台灣高職學生英語後設認知閱讀策略使用探究

全文

(1)國立臺灣師範大學英語學系碩. 士. 論. 文. Master Thesis Department of English National Taiwan Normal University. 台灣高職學生英語後設認知閱讀策略使用探究. An Investigation of Taiwanese Vocational High School Students’ Use of Metacognitive Reading Strategies. 指導教授：陳秋蘭博士 Advisor: Dr. Chiou-lan Chern 研究生：胡慧兒 Hui-er Hu 中華民國一百零一年七月 July, 2012.

(2) 摘要本研究旨在探討台灣高職學生的英文後設認知閱讀策略，以及與英文閱讀能力之間的關係。台灣北部某高職 194 位學生參加本項研究。藉由一份修改自 Mokhtari & Sheorey(2002)的閱讀策略問卷，以及全民英檢中級的閱讀能力測驗為主要實驗工具，研究者能回答研究問題。主要的研究發現如下： 1.. 大致來說，台灣高職學生使用英語後設認知閱讀策略的頻率為中等。. 2.. 就三種英語後設認知閱讀策略而言，高職學生最常使用問題解決策略，接著是支持性策略，而最少使用的是整體性閱讀策略。. 3.. 問題解決策略和學生的字彙與結構，克漏字，以及閱讀測驗的表現均達顯著相關。. 4.. 朗讀是最少被使用的策略，但此策略和學生整體閱讀能力達顯著相關，並且也是分辨高低分組學生之重要策略。. 5.. 英文閱讀能力較高的學生和較低的學生，在後設認知閱讀策略的使用上的確有所不同，特別是在問題解決策略的使用方面更是如此。閱讀能力較低的學生常使用翻譯的策略，但這卻和他們的閱讀能力呈現負相關。根據以上的結果，研究者建議語言教學者應將策略教學融入於課程中，如此. 一來可讓學習者意識到閱讀策略的存在，並能立刻做練習，漸漸能成為有策略的讀者，並且能夠掌管自己的閱讀過程。此外，教師亦可藉由訓練朗讀的方式幫助學生理解文章。最後，學生在翻譯策略的使用上亦應謹慎，以避免過度依賴此項策略。關鍵字：後設認知閱讀策略、閱讀能力、高職學生、閱讀策略. i.

(3) ABSTRACT The study investigates Taiwanese vocational high school students‘ use of metacognitive reading strategies, and their relationship with students‘ performance on reading proficiency tests. A total 194 participants from a vocational high school in northern Taiwan joined the study. By adopting a modified Survey of Reading Strategy (M-SORS) questionnaire from Mokhtari & Sheorey (2002), and a reading proficiency test in the intermediate level of General English Proficiency Test, the researcher was able to answer the research questions of the present study. Major findings are as follows: 1.. Generally speaking,. Taiwanese vocational. high school. students. used. metacognitive reading strategies at medium level. 2.. Among the three groups of metacognitive reading strategies, vocational high school students tended to rely on problem solving strategies the most, followed by support strategies, and global reading strategies.. 3.. Problem solving strategies were proven to significantly correlate with students‘ performance on vocabulary and structure, cloze, and reading comprehension test.. 4.. Reading aloud was the least used metacognitive reading strategy by all participants. However, it was found to correlate significantly with learners‘ overall reading proficiency. In addition, it was a crucial strategy that distinguished high proficiency learners from low ones.. 5.. There was a significant difference between high and low reading proficiency learners‘ use of metacognitive reading strategies, especially in the use of problem. ii.

(4) solving strategies. Low achievers‘ frequent use of translation method was found to negatively correlate to their reading performance. The findings of this study re-iterated the importance of reading strategy instruction. Language teachers should incorporate the teaching of reading strategies into curriculum to raise students‘ awareness, and provide opportunities for hands-on practice. Through reading strategy instruction, students can become strategic readers and are able to govern their reading process. In addition, language teachers can train students to read aloud to improve their reading comprehension. Finally, translation should be used with caution so as not to cause students‘ over dependence on this strategy. Key words: Metacognitive reading strategies, reading proficiency, vocational high school students, reading strategies. iii.

(5) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I owe sincere and earnest thankfulness to my thesis advisor, Dr. Chiou-lan Chern. Without her constant encouragement, inspiring guidance, and insightful suggestions, I would never have been able to finish this work. My appreciation also goes to the two committee members of my thesis: Dr. His-chin Chu and Dr. Hsin-chou Huang. They generously granted their precious advice and suggestions to this work so as to improve my thesis. I would also want to express my heartfelt thanks to all the wonderful teachers in the English Department of National Taiwan Normal University, who have instructed, inspired, and enlightened me since I was a college student. Their instructions broaden my horizons, and their passion toward teaching and pursuing knowledge motivates me to become a better language teacher. I would also want to show my thankfulness to my colleagues and all of my students in Taipei Municipal Shilin High School of Commerce. During these three years, their continuous encouragement and consideration have helped me go through many tough times. Lastly, I would like to present this work to my family, including my father, mother, my older sister, bother-in-low, and their three adorable kids. It is them who give me comfort and strength to meet all the challenges. I would especially like to thank my older sister, who is always ready to answer my phone calls and provide her best help. I would like to share my joy and happiness with them.. iv.

(6) TABLE OF CONTENTS CHINESE ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................i ENGLISH ABSTRACT ................................................................................................ ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................... v LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................... viii LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... x CHAPTER ONE. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 1. Background and Motivation .................................................................................. 1 Research Questions ................................................................................................ 4 Significance of the Study ....................................................................................... 4 Organization of the Thesis ..................................................................................... 5 CHAPTER TWO. LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................. 7. Learning Strategy ................................................................................................... 7 Language Learning Strategies ........................................................................ 8 Instruments Developed to Measure Language Learning Strategies............. 11 Studies on Language Learning Strategies .................................................... 11 Studies on Reading and Reading Strategies ................................................. 13 Metacognition ...................................................................................................... 15 Taxonomy of Metacognition ........................................................................ 16 Metacognition and Reading ......................................................................... 19 Instruments Developed for Measuring Metacognitive Reading Strategy Use ...................................................................................................................... 21 Studies on Learners‘ Metacognitive Reading Strategy Use ......................... 23 Summary .............................................................................................................. 28 CHAPTER THREE. METHOD .............................................................................. 29. Participant ............................................................................................................ 29 Instrument ............................................................................................................ 30 Modified Survey of Reading Strategies (M-SORS) .................................... 30 Pilot Study for Testing the M-SORS............................................................ 31 English Reading Proficiency Test ................................................................ 32 Piloting English Reading Proficiency Test .................................................. 34 Procedure ............................................................................................................. 35 Data Analysis ....................................................................................................... 36 v.

(7) CHAPTER FOUR. RESULTS ................................................................................. 37. Metacognitive Reading Strategies Used by Vocational High School Students ... 38 The Frequency of Use of Overall Metacognitive Reading Strategies ......... 39 The Frequency of Use of Individual Strategies ........................................... 39 The Frequency of Use of Three Categories of Metacognitive Reading Strategies ...................................................................................................... 41 Problem Solving Strategies (PROB) .................................................... 42 Support Strategies (SUP) ..................................................................... 44 Global Reading Strategies (GLOB) ..................................................... 46 The Top Eleven Most Frequently Used Metacognitive Reading Strategies 48 The Ten Least Frequently Used Metacognitive Reading Strategies ............ 50 The Relationship between Metacognitive Reading Strategy Use and Students‘ Performance on Reading Proficiency Test ........................................................... 53 Strategy Use and Reading Proficiency Test ................................................. 53 Individual Strategy Use and the Reading Proficiency Test .......................... 54 Overall Strategy Use and the Three Subtests of the Reading Proficiency Test ...................................................................................................................... 56 Three Categories of Metacognitive Reading Strategies and Three Subtests of the Reading Proficiency Test ................................................................... 57 Individual Strategy Use and Vocabulary and Structure Section .................. 57 Individual Strategy Use and Cloze Section.................................................. 59 Individual Strategy Use and Reading Comprehension Section ................... 60 High and Low Reading Proficiency Learners‘ Use of Metacognitive Reading Strategies .............................................................................................................. 61 Overall Strategy Use between High and Low Reading Proficiency Students ...................................................................................................................... 62 Strategy Category Use between High and Low Reading Proficiency Group ...................................................................................................................... 63 Ten Most Frequently Used Metacognitive Reading Strategies by High and Low English Reading Proficiency Students ................................................ 63 Ten Least Frequently Used Metacognitive Reading Strategies by High and Low English Reading Proficiency Students ................................................ 66 Individual Strategies Used Significantly Different by High and Low Reading Proficiency Learners ...................................................................... 68 Summary .............................................................................................................. 71 vi.

(8) CHAPTER FIVE. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ......................................... 72. Major Findings of the Present Study ................................................................... 72 The Preference in the Use of Problem Solving Strategies ........................... 74 The Importance of Reading Aloud ............................................................... 75 The Impact of Doing Translation ................................................................. 75 Pedagogical Implications ..................................................................................... 76 The Use of Reading Aloud ........................................................................... 77 Be Cautious About Applying Translation .................................................... 78 Direct Teaching of Metacognitive Reading Strategies................................. 79 Limitations of the present study and Suggestions for future research ................. 81 Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 82 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 84 APPENDIX 1: Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS) by Mokhtari & Sheorey (2002) ...................................................................................................................................... 96 Appendix 2: Unmodified SORS .................................................................................. 98 Appendix 3: Modified- Survey of Reading Strategy (M-SORS)............................... 100. vii.

(9) LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Levels of GEPT and the corresponding target learners................................... 33 Table 2 Key to Understand SILL Averages .................................................................. 38 Table 3 The Frequency of Use of Overall Metacognitive Reading Strategies ............. 39 Table 4 Descriptive Statistics for Individual Metacognitive Reading Strategies ......... 40 Table 5 Individual Strategy Use in Three Frequency Levels ....................................... 41 Table 6 The Frequency of Use of Three Categories of Metacognitive Reading Strategies ........................................................................................................ 42 Table 7 The Frequency of Use of Problem Solving Strategies (PROB) ...................... 43 Table 8 The Frequency of Use of Support Strategies (SUP) ....................................... 45 Table 9 The Frequency of Use of Global Reading Strategies (GLOB) ....................... 46 Table 10 The Top Eleven Most Frequently Used Metacognitive Reading Strategies . 48 Table 11 The Ten Least Frequently Used Metacognitive Reading Strategies ............. 51 Table 12 Students‘ scores on the reading proficiency test……………………………53 Table 13 Correlation between Overall Metacognitive Reading Strategy Use and Reading Proficiency Test ................................................................................ 53 Table 14 Correlation between Individual Strategy Use and the Reading Proficiency Test ................................................................................................................. 54 Table 15 Correlation between Overall Strategy Use and the Three Sub-sections of the Reading Proficiency Test ................................................................................ 56 Table 16 Correlation between Three Categories of Metacognitive Reading Strategies and Three Sub-sections of the Reading Proficiency Test ............................... 57 Table 17 Correlation between Individual Strategy Use and Vocabulary and Structure Section ............................................................................................................ 58 Table 18 Correlation between Individual Strategy Use and Cloze Section ................. 59 Table 19 Correlation between Individual Strategy Use and Reading Comprehension Section ............................................................................................................ 60 Table 20 Scores on Reading Proficiency Test between High and Low Proficiency Learners .......................................................................................................... 62 Table 21 Overall Strategy Use between High and Low Reading Proficiency Students ........................................................................................................................ 62 Table 22 Strategy Category Use between High and Low Reading Proficiency Group ........................................................................................................................ 63 viii.

(10) Table 23 Ten Most Frequently Used Metacognitive Reading Strategies by High English Reading Proficiency Students ........................................................... 64 Table 24 Ten Most Frequently Used Metacognitive Reading Strategies by Low English Reading Proficiency Students ........................................................... 65 Table 25 Ten Least Frequently Used Metacognitive Reading Strategies by High English Reading Proficiency Students ........................................................... 66 Table 26 Ten Least Frequently Used Metacognitive Reading Strategies by Low English Reading Proficiency Students ........................................................... 67 Table 27 T-test Results of Metacognitive Reading Strategies Used Significantly Different by High and Low Reading Proficiency Learners ............................ 70. ix.

(11) LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Percentage of three strategy categories of the eleven most frequently used metacognitive reading strategy……………………………………………..49 Figure 2 Percentage of three strategy categories of the ten least frequently used metacognitive reading strategy……………………………………………..52. x.

(12) CHAPTER ONE. INTRODUCTION. Background and Motivation For most language learners, among the four skills of language, namely, listening, speaking, reading, and writing, reading seems to be the most essential skill (Carrell, 1988a). In addition, the importance of reading ability has been widely and repeatedly acknowledged by many scholars (Day & Bamford, 2002; Grabe, 2004). Language is an important medium for people to receive knowledge and express thoughts. For ESL and EFL language learners, reading ability is one of the key competences for achieving success. The ability to comprehend a written text is a complex process. It requires the orchestration of complicated mental abilities and the utilization of one‘s linguistic knowledge ranging from phonetic awareness to pragmatic use. Readers are expected not only to decode meanings of individual words from the ―bottom,‖ they should also perform higher levels of thinking from the ―top.‖ According to Nuttall (1996), reading is a process that consists of decoding, deciphering, identifying, articulating, pronouncing, understanding, and responding. Though this process may be automatic for high proficiency learners, for low proficiency ones, it suggests a long and arduous journey to undertake. Some researchers consider the latter as poor comprehenders though they do have the ability to decode meanings of words satisfactorily (Cain, 1996; McNamara, O‘Reilly, Rowe, Boonthum, & Levinstein, 2007). Studies mentioned above lend support to the notion that simply having decoding ability is not enough in understanding a written text, and many researchers set out to investigate strategies employed by learners during their reading process. According to Garner (1988), strategies are ―deliberate, planful activities undertaken by active learners, many times to remedy perceived cognitive failure‖ 1.

(13) (p50). When it comes to reading, language learners employ different reading strategies consciously in coping with reading difficulties they encounter during the reading process. By comparing and contrasting different reading strategies or skills employed by high and low proficiency learners, researchers are expected to unveil the key to learners‘ success. Successful. readers,. according. to. Lawrence. (2007),. are. ―strategic. meaning-makers.‖ McNamara (2007) asserts that it is not the amount of strategies used that matters. Rather, it is because successful readers know when and how to use strategies purposefully and deliberately to repair comprehension. Poor readers, in a sense, do not necessarily lack the ability or the knowledge of certain reading strategies. However, since they do not know how and when to use those strategies flexibly and appropriately, they can still fail to comprehend the text. Jiménez, García, & Pearson (1996), in a study investigating both good and poor bilingual language learners‘ reading performances, found that when encountering narrative and expository texts, less successful bilingual readers would adopt similar strategies when approaching different text types. In a nutshell, poor readers tend to fail to adjust the use of reading strategies as high proficiency learners do, and thus are not benefited from using them. On the other hand, good readers seem to be equipped with the capacity to monitor and judge the most appropriate reading strategies to use, and this also gives rise to researchers‘ interests in studying language learners‘ metacognition. Metacognition, according to Carrell (1989), is defined as ―cognition of cognition.‖ In addition to having the knowledge of different learning strategies, good language learners should also possess the ability to monitor their own learning process and decide which strategy to use when encountering comprehension breakdown. Chamot (2005) in a review article once concluded that good language learners are those who are mentally active, and are able to monitor language comprehension and 2.

(14) production. When it comes to reading, a good reader is expected to exercise his or her metacognitive knowledge and be actively involved in the reading process by planning, monitoring, and evaluating strategy use. Metacognitive reading strategies are believed to be crucial in distinguishing high-proficiency readers from low ones. In brief, over the past few decades, many researchers tried to investigate reading strategies employed by high achievers, hoping to shed some light on how students become successful language learners. Studies like this have generated fruitful results, and the scope of the knowledge of both reading ability and learning strategies are still expanding. Nonetheless, most studies stopped at the point of exploring the strategies used by high and low achievers, and the differences between the two (Chiang, 2010), with several other studies further examining other factors such as gender (Ho, 2007; Hong, 1990; Wu, 1993). Tests on reading ability in those studies often simply serve as an indicator to differentiate high achievers from low ones, and oftentimes the test only include reading comprehension sections. However, reading ability cannot be measured solely through administrating reading comprehension tests. The reading section of the General English Proficiency Test (GEPT) is composed of three subsections— vocabulary, cloze, and reading comprehension test. It is worth investigating the inner relationship between ―metacognitive reading strategies‖ and ―reading ability tests.‖ Moreover, studies on English reading comprehension and reading strategies mainly focused on senior high school students or adult learners. Scarcely have researchers paid attention to learners in vocational high schools. The few studies on vocational high school students‘ learning often center on investigating their cognitive learning strategies in general; learners‘ metacognitive reading strategy use was rarely explained. For vocational high school students, whose English proficiency levels are relatively lower than that of non-vocational senior high school students, learning a 3.

(15) foreign language can be a daunting task. English reading ability, according to the curriculum guideline proposed by the Ministry of Education, by the end of the sixth semester, vocational high school students are expected to: (1) recognize the handwriting fonts of English letters; (2) understand notes, signs, and user manuals in English; (3) read short stories and know their summaries; (4) understand simple letters, and (5) read extra reading materials with the aid of dictionaries or other tools. Even with these seemingly simple goals, according to Lo (2000), not every vocational high school student could meet those criteria. In addition to investigating the cognitive reading strategy use pattern of the students, it is even intriguing to examine how vocational high school learners manipulate their metacognitive reading strategy use to help them comprehend written texts. Based on the above mentioned reasons, the present study is expected to further explore the relationship between vocational high schools students‘ reading strategy use and reading comprehension.. Research Questions In this study, the researcher aimed to investigate the answers to the following questions: 1.. What is the general pattern of metacognitive reading strategy use of vocational high school students?. 2.. What is the relationship between vocational high school students‘ use of reading strategies and their reading performance as measured by reading comprehension tests?. 3.. Is there any difference between metacognitive reading strategies used by high and low proficiency learners?. Significance of the Study According to studies mentioned earlier, metacognition plays an important role in 4.

(16) successful language learning. It constitutes two important factors occurring simultaneously. Firstly, language learners should monitor their learning process; secondly, when language learners perceived problems or encountered comprehension breakdowns, they should be able to adapt or change their learning strategies (Winn and Snyder, 1998). In addition, since the importance of metacognitive reading strategies has already been established, it is therefore meaningful and significant to study this issue. Three research questions guided the direction of the present study. To begin with, by further investigating the metacognitive reading strategies used by language learners, the researcher aimed to study the general pattern of vocational high school students‘ strategy use. In addition, few studies have touched upon the relationship between learners‘ metacognitive reading strategy use and their reading proficiency in general. When judging learners‘ reading proficiency level, most studies solely considered learners‘ performance on reading comprehension questions as the only indicator. By examining the interrelationship between strategy use and subsections of reading proficiency test, the researcher hope to further delineate the impact of metacognitive strategy use on learning outcome. Furthermore, by identifying strategies that distinguished high proficiency readers from low ones, the researcher hoped that the present study would raise learners‘ awareness of the importance of metacognitive reading strategy use, pinpoint metacognitive reading strategies that better facilitate learners‘ reading comprehension, and finally, help readers take control of their own reading process.. Organization of the Thesis The organization of the study is as follows. In Chapter Two, the review of literature starts with discussing general learning strategies. Significant studies on language learning strategies and instruments developed for measuring language 5.

(17) learning strategies are included. Following that, studies on reading and reading strategies are examined. Finally, since the present study focuses on learners‘ metacognitive reading strategies, metacognition alone and studies on metacognitive reading strategies are discussed. Chapter Three explains the research method of the present study, including the description of participants, instruments, two pilot studies, and the data collection procedure. The results will be presented in Chapter Four. Further analysis, pedagogical implications, limitations of the present study, and suggestions for future studies will be included together with the conclusion.. 6.

(18) CHAPTER TWO. LITERATURE REVIEW. According to a review article by Anderson (2005), since the mid-1970s, researchers have paid much attention to the role strategies play in second language learning. In the beginning, researchers studied higher proficiency learners and tried to identify the strategies applied by them (Naiman et al., 1978; Rubin, 1975). However, there seems to be little consensus about what ideal learning strategies were. Later, researchers tried to categorize language learning strategies in a more systematic way. Early studies on learning strategies, concluded by Anderson, have generated five primary strategies: (1) memorization, (2) clarification, (3) communication, (4) monitoring, and (5) prior knowledge strategies. With the passing of time, accompanied by the shift from teacher-centered to the ―learner-centered curriculum‖ (Nunan, 1995) and ―learner-centeredness as language education‖ (Tudor, 1996), what learners do to facilitate their learning process have aroused much attention by researchers. In this chapter, learning strategies in general and its relevant studies will be presented first. Following that, research on reading and cognitive reading strategies will be introduced. Lastly, theoretical construct of metacognition and studies centered in metacognitive reading strategy-use will be discussed.. Learning Strategy Learning strategies, according to Chamot (2005), are ―procedures that facilitate a learning task.‖ The conscious use of strategies is therefore goal-driven, and may result in the action that follows to enhance learning. Moreover, to make learning more effective and efficient, learners may use several strategies simultaneously. According to Oxford (2003), the term ―strategy‖ is neither good nor bad. In other words, it is considered a neutral term itself until the context of using it is considered. To judge whether a certain strategy is beneficial to learners or not, several principles should be 7.

(19) taken into consideration: 1.. It closely relates to the task at hand;. 2.. It fits the learners‘ learning style preferences;. 3.. Learners can use the strategy effectively, and can relate it to other relevant strategies. Strategies that fit the above-mentioned conditions are expected to ―make learning. easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective, and more transferable to new situation‖ (Oxford, 1990, p.8). When it comes to language learning strategy, it can be viewed as a sub-category of general learning strategy. Consequently, it shares some features mentioned above. Language Learning Strategies Literally speaking, there can be hundreds of distinct but often interrelated language learning strategies. Oxford (1990) once pointed out twelve key features of language learning strategies. They (1) contribute to the main goal of learning; (2) allow learners to become more self-directed; (3) expand the role of teachers; (4) are problem-oriented; (5) are specific actions taken by the learner; (6) involve many actions taken by the learner; (7) support learning both directly and indirectly; (8) are not always observable; (9) are often conscious; (10) can be taught; (11) are flexible; (12) are influenced by a variety of factors (p. 9). Additionally, in a survey of literature, Lessard-Clouston (1997) found that there are four widely accepted characteristics of language learning strategies: (1) learners generate their own language learning strategies; (2) irrespective of second or foreign language learning, language learning strategies help cultivate four language skills; (3) language learning strategies may be either visible, such as one‘s behaviors and techniques, or invisible, such as one‘s mental process, and (4) language learning strategies include information and memory. Bearing the above-mentioned features, 8.

(20) different researchers have advanced various classifications of language learning strategies. Two most renowned categorizations are that of O‘Malley and Chamot‘s (1990) and that of Oxford‘s (1990). Based on Brown and Palincsar‘s (1982) classification, O‘Malley and Chamot (1990) divided learning strategies into three types: 1.. Cognitive strategies. As suggested by its name, they refer to direct operation of the material in specific learning tasks. Typical strategies include rehearsal, organization, inferencing, summarizing, deduction, imagery, transfer, and elaboration.. 2.. Metacognitive strategies. Unlike cognitive strategies, this type of strategy belongs to ―higher order executive skill‖ (p. 44). Representative strategies are monitoring, reasoning, planning, and self-evaluating that aid language learners to monitor their learning process.. 3.. Affective-social strategies. These strategies encompass two branches: interacting with others and controlling one‘s feelings. Strategies like cooperation, questioning for clarification, and self-talk lie in this category. In addition to the above classification, Oxford (1990a, 1990b) distinguished. direct language learning strategies from indirect learning strategies. Direct language learning strategies, as suggested by its name, directly involve the target language, while indirect ones are not directly linked to the subject matter but are still crucial to language learning. Under the category of direct strategies are three subcategories: 1.. Memory strategies. They facilitate newly-received information into long-term memory, and later retrieve them when necessary. Examples such as creating mental linkages, applying images and sound, reviewing well, and employing action all belong to this category.. 9.

(21) 2.. Cognitive strategies. These strategies are meant for ―forming and revising internal mental models and receiving and producing messages in the target language‖ (Oxford, 1990, p.71). For example, language learners may practice, receive and send messages, analyze and reason, and create structure of input and output.. 3.. Compensation strategies. They are adopted to overcome knowledge gaps of the target language. The second group, indirect learning strategies, also includes three groups of. strategies: 1.. Metacognitive strategies. They help learners plan, arrange, focus, and evaluate their own learning. Examples include centering one‘s learning, arranging and planning one‘s learning, and evaluating one‘s learning.. 2.. Affective strategies. This type of strategy makes learners control their feelings, be conscious about their motivations, and attitudes toward language learning. For example, a learner may try to lower his or her anxiety or give self-encouragement.. 3.. Social strategies. Learners who employ social strategies emphasize interaction with others. They may ask questions, cooperate or empathize with other learners. According to Oxford (1990a), these six strategies, irrespective of direct or. indirect strategies, are interconnected. In other words, they do not exist separately. Rather, they provide support for each other, and together form a complete taxonomy of language learning strategies. The two most-cited and well-established classifications provide a fertile land for later studies to grow. In order to probe into language learners‘ strategy use in an organized way, researchers have developed diverse instruments.. 10.

(22) Instruments Developed to Measure Language Learning Strategies Based on the above-mentioned taxonomy, Oxford (1990) constructed the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL). This Likert-scale questionnaire was first published in 1990 and has undergone several modifications since then. To date, two versions of SILL are available. One contains eighty items and is meant for learners whose native language is English, while the other consists of fifty items which are especially designed for ESL/ EFL learners. Both versions of SILL involve six parts that correspond to Oxford‘s taxonomy. By examining the frequency of use of different learning strategies, one‘s pattern of strategy use can be shown. The reliability and validity of SILL were empirically tested (Oxford & Burry-Stock, 1995; Oxford, 1996), and the results all indicated that it is a valid and reliable tool. Originally used as a tool to identify the frequency of learners‘ strategy use, the questionnaire now has been widely used for researchers to identify language learners‘ strategy use. Unlike the one mentioned above, Cohen, Oxford, and Chi (2002) used other ways to categorize learning strategies. They designed Language Strategy Use Inventory to investigate learners‘ strategy use. This inventory seeks to draw learners‘ attention to their strategy use in listening, vocabulary, speaking, reading, writing, and translation. According to the three authors, the purpose is to raise learners‘ awareness of their strategy use and enhance learning. In addition, unlike SILL, which asks the frequency of strategy use, this inventory requires learners to judge whether they have used certain strategies and how they feel about it. Four choices ranging from ―I use this strategy and like it‖ to ―This strategy did not fit for me‖ are provided. Questionnaire like this provides different insights of investigating learners‘ strategy use. Studies on Language Learning Strategies The differences between high and low achievers‘ learning strategy use have long 11.

(23) been the main concern of many researchers as mentioned above. In addition to solely examining the general pattern of students‘ learning strategy use, researchers have tried to conduct studies in light of different concerns. Acknowledging the importance of culture and context, Baker & Boonkit (2004) conducted their research in an EAP context in Thailand. With the help of SILL, the researchers illustrated the pattern of learning strategy use of high and low achievers. In addition, the study indicated that some strategies might be cultural-specific. In addition to contexts, the role ―gender‖ plays has also attracted much attention. Yabukoshi and Takeuchi (2009), after analyzing open-ended data from 315 students through the use of factor analysis, generated their own research instrument. After that, the researchers further examined other factors that might affect learners‘ strategy use. The results showed that female students used more strategies than male students. Kaur and Embi (2011) also examined the role gender played in strategy use. By employing Language Strategy Use Inventory, the researchers found that, in line with the previous study, female students tend to use overall language learning strategies more often than male students in learning English language. However, Szoke and Sheorey‘s (2002) study showed that the difference between male and female learners‘ strategy use was not significant. Other than focusing on learners‘ strategy use, some studies have tried to investigate teacher‘s perceptions toward their students‘ use of learning strategies. Griffiths & Parr (2001) used SILL to study teachers‘ believes about their students‘ learning strategy use. By comparing teachers‘ and students‘ responses, the researchers were able to show the discrepancies between them. Among the six categories, students reported that they use memory strategies the least while their teachers believed that memory strategies were used the most. Similar conflicts existed in all the other five categories. Since teachers held different perceptions about learners‘ strategy use, it 12.

(24) would be difficult for them to provide suitable instructions for their students. This alarming phenomenon called attention to language teachers to be more aware of their students‘ strategy use and needs, so as to better facilitate their learning. Finally, the applicability and suitability of SILL has also been examined. Though SILL has been widely adopted in numerous studies, some researchers aimed to explore whether SILL could faithfully capture language learners‘ strategy use. Hsiao and Oxford (2002), after inviting 517 college students from Taiwan to do the SILL, found that the six-factor taxonomy was consistent with learners‘ strategy use. However, they also pointed out the weaknesses of SILL. To begin with, language learning strategies should be separated from language use strategies. Also, the importance of learning environment should be recognized, and slight modification of strategy classification is still needed. What‘s more, language skills should be obvious in the corresponding strategy item, and finally, a task-based strategy inventory can be included. In brief, studies on learning strategies no longer limit to examining the differences between high and low achievers. Other factors such as contexts and gender have also been identified to be influential in affecting learning strategy use. Instruments for measuring learning strategies have also been under examination, and suggestions for further modifications have been made. Studies on Reading and Reading Strategies According to Nuttall (1996), there are basically three ways of processing a text: top-down, bottom-up, and the interactive mode. The top-down approach emphasizes the utilization of learners‘ own intelligence and experience. Different language learners may bring their distinct background knowledge to understanding written texts. The different prior knowledge prepares readers‘ position and frame their expectations toward written texts in advance. Such processing type, according to Anderson (2000), emphasizes the importance of one‘s schemata. But in order to fully comprehend a text, 13.

(25) readers should still utilize their linguistic knowledge. Bottom-up processing, on the other hand, requires language learners to construct meanings from textual clues and linguistic knowledge conveyed from the text. This type of processing requires learners to pay close attention to linguistic features and to apply their decoding abilities. By tapping into linguistic details of the written texts, learners will be able to construct meanings. However, bottom-up processing fails to acknowledge the importance of learners‘ prior knowledge as illustrated in the top-down approach. In a sense, top-down and bottom-up processings are inseparable, and both are essential in helping readers to comprehend written texts (Anderson, 2001). Therefore, the third approach, the interactive reading, which requires the interaction between top-down and bottom-up processing, may be the best adaptation. According to McCormick (1988), the interactive model of reading recognizes the interaction of both bottom-up and top-down processing in reading. By drawing insights of both types of processing, this model seems to be able to best describe the reading process where different levels of processing are employed simultaneously. Concerning critical knowledge in reading, other than the processing types mentioned above, Yang (2003) proposed that knowledge of language, knowledge of reading strategy, and knowledge of comprehension monitoring play important roles. These three types of knowledge seem to naturally form a hierarchical order. From the very basic but crucial element to the higher level of awareness of one‘s reading, coupled with readers‘ knowledge of the world, language learners can make meanings of the texts. In Yang‘s analysis, knowledge of reading strategy is essential in contributing to readers‘ understanding of the text. Reading strategies, like learning strategies, can be of numerous kinds. Different researchers propose different classifications of reading strategies. Developed from questionnaires used by Block (1986), Barnett (1988), and 14.

(26) Carrell (1989), a reading strategy questionnaire was proposed by Taillefer and Pugh (1998). The researchers divide reading strategies into five categories, including textual content, reader response, concrete techniques, task perception, ―state of mind‖ while reading, and local problem-solving techniques. This instrument has been used by many researchers in studying EFL/ESL learners‘ reading strategy use (Taillefer, 2005; Tsai et. al., 2010). In addition, some researchers studied strategies used by ―expert readers.‖ Pressley and Afflerbach (1995) identified three general classes of strategies: identifying and learning text content, monitoring the act of reading, and evaluating different aspects of reading. Under each class lie different sub-strategies. Accomplished readers will orchestrate the use of different strategies to suit different reading situations. Moreover, these three general types of strategies can be manipulated simultaneously. Two years later, Pereira-Laird and Deane (1997) constructed the Reading Strategy Use to measure learners‘ cognitive and metacognitive reading strategy use. In the study, the researchers not only demonstrated the validity of this instrument, but also proved that metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive strategy, and cognitive strategy represented different constructs.. Metacognition As mentioned earlier, studies have proved that cognitive and metacognitive knowledge represent different constructs. Nonetheless, this does not mean that they exist independently. Purpura (1999) tried to explain the relationship between cognitive and metacognitive strategy use; he found that metacognitive strategies had a significant effect on cognitive strategy use, and that ―metacognitive strategies use has an executive function over cognitive strategy use in task completion‖ (p. 61). As a result, nowadays metacognition is often defined as the ability to understand and 15.

(27) control over one‘s cognitive process nowadays (Hudson, 2007; Veenman, Van Hout-Wolters, & Afflerbach, 2006). Taxonomy of Metacognition The term ―metacognition‖ or ―metacognitive awareness‖ can be traced back to as early as 1970s proposed by Flavell (1979, 1987). According Flavell (1979), metacognitive awareness consists of two distinct while inter-related constructs: metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation. Metacognitive knowledge is a person‘s knowledge of the cognitive process in relation to three variables— person variables, task variables, and strategy variables. To begin with, person variables refer to one‘ beliefs about himself or herself as a cognitive processor, or about other people‘s thinking process. For example, a learner may believe that he can learn better by reading extensively, or he may be aware of other people‘s different learning styles. These beliefs, or ―person variables,‖ will leave impacts (both positive and negative) on one‘s learning. To conclude, person variables include both ―interpersonal concept,‖ which implies learners‘ understanding of others‘ learning process, and ―intrapersonal concept,‖ which refers to learners‘ beliefs about their own learning style. Task variables refer to a person‘s understanding of the nature and the demand of the task at hand. This knowledge may include task difficulty, and the possibility of gaining success. In other words, this variable can be described as the knowledge that a learner has about the resources that he or she needs for completing a given task. Later in 1991, Wenden (1991, pp. 42-44) further pointed out that task variables include four facets: (1) knowledge about the purpose of a task; (2) knowledge about task demands; (3) knowledge about the nature of the task; and (4) awareness of the need for deliberate learning. All of the knowledge relates to learners‘ understanding of the task. Finally, strategy variables refer to a person‘s view about strategy and strategy use. It includes identifying and setting goals, followed by selecting appropriate cognitive 16.

(28) processes to reach the goals. Different learners may carry their distinct strategy repertoire, and how learners select the most suitable one to apply to certain contexts can be of great importance. In short, person variables, task variables, and strategy variables all contribute to a reader‘s metacognitive knowledge. According to Flavell (1979), these three variables may overlap with each other, and they are mutually dependent. In addition to metacognitive knowledge, another important aspect is metacognitive regulation. It entails actions that facilitate and maximize the actualization of one‘s learning. Management of cognitive processes, including planning, monitoring, evaluating, and manipulating, all belong to this category. These processes therefore bear the executive feature. In line with the above-mentioned concept, other researchers and theorists further identified three facets of knowledge under the construct of metacognitive knowledge: declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, and conditional knowledge (Haris et. al., 2010; McCormick, 2003). Declarative knowledge is ―knowing what.‖ In other words, it refers to the knowledge and skills needed to complete a task, as well as the awareness of one‘s strengths and weaknesses with regard to the task. Secondly, procedural knowledge is ―knowing how.‖ It requires action-takers to utilize knowledge about how to apply different strategies to make the most of the declarative knowledge mentioned above. Finally, conditional knowledge requires a person‘s ability to determine the most suitable condition for applying both declarative and procedural knowledge. In other words, it is ―knowing when, where, and why.‖ Having acknowledged the importance of metacognitive awareness, other researchers tried to analyze the metacognitive learning process. Anderson (2002) proposed that this process consists of five primary stages: preparing and planning for learning, selecting and using learning strategies, monitoring strategy use, 17.

(29) orchestrating various strategies, and evaluating strategy use and learning. Although in the original paper, the researcher presented the five stages in a linear order, it should be noted that in reality, all five stages interact with each other throughout a given task. A learner may undergo these stages in a circular fashion, or even simultaneously. For example, after employing particular strategies in completing given tasks, learners will have chances to evaluate the effectiveness of the strategy use. This does not necessarily happen only after the whole task has been completed. Learners can do monitoring and evaluation throughout the process and make adjustment any time when needed. They can judge the appropriateness and effectiveness of using specific strategies, and select different strategies again. This dynamic characteristic of metacognitive learning process requires learners to actively engage in their learning and be highly aware of their decision-making, since every decision they make may influence their learning outcome. Though researchers may tackle metacognition differently, there are in fact some consensuses toward its features. According to Jimenez et al (2009), research on metacognition oftentimes leads to three conclusions. To begin with, children themselves seem to be born with certain metacognitive knowledge, and it is therefore teachable even to young children (Buttler & Winne, 1995). In addition, though most studies have shown that aptitude and one‘s knowledge may have some impact on learners‘ metacognitive development, such limitation is in fact not as serious as people may think (Swanson, 1990). In other words, through proper training, people can still develop their own metacognitive skills. All levels of students can benefit from receiving metacognitive training courses to a certain degree. And thirdly, metacognitive skills can serve as a compensation tool when learners encounter difficulties. As can be seen, metacognitive knowledge entails learners‘ conscious attention to 18.

(30) the task at hand. O‘Malley and Chamot (1990) further strengthen the importance of the role metacognitive strategies play. They stated, ―students without metacognitive approaches are essentially learners without direction or opportunity to plan their learning, monitor their progress, or review their accomplishments and future learning directions‖ (p.8). Metacognition and Reading Theoretically speaking, metacognitive awareness includes readers‘ conscious use of reading strategies to maximize the benefits of reading strategy use. Readers with higher levels of metacognitive awareness will be more likely to choose suitable reading strategies, monitor comprehension process, evaluate the effects of enacting certain strategies, and make adjustment when needed (Hudson, 2007; Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995; Zhang, 2008). Furthermore, metacognitive awareness empowers learners the ability to supervise their own learning process, and as Wenden (1998) suggested, it improves the rate of progress learners can make, and the quality and speed of the cognitive engagement they can achieve (p. 520). The concept of linking metacognition and reading comprehension can be traced back to as early as 1980s. When readers processed information without much effort, it was like having a smooth sailing (Brown, 1980). Nonetheless, comprehension might break down, and it was at that very moment that conscious attempts should be taken. Actions such as re-reading, looking at pictures, figuring out meanings of unknown words, parsing sentences were all meant to facilitate reading comprehension. In addition, Brown also proposed that poor metacognitive processing would lead to comprehension failure, which further emphasized the importance of metacognition in reading. Since then, according to a review article by Williams and Atkins (2009), many researchers started to focus on the relationship between metacognition and reading. 19.

(31) Since it requires learners‘ awareness of their decision making, researchers and educators in the past used to believe that metacognition was a late-developed ability. However, empirical studies have proved the opposite. Many researchers, when studying young children‘s reading performances, found that they could demonstrate some level of metacognitive strategies while reading (Brenna, 1995; Juliebo et al., 1998). Brenna (1995) conducted a study with an aim to find out young learners‘ metacognitive reading strategy use. Five fluent readers whose age ranged from four to six were invited to join the study. In addition to observing and interviewing learners‘ reading process, the researcher also conducted a role play which requires learners to discuss their reading with puppets. The results indicated that these young learners did demonstrate their use of metacognitive reading strategies. When encountering comprehension breakdown, they would rely on strategies based on their self-knowledge, task-knowledge, or even text-knowledge. They would also depend on phonological cues to help them understand the meaning of the text. It should be noted that although these five fluent young learners could not be representatives of their age group, this study still provides evidence to prove that young learners can still display their metacognitive knowledge. Another example is a study by Kinnunen, Vauras, and Niemi (1998). The three researchers examined the comprehension monitoring process of 132 Finnish first graders. By checking reading speed and ―lookbacks‖ (times when students re-read the text to check their understanding), the researchers revealed the comprehension monitoring phenomenon displayed by both good learners and low achievers. The results showed that compared with passage level, comprehension monitoring was the most prevalent in sentential level for both groups of learners. High achievers adopted more ―lookbacks‖ than poor readers. However, poor readers also demonstrated certain levels of comprehension monitoring ability by slowing down their reading speed 20.

(32) when encountering sentences that violated the semantic, syntactic, or factual knowledge. Studies mentioned above all indicate that metacognition exists even when learners are young. As Juliebo et al. (1998) pointed out, people underestimated children‘s innate power because children do not have the ability to express what they know. In other words, the problem lies in how to gather accurate information that best describes readers‘ metacognitive reading strategy use. Thus, different instruments were developed. Instruments Developed for Measuring Metacognitive Reading Strategy Use To tackle into readers‘ metacognitive strategy use, some researchers choose to collect information from participants‘ verbal reports. By directly gaining information from interviewing language learners, researchers can gather evidence that best capture the real process in reading. Researchers may either depend on interview data or resort to think-aloud method as an alternative. Based on these individual skills, some researchers started to develop instruments to gather information in a more efficient manner. According to Block (2002, 2004), eleven metacognitive processes have been identified from the pool of his interview data, ranging from linguistic elements like semantic processes, syntactic process, and fusion of semantic and syntactic features, to readers‘ interaction with the text such as personal reflections and metacognitive coherence. Based on the eleven metacognitive processes, Block (2004) proposed an instrument named the Metacognitive Processes Inventory (MPI) to test readers‘ metacognitive reading processes. The MPI gathers information soon after students finish their reading; therefore it carries a text-specific feature. That is, after learners read an article, they will be asked to reflect upon their reading processes. Though MPI meant to gather information that best reflects learners‘ reading experience, it is 21.

(33) unavoidable that different reading materials may result in different use of strategies. Moreover, since the MPI format is still similar to that of an interview, the art of asking questions, according to Bauserman (2005), can be of tremendous importance. Though grading rubrics have been provided, it is still hard to be fully objective in coding participants‘ answers. The results may be an abundant but unorganized amount of data that is hard to categorize for further analysis. Therefore, other instruments that can record language learners‘ strategy use more systematically have been developed. To approach data in a more organized fashion, some researchers design questionnaires to collect information from larger pool of participants. Early studies tended to focus on monolingual or L1 speakers‘ strategy use; therefore, the instruments developed were not suitable in measuring L2 speakers‘ learning situation. Differences in metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among native and nonnative learners have been widely investigated. According to Zhang and Wu (2009), three major findings are as follows: (1) when approaching L2 or foreign language reading materials, nonnative readers bring with them their L1 knowledge of reading strategies, and try to apply them to L2 reading task at hand, (2) L1 and L2 readers show similar metacognitive reading strategies, and (3) both L1 and L2 proficient readers display higher degree of metacognitive awareness than their non-proficient counterparts. As a result, the demand for creating a suitable tool for measuring L2 readers‘ metacognitive reading strategy use was increasing. To echo the need, Mokhtari and Sheorey (2002) proposed an instrument that later was widely applied in many studies. Adapted from Mokhtari & Reichard‘s Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory (MARSI, 2002) for monolingual learners, Mokhtari and Sheorey (2002) proposed the Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS). Although the name of this questionnaire is simply ―reading strategies,‖ it is in reality a questionnaire for measuring learners‘ metacognitive, 22.

(34) instead of cognitive reading strategy use. It is the first instrument designed to measure bilingual adults‘ or adolescents‘ metacognitive reading strategy use when they engage in reading academic materials. This five-point Likert-scale survey consists of 30 items, including three categories: 1. Global Reading Strategies (GLOB). These are strategies readers take purposefully to plan or monitor their reading. Examples are having a purpose in mind when reading and using contextual clues to aid comprehension. 2. Problem Solving Strategies (PROB). Compared with GLOB, according to Mokhtari and Sheorey (2002), these are ―localized, focused techniques‖ (p.4). When encountering difficulties in reading, readers can apply multiple strategies to solve, rather than escape from, the problem. Strategies like paying closer attention to the difficult text and adjusting reading speed belong to this group. 3. Support Strategies (SUP). They are support mechanisms that aid readers‘ comprehension like consulting dictionaries, taking notes, and paraphrasing. This instrument has been widely adopted by numerous researchers. Since SORS targets adolescent and adult EFL or ESL learners, it has been used to study the metacognitive reading strategies of adult learners (Anderson, 2003), college students (Ilustre, 2011; Lee & Liao, 2007; Poole, 2005; Xu, 2007) and middle school students (Mohamed, Chew, and Kabilan, 2006; Yau, 2009; Zhang & Wu, 2009). Interestingly, participants of different age groups revealed distinct characteristics of preferred metacognitive reading strategy use. In addition, with the advancement of technology, different interfaces of reading have drawn much attention among researchers. Studies on Learners’ Metacognitive Reading Strategy Use To begin with, in Anderson‘s (2003) study, the researcher studied the metacognitive reading strategy use by both EFL and ESL adult learners from two language learning organizations in the US. A total of 247 participants joined the study, 23.

(35) with 53% EFL and 47% ESL learners. The study revealed that the only indicator that differentiated EFL from ESL learners appeared to be learners‘ problem-solving strategy use. EFL learners were found to use more problem-solving strategies than ESL learners. The importance of problem solving strategies has also been proved in Ilustre‘s (2011) study. By examining 226 Filipino college students‘ metacognitive reading strategy use, their reading beliefs, and their performance on reading comprehension tests, the study indicated that being active about reading and problem solving strategies have positive correlation with text comprehension. Similar findings are also revealed from Lee and Liao‘s (2007) research. In their study, 163 Taiwanese EFL college students were categorized into four groups based on the participants‘ English scores in the Joint College Entrance Exam. Since the researchers claimed that participants of their study had limited English ability, they translated SORS into Chinese to avoid misunderstanding. The results showed that all four groups of students tended to rely more on problem solving strategies. But among the top five most frequently used metacognitive reading strategies, global reading strategies prevailed the other two. In terms of the differences between high and low proficiency learners, the former group of students were found to have a more consistent and active use of metacognitive reading strategies than the latter. In brief, studies on adult and college students‘ metacognitive reading strategy use shared similar findings, but studies on middle school students‘ metacognitive reading strategy use pattern generated different conclusions. Studies on middle school students‘ use of metacognitive reading strategy use have revealed mixed results. Mohamed et al. (2006) investigated good Malaysian Chinese learners‘ reading strategy patterns. In order to select the most suitable participants, the researchers administered a reading comprehension test and picked the 24.

(36) top 20 students from 100 candidates who all scored A on their language paper of a Chinese middle school. These 20 participants represented the so-called ―good learners,‖ and they were asked to complete Mokhtari and Sheorey‘s (2002) Survey of Reading Strategy (SORS). In addition, the top five students were further interviewed to gain in-depth understanding of their awareness and use of metacognitive reading strategies. The researcher concluded that high proficiency learners used support strategies most frequently, but they fail to further examine whether such difference was significant or not. Yao (2009) aimed to compare learners‘ L1 and L2 cognitive and metacognitive strategy use, hoping to find out whether strategy use could transfer from L1 to L2. Participants were 144 Grade 11 Taiwanese students, and data were gathered from the results of English reading comprehension tests, reading strategy questionnaires, interview data, and students‘ think-aloud protocols. The study showed that compared with L1 reading, language learners relied more on ―support strategies‖ when reading L2 materials. Nonetheless, though the relation between L2 strategy use and L2 text comprehension performance was positive, it was still of low-correlation. The strategies that correlated with learners‘ reading performance at significant levels were ―either problem-solving or supportive in nature‖ (p. 231). In Zhang & Wu‘s (2009) study, EFL students‘ metacognitive strategy use pattern was examined. A total of 270 Chinese senior high school students joined this study. Participants were divided into three groups according to their performances in the self-made English monthly exams designed by English teachers of that school. These tests were meant to measure students‘ English reading proficiency as the emphasis was on reading comprehension and vocabulary. The researchers then translated SORS into Chinese for their study. In the end, the results showed that generally speaking, all learners revealed high frequency use of metacognitive reading skills, and that their 25.

(37) pattern of strategy use was closely related to their proficiency levels. High proficiency group outperformed the intermediate and low- proficiency groups in both global and problem-solving strategy use. However, no significant difference was found among the three groups in their use of support strategies. The above mentioned studies focus on paper-based reading. Recent years, web-based reading has attracted much attention. In Huang, Chern, and Lin‘s (2006) study, the researchers developed an online reading program to keep track of students‘ reading process. By tracing clicks of buttons that reflected certain types of reading strategies, the researchers were able to examine EFL college learners‘ online reading strategy use via the online reading program. The results showed that when reading online, students relied overwhelmingly on support strategies, followed by global, social-affective, and problem solving strategies. Similar findings also appear in the study done in 2009. By applying the online reading program, Huang, Chern, and Lin found out that support strategies still beloned to the most favored strategy category. However, the researchers further indicated that when students read more challenging texts, the use of support strategies did not predict the scores on both main ideas and details. In addition, global strategies significantly contributed to low proficiency learners‘ overall comprehension. Results of these studies may not be the same, but the consensus is that more proficient readers adopt metacognitive reading strategies more frequently than less proficient ones. However, studies on the relationship between metacognitive reading strategies and reading competence tend to exclusively consider performances on reading comprehension tests. It should be noted that one‘s reading ability consists of knowledge more than what reading comprehension questions can measure. Numerous studies have proved that one‘s vocabulary knowledge is highly related to his or her reading ability. Laufer (1997) indicated that reading comprehension is strongly related 26.

(38) to vocabulary knowledge. Students‘ lack of vocabulary knowledge can be regarded as a critical obstacle that hinders their understanding of a written text (Alderson, 1984). When it comes to test type, cloze tests have been repeatedly proved to correlate with reading ability. Layton (1983) proved that cloze tests strongly correlate with different reading tests. Williams et al. (2011) also demonstrated that cloze test could serve as a reliable and effective tool to differentiate ―struggling‖ and ―non-struggling‖ students. Previous studies simply consider language learners‘ performance in reading comprehension tests as the sole indicator of their reading ability. Based on the aforementioned studies, it is justifiable to hold that performances in vocabulary test and cloze test should also be adopted to better locate one‘s proficiency level. Moreover, participants of previous studies are mainly senior high school students. Studies on vocational high school students are scarce and tend to focus on students‘ cognitive or general learning strategies. Lo (2006) investigated Taiwanese vocational high school students‘ learning strategies and perceptual learning styles preferences. The results showed that Taiwanese vocational high school students neither used English learning strategies frequently, nor showed any major preference for any learning style. Kozminsky & Kozminsky (2001) conducted a study that examined the relationship between general knowledge, skills in applying reading strategies, and reading comprehension for 205 students at varying educational levels. They divided educational levels into four categories: academic, semi-academic, vocational and learning disabilities. In their study, vocational group of students not only revealed deficient strategic skills, but also had poor general knowledge, which impeded their reading ability. However, scarcely has vocational high school students‘ metacognitive reading strategies been delved into. The present study aims to fill in the gap. It is expected that by exploring more about vocational high school students‘ metacognitive strategy use, language teachers can provide appropriate instructions to facilitate 27.

(39) students‘ learning. More importantly, students can learn to be aware of their own strategy use, take responsibility of their own learning, and become autonomous learners.. Summary Since the present study aims to investigate learners‘ metacognitive reading strategy use, this chapter naturally covers two important issues: learning strategy and metacognition. To tackle into the relationship between metacognition and reading in a more systematic way, Mokhtari and Sheorey (2002) proposed the Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS), which categories all the metacognitive reading strategies into three classes: global reading strategies, problem solving strategies, and support strategies. Studies applying SORS generated fruitful results in understanding learners‘ metacognitive reading strategy use. However, vocational high school students have scarcely been studied, and the relationship between students‘ performance on reading proficiency tests, which include three subtests, and learners‘ metacognitive strategy use have yet been discussed thoroughly. The present study aims to fill in this gap.. 28.

(40) CHAPTER THREE. METHOD. Based on the research gap shown in the previous chapter, the present study aims to investigate the metacognitive reading strategy use by vocational high school students. Moreover, the relationship between students‘ metacognitive reading strategy use and their performance on reading proficiency test is also examined. Finally, differences between high and low proficiency students‘ use of metacognitive reading strategies are further studied. In this chapter, participants, instruments, and data collection procedures are included.. Participants 202 vocational high school students participated in the present study, with 124 students in the 10th grade and 82 in the 11th grade. All of them major in applied foreign language at a vocational high school in northern Taiwan. This vocational high school provides six specialized programs for students with different interests, including accounting, advertisement and design, applied foreign language, business management, data processing, and international trade. Compared with students from other majors in the same school, students who major in applied foreign language take more English related courses and therefore receive extra hours of training in English. Generally speaking, they all have four periods of English classes and two English reading classes per week. Courses that aim at cultivating language skills, such as English Grammar Practice, Pronunciation, English Aural and Oral Training, English Writing, Speaking practice, and English Reading classes are provided. Besides the traditional focus on grammar instruction and basic language skills, the program also offers other English-related classes, including English Novel Reading, News English, World Culture, and Project Learning courses. Although these students received extra trainings in English, their English 29.

(41) proficiency levels still vary widely. Take their English scores on the monthly exam for example, high achievers could gain 90 points or above, while some students only got 20 points or even below.. Instruments To answer the research questions, two instruments are included in the present study—a metacognitive reading strategy questionnaire and reading proficiency test. The former was adapted from Mokhtari and Sheorey‘s (2002) Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS), while the latter was derived from the test battery officially released from LTTC. Modified Survey of Reading Strategies (M-SORS) As mentioned in the previous chapter, the purpose of using the Survey of Reading Strategy (SORS) by Mokhtari and Sheorey (2002) lies in analyzing ESL/ EFL adult and adolescent language learners‘ metacognitive reading strategy use. Three metacognitive reading strategies were examined, including global reading strategies (GLOB), problem solving strategies (PROB), and support strategies (SUP). However, considering the proficiency levels of the participants of the present study, I decided to translate the original SORS into the Chinese version to make the questionnaire more understandable to them. With the help of other two colleges of mine who also have TESOL backgrounds, I translated English into Chinese and created the first draft of the questionnaire (Appendix 2). After the pilot study was conducted and modifications were made, the two colleges of mine helped me do back-translation again, and the final version of the modified survey of reading strategy (M-SORS) was thus created (Appendix 3). In the following section, detailed descriptions of how the pilot study was conducted, and what modifications were done are provided.. 30.