TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
DECLARATION... i
PREFACE ... ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... iv
ABSTRACT ... vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS ... vii
LIST OF TABLES ... xi
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of the Study ... 1
1.2 Research Questions ... 3
1.3 Purposes of the Study... 4
1.4 Significance of the Study ... 4
1.5 Scope of the Study ... 5
1.6 Definition of Key Terms ... 5
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Reading and Purposes of Reading ... 9
2.2 Models of Reading ... 11
2.3 Reading Strategies Used by Good Readers ... 13
2.4 Cognitive Reading Strategies ... 19
2.4.1 Resourcing ... 22
2.4.2 Repetition ... 22
2.4.3 Grouping ... 23
2.4.4 Deduction ... 23
2.4.5 Imagery ... 24
2.4.6 Getting the Idea Quickly ... 24
2.4.7 Elaboration ... 26
2.4.8 Inferencing ... 28
2.4.9 Note-Taking ... 28
2.4.10 Summarizing ... 29
2.5 Previous Studies in Reading Strategies... 29
2.5.2 Ghonsooly&Eghtesadee (2006) ... 33
2.5.3 Hamdan, et al (2010) ... 35
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1 Research Design ... 37
3.2 Restatement of Research Problems ... 37
3.3 Participants ... 38
3.4 Instruments ... 39
3.5 Method of Data Collection and Analysis ... 39
3.5.1 Questionnaire ... 39
3.5.2 Thinking-Aloud Protocols (TAPs) ... 41
CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDINGS 4.1 Cognitive Reading Strategies Frequently Used by the Students ... 44
4.1.1 Data from Questionnaire ... 45
4.1.2 Data from Thinking-Aloud Protocols (TAPs) ... 52
in Reading Comprehension Test Successfully ... 54
4.2.1 Cognitive Reading Strategies Used to Identify the
Topic and the Main Idea of the Passage ... 56
4.2.2 Cognitive Reading Strategies Used to Guess the
Meaning of the Unknown Words ... 58
4.2.3 Cognitive Reading Strategies Used to Answer
Questions Dealing With Reading Comprehension... 60
4.2.4 Cognitive Reading Strategies Used to Understand
What Implies in the Text or Infer from the Text .... 61
4.2.5 Cognitive Reading Strategies Used to Predict
the Preceding Paragraph ... 63
4.2.6 Cognitive Reading Strategies Used to Identify the
Tone of the Passage ... 63
4.2.7 Cognitive Reading Strategies Used to Analyze
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusions ... 66
5.2 Recommendations ... 68
BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 71
APPENDIX 1 Questionnaire ... 80
APPENDIX 2 Result of TAPs ... 82
APPENDIX 3 Reading Comprehension Test ... 258
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
In this introductory chapter, the background to the present study is provided along
with a brief theoretical overview. This chapter also formulates the research
problems into the proposed research questions that the study aims to answer. The
scope of the study and the contribution the study makes to the field of educational
studies are furthermore included.
1.1Background of the Study
This study is concerned with investigating cognitive reading strategies used by
first year EFL students in a university in Garut. It is commonly known that
reading is an important skill in learning a language. The requirement of being
knowledgeable in this global era can be fulfilled by reading. As stated by Wallace
(1992), reading serves the wider role of extending our general knowledge of the
world. This is also supported by Hood et al (2005) who state that the ability to
read well in English will influence learning potential in all other areas. This can be
fulfilled by the use of learning strategies which can also be applied in reading.
There are two kinds of learning strategies which can also be applied in reading,
i.e. direct strategies and indirect strategies (Oxford, 1990). Direct strategies
Meanwhile, indirect strategies are composed of metacognitive strategies, affective
strategies and social strategies. Among these strategies, cognitive strategies and
metacognitive strategies are the most popular strategies used in reading (see
Richards, 1987 in Richards, 1990; Wenden & Rubin, 1987; Ozek&Civelek, 2006;
Ghonsooly&Eghtesadee, 2006; Ming Xu, 2007, and Hamdan et al, 2010).
Metacognitive strategies in reading identified by Oxford (1990) are overviewing
and linking with already known material, paying attention, finding out about
language learning, organizing, setting goals and objectives, identifying the
purpose of a language task, planning for a language task, seeking practice
opportunities, self-monitoring, and self-evaluating. Meanwhile, cognitive
strategies in reading identified by Oxford (1990) are repeating, getting the idea
quickly (skimming and scanning), using resources for receiving and sending
messages, reasoning deductively, analyzing expressions, analyzing contrastively,
translating, transferring, taking notes, summarizing and highlighting.
The cognitive strategies mentioned above are also in line with those identified by
O’Malley&Chamot (1990) which include resourcing, repetition, grouping,
deduction, imagery, keyword method, elaboration, transfer, inferencing,
note-taking, and summarizing. The use of cognitive strategies in reading can help
someone to be a proficient reader. This is supported by the theories of cognitive
reading strategies and the results of the study conducted by Ozek&Civelek (2006),
Since the number of research on cognitive reading strategies is still rare in
Indonesia, this study is important to do. Therefore, to investigate university
students’ reading strategies has raised the researcher’s interest. The previous
studies become parts of theoretical foundations the researcher uses in this study
which is focused on cognitive reading strategies frequently used by university
students to enhance their reading comprehension. In addition, this study also
attempts to find out which cognitive reading strategies considered the most
helpful to be developed by the university students especially when they answer
questions in reading comprehension test successfully.
1.2Research Questions
Based on the description above, the researcher processes the problems to be
investigated which are formulated as follows.
1. Which cognitive reading strategies are frequently used by the university
students to enhance their reading comprehension?
2. Which cognitive reading strategies are considered the most helpful to be
developed by the university students especially in answering questions in
1.3Purposes of the Study
In this very limited study, the study attempts to find out the answers to the
problem stated above. The purposes could be classified into specific objectives as
follows.
1. To investigate cognitive reading strategies frequently used by the
university students to enhance their reading comprehension
2. To find out cognitive reading strategies considered the most helpful to be
developed by the university students especially in answering questions in
reading comprehension test successfully
1.4Significance of the Study
From professional aspect, 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. In addition, the study is also expected to develop the
awareness of reading strategies to enhance university students reading
comprehension.
Then, from practical aspect, the findings are expected to have some practical
implications in future instruction to help the students to improve their reading
comprehension. By knowing what reading strategies students employ, lecturer can
addition, the findings of the study can give information to reading lecturers to
teach cognitive reading strategies considered the most helpful to be developed by
the students in order that they can be good readers.
Finally, from theoretical aspect, 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.
1.5Scope of the Study
Due to the limitation of time, cost and energy in conducting the study, the scope
of the study was delimited into cognitive reading strategies used by the first year
students of STKIP Garut English program in their academic studies.
1.6Definition of Key Terms
There are some terms used in this study as follows:
1. Reading is a multifaceted process involving word recognition,
comprehension, fluency, and motivation (Leipzig, 2001).
2. Reading is a complex process of problem solving in which the reader
works to make sense of a text not just from the words and sentences on the
page but also from the ideas, memories, and knowledge evoked by those
3. Reading strategy is the mental activity that readers use in order to
construct meaning from a text (see N. J Anderson et al., 1991; Devine,
1993; Hosenfeld et al., 1981 in Aebersold&Field, 1997).
4. 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).
5. Cognitive strategies are specific learning tasks which involve more direct
manipulation of the learning material itself (Brown, 1994).
6. Cognitive strategies are strategies in which learner interacts with the
material to be learned by manipulating it mentally (as in making mental
images, or elaborating on previously acquired concepts or skills) or
physically (as in grouping items to be learned in meaningful categories, or
taking notes on important information to be remembered
(O’Malley&Chamot, 1990).
7. Cognitive reading strategies such as getting the idea quickly help learners
locate the main idea through skimming or the key points of interest
through scanning (Oxford, 1990)
8. Reading comprehension is the process of constructing meaning from text
means extracting the required information from it as efficiently as possible
(see Grellet, 1986; Lenz, 2005).
9. Reading comprehension is the ability to understand information in a text
10.Reading comprehension is a process in which a reader constructs meaning,
while or after, interacting with text through the combination of prior
knowledge and previous experience, information in the text, the stance she
or he takes in relationship to the text, and immediate, remembered, or
anticipated social interactions and communication (Rudell et al, 1994)
1.7 Outline of the Thesis
The subsequent chapters are framed as follows. Chapter 2 explores relevant
literature concerning the theories that have given shape to this study, particularly
to do with reading purposes, the models of reading, reading strategies used by
good readers, cognitive reading strategies and previous studies in reading
strategies. Chapter 3 outlines the design and methodology of the study. This
includes the research design, restatement of the problems, data collection method,
and data analysis. Chapter 4 presents the discussion of research findings which are
dealing with cognitive reading strategies frequently used by the students in their
academic studies and cognitive reading strategies used by the students to answer
questions in reading comprehension test successfully. This chapter also offers
further discussion analysis for cognitive reading strategies used by the students
when they should identify the topic or the main idea of the passage, guess the
meaning of the unknown word, comprehend the text, understand what implies in
the text or infer from the text, predict the preceding paragraph, identify the tone of
5, providing conclusions drawn from discussion in chapter 4 as well as
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the methodology of the study. It describes the research
design, restatement of research problems, participants, instruments, and data
collection method and analysis.
3.1 Research Design
This study used a survey which belongs to the descriptive research as findings are
based on responses given by the respondents (Goodwin&Laura, 1996). This
research design is consistent with the research design used by Ozek&Civelek’s
(2006) previous study. The descriptive quantitative procedure was used to identify
the students’ cognitive reading strategies as proposed by Ozek&Civalek (2006) as
the main theory.
3.2 Restatement of Research Problems
This study attempts to answer problems due to cognitive reading strategies used
by university students formulated in the following research questions. First, the
study mainly explores cognitive reading strategies frequently used by the
university students to enhance their reading comprehension. Second, it also aims
developed by the university students especially in answering questions in reading
comprehension test successfully.
3.3 Participants
This study was conducted at STKIP Garut, one of Universities in Garut. The
participants of this study were 76 first year students of English Education
Department who participated in the study upon the researcher’s giving
information on the nature of the study. The students of English Education
Department were chosen as they were considered to have a potential to apply the
strategies in their academic studies later as they are studying Reading III, Reading
IV and Extensive Reading Program the next years. The participants involved in
this study had taken the subjects Reading I and Reading II offered in the
department, which mostly deal with skimming, scanning, and reading for
comprehension the text by checking true-false statement.
There were 76 students chosen to fill in the questionnaire using simple random
sampling. Therefore, everybody had the same chance to be the respondents
because “subjects are selected from the population so that all members of the
population have the same probability of being chosen” (McMillan&Schumacher,
2001). However, only 15 students were involved in think-aloud component of the
study. They were selected using purposive sampling in which the researcher
selected “particular elements from the population that would be representative or
fifteen students represented three categories as high achiever, middle achiever,
and low achiever derived from five classes. The categorization of high achiever,
middle achiever and low achiever was derived from the students’ GPA scores in
Reading I and Reading II program as well as by consulting to the academic staff.
3.4 Instruments
This section discusses the instruments used to collect the data. The data were
taken from questionnaire and TAPs (Thinking-aloud Protocols) administered to
the respondents. Meanwhile, data taken from the adapted questionnaire of Yesim
Ozek and Muharrem Civalek (2006) in their research entitled, “A Study on the
Use of Cognitive Reading Strategies by ELT Students” were used as comparison
and support to the result of the study.
3.5 Method of Data Collection and Analysis
This section discusses the research procedures including how data were collected
and how the data collected were analyzed.
3.5.1 Questionnaire
The questionnaire was used as one of instruments to collect the data. It was
distributed to the respondents in order to collect information about their reading
strategies to enhance their reading comprehension in their daily reading activity in
10-15th of June 2010. It was composed of 30 closed-ended items. The close-ended
instrument was chosen to free respondents from the stress of having to express
their opinions and created an unthreatening ambience for the respondents to give
responses. “Closed form items are best for obtaining demographic information
and data that can be categorized easily.” (McMillan&Schumacher, 2001).
The questionnaire used consists of 30 items which represent good reading
strategies and poor reading strategies based on the theories referred to. (see
O’Malley&Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990; Ozek&civalek, 2006). There were 22
items of good reading strategies in which 17 items belong to cognitive reading
strategies. These 17 items can be grouped in under 10 categories: resourcing,
repetition, grouping, deduction, imagery, getting the idea quickly, elaboration,
inferencing, note-taking, and summarizing. The strategies represent belong to
these categories are explained in chapter 2 section 2.4. Furthermore, complete list
of items are presented in appendix 1.
The data were described in the form of simple quantitative description; therefore,
the Likert Scale was used with the criteria exemplified in Table 3.1 below. Before
the questionnaire was administered to the respondents, it was piloted involving 10
students who were at the same grade with those who became the respondents.
Usually 4
Always 5
The students’ responses towards the 30 strategies were scored and summed. The
students’ total scores were regarded as their scores in reading strategies.
Furthermore, the scores from students’ reading strategies were calculated to find
the intensity of use of every indicator in the questionnaire. Regarding to the most
frequently used strategy responses, the scores of Usually and Always were
combined to be the scores of U+A. The combinations were made to examine the
frequency of using strategies in which the responses U+A indicated that the
students used the strategy frequently. Such combination is beneficial to measure
the students’ positive responses towards the learning strategies. The scores, at the
end, were presented in the form of percentage.
3.5.2 Thinking-Aloud Protocol (TAP)
The second instrument used in this research was Thinking-Aloud Protocol (TAP).
This instrument was used to find out cognitive reading strategies considered the
most helpful to be developed by the university students especially in answering
questions in reading comprehension test successfully. In the think-aloud session,
the participant was asked to think aloud in front of tape recorder as they read the
text and did the test. The audio-tape recorder used in this study is a Microcassette
- Corder SONY M-475. There were three texts given adopted from Longman
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.
As the results of Fry readability test for the three texts chosen in the present study,
text 1 has 5.4 sentences per 100 words and 162 syllables per 100 words; text 2 has
4.1 sentences per 100 words and 186 syllables per 100 words; and text 3 has 4.12
sentences per 100 words and 183 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.
Each text consists of 10 multiple-choice items including the questions about the
topic of the passage, main idea, guessing the meaning of a word, implicit
statement, the tone of the passage, the purpose of the text, inferring from the text
and some items related to comprehend the text.
The questions asking about the topic or main idea of the passage are available at
available at number 3, 4, 7, 13, 17 and 26. Meanwhile, being greater part among
the 30 items, the questions related to guess the meaning of the unknown words are
available at question number 2, 5, 8, 9, 14, 15, 18, 20, 22, 24, 25, and 27.
Regarding to questions require inferring from the text and to understand what
implies in the text, they can be found in questions number 6, 16, 19, 23, 28 and
30. Finally, the questions about the tone of the passage and the author’s purpose
respectively can be found in question number 10 and 29.
The Think-Aloud Protocol process took duration of 33 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 four minutes additional time upon the conversation with the
researcher. 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.
Furthermore, 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 cognitive reading strategies used and
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the discussion in previous chapter, this chapter will present conclusion
and recommendations in this study.
5.1 Conclusions
Data obtained in this study support the previous study conducted by
Ozek&Cievelek (2006) in which three similar strategies were used by the students
at high frequency level. The findings of the study shows that the students use four
strategies at high frequency level such as using the title to predict the content of
the text, guessing the meaning of a word from context, using a dictionary for
important points and considering other sentences to figure out the meaning of a
sentence. This result answers the first research question about cognitive reading
strategies which are frequently used by the students to enhance their reading
comprehension.
In addition, this study also supports previous study in that there were several
strategies need to be developed by the students since these strategies were rarely
used in their daily reading activity. These strategies are reading the first line of
every paragraph to understand what the text is about, guessing the meaning of a
word from grammatical categories, taking notes on the important points of the
some of the unknown words, recognizing organization, summarizing the main
ideas, re-reading the text to remedy comprehension failures, reading for meaning
and concentrating on meaning, and last but not least, the strategy of paraphrasing.
Nevertheless, the present study which used the data from self-reported
questionnaire can be bias in case of the participants tried to make them look
competent by giving the score as high as possible. In order to anticipate such
situation, the participants were not obliged to write their names on the
questionnaire form. Therefore, the questionnaire used in the present study
contains not only good reading strategies but also some other poor reading
strategies to avoid bias.
Meanwhile, regarding the second research question about the most helpful
cognitive reading strategies to be developed by the students especially when they
answer questions in reading comprehension test successfully, it was found that the
students who successfully answered questions in reading comprehension test, used
six cognitive reading strategies such as deduction, summarizing the main ideas,
guessing the meaning from context, elaboration, guessing the meaning from
grammatical category, and considering the other sentences in the paragraph to
figure out the meaning of a sentence.
Among those strategies used by the students as mentioned above, there are three
cognitive reading strategies considered the most helpful to be developed by the
university students especially in answering questions in reading comprehension
dealing with reading comprehension, understanding what implies in the text or
inferring from the text, identifying the tone of the passage and analyzing the
author’s purpose. Second, deduction strategy is the most helpful strategy to use
dealing with identifying the topic or the main idea of the passage, and predicting
the preceding paragraph. Third, guessing the meaning from context, which
belongs to elaboration strategy indeed, is the most helpful strategy to use dealing
with guessing the unknown word.
This is consistent with what the previous study suggested that the students have to
use some cognitive reading strategies which will help them to solve the problems
when they read a text. Ozek&Civelek (2006) referred to what stated by Carrell
(1989) who includes guessing the meaning of the unknown words from context
and considering background knowledge to the text as one of strategies which can
help readers to improve their reading ability significantly.
5.2 Recommendations
This section provides the recommendation for further studies. Under
consideration, that the present study was conducted to give contribution to the
field of teaching reading comprehension in university, further study on the same
topic of area is suggested. This kind of procedures might be carried out further by
using large group of participants in order to have a wider perspective.
It is important to note that cognitive reading strategies should be taught to
reading strategies. In other words, the lecturers need to teach the students types of
cognitive reading strategies and explain the function of each cognitive reading.
However, the lecturers should not only teach cognitive reading strategies but also
metacognitive reading strategies and other strategies considered good reading
strategies because those good reading strategies can help students to grasp the
understanding of the text they read.
Besides, the students need to know in what circumstance they should use the
strategies. For example, they should know what strategy to use when they want to
know the meaning of the unknown word without looking up in the dictionary.
Certainly, they are supposed to practice using those good strategies in reading.
Therefore, the lecturers are suggested not only to teach those good reading
strategies but also to encourage the students to use the strategies.
Since the study 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 the sake of the student’s success in continuing their academic
studies especially in the reading comprehension program.
Furthermore, for further study, it is suggested to have more items in the
self-reported questionnaire consisting good reading and poor reading strategies to
make it balance and to avoid bias in the result of the study. Finally, TAPs
difficult to analyze since they tolerate the objective observation on the students’
behavior and the mental pictures of the participants. In addition, this kind of
procedure can figure out the strategies considered the most helpful to be
developed by the students to grasp the understanding of the text they read in their
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.
Adler, C.R. 2004. Seven Strategies to Teach Students Text Comprehension. Available at http://www.readingrockets.org/article/3479. (Current as of December 2010)
Aмаndа. 2010. Inferencing Strategies in L2 Reading. An Article published in
Justspeakesl blog in April 16th, 2010. Available at http://justspeakesl.wordpress.com/2010/04/16/inferencing-strategies-in-l2-reading/. (Current as of December 2010)
Beare, Kenneth. 2011. Reading Comprehension Skills – Scanning. Available at
http://esl.about.com/od/readinglessonplan1/a/Reading-Comprehension-Skills-Scanning.htm. (Current as of January 2011)
Bell&Woodard. 1998. Reading: Strategies for Parents. Cullowhee: The Reading Center. Published at http://www.paec.org/david/reading/parents.pdf . (Current as of December 2010)
http://www.sil.org/lingualinks/literacy/referencematerials/Bibliograph yLiteracy/BloomfieldAndBarnhart1961.htm. (Current as of January 2011)
Boothe, Ken & Walter, Leah B. 1999. What is a Top-Down Reading Model?.
Available at
http://www.sil.org/lingualinks/literacy/referencematerials/glossaryofli teracyterms/WhatIsATopDownReadingModel.htm. (Current as of January 2011)
Boothe, Ken & Walter, Leah B. 1999. What is a Bottom-Up Reading Model?.
Available at
http://www.sil.org/lingualinks/literacy/referencematerials/glossaryofli teracyterms/WhatIsABottomUpReadingModel.htm. (Current as of January 2011)
Brown, H. D. 1994. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.
Brown, H. Douglas. 2001. Teaching by Principles and Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. New York: Longman.
Brown, R., Pressley, M., Van Meter, P.,& Schuder, T. 1996. A Quasi-Experimental Validation of Transactional Strategy Instruction with Low-Achieving Second Grade Students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 18-37.
Cambrooke, Kyla Chele. 2010. Tips on Note Taking from Textbooks. Available at http://www.ehow.com/list_6548642_tips-taking-textbooks.html. (Current as of January 2011)
Chorney, 2005. Interactive Reading, Early Modern Texts and Hypertext: A Lesson Understanding. An Article published at the Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 3. Available at http://www.nwp.org/cs/public/print/resource/787. (Current as of January 2011)
Dechant, Emerald. 1991.Understanding and teaching reading: An interactive model. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Available at http://www.sil.org/lingualinks/literacy/referencematerials/Bibliograph yLiteracy/Dechant1991.htm. (Current as of January 2011)
Dole, J.A., Nokes, J.D., and Drits, Dina. 2008. Cognitive Strategy Instruction. To appear in G. G. Duffy & S. E. Israel (Eds.), Handbook of research
Emilia, Emi. 2008. Menulis Tesis dan Disertasi. Bandung: Alfabeta.
Frase, Lisa. 2008. Reading Strategies Good Readers Use. An article published at
http://ezinearticles.com/?Reading-Strategies-Good-Readers-Use&id=1824654. (Current as of January 2011)
Frodesen, Jan and Holten, Christine. 2005. The Power of Context in Language Teaching and Learning. New York: Adult & Academic ESL.
Fry, Edward. 1965. Teaching Faster Reading. London: Cambridge University Press.
Ghonsooly, B&Eghtesadee, A. 2006. Role of Cognitive Style of Field-dependence/ independence in Using Metacognitive and Cognitive Reading Strategies by a Group of Skilled and Novice Iranian Students of
English Literature.
http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/Dec_06_bg&are.php. (Current as of March 2010)
Goodman, K. 1998. The Reading Process. In P.L. Carrell, J. Devine& D. E. Heskey (Eds.), Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading. (pp. 11-21). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goodwin, William L & Goodwin, Laura D . 1996. Understanding Quantitative and Qualitative Research in Early Childhood Education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Grabe, William and Stoller, Fredricka L. 2002. Teaching and Researching Reading. England: Pearson Education Limited.
Grellet, Francoise. 1986. Developing Reading Skills. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
paper available as Eric Documentation Reproduction Service No. ED 406 644. (Current as of March 2010)
Gulcat, Zeliha. 2007. Summarizing. Available at http://www.buowl.boun.edu.tr/students/summarizing/summarizing.ht m. (Current as of December 2010)
Gunning, Thomas G. 1996. Creating Reading Instruction for All Children Secon Edition. New York: Allyn and bacon Publishing Co. Inc.
Haenggi, D.,&Perfetti, C.A. 1992. Individual Differences in Reprocessing of Text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 182-192.
Hernandez, J.M. Rodriguez, and Bulnes, M.a. Guadalupe. 2009. Reading Comprehension Strategies: A Case Study in a Bilingual High School. A paper published in Universidad Nacional de Columbia: Revista Electronica Matices en Lenguas Extranjeras. Available at www.revistamatices.unal.edu.co. (Current as of December 2010)
Hood, et al. 2005. Focus on Reading. Sydney: NCELTR.
Hopkins, N. M., and Mackay, R. 1997. Good and Bad Readers: A Look at the High and Low Achievers in An ESP Canadian Studies Reading and Writing Course. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 473 – 490.
Hosenfeld, C. 1984. Case Studies of Ninth Grade Readers. In J.C. Anderson&A.H. Urquhart (Eds.), Reading in A Foreign Language (pp. 231-240). London: Longman.
http://www.sid.ir/en/VEWSSID/J_pdf/87620030107.pdf. (Current as of December 2010)
Leipzig, Diane H. 2001. What is Reading. Available at http://www.readingrockets.org/article/352. (Current as of December 2010) interdisciplinary study. New York: University Press of America.
Available at
http://www.sil.org/lingualinks/literacy/referencematerials/Bibliography Literacy/McCormickT1988.htm. (Current as of January 2011)
McMillan, James H and Schumacher, Sally. 2001. Research in Education: A Conceptual Introduction Fifth Edition. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
McNamara, Danielle S. 2007. Reading Comprehension Strategies. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ming Xu, Liu. 2007. A Comparative Study of Reading Strategies among College
Students. Jinan University Zhuhai Campus.
National Capital Language Resource Center (NCLRC). (n.d.). The essentials of language teaching. Retrieved April 23, 2007 from http://nclrc.org/essentials. (Current as of January 2011)
Nutall. 1982. Teaching Reading Skils in A Foreign Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
O’Malley, J&Chamot, A. 1990. Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R L. 1990. Language Learning Strategies : What Every Teacher Should Know. New York: Newbury House Publishers.
Ozek, Y&Civelek, M. 2006. A Study on the Use of Cognitive Reading Strategies by ELT Students. http://www.asian-efl-journal.com. (Current as of March 2010)
Pressley, Michael. 2000. Comprehension Instruction: What Works. Available at http://www.readingrockets.org/article/68. (Current as of May 2010)
Pressley, Michael. 2000. A Focus on Reading Comprehension Strategy
http://www.readingonline.org/articles/handbook/pressley/index.html. (Current as of May 2010)
Richards, Jack. 1987. A Research on Reading Strategies. Published in University of Hawaii.
Richards, Jack. 1990. Language Teaching Matrix. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Richard, C. Jack. 1997. From Reader to Reading Teacher: Issues and Strategies for SL Classroom. New York. Cambridge Language Education.
Rudell, et al. 1994. Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading: 4th Edition. Delaware: International Reading Association Inc.
Sholes, DeLene. 2009. Reading for Different Purposes. Available at http://www.suite101.com/content/reading-for-different-purposes-a91899#ixzz1C80khAaG. (Current as of January 2011)
Spires, H. A., & Donley, J. D. 1998. Prior Knowledge Activation: Inducing engagement with Informational Texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 249-260.
Wallace, Catherine. 1992. Reading. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
