CC BY
21© Cheng, Karen Kow Yip, and Amir Big|ar Beigi 2008 This open access article is distributed under a Creative
Research article Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
Enhancing reading comprehension via instruction of a metacognitive strategy: a case study of Iranian EFL learners
Karen Kow Yip Cheng1, Amir Biglar Beigi2
1 Faculty of Languages and Linguistics, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
E-mail: kowyc@um.edu.my
2 University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
E-mail: amirbiglarbeigi@yahoo.com
Received: 10 April 2008 R^ng editor: Andrey G KirilW p online: 1 June 2008
^ Accepted: 15 May 2008 '
Abstract
Although many studies have confirmed the importance and usefulness of metacognitive strategies in enhancing reading comprehension, instructing the exact use of these strategies has been a relatively neglected area. There are various reading strategies and in this study, the strategy of scanning, that is, one of the SQ3R strategies (Survey, Question, Read, Recite and Review) is investigated. This study examined the impact of teaching the scanning strategy metacognitively on reading comprehension enhancement of EFL (English as a Foreign Language) students.
Keywords
reading strategies; scanning strategy; metacognition; reading comprehension; Iranian EFL students
For citation
Cheng, Karen Kow Yip, and Amir Biglar Beigi. 2008. "Enhancing reading comprehension via instruction of a metacognitive strategy: a case study of Iranian EFL learners." Language. Text. Society 2 (1): e24-e47. https://ltsj.online/2008-02-1-cheng-beigi. (Journal title at the time of publication: SamaraAltLinguo E-Journal.)
1. INTRODUCTION
This paper sets out to study the enhancement of reading comprehension via the instruction of a metacognitive strategy used in reading. In particular, it studies the effect of teaching the scanning skill metacognitively. To achieve this goal, a number of measures were taken to test the corresponding null-hypothesis. 90 male EFL students participated in the study. This was done to control sex variable influences. Further, many English classes in Iran are segregated and hence obtaining a single sex class was expedited. The students were homogeneous in terms of language proficiency level as they were all enrolled in the Intermediate proficiency group. They were assigned through random selection to three groups: 30 participants were in the control group and the other 60 were in two experimental groups. The first experimental group received cognitive instruction of the scanning strategy, i.e., teaching the "What" component of scanning strategy. The other experimental group was trained metacognitively, i.e., teaching the "What", "How", "Why", "When and Where" and "Evaluation" components of the scanning strategy. A One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was run and the findings revealed that there were significant differences among the mean scores of all three groups. The significant F-value necessitated the application of a post hoc Scheffe test to probe the exact location of differences.
According to this test, only the experimental group that had received metacognitive instruction outperformed the control one and this supports the belief that the metacognitive instruction of reading strategies can improve the reading comprehension ability of EFL students. To ensure that the students who applied the scanning strategy metacognitively were in the experimental group, all subjects were given the reading texts of the same test and asked to read the texts and say aloud whatever occurred in their minds while reading (think-aloud method). The subjects' voices were recorded and then transcribed. The resulting transcriptions which are called "protocols" were analyzed on the basis of the cognitive and metacognitive components of scanning strategy and the employed components were identified. Next, the frequencies of these components employed by each group of subjects were obtained and to compare these frequencies, a Chi-Square technique was used.
The results of the Chi-Square technique showed that the difference between frequency of employing the strategy properly by experimental and control was meaningful. This may mean that metacognitive teaching of scanning influences proper use of reading strategies. The results of the present study may have theoretical and pedagogical implications for syllabus designers, teachers and textbook writers.
Of the four language skills, the skill of reading is of paramount importance as compared to the other language skills of speaking, reading and writing. This is because the reading skill has high accessibility and seeks to expose L2 learners to the target language in considerable depth. Impressive achievements in human sciences and advances in technology have been a turning point to underscore the importance of reading comprehension skills. With the advent of World Wide Webs and Internet services, many who have commonly failed to understand the reason behind many EFL/ESL researchers' focus on enhancing reading comprehension skills realized the necessity of this line of research more than ever. While in the past, communication to acquire fresh and up-to-date information was established through person to person contact, today
information can be obtained via the touch of a finger. By utilizing internet search engines we can obtain whatever information we need in real time. Above all, in our age of technology the ability to read plays an important role to retrieve the information we require. Therefore, the focus of many researchers whose aim has been to improve reading comprehension of students in EFL/ESL contexts can be considered of enormous importance.
Strategies to Enhance Reading Comprehension
Indeed, proficient and non-proficient readers alike may encounter major or minor difficulties in comprehending a reading task. Even though proficient readers spontaneously draw on some ways to tackle these problems in reading, less proficient readers fail to recognize those barriers in reading and possible ways to cope with them. Thus, teachers should equip their less-proficient students with the techniques to tackle these problems in the same manner more-proficient readers do (Pressley and Gaskins 2006). These approaches adopted to face a kind of difficulty happening in reading tasks are called 'strategies' (Paris et al. 1991). Brown (1994, 114) states that "strategies are specific methods of approaching a problem or task, modes of operation for achieving a particular end, planned designs for controlling and manipulating certain information." More recently, Anderson (2003) asserts that strategies are the conscious actions that learners take to improve their language learning. Rather than focus students' attention solely on learning the language, L2 teachers can help students learn to think about what happens during the language learning process, which will lead them to develop stronger learning skills.
Strategies, in general, are divided into cognitive or metacognitive types. On the distinction between cognitive and metacognitive strategies, Graham (1997, 42-43) holds that
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 metacognitive 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.
Brown (1994, 115) asserts that cognitive strategies are "more limited to specific learning task" and involve "more direct manipulation of the learning material itself"; therefore, the scanning strategy which forms the focus in this research, is a cognitive one. Meanwhile, Oxford (1990) divides language learning strategies into two main classes, direct and indirect, which are further subdivided into 6 groups. Scanning is part of "receiving and sending messages" of Oxford's (1990) model, because inside this category there is a subdivision called "Getting the Idea Quickly" which can be attributed to this strategy.
When L2 learners are assigned to read a passage, teachers may raise many questions about the passage. For instance, they don't know what to do when learners cannot understand a passage or how to help them identify the main points in a passage, guess unknown words etc. In other words, teachers need to teach their students the skill of scanning. These are reading strategies and they ensure effectiveness in the process of reading (Alderson 2000).
In the late 1970's and early 80's, L2 research on reading began to focus on reading strategies. These early studies were often exploratory, descriptive investigations with small numbers of subjects, and using think-aloud techniques. They showed relationships between certain types of reading strategies and successful and unsuccessful L2 reading (Anderson 2002 a; Black et al. 2006; Goh 2006). Hosenfeld's study in 1977 was one such study in which high school students in the USA studying French, German and Spanish were the subjects and the investigation involved the subjects thinking aloud in English. Hosenfeld's "successful" French reader does several things which 'unsuccessful' French readers do not do and these are listed below:
(1) They kept the meaning of the passage in mind during reading
(2) They read in what she terms "broad phrases"
(3) They skip unimportant words
(4) They have a positive self-concept as a reader.
In 1986, native and nonnative English speakers enrolling in freshman remedial reading courses in the USA were subjects in Block's study. She states more successful readers have four characteristics, which less successful ones lack. These four characteristics are integration, recognition of aspects of text structure, use of general knowledge and response in an extensive as opposed to a reflexive mode.
Carrell (1998) asserts that the picture is more complex than suggested by these early case studies. Researchers cannot rely on case studies or some correctional studies in reading strategies. Anderson (2002a) asserts that the relationships between strategies and good or bad reading are not simple and straightforward. Use of certain reading strategies does not always lead to successful reading comprehension, while failure to use these strategies or other strategies does not always result in unsuccessful reading. Anderson (1991), in a research, shows that there are no simple correlations between strategies and successful or unsuccessful reading. His research was carried out with a number of Spanish university students reading English as their second language and self-reporting as their strategy use. The research suggests no simple correlation between these two variables.
Kern (1997), in a case study of two American university students studying French as their second language, shows that no strategy is inherently a "good" or "bad" strategy. Kern (1997) concludes from his data that there are good and bad uses of the same strategy, and the difference between a "good" or a "bad" reader is in the application of the same strategy in the context.
In summary, contrary to the orthodox belief that using a particular strategy under all circumstances can work all the time, some research shows strategies are user-oriented, i.e., even a good strategy may not be of much use for the less efficient readers. What makes reading strategies effective for readers is to know their use and this aspect which regulates every cognitive activity, named metacognitive knowledge, can help our learners in this regard. (Anderson 2002a). The following paragraph provides several definitions of metacognition.
Rivers (2001) ascertains that the term metacognition refers to one's understanding of any cognitive process. Metacognitive knowledge may be defined as knowledge about cognition and the self-regulation of cognition (Baker and Brown 1984; Brown, Armbruster and Baker 1986; Alderson 2003).
Anderson (2002b, 2) holds that "metacognition is the ability to think about your thinking —to make your thinking visible. Metacognition results in critical but healthy reflection and
evaluation of your thinking, both of which may result in specific changes in how you teach or learn. Rather than merely being the act of thinking about an event, describing what happened and how you felt about it, metacognition entails much deeper processing." Flavell (1977, 8) defines metacognition as "knowledge that... regulates any aspect of cognitive behavior" and two dimensions of metacognitive ability are generally recognized as knowledge of cognition and regulation of cognition. Paris, Lipson, and Wixson (1983) state that the first aspect of metacognition includes three components. They are "declarative", "procedural" and "conditional" knowledge.
"Declarative knowledge is prepositional 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." (Cited in Carrell 1998, 11) "Procedural knowledge is "knowing how", for example, 'how to write a summary, how to skim or scan.'" (Cited in Winograd and Hare 1988, 134) "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." (Cited in Carrell 1998, 11)
Paris, Cross, and Lipson (1984, 1241) state "the second aspect of metacognition happens when a higher order process orchestrates and directs other cognitive skills." Also Anderson (2002a) holds that different aspects of metacognition can be summarized as follows: (1) preparing and planning for learning, (2) selecting and using learning strategies, (3) monitoring strategy use, (4) orchestrating various strategies, and (5) evaluating strategy use and learning.
Instruction of Metacognitive Strategies
The importance of teaching metacognitive strategies has been emphasized by many researchers and scholars (Brown and Baker 1984; Flavell 1977; O'Malley et al. 1985; Pressley and Gaskins 2006; Houtveen and Van de Grift 2007). Every cognitive activity needs to be regulated to be effective in different contexts. Cognitive strategies are cognitive acts and we need to regulate them; therefore, the best way to regulate cognitive strategies is to amalgamate introducing these strategies with teacher's explanation (Black et al. 2006; Goh 2006). Based on a model proposed by Winograd and Hare (1988), metacognitive instruction of reading strategy involves teaching what a particular reading strategy is, when and where the strategy is to be used and how the strategy is to be applied and evaluated. They proposed the following five elements in their model to teach reading strategies effectively in a way such that both the cognitive and metacognitive parts are involved.
Element 1 What a strategy is? Element 2
Why the strategy should be learned? Element 3
How to use the strategy?
Element 4
When and where the strategy should be used?
Element 5
How to evaluate the use of the strategy?
*These elements are related to the components of metacognitive knowledge.
These five elements of complete teacher explanation are related to components of metacognitive knowledge; declarative knowledge is teacher explanation of what the strategy is (element 1); procedural knowledge is teacher explanation of how to use the strategy (element 3); conditional knowledge is teacher explanation of why the strategy should be learned or used, when and where to use the strategy, and how to evaluate its effectiveness [elements 2, 4 and 5] (Almasi 2003).
Although many studies have been carried out to teach reading strategies metacognitively based on this model and yielded positive results on reading comprehension of the participants (Carrell 1985; Carrell, Pharis and Liberto 1989; Hamp-Lyons 1985; Kern 1997; Kern 1989; Raymond 1993; Sarig and Folman 1987), none of the studies contain all five elements of Winograd and Hare's (1988) model. These studies have been analyzed based on the above-mentioned model and illustrated in Table.1.
Table 1. Metacognitive teaching research in L2
Declarative Procedural Conditional Conditional Conditional
Study What How to Why When &where Evaluate
Carrell (1985) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Hamp-Lyons (1985) Yes
Sarig &Folman (1987) Yes Possibly Yes
Carrell,Pharis &Liberto (1989) Yes Yes Yes Yes
Ken (1989) Yes Yes - - -
Raymond (1993) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Source: Carrell 1998, 20.
As the table indicates, only Carrell (1985) and Raymond's (1993) studies contain a comprehensive YES, even though they only claim to have such exhaustive features of teacher explanation, due to the fact that in the articles published by them there is no clear report of what measures these researchers have taken to implement all components metacognitive teaching. Therefore, there is a real need for researchers to turn their attention to the fact that strategies
should be taught metacognitively i.e. teaching the exact use of strategies rather than rote learning without an in-depth understanding of these strategies by learners. Moreover, researchers in this line of study should give clear guidelines to teachers and practitioners in their published articles, so that their findings seem more tangible to those involving in the teaching profession.
Thus, this present study strives to report the effect of metacognitive teaching of the reading skill of scanning on enhancing the reading comprehension of learners. It will provide some suggestions on how the strategy of scanning can be taught based on Winograd and Hare's (1988) model.
Research Question
This study seeks out to find if metacognitive instruction of scanning promotes reading comprehension among Iranian students who are learning English. The following are the research questions of the present investigation:
1. Is there any effect of metacognitive teaching of the scanning strategy [as a cognitive reading strategy) based on Winograd and Hare's (1988) model on the reading comprehension of Iranian EFL students at intermediate level, when sex and age variables are controlled and all elements of teacher explanation are involved?
Based on the proposed research question and reading the related literature the following null-hypothesis was posed:
H0: Metacognitive teaching of "Scanning" strategy has no effect on the improvement of reading comprehension of Iranian EFL students at intermediate level.
Subjects of study
In the initial phase of the study 120 male students were randomly selected from a list of students obtained from the registrar office. All 120 students are enrolled for English classes at Marefat Institute in Iran. This list represented the poll of subjects from which 120 were supposed to be selected. Next, every student was assigned a number and all the numbers were written on slips of paper and put in a jar. 120 numbers were drawn out of the jar, mixing the numbered slips and returning them between every selection to ensure that every element in the sampling frame had an equal chance of selection (Welman and Kruger 2001; Cooper and Emory 1993; Melville and Goddard 1996). Then a proficiency test screened the randomly selected subjects based on one standard deviation above and below the mean and reduced the number of participants to 90. The test to accomplish this goal was a Nelson Proficiency test (200A, 1976).
The age range of the subjects was between 19 and 27. As stated earlier they were all enrolled at the Marefat English Institute, located in Tehran center. The ongoing policy of this Institute was to assign students to different classes based on a placement test (for newcomers) and final exam (for previous students). Subjects were in six intact reading classes; 30 subjects in two classes functioned as the control group and the other 60 in four classes received scanning strategy training. In the experimental groups ,thirty subjects were trained cognitively (teaching only what scanning is) and thirty were trained metacognitively; i.e. teaching what scanning is,
why this strategy should be learned, how to use the strategy, when and where the strategy should be used and how to evaluate the use of the strategy.
2. METHODS AND MATERIALS
Instrumentation
For purposes of this study, two tests were administered:
1. A Nelson proficiency test (2000a) extracted from Nelson English Tests by Fowler and Coe (1976) was administered to ensure the homogeneity of the subjects.
2. A reading comprehension test constructed by the researcher was applied as the second instrument in this study. The reading comprehension was piloted with a group of English students studying at Intermediate level at Iran-Zamin Institute to ensure the validity of the test. The test had 3 reading passages with 30 multiple-choice items. All passages contained biographical, medical, historical and cultural concepts. The estimated reliability for this test was 0.71 which obtained through test-retest method of establishing reliability and shows a relatively high index of test reliability. Also with the help of the Nelson English Language Test and by running a correlation between these scores and those obtained from the comprehension test the concurrent validity of the second test was established with an index of 0.93.
Materials
The materials used in this study were the same for all three groups. Three reading passages were taken from an English textbook entitled Reward (Intermediate Level), written by Greenall (1998). The rationale behind the choice of this book was to meet the authenticity criterion in the training program by using passages written by native speakers and the main priority of this textbook was to teach reading comprehension skill. What differentiated these three groups was the kind of approach adopted to teach these passages. A Flesch Reading Ease readability formula was employed to determine the difficulty level of the texts. The passages enjoyed relatively similar readabilities indices of 68, 62 and 64. These indices are within the range of 60-70 indicating an average level of difficulty for the written materials (Klare 19741975).
Procedure
To accomplish the purposes of the present experimental investigation, certain procedures were implemented. First, as mentioned above, subjects selected from Marefat Institute were assigned to three groups; 60 in four classes which received the scanning strategy training, and 30 in two classes which functioned as the control group with no treatment.
The institute has a skills-based syllabus with the same amount of emphasis on each skill. The researcher taught both experimental groups. The first experimental group was trained based on cognitive instruction of scanning (teaching only what the scanning strategy is) and the other experimental group was taught metacognitively i.e. teaching what scanning is, why this strategy
should be learned, how to use the strategy, when and where the strategy should be used and how to evaluate the use of the strategy. Another teacher taught the control group. For both teachers there were strict lesson plans and they had the same methodology.
The training sessions lasted over a one month period where a total of 18 sessions were involved. All three groups spent the same amount of time on any given passage. One day prior to the onset of the training, all subjects were given a pretest. (Refer Appendix A). Thirty days later, immediately after the training, all subjects were given the same test as a post-test. To teach 'Scanning' metacognitively based on Winograd and Hare's (1988) model, the experimental classes were trained as follow.
The metacognitive teaching of the scanning strategy was implemented as below:
1. Subjects were made aware of the advantages of the scanning strategy in reading (the reason behind learning scanning strategy).
2. Three reading passages with some medical, historical, cultural and biographical information were given to subjects in order to raise awareness among the students as to the context of using the scanning strategy (when & where to use scanning). In other words, they were made aware of the fact that the scanning strategy can best be applied in medical, historical, cultural and biographical texts. This is because texts of this nature require that readers pay utmost attention to details in the texts to ensure full understanding of text.
3. The teacher in the metacognitive experimental group modeled this strategy with a piece of reading and briefed the learners on the ways learners should approach a text using the scanning strategy (how to use).
4. The subjects were assigned to highlight the important details of their selected reading passages and compare their highlighted sections in the reading passages with their peers. They were asked to look out for important names, dates and incidents. At the end of the session, the teacher told the subjects what they had done was scanning (what scanning is). In other words, the subjects in looking out for important names, dates etc. were in actuality using the skill of scanning.
5. The last component of our training package was to evaluate the scanning strategy. For the purposes of implementing this component, at the end of each session the subjects were given some other texts followed by a number of questions which would require them to focus on and use the scanning strategy.
Meanwhile to crosscheck the accuracy of obtained data from the reading comprehension test the subjects were given the reading texts of the same test and they were asked to read the text and answer the related questions but while reading they should say aloud whatever occurred in their minds and whatever they thought about while reading and answering the reading comprehension questions. To encourage learners to verbalize their thoughts, they were allowed to use their mother tongue i.e. Persian. The subjects' voices were recorded and then transcribed.
The resulting transcriptions are called "protocols" (See Appendix C for a sample protocol). It was tried to analyze these transcriptions on the basis of Winograd and Hare's (1988) model of teaching metacognitive teaching of scanning.
3. DATA ANALYSIS
The kind of statistical test used in this study to test the null-hypothesis was a one way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Due to having one independent variable with different levels, i.e., various levels of instructions, the researcher adopted this statistical test. A one way ANOVA as a statistical measurement was used to find significant differences among the mean scores of the cognitive, metacognitive and control groups at the time of pre and post-testing. In order to discover how the levels of the independent variable influence performance the dependent variable, a Post hoc Scheffe test was run. The researcher used SPSS (Version 10) for all data analyses.
Testing the Hypothesis
The Proficiency Test
Having administered the proficiency test to 120 students, the performance of all the subjects was scored. Those who scored 1 SD above and below the mean were selected as the subjects of this study. The descriptive analyses are as follows. The mean score was 36.68 with the standard deviation of 6.05.
The Pre-test
At this stage, the reading comprehension test, developed by the researcher, was administered to all groups. To assure the homogeneity of the groups and probe any meaningful differences among reading comprehension ability of these groups, the performance of all three groups on the pre-test was compared and analyzed applying a one way ANOVA. The reason behind using this formula was because there was one independent variable with 3 varying levels, i.e., cognitive, metacognitive and no teaching of the scanning strategy.
Table 2. One way ANOVA for comparing the mean scores (pre-test)
Sum of squares Df Mean square F-observed
Between groups 8.88 2 4.44 2.313
Within groups 167.107 87 1.921 -
Total 176.056 89 --
Table 2 reveals that both experimental groups performed nearly the same as the control group at the time of pre-testing.
Table 3. Observed and F-critical, P<. 05
F-observed F-critical
2.313 3.11
Table 3 shows that F-observed of 2.313 was not significant at the level of 0.05. The Post-Test
After a month instruction of the scanning strategy cognitively and metacognitively to the experimental groups, the same reading comprehension test was administered to all groups. The performance of the three groups on the post -test was compared and analyzed applying a one way ANOVA.
Table 4. One way ANOVA for comparing the mean scores (post-test)
Sum of squares Df Mean square F-observed
Between groups 389.089 2 194.544 71.708
Within groups 236.033 87 2.713 -
Total 625.122 89 - -
Table 4 reveals that there are significant differences among the mean scores of these three groups. The significant F-value necessitates the application of a post hoc Scheffe test to probe the exact location of differences. The results, as displayed in Table 5, indicates that only the experimental group, that is, the group which was exposed to the metacognitive teaching of the scanning strategy outperformed the control one. However, there was no significant difference between the mean scores of the control and cognitive experimental groups at the time the posttest was administered.
The results confirm the effectiveness of metacognitive teaching of scanning on improving students' performance in an exam session. So, metacognitive teaching of scanning is beneficial to the students who receive this kind of instruction to improve their reading comprehension ability.
Table 5. Post hoc Scheffe test for comparing means
Mean difference Mean
Control Exp metacog 4.1* 19.56
Exp 4.6* 19
Exp-meta Control 4.1* 23.66
Exp-cog 0.56 19
Exp-meta Exp-cog 4.6* 23.66
Control 0.56 19.56
Note: *Denotes the pair of groups significantly different at 0.05
Meanwhile, having analyzed the subjects' protocols, the frequency of proper use of scanning strategy metacognitively based on Winograd and Hare's (1988) model was computed in each group of subjects. The following tables show the frequency of proper use of scanning strategy in each group of subjects.
Table 6. Total frequency and percentage of strategies
Experimental Control
Frequency of proper use of scanning 300 120
What 90% 89%
When and where 80% 50%
why 80% 30%
how 80% 20%
evaluate 70% 25%
As Table 1 shows, the frequency of proper use of scanning strategy accompanied by the components in the experimental group is higher than the control one.
As explained earlier Chi-Square statistical technique was used to determine the significance or insignificance of the observed differences.
The result of the Chi-Square test is shown in the table below.
Table 7. Chi-Square test for Ho1
c2obs value df P c2critic value
6.22 1 <0.05 3.84
As the information in table 4 indicates since the value of observed c2 is bigger than the critical value of c2, it is assured that the frequency difference was significant. In other words, there is statistically meaningful difference between the control and experimental groups.
4. DISCUSSION
The present study examined the effect of metacognitive teaching of the scanning strategy on EFL learners' reading comprehension ability. The proposed null-hypothesis predicting that
metacognitive teaching of scanning has no effect on reading comprehension ability of EFL learners was rejected.
As Fedderhalt (1998) asserts good readers use many strategies and these strategies are very important in developing the reading skill. Meanwhile, research shows that implementing reading strategies can improve the reading skill.
The findings of this research are consistent with those from studies focusing on L2 reading (Barnnet 1989; Carrell 1985; Carrell et al. 1989), in that cognitive strategy training has a role in reading comprehension. The findings of the present research indicate that teaching the cognitive aspect of scanning unaccompanied by metacognition cannot create significant differences and bears no impressive results.
Additionally, outcomes of present study are in congruity with studies of Carrell, 1985; Hamp-Lyons, 1985; Sarig and Folman, 1987; Carrell, Pharis and Liberto, 1989; Kern, 1989; Raymond, 1993; Kern, 1997; Dhieb-Henia, 2003; Dhieb-Henia, 2006, and Ghonsooly and Eghtesadi, 2006. They have shown that metacognitive teaching of strategies has a positive effect on reading comprehension. In the above-mentioned studies, different reading strategies have been taught directly or indirectly based on the metacognitive model of strategy instruction proposed by Winograd and Hare (1988). For instance, in Carrell, Pharis and Liberto's (1989) study which focuses on text structure, utilizing semantic mapping and the Experience-Text-Relationship method, the effect of metacognitive instruction on reading comprehension ability of ESL learners was highlighted. Also, in Dhieb-Henia's (2006) study concentrating on applying metacognitive strategies to skimming research articles in an ESP context, the role of metacognitive instruction was revisited. Nevertheless, this study failed to give a comprehensible and practical framework illuminating how the teacher should instruct metacognitively.
Subsequently, the findings are in contradiction to O'Malley and Kupper (1985); Padron (1985) and Padron, Knight and Waxman's (1985) studies. The research done by these scholars were correctional ones and they did not find any positive relationship between using a particular strategy and reading comprehension of monolingual and ESL students. For example in Padron, Knight and Waxman's (1985) study where Spanish ESL learners and monolingual learners took part, they found no correlation between using a particular strategy and reading comprehension ability of the subjects.
Based on the present study findings, it can be concluded that there are good and bad uses of the same strategy and the difference between good and bad readers is in the application of the same strategy, which is in tandem with Kern's (1997) statement. He believes that no strategy is inherently a "good" or "bad" strategy and we should apply it at the right time in the right place. This study which focused on the metacognitive aspect of strategy training enjoyed all elements of teacher's explanation specified in Winograd and Hare's (1988) model. These elements are explanation on: 1. what a strategy is, 2. how to use a strategy, 3. where and when to use a strategy, 4. why to use a strategy, 5. how to evaluate a strategy. Unlike many of the studies mentioned above, the present study benefited from having EFL students as subjects rather than ESL students and it has a further contribution to the field. The results of present study shed light on the fact that metacognitive teaching of scanning strategy can have a positive effect on reading comprehension of students in EFL situations.
5. CONCLUSION
As the results indicate, the experimental group having received metacognitive strategy instruction outperformed the control and cognitive groups. Thus, the null-hypothesis was rejected and the effect of metacognitive teaching of scanning on reading comprehension improvement was confirmed.
In summary, the students having received metacognitive instruction showed improvement in reading at the time of their post-testing. Giving the fact that the cognitive experimental group did not outperform the control one, teaching the cognitive aspect of scanning alone cannot create significant differences in reading comprehension ability of learners. So every cognitive activity certainly needs to be regulated by metacognitive knowledge.
The findings of this study may promise certain theoretical and pedagogical implications. Syllabus designers and textbook writers can put the findings of present study into practical pedagogy by incorporating metacognitive teaching of strategies in their syllabi and textbooks. In other words, this paper has put forward some suggestion on how to instruct reading strategies practically. Teachers teach with the aid of textbooks and the best places to highlight the importance of reading strategies are course books and teaching materials. Textbook writers can insert each component of metacognitive instruction in one lesson and with the help of task-based syllabus they can integrate these components with various tasks.
Teaching reading strategies can be helpful to both teachers and students. Teachers waste a lot of time and energy on teaching vocabulary and structure, but the final results are not satisfactory. When teachers are faced with such a difficulty, some put more emphasis on vocabulary and grammar, which may not enhance reading comprehension and both teacher their students may get discouraged in English classes. Some teachers may find reading strategies useful to their students, but they do not know how to teach them in an effective way. The findings of this research can help our teachers instruct reading strategies effectively and get the best results in their reading classes. Therefore, teachers can take advantage of the blueprint presented in this research to teach scanning metacognitively. Knowing 'What', 'Where', 'Why' and 'When' of a reading strategy, students can apply reading strategies better in their reading tasks.
There were some limitations in this study. First, only male students took part in the study and this means the findings cannot be generalized. The second limitation is that only one single reading strategy namely scanning was studied. Finally, the subjects of study were those from the intermediate level and those from the elementary and advanced levels were discarded. Hence the findings in this study cannot be generalized as a whole. Nevertheless researchers may want to take off from this study and there are some new research questions for those interested in this line of research:
1. Is gender difference, as a moderator variable, a determining factor in reading strategy teaching?
2. Does changing the proficiency level have an impact on reading strategy instruction?
3. Do we have the same outcome if metacognitive teaching of scanning happens in an ESL situation with ESL subjects?
4. What happens if we teach scanning as a reading strategy metacognitively to different subjects having various economical, educational and family status?
5. Many other reading strategies exist and there is much room to do the research with other reading strategies apart from "Scanning". Thus, we can teach some other reading strategies metacognitively to see what the outcome would be.
Before closing, one last point seems worth mentioning. Language learning strategies are a valuable addition to the challenging task of learning and teaching a second language. Students can benefit from these strategies, but it cannot be assumed that merely presenting them as lists will make them a permanent part of successful learning. Teachers need to help students see how they can develop and transfer such knowledge into "rules for action" (Johnson 1996), that is, into successful procedures for undertaking a specific task. Metacognitive strategy training fulfills this objective by helping learners incorporate the strategies in a meaningful way that transforms students' declarative knowledge of reading strategies into procedural knowledge. This is especially important for EFL/ESL students, because reading efficiently is a critical skill that is directly related to many students' career paths. Although this example of strategy training was for scanning, practitioners will find the framework presented in this study applicable to other reading strategies, such as skimming and vocabulary enrichment, and to other activities associated with speaking, listening, and writing skills.
Appendices
Appendix A
Reading comprehension test
Instruction: This is a test to show how well you comprehend written English. First read each Passage carefully and then answer the items following it. For each item four choices are given. Choose the letter representing the best answer for each item.
The legends of King Arthur began to appear in the twelfth century and it is possible that they are based on a Celtic leader in the fifth or sixth century who defended this country against Saxon invasion. King Arthur was the son of Pendragon, and was born in Tintagel in Cornwall. He was brought up by Merlin, and old Celtic magician, and become king of Britain when he was fifteen. He proved his right to be king when he managed to pull a sword from a rock, He had to fight many lords, and when, with Merlin's help, he defeated them and received the magic sword Excalibur from the Lady of the Lake. He married Guinevere and lived in a castle at Camelot. His knights sat at a round table so that they were all equal nobody was sitting at the head of the table. Many of the stories in the legends are about the adventures of the knights, among them Lancelot, Perceval, Gawain, and Galahad. They spent their time hunting wild animal, having feasts and singing ballads. They often had to kill dragons and giants. At all times they behaved very correctly, with respect, honor and compassion. Arthur went to Rome to fight the emperor, Lucius and he left his kingdom in the bands of hand of his nephew, Modred, as he was entering Rome, Arthur learned that Modred had taken control of the kingdom and had captured Guinevere. He came back to England and defeated his nephew, but in the battle was seriously wounded. Arthur told Sir Belvedere, the last surviving knight to throw Excalibur into the water of the lake. He did this, and the sword was caught by a hand which came out the water and then took the sword below the surface.
Arthur was then taken to the Isle of Avalon to get better. We understand that he did not die, but lives on and will return when his country needs him. The legend says that the following verse is written on his tomb: HERE LIES ARTHUR, THE ONCE AND THE FUTURE KING.
1. When did the legend start?
a. twelfth century
b. twentieth century
c. 1300
d. 1400
2. Who did the Celtic leader fight with?
a. Americans
b. Saxons
c. Anglos
d. Britishers
3. Who was the son of Pendragon?
a. King Edward
b. King Mac
c. King Arthur
d. King Edward II
4. Where was King Arthur born?
a. Tintagel
b. Taitagel
c. Tritangel
d. Trinogel
5. Who was Merlin?
a. King of Britain
b. When he was 15, he grew up with King Arthur
c. a young Celtic magician
d. Arthur's savoir
6. How did Merlin managed to prove his right as the king?
a. His father addressed him
b. He pulled a nail from a rock
c. He pulled a sword from a rock
d. He pushed a sword in a rock
7. Where did Arthur live with Guinevere?
a. In a castle at Merlin
b. In a castle at Camelot
c. In a garden at Merlin
d. In a garden at Camelot
8. Name four famous knights in Arthur's time?
a. Lancelot, Perceral, Gawain and Galahad
b. Lancelot, Goin, Peicel and Galdah
c. Lancelt, Goin, Pericel and Gawin
d. Galahad, Gawain, Perceral and Lancelot
9. Who was the emperor, Arthur fought with?
a. Licius
b. Edward
c. Edward II
d. King Arthur
10. Where did Arthur go to get better?
a. Israel
b. Isle of Avalon
c. U.S
d. Canada
Appendix B
Nelson Proficiency Test (200A-1976)
Choose the correct answer
Last June my brother —1-----a car. He had had an old scooter before. But it ---2-- several times during the spring.
"What you want is a second-hand mini," I suggested. "If you give me the money," he said," —3--- one tomorrow." "I cannot give you the money." I replied," but what about aunt Myra. She must have enough. We ---4-- her since Christmas but she
always hints that we --5-----go and see her more often."
We told our parents where we were going. They weren't the very happy about it and asked us not to go. So --6— but
later that same day something strange ----7--.A doctor ---8----us that aunt Myra ----9-- in to hospital for an operation
"------10-----go and see her at the same time." said my mother." You two go today, bet don't mention the money."
When we --11---, aunt Myra --12--- "I'm not seriously ill" she said, "but doctor Insists that --13--- to drive my car. You can have it if you promise --14--- me to the seaside now and again." we agreed, and now we quite enjoy our monthly trips to the coast with aunt Myra.
1. 8.
a. Wanted to buy a. Rang for telling
b. Wanted buying b. Rang to tell
c. Liked to buy c. Rung for telling
d. Liked buying d. Rung to tell
2. 9.
a. Was breaking down a. Had gone
b. Was breaking up b. Had been
c. Had broken down c. Has gone
d. Had broken up d. Has been
3. 10.
a. I get a. We may not all
b. I m getting b. We cant all
c. I m going to get c. All we can't
d. I'll get d. All we may not
4. 11.
a. Are not seeing a. Have come here
b. Have not seen b. Were arriving
c. Did not see c. Got there
d. Don't see d. Came to there
5. 12.
a. Should a. Was seeing quite happily
b. Shall b. Was seeming quite happy
c. Would c. Seemed quite happily
d. Will d. Seemed quite happy
6. 13.
a. That we haven't I m getting so old
b. That we didn't b. I m getting too old
c. We haven't c. I get so old
d. We didn't d. I get too old
7. 14.
a. Occurred a. Taking
b. Took the place b. Bringing
c. Passed c. To take
d. Was there d. To bring
Choose the correct answer. Only one answer is correct.
15. Can this camera----------good photos?
A. Make B. To make C. Take D. To take
16. Who was the first person------------today?
A. Spoke to you B. You spoke to C. You spoke D. Whom you spoke
17. I cannot find the book
A. Nowhere B. Everywhere
18. There was a house at--------
A. Mountain footB. The foot of the mountain C. The feet of the mountain
19. A person who talks to-------------
A. Himself B. Oneself
20. I'll be 13 tomorrow------------?
A. Am I B. Aren't I
21. Did you said-----Julia said?
A. What B. That
23. That old lady cannot stop me A. To listen B. Listening
24. I haven't got a chair--------
A To sit B. For to sit on
29. Don't leave your shoes on the table. A. Put off them B. Take them off
30 .--------in my class likes the teacher.
A. All persons B. All pupils
31. We expected about 20girls but there were A. Another B. Others
32. Your bicycle shouldn't be in the house. A. Take it out B. Get out it
C. Any where D. Somewhere
D. The mountain's foot
D. Itself D. Will I D. Which D. More quicker
radio,
C. Listen to D. Listening to
C. To sit on D. For sitting
D. So much D. they both
C. pick them off D. Put up them
C. Everyone D. All people - people there.
C. Some D. More
C. Put it off D. Take away it
is not necessarily mad.
C. Yourself
C. Won't I
C. That wh
22. Spanish people usually speak----------than English people.
A. Quicklier B. More quicklier C. More quickly
---the tennis match on m
25 .------------at the moment, I'll go to the shop.
A. For it doesn't rain B. As it doesn't rain
C. For it isn't rain D. As it isn't rain
26. Bill drinks------whisky.
A. Any B. None C. Too many
27 .----------are very intelligent.
A. Both of them B. Both them C. Both they
28. In a shop-----------customers.
A. It is important pleasing B. It is important to please
C. There is important pleasing D. There is important to please
33. What time does the bus-----Braid ford?
A. Go away to B. Go away for C. Leave to
D. leave for
34. She —be in Canada because she's got a British passport. A. Can't B. Is not able C. Mustn't
D. Doesn't need
35. "Our daughter —", they said. A.Was born since three years C. Was born three years ago
B. Is born for three years ago
D. Has been born since three years ago
36. When—English? A. Has begun to study C. Did he begin to study
B. Has he begun study D. Did he begin study
37. Do you want some cheese? No — A. I have some still C. I don't want
B. I still have much D. I've still got some
38. Breda like going to the theater and — A. So do I B. So go I
C. So I like
D. So I am
39. --------
A. How long is there C. What distance is there
-from London to Edinburgh!
B. What a long way it is D. How long is
40. He's a good guitarist, but he plays the piano-----
A. Quite well B. Too hardly C. Very good
D. Much better
41. When you go to the shops, bring me ■ A. A fruit tin B. A fruits tin
C. A tin of fruit
D. A tine of fruits
42. Molly doesn't eat fish. A. So does John. C. John does too.
B. Neither does John. D. John doesn't that either.
43. The airport is five miles-------
A. Away from here B. From here away
C. Far from here D. Far away from here
44. Please ask —and see me.
A. To bill to come B. Bill to come C. To Bill come D. Bill come
45. She always bus —my birthday.
A. Anything nice to B. anything nice for
C. Something awful to D. Something awful for
46. Aren't they your friends-----?
A. Of yours B. Of you C. To yours D. To you
47. She hardly ever eats-----potatoes.
A. Or bread or B. Bread or C. Neither bread or D. Nether bread nor
48. This is the record we -A. Like so much
B. Are liking so much
C. Like it much D. Are liking it much
49. She's going to buy-------new trousers.
A. Some pair of B. Some C.A couple D. This
50. Is she going to school? No,------
A. She doesn't B She's cycling C. She get by bus D. To the shops
Appendix C
Sample protocol
Protocol Strategy component
1 I think it is a text about historical event, so maybe scanning can helpful/I don't know let me read the first paragraph/oh yes it is./I need scanning strategy When and where?
2 Ok/let me underline the important dates and names and who did what What?
3 Let me check the questions/they are all about the dates and names/ How?
4 The first question" when did the legends start?"/oh the answer is in the first line./ anyway the first paragraph is important having a lot of names dates and action. /I need to look carefully./ How?
5 So the answer is this?/ It is correct? Interviewer: yes Evaluation
6 so scanning really works in reading/I could answer the first question/ Why?
References
Alderson, M. 2000. "Metacognitive Learning of Reading." English Language Journal 350 (2): 460550.
Almasi, Janice F. 2003. Teaching Strategic Processes in Reading. Solving Problems in the Teaching of Literacy. New York: Guilford Press.
Anderson, Neil J. 1991. "Individual Differences in Strategy Use in Second Language Reading and Testing." The Modern Language Journal 75 (4): 460-472. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1991.tb05384.x.
Anderson, Neil J. 2002a. The Role of Metacognition in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Canada: Brigham Young University.
Anderson, Neil J. 2002b. "Using Telescopes, Microscopes, and Kaleidoscopes to Put Metacognition into Perspective." TESOL Matters 12 (16): 1-3.
Anderson, Neil J. 2003. "Metacognitive Reading Strategies Increase L2 Performance." The Language Teacher 27 (7): 20-22.
Baker, Linda, and Ann L. Brown. 1984. "Metacognitive Skills and Reading. Technical Report No. 188." In The handbook of reading research, edited by P. David Pearson, Rebecca Barr, Michael. L. Kamil, and Peter B. Mosenthal, 353-394. New York: Longman.
Black, Paul, Robert McCormick, Mary James, and David Pedder. 2006. "Learning How to Learn and Assessment for Learning: A Theoretical Inquiry." Research Papers In Education 21 (2): 119132. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671520600615612.
Brown, Ann L., Bonnie B. Armbruster, and Linda Baker. 1986. "The Role of Metacognition in Reading and Studying." In Reading comprehension: From research to practice, edited by Judith Orasanu, 49-75. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brown, H. Douglas. 1994. Principles of language learning and teaching. 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice Hall Regents.
Carrell, Patricia L. 1985. "Facilitating ESL Reading by Teaching Text Structure." TESOL Quarterly 19 (4): 727. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586673.
Carrell, Patricia L. 1998. "Can Reading Strategies Be Successfully Taught?" Australian Review Of Applied Linguistics 21 (1): 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.21.1.01car.
Carrell, Patricia L., Becky G. Pharis, and Joseph C. Liberto. 1989. "Metacognitive Strategy Training for ESL Reading." TESOL Quarterly 23 (4): 647. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587536.
Cooper, Donald R., and C. W. Emory. 1995. Business Research Method. 4th Edition. Illinois: Erwin.
Cotterall, Sara. 1990. "Developing Reading Strategies Through Small-Group Interaction." RELC Journal 21 (2): 55-69. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368829002100205.
Dhieb-Henia, Nebila. 2003. "Evaluating the Effectiveness of Metacognitive Strategy Training for Reading Research Articles in an ESP Context." English for Specific Purposes 22 (4): 387-417. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-4906(03)00017-6.
Dhieb-Henia, Nebila. 2006. "Applying Metacognitive Strategies to Skimming Research Articles in an ESP Context." English Teaching Forum 44 (1): 2-7.
Fedderholdt, Karen. 1998. "Using diaries to develop language learning strategies." The Language Teacher 22 (4). http://jalt-publications.org/tlt/articles/2282-using-diaries-develop-language-learning-strategies
Flavell, J. H. 1977. "Metacognitive development." In Structural/Process Theories of Complex Human Behaviour, edited by Joseph M. Scandura and Charles J. Brainerd, 213-245. Alphen aan den Rijn, Netherlands: Sijthoff and Noordhoff,.
Fowler, W. S. and Norman Coe. 1976. Nelson English Language Tests. Canada: Thomas Nelson and Son Ltd.
Goh, C. 2006. "Metacognitive Instruction in Listening for Young Learners." ELT Journal 60 (3): 222-232. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccl002.
Ghonsooly, Behzad, and A. R. Eghtesadi. 2006. "Role of Cognitive Style of Field-dependence/independence in Using Metacognitive and Cognitive Reading Strategies by a Group of Skilled and Novice Iranian Students of English Literature." The Asian EFL Journal 8 (4).
Graham, Suzanne. 1997. Effective language learning: positive strategies for advanced level language learning. Modern languages in practice 6. Clevedon [Avon, England]; Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
Greenall, Simon. 1998. Reward. Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann ELT.
Hamp-Lyons, Liz. 1985. "Two approaches to teaching reading: A classroom-based study." Reading in a Foreign Language 3 (9): 363-373.
Hosenfeld, Carol. 1977. 'A Preliminary Investigation of the Reading Strategies of Successful and Nonsuccessful Second Language Learners." System 5 (2): 110-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251x(77)90087-2.
Houtveen, A. A. M., and W. J. C. M. van de Grift. 2007. "Effects of Metacognitive Strategy Instruction and Instruction Time on Reading Comprehension." School Effectiveness and School Improvement 18 (2): 173-190. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450601058717.
Johnson, Keith. 1996. Language teaching and skill learning. Applied language studies. Oxford, UK; Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell.
Kern, Richard G. 1989. "Second Language Reading Strategy Instruction: Its Effects on Comprehension and Word Inference Ability." The Modern Language Journal 73 (2): 135149. https://doi.org/10.1111Zj.1540-4781.1989.tb0253 5.x.
Kern, Richard G. 1997. L2 Reading Strategy Training: A critical Perspective. Unpublished paper presented at the AAAL Conference, Orlando, Florida, March 10.
Klare, George R. 1974-1975. "Assessing Readability." Reading Research Quarterly 23 (1): 62-102.
Melville, Stuart, and Wayne Goddard. 1996. Research Methodology: An Introduction. Kenwyn: Juta.
Knight, Stephanie L., Yolanda N. Padron, and Hersholt C. Waxman. 1985. "The Cognitive Reading Strategies of ESL Students." TESOL Quarterly 19 (4): 789. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586677.
Nicklin, Michael, Vladimir Pejovic, and Peggy Read. 1999. IELTS Preparation and Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
O'Malley, J. M., A. U. Chamot, G. Stewner-Mazanares, R. Russo, and L. Kupper. 1985. "Learning Strategies Applications with Students of English as a Second Language." TESOL Quarterly 19: 285-296.
Oxford, Rebecca L. 1990. Language learning strategies: what every teacher should know. New York: Newbury House Publisher.
Paris, S. G., B. A. Wasik, and J. C. Turner. 1991. "The Development of Strategic Readers." Handbook of reading research 2 (5): 609-640.
Padron, Yolanda N. 1985. Metacognitive Training in a Broad Sense. New York: Holt.
Paris, Scott G., David R. Cross, and Marjorie Y. Lipson. 1984. "Informed Strategies for Learning: A Program to Improve Children's Reading Awareness and Comprehension." Journal of Educational Psychology 76 (6): 1239-1252. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.76.6.1239.
Paris, Scott G., Marjorie Y. Lipson, and Karen K. Wixson. 1983. "Becoming a Strategic Reader." Contemporary Educational Psychology 8 (3): 293-316. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476x(83)90018-8.
Pressley, Michael, and Irene W. Gaskins. 2006. "Metacognitively Competent Reading Comprehension is Constructively Responsive Reading: How Can Such Reading Be Developed in Students?" Metacognition and Learning 1 (1): 99-113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-006-7263-7.
Raymond, Patricia Mary. 1993. "The Effects of Structure Strategy Training on the Recall of Expository Prose for University Students Reading French as a Second Language." The Modern Language Journal 77 (4): 445-458. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1993.tb01992.x.
Resnick Lauren B. 1979. Strategy Training Perspectives. New York: All Nature.
Richards, Jack C. and John Talbot Platt, and Heidi Platt, eds. 1992. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. 2nd Edition. Essex: Longman.
Rivers, William P. 2001. 'Autonomy at All Costs: An Ethnography of Metacognitive Self-Assessment and Self-Management among Experienced Language Learners." The Modern LanguageJournal 85 (2): 279-290. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00109.
Sarig, G., and S. Folman. 1987. Metacognitive Awareness and Theoretical Knowledge in Coherence Production. Unpublished paper presented at the Communication and Cognition International Congress, Ghent, Belgium.
Welman, J. C., and S. J. Kruger. 2001. Research Methodology. 2nd Edition. Cape Town: Oxford University Press.
Winograd, P., and V. Hare. 1988. "Direct instruction of reading comprehension strategies: The nature of teachers' explanations." In Learning and study strategies: Issues in assessment instruction and evaluation, edited by C. E. Weinstein, E. T. Goetz, and P. A. Alexander, 121139. San Diego: Academic Press.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Author information
Karen Kow Yip Cheng is an Associate Professor, Faculty of Languages and Linguistics, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Copyrights
Copyright for this article is retained by the author, with publication rights granted to the journal.
