LANY

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter discusses the background for the basis of the study, the rationale of the

study, statement of problem, significance of the study, objectives of the study, research

questions, null hypotheses as well as the definitions of terms used in the study.

1.2 BACKGROUND

The education domain has witnessed a gradual but significant shift towards greater

emphasis on learners and learning (Nunan, 1988) in the last two decades. This resulted in

an increasing awareness and interest in resources for learning styles and language

learning strategies in foreign and second language teaching and learning. (Abu Shmais,

2000). Research by Oxford (1990a), Cohen (1987), and O’Malley and Chamot (1990),

stressed on the use of variety of different strategies and techniques by effective learners in

language acquisition. These research in the area of ESL set out to identify how learners

processed new information and the kinds of strategies they used to understand, learn and

remember information. Cognitive strategies, affective and social strategies are a few

examples of strategy types used by language learners.

Recent development in language research has now moved its focus on the used of

metacognitive reading strategies (MRS) in reading comprehension. Previous research has

proved that reading comprehension is not just understand words, sentences, or event texts,

1

but involves a complex integration of the reader’s prior knowledge, language proficiency

and their metacognitive strategies (Hammadou, 1991). Metacognitive awareness is

considered by most educators to be an element necessary for many cognitive learning

tasks (Li and Munby, 1996). Learners who have knowledge about their cognition

processes are able to use that knowledge to choose the most efficient strategies for

problem solving (Flavell, 1976).

The current explosion of research in the second language reading has begun to focus

on readers’ strategies. According to Rigney (1978), reading strategies are of interest for

what they reveal about the way readers manage their interaction with written text and how

these strategies are related to text comprehension. Research has identified variety of

strategies used by learners to assist them with the acquisition, storage and retrieval of

information. In the context of second language learning, distinction is made between

strategies that make learning more effective, versus strategies that improve

comprehension. The former refers to learning strategies in the second language literature

while the latter, indicates how readers perceive a task, how they make sense of what they

read, and what they do when they do not understand. In short, such strategies are

processes used by the learner to enhance reading comprehension and overcome

comprehension failures (Oxford and Crookall, 1989).

Many studies have supported the notion that good readers are more strategic in their

reading process than poor readers and thus they appear to be more metacognitively aware

than poor readers (Byrd and Gholson, 1985; Dewitz et al., 1987; Palincsar and Ransom,

1988; Brenna, 1995). Paris and Myers (1981) found that good readers know more than

poor readers about reading strategies, detect errors more often while reading and have

better recall of text information. In addition, good readers are actively involved in the

comprehension process (Block, 1986). They select and use appropriate strategies and

monitor their comprehension (Schmitt, 1990). Evidence suggests that differences in

reading achievements are related to the use of efficient reading strategies (Byrd and

Gholson, 1985). Differences in the ability of good and poor readers to use efficient

2

reading strategies could be related to differences in their metacognitive knowledge about

reading.

1.3 RATIONALE OF THE STUDY

Of the four English language skills, reading is probably used most by students in the

academic context (Carrel, 1989; Livingston, 1996). Students have to acquire this crucial

and essential skill in order to achieve both language competency and proficiency. Many

quarters, especially the working sectors, lament the poor achievement and low

proficiency of our students especially in the English language. If the results from the

public examinations are anything to go by, everyone has every reason to be concerned.

Recently, with the introduction of teaching of Mathematics and Science in English, the

responses were mixed. Some favour the move as this was seen as a way to revive the

fledging standard of English in our schools, on the other hand, there were others who

opposed the move as this was seen as a threat to the present status of Bahasa Melayu as

the medium of instruction.

Most of our students lack critical reading skills; few read regularly (Barton, 1997).

According to Keene and Zimmermann (1997), educators and the public are in a frenzy

over how to boost reading comprehension scores. As educators and teachers, our greatest

challenge would be to equip our students with the appropriate learning skills and

strategies in order to enhance the competency and proficiency of learners in reading all

kinds of texts types. Reading in a way is a way of processing information from text and

comprehending the meaning before it could be used beneficially.

Reading comprehension depends on being able to successfully and appropriately use a

number of strategies: accessing prior knowledge, creating mental images of information,

making predictions and inferences, monitoring understanding, and using “fix-up”

strategies when necessary (Davey, 1983). If students know which strategies to use and

when to use them, they can monitor and control their own comprehension processing

(Baumann et al., 1993; Vacca and Vacca, 1993).

3

Reading strategies can be defined as reading skills that are used purposefully and

independently to the reader (Paris et al., 1983). “The reader must know how and when to

apply the skill; that is what elevates the skill to the strategy level” (Routman, 1995: 135).

Of the many reading strategies that exist, there are both cognitive and metacognitive

strategies. Cognitive strategies refer to those strategies that involve perceiving,

understanding, remembering and other such behaviours. Metacognitive strategies refer to

strategies that involve thinking about one’s own perceiving, understanding, remembering,

etc. (Garner, 1987). While cognitive strategies are application of skills, metacognitive

strategies are knowing when and how to apply the skills.

Strategic reading has been found to be related to metacognitive ability. Metacognition

has been defined as “one’s knowledge concerning one’s cognitive processes and products

or anything related to them…” (Flavell, 1976: 232). It has also been defined as readers’

awareness of their level or degree of understanding and their ability to regulate the

process of comprehension as they proceed through texts (Dewitz et al., 1987). It is the

cognitive skills that are involved in reading that accompany the acquisition of strategies

and fluent reading that enable this awareness of strategies used, or metacognition (Paris

and Jacobs, 1984). Metacognitive theory states that reading comprehension is improved

by the used of metacognitive strategies (Lopez, 1992). This metacognitive awareness is a

crucial component of learning, because it enables learners to assess their level of

comprehension and adjust their strategies for greater success (Baker and Brown, 1984).

Basically, metacognitively-oriented students would not only be aware of their own

characteristics, as learners, but also the demands of the task. They would select, employ,

monitor and evaluate their used of strategies, and would be able to recognize and correct

comprehension failures (Wong and Chang, 2001).

1.4 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Many quarters lamented the decline in the English language performance and proficiency

among Malaysian students in this last decade. This alarming trend seems to be the norm

4

in a few years to come. This situation had even prompted our then Prime Minister, Datuk

Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, to comment that today’s youths lacked a good command of

the language and as a result, they are unable to integrate and face challenges of the new

economy (New Straits Times: May 7, 2002: 1).

Results of Penilaian Menengah Rendah (PMR) and Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) in

previous years were not much of a comfort to the education ministry, education ministers

and officers, educational policy makers, educators, and parents alike. Students were

solely lacking in both the competency and proficiency of the English language. Results of

PMR and SPM for rural students from 1999 – 2001 are presented in Table 1.4.1, and

1.4.2.

TABLE 1.4.1 Analysis of English Language Performance in Rural AreasPMR – National Level

Year Number of Performance %

Candidates A B C D ABCD E

1999 198250 6.0 10.0 14.5 23.1 53.6 46.4

2000 210747 4.3 9.1 13.6 22.3 49.6 50.4

2001 212301 4.4 9.5 15.4 23.9 53.2 46.8

TABLE 1.4.2 Analysis of English Language Performance in Rural AreasSPM – National Level

Year Number of Performance %

Candidates 1 & 2 3 -6 7 & 8 9

1999 155836 2.4 16.0 31.9 49.7

2000 173358 1.5 17.7 33.3 47.5

2001 171101 2.6 16.9 36.5 44.0

5

On closer examination of the tables, the dismal results of both PMR and SPM

examinations reflect the gravity of the situation our students found themselves in. The

PMR examination throughout the three years (1999-2001) yielded 47.9% of the mean

percentage of failures at the national level. The results for SPM examination for the same

period of time, yielded 47.1% of the mean percentage of failures at the national level. It is

no wonder why there is a cause for alarm.

The lack of reading skill among ESL students is one of the factors that bring about

such disappointing performance at the national level examinations. Most of the students

do not possess strategic reading skills. Reading in a way, is a way of processing

information from text and comprehending the meaning before it could be used

beneficially. Students have to acquire this crucial and essential skill in order to achieve

both language competency and proficiency. Sadly, in spite of its importance, reading skill

seems to be the least of the skills to be successfully mastered by students in our language

classroom (Lee, 1994).

Studies done by Sykerman (1988), and Soars (1995) examined the reading strategies

of Malaysian students in an ESL context. Other studies such as by Noraini (1997) on

tertiary students also provides a valuable insight into the reading behaviour of students.

The findings of the studies revealed that effective reading strategies such as

metacognitive reading strategies were not often used by students when reading. In spite of

that, several good cognitive strategies were used by students in order to enhance their

comprehension and understanding of the reading texts.

This study sets out to investigate the metacognitive reading strategies or MRS, as it

will also be known from this point onwards, among Form Four students when reading

academic materials.

6

1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

Although there are a number of studies on various aspects of second and foreign language

reading, there is not many research that has been carried out on the knowledge and used

of metacognitive reading strategies of Malaysian ESL classroom. Hitherto, there is

substantial number of studies that had been carried out to investigate the metacognitive

knowledge and awareness of metacognitive reading strategies of Malaysian students.

Thus, this study hopes to contribute to the present body of knowledge on the use of

metacognitive strategies by ESL students.

This study will give English teachers valuable information on how their students

process information, plan and select appropriate strategies to aid understanding of the

reading texts. Consequently, teachers will be able to help their students become better

language learners by training them in using appropriate strategies.

This study would also be important because of its pedagogical implications. Teachers,

being aware of the crucial role metacognitive awareness play in language teaching and

learning context, would be able to incorporate the teaching of metacognitive reading

strategies in their teaching and learning lessons. Ample opportunities will also be given to

students to develop their knowledge and skills as well as to be trained in the used of the

metacognitive strategies during academic reading.

In addition, this study will also help to shed lights on how the awareness and used of

metacognitive strategies affect low achievers’ and high achievers’ academic performance.

Besides, it will reveal the types of metacognitive reading strategies most often used by

these two groups. The difference in the ability to use efficient reading strategies could be

related to differences in students’ metacognitive knowledge when they go about reading

(Byrd & Gholson, 1985). This knowledge of what students can or cannot do would help

classroom teachers to develop essential skills in students. It is important that teachers

teach their students metacognitive skills in addition to cognitive skills (Anderson, 2002).

Graham (1997: 42-43) cited in Anderson (2002) posits that:

7

“The distinctions between cognitive and metacognitive strategies

are important, partly because they give some indication of which

strategies are the most crucial in determining the effectiveness of

learning. It seems that metacognitives strategies, that allow

students to plan, control, and evaluate their learning, have the

most central role to play in this respect, rather than those that

merely maximize interaction and input…Thus the ability to

choose and evaluate one’s strategies is of central importance”.

1.6 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The objectives of the study are:

1. to investigate whether low achievers and high achievers differ in

their used of metacognitive reading strategies;

2. to investigate whether male and female students differ in their used

of metacognitive reading strategies;

3. to investigate whether urban schools and rural schools students

differ in their used of metacognitive reading strategies;

1.7 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The research questions for the study are as follow:

1. Is there a significant difference between low achievers and high

achievers in the used of metacognitive reading strategies?

2. Is there a significant difference between male and female students

in the used of metacognitive reading strategies?

3. Is there a significant difference between urban schools and rural

schools students in the used of metacognitive reading strategies?

8

1.8 NULL HYPOTHESES

The following hypotheses covered the study:

H01: There is no significance difference between low achievers

and high achievers in the used of metacognitive reading

strategies;

H02: There is no significant difference between male and female

students in the used of metacognitive reading strategies;

H03: There is no significant difference between urban schools and

rural schools students in the used of metacognitive reading

strategies;

1.9 DEFINITION OF TERMS

1.9.1 Metacognition

Metacognition refers to the ability to reflect upon, understand, and control one’s learning

(Schraw & Dennison, 1994). It is thinking about thinking, knowing "what we know" and

"what we don't know" (Blakey and Spence, 1990).

1.9.2 Metacognitive Reading Strategies

Metacognitive reading strategies refer to strategies that involve thinking about one’s own

perceiving, understanding, remembering, etc. (Garner, 1987). Metacognitive reading

strategies can be divided into at least three categories: (1) planning—identifying a

purpose for reading and selecting particular actions to reach one’s reading goals for a

passage; (2) regulation—monitoring and redirecting one’s efforts during the course of

reading to reach the desired goals (Paris & Jacobs, 1984); (3) evaluation—assessing one’s

cognitive abilities to carry out the task and reach one’s reading goals (Brown and

Palinscar, 1982).

9

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter will discuss the conceptual framework of the study, theoretical views of

reading, and theoretical views of metacognition. Reviews of other research are also

presented in the study.

2.2 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

We engage in metacognitive activities daily. Metacognition enables students to be

successful learners, and has been associated with intelligence (Borkowski et al, 1987;

Sternberg, 1984, 1986a, 1986b). Metacognition plays a critical role in successful learning.

Thus, much effort has been intensified over the years to study metacognitive activity and

development on how students can better apply their cognitive resources through

metacognitive control. Paris et al. (1983) categorized this metacognitive awareness about

cognition or strategic reading in three ways: declarative knowledge, procedural

knowledge and conditional knowledge. Others such as Cross and Paris (1988) defined

metacognition as the “knowledge and control children have over their own thinking and

learning activities, including reading. Metacognition, according to You and Joe (2001), is

the knowledge and regulation about cognitive phenomena.

The conceptual framework for this study is adapted from Flavell’s theory (1979,

1987). According to Flavell (1979), m, metacognition is “knowing about knowing.” He

categorized metacognition into two concepts: metacognitive knowledge and

10

metacognitive experience. These two concepts are further divided into three categories:

knowledge of person variables, task variables and strategy variables. These factors

interact closely with each other which eventually result in development of metacognitive

strategies as part of students’ strategic reading skills repertoire. This will further enhance

and improve students’ language proficiency.

DIAGRAM 2.2.1 The Conceptual Framework

The first factor, knowledge of person variables refers to general knowledge about how

human beings learn and process information, as well as individual knowledge of one's

own learning processes ( Dewitz et al, 1987; Livingston, 1997). For example, a student

may be aware that his or her study session will be more productive if he or she works in

the quiet library rather than at home where there are many distractions.

The second factor, knowledge of task variables include knowledge about the nature of

the task as well as the type of processing demands that it will place upon the individual

11

SelfStudents need to understand their own learning abilities.

TaskStudents need to be able to analyze the demands of a task.

StrategiesStudents need to decide on ways to go about performing the task.

Enhancement of language performance and proficiency

Metacognitive awarenessThe ability to reflect upon, understand, and control one’s learning by employing metacognitive strategies in one’s reading.

(Bonds, 1992; Garner, 1987). For example, a student may be aware that it will take more

time for him or her to read and comprehend a science text than it would be for him or her

to read and comprehend a novel.

The third factor, knowledge about strategy variables include knowledge of both

cognitive and metacognitive strategies, as well as conditional knowledge about when and

where it is appropriate to use such strategies (Algozzine et al., 1997; Guerlene, 2002). For

example, a student would resort to more advanced reading strategies when reading an

expository text than when reading a narrative text.

The interaction of these three factors are crucial in developing metacognitive skills in

students as they are exposed to the knowledge on how they can control, plan and regulate

their learning activities, including reading. Their success in learning depends a lot on

metacognitive awareness and strategies they used to enhance comprehension.

2.3 THEORETICAL VIEWS OF READING

From the early 1900s to mid 1960s, early models of reading were quite linear and they

did not acknowledge the crucial role of the reader or knowledge as well as information

that a reader bring with him or her in the reading process (Samuels and Kamil, 1984).

Models such as the Gough Model described reading as a linear process where each stage

in the reading process works independently and does not interact with each other as

information is passed to the next higher stage (Samuels and Kamil, 1984). These types of

models failed to consider the process a reader underwent as he or she checked his or her

understanding by making changes according to new information he or she have received.

It was only in the mid 1970s that Rumelhart (1977) introduced a more interactive

process of reading. Reading is then seen as a more interactive process which views

comprehension as an active process of hypotheses testing or schema building (Boling,

___). Some researchers posited that reading is a bottom-up, language based process. This

bottom-up processing ensures that the readers will be sensitive to information that is

12

totally new or that does not fit their upheld belief on the content or structure of the text

(Carrell & Eisterhold, 1983). Others believed that reading is a top down, knowledge-

based process. This top-down processing helps readers to select appropriate

interpretations of meanings when faced with ambiguous alternatives (Carrell and

Eisterhold, 1983). More recently, most researchers agreed and accepted that the two

processes interact (Carrell et al, 1988; Grabe, 1991; Rumelhart, 1977; Stanovich, 1980).

Reading in any language is cognitively demanding, involving the coordination of

attention, memory, perceptual process, and comprehension process (Kern, 1989).

Research has demonstrated that reading comprehension is not just understand words,

sentences or event texts, but involves a complex integration of reader’s prior knowledge,

language proficiency and their metacognitive strategies (Hammadou, 1991). Reading is

an interactive process, emphasizing the important role of the reader in constructing

meaning from text. This interpretation of the reading process places responsibility on the

reader for generating meaning from text and monitoring his or her thinking to ensure

accurate comprehension (Dewitz et al., 1987). It also requires ongoing monitoring of

comprehension and regulation of reading according to the goals of reading (Kolic-

Vehovec and Bajsanski, 2001). Monitoring and regulation of reading are usually

considered fundamental components of metacognition (Flavell, 1979; Baker and Brown,

1984; Paris et al., 1984). In most recent development, most researchers have attested to

the fact that “metacognition plays an important role in reading comprehension. Further

research shows that students’ performance improves when their metacognitive knowledge

increases, and provides vital insights into learners’ conceptions of task demands, and

awareness of their own level of reading comprehension and strategy monitoring (You and

Joe, 2001).

Readers with reading difficulties will be inadequately equipped with the reading

comprehension skills needed in order to deal with higher level text as they progress to

upper forms (Guerlene, 2002). These struggling readers lack knowledge of reading

process, have poor reading attitudes and lack a repertoire of reading strategies (Algozzine

et al., 1997).

13

2.4 THEORETICAL VIEWS OF METACOGNITION

Metacognition is a theory, which states that learners benefit thoughtfully and reflectively

considering the things they are learning, and the ways in which they are learning them.

Others such as Cross & Paris (1988) defined metacognition as the “knowledge and

control children have over their own thinking and learning activities, including reading.

Metacognition, according to You and Shih (2001) is the knowledge and regulation about

cognitive phenomena. Flavell (1979) categorized metacognition into two concepts:

metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive experience. Paris et al. (1983) categorized

this metacognitive awareness about cognition or strategic reading in three ways:

declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge and conditional knowledge. Declarative

knowledge about reading includes an understanding of what factors influence reading

while procedural knowledge indicates how skills operate or are applied. Conditional

knowledge, on the other hand, is an understanding of the occasions when particular

strategies are required and why they affect reading. However, metacognition often

interacts closely with other variables such as affective factors and motivation.

Consequently, metacognition “includes informed, affective, and motivated self-appraisal”

(Cross and Paris, 1988).

Others such as Fitzgerald (1983) expanded the definitions of metacognition to include

four separate perspectives: 1) readers know when they know and when they don’t know;

2) readers know what they knew; 3) readers know what they need to know; and 4) readers

know the usefulness of intervention strategies.

In addition, metacognition includes several types of skills in evaluating, planning and

regulating one’s own reading (Paris and Lindauer, 1982). In the context of reading,

evaluation refers to reader’s ability to differentiate the task characteristics and personal

ability that would aid understanding; planning involves one’s selection of particular

strategies to achieve reading’s goals; and regulation is the monitoring and redirection of

reader’s activities during the course of reading to attain the goals that have been set

(Cross & Paris, 1988).

14

Metacognition theory states that reading comprehension is enhanced by the used of

metacognitive strategies. Most research support the notion that good readers are more

strategic in their reading process than poor readers and are more metacognitively-

oriented. The research on metacognition indicates that metacognitively aware learners are

more strategic and perform better that unaware learners. As claimed by Schraw and

Dennison (1994), “…metacognitive awareness allows individuals to plan, sequence, and

monitor their learning in a way that directly improves performance” (p. 460). Thus, good

learners appear to be more metacognitively aware than poor readers (Block, 1986; Dewitz

et al.,1987; Bialystok and Mitterer, 1987).

Metacognitive abilities help students to be more consciously aware of what they learn,

situations where the knowledge may be used and the procedures for using it (Abromitis,

1994). These skills are crucial to efficient reading (Wixson and Peters, 1987).

Researchers have reported differences in metacognitive abilities between successful and

less successful learners. Students with successful academic records tend to possess more

metacognitive skills than their less successful counterparts (Everson, 1997).

2.5 RESEARCH REVIEW

In a study carried out by Early (1984) more than two decades ago, she presented an

overview of middle school students’ reading development. She described three main

characteristics of average middle school readers. First, they can read fairly accurately and

fluently in grade level texts. Second, they have mastered basic comprehension processes

with texts that deal with concrete experiences, but they have problems dealing with

abstractions. Third, middle school students do not read much. This description pretty

much reflects the present scenario of the local school contexts whereby most of our

students struggle constantly with reading tasks, and which often enough left, many a

teacher perplexed when faces with “.. a student who appears to understand every sentence

and yet cannot answer the simplest question about a passage as a whole” (Eskey,

1973:177).

15

Empirical studies and investigations have shown that middle school students who

have difficulty reading do not use effective strategies (e.g., August et al, 1984; Holmes,

1983; Winograd, 1984). Other studies indicated that young adolescents do not read much

outside of school (Anderson et al., 1988), read less than they did in earlier years (Ley et

al., 1994), and develop negative attitudes toward reading as they approach the middle

grades (McKenna at al, 1995). It can be concluded from the studies that for many young

adolescents, reading is a difficult, unsuccessful, and unappealing activity.

A study conducted by Swanson (1990) found that student’s metacognitive knowledge

about text learning strategies combined closely with the extent of domain knowledge in

accounting for recall. Domain novices as well as domain experts with more metacognitive

knowledge recalled more than novices/experts with less metacognitive knowledge.

Swanson (1990) carried out a study on 56 children from elementary grades 4 and 5. He

tested on the children’s quality of problem solving: 24 heuristic and strategy components

from thinking aloud protocols using combinatorial task and pendulum task (Inhelder &

Piaget, 1958). The findings revealed that high-metacognitive students outperformed lower

metacognitive students in problem solving regardless of their overall aptitude level. In

addition, high metacognitive skills compensated for overall ability by providing a certain

knowledge about cognition. Nevertheless, the used of problem-solving heuristics was

related to a combination of both high aptitude and high metacognition.

Paris and Myers (1981) investigated good and poor fourth grade readers in individual

25 minutes sessions with predetermined set of 20 reading strategies to note whether they

were being utilized. Findings revealed that greater strategic used as well as awareness of

strategies were used by the good fourth grade readers. In their study, Short and Ryan

(1984) found that less skilled readers were quite capable of using story schemata to aid

their comprehension but in the absence of reading strategy training, they failed to use the

knowledge of stories spontaneously. The findings suggested that poor readers have less

awareness of the “meaning getting” nature of reading and therefore are less

metacognitively-aware. Instead, they see reading as merely “knowing all the words”

(Palinscar & Ransom, 1988). It has also been found that by enhancing metacognitive

16

awareness and providing systematic reading strategies, less skilled readers may be

enabled to develop efficient reading skills (Short and Ryan, 1984; Nolan, 1991).

These studies are relevant because they revealed the strong relation between

metacognitive strategies and reading performance (Wagner et al, 1989). There is a need to

research on students’ reading strategies at varying levels of reading performance. If

teachers know the reading strategies good readers used, and the techniques to teach these

reading strategies, they may be able to teach readers what reading strategies they need to

use to help them become successful readers.

Green (1992), Green and Oxford (1993), Oxford (1993) and Noguichi (1991), have

carried out studies on the relationship between the use of metacognitive reading

awareness and gender. Their findings revealed that female respondents were more

frequent users of metacognitive reading awareness compared to male respondents. They

were able to select appropriate strategies, plan their reading to meet the demands of the

reading tasks, and regulate their comprehension of the materials.

Studies were also carried out on the effect between the use of MRS and types of

school. One particular study by Lidgus & Vassos (1996) on seventh grade students in 2

rural middle schools in United States showed that students in their study lacked

metacognitives learning strategies in their reading. This learning strategies deficiency

could be a probable cause of students’ poor academic performance. Others such as

Blemiller & Meichenbaum (1992), suggested that students from sub-rural schools did not

have a range of effective strategies to choose from in order to meet the demands of

reading task.

Metacognition has been found to be the central aspect of students’ steadily improving

reading activity (Bonds, 1992). A study conducted by Kreutzer et al., (1975) was to

investigate kindergarten, first, third and fifth grade children’s knowledge of memory

information. Data was gathered from individual 30 minutes interview sessions which

were audiotaped and transcribed. They discovered that older children were aware of

17

variables affecting their own memory performance. The younger children used more

decoding skills and had a seemingly lack of knowledge of strategy used while reading as

compared to the older readers.

Baker and Brown (1984) noted that several factors that distinguished good readers

from poor readers. Good readers progress smoothly and rapidly as long as the material is

understood; once there is a breakdown of comprehension, the process is slowed down.

Then, the material is closely scrutinized, analysed, and reread in order to aid better

understanding. Poor readers, on the other hand, would fail to attend to the most important

aspects of a task and fail to implement strategies that would facilitate comprehension

(Cattell, 1999).

There still remain the significant differences between good and poor readers at all

level (Abromitis, 1994). For successful readers, metacognitive development is found to

exist together with their cognitive development in reading, whereas poor readers’

metacognitive development lags behind their cognitive development (Otto, 1985).

Moreover, good readers are much more in control of their reading. Pearson and

Camperall (1985) found that good readers were able to match their reading to the

structure of the text, and were able to recall better than those who were not

metacognitively aware. Besides, they were aware of the different purposes for reading,

able to assess their own knowledge pertaining to specific task, to monitor their own

comprehension, and to implement corrective strategies when needed (Anderson et al.,

1985). On the other hand, less skilled readers were often unaware of poor reading

practices when reading (Paris & Myers, 1981). Though they may be aware of the same

strategies as the good readers, they used them less frequently and effectively (Hare and

Smith, 1982; Olshavy, 1976-1977).

18

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

3.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter discusses the study design, the respondents, the instrument, the procedure

and the data analysis that were involved in carrying out of the study.

3.2 STUDY DESIGN

This is a quantitative study. The study was carried out by conducting a survey on

students from Form Four classes. The survey was done by completing questionnaires

based on a metacognitive reading strategies inventory. For this particular study, 200

students were taken from five schools; 3 urban schools and 2 rural schools located in

Miri, Sarawak. This is a random sampling. The survey was done during normal language

lessons. Students were given a set of questionnaires to respond to. These questionnaires

were then collected to be analysed.

3.3 INSTRUMENT

A metacognitive inventory was administered to determine the subjects’ knowledge and

use of metacognition. Metacognitive Awareness Of Reading Strategy Inventory (MARSI)

provided the crucial data on the students’ reading awareness and knowledge of

metacognitive reading strategies.

3.3.1 Metacognitive Awareness Of Reading Strategy Inventory (MARSI)

19

The inventory used for this purpose is the Metacognitive Awareness Of Reading Strategy

Inventory (MARSI) which was developed by Mokhtari and Reichard (2002). The

development of this instrument was guided by several underlying theoretical framework

on metacognition and reading comprehension such as Barnett (1988), Pressley and

Afflerbach’s (1995) notion of constructively responsive reading such as the top down

processing model of reading in schema theory (Anderson and Pearson, 1984), bottom-up

text processing strategies by van Dijk and Kintsch (1983), and the comprehension

monitoring process by Baker and Brown (1984), Garner (1987) and Paris and Winograd

(1990). The instruments were administered to a sample of 443 students in Grades 6-12.

The analysis of the 30-items yielded three factors or subscales. The correlation between

the factors and Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities are .92, .20 and .73

This inventory was used to assess students’ metacognitive awareness of reading

strategies. The instrument contains 30 items and with three categories of items: global

reading strategies (13 items), problem solving strategies (8 items), and support reading

strategies (9 items). The global reading strategies represented a set of reading strategies

oriented toward a global analysis of text; the problem-solving strategies appeared to be

oriented around strategies for solving problems when text becomes difficult to read; and

the support reading strategies involved the use of outside reference materials, taking

notes, and other practical strategies that might described as functional of support

strategies. These three types of strategies interact with each other and have an important

influence of the text comprehension (Mokhtari and Reichard, 2002).

Metacognitive Awareness Of Reading Strategy Inventory (MARSI; Mokhtari and

Reichard, 2002) is used to assess students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies.

The instrument contains 30 items: 13 items on global reading strategies, 8 items on

problem-solving strategies and 9 items on support reading strategies. The responses to

each item are measured on a 5-point Likert scale. The scale ranges from 1 – 5 with the

following verbal descriptors: 1 – “I never or almost never do this”, 2 – “I do this

20

occasionally”, 3 – “I sometimes do this”, 4 – “I usually do this”, 5 – “I always or almost

do this”.

The questionnaires were slightly adapted to clarify certain statements that might be

ambiguous to the respondents. The questionnaires were also translated into Malay

Language (Bahasa Melayu) to enable the respondents to give responses as accurately as

possible.

3.4 RESPONDENTS

Two hundred respondents (n = 200) were taken among students of Form Four classes

from several urban and rural schools in Miri, Sarawak. 3 of the urban schools were

located in Miri town, Sarawak; 1 of the schools involved in the study was a fully

residential school while the other 2 were day schools. 2 of the rural schools were semi

residential schools located more than 85 kilometres from Miri. One hundred and eight (n

= 108) of the respondents were males while ninety-two (n = 92) were females (see Table

3.4.2). One hundred and seven (n = 107) respondents from urban schools and ninety-three

(n = 93) respondents from the rural schools were involved in the study (see Table 3.4.3).

The respondents were taken from students from different ethnic backgrounds such as

Malays (n = 30), Chinese (n = 15), Ibans (n = 80), Orang Ulus (n= 57) and Bidayuhs (n =

18) (see Table 3.4.4). These students were selected from both Arts (n = 99) and Science

(n = 101) streams (see Table 3.4.5).

These respondents were divided into 2 groups: one hundred (n = 10) respondents were

categorized as low achievers while one hundred (n = 10) respondents were categorized as

high achievers (see Table 3.4.1). The selection of these respondents was based on their

academic performance in English Language in the previous PMR examinations and First

term examinations. Definitions of the high achievers group are as follow: (1) they scored

more than 70 percent in their first-term examination, (2) obtained at least a grade B in

English subject in their PMR Definitions of the low achievers group are as follow: (1)

they scored below 30 percent in their first-term examination, (2) obtained grade E in

21

English subject in their PMR Students were selected by the form teachers and English

teachers because they would have known each student’s ability and reading proficiency

better. In addition, these students were selected because they would have at this point, a

fairly good repertoire of reading strategies and more importantly, they were not from the

examination classes.

Table 3.4.1: Numbers of Low Achievers and High Achievers Respondents

Group N= 200 (%)

Low Achievers 100 50

High Achievers 100 50

Total 200 100

Table 3.4.2: Numbers of Male and Female Respondents

Gender N= 200 (%)

Males 108 54

Females 92 46

Total 200 100

Table 3.4.3: Numbers of Urban and Rural Schools Respondents

Types of Schools N= 200 (%)

Urban 107 53.5

Rural 93 46.5

Total 200 100

22

Table 3.4.4: Breakdown of Respondents’ Ethnicities

Ethnic Group N= 200 (%)

Malays 30 15

Chinese 15 7.5

Ibans 80 40

Orang Ulus 57 28.5

Bidayuhs 18 9

Total 200 100

Table 3.4.5: Numbers of respondents based on class of streaming

Streams N= 200 (%)

Arts 99 49.5

Science 101 50.5

Total 200 100

3.5 PROCEDURE

Permission was first obtained from the respective school principals beforehand. A

consultation with the form teachers and English teachers to discuss the selection

procedures was then held. The questionnaires were handed over to the teachers to be

conducted and administered at their own disposal within the time allotted. The

questionnaires were given out to respondents ten minutes before lesson ended. The whole

session took about 2 days to conduct due to time constraints and the tight schedule of

those involved. The questionnaires were then collected to be analysed.

23

3.6 DATA ANALYSIS

The data was collected through questionnaires based on Mokhtari & Reichard’s (2002)

Metacognitive Awareness Of Reading Strategy Inventory (MARSI). The data was then

analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS). T-test was run on

each item of the questionnaires to find out whether there are significance differences

between the three variables: 1) low achievers and high achievers; 2) male and female

students; and 3) urban and rural schools students with respect to metacognitive reading

strategies used. A p-value of <.05 was used to determine the level of significance for each

item with respect to the three variables mentioned earlier.

24

CHAPTER IV

DATA ANALYSIS

4.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter discusses the sample of the study, the procedure, the research findings as

well as the discussions on the findings.

4.2 SAMPLE

A sample of 200 students was chosen for this study of which 108 are males and 92 are

females. They were selected from five secondary schools in Miri, Sarawak. 103 of the

students came from 3 urban schools while 97 students came from 2 rural schools The

sample selected for the purpose of the study was taken among Form Four students. 100

students were selected from the high achievers group while another 100 students were

selected from the low achievers group. The students were aged between 16 – 17 years of

age.

4.3 PROCEDURE

Written permissions were first procured from the Ministry of Education as well as the

Sarawak State Education Department before the study could be carried out. The principal

of each school selected for the study was then consulted on the purpose and design of the

study. With the help of the Head of English Department and the English language teacher

from each school, students were then selected and grouped under the high achiever and

25

low achiever groups. The participants were then briefed on the purpose of the study

which was to investigate the knowledge and used of metacognitive strategies in their

reading. The researcher went through the questionnaires with the respondents and

explained any difficulties they may encounter while completing the questionnaires. The

questionnaires were then handed over to the English teacher to be administered during

English lessons. Respondents were then asked to complete the MARSI questionnaires.

The questionnaires were successfully completed by the students in the time allotted.

4.4 RESEARCH FINDINGS

This study has answered three research questions. The findings are discussed in terms of

the following aspects: “setting purpose for reading”, “taking notes while reading”,

“activating prior knowledge”, “previewing text before reading”, “reading text out loud

when face with difficulty”, “summarizing on important information”, “checking whether

text content fits purpose”, “reading slowly and carefully”, “discussing reading with

others”, “skimming to note text characteristics”, “getting back on track when losing

concentration”, “underlining text information”, “adjusting reading rate”, “making

decisions in relation to what to read closely”, “using reference materials as aids”, “paying

close attention to reading”, “using tables, figures, and pictures in text to increase

understanding”, “using context clues”, “restate ideas in own words”, “visualizing

information read”, “using typographical aids to identify key information”, “analysing

and evaluating information critically“, “revisiting previously read information”,

“checking understanding when come across conflicting information”, “predicting what

text is about”, “rereading”, “asking self questions”, “checking predictions against text

content” and “guessing meaning of unknown words”.

26

Table 4.4.1: Used of Metacognitive Reading Strategies between Low Achievers and High Achievers

No. Question Items Means OfLow Achievers

Means OfHighAchievers

p-value

1. setting purpose for reading 2.90 4.18 .000

2. taking notes while reading 2.30 3.24 .013

3. activating prior knowledge 2.74 4.01 .190*

4. previewing text before reading 2.90 4.18 .000

5. reading text out loud when face with difficulty

2.71 4.02 .000

6. summarizing on important information 2.45 3.99 .018

7. checking whether text content fits purpose 2.26 3.82 .001

8. reading slowly and carefully 3.06 3.59 .000

9. discussing reading with others 2.61 3.36 .002

10. skimming to note text characteristics 2.42 3.68 .000

11. getting back on track when losing concentration

2.27 3.21 .012

12. underlining text information 2.57 3.76 .055*

13. adjusting reading rate 2.45 3.99 .018

14. making decisions in relation to what to read closely

2.44 3.84 .335*

15. using reference materials as aids 2.53 4.11 .019

16. paying close attention to reading 2.29 3.23 .013

17. using tables, figures, and pictures in text to increase understanding

2.59 4.51 .219*

18. pausing to reflect on reading 2.90 4.18 .000

19. using context clues 2.52 4.08 .321*

20. restate ideas in own words 2.51 4.10 .019

21. visualizing information read 2.71 4.02 .000

22. using typographical aids to identify key information

2.30 3.24 .013

27

23. analysing and evaluating information critically

2.62 3.89 .166*

24. revisiting previously read information 2.44 3.97 .018

25. checking understanding when come across conflicting information

2.29 3.11 .013

26. predicting what text is about 2.64 4.32 .000

27. rereading 2.69 4.52 .219*

28. asking self questions 2.52 4.08 .321*

29. checking predictions against text content 2.39 3.98 .018

30. guessing meaning of unknown words 2.90 4.18 .000

For the first research question, “Is there a significant difference between low

achievers and high achievers in the used of metacognitive reading strategies?”, the

findings indicated that majority of the items showed significant difference between the

low and high achievers with respect to the used of metacognitive reading strategies. The

significant items are “setting purpose for reading”, (low= 2.90; high= 4.18), “taking notes

while reading”, (low= 2.30; high= 3.24), “previewing text before reading”, (low= 2.90;

high= 4.18), “reading text out loud when face with difficulty”, (low= 2.71; high= 4.02),

“summarizing on important information”, (low= 2.45; high= 3.99), “checking whether

text content fits purpose”, (low= 2.26; high= 3.82), “reading slowly and carefully”, (low=

3.06; high= 3.59), “discussing reading with others”, (low= 2.61; high= 3.36), “skimming

to note text characteristics”, (low= 2.42; high= 3.68), “getting back on track when losing

concentration”, (low= 2.27; high= 3.21), “adjusting reading rate”, (low= 2.45; high=

3.99), “using reference materials as aids”, (low= 2.53; high= 4.11), “paying close

attention to reading”, (low= 2.29; high= 3.23), “pausing to reflect on reading”, (low=

2.90; high= 4.18), “restate ideas in own words “, (low= 2.51; high= 4.10), “visualizing

information read”, (low= 2.71; high= 4.02), “using typographical aids to identify key

information”, (low= 2.30; high= 3.24), “revisiting previously read information”, (low=

2.44; high= 3.97), “checking understanding when come across conflicting information”,

(low= 2.29; high= 3.11), “predicting what text is about”, (low= 2.64; high= 4.32),

28

“checking predictions against text content”, (low= 2.39; high= 3.98), “guessing meaning

of unknown words”, (low= 2.90; high= 4.18).

The insignificant items (indicated by an *) are “activating prior knowledge”, (low=

2.74; high= 4.01), “underlining text information”, (low= 2.57; high= 3.76), “making

decisions in relation to what to read closely”, (low= 2.44; high= 3.84), “using tables,

figures, and pictures in text to increase understanding”, (low= 2.59; high= 4.51), “using

context clues”, (low=2.52; high= 4.08), “analysing and evaluating information critically”,

(low= 2.62; high= 3.89), “rereading”, (low= 2.69; high= 4.52), and “asking self

questions”, (low= 2.52; high= 4.08).

Table 4.4.2: Used of Metacognitive Reading Strategies between Male and Female

Students

No. Question Items Means OfFemaleStudents

Means OfMalesStudents

p-value

1. setting purpose for reading 3.70 3.13 .016

2. taking notes while reading 3.35 2.88 .028

3. activating prior knowledge 3.81 3.16 .049

4. previewing text before reading 3.39 2.76 .058*


3.85 3.30 .039

6. summarizing on important information 3.98 2.39 .018


8. reading slowly and carefully 2.29 3.23 .013


10. skimming to note text characteristics 3.48 2.85 .092*


2.53 3.99 .019

12. underlining text information 1.64 1.17 .031



3.26 2.74 .443*

29




2.44 3.97 .018

18. pausing to reflect on reading 2.36 1.61 .002

19. using context clues 3.24 2.90 .063*

20. restate ideas in own words 3.35 2.88 .028



3.41 3.05 .405*


3.24 2.30 .013



4.31 2.63 .000


27. rereading 3.29 2.80 .654*

28. asking self questions 4.07 3.06 .001


30. guessing meaning of unknown words 3.50 2.82 .490*

For the second research question, “Is there a significant difference between females

and males students in the used of metacognitive reading strategies?”, findings indicated

that majority of the items showed significant difference between female and male

students with respect to the used of metacognitive reading strategies. The significant

items are “setting purpose for reading”, (females= 3.70; males= 3.13), “taking notes while

reading”, (females= 3.35; males= 2.88), “activating prior knowledge”, (females= 3.81;

males= 3.16), “reading text out loud when face with difficulty”, (females= 3.85; males=

3.30), “summarizing on important information”, (females= 3.98; males= 2.39),

“checking whether text content fits purpose”, (females= 4.02; males= 2.71), “reading

slowly and carefully”, (females= 2.29; males= 3.23), “discussing reading with others”,

30

(females= 2.11; males= 2.71), “getting back on track when losing concentration”,

(females= 2.53; males= 3.99), “underlining text information”, (females= 1.64; males=

1.17), “adjusting reading rate”, (females= 2.29; males= 1.34), “making decisions in

relation to what to read closely”, (females= 3.26; males= 2.74), “using reference materials

as aids”, (females= 2.13; males= 1.66), “paying close attention to reading”, (females=

2.29; males= 1.72), “using tables, figures, and pictures in text to increase understanding”,

(females= 2.44; males= 3.97), “pausing to reflect on reading”, (females= 2.36; males=

1.61), “restate ideas in own words”, (females= 3.35; males= 2.88), “visualizing

information read”, (females= 2.90; males= 4.18), “analysing and evaluating information

critically”, (females= 3.24; males= 2.30), “revisiting previously read information”,

(females= 3.68; males= 2.42), “checking understanding when come across conflicting

information”, (females= 4.31; males= 2.63), “predicting what text is about”, (females=

1.86; males= 2.72), “asking self questions”, (females= 4.07; males= 3.06), “checking

predictions against text content”, (females= 3.59; males= 3.06).

However, there is no significant difference (indicated by a *) between the two groups

with regards to “previewing text before reading”, (females= 3.39; males= 2.76),

“skimming to note text characteristics”, (females= 3.48; males= 2.85), “making decisions

in relation to what to read closely”, (females= 3.26; males= 2.74), “using context clues”,

(females= 3.24; males= 2.90), “using typographical aids to identify key information”,

(females= 3.41; males= 3.05), “rereading”, (females= 3.29; males= 2.80), and “guessing

meaning of unknown words”, (females = 3.50; male = 2.82),

Table 4.4.3: Used of Metacognitive Reading Strategies between Urban Schools and Rural Schools students

No. Question Items Means OfUrban Schools Students

Means OfRural Schools Students

p-value

1. setting purpose for reading 3.64 3.08 .175*

2. taking notes while reading 3.50 2.76 .143*

3. activating prior knowledge 3.59 3.06 .000

31

4. previewing text before reading 4.07 3.06 .001


3.90 3.15 .094*

6. summarizing on important information 3.82 3.22 .144*


8. reading slowly and carefully 3.42 3.06 .327*


10. skimming to note text characteristics 3.27 2.74 .173*


2.29 3.11 .013

12. underlining text information 3.84 3.06 .073*



4.07 3.06 .001




3.24 2.30 .013

18. pausing to reflect on reading 3.42 2.87 .055*

19. using context clues 3.35 2.88 .028

20. restate ideas in own words 3.42 3.22 .144*



2.29 1.72 .034


2.36 1.61 .002



2.36 1.61 .002


27. rereading 3.35 2.88 .028

28. asking self questions 3.42 3.06 .327*

32


30. guessing meaning of unknown words 3.50 2.76 .143*

For the third research question, “Is there a significant difference between urban and

rural schools students?”, findings showed that most of the items showed significant

difference between urban school students and rural school students with regards to items

such as these: “activating prior knowledge”, (urban= 3.59; rural= 3.06), “previewing text

before reading”, (urban= 4.07; rural= 3.06), “checking whether text content fits purpose”,

(urban= 3.11; rural= 2.29), “discussing reading with others”, (urban= 3.68; rural= 2.42),

“getting back on track when losing concentration”, (urban= 2.29; rural= 3.11), “adjusting

reading rate”, (urban= 3.24; rural= 2.30), “making decisions in relation to what to read

closely”, (urban= 4.07; rural= 3.06), “using reference materials as aids”, (urban= 2.53;

rural= 3.99), “paying close attention to reading”, (urban= 2.11; rural= 2.71), “using

tables, figures, and pictures in text to increase understanding”, (urban= 3.24; rural= 2.30),

“using context clues”, (urban= 3.35; rural= 2.88), “visualizing information read”, (urban=

4.02; rural= 2.71), “using typographical aids to identify key information”, (urban= 2.29;

rural= 1.72), “analyzing and evaluating information critically”, (urban= 2.36; rural=

1.61), “revisiting previously read information”, (urban= 3.85; rural= 3.30), “checking

understanding when come across conflicting information”, (urban= 2.36; rural= 1.16),

“predicting what text is about”, (urban= 3.98; rural= 2.39), “rereading”, (urban= 3.35;

rural= 2.28), and finally “checking predictions against text content”, (urban= 3. 81; rural=

3.16),

Nevertherless, there is no significant differences (indicated by an *) between the two

groups with respect to “setting purpose for reading”, (urban= 3.64; rural= 3.08), “taking

notes while reading”, (urban= 3.50; rural= 2.76), “reading text out loud when face with

difficulty”, (urban= 3.90; rural= 3.15), “summarizing on important information”, (urban=

3.82; rural = 3.22), “reading slowly and carefully”, (urban= 3.42; rural= 3.06), “skimming

to note text characteristics”, (urban= 3.27; rural= 2.74), “underlining text information”,

(urban= 3.84; rural= 3.06), “pausing to reflect on reading”, (urban= 3.42; rural= 2.87),

33

“restate ideas in own words”, (urban= 3.42; rural= 3.22), “asking self questions”, (urban=

3.42; rural= 3.06), and “guessing meaning of unknown words”, (urban= 3.50; rural=

2.76).

Based on the above findings, students showed significant differences in majority of

the metacognitive reading strategies used. The high achievers displayed better awareness

and frequent used of metacognitive reading strategies than low achievers. Female students

used metacognitive reading strategies more frequently and effectively than do male

students when reading comprehension texts. In addition, urban schools students have

wider knowledge of metacognitive reading strategies than rural school students. The

former used more strategic reading skills as compared to the latter.

Thus, increased proficiency and improved achievements in English are due to greater

awareness and more effective use of metacognitive reading strategies by students in their

reading.

4.5 DISCUSSIONS

The purpose of this study was to investigate the used of metacognitive strategies among

Form Four students in reading. The results indicated the significant differences in the

used and knowledge of metacognitive reading strategies by low and high achievers, male

and female students, as well as urban and rural schools students.

Based on the findings, it appeared that high achievers are more aware of

metacognitive strategies and use them twice as often as the low achievers. The outcomes

of this study support Baker’s (1989) view that generally good readers, who are generally

good students, appear to have more metacognitive awareness than poor readers. Based on

her study, good readers or “expert reader”, as they are also referred to, interact with

domain-specific knowledge; they are able to consciously select effective reading

strategies to enhance their reading comprehension. In addition, they are "more aware than

novices of when they need to check for errors, why they fail to comprehend, and how

34

they need to redirect their efforts” (Ridley et al, 1992). Low achievers may not have

developed certain skills or strategies or they may simply failed to use them in their

reading.

Chern’s study (1994) apparently is consistent with the findings. In her study of 28

native speakers of Mandarin Chinese who learned English as a Second Language (ESL),

her findings indicated that more proficient language learners are more aware of the

strategies they used in reading. Experienced readers selected appropriate metacognitive

reading strategies when reading while inexperienced readers were intimidated by the

unfamiliar words they encountered in their reading tasks. Persson’s study (1994) on 53

Swedish students in grade 6 and 8 is also consistent with previous similar research. Her

findings indicated that firstly, good readers organized their knowledge and used it

appropriately; secondly, good readers’ metacognitive abilities were well integrated;

thirdly, poor readers were less confident than good readers, and the former regarded

themselves as poor learners and their verbal responses were less elaborate; finally, poor

readers’ decoding was often less automatic, thus rendering them unable to comprehend

their reading texts.

The findings of this study also indicated substantial findings of significant differences

between gender and used of metacognitive reading awareness. The knowledge and used

of metacognitive reading strategies differ significantly between male and female students.

The results showed that female students display better metacognitive awareness compared

to male students. This study appears consistent with a study by Kaylani (1996). She

examined the influence of gender and motivation on 12th grade high school students in

Jordan. Her study reported that there was a strong relationship between gender and

metacognitive knowledge and used. According to the findings, female subjects reported a

higher used of the metacognitive strategies and showed better performance in their

reading tasks as compared to male subjects. Other similar studies carried out by Ehrman

and Oxford (1989), Oxford and Nyikos (1989), and Green and Oxford (1995) concluded

that females used metacognitive reading strategies more frequently than males. Moreover,

35

female subjects differed from male subjects in their frequency and variety of

metacognitive strategies used.

A study conducted by Lee ( ____ ) on the used of language learning strategies by 325

Korean secondary school students of English as a foreign language, of which 163 boys

and 162 girls participated revealed that the girls showed more frequent used of all

selected metacognitive strategies categories than boys. Similar findings were also

concluded by Oxford et al. (1988), Lee (1994), Kim (1995) and Oh (1996). According to

these studies, the sex of the students makes a significant difference in learning a second or

foreign language and, more often than not, the female subjects showed greater use of

these metacognitive reading strategies.

The findings of this study also indicated significant differences between location or

types of schools and used of metacognitive reading strategies. Results of the study

suggest that urban school students displayed better metacognitive awareness than rural

schools students. This indicated that teaching of metacognition is more deliberate and

planned among urban language classrooms than those in rural schools. This findings

support Mngadi’s (1992) study on metacognitive strategies among college students. She

found that urban students differed substantially in their metacognitive awareness

compared to rural students. Urban students displayed higher awareness of metacognitive

strategies than the rural students. She suggests that the lack of formal metacognitive

strategy instruction is one of the factors contributing to such discrepancies between urban

and rural students.

Findings from the study also support the suggestions that metacognitive awareness

enhance and improve students’ language proficiency. The more strategic the reader, the

more proficient he or she becomes. High achievers may attribute their academic success

to their higher metacognitive awareness and efficient used of these strategic reading skills

(Oxford and Burry-stock, 1995).

36

From the findings of the study, it becomes clear that there are indeed differences

between successful or good readers, and less successful or poor readers in terms of

strategy used. There is also a strong relationship between reading strategies used by

readers and proficiency level. Overall, successful readers or high proficient readers,

appear to be using a wider range of strategies. Moreover, these readers also appear to use

strategies more frequently than less successful or poor readers. Results of some studies

have also shown that successful readers know when and how to apply reading strategies

on a given task (Singhal, 2001).

4.6 CONCLUSION

To conclude, the present study has found evidence to support other research findings that

demonstrated that successful learners often use metacognitive strategies to enhance their

learning experience compared to unsuccessful learners. Many studies showed that

students who use metacognitive skills are more successful compared to the ones who do

not. Swanson’s (1988), and Zimmerman’s (1989) studies, among others, showed that

academically achieving students are better on metacognitive “measures” while low

performance students failed to recognize what they do not understand.

Oster (2001) suggests that metacognitive awareness is critical to learning. Once

students have identified their level of comprehension, they are then able to select or

readjust their strategies based on the reading task demanded of them. More importantly,

the ability to select, plan and regulate their understanding will eventually lead to our

students being autonomous and independent learners. Independence leads to ownership as

students realize that they can pursue their own intellectual needs and discover a world of

information at their fingertips ( Graham, 1997).

37

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

5.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter discusses the synthesis of the findings, recommendations and implications

for the study and scope for future research.

5.2 SYNTHESIS OF FINDINGS

This study sets out to investigate whether there are any differences in the knowledge and

used of metacognitive reading strategies by Form Four students. It also sets out to

investigate the used of metacognitive reading strategies by Form Four students of English

as a Second Language (ESL).

This section discusses the main findings obtained from the data. The discussion will

summarize the findings of this study based on the three research questions below:

1. Is there a significant difference between low and high achievers in the used of

metacognitive reading strategies?

2. Is there a significant difference between male and female students in the used

of metacognitive reading strategies?

3. Is there a significant difference between urban and rural schools students in

the used of metacognitive reading strategies?

38

For research question 1, research findings revealed that the high achievers used

efficient reading strategies in their reading more than low achievers. Low achievers are

significantly less likely than highly achieving students to demonstrate metacognitive

knowledge, self-regulation skills, and the effective used of metacognitive knowledge.

According to Johnston & Winograd (1985), the knowledge of metacognitive strategies

(e.g., task demands, relation between reading variables and reading comprehension) does

facilitates reading comprehension .

For research question 2, findings of this study revealed that a substantial difference

exists in the used of MRS between female students and male students. Female students

were reported to select appropriate strategies, plan their reading tasks well, and regulate

their understanding of the text in order to enhance better understanding of the reading

materials (O’Malley et al, 1985). Although they may have some awareness of

metacognitives strategies, male students failed to use these learning strategies efficiently

(Flavell, 1979). Female students appeared to focus mainly on important clues that would

help them arrive at meaning while male students spent a great deal of time engaging in

decoding activities than making activities that will lead to better text comprehension

(Schmitt, 1990).

For research question 3, the findings provided evidence that is a strong relation

between metacognitive knowledge and types of schools. As mentioned earlier,

metacognitive reading strategies enable students to control their cognitive activities used

for understanding, and allow them to assess to what extent these strategies are performed

successfully (Anderson, 2002). Though they may have some awareness of metacognitive

strategies, rural students failed to use these learning strategies efficiently (Flavell, 1979).

One reason for their failure in adopting these strategies may be due to the differences in

metacognitive instruction urban schools students and rural schools students received.

Urban students were given sufficient training in the used of reading metacognitive skills

and ample time to develop these vital reading skills which enhance their comprehension

(Anderson, 2002).

39

Thus, it can be deduced that the students with high academic performance used more

metacognitive strategies than students with low academic performance. The results

indicate that more proficient students are aware of their needs and look for more

opportunities to enhance their understanding of the language. The used of more

metacognitive strategies by more proficient students can be attributed to these students'

need to process information more efficiently for better enhancement of the English

language (Cattell, 1999).

5.3 IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The findings of the study offer several pedagogical implications for language lessons in

our ESL contexts. Even though there are limitations to how much metacognitive

awareness can aid reading comprehension, a teacher can find ways of helping students

become better, more aware readers who are better able to monitor their understanding of

texts better. The following suggestions could benefit teachers who are constantly in

search of approaches and techniques that work effectively in the English language

classrooms.

Firstly, teachers can help readers acquire self-regulated use of comprehension

strategies (Guerlene, 2002). Secondly, they can aid metacognitive development by

providing students the opportunity to check their understanding with sources other than

the text. They can help students learn that they can improve their understanding of the

text if they go beyond the primary source, the text that they are reading, to consult

secondary sources, such as other people or other texts (Carrell, 1989).

Thirdly, it is important for teachers to help readers develop metacognitive awareness

because metacognitive skills play a large role in the self-regulated monitoring that takes

place during reading comprehension (Paris & Jacobs, 1984). Teachers need to be aware

that readers who have developed metacognitive awareness will be better at monitoring

their understanding of text than readers who have not developed metacognitive

awareness. Teachers also need to be aware that helping readers develop metacognitive

awareness does not come without its challenges and limitations (Brenna, 1995).

40

In addition, teachers should be aware that metacognitive processing can influence

reading comprehension. Students should be encouraged to monitor their metacognition in

reading and focus on effective processing strategies. Teachers and students should be

aware that effective strategies may vary from one context to another, and from one

proficiency level to another (Cattell, 1999).

The teaching of metacognitive strategies to our language learners would invariably

enhance their learning and thus, improve their proficiency in the language. Hacker (1998)

has identified several strategies that strong readers and learners have and which teachers

can use in the classrooms:

1. Predicting - encourages students to read with a purpose and to confirm or correct

what they predicted. For example, teachers can provide students with a list of

questions that will guide students to make intellectual guesses at a particular

topic before reading on it. This list can be referred to from time to time.

2. Self-questioning - allows learners to actively check how much they understand

while reading. Students can pose questions such as, "What is the main idea?"

and "Are there examples to help me understand what I just read?" Students who

ask their own questions show greater improvement in comprehension.

3. Paraphrasing - puts the concepts of a passage or section into their own words, or

by summarizing the main points, students get a sense of how much they

understand.

4. Visual Representation - creates visual models of ideas within a text provides a

means of organizing information into understandable wholes, and promotes the

visualization of relationships.

5. Lookback - involves referring to what has already been read in order to increase

understanding of the material.

6. Changing Reading Speed - when encountering obstacles like an unusual writing

style or too many unknown words, students can modify their reading speed.

Good readers are able to determine the appropriate pace for their purpose. For

41

example, they can determine when it is best to quickly scan the material such as

newspapers, and when to read slowly and deliberately such as a science

textbook.

Many research carried out emphasize on the importance of metacognitive awareness.

How crucial is metacognition in language teaching? As students become more skilled at

using metacognitive strategies, they gain confidence and become more independent as

learners. Independence leads to ownership as student's realize they can pursue their own

intellectual needs and discover a world of information at their fingertips. The task of

educators is to acknowledge, cultivate, exploit and enhance the metacognitive capabilities

of all learners (Gavelek & Raphael, 1996).

Thus, given that metacognitive strategies can be taught, the ultimate goal of

teaching reading is to help students develop as strategic readers. The best implication of

this study is that instruction must include direct teaching of metacognitive strategies to

both urban and rural schools children (Kaylani, 1996). Metacognitive instruction in our

ESL classrooms should be a deliberate and systematic attempt to develop and enhance

students’ reading ability. Making them aware of these strategies through explicit or

implicit training during classroom teaching would be beneficial to them in the long run.

Finally, teachers also need to bear in mind that instruction in metacognitive awareness

does not have to wait until students are fluent in English. They can practice metacognitive

strategies with texts in their mother tongue, and the strategies will transfer to English

texts as they become more proficient in English.

5.4 SCOPE FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

This study has only attempt to investigate the knowledge of metacognitive strategies

among Form Four students in selected urban and rural schools and the used of these

strategies in their reading comprehension by them. There is still much scope for further

research on this topic.

42

It would be interesting to carry out a longitudinal study to investigate metacognitive

used among students of different cultural backgrounds. This would shed lights into the

differences in the intensity of the use of language learning strategies and try to analyze

the differences from learners’ cultural background point of view.

It would also be beneficial to teachers if study is carried out to look into the

metacognitive awareness of lower forms particularly the Form One students. This would

give better insights into learners’ characteristics and factors that might interfere with their

ability to effectively monitor and understand reading text from the initial stage.

Consequently, proper planning of metacognitive teaching as part of students’ language

instruction could be carry out in our language classroom as students progress further in

their learning.

43

REFERENCES

Abromitis, B. 1994. The role of metacognition in reading comprehension: Implications for instruction. Literacy Research and Reports. DeKalb, IL: Curriculum and Instruction Reading Clinic. Illinois.

Abu Shmais, Wafa, 2000. Language learning strategy use in Palestine. (Online) www.writing.berkeley.edu/TESL-EJ/ej26/a3abs.html. (23 June 2004).

Algozzine K., Algozzine, R., & Amendum, S. 1997. Including high-risk learners in middle school literacy activities. In J. Flood, D. Lapp and K. Wood (ed.). Staff development guide for middle school teachers. New York: Macmillan McGraw-Hill. pp.201-205.

Anderson, N. J. 2002. The role of metacognition in second/foreign language teaching and learning. ERIC Digest. (Online) www.cal.org/ericcll/digest/0110anderson.html. ( 3 Mac 2004).

Anderson, R. C., Hiebert, E. H. Scott, J. A., & Wilkinson, J. 1985. Becoming a nation of readers: The reports of the commission on Reading. Urbana, IL: Center for the study of Reading.

Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. 1984. A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (ed.). Handbook of reading research. White Plains, NY: Longman. 2: .255-292.

August, D. L., Flavell, J. H., & Clift, R. 1984. Comparison of comprehension monitoring of skilled and less skilled readers. Reading Research Quarterly. 20: 39-49.

Baker, L. 1989. Metacognition, comprehension monitoring, and the adult reader. Educational Psychology Review. 1: 3-38.

Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. 1984. Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (ed.). Handbook of reading research. New York, Longman. Vol. 1: 353-394.

Barnett, M. 1988. Reading through context: how real and perceived strategy use affects L2 comprehension. The Modern Language Journal. 72(2): 150-161.

Barton, M. L. 1997. Addressing the literacy crisis: Teaching reading in the content areas. NASSP Bulletin. 81(587): 22-30.

Baumann, J. F., Jones, L. A., & Seifert-Kessell, N. 1993. Using think alouds to enhance children’s comprehension monitoring abilities. The Reading Teacher. 47: 184-193.

44

http://www.cal.org/ericcll/digest/0110anderson.html

Bialystok, E., & Mitterer, J. 1987. Metalinguistic differences among three kinds of readers. Journal of Educational Psychology. 79(2): 147-153.

Blakey, E., & Spence, S. 1990. Thinking for the Future. Emergency Librarian. 17(5):11-14.

Blemiller, A., & Meichenbaum, D. 1992. The nature and nurture of the self-directed learner. Educational Leadership. 75-78.

Block, E. 1986. The comprehension strategies of second language readers. TESOL Quarterly. 26(2): 319-343.

Boling, E. ____. The Role of Metacognitive Awareness in Reading Comprehension. ____

Bonds, C.W. 1992. Developing independence in learning. Clearing-house. 66(1): 56-59.

Borkowski, J., Carr, M., & Pressley, M. 1987. Spontaneous strategy use: Perspectives from metacognitive theory. Intelligence. 11: 61-75.

Brenna, B. 1995. The metacognitive reading strategies of five early readers. Journal of Research in Reading. 18(1): 53-62.

Byrd, D. M., & Gholson, B. 1985. Reading, memory and metacognition. Journal of Educational Psychology. 77(4): 428-436.

Carrell, P. L. 1989. Metacognitive awareness and second language reading. Modern Language Journal. 73: 121-133.

Carrell, P. L., & Eisterhold, J. C. 1983. Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly. 17: 553-573.

Carrell, P. L., Devine, J., & Eskey, D. 1988. Interactive approaches to second language reading. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cattell, M. 1999. A study of the effects of metacognition on reading comprehension. Masters Thesis. San Diego University. (Online) www.edrs.com/logon.cfm. (21 February 2004).

Chern, C. L. 1994. Chinese readers’ metacognitive awareness in reading Chinese and English. (Online) www.edrs.com/logon.cfm. ( 16 October 2004).

Cohen, A. 1990. Language learning: Insights for learners, teachers, and researchers. New York. Newbury House.

45

http://www.edrs.com/logon.cfm


Cross, D. R., & Paris, S. G. 1988. Developmental and instructional analyses of children’s metacognition and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology. 80(2): 131-142.

Davey, B. 1983. Think aloud: Modelling the cognitive processes of reading comprehension. Journal of Reading. 27: 44-47.

Dewitz, P., Carr, E. M., & Patberg, J. P. 1987. Effects of inference training on comprehension and comprehension monitoring. Reading Research Quarterly. 22(1): 99-121.

Early, M. 1984. Reading to learn in grades 5 – 12. New York: Harcourt Brace Javanovich.

Ehrman, M.E., & Oxford, R.L. 1989. Effects of sex differences, career choice, and psychological type on adult language learning strategies. The Modern Language Journal. 73: 1-13.

English Language and Performance Analysis (Rural Areas). 2002. Lembaga Perperiksaan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, 10 October 2002.

Eskey, D. E. 1973. A model program for teaching advanced reading to students of English as a foreign language. Language Learning. 23: 169-189.

Everson, H. T. 1997. Do metacognition skills and learning strategies transfer across domains. (Online) www.edrs.com/logon.cfm. (16 October 2004).

Flavell, J. H. 1976. Metacognitive of problem solving. In L.B. Resnick (ed.). The Nature of Intelligence. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum. 231-235.

Flavell, J. H. 1979. Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist. 34: 906-911.

Flavell, J. H. 1987. Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition. In F. E. Weinert, & R. H. Kluwe (ed.). Metacognition, motivation and understanding. Hillside, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 21-29.

Fitzgerald, J. 1983. Helping readers gain self control over reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher. 37: 249- 254.

Garner, R. 1987. Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.

Gavelek, J. R., & Raphael, T. E. 1996. Changing talk about text: new roles for teachers and students. Language Art. 73: 182-192

46


Grabe, W. 1991. Current development in second language reading research. TESOL Quarterly. 25(3): 375-406.

Graham, S. 1997. Effective Language Learning. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.

Green, J.M. 1992. Additional analyses of Puerto Rican Strategy data. Unpublished manuscript, University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez.

Green, J. M., & Oxford, R. 1995. A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly. 29(2): 261-297.

Guerlene, S. 2002. Improving reading comprehension: A comparative study of metacognitive strategies. Masters of Arts Thesis, Kean University, Indiana. (Online) www.edrs.com/logon.cfm. (2 Disember 2003)

Hacker, D. J. 1998. Self-regulated comprehension during normal reading. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky & A. Graesser (ed.). Metacognition in educational theory and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 165-191.

Hammadou, J. 1991. Interrelationship among prior knowledge, inference and language proficiency in foreign language reading. The Modern Language Journal. 75(1): 27-38.

Hare, V. C., & Smith, D. C. 1982. Reading to remember: Studies of metacognitive reading skills in elementary school-aged children. Journal of Educational Research. 75: 149-164.

Holmes, C. 1983. The effect of prior knowledge on the question-answering of good and poor readers. Journal of Reading Behavior. 15: 1-18.

Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. 1958. The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. New York: Basic Books.

Johnston, P. H., & Winograd, P. N. 1985. Passive failure in reading. Journal of Reading Behavior. 17(4): 279-301.

Kaylani. C. 1996. The influence of gender and motivation on EFC learning strategies used in Jordan. In R. Oxford (ed.). Language learning strategies around the world: Cross cultural perspectives. Manoa: University of Hawaii. 75-88.

Keene, E. O., & Zimmermann, S. 1977. Mosaic of thoughts: Teaching comprehension in a reader’s workshop. Portsmouth: New Hampshire. Heinemann.

Kim, Y. M. 1995. The effect of gender and learning context on the use of language learning strategies. English Teaching. 50(2): 331-345.

47

http://www.edrs.com/logon.cfm.%20(2

Kolic-Vehovec, S., & Bajsanski, I. 2001. Children’s metacognition and reading comprehension. Masters of Arts Thesis, University of Rijeka, Croatia. (Online) www.edrs.com/logon.cfm. ( 12 March 2004).

Kreutzer, M. A., Leonard, C., & Flavell, J. H. 1975. An interview study of children’s knowledge about memory. Monographs of the society of research. Child Development. 40.

Lee, H. W. 1994. Investigating the factors affecting the use of foreign language learning strategies and comparing the strategy use of EFL and ESL students. English Teaching. 48: 51-99.

Lee, K. O. ____. The relationship of school year, sex and proficiency on the use of learning strategies in learning English of Korean junior high school students. ____.

Lee, P. L. 1994. Miscue analysis: a comparative study of two groups of pupils in a secondary school. M. Sc. Thesis. University Putra Malaysia, Malaysia.

Let down by poor English: Worrying trend – Only 600 of 13,000 graduates found jobs. 2002. New Sunday Times, November 24: 1.

Ley, T. C., Schaer, B. B., & Dismukes, B. W. 1994. Longitudinal study of the reading attitudes and behaviours of middle school students. Reading Psychology. 15:11-38.

Li, S., & Munby, H. 1996. Metacognitive Strategies in Second Language Academic Reading: A qualitative Investigation. English for Specific Purposes. 13(5): 199-216

Lidgus, C., & Vassos, S. 1996. Increasing achievement of at risk students through the use of metacognitive strategies. (Online) www.edrs.com/logon.cfm. (3 August 2004).

Livingston, J. A. 1996. Effects of metacognitive instruction on strategy use of college students. Unpublished manuscript, State University of New York Buffalo.

Livingston, J. A. 1997. Metacognitive: An overview. (Online) www.edrs.com/logon.cfm. (14 April 2004).

Lopez, P. 1992. Metacognitive strategies for teaching reading to elementary students. Booklet 19: ____.

McKenna, M. C., Kear, D. J., & Ellsworth, R. A. 1995. Children’s attitudes toward reading: A national survey. Reading Research Quarterly. 30: 934-955.

48





Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. A. 2002. Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology. 94: 249-259.

Mngadi, P. 1992. Attributional Beliefs And Metacognitive Strategies Use Among College Students. (Online) www.edrs.com/logon.cfm. (23 Jun 2004).

Noguchi, T. 1991. Questionnaire for learners. Tottori University, Tottori, Japan.

Nolan, T. E. 1991. Self-questioning and prediction: Combining metacognitive strategies. Journal Of Reading. 35(2): 132-138.

Noraini, Ibrahim. 1997. Reading legal cases: an ethnographic inquiry. M. A. Thesis. University Malaya, Malaysia.

Nunan, D. 1988. The Learner-centred Curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Oh, J. I. 1996. The effects of attitude and sex on use of EFL learner strategies. English Teaching. 51(2). 35-53.

Olshavsky, J. E. 1976 -1977. Reading as problem solving: An investigation of strategies. Reading Research Quarterly. 12: 654-674.

O’Malley, J.M., Chamot, A.U., Skewner-Mazanares, G., Russo, R., & Kupper, L. 1985. Learning strategies applications with students of English as a second language. TESOL Quarterly. 19: 285-296.

O'Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U.1990. Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Oster, L. 2001. Using the think-aloud for reading instruction. The Reading Teacher. 55(1). 64-69.

Otto, W. 1985. Metacognition and reading instruction. Journal of Reading. 28: 573-575.

Oxford, R.L. 1990a. Language learning strategies and beyond: A look at strategies in the context of styles. In S.S. Magnan (ed.), Shifting the instructional focus to the learner. Middlebury, VT: Northeast Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. 35-55.

Oxford, R. L. 1993. Research on second language learning strategies. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 13:175-187.

49


Oxford, B. R., & Burry-stock, J. A. 1995. Assessing the use of language learning strategies worldwide with the ESL/EFL version of the strategy inventory for language learning skill (SILL). System. 23(1): 1-23.

Oxford, R. L., & Crookall, D. 1989. Research on language learning strategies: methods, findings, and instructional issues. Modern Language Journal. 73: 403-419.

Oxford, R.L. & Nyikos, M. 1989: Variables affecting choice of language learning strategies by university students. The Modern Language Journal. 73: 291-300.

Oxford, R. L., Nykos, M., & Ehrman, M. 1988: Vive la difference? Reflections on sex differences in use of language learning strategies. Foreign Language Annals. 21: 321-329.

Palincsar, A. S., & Ransom, K. 1988. From the mystery spot to the thoughtful spot: The instruction of metacognitive strategies. The Reading Teacher. 41(8): 784-789.

Paris, S. G., & Jacobs, J. E. 1984. The benefits of informed instruction for children’s reading awareness and comprehension skills. Child Development. 55: 2083-2093.

Paris, S. G., & Lindauer, B. K. 1982. The development of cognitive skills during childhood. In B. Wolman (ed.). Handbook of developmental psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. pp. 333-349.

Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixon, K. K 1983. Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 8: 293-316.

Paris, S. G., & Myers, M. 1981. Comprehension monitoring, memory and study strategies of good and poor readers. Journal of Reading Behavior. 13: 5-22.

Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. 1990. How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol (ed.). Dimension of thinking and cognitive instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 15-51.

Pearson, P. D., & Camperall, K. 1985. Comprehension of text structures. In H. Singer & R. B. Rudell (ed.). Theoretical models and processes of reading. Newark, DE: International Reading Associations. 323-342.

Persson, U. B. 1994. Reading for understanding: An empirical contribution to the metacognition of reading comprehension, linkoping studies in education and psychology dissertations. (Online) www.edrs.com/logon.cfm. ( 28 October 2004).

Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. 1995. Verbal protocols of reading. The nature of constructively responsible reading. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

50


Ridley, D.S., Schutz, P.A., Glanz, R.S., & Weinstein, C.E. 1992. Self-regulated learning: the interactive influence of metacognitive awareness and goal-setting. Journal of Experimental Education. 60(4): 293-306.

Rigney, J. W. 1978. Learning strategies: a theoretical perspective. In H. F. O’Neill (ed.) Learning strategies. New York: Academic Press. pp. 165-205.

Routman, R. 1995. Changing as teachers and learners K-12. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Rumelhart, D. E. 1977. Toward an interactive model of reading. In S. Dornie (eds). Attention and performance. New York: Academic Press.

Samuels, S. J., & Kamil, M. L. (1984). Models of the reading process. In P.D. Pearson, R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal. Handbook of reading research. New York: Longman. 185-224.

Schmitt, M. C. 1990. A questionnaire to measure children’s awareness of strategic reading process. The Reading Teacher. 43: 454-461.

Schraw, G., & Dennison-Sperling, R. 1994. Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 8: 293-316.

Short, E. J., & Ryan, E. B. 1984. Metacognitive differences between skilled and less skill readers: Remediating deficits through story grammar and attribution training. Journal of Educational Psychology. 76: 225-235.

Singhal, M. 2001. Reading proficiency, reading strategies, metacognitive awareness and L2 readers. The Reading Matrix. 1(1): ____ .

Soars, C. J. 1995. The comprehension strategies of Arts and Science students learning English as a second language in Malaysian schools. M. A. Thesis. University Kebangsaan Malaysia, Malaysia.

Stanovich, K. E. 1986. Mathew effects in reading: some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly. 16: 32-71.

Sternberg, R. J. 1984. What should intelligence tests test? Implications for a triarchic theory of intelligence for intelligence testing. Educational Researcher. 13(1): 5-15.

Sternberg, R. J. 1986a. Inside intelligence. American Scientist. 74: 137-143.

Sternberg, R. J. 1986b. Intelligence applied. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers.

51

Swanson, B. B. 1988. Strategic preference of good and poor beginning readers. Reading Horizons. 28(4): 1255-1262.

Swanson, H. L. 1990. Influence of metacognitive knowledge and aptitude on problem-solving. Journal of Educational Psychology. 82(2): 306-314.

Sykerman, A. 1988. Reading strategies of average and weak ESL readers: a case study. M. S. Thesis. Universiti Pertanian Malaysia, Malaysia.

Vacca, R., & Vacca, J. 1993. Content area reading. (4th ed.). New York: HarperCollins.

Van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. 1983. Strategies of discourse comprehension. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Wagner, D. A., Spratt, J. E., Gal, L., & Paris, S. G. 1989. Reading and believing: Reliefs, attributions, and reading achievement in Moroccan School Children. Journal of Educational Psychology. 81 (3): 283-293.

Winograd, P. N. 1984. Strategic difficulties in summarizing texts. Reading Research Quarterly. 19: 404-425.

Wixson, K. K., & Peters, C. W. 1987. Comprehension assessment: Implementing an interactive view of reading. Educational Psychology. 22: 333-356.

Wong, M. Y., & Chang, Agnes S. C. 2001. Knowledge and Use of metacognitive Strategies. National Institute of Education. Nanyang Technological University. Singapore. (Online) http://www.aare.edu.au/01pap/won01419.htm. (22 November 2003).

You, Y. L., & Joe, S. G. 2001. Investigating the metacognitive awareness and strategies of English-Majored university student writers. (Online) www.edrs.com/logon/cfm. (4 May 2005).

Zimmerman, B. J. 1989. Models of self-regulated learning and academic achievement. In B.J. Zimmerman & D.H. Schunk (ed.). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Springer-Verlag.

52

http://www.edrs.com/logon/cfm.%20(4

http://www.edrs.com/logon/cfm.%20(4

http://www.aare.edu.au/01pap/won01419.htm.%20(22

APPENDIX I

Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory(Mokhtari and Reichard, 2002)

Directions: Listed below are statements about what people do when they read academic or school-related materials such as textbooks or library books. Five numbers follow each statement (1,2,3,4,5), and each number means the following:Arahan: Tersenarai di bawah adalah pernyataan mengenai cara orang membaca buku ilmiah atau bahan bacaan sekolah seperti buku teks atau buku perpustakaan. Terdapat 5 numbor selepas setiap pernyataan (1,2,3,4,5), dan setiap numbor bermaksud:

1 means “I never or almost never do this”1 bermaksud “Saya tidak pernah sama sekali melakukan ini”

2 means “I do this only occasionally”2 bermaksud “Saya melakukan ini sekali sekala”

3 means “I sometimes do this” (about 50% of the time)3 bermaksud “Saya kadang-kadang melakukan ini” (50% daripada masa)

4 means “I usually do this”4 bermaksud “Saya selalu melakukan ini”

5 means “I always or almost do this”5 bermaksud “Saya kerap kali melakukan ini”

After reading each statement, circle the number (1,2,3,4 or 5) that applies to you using the scales provided. Please note that there are no right or wrong answers to the statements in this inventory.Setelah membaca setiap pernyataan, bulatkan numbor (1,2,3,4 or 5) yang berkenaan dengan menggunakan skala yang diberi. Sila ambil perhatian bahawa tidak terdapat jawapan yang betul atau salah mengenai pernyataan-pernyataan di dalam senarai semak ini.

Strategy/Strategi Scale/Skala

1. I have a purpose in mind when I read. 1 2 3 4 5Saya mempunyai sesuatu tujuan apabila saya membaca.

2. I take notes while reading to help me understand what I read. 1 2 3 4 5Saya mengambil nota semasa membaca bagi membantu saya memahami apa yang sedang dibaca.

3. I think about what I know to help me understand what I read. 1 2 3 4 5Saya memikir apa yang telah saya ketahui bagi membantu saya memahami apa yang saya baca.

4. I skim the text to see what it’s about before reading it. 1 2 3 4 5Saya mengimbas sesuatu petikan sebelum membaca bagi mengetahui isi kandungannya.

5. When text becomes difficult, I read aloud to help me understand what I read. 1 2 3 4 5Sekiranya petikan semakin sukar difahami, saya akan membaca dengan kuat bagi membantu saya memahaminya.

53


6. I summarize what I read to think about important information in the text. 1 2 3 4 5Saya meringkas apa yang telah saya baca bagi mengingat maklumat penting yang terdapat dalam petikan.

7. I think about whether the content of the text fits my reading purpose. 1 2 3 4 5Saya memikir semada kandungan petikan yang dibaca sesuai dengan tujuan saya.

8. I read slowly but carefully to be sure I understand what I’m reading. 1 2 3 4 5Saya membaca dengan perlahan dan teliti bagi memastikan saya memahami apa yang dibaca.

9. I discuss what I read with others to check my understanding. 1 2 3 4 5Saya berbincang dengan orang lain bagi memastikan saya telah memahami apa yang dibaca.

10. I skim the text first by looking at the characteristics like length and organization. 1 2 3 4 5Saya meninjau sesuatu petikan terlebih dahulu sebelum membaca dengan melihat ciri-ciri seperti panjang dan susun-aturnya.

11. I try to get back on track when I lose concentration. 1 2 3 4 5Saya akan kembali kepada bacaan saya apabila saya mula hilang tumpuan.

12. I underline or circle information in the text to help me remember it. 1 2 3 4 5Saya menggaris atau membulatkan maklumat yang terdapat di dalam petikan bagi membantu saya mengingatinya.

13. I adjust my reading speed according to what I’m reading. 1 2 3 4 5Saya mengubah suai kelajuan membaca mengikut jenis bacaan yang saya baca.

14. I decide what to read closely and what to ignore. 1 2 3 4 5Saya menetapkan apa yang perlu diberi tumpuan dan apa yang diabaikan.

15. I use reference materials such as dictionaries to help me understand what I read. 1 2 3 4 5Saya menggunakan bahan rujukan seperti kamus bagi membantu saya memahami apa yang sedang saya baca.

16. When text becomes difficult, I pay closer attention to what I’m reading. 1 2 3 4 5Saya memberi lebih tumpuan kepada bacaan saya sekiranya petikan yang dibaca sukar difahami.

17. I use tables, figures, and pictures in text to increase my understanding. 1 2 3 4 5Saya menggunakan jadual, rajah, serta gambar di dalam petikan bagi meningkatkan pemahaman saya.

18. I stop from time to time and think about what I’m reading. 1 2 3 4 5Saya akan berhenti dari masa ke semasa dan memikir apa yang sedang saya baca.

19. I use context clues to help me better understand what I’m reading. 1 2 3 4 5Saya menggunakan petunjuk di dalam konteks bagi membantu saya memahami dengan lebih baik.

20. I paraphrase (restate ideas in my own words) to better understand what I read. 1 2 3 4 5Saya menggunakan perkataan sendiri bagi membantu saya memahami dengan lebih baik.

54


21. I try to picture or visualize information to help remember what I read. 1 2 3 4 5Saya membuat gambaran mengenai sesuatu maklumat bagi membantu saya mengingati dengan lebih baik.

22. I use typographical aids like boldface and italics to identify key information. 1 2 3 4 5Saya menggunakan bantuan topografikal seperti tulisan gelap atau tulisan condong bagi mengenalpasti maklumat penting.

23. I critically analyze and evaluate the information presented in the text. 1 2 3 4 5Saya menganalisa dan menilai secara kritikal maklumat yang terdapat di dalam petikan.

24. I go back and forth in the text to find relationship among ideas in it. 1 2 3 4 5Saya kerap merujuk kepada maklumat yang sebelum dan sesudah bagi mencari hubungkait yang terdapat di dalam teks petikan.

25. I check my understanding when I come across conflicting information. 1 2 3 4 5Saya akan merujuk kepada pemahaman saya apabila menemui sesuatu maklumat yang bercanggah.

26. I try to guess what the material is about when I read. 1 2 3 4 5Saya cuba meneka mengenai kandungan sesuatu bahan sebelum saya membaca.

27. When text becomes difficult, I reread to increase my understanding. 1 2 3 4 5Saya mengulanig bacaan bagi meningkatkan pemahaman saya sekiranya petikan terlalu rumit.

28. I ask myself questions I like to have answered in the text. 1 2 3 4 5Saya menanya diri sendiri mengenai soalan-soalan yang akan terjawab di dalam petikan.

29. I check to see if my guesses about the text are right or wrong. 1 2 3 4 5Saya akan menyemak sekiranya tekaan saya mengenai sesuatu petikan itu tepat atau silap.

30. I try to guess the meaning of unknown words or phrases. 1 2 3 4 5Saya cuba meneka maksud perkataan- perkataan atau frasa- frasa yang tidak saya ketahui.

55

APPENDIX BLETTER OF PERMISSION

56

APPENDIX CLETTER OF PERMISSION

57

LANY

Documents

Transcript of LANY