xiv ABSTRACT
Dangin. 2016. Metacognitive Reading Strategies Awareness and Reading Comprehension: A Correlational Study. Yogyakarta: English Language Studies, Graduate Program, Sanata Dharma University
The present study was aimed to investigate the relationship between students’ metacognitive reading strategies awareness and reading comprehension gains. The investigation could reach students’ better reading comprehension and identify students’ awareness in metacognitive reading strategies use, such as planning, monitoring and evaluation. The investigation of metacognitive in language learning is important for the development of language learning and teaching (Chammot & O’Malley 1995).
The study applied TOEFL test in order to collect the data of students’ reading comprehension. Then the study also conducted an investigation into students’ awareness in using metacognitive reading strategies by utilizing Survey of Reading Strategies Questionnaire (SORS) developed by Mokhtary & Sheorey (2002). The questionnaire was distributed 30 junior college students of Universitas Islam Indonesia, Yogyakarta. Afterwards, the study also administered a semi-structured interview to get in-depth information related to students’ perception about metacognitive reading strategies and reading comprehension gains.
The study came up with three main results that were also in line with the proposed research questions. First result was focused on the students’ awareness about metacognitive reading strategies. The study found that the overall strategy use was rated at level medium-usage level (M = 3.45, SD = .42). Moreover, PROB strategies became the most preferred subcategories of reading strategies (M = 3.55, SD = .38) and SUP and GLOB strategies were used at medium-usage level (M = 3.45 and 3.34, SD = .46 and .39). The second result was addressed to get information about students’ reading comprehension. The result revealed that the level of students’ reading comprehension was on B1 (according to Common European framework of reference for language).
Finally, the last result was related to the correlation between students’ metacognitive reading strategies awareness and reading comprehension gains. The result reported there was positive relation between those both variables (F = 6.627, p = .002). Additionally, the study also conducted multiple regression analysis to get deeper insight of the impact of metacognitive reading strategies on reading comprehension gains. PROB strategies came to be the only independent variable that had predictive influence on students’ reading comprehension gains (t = 2.761, p = .010).
xv ABSTRAK
Dangin. 2016. Metacognitive Reading Strategies Awareness and Reading Comprehension: A Correlational Study. Yogyakarta: English Language Studies, Graduate Program, Sanata Dharma University
Penelitian ini ditujukan untuk mengulas hubungan antara kesadaran siswa tentang strategi membaca metacognitif dan pemahaman membaca. Penelitian ini diharapkan mampu memberi positif benefit kepada para pelajar di tingkat mahasiswa khusunya. Pengulasan tentang metakognitif dalam pembelajaran bahasa dinilai penting untuk perekembangan pengajaran dan pembelajaran bahasa (Chammot & O’Malley 1995).
Penelitian ini menggunakan TOEFL test untuk mengumpulkan data berkaitan dengan kemampuan membaca mahasiswa. Sedangkan untuk mengetahui tingkat kesadaran mahasiswa dalam menggunakan strategi membaca metakognitif, penelitian ini mengggunakan Survey of Reading Strategies Questionnaire yang dikembangkan oleh Mokhtary & Sheorey (2002). Selanjutnya, kuesioner didistribusikan kepada 30 responden yang berasal dari Uversitas Islam Indonesia, Yogyakarta. Penelitian ini juga menggunakan semi-structured interview untuk mendapatkan informasi mendalam terkait dengan persepsi mahasiswa tentang strategi membaca metakognitif dan kaitanya dengan pemahaman membaca.
Terdapat tiga hasil utama yang sesuai dengan perumusan masalah dalam penelitian ini. Hasil pertama berkaitan dengan tingkat kesadaran mahasiswa tentang penggunaan strategi membaca metakognitif. Penilitian ini menemukan bahwa secara keselurahan tingkat kesadaran mahasiswa berada pada tingkat menengah (M = 3.45, SD = .42). Selanjutnya, strategi membaca pada sub kategori PROB menjadi sub katogori yang paling diminati oleh mahasiswa dengan tingkat kesadaran (M = 3.55 SD = .38). Kemudian subkategori SUP dan GLOB secara berurutan menempati posisi kedua dan ketiga (M = 3.45 dan 3.34, SD = .46 dan .39). Hasil kedua ditujukan untuk mendapatkan informasi tentang pemahaman membaca mahasiswa. Hasil menunjukan bahwa tingkat pemahaman membaca siswa berada pada kategori B1 (menurut Common European framework of reference for language).
Hasil terakhir pada penelitian ini berkaitan dengan hubungan antara kesadaran mahasiswa tentang strategi membaca metacognitif dan pemahaman membaca siswa. Hasil menunjukan bahwa terdapat hubungan positif antara kedua variabel tersebut (F = 6.627, p = .002). Selanjutnya, penelitian ini juga melakukan analisa regresi berganda untuk mendapatkan informasi mendalam tentang dampak kesadaran mahasiswa tentang strategi membaca metacognitif pada pemahaman membaca mahasiswa. Hasilnya, subkategori PROB menjadi satu satunya variabel independen yang dapat memprediksi kemampuan membaca sisiwa.
Metacognitive Reading Strategies Awareness and
Reading Comprehension: A Correlational Study
A Thesis Presented to
The Graduate Program in English Language Studies
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Magister Humaniora (M.Hum.)
in English Language Studies
by
Dangin
146332031
SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA
i
Metacognitive Reading Strategies Awareness and
Reading Comprehension: A Correlational Study
A Thesis Presented to
The Graduate Program in English Language Studies
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Magister Humaniora (M.Hum.)
in English Language Studies
by
Dangin
146332031
SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Alhamdulillah, I give thanks to Allah swt who has given me his protection and
chance to conduct this thesis.
First and foremost my sincere gratitude is extended to my supervisor F.X
Mukarto, Ph.D. for guiding and being wonderful consultant at my thesis. It is with
his supervision that this work came into existence.
Besides my supervisor, I would also like to thank the rest of my thesis committee:
Dr. B.B. Dwijatmoko, M.A., Dr. J. Bismoko and Dr. E. Sunarto, M.Hum. for their
encouragments, isightful comments, and critical questions.
I am also deeply thankful to my respondents (college students of English
Department of Universitas Islam Indonesia) . I want to acknowledge and
appreciate their help and transparency during my research. Their information have
helped me complete this thesis.
I would like to thank my family who encouraged me and prayed for me
throughout the time of my research.
I would also like to thank my collegues in English Language Studies program,
Sanata Dharma University. I particularly thank you Eli, Vita, Tita, Sisilia, Indra,
Kosmas, Ruly, Pras, Anngi and Adit for your support and entertaiment.
Thank you very much, everyone!
vii
LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH ... V
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... VII
2.1.1 DEFINING METACOGNITIVE STRATEGIES ... 11
2.1.1.1 Cognition in learning process ... 12
2.1.1.5 Significances of metacognitive reading strategies ……...22
2.1.1.6 The measurements of metacognitive reading strategies awareness ………..…23
viii
2.1.2.1 Models of reading comprehension………...28
2.1.2.2 Bilingualism and reading process………....30
2.1.2.3 Measurement of reading comprehension ………32
2.1.2.4 The levels of reading comprehension ………...…..32
2.1.2.1.1 The top-down model ………....27
2.1.2.1.2 The bottom-up model………....…....28
2.1.2.1.3 The interactive model ………..…28
2.1.3 Metacognition and Reading ... 34
2.1.3.1 The role of metacognition in understanding and supporting reading comprehension ………..…..…33
2.1.3.2 Relationship between metacognitive reading strategies awareness and reading comprehension………...…………..35
2.2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 38
4.1.1 Students’ Awareness in Using Metacognitive Reading Strategies ... 49
4.1.2 Frequency of Use of the Metacognitive Strategies ... 53
4.1.3 Students’ Level of Reading Comprehension ... 54
4.1.4 Correlation Between Students’ Metacognitive Awareness and Reading Comprehension ... 56
4.2 DISCUSSION ... 59
4.2.1 Students’ awareness in using metacognitive reading strategies... 60
4.2.2 Strategies mostly and rarely used by students ... 67
4.2.3 Students’ reading comprehension score ... 69
4.2.4 Correlation between Metacognitive Reading Strategies and Reading Comprehension ... 70
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION, IMPLICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ... 78
5.1 CONCLUSION ... 78
5.2 IMPLICATIONS ... 81
ix
BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 85
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Metacognitive knowledge of strategies ……… 20
Table 2.2 A strategy evaluation matrix ……… .……….. 21
Table 2.3 Common reference of reading comprehension level……….34
Table 3.1 Frequency scales of strategy use………. ..46
Table 4.1 Descriptive statistic of overall strategy usage ………...49
Table 4.2 Problem solving strategies……….50
Table 4.3 Support reading strategies ……….………51
Table 4.4 Global reading strategies ………...………52
Table 4.5 List of frequency of use of the metacognitive setrategies……...53
Table 4.6 Statistic dataset reading comprehension score………...54
Table 4.7 Pearson correlation of students’ metacognitive reading strategies awareness and reading comprehension……...………...56
Table 4.8 Model Summary……….………57
Table 4.9 Analysis of Variance of Students’ Metacognitive reading strategies awareness and Reading Comprehension………....57
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 A componential approach to reading comprehension………27
Figure 2.2 Interactive language procesing in bilingual learners……….31
Figure 2.3 Framwork of learners’ levels ………33
Figure 2.4 Metacognitive theory and reading comprehansion………36
Figure 2.5 Theoritical framework of the study………...38
Figure 3.1 Explanatory design ………...42
xii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ANOVA : Analysis of variance
CEFRL : Common European framework of reference for language
EFL : English as forein language
ESL : English as second language
GLOB : Global reading strategies
M : Mean
MARSI : Metacognitive awareness of reaidng strategies inventory
PROB : Problem solving strategies
SD : Standart deviation
SORS : Survey of reading strategies
SUP : Global reading strategies
xiii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Survey of reading strategies (SORS)
Appendix 2 TOEFL score (Reading Comprehension)
Appednix 3 Semi-structured interview guidelines
xiv ABSTRACT
Dangin. 2016. Metacognitive Reading Strategies Awareness and Reading Comprehension: A Correlational Study. Yogyakarta: English Language Studies, Graduate Program, Sanata Dharma University
The present study was aimed to investigate the relationship between students’ metacognitive reading strategies awareness and reading comprehension gains. The investigation could reach students’ better reading comprehension and identify students’ awareness in metacognitive reading strategies use, such as planning, monitoring and evaluation. The investigation of metacognitive in language learning is important for the development of language learning and teaching (Chammot & O’Malley 1995).
The study applied TOEFL test in order to collect the data of students’ reading comprehension. Then the study also conducted an investigation into students’ awareness in using metacognitive reading strategies by utilizing Survey of Reading Strategies Questionnaire (SORS) developed by Mokhtary & Sheorey (2002). The questionnaire was distributed 30 junior college students of Universitas Islam Indonesia, Yogyakarta. Afterwards, the study also administered a semi-structured interview to get in-depth information related to students’ perception about metacognitive reading strategies and reading comprehension gains.
The study came up with three main results that were also in line with the proposed research questions. First result was focused on the students’ awareness about metacognitive reading strategies. The study found that the overall strategy use was rated at level medium-usage level (M = 3.45, SD = .42). Moreover, PROB strategies became the most preferred subcategories of reading strategies (M = 3.55, SD = .38) and SUP and GLOB strategies were used at medium-usage level (M = 3.45 and 3.34, SD = .46 and .39). The second result was addressed to get information about students’ reading comprehension. The result revealed that the level of students’ reading comprehension was on B1 (according to Common European framework of reference for language).
Finally, the last result was related to the correlation between students’ metacognitive reading strategies awareness and reading comprehension gains. The result reported there was positive relation between those both variables (F = 6.627, p = .002). Additionally, the study also conducted multiple regression analysis to get deeper insight of the impact of metacognitive reading strategies on reading comprehension gains. PROB strategies came to be the only independent variable that had predictive influence on students’ reading comprehension gains (t = 2.761, p = .010).
xv ABSTRAK
Dangin. 2016. Metacognitive Reading Strategies Awareness and Reading Comprehension: A Correlational Study. Yogyakarta: English Language Studies, Graduate Program, Sanata Dharma University
Penelitian ini ditujukan untuk mengulas hubungan antara kesadaran siswa tentang strategi membaca metacognitif dan pemahaman membaca. Penelitian ini diharapkan mampu memberi positif benefit kepada para pelajar di tingkat mahasiswa khusunya. Pengulasan tentang metakognitif dalam pembelajaran bahasa dinilai penting untuk perekembangan pengajaran dan pembelajaran bahasa (Chammot & O’Malley 1995).
Penelitian ini menggunakan TOEFL test untuk mengumpulkan data berkaitan dengan kemampuan membaca mahasiswa. Sedangkan untuk mengetahui tingkat kesadaran mahasiswa dalam menggunakan strategi membaca metakognitif, penelitian ini mengggunakan Survey of Reading Strategies Questionnaire yang dikembangkan oleh Mokhtary & Sheorey (2002). Selanjutnya, kuesioner didistribusikan kepada 30 responden yang berasal dari Uversitas Islam Indonesia, Yogyakarta. Penelitian ini juga menggunakan semi-structured interview untuk mendapatkan informasi mendalam terkait dengan persepsi mahasiswa tentang strategi membaca metakognitif dan kaitanya dengan pemahaman membaca.
Terdapat tiga hasil utama yang sesuai dengan perumusan masalah dalam penelitian ini. Hasil pertama berkaitan dengan tingkat kesadaran mahasiswa tentang penggunaan strategi membaca metakognitif. Penilitian ini menemukan bahwa secara keselurahan tingkat kesadaran mahasiswa berada pada tingkat menengah (M = 3.45, SD = .42). Selanjutnya, strategi membaca pada sub kategori PROB menjadi sub katogori yang paling diminati oleh mahasiswa dengan tingkat kesadaran (M = 3.55 SD = .38). Kemudian subkategori SUP dan GLOB secara berurutan menempati posisi kedua dan ketiga (M = 3.45 dan 3.34, SD = .46 dan .39). Hasil kedua ditujukan untuk mendapatkan informasi tentang pemahaman membaca mahasiswa. Hasil menunjukan bahwa tingkat pemahaman membaca siswa berada pada kategori B1 (menurut Common European framework of reference for language).
Hasil terakhir pada penelitian ini berkaitan dengan hubungan antara kesadaran mahasiswa tentang strategi membaca metacognitif dan pemahaman membaca siswa. Hasil menunjukan bahwa terdapat hubungan positif antara kedua variabel tersebut (F = 6.627, p = .002). Selanjutnya, penelitian ini juga melakukan analisa regresi berganda untuk mendapatkan informasi mendalam tentang dampak kesadaran mahasiswa tentang strategi membaca metacognitif pada pemahaman membaca mahasiswa. Hasilnya, subkategori PROB menjadi satu satunya variabel independen yang dapat memprediksi kemampuan membaca sisiwa.
1 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
This chapter introduces some of the study on the metacognitive reading
strategies use in reading comprehension. In the first point, issue of The Place of
the Current Study in the Context of Metacognition and Reading Comprehension
Research is involved as the benchmark of the study and used to know the current
issue of the study. Then, in the second point, continued by statement of the
problem, which is concerned on the found problems in the study’s domain
(metacognition and reading comprehension) as the empirical background for
initial investigation. The scope and limitation of the study is presented in order to
notice the framework of the study. The later point is formulation the research
questions as the direction in reaching the research goal. In the last point,
significances of the research are presented as well.
1.1 The Place of the Current Study in the Context of Metacognition and
Reading Comprehension Research
Reading comprehension becomes a sophisticated issue that involves
learners’ background knowledge, numerous strategies and the environmental
factor within the process. Background knowledge refers what the readers have
already known related to the new topics they are working on. It enables the
readers to predict or interrelate the existing experience with reading text. It is also
influenced by readers’ ability in organizing various strategies according to the
self-regulation and motivation of the readers also come to be important aspects
need to be concerned.
Reading comprehension has been described by Kreeyanord (2010, p.279)
as the complex and multifaceted ability that includes learners’ convention in using
a number of skills and strategies thoughtfully and critically when facing the
written text. In addition, Woolley (2011, p.33) acquires reading comprehension as
the process of making meaning from text whereas its goal is to gain an overall
understanding of what is described in the text rather than to obtain meaning from
isolated words or sentences. In this activity, the readers make an effort to
understand the information within reading text by utilizing some reading
strategies. Moreover, in this context, the readers are required to actively interact
with the reading materials and the environment. The environment herein includes
teachers as the supervisors of those learners as well.
Moreover, metacognitive reading strategy becomes one of crucial aspects
for learners in comprehending the reading text. Subjectively, Ahmadi, Ismail &
Abdullah (2013, p.235) assert that reading comprehension is a complex process
involving a combination of text and readers and refers to the ability of readers to
understand the surface and the hidden meanings of the text using metacognitive
reading strategies. The awareness of metacognitive reading strategy influences
learners comprehension because it controls the ways learners arrange their
interaction with the context and also for how the use of strategies is related to
effective reading comprehension (Mokhtary and Sheorey: 2003, p.6). As Alireza
Metacognition refers to the knowledge and control that we have over our cognitive processes. With regard to reading, it is common to talk about metacognitive awareness (what we know) and metacognitive regulation or control (knowing when, where, and how to use strategies, that is, what we can do). On a general level, metacognition includes awareness and control of planning, monitoring, repairing, revising, summarizing, and evaluating. Essentially, we learn awareness of our comprehension processing. It is the combination of conscious awareness of reading, strategic reading processes, and the actual utilization of reading strategies that distinguishes skilled from unskilled readers (p.6).
Several researches had been conducted in this scope (Kolic-Vehovec 2006,
Alhaqbani & Riazi 2012, Magogwe: 2013, Othman & Jaidi 2012, Keskin 2013,
and Huang & Newbern: 2012). Most of those researches are related to the ability
of learners in dealing with consistency of the readers in using the reading
strategies in the course of reading actively.
In reading strategy context, the significance of the metacognitive strategies
cannot be neglected. It is adequately substantiated by some researches conducted
in metacognition area such as Jacob & Paris’ (1987) study in children’s
metacognition about reading; they found that by measuring metacognition directly
helps teachers to diagnose specific misconceptions and nonstrategic reading.
Furthermore, Takallou (2006), Outhman & Jaidi (2012),) Huang & Newbern
(2012) and Keskin (2013) conducted experimental study about the impact of
metacognition toward reading comprehension. They come up with the result that
metacognition has significant influence toward readers performance and
comprehension. It assuredly discloses that metacognitive strategies increase
In recent years, in other studies, many researchers such as Carrell (1989),
Kolic-Vehovec (2006), Young & Fry (2008), and Zhang & Sheepo (2013)
conducted correlational study concerning metacognitive reading strategies and
reading comprehension. The result reveals that there are significant relationships
between metacognitive reading strategies awareness and reading comprehension.
However, more proficient readers used more high awareness in using
metacognitive strategies than the lowers’.
Some researchers (Carrel 1989, Alireza 2011, Zhang & Sheepo 2013)
conclusively affirm that the readers are able to attain reading comprehension
through reading strategies. They found that learning strategy becomes effective
tools used to improve readers’ ability and also the motivation of the readers in
learning activity. Additionally, it explicitly aligns that reading strategies take a
role in the reading comprehension issue. Reading strategies are the way readers
manage their interaction with the reading materials (Carrel 1989, p.121).
Another research related to the effect of metacognitive scaffolding and
monitoring toward students’ reading comprehension was conducted by Dabarera,
Renandya & Zhang (2014). By means of experimental research design, they found
that metacognitive awareness rising has positive relationship with students
reading comprehension improvement. Moreover, they also found that
metacognitive strategy instruction effectively increases metacognitive awareness
that also is linked in significant reading comprehension.
In similar year, Pammu, Amir and Maasum (2014) also conducted
means of questionnaire as the main data collector, they found that 40 Indonesian
respondents reported high-usage level of PROB strategies. Unfortunately, they
also found that last two subscales reading strategies was reported in
medium-usage level. The result that the less proficient Indonesian students were not likely
aware about their metacognitive strategies. Considering the level of students’
metacognitive awareness, they claimed that those less proficient students were not
strategic learners.
The latest research related to the relationship between students’
metacognitive awareness of reading strategies and reading comprehension was
conducted by Fitrisia, Tan & Yusuf (2015). They conducted correlational study
with 272 students in Banda Aceh, Indonesia. They found that there was weak
relationship between participants’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies
and performance in reading comprehension. In other words, the study came up
with the empirical discovery that the generally students herein were not
thoroughly aware their reading strategies during reading task or facing
school-related reading materials.
Regarding those sentences above, this study assumedly affirms that the
good readers or commonly called rich readers are the learners who are able to use
some strategies in order to reach their comprehension level while the poor one
does not instead.
Thus, subsequently the readers can reach the better reading comprehension
if the supervisors are able to identify leaners’ awareness in metacognitive reading
strategies use and promote it to them. It also can be useful for them by pointing to
the certainty that metacognitive strategies are constructed on the basis of planning,
arrangement and evaluation and emphasizing on the active execution of these
strategies during reading. Particularly, metacognition as leading knowledge about
cognition will be regarded in chapter 2 as declarative, procedural and conditional
knowledge (Jacob & Paris: 1987).
1.2 Statements of the Problem
As mentioned previously, metacognition has significant influence toward
readers’ reading comprehension. It is evidently strengthened by some researchers
who are concerned on the importance of metacognition in reading comprehension.
As Chammot & Omalley (1995, p.99) say "students without metacognitive
approaches are essentially learners without direction and ability to review their
progress, accomplishments, and future learning directions". Additionally,
Anderson (2002) also highlights the important role of metacognition as
“orchestrator of various strategies”. It means that metacognition has a prominent
role to control various reading strategies and cognitive strategies as well. The
study calls the attention to several problems related to the scope of metacognition
and reading comprehension research:
1. Reading comprehension becomes a complex activity. The readers are
required to understand the meaning exists on the reading material. They are
2. The lack of readers’ awareness in using numerous strategies gets to be most
problems in reading comprehension. This condition also influences the
decrease in readers’ motivation to solve difficulties when the comprehension
breaks down.
3. Poor readers or low- ability readers are not prepared to read academic reading
materials such as text book and fail to encode to construct representations that
are consistent with the topic of a text (Mokhtary and Sheorey: 2003, p.4)
1.3 Research Questions
This study is aimed to investigate the level of students’ awareness in
utilizing metacognitive reading strategies while interacting with reading materials
and to look over the relationship between students’ awareness in using
metacognitive reading strategies to reach the reading comprehension and reading
comprehension achievement of the students. Hence, the study formulates two
research questions in order to reach the goals of the study as below:
1) What is Level of students’ awareness in using metacognitive reading
strategies and which reading strategy categories are perceived to be used
more by the participants during reading activities?
2) Which strategies do students favor?
3) What is Level of students’ reading comprehension?
4) Does the students’ awareness of metacognitive strategies have any
1.4 Research objectives
Associated with the foregoing research questions, this study carried out
four objectives. The first question was aimed to investigate the level of students’
awareness of metacognitive reading strategies use while interacting with written
text. It was meant to explore the general awareness of students’ in applying
metacognitive reading strategies. Afterwards, this study was also aimed to
describe the students’ awareness in using each subcategory of metacognitive
reading strategies.
The second question was proposed to find strategies preference of
students. It was supposed to rank the five highest of strategies preference. I was
also expected to find the five-lowest strategies preference of the students.
The third question was directed to describe the level of students’ reading
comprehension. By means of CEFR standard, this study was aimed to consider
the level of students’ reading comprehension globally.
The fourth question was intended to explore the relationship between both
metacognitive reading strategies use and reading comprehension. This study was
aimed to investigate the relationship between metacognitive reading strategies
awareness and reading comprehension. This study was also supposed to make
enquiries about how far metacognitive reading strategies can explain the
students’’ reading comprehension. Finally, this study was aimed to investigate the
1.5 Scope and Limitation of the Study
As mentioned in the previous point (1.3), there are a number of problems
in reading comprehension. In academic reading, exhaustive reading has come to
be essential because it is associated with readers’ knowledge and ability in using
various strategies. The nature of reading comprehension becomes complex if the
readers could not find the appropriate reading strategies as the problem solver
when the comprehension breaks down.
Thus, it deliberately concerns this study into problem number 1 and 2 in
statements of the problem point, that are the relationship between metacognitive
strategies use and reading comprehension considered as indicator of reading
competency and reading comprehension of the students.
1.6 Research Benefits
It is believed that learning strategies take an important role for the students’
success in reading. By means of correlational design, the study leads the result to
give both sides theoretical and practical significances. In theoretical scope, this
study is expected to enhance the theory of metacognitive reading strategies use
while reading. Afterwards, this study practically aims to provide teachers and
students an overview of investigation of metacognitive reading strategies use and
its relation with reading comprehension. It is important to the teacher recognize
learners’ metacognitive awareness level as Mbato (2013) says “a metacognitive
teacher should promote students’ active engagement in reading by engaging
students in planning, monitoring and evaluating their understanding” (p.13).
Learners/ readers could be motivated to improve reading skill and effective
preferred reading strategies and consider their less preferred reading strategies.
Moreover, this study is also directed to promote learning strategies in order to
reach the success in reading. These terms (metacognition and reading
comprehension) can provide us with in-depth insights into the complexity of
reading process and give us ideas about how to help learners to develop their
reading competence and how to assess their metacognitive strategy use (Zhang &
Sheepo: 2013, p.55). Eventually, the lecturers as the stakeholders in this
opportunity are supposed to explicitly lead the learners to recognize and
effectively operate the reading strategies.
This study is also intended to provide the latest circumstances of the
development of metacognitive awareness. The result of the study can be used as
scientific references for the future research. It is supposed to be research-based
information source for future researchers. The present study also would like to
lead the future research to use more complex research design after reading the
11
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
In order to synchronize the theory within this research, this segment
provides the related theory as the guide or framework of the study. The main
focuses of this segment are the explanation of several aspects in metacognitive
reading strategies, reading comprehension and the relationship between those both
sides metacognitive awareness of reading strategies and reading comprehension
gains.
2.1 Theoretical Review
Theoretical review is intended to provide a selective review of related
theories in this study. The first section will be the theory of metacognitive strategy
that is also as the independent variable of this study. Then, followed by related
theory of reading comprehension that comes to be the dependent variable of the
study. At the last section of the theoretical review, the existing theory of
relationship between those both variables metacognitive reading strategies and
reading comprehension are presented as well.
2.1.1 Defining Metacognitive Strategies
As noted earlier in the first chapter, this study is intended to focus on
metacognitive reading strategies as the independent variable. Metacognition is
generally related on how an individual manage and regulate own thinking. The
notion of metacognition issue was influenced by some experts that were also seen
Paris & Jacob 1987). The following subtitles will explore more closely about
metacognitive strategies. Cognition and metacognition are also considered as
interrelated topic of metacognitive reading strategies.
2.1.1.1 Cognition in learning process
In the next passage of this chapter (point 2.1.1.2), the definition
metacognition comes up with cognition as the root of metacognition term. There
is no stable definition proposed by worldwide experts in cognition scope. Then,
the definition from McDowell (2015) gets to be the main source of cognition
term. Cognition can be defined as conscious mental action activities: the activities
of thinking, understanding, learning, and remembering. This definition shows that
knowledge acquisition and understanding occurs within mental action activities or
process. In other word, we can understand the mind as an information processor
that continually adding to its repertoire of mental representations as well as
producing overt physical behaviors (Wiley & Jee, 2010, p.3). Then, the following
explanation from Pons, Rosnay & Cuisinier (2010, p.79) may give more detail
about the overview of cognition:
…. Cognition refers to the different forms of knowledge (e.g., belief, thought, etc.) that we have and, critically, to the mental functions (e.g., systems, schemas, processes, etc.) making the acquisition, storage, retrieval, transformation, and use of this knowledge possible, for example, memory, attention, intelligence, language, mental imagery, and so on.
Moreover, it can be understood that cognition refers to how an individual
mind works to acquire and understand the information through thinking of new
experiences, remembering the old experiences, and sensing or noticing those
experiences as well. It also describes the acquisition, storage, transformation and
2.1.1.2 Flavell’s model of cognitive monitoring
Flavell in his article (1979) believes that cognitive monitoring occurs
through the action and interactions among four variables such as metacognitive
knowledge, actions (strategies), goal (tasks) and metacognitive experiences. Then,
he separately defines each variable as a mean to make it easier to understand. In
other words, he believes that one’s ability to monitor or control their cognition is
depending on their ability in activate and interrelate those variables.
Metacognitive knowledge is believed as a belief about active or interactive
factors that give an impact toward the course and outcome of cognitive enterprise.
He assumes that it is a process of how an individual acquires worldwide
knowledge about cognitive processes. Metacognitive knowledge could be
construed as how an individual frames their mind about their own cognitive
abilities. This kind of variable is divided into three majors categories such as
person, tasks and strategies.
Person is assumed as the executor of the cognition. It means that this
person is labeled as the cognitive processor. This category is related into beliefs
about individual or intra-individual differences (e.g. a boy beliefs that he is better
in expressing his idea by writing than speaking). This category also relates to
universal of cognition (e.g. a girl believes that her friend is more active than her or
she knows that there is a different degree of knowledge among her friends.
Then, tasks refer the information available to that person during cognitive
undertaking. This might be as an understanding about how to maximize the
cognitive enterprise and how well is someone in achieving their goals. In this
instance, “the child needs to learn that the quantity and quality of available
information can sometimes be insufficient to warrant confident judgments about
what another person is really like” (p.907).
Moreover, strategies could be interpreted as a tool of someone in
achieving the goal and sub-goal. In this category, individual is required to take the
concern on what strategies are likely to be efficient and effective in its application
as a mean of plan of action in learning process. It actually concerns on how an
individual utilizes single strategy based on the demand and then, combines
various strategies as a mean to solve the problem and achieve the proposed goals.
Metacognitive experience reflects one’s self-regulation of cognition. It
occurs in in a situation that encourages an individual to do carefully and
consciously. Generally, this category requires three aspects in cognitive
managements. First, planning comes to be the first aspect in order to reach good
achievements or goals. By means of planning, an individual is able to predict the
run of goal achievement process. It enables that person to prepare the essential
features of cognitive process. Second, metacognitive experience enables an
individual to monitor their progress. It stimulates person observe their
development in reaching the goal by adding to something, deleting from
something or revising something to keep the progress still on the track. Finally,
metacognitive experience could activate strategies based on the goals and
achievement. It allows person evaluates his or her own progress cognitively or
2.1.1.3 Metacognition
Metacognition becomes a central part of the contemporary educational
paradigm (Donndelinger, 2008, p.243). Research in metacognition comes to be
crucial issue in current study. Not only focused on language teaching, latest
researchers also found that metacognition is related in other subjects. For instance,
Legg & Locker (2009) & Pennequin et.al (2010) found that metacognition has
significant relations with students’ problem solving in mathematics subject. Then,
Jayapraba & Kanmani (2013) found that the students in science classroom
indicate high metacognitive awareness. But, this passage will only go further with
metacognition and literacy subject especially reading comprehension.
The definition of metacognition is contentious. Etymologically,
metacognition deals with “meta” which means beyond and “cognition” that means
the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through
thought, experience, and the senses (Baker & Brown, 1980, p.13). The terms
“metacognition” itself refers to how someone directs their cognition that deals
with strategy and foregoing knowledge. It means that metacognition has such
thing as one’s awareness and understanding of her/ his thought processes.
Additionally, metacognition is the awareness of an individual to control or
manage her/ his mental cognition process.
Further definition may make it easier to understand. In the forgoing
studies, many experts in reading and metacognition scope variously define
metacognition. For instance, Jacob & Paris (1987), Anderson (2002), Livingston
(2003) and McDowell (2015) define metacognition as thinking about thinking
knowledge about cognition or the regulation of cognition. More completely,
Baker (2010) proposes a definition of metacognition as below
Metacognition refers to thinking about thinking; knowledge about cognition and
regulation of cognition; knowledge about person, task, and strategy variables
that affect performance in a given domain; and cognitive monitoring and
control (p.128).
The term of metacognition in this study is broadly defined as intentional
and conscious knowledge of how cognition works and cognition is regulated. It
takes a control over cognition to work effectively. It means that the readers who
are aware about their metacognition intentionally will draw attention to their
cognitive development. They consciously manage their cognition as well as their
achievement. Additionally, metacognition also places the emphases concerned in
learner development over learner environment interactions (Dismore, Alexander
& Loughlin, 2008, p.393).
Hence, it can be drawn a conclusive idea that cognition and metacognition
are interrelated variables of individual in processing the information. As discussed
previously that cognition refers one’s individual to acquire the existing
information while metacognition refers to one’s way to manage and control their
cognition. It means that metacognitive strategy has a role as the stakeholder in
directing the application of cognitive strategy. “Cognitive strategies are invoked
to make cognitive progress, metacognitive strategies to monitor it” (Flavell, 1979,
p. 909).
2.1.1.4 Metacognitive reading strategies awareness
This subsection firstly would like to discuss the term of awareness.
understanding and interpreting the knowledge based on situation or fact.
Etymologically, awareness could be interpreted as knowing something and having
well knowledge of particular situation or development of something (Oxford
advanced learner’s dictionary). It means that metacognitive reading strategies
awareness refers to the ability of students in understanding and using
metacognitive strategies. In other words, the awareness in this scope is readers’
awareness of various strategies during the reading process (Singhal in Aziz et.al,
p.780, 2011). Thus, investigating readers’ awareness is related to an enquiry into
how far are their awareness of metacognitive reading strategies. The term of
metacognitive reading strategies will be discussed in the next paragraph.
Metacognitive reading strategies encourage readers to comprehensively
get the information of the text. It knowingly leads the readers to be aware about
another aspect of the reading itself. For instance, while reading the text, the
readers are acquired to get the information within the reading text. But, if the
readers only read the passage without any knowledge of relevant strategies, then
they will get doubtful about what have to do, what have to ignore, what need to
skip etc. Another example can be as a student has known numerous reading
strategies, but he does not know what time is appropriate to execute those
strategies. Then, he employs extensive reading strategy to get the whole
information while the time is not long enough. Consequently, the student does not
get complete information because of a misapplication of reading strategies.
Furthermore, the occurrence of misapplication can be rectified by
understanding the regulation of cognitive strategies. By means of regulation of
strategies, as he needs. This occurrence is in line with previous findings such
(Huang & Newbern, 2012) who found that metacognitive reading strategies
instruction can be effective for adult ESL learners with limited English and
literacy skills.
Most experts interested in metacognitive scope distinguish metacognitive
term into two main basic distinctions. For instance, Flavell (1979) sets out
metacognition into both metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive experience.
Jacob and Paris (1987) also distinguish metacognitive into two main categories
such as self-appraisal of metacognition and self-regulation of metacognition.
Furthermore, Brown (1987) and Schraw & Moshman (1995) divide metacognitive
into knowledge of cognition and regulation of cognition. Regarding those various
distinctions, this study deliberately uses the term of metacognitive strategies types
into knowledge of cognition and regulation of cognition.
2.1.1.4.1 Knowledge of Cognition
Knowledge of cognition means understanding what someone knows about
what the task is or what an object is used for. Paris and Jacob (1987) propose
three components of metacognition, which is labeled declarative knowledge that
refers to the readers ability in understanding the kinds of reading strategies can be
utilized; procedural knowledge that is relevant to how to execute the reading
strategies appropriately; and conditional knowledge that talk about the state of
affairs in reading strategies.
Declarative knowledge refers to what an individual knows about appropriate
approach in gaining information. “It involves factual information and is the state
p.118). It also refers to what is known in propositional manner (Jacob & Paris,
1987, p.259). For instance, a reader may know that previous knowledge and
setting the reading’s goal has significant impact toward his reading
comprehension and fluency.
Procedural knowledge alludes to awareness of structural mechanism in
thinking process. It leads the learner to use procedural skills automatically and
become more self-directed in how to use the strategies appropriately and how to
solve the problems effectively. “It consists of information for how to perform
particular actions to accomplish task goals, and is commonly referred to as
knowing how” (Nokes, Schunn & Chi, 2010, p.104). For instance, a student could
know how to skim, how to use context, how to underline, how to summarize, and
how to find the min idea while reading (Jacob & Paris, 1987, p.259).
“Conditional knowledge refers to a state of knowledge that pertains to when
and where knowledge (declarative or procedural) could or should be applied; for
this reason, it has been described as ‘‘knowing when and where’’ “(Maggioni &
Alexander, 2010, p.118). It leads the students to know the reason why particular is
utilized and when particular strategies should be employed etc. For instance, a
student needs to know when he should use paraphrase, and know why the
paraphrase strategy should be applied.
It can be seen that those three kinds of knowledge (declarative, procedural
and conditional) interrelate with all the others. Figure 2.1 briefly illustrates the
Table 2.1. Metacognitive knowledge of strategies
Declarative knowledge Procedural knowledge Conditional knowledge
A reader knows what the
strategies are
A reader knows how to
utilize the numerous
strategies
A reader knows when
and where to utilize
strategies appropriately
A reader knows why the
strategies need to be
learned and utilized
Furthermore, as an effort to promote metacognitive awareness, Schraw
(1998) sets out an instructional aid for promoting metacognitive awareness as
simple as possible. He proposes a simple overview of metacognitive knowledge
called strategy evaluation matrix assumed could improve students’ ability in
comprehending the reading materials. Actually, this schema adopted
metacognitive knowledge forms from the former pioneers such as flavell (1979),
Brown & Baker (1980), and Jacob & Paris (1987). As shown in table 2.2 that
there are three columns separated as how to use strategy; when to use strategy
and; why to use strategy. Those three categories basically are included in the
Table 2.2. A strategy evaluation matrix (Schraw, 1998)
Strategies How to use When to use Why to use
Skim Search for headings, highlighted words,
Diagrams Identify main ideas, connect them, list
2.1.1.4.2 Regulation of Cognition
Management skills have relevance to the regulatory process for operating
the strategies. Jacobs & Paris (1987) and Schraw & Moshman (1995) also
provide regulatory skills of metacognitive reading strategies into three essential
Planning here means the students making a preview what reading material
will be about. They also forecast those upcoming materials by using previous
knowledge or experience. It refers to the selective coordination of a cognitive
means to a cognitive goal (Jacobs & Paris, 1987 p.259). For example, making
predictions before reading, strategy sequencing, and allocating time or attention
selectively before beginning a task (Ahmadi, Ismail & Abdullahm, 2013, p.237).
Monitoring at this point means the readers use the strategies to analyze the
information as a project progresses. It is aimed to increase the effectiveness and
efficiency of reading activities. It also refers to individual awareness of using
strategies while facing written text. Self-monitoring thinking requires an
individual to monitor some progresses and then revise or modify plans and
strategies depending on how well they are working (Jacobs & Paris: 1987, p.259).
It also allows the reader to regulate or rearrange the step based on the needs.
Evaluation is defined as the process of appraisement in what the readers
have conducted. The readers assess their work in order to look over the difficulties
or obstacles faced in reading activities. For instance, readers can evaluate their
own understanding as they pause, paraphrase, answer question, or summarize the
information in text (p.259).
Thus, by understanding those regulatory skills, the instructor or teacher in
this scope can promote the numbers of strategies as the effort to increase learners
understanding in reading comprehension. Then, by emphasizing those regulator
processes (planning, monitoring, and evaluation), the readers can be more aware
of their reading procedure rather than read without any strategies implementation.
such as attention, better employment of strategies, and a greater awareness of
comprehension breakdown (Ahmadi, et.l: 2013, p.238).
2.1.1.5 Significance of Metacognitive Reading Strategies Awareness
As mentioned before, that metacognitive reading strategies are the
wide-awake strategies where the readers monitor their own reading process covering
evaluation and regulation about the strategies being implemented. Yet,
Livingstone (2003) intentionally reviewed this talking point. He used Flavell’s
definition of metacognition to define the metacognition term. Accordingly, he
defined metacognitive as “thinking about thinking” and cognitive strategies as an
effort of individual in dealing with exact direct information acquisition. It means
that cognitive strategies were construed as executive strategies as a mean to
acquire the information in reading. At the same time, metacognitive strategies was
believed as deliberative strategies that is used to clarify that cognitive strategies
have and reach the goal and running well.
Cognitive strategies are used to help an individual achieve a particular goal (e.g., understanding a text) while metacognitive strategies are used to ensure that the goal has been reached (e.g., quizzing oneself to evaluate one’s understanding of the text). Metacognitive experiences usually precede or follow a cognitive activity. They often occur when cognition fails, such as the recognition that one did not understand what just read (Livingstone, 2003, p. 4).
Further illustration might be if cognitive reading strategies are about
having knowledge of what strategy to use and how it is applied, for further
metacognitive strategic knowledge involves understanding the rationale to apply a
particular strategy in a particular context, and evaluate its usefulness in terms of
appropriateness and effectiveness for that context (Karbalaei: 2011, p.8). Thus, it
reading strategies become the strategies that help students to regulate or monitor
their cognitive strategies. in other words, metacognitive strategies enable the
students to become director of their own reading strategies implementation.
2.1.1.6 The Measurements of Metacognitive Awareness (SORS)
The issue of metacognitive is currently related to the ability of readers in
gaining good reading comprehension. Flavell firstly declared the booming
investigation of metacognitive awareness since 1979. This innovation has been
altered by a number of researchers such as Baker & Brown (1980), Jacob & Paris
(1989), Schraw (1998), Carrel, Linda & Teresa (1998) and Ahmadi, et.al (2013).
Accordingly, the measurements of this metacognitive awareness
practically and theoretically have been developed time by time. For instance, Paris
& Lindauer, (1982) designed Index of Reading Awareness (IRA). This
multiple-choice instrument was designed to measure three main subscales of
metacognition. Two decades later, Mokhtary and Reichard (2002) deliberately
formulated a questionnaire as an instrument to measure readers’ metacognitive
awareness in utilizing reading strategies called Metacognitive Awareness of
Reading Strategies Inventory (MARSI). They both drew up 30 lists of reading
strategies packaged into 30 statements as one unity into MARSI. As they said that
the major purpose of this instrument is to generate an instrument that would help
one assess whether the students are or not aware of various strategies and process
involved in reading comprehension. Therefore, they validated the inventory into
825 native students in Grades 6-12 selected from 10 urban, suburban, and rural
districts in five Midwestern states. Then, the result factor analysis found that
(.92), Problem Solving Strategies (.79) and Support Strategies (.87). It indicates
that this instrument is reliable instrument to measure metacognitive students’
metacognitive awareness of reading strategies.
In the same year, Mokhtary & Shorey (2002) revised the MARSI that
basically is intended to measure metacognitive awareness of native- language
learners. They made several changes as a mean to make an alteration to Second
Language or Foreign Language learners. Consequently, they both formulate
new-appropriate instrument purposed to measure metacognitive awareness of reading
strategies called Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS).
The operationalization of SORS, like MARSI, is proposed to measure
adolescent or adult ESL students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies
as well as the type and frequency of them. As noted previously that SORS is in
line with MARSI, yet this instrument also consist of three subscales as follows:
Global Reading Strategies (GLOB), Problem Solving Reading Strategies (PROB)
and Support Reading Strategies. Additionally, this instrument has been utilized by
some researchers to get the data of students’ metacognitive awareness such as
Temur & Bahar (2011) Yuksel & Yuksel (2011).Madumathi & Ghosh (2012),
Hang-Nam & Page (2014), Lixia Pei (2014), Tavakoli (2014) and Meniado 2016.
2.1.2 Reading Comprehension
Reading comprehension reflects how readers acquire the information from
written text. It requires interrelating system between previous knowledge of the
readers and their new knowledge to comprehend the message included in the text.
It is a process of making meaning from text and its goal is to gain an overall
isolated words or sentences (Woolley, 2011, p.15). Additionally, Burn & Kidd
(2010) believe that reading comprehension occurs when readers interact with the
written word in an exchange of ideas between themselves and the message in the
text to construct the meaning (p.188).
Moreover, the definition of reading comprehension comes up with
componential aspects as the preparation for the students achieving success in
reading. Componential reading comprehension comes to be an instructional
approach for triggering the students to turn account their strength to gain
understanding of important content involving what they are going to understand
through the integration of analytical, creative, and practical aspects of reading text
(Stenberg in Randi, Grigirenko & Sternberg, 2015, p.28). As shown in figure 2.1,
analytical refers to think of what the text exactly means; the reason why the reader
think so; finding or questioning where the evidence is and what the component of
the text is. Then, practical turns out to be related to the readers experience in
facing the written text. “Creative” as found in the next cycle is included in the
figure intended to encourage students’ creative thinking in creating the text as
their own. Eventually, after those three components of reading comprehension,
there is a reflection aimed to think about what the reader have already done with
the written text.
Figure 2.1. A
componential
approach to reading comprehension (Randi et.al, 2005, p.35)
2.1.2.1 Models of Reading Comprehension
In this section, this study goes to explain three main models of reading
comprehension. Smith (1979) in Smith deliberately divides reading
comprehension into two radical divergent points of view related the reading
nature. He broadly identified them as “inside-out” and “outside-out. Nowadays,
these two terms are well known as “top-down” or “bottom-up”. And the last
model is “interactive” model that permits the reader to combine those both
models. These models could facilitate the readers to get the point of reading Memory: what do these words mean?
Does this text make sense?
Analytical: what do I think this teaxt means? Why do I think so? Where is the evidence? What makes this text what it is?
Practical: what does this text mean to me?
Does it remind me of something or someone I know? What can I learn from this text?
Creative: what question do I want to ask this author? if I were the author of this text, wht would I write?
Authenthic assessment of reading comprehension
Analytical: How unusual is my interpretation of this text? Practical: Will others accept my interprtation?
Creative: What can I write that is both the same and different from this text-something that keep the essence
(what makes this text what it is)
passage easier. As suggested by Ahmadi et.al (2013), these three models of
reading comprehension could help the students or readers to develop their ability
in reading field and it also support first and second language learning cognitive
process. For instance, Top-down model enables the readers to re-track their
experience to help them decode the meaning within the text. Furthermore,
Bottom-Up model also allow the readers to construct the meaning systematically
such as word by word, then phrase stage and gradually move to sentences and
linguistics stage. Eventually, interactive model that comes to be the combination
between those both models give the readers the means to collaborate top-down
and bottom-up models situationally. Specifically, those three models of reading
comprehension will be discussed as below.
2.1.2.1.1 The Top–Down Model
Smith (2004, p.232) defines top-down model as model that enables the
readers determine how text will be approached and interpreted. This model
suggests the readers to use prior knowledge or experience to understand the
reading passage. In other words, the human’s prior knowledge and their
expectations will guide the gains of information (Treiman 2001, p.3).
Furthermore, this model has a concept that background knowledge has
significant role in determining readers’ performance. It can be construed as that
background knowledge links the old experience of readers and new information
they are facing. “On the other hands, contexts themselves have no meaning in the
top-down reading model but they are readers who construct the meaning of the
texts by fitting them into his/her background knowledge” (Ahmadi et.al
2.1.2.1.2 The Bottom-Up Model
Different from top-down model, bottom-up model enables the readers to
take a concern on the each part of reading features. It allows the readers to
construct the meaning based on the analysis every part consisted on the reading
passage. This model suggests that understanding first the part of reading such as
letters, phrases, clauses, sentences and semantic features of the reading passage
can solve the problems. “Bottom-up processes are those that take in stimuli from
the outside world, letters and words, for reading and deal with that information
with little recourse to higher-level knowledge” (treiman 2001, p.3).
Accordingly, proficient readers have great ability to integrate what is in
mind and the reading passage. It means that they use their ability to decode the
message as well as construct the meaning in the reading. Ahmadi et.al (2013) also
argue that this model leads the readers to understand the letters, chunk, prefixes,
suffixes and the authentic words quickly.
2.1.2.1.3 The Interactive Model
The last model of reading comprehension could be interactive model. The
conception of “interactive” refers to the way of readers in interacting with both
phonics and written text. It is a combination between both models top-down and
bottom-up model or it could be best described as “human” reading process (Nagao
2002, p.3).
2.1.2.2 Bilingualism and Reading Process
The issue of bilingualism or multilingualism is assumedly needed to
discuss. The term of bilingualism itself has reasonably been related to EFL/ ESL
learners. They who come from non-native environment have tendency to apply
this bilingualism. For that reason, this study deliberately links the issue of
bilingualism to reading comprehension.
This occurrence might lead the students to use two or more languages
whilst facing English written text. By means of translating the English written text
into their native one, the students are able to get more understanding of the text
rather than use only one language. The flows of leaners in using more than one
language can be seen in the figure 2.2. The figure shows that there is similarity
between first language and second language use while reading process. The
linguistic input can lead the memory to activate the prior knowledge of language
systems. Therefore, it encourages them to use more abilities as well as their
3
1
