarizing) and three measures of strategy use (i.e., pre-reading strategy survey, while-reading think aloud, and post-reading strategy check list) were employed to answer the posed research questions. The researcher’s observation of the participants’ thinking-aloud and a post-task interview were also implemented for data triangulation. All the participants completed two tasks based on two texts (one for each) selected from the same chapter in a book that were considered equivalent in length, readability, and topic. The results revealed that the number of reading strategies reported decreased dramatically in the order of strategy survey, strategy check list, and think aloud. Significantly more frequent use of reading strategy was found in reading for comprehension than in reading for summarizing, large portion of which was devoted to bottom-up style decoding, while in reading for summarizing the students approached the text with more focused attention caring about propositional connections at discourse level. Some other findings are presented along with implications for reading research and for L2 reading instruction.

This study aims to investigate the relationship between metacognitive awareness and the use of reading strategies in L1 and L2 reading depending on the participants' L2 reading proficiency. A total of 167 Korean EFL university students participated in this study. They responded to questionnaires asking about their metacognitive reading strategies in their L1 and L2 reading for academic purposes. The findings showed that (a) there were positive relationship between L1 reading and L2 reading in terms of their use of metacognitive reading strategies, and (b) significant differences were found in the use of strategies in L1 vs. L2 reading in terms of L2 reading proficiency: L1 and L2 global strategy use in the high proficiency group, L1 and L2 support strategy use in the high, intermediate, and low proficiency groups, and overall L1 and L2 metacognitive reading strategy use in the intermediate proficiency group. There were no significant differences in L1 and L2 problem-solving strategy use in all three proficiency groups. The most influential factor in predicting overall use of L2 metacognitive reading strategies was found to be L1 global strategy use. Pedagogical implications for strategy-based reading instruction were suggested.