This study conducted a comparative analysis of critical reading skills among engineering students at private universities in Malaysia and Vietnam, using the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) reading framework. Involving 182 undergraduates, the research included a quantitative critical reading test followed by statistical analysis (T-tests) to examine score variability among first-year and final-year students. The analysis revealed significant performance differences among first-year students but not among final-year students from both countries. To complement the quantitative data, semi-structured interviews with 16 participants across different critical reading levels were conducted. These interviews aimed to capture students’ perspectives on the PISA test, highlighting challenges such as the Western orientation of texts, English vocabulary, and the format of open-ended questions. Integrating quantitative and qualitative methods, the study offers an in-depth understanding of the critical reading abilities of engineering students in Malaysia and Vietnam, underscoring the importance of considering cultural and linguistic factors in educational assessments.
AbdullahSuanWH (2015) Improving undergraduate students’ critical reading skills through different learning activities. Asian Education Action Research Journal4: 22–39.
2.
AghajaniMGholamrezapourE (2019) Critical thinking skills, critical reading and foreign language reading anxiety in Iran context. International Journal of Instruction12(3): 219–238.
3.
ArdiantiSSulisworoDPramudyaY, et al. (2020) The impact of the use of STEM education approach on the blended learning to improve student’s critical thinking skills. Universal Journal of Educational Research8(3): 24–32.
4.
AriciÖAltintasÖ (2014) An investigation of the PISA 2009 reading literacy in terms of socio-economical backgrounds and receiving pre-school education “Turkey example”. Ankara University Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences47(1): 423–448.
5.
AtkinsonD (1997) A critical approach to critical thinking in TESOL. Tesol Quarterly31(1): 71–94.
6.
Azizi-FiniIHajibagheriAAdib-HajbagheryM (2015) Critical thinking skills in nursing students: a comparison between freshmen and senior students. Nursing and Midwifery Studies4(1): e25721.
7.
BachmanLFPalmerAS (1996) Language Testing in Practice: Designing and Developing Useful Language Tests. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, Vol. 1.
8.
BahardoostMAhmadiA (2018) The relationship between test-taking strategies and Iranian EFL learners’ performance on reading comprehension tests. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research6(22): 117–131.
9.
BarberATKlaudaSL (2020) How reading motivation and engagement enable reading achievement: policy implications. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences7(1): 27–34.
10.
BarnettR (2015) A curriculum for critical being. In: The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Thinking in Higher Education. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 63–76.
11.
BaturZAlevliO (2014) Evaluation terms of proficiency the PISA reading comprehension of reading skills course. Research in Reading & Writing Instruction2(1): 22–30.
12.
BayDN (2016) The question asking skills of preschool teacher candidates: Turkey and America example. Journal of Education and Training Studies4(1): 161–169.
13.
BrantmeierC (2002) Second language reading strategy research at the secondary and university levels: variations, disparities, and generalizability. The Reading Matrix2(3).
14.
BuehlD (2023) Classroom Strategies for Interactive Learning. London, UK: Routledge.
15.
ÇakırHCengizÖ (2016) The use of open ended versus closed ended questions in Turkish classrooms. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics06(02): 60–70.
16.
CaratozzoloPÁlvarezÁ (2018) A new transdisciplinary approach to foster soft skills in engineering: using critical reading micro-workshops. In: 2018 world engineering education forum-global engineering deans council (WEEF-GEDC), Albuquerque, NM, 12–16 November 2018, 1–6. IEEE.
17.
CervettiGNPearsonPDBravoMA, et al. (2006) Reading and writing in the service of inquiry-based science. In: Linking Science and Literacy in the K-8 Classroom. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
18.
ChapelleCA (2010) The spread of computer-assisted language learning. Language Teaching43(1): 66–74.
19.
CoilDWenderothMPCunninghamM, et al. (2010) Teaching the process of science: faculty perceptions and an effective methodology. CBE-Life Sciences Education9(4): 524–535.
20.
CreswellJW (2009) Mapping the Field of Mixed Methods Research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
21.
CreswellJW (2015) Revisiting mixed methods and advancing scientific practices. In: The Oxford Handbook of Multimethod and Mixed Methods Research Inquiry. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
22.
CreswellJWCreswellJD (2017) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
23.
DalySRMosyjowskiEASeifertCM (2014) Teaching creativity in engineering courses. Journal of Engineering Education103(3): 417–449.
24.
DayTHumphreysLDuncombeB (2010). Encouraging undergraduates’ academic writing development in e-learning contexts that students access independently or in subjectbased groups. In: Paper presented at the writing development in higher education (WDHE) conference, London, UK, 29 June 2010.
25.
DroopMVerhoevenL (2003) Language proficiency and reading ability in first‐and second‐language learners. Reading Research Quarterly38(1): 78–103.
26.
ErcikanKRothW-MAsilM (2015) Cautions about inferences from international assessments: the case of PISA 2009. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education117(1): 1–28.
27.
FaridahFNawafilahQ (2019) The implementation of critical reading strategy for improving reading comprehension skill of informatics engineering students. Lintang Songo: Jurnal Pendidikan2(2): 65–71.
28.
FlaspohlerMRRuxEMFlaspohlerJA (2007) The annotated bibliography and citation behavior: enhancing student scholarship in an undergraduate biology course. CBE-Life Sciences Education6(4): 350–360.
29.
GhanizadehAAl-HoorieAHJahedizadehS (2020) Higher Order Thinking Skills in the Language Classroom: A Concise Guide. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
30.
GorardSSmithE (2004) An international comparison of equity in education systems. Comparative Education40(1): 15–28.
31.
GrabeW (2008) Reading in a Second Language: Moving from Theory to Practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
32.
GuoL (2018) Modeling the relationship of metacognitive knowledge, L1 reading ability, L2 language proficiency and L2 reading. Reading in a Foreign Language30(2): 209–231.
33.
GuthrieJTWigfieldABarbosaP, et al. (2004) Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through concept-oriented reading instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology96(3): 403–423.
34.
HidayatiMInderawatiRLoenetoB (2020) The correlations among critical thinking skills, critical reading skills and reading comprehension. English Review: Journal of English Education9(1): 69–80.
35.
HoDG (2005) Why do teachers ask the questions they ask?RELC Journal36(3): 297–310.
36.
HuangHC (2013) E-reading and e-discussion: EFL learners’ perceptions of an e-book reading program. Computer Assisted Language Learning26(3): 258–281.
37.
HusainHBaisBHussainA, et al. (2012) How to construct open ended questions. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences60: 456–462.
38.
IvankovaNVCreswellJWStickSL (2006) Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: from theory to practice. Field Methods18(1): 3–20.
39.
JiangX (2011) The role of first language literacy and second language proficiency in second language reading comprehension. The Reading Matrix11(2): 177–190.
40.
JohnsonRBOnwuegbuzieAJ (2004) Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher33(7): 14–26.
41.
KaneMT (2013) Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement50(1): 1–73.
42.
KankarašMMoorsG (2014) Analysis of cross-cultural comparability of PISA 2009 scores. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology45(3): 381–399.
43.
KhamkhongS (2018) Developing English L2 critical reading and thinking skills through the pisa reading literacy assessment framework: a case study of Thai EFL learners. 3L The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies24(3): 83–94.
44.
KhodaryMMAbdAllahMM (2014) Using a WebQuest model to develop critical reading achievement among languages and translation department students at Arar college of education and arts. International Interdisciplinary Journal of Education3(11): 246–256.
45.
KlenowskiV (2009) Assessment for learning revisited: an Asia-Pacific perspective. Assessment in Education Principles Policy and Practice16(3): 263–268.
46.
KoMH (2010) A comparison of reading comprehension tests: multiple-choice vs. open-ended. English Teaching65(1): 137–159.
47.
KunnanAJ (2014) Introducing the Companion to Language Assessment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
48.
KurupPMLiXPowellG, et al. (2019) Building future primary teachers’ capacity in STEM: based on a platform of beliefs, understandings and intentions. International Journal of STEM Education6(1): 10–14.
49.
LeHVChongSLWanR (2021) A conceptual paper on the impact of culture on critical reading skills of engineering students in asian higher education context. In: Paper presented at the 2021 13th international conference on education technology and computers, Wuhan, China, 22–25 October 2021.
50.
LeHVChongSLWanR (2022) Critical reading in higher education: a systematic review. Thinking Skills and Creativity44: 101028. DOI: 10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101028.
51.
LeeCDSpratleyA (2010) Reading in the Disciplines: The Challenges of Adolescent Literacy. Final Report from Carnegie Corporation of New York’s Council on Advancing Adolescent Literacy. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York.
52.
LeeS-PLeeS-DLiaoY-L, et al. (2015) Effects of audio-visual aids on foreign language test anxiety, reading and listening comprehension, and retention in EFL learners. Perceptual and Motor Skills120(2): 576–590.
53.
LiHGanZLeungSO, et al. (2022) The impact of reading strategy instruction on reading comprehension, strategy use, motivation, and self-efficacy in Chinese university EFL students. Sage Open12(1): 215824402210866.
54.
LooiKHWyeC-KAbdul BahriEN (2022) Achieving learning outcomes of emergency remote learning to sustain higher education during crises: an empirical study of Malaysian undergraduates. Sustainability14(3): 1598.
55.
MaftoonPRezaieG (2013) Investigating classroom discourse: a case study of an Iranian communicative EFL classroom. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics16(1): 107–128.
56.
McQueenJMendelovitsJ (2003) PISA reading: cultural equivalence in a cross-cultural study. Language Testing20(2): 208–224.
57.
MoskalBMLeydensJA (2019) Scoring rubric development: validity and reliability. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation7(1): 10.
58.
OECD (2012) Reading Proficiency of Canadian Youth at Ages 15 and 24. Paris, France: OECD. DOI: 10.1787/9789264172104-5-en.
OECD (2019b) PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do. Paris, France: OECD.
61.
OECD (2019c) PISA 2018 Results (Volume II): Where All Studentes Can Succeed (9264832351). Paris, France: OECD.
62.
PaulRElderL (2019) The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
63.
PearsonPDMojeEGreenleafC (2010) Literacy and science: each in the service of the other. Science328(5977): 459–463.
64.
PhanNTT (2023) Self-efficacy in a MOOC environment: a comparative study of engineering students in Taiwan and Vietnam. Knowledge Management & E-learning15(1): 64.
65.
PolatM (2020) Analysis of multiple-choice versus open-ended questions in language tests according to different cognitive domain levels. Novitas-Research on Youth and Language14(2): 76–96.
66.
RaddawiRTroudiS (2018) Critical pedagogy in EFL teacher education in the United Arab Emirates: possibilities and challenges. TESOL International Journal13(1): 79–99.
67.
RasulMSZahrimanNHalimL, et al. (2018) Impact of integrated stem smart communities program on students scientific creativity. Journal of Engineering Science & Technology13: 80–89.
SalehSE (2019) Critical thinking as a 21st century skill: conceptions, implementation and challenges in the EFL classroom. European Journal of Foreign Language Teaching4(1): 1–6.
70.
SeedhouseP (1996) Classroom interaction: possibilities and impossibilities. ELT Journal50(1): 16–24.
71.
ShamidaAKaur SidhuGMd NawiS (2021) Postgraduate students’ perceived and actual performance in critical reading skills. Asian Journal of University Education17(3): 76–84.
72.
ShaulesJ (2019) Language, Culture, and the Embodied Mind. Singapore: Springer Singapore.
73.
ShohamyE (2006) Language Policy: Hidden Agendas and New Approaches. London, UK: Routledge.
74.
SkalinderCSatzP (2008) Integrating Literacy and Math: Strategies for K-6 Teachers. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
75.
SnowC (2002) Reading for Understanding: Toward an R&D Program in Reading Comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
76.
SriwantaneeyakulSPrakashTGoliD (2018) Effect of wedelolactone and gallic acid on quinolinic acid-induced neurotoxicity and impaired motor function: significance to sporadic amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Neurotoxicology68(4): 1–12.
77.
SundranDSidhuGKKannanS (2022) Sustaining quality tertiary education via critical reading skills and language learning strategies. Journal of Positive School Psychology6(4): 6699–6707.
78.
Ten DamGVolmanM (2004) Critical thinking as a citizenship competence: teaching strategies. Learning and Instruction14(4): 359–379.
79.
ThuyNTB (2018) Reading strategies used by Vietnamese EFL and ESL university students. VNU Journal of Foreign Studies34(2).
80.
TomasMJLVillarosETGalmanSMA (2021) The perceived challenges in reading of learners: basis for school reading programs. Open Journal of Social Sciences09(5): 107–122.
81.
TongcoMDC (2007) Purposive sampling as a tool for informant selection. Ethnobotany Research & Applications5: 147–158.
82.
UysalHH (2012) Argumentation across L1 and L2 writing: exploring cultural influences and transfer issues. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics9(1): 133–159.
83.
UztosunMS (2006) Writing English language tests (new edition). Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama2(2): 119–122.
84.
VaughnSRobertsGCapinP, et al. (2019) How initial word reading and language skills affect reading comprehension outcomes for students with reading difficulties. Exceptional Children85(2): 180–196.
WeaverKDMercerKHowcroftJ (2023) Critical reading across the engineering disciplines. In: Association of College and Research Libraries a Division of the American Library Association. Chicago, IL: American Library Association.
87.
WilsonK (2016) Critical reading, critical thinking: delicate scaffolding in English for academic purposes (EAP). Thinking Skills and Creativity22: 256–265.
88.
YangWFanGChenW (2022) Socioeconomic status, cultural capital, educational attainment and inequality: an analysis based on PISA2018 results of China, Finland, South Korea and Singapore. International Journal of Educational Research113: 101955.
89.
YuW (2010) An analysis of college English classroom questioning. Journal of Language Teaching and Research1(2): 136–144.
90.
YuliatiLHapsariANurhidayahF, et al. (2018) Building scientific literacy and physics problem solving skills through inquiry-based learning for STEM education. Journal of Physics: Conference Series1108: 012026.
91.
ZhaoY (2020) Two decades of havoc: a synthesis of criticism against PISA. Journal of Educational Change21(2): 245–266.
92.
ZinZMEngWB (2014) Relationship between critical thinking dispositions and critical reading skills of Malaysian ESL learners. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly16(3): 41–68.
93.
ZinZMWongBERafik-GaleaS (2014) Critical reading ability and its relation to L2 proficiency of Malaysian ESL learners. 3L, Language, Linguistics, Literature20(2): 43–54.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
