I

Acknowledgement

It gives me great privilege to express my sincere thanks to all those

who supported me along the way.

Firstly, I would like extend my gratitude to the English Department of

Hanoi University for giving me the permission to conduct this thesis.

I am deeply indebted my supervisor Vu Phuong Thao, lecturer of

English Department, whose support, advice, corrections and encouragement

helped me all the time while undertaking this thesis.

I am sincerely thankful to 34 students from the class of 2013 whose

willingness to take part in the survey is one of the main factors to the

accomplishment of this thesis.

Finally, I am truly grateful to my mother and my friends who

ceaselessly supported, advocated and encouraged me during the complement

of this study. I would never been able to complete this thesis without their aid,

advice and encouragement.

II

Abstract

The purpose of this thesis is to investigate cognitive and meta-cognitive

strategies employed in academic reading comprehension by first year English

majors at Hanoi University, the frequency of usage as well as the existence of

a correlation between strategies used and students’ proficiency in reading. A

reading comprehension test and a survey of reading strategies were delivered

to 34 fresh men in English Department in the second week of April 2014.

Based on the scores, students are divided into two groups of high and low

proficient students. Then six out of students who got the highest and lowest

scores in the test were invited to a semi-structured interview to gather more

data for deeper comparison.

The results indicated that cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies are

employed at medium rate. Among strategies mentioned in the research,

translating – a cognitive strategy is hardly used by students regardless of their

reading proficiency. Meanwhile, cognitive strategies of scanning and

skimming and connecting relevant information as well as meta-cognitive

strategy of checking receive appreciation from all students. Students at

different levels usually apply these three strategies in their reading

comprehension. There is a remarkable difference between strategies utilization

of high and low proficient students. Students who perform better at reading

tend to use more cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies than the rest. They

also apply these strategies more frequently than low proficient students. In

more detail, cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies are usually used by high

proficiency students while students at lower level only employ them

sometimes. Therefore, it can be plausibly indicate that there is a correlation

between strategies use and students’ reading performance. The better they are

at reading comprehension, they more cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies

they employ in the process.

III

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION....................................................1

1.1. Background to the Thesis................................................................1

1.2. Aims of the study and research questions.......................................2

1.3. Scope and significance of the study................................................3

1.4. Organization of the Thesis..............................................................3

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE......................5

2.1. Reading skill and academic reading comprehension......................5

2.1.1. The role of reading skill............................................................5

2.1.2. Definitions of reading comprehension......................................5

2.2. Learning strategies and academic reading strategies......................6

2.2.1. Definitions of learning strategies..............................................6

2.2.2. Types of learning strategies......................................................7

2.3. Cognitive strategies in reading comprehension..............................8

2.3.1. Definitions of cognitive strategies in reading comprehension..8

2.3.2. Role of cognitive strategies in reading comprehension............8

2.3.3. Classifications of cognitive strategies in reading

comprehension....................................................................................9

2.4. Meta-cognitive strategies in reading comprehension......................9

2.4.1. Definitions of meta-cognitive strategies in reading

comprehension....................................................................................9

2.4.2. Effects of meta-cognitive strategies on reading comprehension10

2.4.3. Categories of meta-cognitive strategies in reading

comprehension..................................................................................10

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS AND PROCEDURES..................11

3.1. Research questions restated...........................................................11

3.2. Subjects.........................................................................................11

3.3. Instrumentations............................................................................12

a. EFL academic reading comprehension test...................................12

b. Survey of reading strategies (SORS)............................................12

IV

c. Semi-structured interview.............................................................15

3.4. Procedure.......................................................................................16

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION........................17

4.1. The utilization of cognitive strategies in academic reading

comprehension by first-year English majors........................................17

4.1.1. Cognitive strategies with labels categorized into subscales. . .17

4.1.2. Cognitive strategies utilized by first-year English majors in

academic reading comprehension.....................................................18

4.1.3. Cognitive strategies utilization in academic reading

comprehension of high proficient (HP) and low proficient (LP)

student group.....................................................................................20

4.2. The employment of meta-cognitive strategies in academic reading

comprehension by first-year English majors........................................25

4.2.1. Meta-cognitive strategies categorized into subscales.............25

4.2.2. Meta-cognitive strategies employed by English-majored

freshmen in academic reading comprehension.................................26

4.2.3. Meta-cognitive strategies employment in academic reading

comprehension of high proficient (HP) and low proficient (LP)

student group.....................................................................................28

4.3. Cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies utilization in academic

reading comprehension of low and high proficient students - A more

profound analogy between two groups of successful and unsuccessful

reading test-takers – Data from the retrospective interview.................33

4.3.1. Cognitive strategies used by successful and unsuccessful test-

takers.................................................................................................33

4.3.2. Meta-cognitive strategies utilized by successful and

unsuccessful test-takers.....................................................................35

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS......................37

5.1. Conclusion.....................................................................................37

5.2. Suggestions....................................................................................38

V

APPENDICES

Appendix 1.......................................................................................................39

Appendix 2.......................................................................................................43

Appendix 3.......................................................................................................46

VI

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Taxonomy of SORS..................................................................13

Table 2. The SILL scale of strategy use frequency.................................15

Table 3. Cognitive strategies categorized into subscales.........................17

Table 4. Frequency of cognitive strategies utilized by first-year English

majors in academic reading comprehension............................................18

Table 5. Cognitive strategies utilized in academic reading comprehension

by HP student group................................................................................20

Table 6. Cognitive strategies utilized in academic reading comprehension

by LP student group.................................................................................22

Table 7. Meta-cognitive strategies categorized into subscales................25

Table 8. Frequency of meta-cognitive strategies employed by English-

majored freshmen in academic reading comprehension..........................26

Table 9. Meta-cognitive strategies utilized in academic reading

comprehension by HP student group.......................................................28

Table 10. Meta-cognitive strategies utilized in academic reading

comprehension by LP student group.......................................................30

Table 11. Cognitive strategies used by successful and unsuccessful test-

takers........................................................................................................33

Table 12. Meta-cognitive strategies utilized by successful and

unsuccessful test-takers...........................................................................35

VII

LIST OF BAR CHARTS

Bar chart 1. Cognitive strategies utilized in academic reading

comprehension by HP students in comparison with LP students..............24

Bar chart 2. Meta-cognitive strategies utilized in academic reading

comprehension by HP students in comparison with LP students..............32

VIII

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

COM: Comprehending strategies

ESL: English as a Second Language

EVA: Evaluating strategies

HP: High Proficient

MEM: Memory strategies

MON: Monitoring strategies

L1: First Language

L2: Second Language

LP: Low Proficient

PLA: Planning strategies

RET: Retrieval strategies

SILL: the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning

SORS: Survey of Reading Strategies

1

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background to the Thesis

English has been officially used by people from all over the world so

learning this language has become an urgent need in the modern era. There are

more and more ESL (English as a second language) learners who ceaselessly

invest a great deal of time and effort in finding the way to master the

language. For achieving that mastery of English, it is vital for them to be

proficient in all four skills of listening, speaking, writing and reading, among

which reading is recognized as the most essential skill to acquire for the

majority of learners by a large number of researchers, Anderson (2003),

Easton (2011) and Richland (2014) are just some to name. Good reading skill

is the key for learners to make progress in different areas of language learning

(Anderson, 2003). The essence of reading has been emphasized for decades,

thus many commentators such as White (2004), Lei, Rhinehart, Howard &

Cho (2010) have investigated the factors having impacts on this skill.

As Othman & Jaidi (2012) remarked, reading is a sophisticated process

requiring cognitive and even meta-cognitive approaches. And it is critical for

adult learners like university students to not only explicitly understand the

content of a reading text but also be able to analyze it in depth. In this process,

learners experience a procedure of structuring by employing a set of mental

activities which are regarded as reading strategies (Susar, 2006, as cited in

Akkaya, 2012). Thus, strategies have been consciously utilized by learners to

complete reading tasks. This arouses concern of researchers on the psychology

of readers and its impact on reading performance with the theory of cognitive

and meta-cognitive strategies. The theory illustrates how readers mentally

process the reading text and suggests how cognitive and meta-cognitive

strategies help improve reading performance (Tavish, 2008). They have been

regarded as a useful tool for achieving reading comprehension. The positive

effects of using these strategies in reading process have been addressed in a

2

certain number of studies (Phakiti, 2006; Tavish, 2008; Othman & Jaidi,

2012).

Academic reading comprehension has been radical to university

students for its presence in all academic discipline, yet most students still

struggle with it (Kroner, 2013). Easton (2011) stated that the products of

reading comprehension are greatly underscored, yet its process receives only

little attention from learners. As a student of English Department, the

researcher is aware of the fact that the students majoring in English at Hanoi

University are no exception. Many of them have difficulties in reading

comprehension but have not taken enough notice of the process. Therefore, it

is worth recognizing the cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies in reading

process and exploring whether utilizing these strategies help enhance

academic reading skill.

1.2. Aims of the study and research questions

This research is conducted to investigate cognitive and meta-cognitive

reading strategies utilized by first-year English majors at Hanoi University in

achieving their reading comprehension. It also aims to find out the

interrelation between these strategies and the reading performance. The

subjects oriented are primarily first-year students of English Department at

Hanoi University. The following three research questions are to be examined

in this study:

1. What cognitive and/or meta-cognitive strategies are used by first-

year English majors in academic reading comprehension? And how frequently

are they utilized?

2. Is there a correlation between students’ strategies use and the

students’ proficiency in academic reading?

3

1.3. Scope and significance of the study

This study focuses on cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies

employed in academic reading comprehension by first-year English majors at

Hanoi University. The information gathered from 34 students randomly

chosen from first year students of English Department at Hanoi University.

They are asked to do an academic reading comprehension test and a survey of

reading strategies. Subsequently, only 6 of them who get the highest and

lowest score in the test are invited to a semi-structured interview. All the data

and information collected are used for the purpose of analysis and discussion

to investigate cognitive and meta-cognitive reading strategies used by

students, how frequently they are employed and the existence of a relationship

between strategies utilized and students’ proficiency.

The contributions of this study would be of interest to students and

teachers in dealing with academic reading comprehension. Students would

recognize their usage of cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies and how these

strategies can help them to improve their reading comprehension. Teachers

would design and apply instruction for learners to apply these strategies in

reading to enhance their skill. In addition, this research also contributes to two

areas of research commonly studied within the context of L2 learning. The

first is learners’ self-awareness and self-improvement in learning. The second

is teachers’ reading strategy instruction for learners.

1.4. Organization of the Thesis

This thesis comprises five chapters as following.

Chapter One: Introduction

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature

Chapter Three: Methods and Procedure

4

Chapter Four: Findings and Discussion

Chapter Five: Suggestions and Conclusion

The first chapter provides a comprehensive introduction of the thesis.

The background, aims, research questions, scope and significance of the study

are presented in this chapter.

Chapter Two notes critical points of previous studies in the similar area

as well as offers definitions of concepts examined in the thesis. Reviews of

reading comprehension, learning strategies, cognitive and meta-cognitive

reading strategies are included.

Chapter Three explains the subject, instrumentations used and

procedure of the research.

Chapter Four details the findings and discussion.

The last chapter states some limitations of the research, offers

suggestions to further studies and concludes the whole research.

5

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

2.1. Reading skill and academic reading comprehension

2.1.1. The role of reading skill

The importance of reading skill is indisputable. Being one of the most

fundamental but convoluted skills in L2 learning and vital for every ESL

learners to acquire and master, this skill has been a rousing subject for

research in linguistics. Besides, its difficulty and elaboration are also

conclusive. Reading proficiency in L2 is much demanding to achieve because

of the complexity, dynamic and multi-dimension of L2 reading (Alderson,

2000; Snow, 2002). According to Tavish (2008), “reading process is one

in which a reader constructs his or her own meaning while reading. Existing

knowledge, organized as schemas, influences the construction of these

meanings or, in other words, comprehension.” (p. 407). There are three main

kinds of reading widely recognized by many commentators (NICHHD, 2000;

Ahmadi, Hairul, & Pourhossein, 2012, as cited in Ahmadi, Ismail & Abdullah,

2013). They are accuracy (involves phonological and orthographic

processing), fluency (includes time), and comprehension.

2.1.2. Definitions of reading comprehension

Reading comprehension is, as Ahmadi, Ismail & Abdullah (2013)

stated, a reader’s understanding of the surface and hidden meaning of a text. It

involves a combination of the text and the reader in which the reader uses

knowledge and experiences of “language skills, cognitive information and

world knowledge” (p. 238). Meneghetti, Carretti & Beni (2006) defined

reading comprehension as an elaborate cognitive capacity requiring readers’

ability to integrate their knowledge with information of the text and resulting

in the complexity of mental representation.

6

Cummins (1979, 2000) made a distinction between conversational and

academic language and he stated that while it only takes two intensive years

for most learners to attain conversational proficiency, it can be seven to fifteen

years as for academic language and still depends on some factors such as

learner’s level of L1, formal education experience and amount of exposure to

complex language (as cited in Easton, 2011). Reading comprehension is

challenging for learners, and this skill in academic setting is much more

difficult. As Othman & Jaidi (2012) has put it, the purpose of academic

reading is not only understanding the text but also being able to analyze its

content profoundly. Reading was acknowledged as the most crucial for ESL

learners in academic context by Grabe (1991). Green (2005) noted that it can

directly affect academic performance and success. Therefore, it is worth

researching the way to have mastery of academic reading comprehension skill.

2.2. Learning strategies and academic reading strategies

2.2.1. Definitions of learning strategies

Learning strategies have been known as tactics employed by learners to

improve their learning (Khezrlou, 2011). As defined by Chamot (2004), they

are “the conscious thoughts and actions that learners take in order to achieve a

learning goal” (p.14). Scarcella & Oxford (1992) clarified learning strategies

as “specific actions, behaviors, steps, or techniques -- such as seeking out

conversation partners, or giving oneself encouragement to tackle a difficult

language task -- used by students to enhance their own learning” (p. 63, as

cited in Oxford, 2003). When being consciously chosen and suitable for

learners’ learning styles and L2 task, these strategies will be very helpful.

7

2.2.2. Types of learning strategies

According to Oxford (2003), learning strategies are classified into six

groups which are cognitive, metacognitive, memory-related, compensatory,

affective, and social.

Cognitive and metacognitive can be categorized into different two

types of strategies in other taxonomy which are direct and indirect

respectively. Cognitive strategies allow learners to directly manipulate the

language material. Metacognitive strategies, which indirectly operate on the

material, enable learners to control the whole learning process.

These two groups of strategies have been the focus of many studies on

reading comprehension skills (Muñiz-Swicegood, 1994; Fauzan, 2003;

Phakiti, 2003; Zhang, 2007). They found that L2 learners who utilize such

strategies during reading process can produce higher academic reading

performance. Research has indicated that good readers differ from poor

readers in their utilization of cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies

(Zhang, 2007; Guan, Roehrig, Mason & Meng, 2011; Othman & Jaidi, 2012).

The distinction between these two types of readers was drawn by Paris and

Jacobs (1984, p.2083, as cited in Mokhtari & Reichard, 2002) as:

Skilled readers often engage in deliberate activities that

require planful thinking, flexible strategies, and periodic

self-monitoring. They think about the topic, look

forward and backward in the passage, and check their

own understanding as they read. Beginning readers or

poor readers do not recruit and use these skills. Indeed,

novice readers often seem oblivious to these strategies

and the need to use them.

8

2.3. Cognitive strategies in reading comprehension

2.3.1. Definitions of cognitive strategies in reading comprehension

Oxford (2003) suggested that cognitive strategies are the most popular

strategies employed by language learners. These strategies are concerned with

operations or techniques applied to learning or problem solving that require

direct analysis, transformation, or synthesis of learning materials. Cognitive

reading strategies are regarded as mental process directly related to the

processing of information for learning, which are obtaining, storage, retrieval

or use of information (William & Burden, 1997, as cited in Syatrina, 1998).

2.3.2. Role of cognitive strategies in reading comprehension

The importance of cognitive strategies increases with the level of

learners. Thus, they are crucial in academic context which generates high

demand for proficiency of learners. Cognitive strategies are significantly

related to L2 formal proficiency in a positive correlation. Their positive effects

on language learning have been approved in studies by Park (1994), Ku

(1995), Oxford and Ehrman (1995), Kato (1996) and Oxford, Judd, and

Giesen (1998) (as cited in Oxford, 2003).

The role of cognitive strategies in reading process particularly has been

recognized by Gao (2006). They are believed to be essential components in

reading comprehension. According to Alderson (2000), these strategies allow

readers to utilize signals from the reading text and information in their mind to

fill the gap of understanding. He also stressed that they are important in L2

reading context and vital for readers to overcome the language difficulties,

especially when reading difficult academic texts.

9

2.3.3. Classifications of cognitive strategies in reading comprehension

As Mayer (2008) noted, there are three main types of cognitive

strategies. The first is elaboration strategies, by which connections are

established between new material and what is already known. Second,

rehearsal strategies help store information in the memory by repeating the

material. And the final one is organization strategies to visualize the material

to facilitate learning. Although the names may be different, the features of

each type are unanimous. Phakiti (2006) called them comprehending, memory

and retrieval strategies.

2.4. Meta-cognitive strategies in reading comprehension

2.4.1. Definitions of meta-cognitive strategies in reading

comprehension

Many researchers agree that learners’ awareness and monitoring of

their comprehension processes are critically vital aspects of reading skill.

These concepts are referred in literature as metacognition which can be known

as the knowledge about reading and the self-control mechanisms. It is broadly

clarified by Wenden (1998) as learners’ beliefs and knowledge of their own

learning process. There was also a distinction between metaconitive

knowledge and metacognitive strategies. While the former is learners’

information about their learning, the latter refers to skills actively and

consciously employed by learners to direct and regulate their learning.

Metacognitive strategies are actions used by learners to manage

cognitive activities and assure a cognitive objective being achieved (Maghsudi

& Talebi, 2009). According to Oxford (2003), metacognitive strategies are

utilized to control the learning process overall.

10

2.4.2. Effects of meta-cognitive strategies on reading comprehension

They are confirmed to have positive effects on task completion and L2

reading proficiency. In studies of reading comprehension, there has been an

increasing emphasis on the effects of metacognitive strategies used in the

process (O’Neil, 1992; Muñiz-Swicegood, 1994; Cromley, 2005; Zare-ee,

2007; Othman & Jaidi, 2012; Zhang & Seepho, 2013). They confirm the

notion that employing metacognitive strategies helps readers to improve their

reading comprehension performance. As Mokhtari & Reichard (2002)

mentioned, good readers are aware of their own cognitive and linguistic

resources, and are able directing their attention to the appropriate clues in

anticipating, organizing and retaining text information. Poor readers, on the

other hand, do not know what methods to use to improve their reading ability.

They are not capable of self-planning, self-monitoring and self-evaluating

their reading skill properly, or in other words, lack metacognitive strategy use

in academic reading comprehension (Zhang, 2007).

Metacognitive reading strategies are essential to learners as they can

help them verify their reading process and make necessary adjustments

(Hassan, 2003). Wenden (1998) asserted that metacognitive strategies supply

learners with a toolkit of ideas which in turn enable them to play a more active

role in their own language acquisition.

2.4.3. Categories of meta-cognitive strategies in reading

comprehension

As Chamot (2004) defined, these strategies include planning (i.e.,

developing a plan before reading a text, making a conscious effort to focus on

key words, phrases, or types of information in the text), monitoring (asking

self questions about the learning process intermittently), and evaluating

11

(checking back to assess what was learned, reflecting on what was learned

through journals or learning logs).

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS AND PROCEDURES

3.1. Research questions restated

The research aims to explore the cognitive and meta-cognitive

strategies employed by low and high proficiency first-year English majors in

academic reading comprehension and the frequency they are used. This study

is to examine whether there is a relation between the application of cognitive

and meta-cognitive strategies and reading performance of students. The

following three research questions are to be investigated in this study:

1. What cognitive and/or meta-cognitive strategies are used by first-

year English majors in academic reading comprehension? And how frequently

are they utilized?

2. Is there a correlation between students’ strategies use and the

students’ proficiency in academic reading?

3.2. Subjects

The respondents were 34 first-year majors of English Department at

Hanoi University who were randomly chosen in different classes and gathered

in the day of survey. The majority of them were female and at the age of 18 on

average. They were from the same academic year and shared the same study

condition. By random selection of participants, there was an equal chance of

choosing varied English language proficiencies which made the result more

objective.

12

3.3. Instrumentations

There were two research instruments regarded as the most appropriate

and employed in the research: (a) an academic reading comprehension test and

(b) a survey of reading strategies (SORS) were used to collect data and (c) a

semi-structured interview.

a. EFL academic reading comprehension test

The test was taken from a photocopiable source on the Internet. The

test is confirmed to be appropriate to examine learners’ academic reading

proficiency. It comprises a reading passage titled Land of the rising sum and

13 questions in total to check students’ comprehension of the text. There are

three types of questions: Choosing headings for paragraphs, Identification of

writer’s views/claims or of information in the text, and Multiple-choice. They

are fully designed for testing both skimming and scanning skills of learners.

Therefore, it is valid to take the test for the reading comprehension testing

purpose of the research.

The answers of students would be marked on 100-point grading scale.

Based on this scale, students are divided into two groups: high proficient

students (HP) and low students (LP). The HP group includes students scoring

70 and above. The counterpart involves students getting less than 70. The

purpose of categorizing is to investigate what strategies used by high

proficient students in comparison with low proficient ones and the

interrelationship between strategy use and reading comprehension

performance. The test is shown in Appendix 1.

b. Survey of reading strategies (SORS)

A cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies questionnaire or a

survey of reading strategies (SORS) has been advocated as a useful tool for

evaluate these strategies employed in reading process (Wenden, 1998;

Mokhtari & Reichard, 2002; Fauzan, 2003). According to Mokhtari and

13

Reichard (2002), this is a self-reported instrument developed to measure adult

ESL students’ cognitive and metacognitive awareness and perceived use of

reading strategies related to reading academic materials.

The SORS utilized in this study was adapted from the self-reported

questionnaire designed by Phakiti in 2006 to assess the cognition and meta-

cognition of adult learners while reading an academic text. It is a

questionnaire consisting of 30 items, each of which briefly describes a

situation of readers when reading academic materials, such as “I read the texts

and questions several times to better understand them”. Each situation

represents for a strategy which is aligned with one of the two strategy groups:

Cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies. These items are mixed in the

questionnaire in order to receive the most objective results. However, for the

purpose of data analysis, they are then grouped into two sets of 13 cognitive

strategies and 17 meta-cognitive strategies. In each group, strategies are

categorized into three subscales: Comprehending, Memory and Retrieval for

group of Cognitive strategies and Planning, Monitoring and Evaluating for

group of Meta-cognitive strategies. Please see the next page for the taxonomy

of the SORS by Phakiti (2006).

1Table 1. Taxonomy of SORS

Processing SubscaleNo. of items

Items

Cognitive strategies Comprehending 5 2, 3, 6, 7 14Memory 4 1, 5, 8, 22Retrieval 4 4, 9, 26, 29

Meta-cognitive strategies Planning 6 10, 11, 19, 20, 23, 27Monitoring 6 12, 16, 17, 21, 24, 25Evaluating 5 13, 15, 18, 28, 30

301 Reprinted from “Modeling cognitive and metacognitive strategies and their relationships to EFL

reading test performance,” by A. Phakiti, 2006, Melbourne Papers in Language Testing 2006, 1, p.

65. Copyright 2006 by University of Melbourne. Adapted with permission.

14

Participants were asked to do the survey after finishing the reading test

and, based on their own reading experience, choose strategies that they used

on a 5-point Likert-scale: 1 (Never), 2 (Sometimes), 3 (Often), 4 (Usually)

and 5 (Always). The SORS is provided in Appendix 2.

For calculating the frequency of strategy use by students, all the points

chosen in handouts by participants would be summed up and divided to the

total numbers of students. By conducting this process, the result achieved

would be the average point. This method is clear to interpret the score and can

show the averages in explicit marks.

However, in order to interpret the data collected, a summative rating

scale known as the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)

designed by Oxford (1990) is utilized. This scale is proved to be effective in

demonstrating that strategy use relates to language proficiency by researchers

(Phakiti, 2006) and Zhang & Seepho, 2013). The instrument was originally

developed for the U.S. Defense Language Institute, which wanted to

determine how the use of learning strategies influences the success or failure

of military personnel learning foreign languages (Oxford, 1986, as cited in

Oxford, 1999). Nonetheless, there was a greater scope emerged for the SILL

when it was adopted by numerous universities, schools, agencies, and

institutes around the globe.

15

The SILL scale’s interpretation is demonstrated in the Table 2 as

following (Oxford, 1990, as cited in Zhang & Seepho, 2013):

2Table 2. The SILL scale of strategy use frequency

Mean Score Frequency Evaluation

4.5-5.0

3.5-4.49High

Always or almost always used

Usually used

2.5-3.49 Medium Sometimes used

1.5-2.49

1.0-1.49Low

Generally not used

Never or almost never used

c. Semi-structured interview

In order to get a better understanding of cognitive and meta-cognitive

strategies, a semi-structured interview was conducted after scoring the reading

test. There were only 12 students selected for the interview. They were 6

successful and 6 unsuccessful test-takers with lowest and highest marks in the

test respectively. The 30 strategies were sorted into 3 set of pre-reading,

while-reading and post-reading. As it was difficult for students to describe in

detail the strategies used, so a table of questions was designed to ask them

what strategy they actually used in each stage during the test. This interview

was aimed to confirm the relationship between strategies used and the

students’ reading proficiency. The interview questionnaire is shown in

Appendix 3.

2 Reprinted from “Metacognitive Strategy Use and Academic Reading Achievement: Insights from a

Chinese Context” by L. Zhang & S. Seepho, 2013, Electronic Journal of Foreign Language

Teaching, 2013, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 54–69, p. 58. Copyright 2013 by Centre for Language Studies,

National University of Singapore. Adapted with permission.

16

3.4. Procedure

Prior to the official survey, the pilot one was carried out in class 4A10

in the last week of March. The results of the pilot survey revealed some

misunderstandings with the question in the interview. Hence, some changes

are implemented to make it clearer. After a rigorous revise, the survey was

conducted 34 first -year English majors who were randomly chosen in 10

classes of English Department at Hanoi University and then gathered in a

scheduled day. This official survey was conducted in the second week of April

2014, in the same manner as the pilot one. 34 handouts returned were

appropriate. The 6 interviews were valid.

The data was analyzed in the following procedure. First, in the reading

test, the answers could be marked to categorized groups of students upon their

reading proficiency. Then in the strategy questionnaire would be coded

according to the given taxonomy and scale. The circles of participants for each

strategy would be counted. Lastly, the strategies used in each stage of the test

by successful and unsuccessful test-takers would be displayed by counting the

ticks.

17

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. The utilization of cognitive strategies in academic reading

comprehension by first-year English majors

4.1.1. Cognitive strategies with labels categorized into subscales

Table 3. Cognitive strategies categorized into subscales

Subscale Item Cognitive strategies LabelComprehending 2 I translated the reading texts and tasks

into Vietnamese.Translating

3 I used pictures or titles of the texts to help comprehend reading tasks.

Using pictures and titles

6 I tried to understand the texts and questions regardless of my vocabulary knowledge.

Attempting regardless of vocabulary

7 I tried to find topics and main ideas by scanning and skimming.

Scanning and Skimming

14 I attempted to identify main points of the given reading texts and tasks.

Identifying main points

Memory 1 I made short notes or underlined main ideas during the test.

Note taking and main ideas

5 I spent more time on difficult questions. Devoting time8 I read the texts and questions several

times to better understand them.Repetition

22 I tried to understand the questions adequately before attempting to find the answers.

Remembering tasks

Retrieval 4 I used my own English structure knowledge to comprehend the text.

Using grammar

9 I used my prior knowledge to help understand the reading test.

Using prior knowledge

26 I used multiple thinking strategies to help answer the test questions.

Using multi-strategies

29 I selected relevant information to help me understand the reading texts and answer the test questions.

Connecting relevant information

Table 3 illustrates the classification of cognitive strategies investigated

in the study. The grouping method was borrowed from the research conducted

by Phakiti (2006). It can be seen that, there are 13 items of cognitive strategies

18

mentioned in the survey. They are labeled in order to be referred in name in

substitute of the whole description. These 13 items correspond with strategies

described by Oxford (2003) which are note taking, summarizing, inferencing,

using prior knowledge; predicting, analyzing and using context clues. They

are sorted into three groups of strategies which are comprehending, memory

and retrieval. These three types of cognitive strategies correlate to which

noted by William and Burden, (1997) (as cited in Syatrina, 1998). These

researchers referred cognitive strategies as a mental process consists of three

operations which are obtaining, storage, retrieval.

4.1.2. Cognitive strategies utilized by first-year English majors in

academic reading comprehension

Table 4. Frequency of cognitive strategies utilized by first-year

English majors in academic reading comprehension

Cognitive strategies

Comprehending

strategies (COM)

Memory strategies

(MEM)

Retrieval strategies

(RET)

Overall cognitive

strategies

No. of

itemsValue

No. of

itemsValue

No. of

itemsValue

OVERALL mean:

3.26

2

3

6

7

14

2.36

2.71

3.06

3.77

3.77

1

5

8

22

3.48

3.24

3.24

3.77

4

9

26

29

3.24

3.30

3.18

3.77

COM mean: 2.98 MEM mean: 3.43 RET mean: 3.37

KEY TO AVERAGES: 3.5 or higher = High; 2.5 – 3.49 = Medium; 2.49 or lower =

Low

Table 4 shows the recurrence rate of cognitive strategies utilized in

academic reading comprehension by English-majored freshmen. As can be

19

seen in the Table, all three strategy groups of comprehending, memory and

retrieval are used in medium frequency with the SILL values of 2.98, 3.43 and

3.37 correspondingly which means that they are sometimes employed. Among

them, memory strategies are the most frequently exploited with the average

value of 3.43. The least often used strategies are which in comprehending

group (SILL value of 3.01). The biggest mean score gap which is between the

highest and lowest strategy use groups is 0.45. Therefore, the disproportion in

employment frequency of the three cognitive strategies is not dramatic.

There are some appreciative strategies among listed items with high

average values of 3.77 which are item 7, 14 and 29 of scanning and skimming,

identifying main points and connecting relevant information respectively. The

first two items are classified into comprehending group and the rest is of

retrieval. It is noteworthy that there are favorable strategies in groups of

comprehending and retrieval while there is none in the memory set.

Noticeably, there is a low average value of 2.36 among strategies

investigated. The referred strategy is item 2 described as “I translated the

reading texts and tasks into Vietnamese” (translating). It appears that the

technique of translating the text into L1 is not favorable for students. The

outcome is a contradiction to previous articulation of Kern (1994) who

asserted that translation plays “an important and multidimensional role in the

L2 reading comprehension processes” (P. 455) (as cited in Seng and Hashim,

2006). This can be justified by the findings of Upton (1997) which suggest the

relation between the reliance degree of readers on translation in reading

process and their level of proficiency. In academic context, students are more

proficient in reading, thus they do not have to resort to the help of translation

to comprehend a text. This strategy should be viewed as “an important

developmental aspect of L2 comprehension processes” rather than “an

undesirable habit to be discouraged at all costs” (p. 442, Kern, 1994, as cited

in Seng and Hashim, 2006). Notwithstanding, there is still a need for further

study to find a more authentic and reliable justification for this fact.

20

Generally, cognitive strategies generally are sometimes used with the

overall mean value of 3.26. It can be noted that there is a moderate utilization

of cognitive strategies in academic reading comprehension by first-year

English majors.

4.1.3. Cognitive strategies utilization in academic reading

comprehension of high proficient (HP) and low proficient (LP) student

group

4.1.3.1. Cognitive strategies utilized in academic reading

comprehension by HP student group

Table 5. Cognitive strategies utilized in academic reading

comprehension by HP student group

Cognitive strategies

Comprehending

strategies (COM)

Memory strategies

(MEM)

Retrieval strategies

(RET)

Overall cognitive

strategies

No. of

itemsValue

No. of

itemsValue

No. of

itemsValue

OVERALL mean:

3.67

2

3

6

7

14

2.87

2.73

3.87

4.44

3.87

1

5

8

22

3.59

4.16

3.01

4.01

4

9

26

29

3.73

3.59

3.30

4.44

COM mean: 3.56 MEM mean: 3.69 RET mean: 3.76

KEY TO AVERAGES: 3.5 or higher = High; 2.5 – 3.49 = Medium; 2.49 or lower =

Low

Table 5 shows the use frequency of HP group in academic reading

comprehension. As recorded in the Table, the average values of the three

strategy group are all high. Retrieval cluster is the most often employed with

3.67 point, accompanied by memory group with 3.69 point. The lowest score

21

of frequency is of comprehending set with 3.56 point. The gap between

recurrence rates of these three categories, however, is not broad with only 0.2

score.

There are three most appreciative items by HP students in every

strategy group, which all score at high level of use frequency. They are to be

noted as following. Among comprehending strategies, the item 7 of scanning

and skimming is at the highest use frequency with 4.4 point, followed by item

6 of attempting to understand regardless of vocabulary and item 14 of

identifying main points with equivalent score of 3.87. The category 5 -

devoting time in memory set is the most frequently used with the value of

4.16. The second most often employed is criteria 22 of remembering tasks

with recurrence score of 4.01, which is 0.02 point more than item 1 - note

taking and main ideas. In the group of retrieval strategies, item 9 - using prior

knowledge is the least used item with 3.59 point, preceded with category 4

and 29 of using grammar and connecting relevant information with 3.73 and

4.44 respectively. It is notable that among 9 mentioned strategies, there are

two items recording a remarkable score of 4.44 which is even at the higher

level of high average scale. They are items of scanning and skimming and

connecting relevant information. This means they are always or almost always

used by students.

To summarize, cognitive strategies are utilized at medium rate of

regularity with mean value of 3.67 by high proficient students in academic

reading comprehension. Retrieval is the most often used group of strategies.

The most favorable items are scanning and skimming and connecting relevant

information.

22

4.1.3.2. Cognitive strategies utilized in academic reading

comprehension by LP student group

Table 6. Cognitive strategies utilized in academic reading

comprehension by LP student group

Cognitive strategies

Comprehending

strategies (COM)

Memory strategies

(MEM)

Retrieval strategies

(RET)

Overall cognitive

strategies

No. of

itemsValue

No. of

itemsValue

No. of

itemsValue

OVERALL mean:

2.95

2

3

6

7

14

2.00

2.70

2.50

3.30

2.40

1

5

8

22

3.40

2.60

3.40

3.60

4

9

26

29

2.90

3.10

3.10

3.30

COM mean: 2.58 MEM mean: 3.25 RET mean: 3.37

KEY TO AVERAGES: 3.5 or higher = High; 2.5 – 3.49 = Medium; 2.49 or lower =

Low

Table 6 shows cognitive strategies imposed in academic reading

comprehension by freshmen in English Department at Hanoi University. As

can be seen in the Table, the mean frequency score of all three strategy groups

are at medium level with the highest value of 3.37 for retrieval. The following

group is memory with 3.25 score, which is 0.67 point more than planning.

There is a fairly wide disproportion among these three sets of strategies. The

biggest variance is 0.79 point between the highest and the lowest values.

There is an indication that comprehending strategies are the least

appreciative compared to the other two groups with remarkable score

difference. This gap can be demystified by the low score of item 2 of

translating in comprehending group with 2.00 point which is at the low

average of frequency. The outcome corresponds with the result analyzed in

23

part 3 of this chapter about cognitive strategies utilized by first-year English

majors in academic reading comprehension. It can be inferred that translating

is the least approving and frequently used strategy of first-year English major

generally and even low proficient students particularly.

Noticeably, there is an item among cognitive strategies mentioned

score at high level with 3.6 point. It is the strategy of remembering tasks (item

22), described as “I tried to understand the questions adequately before

attempting to find the answers”, which is employ at high frequency. The

strategy is advocated for being effective in reading comprehension process by

Alderson (2000), especially in completing the reading task as it helps readers

to have an explicit understanding of the goal. This can clarify the high use

frequency of the category.

To conclude, there is a medium use rate of cognitive strategies among

students of low proficient group. Translating is considered the least employed

among all the strategies with low average score. LP students tend to apply

remembering tasks strategy most often in academic reading comprehension.

24

4.1.3.3. Cognitive strategies utilized in academic reading

comprehension by HP students in comparison with LP students

Bar chart 1. Cognitive strategies utilized in academic reading

comprehension by HP students in comparison with LP students

Bar chart 1 demonstrates cognitive strategies employed by HP students

compared to LP students in academic reading comprehension. As depicted in

the chart, the strategy use frequency of high proficient group is significantly

higher than its counterpart. Score of overall cognitive strategies utilization by

HP students is 0.72 point more than that of LP students. These scores are at

different rates of high and medium. It is noteworthy that HP students apply

cognitive strategies in academic reading reasonably more frequent than LP

students do. While the former usually use the strategies, the latter only employ

them sometimes.

As for three sub-groups of strategies, they all witness the difference in

application rate between HP and LP students. Remarkably, the most

significant score gap between these two groups of students is in the use

frequency of comprehending strategies with 0.98 point. HP students impose

strategies of comprehending in reading much more often than their

counterpart. It can be inferred that there is a possible relation between

students’ proficiency and their utilization of cognitive strategies. Students

25

with higher proficiency are more likely to use these strategies in academic

reading comprehension than those with lower proficiency.

4.2. The employment of meta-cognitive strategies in academic reading

comprehension by first-year English majors

4.2.1. Meta-cognitive strategies categorized into subscales

Table 7. Meta-cognitive strategies categorized into subscales

Subscale Item

Cognitive strategies Label

Planning 10 I tried to identify easy and difficult test tasks. Identifying easy and difficult tasks

11 When I started to complete the test, I planned how to complete it and followed the plan.

Planning the procedure and following the plan

19 I determined what the test tasks/questions required me to do.

Setting task expectation

20 I was aware of the need to plan a course of action.

Planning actions

23 I made sure I understood what had to be done and how to do it.

Setting goals

27 I made sure to clarify the goal and know how to complete it.

Clarifying goals

Monitoring

12 I was aware of what and how I was doing in the test.

Being aware of what and how

16 I was aware of which strategy to use and how and when to use it.

Being aware of strategy

17 I corrected mistakes immediately when found. Correcting mistakes21 I was aware of how much the test remained to

be completed.Being aware of how much to do

24 I was aware of my ongoing reading and test taking.

Monitoring the process

25 I kept track of my own progress to complete the questions on time.

Keeping track of the process

Evaluating 13 I checked my own performance and progress while completing the test.

Checking performance and progress

15 I thought through the meaning of the test tasks/questions before answering them.

Assessing meaning

18 I asked myself how the test questions and the given texts related to what I already knew.

Self-testing

28 I checked my accuracy as I progressed through the test.

Checking accuracy

30 I carefully checked the answers before submitting the test.

Checking up

26

The categorization of meta-cognitive strategies examined in the

research is shown in Table 7. It was taken from the taxonomy noted by Phakiti

(2006). As has been demonstrated, meta-cognitive strategies listed in the

questionnaire comprise 17 items which have labels to be stated

straightforwardly instead of mentioning their transcriptions.

These items coincide closely with strategies noted in the study of

Oxford (2003) which are identifying one’s own learning style preferences and

needs, planning for an L2 task, gathering and organizing materials, arranging

a study space and a schedule, monitoring mistakes, and evaluating task

success, and evaluating the success of any type of learning strategy. They are

classified into three groups of strategies namely planning, monitoring and

evaluating. This taxonomy was also approved by Jacobs & Paris (1987) (as

cited in Ahmadi, Ismail and Abdullah, 2013).

4.2.2. Meta-cognitive strategies employed by English-majored

freshmen in academic reading comprehension

Table 8. Frequency of meta-cognitive strategies employed by

English-majored freshmen in academic reading comprehension

Meta-cognitive strategiesPlanning

strategies (PLA)Monitoring strategies (MON)

Evaluating strategies (EVA)

Overall metacognitive strategies

No. of items Value No. of

items Value No. of items Value OVERALL mean: 3.2

101119202327

2.72.73.52.93.63.2

121617212425

3.32.83.83.03.23.2

1315182830

2.73.93.03.34.1

PLA mean: 3.12 MON mean: 3.23

EVA mean: 3.4

KEY TO AVERAGES: 3.5 or higher = High; 2.5 – 3.49 = Medium; 2.49 or lower = Low

27

Table 8 reveals the meta-cognitive strategies applied in academic

reading comprehension by freshmen in English Department at Hanoi

University. As specified in the Table, the frequency score of each strategy

group is at medium rate with the highest value of 3.4 for evaluating, virtually

reaching the high average rate of 3.5. The subsequent group is monitoring

with 3.23 score, which is 0.11 point more than planning. However, there is no

considerable score gap among these three sets of strategies. The widest

variance is 0.28 point between the highest and the lowest values.

Discernibly, no meta-cognitive strategy is in rare use by students. All

the stated items get the scores of medium and above which means they are

employed often. Among them, there are four most approving strategies of 15,

17, 19 and 30 which are of frequent utilization. They are items of assessing

meaning, correcting mistakes, setting task expectation and checking up whose

average values in turn scores 3.9, 3.8, 3.5 and 4.1. Hence, they are usually

used by students. These strategies are fairly distributed into all three groups of

planning, monitoring and evaluating. It is noteworthy that in each group of

meta-cognitive strategies alluded, there is at least one items favored by

students and in frequent employment in their academic reading

comprehension.

Briefly, meta-cognitive strategies are approved and used by students in

medium rate with the overall mean of 3.2. There is no strategies underrated by

readers and the most glowing items are assessing meaning, correcting

mistakes, setting task expectation and checking up whose average values show

high frequency of engagement.

28

4.2.3. Meta-cognitive strategies employment in academic reading

comprehension of high proficient (HP) and low proficient (LP) student

group

4.2.3.1. Meta-cognitive strategies utilized in academic reading

comprehension by HP student group

Table 9. Meta-cognitive strategies utilized in academic reading

comprehension by HP student group

Meta-cognitive strategies

Planning

strategies (PLA)

Monitoring

strategies

(MON)

Evaluating

strategies (EVA)

Overall metacognitive

strategies

No. of

itemsValue

No. of

itemsValue

No. of

itemsValue

OVERALL mean: 3.73

10

11

19

20

23

27

3.29

3.14

4.00

3.57

4.14

3.86

12

16

17

21

24

25

3.71

3.43

4.00

3.86

3.71

3.86

13

15

18

28

30

3.14

4.00

3.71

3.57

4.43

PLA mean: 3.67 MON mean:

3.76

EVA mean: 3.77

KEY TO AVERAGES: 3.5 or higher = High; 2.5 – 3.49 = Medium; 2.49 or lower

= Low

Table 9 presents meta-cognitive strategies utilized in academic reading

comprehension by first-year English majors. As can be observed in the Table,

the mean frequency score of all three strategy groups are at high level with the

highest value of 3.77 for evaluating, accompanied by monitoring with only 0.1

point less. The least used set is planning with score of 3.67. There is no

substantial score disparity among these three sets of strategies. The largest gap

29

is only 0.1 point between the highest and the lowest values. It is noticeable

that though planning strategies are less favorable than the rest, all three

strategy subscales are in fairly equal use and usually applied by students in

reading comprehension.

Among 17 strategies mentioned, over half of them score at high

frequency level. However, there are five items have medium values which are

items 10 - Identifying easy and difficult tasks, 11 - Planning the procedure and

following the plan and 23 - Setting goals of planning group, 16 - Being aware

of strategy of monitoring set and 13- Checking performance and progress of

evaluating group. Three of them are in planning group so it can be the

demystification for the lowest score of this group in comparison with

monitoring and evaluating.

Meta-cognitive strategies are generally utilized at high rate of

regularity with mean value of 3.73 by high proficient students in academic

reading comprehension. Planning strategies are less frequently employed by

students yet the use frequency disproportion between them and the rest is not

significant.

30

4.2.3.2. Meta-cognitive strategies utilized in academic reading

comprehension by LP student group

Table 10. Meta-cognitive strategies utilized in academic reading

comprehension by LP student group

Meta-cognitive strategies

Planning

strategies (PLA)

Monitoring

strategies

(MON)

Evaluating

strategies (EVA)

Overall metacognitive

strategies

No. of

itemsValue

No. of

itemsValue Items

No. of

items

OVERALL mean: 2.90

10

11

19

20

23

27

2.30

2.40

3.20

2.50

3.40

2.70

12

16

17

21

24

25

3.00

2.40

3.70

2.40

2.80

2.80

13

15

18

28

30

2.40

3.80

2.50

3.10

3.90

PLA mean: 2.75 MON mean:

2.85

EVA mean: 3.14

KEY TO AVERAGES: 3.5 or higher = High; 2.5 – 3.49 = Medium; 2.49 or lower

= Low

Table 10 documents the meta-cognitive strategy employment of LP

students in academic reading comprehension. As listed in the table, the mean

score of overall meta-cognitive strategies is 2.90, being at medium degree.

Generally, these strategies are used by students sometimes. All three subscales

are also at medium use frequency. The highest score is 3.14 of evaluating,

followed by 2.85 and 2.75 of monitoring and planning correspondingly. The

variance in score among these three sets of strategies is not remarkable. 0.39

point is the widest gap which is between the highest and the lowest values.

31

There are visibly both favorable and unfavorable items among

mentioned meta-cognitive strategies with high and low average score

respectively. Items that receive frequency values at high rate are item 17 -

correcting mistakes of monitoring subscale and item 15 - assessing meaning

and item 30 – checking up of evaluating group. It is notable that while LP

students have a tendency to use meta-cognitive strategies sometimes, there are

still three items valued and applied usually in reading by them.

On the other hand, there are strategies rarely used by students which

equivalently allocated into all three groups. They are item 10 (Identifying easy

and difficult tasks), 11 (Planning the procedure and following the plan) of

planning set, item 21(Being aware of how much to do) of monitoring group

and item 13 (Checking performance and progress) of evaluating category.

To summarize, there is a medium use rate of meta-cognitive strategies

among students of low proficient group. While there are three strategies used

at high frequency by students, there are still five of the items hardly applied to

academic reading comprehension.

32

4.2.3.3. Meta-cognitive strategies utilized in academic reading

comprehension by HP students in comparison with LP students

Bar chart 2. Meta-cognitive strategies utilized in academic

reading comprehension by HP students in comparison with LP students

Bar chart 2 illustrates meta-cognitive strategies utilized by HP students

in comparison with LP students in academic reading comprehension. As

shown in the chart, the strategy use frequency of high proficient group is

considerably higher than its counterpart. The scores of overall meta-cognitive

strategies employment by HP and LP students are at different rates of high and

medium. The former achieves 0.83 point more than the latter. It is noteworthy

that HP students employ meta-cognitive strategies in academic reading

reasonably more frequent than LP students do. While the former usually use

the strategies, the latter only employ them sometimes.

As for three sub-groups of strategies, there is a disproportion in every

group in utilization frequency between HP and LP students. Noticeably, the

most significant score gap between these two groups of students is in the use

rate of planning and monitoring strategies with quite equivalent scores of 0.92

and 0.91 respectively. HP students impose strategies of planning and

monitoring in reading much more often than their counterpart.

33

It can be indicated that there is a plausible interrelationship between

students’ proficiency and their employment of meta-cognitive strategies. High

proficient students are inclined to use meta-cognitive strategies in academic

reading comprehension more than low proficient students.

4.3. Cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies utilization in academic

reading comprehension of low and high proficient students - A more

profound analogy between two groups of successful and unsuccessful

reading test-takers – Data from the retrospective interview

4.3.1. Cognitive strategies used by successful and unsuccessful test-

takers

Table 11. Cognitive strategies used by successful and

unsuccessful test-takers

Subscale Item

Labels of cognitive strategies used

Successful test-takers

(%)

Unsuccessful test-takers

(%)Comprehendin

g2 Translating 0 673 Using pictures and titles 17 176 Attempting to understand

regardless of vocabulary67 33

7 Scanning and Skimming 100 10014 Identifying main points 83 33

Mean percentage 53.4 50Memory 1 Note taking and main

ideas100 50

5 Devoting time 100 338 Repetition 67 022 Remembering tasks 83 67

Mean percentage 87.5 37.5Retrieval 4 Using grammar 67 17

9 Using prior knowledge 100 3326 Using multi-strategies 87 029 Connecting relevant

information100 50

Mean percentage 88.5 25Overall average percentage 74.7 38.5

34

Table 11 shows cognitive strategies employed by successful and

unsuccessful test-takers. As recorded in the table, the portion of successful

readers using all three categories of strategies is drastically more than their

counterpart. To be more specific, it is 74% for the former and 38.5% for the

latter. The ratios of students accomplishing the test who apply

comprehending, memory and retrieval in reading process are in turn 3.4%,

50%, and 65.5% more than that of students failing the test. It is noticeable that

while the gaps in percentage of successful and unsuccessful test-takers using

memory and retrieval strategies are considerably wide with over 50%,

comprehending group tends to be used by equal rate of students from two

groups.

Visibly among the statistics, there are some strategies are made use of

by all the students who succeeded in the test. They are allocated in every

subscale of strategies. In comprehending set, item 7 of scanning and skimming

are fully appreciated by students. For memory group, they are item 1 - note

taking and main ideas and item 5 - devoting time. Item 9 (Using prior

knowledge) and item 29 (Connecting relevant information) are strategies in

retrieval group employed by 100% students.

It is noticeable that while the rate of unsuccessful test-takers using

cognitive strategies in reading process is very low (under 50%), strategy no.7

of comprehending set receives complete support from all students in this

group. There is an implicit suggestion that scanning and skimming is the most

favorable of students regardless of their proficiency.

Equally significant, there is an exceptional figure presented in the table.

It is the case of translating strategy. It is mentioned above that almost all

cognitive strategies are in use of higher portion of successful readers than

unsuccessful ones. However, there is no successful test-taker using translating

strategy in the test while more than a half of unsuccessful students utilize this

strategy in reading process. This can be clarified by study of Upton (1997). He

35

asserted that there is a correlation between the reliance degree of readers on

translation in reading process and their level of proficiency. The higher their

proficiency is, the less they rely on translating in reading.

To summarize, students who accomplish in the test are remarkably

more liable to use cognitive strategies than those who fail in the test. The

numbers of strategies used by the former group of students are also more

substantial than that of the latter one.

4.3.2. Meta-cognitive strategies utilized by successful and unsuccessful

test-takers

Table 12. Meta-cognitive strategies utilized by successful and

unsuccessful test-takers

Subscale Item

Labels of meta-cognitive strategies employed

Successful test-takers

(%)

Unsuccessful test-takers

(%)Planning 10 Identifying easy and difficult tasks 50 0

11 Planning the procedure and following the plan

33 0

19 Setting task expectation 83 3320 Planning actions 50 3323 Setting goals 100 5027 Clarifying goals 67 17

Mean percentage 63.8 22.2Monitoring

12 Being aware of what and how 50 3316 Being aware of strategy 67 3317 Correcting mistakes 100 10021 Being aware of how much to do 83 5024 Monitoring the process 83 5025 Keeping track of the process 100 67

Mean percentage 80.5 55.5Evaluating 13 Checking performance and

progress67 17

15 Assessing meaning 33 018 Self-testing 50 3328 Checking accuracy 50 030 Checking up 100 83

Mean percentage 60.0 26.6Overall average percentage 68.6 35.2

36

Table 12 presents meta-cognitive strategies employed by students who

accomplished and failed in the test. As can be seen in the table, the rate of

successful readers using all three subscales of strategies is nearly double that

of their counterpart. To be more specific, it is 68.6% for the former and 35.2%

for the latter. The ratio of successful students who apply monitoring in reading

process is 25% more than that of unsuccessful students. Meanwhile, the

portions of planning and evaluating strategies used by the former student

group almost triple those of the latter group. It is noteworthy that whilst

planning and evaluating sets of strategies are notably more favorable for

successful student group, both clusters of students share the number of over a

half for using monitoring strategies.

Statistically, there are several meta-cognitive strategies employed by all

the students who accomplished in the test. They are distributed in all strategy

sets. In planning group, item 23 (setting goals) is employed by 100% students.

Item 17 (Correcting mistakes) and item 25 (Keeping track of the process) are

strategies in monitoring set fully approved by students. For evaluating group,

they are item 30 – checking up.

It should be noted that not only in successful student group, but also in

their counterpart exists a strategy employed by 100% students. The item

utilized by all students who did not succeed in the test is no.17 of monitoring

group - correcting mistakes. This strategy also receives approval of the whole

student in successful group.

There is a possible indication that it is the most favorable meta-

cognitive strategy of all students irrespective of their reading proficiency.

Briefly, students who are successful in the test tend to apply more

meta-cognitive strategies in reading process than those who are not successful.

37

The numbers of strategies used by the former group of students are

significantly more than that of the latter one.

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1. Conclusion

On the whole, cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies are employed in

academic reading comprehension by first-year English majors at medium rate.

Among strategies mentioned in the research, translating – a cognitive strategy

is hardly used by students. Regardless of their reading proficiency, students

are unlikely to resort this strategy in their academic reading process.

Meanwhile, cognitive strategies of scanning and skimming and connecting

relevant information as well as meta-cognitive strategy of checking receive

appreciation from all students. Students at different levels usually apply these

three strategies in their reading comprehension. The first research question

stated in Chapter 1 has been brought to light.

As analyzed from the data collected, there is a remarkable difference

between strategies utilization of high and low proficient students. The

statistics reveal that students who perform better at reading tend to use more

cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies than the rest. They also apply these

strategies more frequently than low proficient students. In more detail,

cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies are usually used by high proficiency

students while students at lower level only employ them sometimes.

Therefore, it can be plausibly indicate that there is a correlation between

strategies use and students’ reading performance. The better they are at

reading comprehension, they more cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies

they employ in the process. This suggestion provides the answer for the

second research question.

38

5.2. Suggestions

The findings of this study, however, are limited to first-year English

majors at Hanoi University. Due to the limitations of the number of subjects,

research scale, financial budget and time, the results cannot be taken as

demonstration for all students at Hanoi University. Besides, since the

researcher lacks statistical skills for research, the statistics analysis has not

show a more explicit correlation as expected. Thereby, further studies in this

area are highly appreciated which may conduct a closer investigation into how

each cognitive and meta-cognitive can affect students’ reading comprehension

and in which stage of the process. It should be remarked that further studies

may focus on instruction of these strategies in reading by instructors for

learners and how it may benefit learners in enhancing their performance.

This study is conducted in the hope of supporting students at English

Department in being aware of cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies in

reading and their positive effects on the performance. By noticing the

interrelationship between strategy use and learners’ reading performance,

students may make use of these strategies in improving their academic reading

comprehension. There is also a expectation that the research can be a useful

reference for teachers in developing and applying cognitive and meta-

cognitive strategy instruction into reading class and help students to enhance

their academic reading comprehension.

39

Appendix 1

READING COMPREHENSION TESTDear participants, I am conducting this thesis to investigate the cognitive and meta-

cognitive strategies used by first-year English majors in academic reading comprehension

and the correlation between strategy utilization and students’ proficiency. Please take some

minutes to complete the test. All the information will be kept confidential and the results will

be used for the research purpose only. Thank you for your cooperation.

**********

Name:

Score:

You should spend about 20 minutes on Questions 1-13, which are based on the Reading Passage on the following pages.

Questions 1-5The Reading Passage has six sections, A—F.Choose the correct heading for sections B—F from the list of headings below.Write the correct number, i—ix, in boxes 1-5 on your answer sheet.

List of Headings

i ii iii iv v vi vii viii

ix

The influence of MonbushoHelping less successful studentsThe success of compulsory educationResearch findings concerning achievements in mathsThe typical format of a maths lessonComparative expenditure on maths educationBackground to middle-years education in JapanThe key to Japanese successes in maths educationThe role of homework correction

Example  Section    A                

Answer:iv

              1  Section  B2  Section  C3  Section  D

40

4  Section  E5  Section  F

41

LAND OF THE RISING SUMA

B

C

D

Japan has a significantly better record in terms of average mathematical attainment than England and Wales. Large sample international comparisons of pupils' attainments since the 1960s have established that not only did Japanese pupils at age 13 have better scores of average attainment, but there was also a larger proportion of 'low' attainers in England, where, incidentally, the variation in attainment scores was much greater. The percentage of Gross National Product spent on education is reasonably similar in the two countries, so how is this higher and more consistent attainment in maths achieved?

Lower secondary schools in Japan cover three school years, from the seventh grade (age 13) to the ninth grade (age 15). Virtually all pupils at this stage attend state schools: only 3 per cent are in the private sector. Schools are usually modern in design, set well back from the road and spacious inside. Classrooms are large and pupils sit at single desks in rows. Lessons last for a standardised 50 minutes and are always followed by a 10-minute break, which gives the pupils a chance to let off steam. Teachers begin with a formal address and mutual bowing, and then concentrate on whole-class teaching.

Classes are large — usually about 40 — and are unstreamed. Pupils stay in the same class for all lessons throughout the school and develop considerable class identity and loyalty. Pupils attend the school in their own neighbourhood, which in theory removes ranking by school. In practice in Tokyo, because of the relative concentration of schools, there is some competition to get into the 'better' school in a particular area.

Traditional ways of teaching form the basis of the lesson and the remarkably quiet classes take their owe notes of the points made and the examples demonstrated. Everyone has their own copy of the textbook supplied by the central education authority, Monbusho, as part of the concept of free compulsory education up to the age of 15. These textbooks are, on the whole, small, presumably inexpensive to produce, but well set out and logically developed. (One teacher was particularly keen to introduce colour and pictures into maths textbooks: he felt this would make them more accessible to pupils brought up in a cartoon culture.) Besides approving textbooks, Monbusho also decides the highly centralised national curriculum and how it is to be delivered.

Lessons all follow the same pattern. At the beginning, the pupils put solutions to the homework on the board, then the teachers comment, correct or elaborate as necessary. Pupils mark their own homework: this is an important principle in Japanese schooling as it enables pupils to see where and why they made a mistake, so that these can be avoided in future. No one minds mistakes or ignorance as long as you are prepared to learn from them After the homework

42

E

F

has been discussed, the teacher explains the topic of the lesson, slowly and with a lot of repetition and elaboration. Examples are demonstrated on the board; questions from the textbook are worked through first with the lass, and then the dass is set questions from the textbook to do individually. Only rarely are supplementary worksheets distributed in a maths dass. The impression is that the logical nature of the textbooks and their comprehensive coverage of different types of examples, combined with the relative homogeneity of the dass, renders work sheets unnecessary. At this point, the teacher would circulate and make sure that all the pupils were coping well.

It is remarkable that large, mixed-ability classes could be kept together for maths throughout all their compulsory schooling from 6 to 15. Teachers say that they give individual help at the end of a lesson or after school, setting extra work if necessary. In observed lessons, any strugglers would be assisted by the teacher or quietly seek help from their neighbour. Carefully fostered lass identity makes pupils keen to help each other — anyway, it is in their interests since the class progresses together.

This scarcely seems adequate help to enable slow learners to keep up. However, the Japanese attitude towards education runs along the lines of 'if you work hard enough, you can do almost anything'. Parents are kept closely informed of their children's progress and will play a part in helping their children to keep up with dass, sending them to 'Juku' (private evening tuition) if extra help is needed and encouraging them to work harder. It seems to work, at least for 95 per cent of the school population.

So what are the major contributing factors in the success of maths teaching? Clearly, attitudes are important. Education is valued greatly in Japanese culture; maths is recognised as an important compulsory subject throughout schooling; and the emphasis is on hard work coupled with a focus on accuracy.

Other relevant points relate to the supportive attitude of a class towards slower pupils, the lack of competition within a class, and the positive emphasis on learning for oneself and improving one's own standard. And the view of repetitively boring lessons and learning the facts by heart, which is sometimes quoted in relation to Japanese lasses, may be unfair and unjustified. No poor maths lessons were observed. They were mainly good and one or two were inspirational.

43

Questions 6-9DO the following statements agree with the claims of the writer in Reading Passage 120?In boxes 6-9 on your answer sheet, write:

YES if the statement agrees with the claims of the writerNO if the statement contradicts the claims of the writerNOT GIVEN if it is impossible to say what the writer thinks about this

6 There is a wider range of achievement amongst English pupils studying maths than amongst their Japanese counterparts.7 The percentage of Gross National Product spent on education generally reflects the level of attainment in mathematics.8 Private schools in Japan are more modern and spacious than state-run lower secondary schools.9 Teachers mark homework in Japanese schools.Questions 10-13Choose the correct letter, A, B, C or D.Write the correct letter in boxes 10-13 on your answer sheet.

10 Maths textbooks in Japanese schools are     A cheap for pupils to buy.     B well organised and adapted to the needs of the pupils.     C written to be used in conjunction with TV programmes.     D not very popular with many Japanese teachers.

11 When a new maths topic is introduced,     A students answer questions on the board.     B students rely entirely on the textbook.     C it is carefully and patiently explained to the students.     D it is usual for students to use extra worksheets.

12 How do schools deal with students who experience difficulties?     A They are given appropriate supplementary tuition.     B They are encouraged to copy from other pupils.     C They are forced to explain their slow progress.     D They are placed in a mixed-ability class.

13 Why do Japanese students tend to achieve relatively high rates of success in maths?     A It is a compulsory subject in Japan.     B They are used to working without help from others.     C Much effort is made and correct answers are emphasised.     D There is a strong emphasis on repetitive learning

44

Appendix 2

SURVEY OF READING STRATEGIES (SORS)

Dear participants, I am conducting this thesis to investigate the cognitive and

meta-cognitive strategies used by first-year English majors in academic

reading comprehension and the correlation between strategy utilization and

students’ proficiency. Please take a few minutes to complete the survey. All

the information will be kept confidential and the results will be used for the

research purpose only. Thank you for your cooperation.

**********

Name:

The statements which people use to describe themselves when taking a

reading comprehension test are given below. Read and indicate what you

thought during the test. Choose:

1: Never

2: Sometimes

3: Often

4: Usually

5: Always

Your thinking Never--------Always

1 I made short notes or underlined main ideas during

the test.

1 2 3 4 5

2 I translated the reading texts and tasks into

Vietnamese.

1 2 3 4 5

3 I used pictures or titles of the texts to help

comprehend reading tasks.

1 2 3 4 5

4 I used my own English structure knowledge to

comprehend the text.

1 2 3 4 5

5 I spent more time on difficult questions. 1 2 3 4 5

6 I tried to understand the texts and questions regardless

of my vocabulary knowledge.

1 2 3 4 5

7 I tried to find topics and main ideas by scanning and 1 2 3 4 5

45

skimming.

8 I read the texts and questions several times to better

understand them.

1 2 3 4 5

9 I used my prior knowledge to help understand the

reading test.

1 2 3 4 5

1

0

I tried to identify easy and difficult test tasks. 1 2 3 4 5

1

1

When I started to complete the test, I planned how to

complete it and followed the plan.

1 2 3 4 5

1

2

I was aware of what and how I was doing in the test. 1 2 3 4 5

1

3

I checked my own performance and progress while

completing the test.

1 2 3 4 5

1

4

I attempted to identify main points of the given

reading texts and tasks.

1 2 3 4 5

1

5

I thought through the meaning of the test

tasks/questions before answering them.

1 2 3 4 5

1

6

I was aware of which strategy to use and how and

when to use it.

1 2 3 4 5

1

7

I corrected mistakes immediately when found. 1 2 3 4 5

1

8

I asked myself how the test questions and the given

texts related to what I already knew.

1 2 3 4 5

1

9

I determined what the test tasks/questions required me

to do.

1 2 3 4 5

2

0

I was aware of the need to plan a course of action. 1 2 3 4 5

2

1

I was aware of how much the test remained to be

completed.

1 2 3 4 5

2

2

I tried to understand the questions adequately before

attempting to find the answers.

1 2 3 4 5

2

3

I made sure I understood what had to be done and

how to do it.

1 2 3 4 5

46

2

4

I was aware of my ongoing reading and test taking. 1 2 3 4 5

2

5

I kept track of my own progress to complete the

questions on time.

1 2 3 4 5

2

6

I used multiple thinking strategies to help answer the

test questions.

1 2 3 4 5

2

7

I made sure to clarify the goal and know how to

complete it.

1 2 3 4 5

2

8

I checked my accuracy as I progressed through the

test.

1 2 3 4 5

2

9

I selected relevant information to help me understand

the reading texts and answer the test questions.

1 2 3 4 5

3

0

I carefully checked the answers before submitting the

test.

1 2 3 4 5

**********

Thank you!

47

Appendix 3

SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW

In this part, you will find the statements about what you might do in the reading test.

When you read a text, think about what kind of things you did before, during, and

after reading. (Put a check in the box on the right side of the thing the interviewee

did.)

Before you started reading the test, …

10 Do you try to identify easy and difficult test tasks?

11 When you start to complete the test, do you plan how to complete it

and follow the plan?

18 Do you ask yourself how the test questions and the given texts related

to what you already know?

19 Do you determine what the test tasks/questions require you to do?

20 Are you aware of the need to plan a course of action?

23 Do you make sure you understand what have to be done and how to

do it?

27 Do you make sure to clarify the goal and know how to complete it?

While reading the test, …

1 Do you make short notes or underline main ideas during the test?

2 Do you translate the reading texts and tasks into Vietnamese?

3 Do you use pictures or titles of the texts to help comprehend reading

tasks?

4 Do you use your own English structure knowledge to comprehend the

text?

5 Do you spend more time on difficult questions?

6 Do you try to understand the texts and questions regardless of your

vocabulary knowledge?

7 Do you try to find topics and main ideas by scanning and skimming?

48

8 Do you read the texts and questions several times to better understand

them?

9 Do you use your prior knowledge to help understand the reading test?

12 Are you aware of what and how you are doing in the test?

13 Do you check your own performance and progress while completing

the test?

14 Do you attempt to identify main points of the given reading texts and

tasks?

15 Do you think through the meaning of the test tasks/questions before

answering them?

16 Are you aware of which strategy to use and how and when to use it?

21 Are you aware of how much the test remains to be completed?

22 Do you try to understand the questions adequately before attempting

to find the answers?

24 Are you aware of your ongoing reading and test taking?

25 Do you keep track of my own progress to complete the questions on

time?

26 Do you use multiple thinking strategies to help answer the test

questions?

29 Do you select relevant information to help you understand the

reading texts and answer the test questions?

After reading the test, …

17 Do you correct mistakes immediately when found?

28 Do you check your accuracy as you progressed through the test?

30 Do you carefully check the answers before submitting the test?

**********

Thank you!

49

REFERENCES

Zare-ee, A. (2007). The Relationship between Cognitive and Meta-cognitive

Strategy use and EFL Reading Achievement. Retrieved from

http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/aljarf/Documents/English%20Language

%20Teaching%20Conference%20-%20Iran%202008/Abbas%20Zare-

ee.pdf

Ahmadi, M. R., Ismail, H. N. & Abdullah, M. K. K. (2013). The Importance

of Metacognitive Reading Strategy Awareness in Reading

Comprehension. Retrieved from

http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/viewFile/30182/17884

Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing Reading. Retrieved from

http://www.postgradolinguistica.ucv.cl/dev/documentos/64,705,assess

ing%20reading%20part%201.pdf

Alsheikh, N. O & Mokhtari, K. (2011). An Examination of the Metacognitive

Reading Strategies Used by Native Speakers of Arabic When Reading

in English and Arabic. Retrieved from

http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/view/10782/7631

Chamot, A. U. (2004). Issues in Language Learning Strategy Research and

Teaching. Retrieved from

http://gion.gmw.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/2013/EffectiveStrategies/

EffectiveStrategies.pdf

Cromley, J. G. (2005). Metacognition, Cognitive Strategy Instruction, and

Reading in Adult Literacy. Retrieved from

http://www.ncsall.net/fileadmin/resources/ann_rev/rall_v5_ch7_supp.

pdf

Ediger, A. & Pavlik, C. (1999). Reading Connections: Skills and Strategies

for Purposeful Reading High Intermediate. Oxford University Press.

50

Easton, L. B., (2011). Metacognitive Reading Strategy

Instruction and Academic Texts: How College Level Bidialectal

Students May Benefit. Retrieved from

http://www.hamline.edu/Content.aspx?id=2147502383

Fauzan, N. (2003). The Effects of Metacognitive Strategies on Reading

Comprehension: A Quantitative Synthesis and the Empirical

Investigation. Retrieved from

http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/1086/1/1086.pdf?EThOS%20(BL)

Gao, L. (2006). Toward a Cognitive Processing Model of MELAB Reading

Test Item Performance. Retrieved from

http://www.cambridgemichigan.org/sites/default/files/resources/Spaan

Papers/Spaan_V4_Gao.pdf

Grabe, W. (1991). Current Developments in Second Language Reading

Research. Retrieved from

https://www.academia.edu/1267051/Current_developments_in_secon

d_language_reading_research

Green, C. (2005). Integrating Extensive Reading in the Task-based

Curriculum. Retrieved from

http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/content/59/4/306.abstract

Greenall, S. & Swan, M. (1996). Effective Reading : Reading Skills for

Advanced Students. Cambridge University Press.

Guan, C. Q., Roehrig, A. D., Mason, R. S. & Meng, W. (2011). Psychometric

Properties of Meta-cognitive Awareness of Reading Strategy

Inventory. Retrieved from

http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jedp/article/view/13907

Hassan, F. (2003). Metacognitive Strategy Awareness and Reading

Comprehension. Retrieved from

http://www.melta.org.my/ET/2003/2003-16.pdf

51

Khezrlou, S. (2011). Cognitive Strategy Training: Improving Reading

Comprehension in the Language Classroom. Retrieved from

http://www.sid.ir/en/VEWSSID/J_pdf/13112012650404.pdf

Kroner, D. (2013, January 09). Reading Comprehension – The Importance of

Prior Knowledge. Library of Alexandria. Retrieved from

http://lofalexandria.com/2013/01/reading-comprehension-the-

importance-of-prior-knowledge/

Lawrence, L. J. (2007). Cognitive and Metacognitive Reading Strategies

Revisited: Implications for Instruction. Retrieved from

http://www.readingmatrix.com/articles/lawrence/article.pdf

Lei, S. A., Rhinehart, P. J., Howard, H. A. & Cho, J. K. (2010). Strategies for

Improving Reading Comprehension among College Students.

Retrieved from http://www.freepatentsonline.com/article/Reading-

Improvement/221203907.html

Maghsudi, M. & Talebi, S. H. (2009). The Impact of Linguality on Cognitive

and Metacognitive Reading Strategies Awareness. Retrieved from

http://bibliotecavirtualut.suagm.edu/Glossa2/Journal/jun2008/The_Im

pact_of_Linguality_on_Cognitive.pdf

Mayer, R. E. (2008). Applying the Science of Learning: Evidence-Based

Principles for the Design of Multimedia Instruction. Retrieved from

http://www.education.ucf.edu/rtp3/docs/RTP3_Mayer_Article_Applyi

ng_the_Science_of_Learning.pdf

Meneghetti, C., Carretti, B. & Beni, R. D. (2006). Components of Reading

Comprehension and Scholastic Achievement. Retrieved from

http://wmlabs.psy.unipd.it/Publication/meneghetti/Meneghetti,

%20Carretti,%20De%20Beni_06_Components%20of%20reading

%20comprehension%20and%20scholastic%20achievement.pdf

52

Mokhtari, K. & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing Students’ Metacognitive

Awareness of Reading Strategies. Retrieved from

www.researchgate.net/

Muñiz-Swicegood, M. (1994). The Effects of Metacognitive Reading Strategy

Training on the Reading Performance and Student Reading Analysis

Strategies of Third Grade Bilingual Students. Retrieved from

http://www.ncela.us/files/rcd/BE021508/The_Effects_Of_Metacogniti

ve.pdf

Othman, Y. & Jaidi, N. H. (2012). The Employment of Metacognitive

Strategies to Comprehend Texts Among Pre-University Students in

Brunei Darussalam. Retrieved from

http://www.aijcrnet.com/journals/Vol_2_No_8_August_2012/13.pdf

Oxford, R. L. (1999). Relationship between Second Language Learning

Strategies and Language Proficiency in the Context of Learner

Autonomy and Self-regulation. Retrieved from

http://publica.webs.ull.es/upload/REV%20RECEI/38%20-

%201999/08%20(Rebecca%20L.%20Oxford).pdf

Oxford, R. L. (2003). Language Learning Styles and Strategies: An

Overview. Retrieved from

http://web.ntpu.edu.tw/~language/workshop/read2.pdf

Phakiti, A. (2003). A Closer Look at the Relationship of Cognitive and

Metacognitive Strategy Use to EFL Reading Achievement Test

Performance. Retrieved from

http://www.corpus4u.org/forum/upload/forum/2006021309320273.pd

f

53

Phakiti, A. (2006). Modeling Cognitive and Metacognitive Strategies and

Their Relationships to EFL Reading Test Performance. Retrieved

from

http://sydney.edu.au/education_social_work/research/publications/res

ources/phakiti.pdf

Snow, C. E. (2002). Reading for Understanding: Toward an R&D Program in

Reading Comprehension. Retrieved from

http://www.dsusd.k12.ca.us/users/christopherg/reading%20program

%20for%20teachers.pdf

Tavish, M. (2008). “What Were You Thinking?”: The Use of Metacognitive

Strategy during Engagement with Reading Narrative and

Informational Genres. Retrieved from

http://www.archipel.uqam.ca/5392/1/D2391.pdf

Wenden, A. L. (1998). Metacognitive Knowledge and Language Learning.

Retrieved from

http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/4/515.abstract

Zhang, Y. (2007). The effects of metacognitive awareness on readers’

comprehension: Additional evidence for acquisition-based reading

instruction. In Hu,Wen-zhong & Wen, Qiu-fang (eds.) Selected

Papers from the 4th International Conference on ELT in China (pp.

250-270). Beijing, China: Foreign Language Teaching and Research

Press.

Zhang, L. & Seepho, S. (2013). Metacognitive Strategy Use and Academic

Reading Achievement: Insights from a Chinese Context. Retrieved

from http://e-flt.nus.edu.sg/v10n12013/zhang.pdf