Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

EFL Learners’ Metacognitive Strategy Use in Reading Tests

英語學習者於閱讀測驗中後設認知策略使用之研究

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
English Teaching & Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Reading comprehension, an important ability in second language acquisition, is believed to take place at the metacognitive level where planning, monitoring, and evaluating are involved. Metacognitive strategies carry out an executive function over cognitive strategies, which, in turn, impact reading test performance. Whereas most research has focused on general language learning strategies rather than those in testing situations, this study investigates the metacognitive strategies used by high- and low-proficiency readers in testing situations. Four university EFL learners were selected based on their English reading proficiency, and data were collected using a think-aloud protocol, stimulated recall, and a follow-up interview. Results show that while the number and variety of metacognitive strategies used by both groups were not of a striking difference, the effectiveness and flexibility of strategy use during testing situations seemed to determine reading performance. Finally, pedagogical implications for teachers wishing to assist EFL learners to employ effective reading strategies are discussed.

摘要

閱讀理解在第二語言習得中一直被視為一項重要的能力;而這項能力發生在後設認知階層,其包括:規劃、監督與評量。在閱讀測驗表現上,後設認知策略執行管控能力已經優於認知策略。然而,過去大部分的研究著重於一般語言學習策略之探討;咸少之研究在測驗中調查語言學習策略使用。本研究旨在探究高階與低階英語學習者在閱讀測驗中後設認知策略之使用情形。研究對象為四名具有不同英語閱讀能力之學習者;研究者使用放聲思考、刺激回憶以及追蹤訪談等研究方法。研究發現,雖然不同能力的閱讀學習者,在接受閱讀測驗時,後設認知策略的使用,於數量和種類上並無太大差異;但在考試過程當中,策略使用的效果和彈性決定了這些學習者的閱讀測驗表現。上述研究結果,提供教師在協助學習者應用後設認知策略提升閱讀能力之教學建議。

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Al-Nujaidi, A. H. (2003). The relationship between vocabulary size and reading comprehension of EFL learners in Saudi Arabia (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Oklahoma State University.

  2. Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing. Modern Language Journal, 75(4), 460–472. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1991.tb05384.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson, N. J. (2002). Using telescopes, microscopes, and kaleidoscopes to put metacognition into perspective. TESOL Matters, 12(4), 1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Anderson, N. J., Bachman, L., Perkins, K., & Cohen, A. (1991). An exploratory study into the construct validity of a reading comprehension test: triangulation of data sources. Language Testing, 8(1), 41–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229100800104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Aryadoust, V., & Zhang, L. (2016). Fitting the mixed Rasch model to a reading comprehension test: exploring individual difference profiles in L2 reading. Language Testing, 33(4), 529–553. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532215594640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  7. Block, E. L. (1992). See how they read: Comprehension monitoring of L1 and L2 readers. TESOL Quarterly, 26(2), 319–343. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Brisbois, J. E. (1995). Connections between first- and second-language reading. Journal of Literacy Research, 27(4), 565–584. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862969509547899.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Brophy, J. (1998). Failure syndrome students. ERIC Digest Report No: EDO-PS, 98–92 Retrieved from http://www.firstsearch.oclc.org.

  10. Callan, G. L., Marchant, G. J., Finch, W. H., & German, R. L. (2016). Metacognition, strategies, achievement, and demographics: relationships across countries. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 16(5), 1485–1502. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2016.5.0137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Carrell, P., Gajdusek, L., & Wise, T. (1998). Metacognition and EFL/ESL reading. Instructional Science, 26, 97–112. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003092114195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chamot, A. U. (1998). Teaching learning strategies to language students. Washington, DC: Centre for Applied Linguistics. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No ED 433719).

  13. Chamot, A. U. (2005). Language learning strategy instruction: current issues and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 112–130. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190505000061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chamot, A. U., & El-Dinary, P. B. (1999). Children’s learning strategies in immersion classrooms. Modern Language Journal, 83(3), 319–338. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Chamot, A. U., & Kupper, L. (1989). Learning strategies in foreign language instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 22(1), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1989.tb03138.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Chou, M. H. (2013). Strategy use for reading English for general and specific academic purposes in testing and nontesting contexts. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(2), 175–197. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cohen, A. D. (2011). Strategies in learning and using a second language Abingdon: Routledge/Pearson Education.

  18. Cohen, A. D., & Upton, T.A. (2006). Strategies in responding to the new TOEFL reading tasks (Monograph No. 33). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Retrieved from https://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-06-06.pdf

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Guthrie, J. T. (2002). Preparing students for high-stakes test taking in reading. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 370–391). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  20. He, T. H. (2008). Reading for different goals: the interplay of EFL college students’ multiple goals, reading strategy use and reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 31(2), 224–242. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2007.00355.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hong-Nam, K., & Page, L. (2014). ELL high school students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategy use and reading proficiency. TESL-EJ, 18(1), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kletzien, S. B. (1991). Strategy use by good and poor comprehenders reading expository text of differing levels. Reading Research Quarterly, 4(1), 267–286.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lin, L. C., & Yu, W. Y. (2015). A think-aloud study of strategy use by EFL college readers reading Chinese and English texts. Journal of Research in Reading, 38(3), 286–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Nichols, J. (2016). Do high-stakes English proficiency tests motivate Taiwanese university students to learn English? American Journal of Educational Research, 4(13), 927–930. https://doi.org/10.12691/education-4-13-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. (1990). Strategies used by second language learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  26. Osuji, C. J. (2017). Cognitive and metacognitive strategy use in first and second language reading comprehension (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Essex, UK.

  27. Oxford, R. L. (2011). Teaching and researching language learning strategies. Harlow: Longman/Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Pang, J. (2008). Research on good and poor reader characteristics: implications for L2 reading research in China. Reading in a Foreign Language, 20(1), 1–18 Retrieved from http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/rfl.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Phakiti, A. (2003). A closer look at the relationship of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use to EFL reading achievement test performance. Language Testing, 20(1), 26–56. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532203lt243oa.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Phakiti, A. (2008). Construct validation of Bachman and Palmer’s (1996) strategic competence model over time in EFL reading tests. Language Testing, 25(2), 237–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532207086783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Purpura, J. E. (1999). Strategy use and second language test performance: a structural equation modeling approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among native and non-native readers. System, 29(4), 431–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00039-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Silva, R. D., & Graham, S. (2015). The effects of strategy instruction on writing strategy use for students of different proficiency levels. System, 53, 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.06.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Taki, S. (2016). Metacognitive online reading strategy use: readers’ perceptions in L1 and L2. Journal of Research in Reading, 39(4), 409–427. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Tian, S. (2000). TOEFL reading comprehension: strategies used by Taiwanese students with coaching school training (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Teachers College, Columbia University.

  37. Vandergrift, L. (1997). The comprehension strategies of second language (French) listeners: a descriptive study. Foreign Language Annals, 30(3), 387–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Vandergrift, L. (2003). Orchestrating strategy use: toward a model of the skill second language listener. Language Learning, 53(3), 463–496. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Wang, Y. H. (2016). Reading strategy use and comprehension performance of more successful and less successful readers: a think-aloud study. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 16(5), 1789–1813. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2016.5.0116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Wenden, A. L. (1995). Leaner training in context: a knowledge-based approach. System, 23(2), 183–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(95)00007-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Wenden, A. L. (1998). Meta-cognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 515–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Yayli, D. (2010). A think-aloud study: cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies of ELT department students. Egitim Arastirmalari-Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 38, 234–251.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Zhang, L. (2017). Metacognitive and cognitive strategy use in reading comprehension: a structural equation modelling approach. Springer.

  44. Zhang, L., Aryadoust, V., & Zhang, L. J. (2014a). Development and validation of the test takers’ metacognitive awareness reading questionnaire. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 23(1), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-013-0083-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Zhang, L., Goh, C. C. M., & Kunnan, A. J. (2014b). Analysis of test takers’ metacognitive and cognitive strategy use and EFL reading test performance: a multi-sample SEM approach. Language Assessment Quarterly, 11(1), 76–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2013.853770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Zhang, L. J., Gu, P. Y., & Hu, G. (2008). A cognitive perspective on Singaporean primary school pupils’ use of reading strategies in learning to read in English. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 245–271. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709907X218179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Zhang, L., & Seepho, S. (2013). Metacognitive strategy use and academic reading achievement: Insights from a Chinese context. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 10(1), 54–69 Retrieved from http://e-flt.nus.edu.sg/.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Zhang, L. J., & Wu, A. (2009). Chinese senior high school EFL students’ metacognitive awareness and reading-strategy use. Reading in a Foreign Language, 21(1), 37–59 Retrieved from http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/rfl.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Zhang, L., & Zhang, L. J. (2012). Relationships between Chinese college test takers’ strategy use and EFL reading test performance: a structural equation modeling approach. RELC Journal, 44(1), 35–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688212463272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: an essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 82–91. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Foreign Language Center, Feng Chia University, Taichung City, Taiwan

    Hui-Chia Judy Shih

  2. Department of English, National Changhua University of Education, Changhua City, Taiwan

    Hui-Chia Judy Shih & Shenghui Cindy Huang

Authors
  1. Hui-Chia Judy Shih
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shenghui Cindy Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shenghui Cindy Huang.

Appendix A Interview Questions

Appendix A Interview Questions

  1. 1.

    How do you prepare for the TOEIC reading section?

  2. 2.

    What changes, if any, did you make to help you prepare for the test in the reading section?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shih, HC.J., Huang, S.C. EFL Learners’ Metacognitive Strategy Use in Reading Tests. English Teaching & Learning 42, 117–130 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42321-018-0007-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42321-018-0007-3

Keywords

關鍵詞

Search

Navigation