CHAPTER I

METACOGNITIVE AWARENESS AND STRATEGY USE IN ACADEMIC

ENGLISH READING AMONG SECONDARY SCHOOL ENGLISH AS SECOND
LANGUAGE (ESL) STUDENTS

1.0 Introduction

Reading is an important skill for a student to acquire whether it is for first or

second language. Students need to develop reading proficiency for their academic
achievement. This study explored two aspects of reading: metacognitive awareness and
use of strategies when reading academic English material among secondary school
English as a Second Language (ESL). Reading is fundamental for academic success of
non-English speaking students because they are required to read various textbooks or
materials for getting information and learning (Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2008a). Reading is
one of the important skills that a student must possess as students need to read variety
of academic reading materials throughout their learning and also in their examination.
Their competency in reading would determine their understanding of the academic
material given. Hence, reading and learning are interrelated in education (Sheorey &
Mokhtari, 2008a). It is significant for ESL students to improve English reading abilities
since reading is used across all subject matter (Anderson, 1999).
Students with limited English proficiency experience challenges in developing
English reading abilities as pointed out by Christian (2006). Research shows that ESL
students struggle with learning the subject matter due to the insufficient of vocabularies
(Garcia,1991).

Metacognition plays a vital role in reading (Brown, 1986). Metacognition means

ones awareness of cognitive processing (Flavell, 1976). This includes setting purposes
before reading, monitoring to check whether one understands textbooks, and re-reading
to confirm meanings of unclear parts as an effective way to develop reading
comprehension (Israel, 2007). Because of the strong relationship between
metacognition and reading comprehension, it is important to develop metacognitive
reading strategies and awareness in order to improve ones reading comprehension
(Anderson, 2005, 2008).

1.1 Statement of the Problem

Reading ability strongly influences students success in all areas of academic learning
(Koda & Zehler, 2008). Students academic success depends on their understanding of
academic texts across all subjects. Students need to read and develop understanding of varied
academic texts such as textbook, articles and a lot more reading materials in their school
years. Therefore, it is important for students to develop their reading strategies for their
academic achievement.
Research indicates that advanced native-English speaking readers are more likely to
have metacognitive awareness and apply reading strategies while reading academic texts than
the less advanced readers (Baker, 2008a). Whether it is in the native language or the second
language, metacognition plays a significant role in reading comprehension (Baker & Brown,
1984; Flavell, 1979; Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001). Therefore, metacognition is considered as
an essential component for ESL students reading abilities (Anderson, 2005, 2008).

Because of the less research has been done on the metacognitive awareness and
reading strategies among ESL learners there is the need to examine metacognitive awareness
and reading strategies by this population and develop effective methods for ESL learners in
reading (Valeri & Gold, 2000). Some ESL learners may not be aware of the metacognitive
strategy and dont know how to employ those strategies. Thus this research would help the
learners to improve their reading comprehension by made aware of the metacognitive
awareness and reading strategies while reading academic English texts.
There is also a need to study ESL students reading strategies and awareness with the
measurement of the Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS) instrument which developed by
Mokhtari and Sheorey (2002) on the secondary school students here so that conclusions from
the studies can be achieved in order to improve the students reading comprehension in the
classroom.

1.2 Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to explore the role of metacognitive awareness in
reading among secondary school ESL students in south of Malaysia while they are engaged
in reading the academic English texts. This study will also examine the use of metacognitive
strategies employed by those students. This topic will be evaluated both quantitatively and
qualitatively.
1. To examine students awareness of using metacognitive strategies in reading.
2. To investigate students achievement in reading among different level of
metacognitive awareness.
3

1.3 Research Questions

The research questions that will be examined in this mixed method research study
were as follows:

1. What are the metacognitive strategies used in reading by ESL secondary students
in Malaysia?
2. Is there any difference in students achievement in reading among different level
of metacognitive awareness?

1.4 Significance of the Study

The study of metacognitive awareness and strategy use in English academic

reading can be a learning paradigm in secondary levels to enhance both teachers and
students reading instruction and reading strategy respectively. This study would not only
offer insights on how students can develop their reading strategy but also help teachers to
enhance their reading instruction to the students. This study would help to develop
students metacognitive awareness in reading and would then contribute to students
achievement across all subjects. The objective of this study is to help students to develop
understanding in reading English texts, enhance reading strategies while reading
academic texts and also help teachers to develop the right reading instruction to help
their students in reading. This study can be a stepping stone towards a higher
achievement in students academic performance.

1.5 Limitations of Study

There are a number of limitations of this study. First, the results of this study
regarding the academic English reading metacognitive awareness and strategies among
secondary school ESL students in Malaysia may not necessarily generalize to non-native
English speaking students in different contexts.
Second, the participants who are secondary students come from a variety of cultural and
linguistic background in the south of Malaysia, were categorized into one ESL group.
This may limit the findings of this study and restricts the generalization.

1.6 Operational Definitions

Academic reading is reading school-related material such as textbooks, journal, articles,

and classs notes, including homework assignments or examinations (Mokhtar i&
Sheorey, 2002).
English as a Second Language (ESL) refers to situations is which English is taught and
learned in countries, contexts and cultures in which English is the predominant language
of communication (Carter & Nunan,p.2).
Metacognition is defined as ones knowledge concerning ones own cognitive processes
and products or anything related to them (Flavell, 1976, p.232).
Metacognition strategies are approaches involved in planning before reading, monitoring
during reading, and evaluating ones reading performance after reading (Yuko Iwai,
2009).

Reading skills are defined as automatic actions that result in the decoding and
comprehending of texts with speed, efficiency and fluency, usually without the readers
awareness of the components or control involved (Afflerbach, Pearson & Paris, 2008,
p.15).
Reading strategies are defined as deliberate, goal directed attempts to control and
modify the readers effort to decode text, understand words and construct meanings out
of text (Afflerbach, Pearson & Paris, 2008, p.15).

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0 Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to establish the foundation for the specific objectives of
this study. It reviews past and contemporary literature pertaining to reading and also
metacognitive strategies in reading.

2.1 Reading Development

The following description about reading depicts some useful strategies for the reading
development. Definitions of reading changed over time along with the theoretical views
(Cummins, Stewart, Block, 2005; Harris & Hodges, 1995). Reading was considered as
conditioned behaviour as it was strongly affected by the behaviourism until the 1950s
(Thorndike, 1922). The innatist theory influenced the concept and instruction of reading after
the domination of behaviourism (Alexander & Fox, 2004). The innatist theory was based on
cognitive psychology. According to Goodman (1967, p.127), reading is a psycholinguistic
game which requires interactions with thoughts and language. Constructivists then
emphasized sociocultural and constructive concept after the period of the holistic view of
reading (e.g., Vygotsky, 1978,1976). The interactive model of reading was emphasized
(Eskey, 2005). Ruddel and Unrau (2004) defined reading as a meaning construction process

that enables us to create carefully reasoned as well as imaginary worlds filled with new
concepts, creatures and characters (p.1462). Carrel and Grabe (2002) defined reading as
the process of receiving and interpreting information encoded in language form via the
medium of print as used by Urquhart and Weir (1998, p.22). McShane (2005, p.3) also
discussed that reading is a complex system of deriving meaning from prints. All of these
definitions of reading have commonalities including meaning making process from
information.
Both McShane (2005) and Armbruster, Lehr, and Osborn (2003) described
fundamental elements required for reading are phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency and
vocabulary. However, McShane (2005) viewed that reading strategies and affective factor
such as motivation was also needed for reading development.

2.2 Metacognitive Awareness

Before the metacognitve strategies are further discussed, this section will present the
meaning of metacognition to guide the understanding on how metacognitive strategies are
important in reading. Metacognition can be described literally as thinking about thinking
(Anderson, 2002,2005; Hacker, 1998). According to Anderson (2008), metacognition is a
persons ability to reflect on what is known and not a simple process of recalling, describing
events or activities. Metacognition is knowledge of and monitoring ones thinking and
learning processes (Baker & Brown, 1984).
The term metacognition was first introduced by Flavell (Schmitt, 2005). Flavell
(1976, p.232) defines metacognition as ones knowledge concerning ones own cognitive
processes and products or anything related to them.

The significant role of metacognitive awareness in reading comprehension has begun

to be recognized by researches. Studies on learners metacognitive aspects of reading-strategy
use have discovered that successful readers generally display a higher degree of
metacognitive awareness, which enables them to use reading strategies more effectively and
efficiently than their unsuccessful peers (Carrell, 1989; Carrell et al., 1998; Hudson, 1998;
Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001; Zhang, 2001; Zhang et al., 2008). Metacognitive awareness in
reading requires readers knowledge of strategies for processing texts, the ability to monitor
comprehension, and the ability to adjust strategies as needed (Auerbach & Paxton, 1997, pp.
24041). This concept has helped researchers gain insights as how learners manage their
cognitive activities to achieve comprehension before, during, and after reading (Wenden,
1998).
According to Flavell (1979), metacognitive awareness consists of both metacognitive
knowledge and metacognitive regulation. Metacognitive knowledge is ones knowledge of
the cognitive process in relation to three variables that affect the outcomes of the cognitive
enterprises, namely, person variable (beliefs about oneself or others as a cognitive processor),
task variable (understanding of the nature and demand of tasks), and strategy variable
(perceptions about strategies and strategy use that facilitate learning). In other words,
peoples metacognitive knowledge is reflected in their belief that they, unlike other people,
should use Strategy A rather than Strategy B in Task X rather than Task Y to achieve a
learning goal (Hadwin et al., 2001; Paris & Winograd, 1990).
While metacognitive knowledge is very consciousness-focused, metacognitive
regulation is executive in nature, working on the basis of the metacognitive knowledge and
referring to peoples management of their cognitive processes to ensure realization of
learning goals. This management involves planning, monitoring, evaluating, and

manipulating the cognitive processes to obtain optimal learning outcomes (Flavell, 1979,
1987; Paris, 2002; Veeman et al., 2006).
Metacognitive awareness in reading includes readers conscious awareness of
strategic reading processes, of the reading-strategy repertoires, and of their actual utilization
of the strategies to maximize text comprehension (Carrell et al., 1998; Forrest-Pressley &
Waller, 1984; Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001; Zhang, 2001). Therefore, readers with stronger
metacognitive awareness display hints to interpret a reading task based on context
requirements. They select reading strategies in relation to reading purposes, task demands,
and their own cognitive style. They monitor the process of comprehension, evaluate the
effects of the selected strategies, and adjust strategies when needed (Cohen, 1998; Hudson,
2007; Paris, Lipson, & Wixson, 1994; Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995; Zhang, 2008).

As early as 1978, Flavell defined metacognition as "knowledge that takes as its object
or regulates any aspect of cognitive behavior" (1978, p. 8). Two dimensions of metacognitive
ability are generally recognized: (1) knowledge of cognition, and (2) regulation of cognition
(Flavell, 1978). The first aspect of metacognition, "knowledge about cognition," includes
three components which have been labeled "declarative," "procedural," and "conditional"
(Paris, Lipson, and Wixson, 1983).

Declarative knowledge is propositional knowledge, referring to "knowing what." A learner

may know what a given reading strategy is, for example, s/he may know what skimming or
scanning is.

Procedural knowledge is "knowing how" to perform various actions, for example, "how to
write a summary, how to skim or scan" (Winograd and Hare, 1988, p. 134)

10

Conditional knowledge refers to "knowing why," and includes the learner's understanding of
the value or rationale for acquiring and using a strategy and when to use it. Conditional
knowledge is necessary if a reader is to know whether or not a certain strategy is appropriate,
and whether or not it is working effectively for that learner.

This notion of three kinds of knowledge applies to learning strategies as well as

course content. When they study, students need the declarative knowledge that (1) all reading
assignments are not alike; for example, a history textbook chapter with factual information
differs from a primary historical document, which is different from an article interpreting or
analyzing that document. They need to know that stories and novels differ from arguments.
Furthermore they need to know that there are different kinds of note taking strategies useful
for annotating these different types of texts. And (2) students need to know how to actually
write different kinds of notes (procedural knowledge), and (3) they need to know when to
apply these kinds of notes when they study (conditional knowledge). Knowledge of study
strategies is among the kinds of metacognitive knowledge, and it too requires awareness of
all three kinds of knowledge. (William Peirce, 2003)

2.3 Metacognitive Strategies in Reading

There are three classes of metacognition in reading strategies: planning, monitoring

and evaluating strategies (Anderson, 2008; Israel, 2007; Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995;
Schraw, 1998). Planning strategies are approaches used before reading. An example of
planning strategy is activating learners background knowledge to get prepared for reading
(Almasi, 2003; Israel, 2007). Other examples of planning strategies are examining a title,
11

pictures, illustrations, headings, or subheadings for previewing. These would help readers to
grasp the overview of the text. Readers may also preview the general information in the text
and its structure (Almasi, 2003, Paris, Wasik & Turner, 1991). Besides that, setting the
purposes for reading can be also categorized as planning strategy (Paris, Wasik & Turner,
1991; Pressley, 2002).
Next is monitoring strategies. Monitoring strategy occurs during reading which would
help readers with reading comprehension. Some of the examples of monitoring strategies are
understanding meaning of vocabulary, self-questioning, reflecting on whether they have
understood what they read so far, summarizing and inferring the main idea of each paragrapf
as they are reading (Israel, 2007; Pressley, 2002).
Lastly is evaluating strategy. These strategies are to be employed after reading. For
example, learners may think on how to use the information of what they have read in their
own lives. They may also replace themselves with the author, a narrative, or main character
of the text and have better point of view of the situation.
All three groups of metacognitive strategies presented require metacognitive
processing. Anderson (2003a) pointed out that different metacognitive strategies sometimes
work simultaneously rather than separately as compared to other researchers. According to
Anderson, learners need to effectively manipulate a variety of reading strategies in order to
become expert readers.
According to O'Malley, et al., "students without metacognitive approaches are
essentially learners

without

direction

or

opportunity to

review

their

progress,

accomplishments, and future directions" (1985, p. 561). Pressley, Snyder and Cariglia-Bull
(1987) have said about the role of metacognition in general learning that metacognition helps
students to be consciously aware of what they have learned, recognize situations in which it
12

would be useful, and processes involved in using it. One reason metacognition is important is
that if learners are not aware of when comprehension is breaking down and what they can do
about it, strategies introduced by the teacher will fail and the learner will not be able to use
the strategies strategically.

2.4Three Important Categories in Metacognitive

The metacognitive strategy questionnaire- The Metacognitive Awareness of Reading

Strategies (MARSI) by Mokhtary and Reichard (2002) is used to assess metacognitive awareness
among students during reading with the use of 5 Likert items from I always use to I never use. The
questionnaire consists of 30 items. The MARSI instrument measures three broad categories of

strategies including:
1.Global Reading Strategies (GLOB), which can be thought of as generalized or global
reading strategies aimed at setting the stage for the reading act (for instance, setting purpose
for reading, previewing text content, predicting what the text is about, etc.)
2. Problem-Solving Strategies (PROB), which are localized, focused problem-solving or
repair strategies used when problems develop in understanding textual information (for
instance, checking ones understanding upon encountering conflicting information, rereading
for better understanding, etc.)
3. Support Reading Strategies (SUP), which involve using the support mechanisms or tools
aimed at sustaining responsiveness to reading (for instance, use of reference materials like
dictionaries and other support systems).
These three categories of strategies interact with and support each other when used in the
process of constructing meaning from text.

13

2.5 Research on Metacognitive Strategies in Reading

There is a growing body of studies on metacognitive strategies in reading. However,

there are a small number of studies focusing on metacognition in reading for non-native
English speakers. This section focuses on the previous studies on the effectiveness of
metacognition strategies in reading with non-native English speakers.
Studies show that both native and non-native English speaking readers demonstrated
metacognitive awareness and used a variety of reading strategies (Mokhtari & Reichard,
2004; Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2008b). Besides, they show that readers whether in a first
language or a second/foreign language aware of those reading techniques.
Mokhtari & Reichard (2004) examined metacognitive awareness and engagement of
reading strategies while reading in English for school-related material. The study involved
141 native English speaking college students in the United States and 209 non-native English
learning college students in Morocco. All students were considered as proficient readers in
English. The Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory (MARSI) was used
to compare significances between the two groups. The study revealed that both groups
showed a moderate to high level of strategy use and metacognitive awareness while reading
in English for academic purposes. The finding indicated that the Moroccan students tended to
be engaged in reading strategies more frequently than did the native English speakers when
reading in English.
Sheorey and Mokhtari, (2008b) examined metacogntive awareness and strategy use
based upon students English proficiencies. Higher proficient readers in both groups of native
English speaking and ESL students were aware of metacognitive reading strategies including
Global Reading Strategies (GLOB), Problem Solving Strategies (PROB), and Support
14

Reading Strategies (SUP) while lower proficient readers in both groups appeared not to be
aware of or use the different reading strategies (Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2008b).

2.6 Strategy Use by Good and Poor Readers

Research studies have recognized the importance of metacognition in differentiating

between skilled and unskilled readers (Mokhtari & Reichard, 2002). According to Snow,
Burns & Griffin (1998), skilled readers use their knowledge of the world to comprehend text
literally as N.S. Wilson, H. Baiwell as to draw valid inferences from texts, in their
comprehension of words, and in their use of comprehension monitoring and repair strategies
(p. 62). Their ability to recognize when comprehension breaks down and ability to use
strategies and/or techniques to improve/repair comprehension would lead to their success in
reading.
As shown by recent research on the reading strategies used by successful and less
successful readers, most of the comprehension activities of efficient readers take place at the
metacognitive level (e.g., Carrell, Gajdusek, & Wise, 1998; Hudson, 2007). Studies on
learners metacognitive aspects of reading-strategy use have discovered that successful
readers generally display a higher degree of metacognitive awareness, which enables them to
use reading strategies more effectively and efficiently than their unsuccessful peers (Carrell,
1989; Carrell et al., 1998; Hudson, 1998; Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001; Zhang, 2001; Zhang et
al., 2008). Extensive research has been conducted to examine the effects of reading-strategy
instruction on reading improvement (Carrell, 1998; Macaro & Erler, 2008; Zhang, 2008). The
results confirmed that reading strategies can be taught and that once students metacognitive

15

knowledge about reading strategies and strategy use is developed, they will become better
readers (Carrell, Pharis, & Liberto, 1989; Farrell, 2001; Zhang, 2008).
Over the last decade, numerous studies have been conducted to investigate the use of
reading strategies in L1 contexts, either using think-aloud protocols or questionnaires and
comprehension tests. After examining 38 published studies that used think-aloud protocols to
explore native speakers strategy use, Pressley and Afflerbach (1995) discovered that
efficient readers are constructively responsive readers, who are able to use strategies more
effectively and flexibly than inefficient readers. The finding establishes a direct relationship
between metacognitive awareness and reading proficiency. Research has also shown that
while generalized knowledge about reading processes and strategies may be necessary, it is
not sufficient for proficient reading comprehension. Forrest-Pressley and Waller (1984)
found that skilled readers not only know that there are different ways of reading but also
know how to monitor the efficiency and to regulate the use of different techniques (see also
Paris, 2002; Paris et al., 1994; Paris & Winograd, 1990).
Research in L2 and foreign language contexts has focused much on the differences in
reading-strategy use among learners of different language proficiency levels. Anderson
(1991), for example, concluded from his study that both advanced and low L2 readers may
use the same kind of strategies, but the more proficient readers tend to use a higher number of
different strategies and are able to organise their use more effectively. Studies conducted in
other Chinese EFL contexts have brought about similar findings (e.g., Yang, 2002; Zhang,
2001, 2002; Zhang et al., 2008), further confirming the role of metacognitive awareness in
successful L2 reading. Thus, this result further support that metacognitive people exhibit the
qualities of good readers (Griffith & Ruan, 2005; Randi, Grigorenko & Sternberg, 2005) and
are successful in school (Sternberg, 1998).

16

2.7 Conclusion
As what has been discussed in this chapter, it can be seen how reading is described as
a process of meaning making from text lead to the use of metacognitive strategies in reading
and how important it is to make the students become expert readers. The role of
metacognitive awareness has then begun to be recognized by researchers. There is an
increasing number of studies has been done to investigate the importance of metacognitive
awareness in reading. Studies have shown that metacognitive strategies use by students result
to a high academic performance as reading is fundamental skill for a student to succeed.
Metacognitive strategy which is one of the language learning strategies are really important
for students to apply in their learning especially in reading English academic text for nonnative English speakers. Students need to know when to use those strategies in order to
ensure their understanding of the text given is not breaking down at the middle of reading. As
mentioned earlier, a number of studies results have confirmed that that the use of
metacognitive knowledge in reading will help the learners to become good readers. Thus, it is
important for teachers to also be aware of the role of metacognitive awareness in reading
during teaching and learning so that students can be taught the strategies that they can employ
during reading and lastly it will help them in becoming a successful students.

17

CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.0 Research Design

This study use a triangulation mixed method design. The researcher conducts
both qualitative and quantitative research methods in order to provide a better
understanding of the research problem and questions than either method by itself
(Creswell, 2008, p.552). According to Creswell, there are three characteristics of
triangulation mix method research. First, the researcher gives equal weight to both
quantitative and qualitative data. Second, the researcher collects both quantitative and
qualitative data at the same time. Third, the researcher uses quantitative and qualitative
data in order to see whether they support or do not support similar results. Thus,
triangulation design helps to cover weaknesses of one-data collection form (Creswell,
2008). The method used to collect qualitative data is via interview while the quantitative
data is going to be collected using a set of questionnaires.

18

3.1 Participants
The participants for this study would be would be randomly picked from a population
of about 1000 at a high school in Johor Bharu. A total of 100 students would be picked
from the lower form to respond to the questionnaire. Students basically have learned
English for more than 6 years and able to comprehend the questions in the questionnaire
and able to answer appropriately.

3.2 Instrumentation

The following instruments would be used for data collection and they would be
administered in the students regular class time.

1. The background questionnaire- the demographic details of the participants would be

obtained with the use of a background questionnaire which would be administered along
side with the metacognitive strategy questionnaire.

2. The metacognitive strategy questionnaire- The Metacognitive Awareness of Reading

Strategies (MARSI) by Mokhtary and Reichard (2002) is used to assess metacognitive
awareness among students during reading with the use of 5 Likert items from I always use
to I never use. The questionnaire consists of 30 items. The MARSI instrument measures
three broad categories of strategies including:

19

1.

Global Reading Strategies (GLOB), which can be thought of as generalized or

global reading strategies aimed at setting the stage for the reading act (for instance, setting
purpose for reading, previewing text content, predicting what the text is about, etc.)

2.

Problem-Solving Strategies (PROB), which are localized, focused problem-

solving or repair strategies used when problems develop in understanding textual information
(for instance, checking ones understanding upon encountering conflicting information,
rereading for better understanding, etc.)

3.

Support Reading Strategies (SUP), which involve using the support

mechanisms or tools aimed at sustaining responsiveness to reading (for instance, use of

reference materials like dictionaries and other support systems).
These three categories of strategies interact with and support each other when used in the
process of constructing meaning from text.

3.

Interview session- An interview would be conducted to ensure the validity of the

questionnaire data and to obtain in-depth information about the students reading strategies.
The interview will be conducted in a semi-structured format so that the participants would
openly discuss the reading strategies they utilize. Before starting the interview, each student
is given a reading comprehension text. After reading the text given, the participants would be
asked questions about the strategies they had used. The interview is recorded and being
transcribed and analyzed right after the sessions.

20

3.3

Validity and Reliability

The Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory (MARSI) developed

by Mokhtari and Reichard (2002) has gone through a number of consultations from a panel of
experts as to the content of the instrument. The items are repeatedly consulted with the expert
judges and being modified a number of times to ensure that students could better understand
the content of the items. It has also been pilot tested for a number of times to various group of
students to ensure its validity and reliability.

3.4 Pilot test

Seliger and Shohamy (1989) suggested that a pilot study will significantly improve
the quality of the data obtained (p. 173). Therefore, it was decided that the questionnaire be
pilot-tested to a class of Form 2 students which are 33 students overall. The researcher was
present to deal with questions that students may pose. Students were informed of the
purposes and requirements of the survey, and they were asked to provide honest responses.
Most students were able to finish the questionnaire within 10 minutes.
The purpose was to check clarity and comprehensibility of the items. In addition, the
amount of time needed to answer the questions was calculated. Some modifications to the
questionnaire were made in response to problems arising from the pilot test. Later, the revised
questionnaire was re-piloted on the same students to further minimize the possibility of
misinterpreting the questions.

21

3.5 Data Collection and Data Analysis

Data for this study were collected qualitatively and also quantitatively. Qualitative
data is collected through an interview. The interview session is held to investigate the
students understanding of metacognitive awareness and also to study in depth their practise
of metacognitive awareness in reading.

The quantitative data were collected using The Metacognitive Awareness of Reading
Strategies (MARSI) by Mokhtary and Reichard (2002). The participants are Form 2 students
from the secondary school in Johor. Each of the students is given explanation for the purpose
of the questionnaire and also each of the content so that they answer it with full
understanding of the instrument used. All the data were entered into SPSS 12.0 for Windows for
statistical analyses, where descriptive statistical procedures and further calculations were carried
out.

22

REFERENCES

Danapala,K.V., 2010. Sri Lankans University Students Metacognitive Awareness of L2

Reading Strategies. Journal of International Development and Cooperation, Vol. 16,
No. 1, 2010, pp. 65-82.
Iwai, Y. (2009). Metacognitive awareness and strategy use in academic english reading
among adult English as a second language (ESL) students. The University of
Southern Mississippi). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, , 227-n/a. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/305001132?accountid=1215.
Kouider Mokhtari and Carla A. Reichard, 2002. Assessing Students Metacognitive
Awareness of Reading Strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology 2002, Vol. 94,
No. 2, 249259
Magogwe, J.M., 2013, Metacognitive awareness of reading strategies of University of
Botswana English as Second Language students of different academic reading
proficiencies, Reading

& Writing 4(1), Art. #29, 8 pages. http://dx.doi.

org/10.4102/rw.v4i1.29
Monos, K. (2005). A Study of Reading Strategies of Hungarian University Students with
Implications for Reading Instruction in an Academic Context. Thesis. University of
Debrecen, Hungary.
Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. (2002). Assessing students metacognitive awareness of
reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94 (2), 249-259.

Murat Hismanoglu,2000. Language Learning Strategies in Foreign Language Learning and

Teaching. http://iteslj.org/Articles/Hismanoglu-Strategies.html, The Internet TESL
Journal, Vol. VI, No. 8, August 2000

23

Neil J. Anderson, 2003. SCROLLING, CLICKING, AND READING ENGLISH: ONLINE

READING STRATEGIES IN A SECOND/FOREIGN LANGUAGE. The Reading
Matrix, Vol.3. No.3, November 2003

Zhang, L. J., & Wu, I. (2009). Chinese Senior High School EFL Students Metacognitive
Awareness and Reading-strategy Use. Reading in Foreign Language, Volume 21, No.
1, 37-59.

24