TABLE OF CONTENTS 2.4 Reading Strategy Used by Good Readers……… ……… .…….
3.1 Research Design………..…………..………....
3.2Data Collection………..…………..………..
3.3 Data Analysis…………..…………..………... 3.4 Chapter Summary ………
Chapter IV: Finding and Discussion
4.1Metacognitive Reading Strategies Frequently Used by the Students………… 4.2Metacognitive Reading Strategies Used to Answer Questions in Reading
TOEFL Test Materials………..………. 4.3 The Reasons of Using Metacognitive Strategies ………...…………. 4.4 Chapter Summary ………
Chapter V: Conclusion and Recommendation
5.1 Conclusion……….………... 5.2 Recommendation ……….………..………...
References
Appendix I : Reading Comprehension Test Appendix II : Intervie
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
This study was intended to investigate the students’ metacognitive reading strategies in
comprehending reading test materials at one English Education Department in Bandung, West Java. This chapter describes the background of the study, the research questions and the purpose of the study. It also includes the scope of the study, the significance of the study and the clarification of terms.
1.1 Background of the Study
Reading is an important part of the four necessary language skills for acquiring knowledge and gathering information for those learning English as a second or foreign language (ESL/EFL), for academic success, and for professional development (Wei, 2005 in Aengpongpaow 2008). In the same view, Eskey (1986 in Sary, 2006: 29) and Grabe (1991 in Sary, 2006: 29) mention that the students’ ability to read and understand English texts is an
important skill in learning English as a second language around the world. Furthermore, grabe (1991 in Sary, 2006: 30) argues that “success in schools and academic institutions in often
measured by performance or strandardized examinations that involve the reading materials written in English language”.
Since the late of 1970’s, reading strategies are considered as one of the fundamental
factors that promote students’ comprehension improvement in reading (Rong&Xiaomei, 2006). Furthermore, reading strategy “is the foundation of students’ self-regulated reading” (Syafrizal,
determining his reading strategies which contribute a great deal to the reading comprehension (Wenden, 1987:11). Gardner and McIntyer (1993 in Karballaei, 2011) argue that second language proficiency is determined by situational variables, language learner characteristics, and learning strategy used.
In the context of second language learning, learners use the strategies to make learning more effective and improve comprehension. According to Singhal (2001), reading strategies “indicate how readers conceive a task and help them to understand and guide them to comprehend”. It is important for second language readers to be aware of their own
comprehension processes during reading. In order to do that, strategies are selected to assist in getting at the meaning of what they read (Singhal 2001)
From all reading strategies, metacognitive strategies are regarded as a part of the effective strategies that enhance learners’ reading ability (Cohen, 1998; Israel, 2007: 1 in Temur&Bahar,
2011). There are some theories that say like that. As previously stated by Devine (1993 in Anastasious, D &Griva, E: 2009), metacognitive strategy has been identified as a key factor in efficient reading. Furthermore, Auerbach and Paxton (1997 in Karbalaei, 2011) argue that strategic reading can only become efficient when metacognitive strategies are actively used. Then, Markam (1981 in Dhanapala, 2010) also says that metacognitive consists of self-regulatory mechanism that helps learners in effective reading. As Brown, Armbruster and Baker have argued, “metacognition plays an important role in reading” (1986: 49 in Karbalaei, 2011).
can help learners plan, organize or control, and evaluate or remedy the reading process (Cohen, 1998). In a similar vein, Brown (1994) indicates that metacognitive strategies help readers monitor and regulate their thought. These strategies are skills that can be used voluntarily and consciously and can become automatic after repeated practice. Furthermore, Anderson (2002 in Ofode, et, al., 2011) states that the use of metacognitive strategies ignite one’s thinking and can
lead to higher and better performance. Students who demonstrate a wide range of metacognitive skills perform better on examination and complete work more efficiently.
Going through literature, Mokhtari and Reichard (2002) found that the better readers use metacognitive reading strategies more often than the poor readers (cited in Dhanapala, 2010). In a similar vein, studies on learners’ metacognitive aspects of reading-strategy use have discovered
that successful readers generally display a higher degree of metacognitive, which enables them to use reading strategies more effectively and efficiently than their unsuccessful peers (Carrel, 1989; Carrell et al., 1998; Hudson, 1998; Sheorey&Mokhtari, 2001; Zhang, 2001; Zhang et al., 2008 in Zhang & Wu, 2009). In short, metacognitive strategies are effective strategy and have significant role that skilled learners use to enhance their reading ability. These strategies may help readers to clarify their understanding about the text being read.
using suitable strategies that help them process a particular text. They also search for specific information and are able to formulate questions.
Moreover, good readers adjust their strategies to the type of text and to the purpose of reading. They distinguish between important information and details as they read, and are able to use clues in the text to predict new information and relate it to previous knowledge. Research has also shown that more effective readers employ metacognitive strategies before, during and after their reading in order to enhance comprehension. In a recent study added that good readers are active participants. On the other hand, the primary difficulty for struggling readers is lack of coordinating thinking processes. Low-achieving readers need to acquire strategies that will result in comprehension, through assisting, motivating and building confidence which are essential in improving the performance of these students (Grabe&Stoller, 2002).
encouraged researcher to investigate the metacognitive reading strategy used by high and low achieving students.
Because metacognition has a crucial function in successful learning, it is essential to study about it (Livingston, 1997; Naznean, A: 2009). Knowing the students’ reading process or what reading strategy they use and how they use it when they encounter their reading difficulties can help teachers to know how to assist students to improve their abilities in reading (Aebersold& Field, 2000 in Oranpattanachai, 2010). Further, Oranpattanachi (2010) says that if a teacher knows that metacognitive strategies will help students become better learners, then the obvious classroom implication is that he or she needs to incorporate explicit teaching and implicit use of these strategies into the everyday classroom activities.
However, in the research site, there are no studies that investigate metacognitive reading strategies in the third year students of English Education Department in STKIP Siliwangi. The current study was therefore conducted with the third-year students to investigate the metacognititve reading strategies employed by high and low achieving students in comprehending reading test materials.
1.2 Research Questions
Based on the description above, the researcher processes the questions to be investigated which are formulated as follows.
1. What metacognitive reading strategies are frequently used by high and low achieving students in comprehending reading TOEFL test materials?
3. Which metacognitive reading strategies are considered the most helpful to be used by the university students especially in answering questions in reading comprehension test successfully?
4. Why do high and low achieving students employ those strategies in comprehending reading TOEFL test materials?
1.3. Purpose of the Study
1. To investigate the metacognititve reading strategies which are frequently used by high and low achieving students in comprehending reading test materials.
2. To investigate the similarities and differences of metacognitive reading strategies which are frequently used by high and low achieving students in comprehending reading test materials.
3. To investigate the metacognitive reading strategies which are considered the most helpful to be used by the university students especially in answering questions in reading comprehension test.
4. To investigate the students’ reasons in using those reading strategies to comprehend reading test materials.
1.4 The Scope of the Study
by the university students especially in answering questions in reading comprehension test and the reasons why they used those strategies.
The study was focused on the metacognitive reading strategies based on the classification of Cohen (1998) and Kummin&Rahman (2010) who used the theoretical foundation based on the well known classifications of Adamson (1990, 1992), Block (1986, 1992), Carrel (1989) and O’Malley and Chamot (1990). They are previewing, repetition, self-questioning, self-monitoring,
problem solving, paraphrasing, using contextual clues, skimming, comparison & contrast to L1 domain, picking out key words, looking specific for purposes, visualizing, using background knowledge, translation, summarizing, and self-evaluating.
1.5.Significance of the Study
The findings obtained from this study provide information about the metacognitive reading strategies which were used by high and low achieving students in comprehending reading test materials. Such information can be used as a guideline for teachers to find good technique for teaching effective reading.
Theoretically, this study is expected to give contribution to the field of teaching reading comprehension in university. Hopefully, the study is valuable for lecturers in teaching reading program to the students, and for students of English Education Program especially when dealing with the text they read to enhance reading comprehension. Finally, the study is expected to enrich the literature review for other researchers who want to conduct the study of the same field interest. The results of this study can also be used as reference to compare and support the results of further study.
1.6. Definition of Key Terms
There are some terms used in this study as follows:
1. Reading is an active cognitive process of interacting with print and monitory comprehension to build up meaning (Carrel, 1989)
2. Reading strategy is the mental activity that readers use in order to construct meaning from a text (N. J Anderson et al., 1991; Devine, 1993; Hosenfeld et al., 1981 in Aebersold&Field, 1997).
3. Reading strategies involve ways of processing text which will vary with the nature of the text, the reader’s purpose and the context of situation (Wallace, 1992
in Torkanmani, 2010.).
4. Metacognition is defined as knowledge about knowledge or thinking about thinking. It refers to one’s knowledge concerning one’s own cognitive processes
5. Metacognitive strategies are higher executive skills that may entail planning for, monitoring, or evaluating the success of a learning activity (Brown, 1994).
6. Metacognitive reading strategies refer to the strategies that are used to ensure or evaluate one’s understanding of the text (Livingston, 1997; Dhanapala: 2010). It
also occurs when cognitions fails (Livingston, 1997; Cohen, 1998)
7. Reading comprehension is defined as “a process of making sense of written ideas through meaningful interpretation and interaction with language” (Anderson &
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
This chapter discusses the method of the study which is related to the research design. This study was intended to investigate metacognitive reading strategies which were employed by the students in comprehending reading materials and the metacognitive reading strategies which were considered the most helpful to be developed by the university students especially in answering questions in reading comprehension test as stated in chapter I. The discussions in this chapter are focused on research site, participants, data collection and data analysis.
3.1 The Research Design 3.1.1. Research Site
The study was conducted at one English Education Department in Cimahi. It was chosen as the setting of the study because it was easy to get the access and communicate with the participants involved in this study.
3.1.2 Research participants.
The participants were categorized into high achieving students and low achieving students. The categorization of high and low achieving students was derived from the students’
GPA scores in Reading I, Reading II and Reading III.
3.2. Data Collection
Historically, metacognitive strategy use in young children has been very difficult to assess because some cognitive knowledge and processes are tacit and inaccessible (McTavish, 2008). Further, McTavish (2008) says that educators have used a variety of tools to access strategy use in young children. These methods include selfreport surveys, interviews, think‐aloud protocols, and stimulated recall (cited in McTavish, 2008). Moreover, it is essential to note that in qualitative research the use of multiple methods is highly recommended because one mthod yields different types of information from another on the same event (Kusumarasdyati, 2006). Therefore, this study used triangulation in order to collect the data. They are elaborated detailed as below.
3.2.1. Observations through Think-Aloud Sessions
The first method for data collection was observing all the participants through think-aloud sessions. Olson et al., (1984) state that using think-think-aloud technique is one of the most effective ways to assess higher-level thinking processes and that it could also be used to study individual differences in performing the same task (cited in Charters, 2003).
the same questions as the ones she used in the interview to ask the participants to explain what their reading strategies were, how they used them, and why they chose a particular strategy.
In the think-aloud session, the participants were asked to think aloud in front of tape recorder as they read the text and did the test. There were three texts given adopted from Longman Preparation Course for the TOEFL Test (Phillips, 2000). The test of TOEFL was chosen under consideration that the validity of reliability of the test has been testified.
The texts were chosen after the level of difficulty in each text was analyzed according to Fry system. Fry readability test for level of the text states that if the length of words and sentences is about fewer than 5.5 and above 160, the text belongs to university text book; meanwhile, if the length of words and sentences is about fewer than 7.1 and under 160, the text belongs to secondary text book; however, if the length of words and sentences is above 7.1 but under 140, the text belongs to elementary text book (Anne, 2011)
As the results of Fry readability test for the three texts chosen in the present study, text 1 has 3.15 sentences per 100 words and 181 syllables per 100 words; text 2 has 4.2 sentences per 100 words and 161 syllables per 100 words; and text 3 has 4.3 sentences per 100 words and 188 syllables per 100 words. This means that the three texts used for TAPs procedure in the present study are valid and reliable to be the instruments.
The level of the three texts was divided into the easy, middle and difficult texts. The text consists of 25 multiple-choice items including the questions about the idea of the passage, directly answered questions, indirectly answered questions, vocabulary questions, and overall review questions.
and 21. Then, questions dealing with indirectly answered questions are available at number 1, 3, 7, 16, 17, and 23. Meanwhile, being greater part among the 25 items, the vocabulary questions are available at question number 10, 12, 14, 15, 18, 20, 22, and 24. Finally, the overall review questions can be found in question number 5, 6, and 25.
The Think-Aloud Protocol process took duration of 36 minutes for each respondent. They were given eleven minutes to finish every text under consideration the calculation of time in the real TOEFL test for every reading text is seven minutes and five minutes additional time upon the conversation with the researcher (Anne, 2011). Furthermore, the researcher interrupted every time the respondent answered the items with the purpose to make it clear those were not recorded by the audio-tape recorder as well as to make sure the strategy used by the respondent as reference in data analysis later. Then, think-aloud protocols were analyzed qualitatively. First of all the reading strategies used by the participants were identified. Then, the protocols were transcribed and coded to analyze the metacognitive reading strategies used and their contribution to help students grasp the understanding of the texts.
However, as Ericsson and Simon (1980) stress, Think-Aloud data from working memory will always be incomplete and exclude a number of thought processes which are not held in working memory long enough to be expresses verbally (cited in Charters, 2003). Yet in this research study, some of the participants had difficulty with Think Alouds. Stratman and Hamp-Lyons (1994) call it the “reactivity problem”. This is the notion that something can happen when
participants are required to do Think-Alouds while carrying out a task. They suggest there are five factors that may cause reactivity in concurrent verbal protocols:
4. learning that occurs because thinking out loud increases aubjects’ critical attention to their activities; and
5. direct or indirect experimenter influence through verbal or noverbal cues (Stratman&Hamp-Lyons, 1994:95 cited in Branch, 2000)
Because of the limitation of Think-Aloud Protocols, it is needed to obtain the data from other methods providing valuable resources to validate the results of the main method. Moreover, it is essential to note that in qualitative research the use of multiple methods is highly recommended because one mthod yields different types of information from another on the same event (Kusumarasdyati, 2006). Therefore, this study also employed interview and reading journals.
3.2.2. Interview
Qi (1998) suggests that a follow-up interview may also allow the participants to validate the researchers’ interpretation of their think-aloud utterances; this would be particularly important when some of those utterances may be in the participants’ first language (cited in
Charters, 2003). Qualitative research interviews focus on “understanding the complexity of human world by means of conversations” (Wang, 2002). This technique is a powerful
investigative tool and helps researchers produce very rich and valuable data (Wang, 2002). It facilitates access to peoples’ experiences and their conceptions of experiences. Furthermore,
interviews help the participants feel confident in providing information and assist a researcher in approaching the participants’ cognitive reading process. As a result, in this study, interviewing
strategies of the participants. The participants of the study are interviewed on their everyday use of metacognitive reading strategies by being asked 16 open-ended interview questions as guidelines. Open-ended question permits the persons being interviewed to respond in their own terms (Patton, 1987:122).
The interviewers in this study were 20 third year students which were categorized into high and low achieving students. The researcher used tape recorder to record the data from interviews because a tape recorder is a part of the indispensable equipment of evaluators using qualitative method (Patton, 1987:137). The researcher also used note-taking during the interview process. It is also in line with Patton (1987) who states that when a tape recorder is being used during the interview, notes will consist of primarily of key phrases, list of major points made by the respondents, and the key terms or words shown quotation marks that capture the interviewee’s own language (Patton, 1987:138). All data were transcribed by the researcher
immediately after each interview. To prevent any ambiguities in the transcription, the researcher asked the participants to clarify the data over the phone.
3.2.3. Journal Entries
3.3. Data Analysis
Coding is an effective method to analyze the data of verbal protocols such as interviews and observations (Green, 1998 in Aegpongpaowa, 2008). Further, he said that coding is “the
relationship between what are termed task-independent process categories and performance on the task in question”
The data collected for this study were coded into three parts: the metacognititve reading strategies which were frequently employed by high and low achieving students in comprehending reading materials, the metacognitive reading strategies which were considered the most helpful to be developed by the university students especially in answering questions in reading comprehension test., and the reasons why they used the strategy.
3.4. Chapter Summary
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter presents the conclusions of the research findings based on the questions proposed in chapter one and some recommendations. The discussions are divided into two parts. The first part concerns with conclusions and the second part deals with recommendations of the study.
5.1 Conclusions
This study investigated metacognitive reading strategies which were frequently employed by high and low achieving students in comprehending reading materials and the metacognitive reading strategies which were considered the most helpful to be used by the university students especially in answering questions in reading comprehension TOEFL test also the reasons why they used the strategies. The result of this study shows that high and low achieving students employed the same metacogntive reading strategies. They were repetition, problem solving, using prediction and contextual clues, skimming, background knowledge, and translation.
background knowledge strategy, low achieving students received the given information passively and decode the text in small units without making the effort to guess the unstated facts and implied meanings. While, most of the high achieving students were actively combine their relative background knowledge and their own experience with the text.
Further, most of the high achieving students said that they translated sentence by sentence. They read throughout a paragraph and summarized into Bahasa the overall meaning of what they had read. On the contrary, most of the low achieving students translated the text word by word. The results show that low achieving students could not use the strategy appropriately. Then, in term of difficulties of the text, the more difficult the text is, the more repetation, problem solving, and translation strategies the students used.
Then, there are three metacognitive reading strategies considered the most helpful to be used by the university students especially in answering questions in reading comprehension test successfully. First, skimming is the most helpful strategy to answer the questions about the idea of the pessage and overall review questions. Second, looking for specific purposes is the most helpful strategy to answer the questions dealing with directly answered questions. Finally, prediction & contextual clues is the most helpful strategy to answer the questions dealing with indirectly answered questions and vocabulary questions.
use reading strategies more effectively and efficiently than their unsuccessful peers (Carrell, 1989; Carrell et al., 1998; Hudson, 1998; Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001; Zhang, 2001; Zhang et al., 2008 in Zhang & Wu, 2009). Moreover, the findings of O’Malley,
Chamot, Stewner-Manzanares, and Kupper & Russo in1985 indicate that “higher level students reported greater use of metacognitive strategies (that is strategies used by students to manage their own learning), leading the researchers to conclude that the more successful students are probably able to exercise greater metacognitive control over their learning” (cited in Torkamani, 2010: 48).
Finally, based on the data, there are some reasons why the students used the strategy. It indicates that the students employed metacognitive strategies because: (a) it helps them to clarify their understanding about the text, (b) it is easier to answer the questions, (c) it is easier to know the main idea of the text, and (d) it helps the students to solve their problems in reading.
5.2. Recommendations
Based on the findings of the study, the researcher gives some recommendations that can potentially increase the students’ ability in comprehending
reading materials. The recommendations are aimed for further research, English teacher and the university.
Besides, it is also expected to develop the awareness of reading strategies to enhance university students reading comprehension, it is recommended to identify first students’ awareness of good reading strategies and what strategies they have
already employed. This can help to think further what treatment should be conducted for student’s success in continuing their academic studies especially in the reading
comprehension program.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aebersold, Jo Ann and Lee Field, Mary. (1997). From Reader to Reading Teacher: Issues and Strategies for Second Language Classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press
Aegpongpaowa. (2008). Qualitative Investigation Of Metacognitive Strategies In Thai Students’
English Academic Reading. Available online at
http://thesis.swu.ac.th/swuthesis/Eng%28M.A.%29/Orranuch_A.pdf. (Current as of January 2012)
Alderson, J Charles. (2000). Assessing Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Alexander, J. Estill. (1988). Teaching Reading. New York. Scot, Forestman Company Alexander, J. Estill. (1989). Teaching Reading. Boston: Scott, Foresman and Company.
Alwasilah, A. C. (2009). Pokoknya Kualitatif. Dasar-dasar Merancang dan Melakukan Penelitian Kualitatif. Jakarta: Dunia Pustaka Jaya.
Anne, R.S. (2011). A Study On The Use Of Cognitive Reading Strategies Among University Students (A Case Study At A University In Garut, West Java). Unpublished thesis at Indonesia University of Education. Bandung
Anderson, J. Neil. (1999). Exploring Second language Reading: Issues and Strategies. Brigham Young University: Newbury House Teacher Development.
Anderson, R. C and Pearson, P.D., (1984). A Schema-Theoritic View of Basic Processes in Reading Comprehension. In Carrell, P.L. et al. 1988. Interactive Approach to Second Language Reading. New York. Cambridge University Press.
Anastasious, D & Griva, E (2009). The Awareness of Reading Strategy Use and Reading Comprehension among Poor and Good Readers. Available at http://ilkogretim-online.org.tr. (Current as of May 2012)
Aziz, et.al. (2011). The Reading Strategies Awareness among English as a Second Language (ESL) Learners in Malaysia’s University. Available online at http://www.beta- iatefl.org/822/blog-publications/meta-cognitive-strategies-foreign-language-academic-reading-eight-case-studies/. (Current as of April 2012)
Blachowicz, C. & Ogle, D. (2008). Reading Comprehension. Second Edition. New York: The Guilford Press
Branch, J.L. (2000). The Trouble With Think Alouds: Generating Data Using Concurrent
Verbal Protocols. Availabe online at
Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. Englewood: Prentice Hall Regents
Carrell, P.L. (1989). Metacognitive Awareness and Second Language Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Charters, E. (2003). The Use of Think-Aloud Methods in Qualitative Research An Introduction to
Think-Aloud Methods. Available online at
http://www3.ed.brocku.ca/ojs/index.php/brocked_archived/article/viewFile/180/227 . (Current as of October 2012).
Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies for Learning and Using a Second Language. New York: Longman.
Dhanapala, K.V. (2010). Sri Lankan University Students' Metacognitive Awareness Of L2
Reading Strategies. Available online at
http://ir.lib.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/metadb/up/kiyo/AN10482914/JIDC_16-1_65.pdf. (Current as of April 2012) Dohrman & Montes. (2007). Metacognitive Strategies. Available online at
www.delinguis.unam.mx/.../No_05_Art_03. (Current as of April2012)
Farsani, et, al. (2011). Metacognitive Awareness Of Reading Strategies: A Triangulated Study Of
Iranian EFL Learners. Available online at
http://www.ipedr.com/vol26/49-ICLLL%202011-L10070.pdf. (Current as of January 2012)
Haris, A. J. & Sipay, E. R. (1980). How to increase reading ability: A guide to a developmental and remedial methods. New York: Longman.
Harrison, C. (2004). Understanding Reading Development. Available online at
Jennings, J.H. at al. (2006) Reading Problems. 5th Edition. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. Kabilan, et, al., (2006). Metacognitive Reading Strategies of Good Malaysian Chinese Learners.
Available online at www.melta.org.my. (Current as of May 2012)
Karballaei. (2011). Editoril, Metacognition and Reading Comprehension. Available online at
https://www.google.co.id/#hl=id&output=search&sclient=psy-Koda, K. (2005). Insights into Second Language Reading. A Cross-Linguistics Approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kummin, A & Rahman, S. (2010). Meta-Cognitive Strategies in Foreign Language Academic Reading: Eight Case Studies. Available online at http://www.beta-iatefl.org/822/blog- publications/meta-cognitive-strategies-foreign-language-academic-reading-eight-case-studies/ (Current as of May 2012)
Kusumarasdyati. (2006). Virtue and Vice of Verbal Reports as a Research Method. Available online at http://www.aare.edu.au/06pap/kus06119.pdf. (Current as of October 2012) Lavadenz, M. (2003). Think-Aloud Protocols: Teaching Reading Preocesses to Young Bilingual
Students. Available online at http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/0314lavandez.html .(Current as of October 2012)
Li, fenfang, (2010). A Study of English Reading Strategies Used by Senior Middle School Students. Available online at www.ccsenet.org/ass. (Current as May 2012)
Livingston, Jennifer. A. (1997). Metacognition : An Overview. Available online at http://gse.buffalo.edu/fas/shuell/cep564/metacog.htm. (Current as of October 2012)
Mctavish, M. (2008). “What Were You Thinking?”: The Use of Metacognitive Strategy During Engagement With Reading Narrative and Informational Genres. Available online at http://www.csse-scee.ca/CJE/Articles/FullText/CJE31-2/CJE31-2-mctavish.pdf. (Current as of October 2012)
Mohamed, et, al. (2006). Metacognitive Reading Strategies Of Good Malaysian Chinese
Learners. Available online at
http://www.melta.org.my/modules/tinycontent/Dos/MuhammadKamarulKabilan.pdf. (Current as of October 2012)
Mokhtari, K. & Reichard, C.A. (2002). “Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading
strategies.” Journal of Educational Psychology. Available online at
http://www.readingonline.org/articles/handbook/pressley/index.html. (Current as of June 2012)
National Capital Language Resource Center (NCLRC). (n.d.). The essentials of language teaching. Available online at http://nclrc.org/essentials. (Current as of January 2012)
Naznean, A. (2009). Metacognition and Language learning. Available online at http://www.upm.ro/facultati_departamente/stiinte_litere/conferinte/situl_integrare_europe ana/Lucrari3/engleza/75_Adrian%20Naznean%20Metacognition%20and%20Language% 20Learning.pdf. Current as of June 2012)
Nunan, D. (1990). Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Australia: Cambridge University Press.
Nuttal, C. (1996). Teaching Reading Skills in a Foreign Language. London: Heinemann Education Books Ltd.
O’Malley, J. M. & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ofodu, et, al. (2011). Assessing ESL Students' Awareness And Application Of Metacognitve
Strategies in Comprehending Academic Materials. Available online at
http://jeteraps.scholarlinkresearch.org/articles/Assessing%20ESL%20Students%20Aware nes%20And%20Application%20Of%20Metacognitive%20Strategies%20In%20Compreh ending%20Academic%20Materials.pdf. (Current as of January 2012)
Oranpattanachi. (P. 2010). Perceived Reading Strategies Used By Thai Pre-Engineering
Students. Available online at
http://www.journal.au.edu/abac_journal/2010/may2010/article3.pdf (Current as of May 2012)
Oxford, R L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies : What Every Teacher Should Know. New York: Newbury House Publishers
Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to Use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation. London: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Paris, G Scott. (2002). Assessment of Reading. Available online at http://www.literacyclopedia.ca/index.php?fa. (Current as of May 2012)
.
Pressley, Michael. (2000). A Focus on Reading Comprehension Strategy Instruction. Available online at http://www.readingonline.org/articles/handbook/pressley/index.html. (Current as of May 2010)
Philips, Deborah. (2000). Longman Preparation Course for the TOEFL Test. London: Longman. Richards, J. and Nunan, D. (1990) Second Language Teacher Education. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Sary, F.M. (2006). Teacher’s Strategies in Teaching English as a Foreign Language to Primary School Studies. Unpublished thesis at Indonesia University of Education. Bandung
Singhal, M. (2001). Teaching Reading Comprehension Skills Essay. Available on line at: http://www.essaytown.com/topics/teaching_reading_comprehension_skils_essays_papers .html (Current as of May 2012)
Singhal, Meena. (2001). Reading Proficiency, Reading Strategies, Metacognitive Awareness and
L2 Readers. Available online
at:http://www.readingmatrix.com/articles/singhal/article.pdf. (Current as of April 2012) Smith, Frank. (1988). Understanding Reading: a psycholinguistic analysis of reading and
learning to read. 4th Edition. New Jersey: Lawrence Erbaum Associates Inc., Publishers.
Snow, C.E. (2002). Reading for Understanding: Toward a Research and Development Program in Reading Comprehension. Santa Monica: RAND Education. Available online athttp://thesis.swu.ac.th/swuthesis/Eng%28M.A.%29/Orranuch_A.pdf. (Current as of January 2012)
Syafrizal. (2000). The Correlation between Students’ Reading-Related Language Learning Strategies and Their Reading Achievement. Unpublished Thesis at the Post Graduate Studies, English Education Program, Indonesia University of Education.
Tankersley, Karen.(2003). The Treads of Reading: Strategies for Literacy Development. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tarkomani, H.T. (2010). On the Use of Metacognitive Strategies by Iranian EFL Learners in Doing Various Reading Tasks across Different Proficiency Levels. Available online at http://www.ijls.net/volumes/volume4issue1/tahamtani1.pdf. (Current as of July 2012) Temur & Bahar. (2011). Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies of Turkish Learners
who Learn English as a Foreign Language. Available online at
http://www.ozelacademy.com/EJES_v3n2_21.pdf. (Current as of January 2012)
Tinker, A. Miles & McCollough, .M.C.(1975). Teaching Elementary Reading. 4th Eds. New Jersey: Prentice- Hall, Inc.
Torkanmani, H.T. (2010). On the Use of Metacognitive Strategies by Iranian EFL Learners in Doing Various Reading Tasks Acrooss Different Proficiency Levels. Available online at http://www.ijls.net/volumes/volume4issue1/tahamtani1.pdf. (Current as of January 2012) Vianty, M. (2007). The Comparison of Students’ Use of Metacognitive Reading Strategies
between Reading in Bahasa Indonesia nad in English. Available online at http://iej.com.au. (Current as June 2012).
Wang, Y. (2002). Children Attitudes toward Reading and Their Literacy Development. Available online at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_mofcg/is-2-27/ai-63365166. (Current as of May 2012).
Walpole, S. & McKenna, M.C. (2007). Differentiated Reading Instruction Strategies for Primary Grades. New York: The Guilford Publication, Inc.
Weaver, C. (1994). Reading Process and Practice. Company New York : From socio psycholinguistics to whole language.
Wenden, A. Rubin, J. (1987). Learners Strategies in Language Learning. London: Prentice/Hall International.
Zhang & Wu. (2009). Chinese Senior High School EFL Students’ Metacognitive Awareness and
Reading-Strategy Use. Available online at
