AN INVESTIGATION OF METACOGNITIVE READING STRATEGIES OF ENGLISH DEPARTMENT STUDENTS
AT SATYA WACANA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
Adhaka Ayu Sari 112007183
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE SATYA WACANA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT STUDENTS AT SATYA WACANA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
Adhaka Ayu Sari 112007183
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE SATYA WACANA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT STUDENTS AT SATYA WACANA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
Adhaka Ayu Sari 112007183
Approved by:
(Supervisor‟s signature (Examiner‟s signature
and complete name with degrees) and complete name with degrees) __________________ ___________________
COPYRIGHT STATEMENT
This thesis contains no such material as has been submitted for examination in any course or accepted for the fulfillment of any degree or diploma in any university. To the best of my knowledge and my belief, this contains no material previously published or written by any other person except where due reference is made in the text.
Copyright@ 2011. Adhaka Ayu Sari and Prof.DR. Gusti Astika, M.A.
All rights reserved. No part of this thesis may be reproduced by any means without the permission of at least one of the copyright owners or the English Department, Faculty of Language and Literature, Satya Wacana University, Salatiga.
As a member of the (SWCU) Satya Wacana Christian University academic community, I verify that:
Name:
Student ID Number: Study Program: Faculty:
Kind of Work: Undergraduate Thesis
In developing my knowledge, I agree to provide SWCU with a non-exclusive royalty free right for my intellectual property and the contents therein entitled:
along with any pertinent equipment.
With this non-exclusive royalty free right, SWCU maintains the right to copy, reproduce, print, publish, post, display, incorporate, store in or scan into a retrieval system or database, transmit, broadcast, barter or sell my intellectual property, in whole or in part without my express written permission, as long as my name is still included as the writer. This declaration is made according to the best of my knowledge.
Made in : Salatiga
Date : ________________ Verified by signee,
__________________ Approved by
Thesis Supervisor Thesis Examiner
1
An Investigation of Metacognitive Reading Strategies of English Department Students at Satya Wacana Christian University
Adhaka Ayu Sari
Satya Wacana Christian University Abstract
Many students find reading class the most difficult course in English. They dislike reading because they often do not understand the text. One of the many problems students face nowadays is not their inability to read but their lack of interest, indifference or rejection of reading. The general purpose of this study was to examine students reading strategies used when they read academic texts. This study used a descriptive method to gain broader perspectives on English Department learners‟ strategy use. A total of 50 students responded to a 30-item Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory (MARSI). The results showed that as far as the three categories of strategies were concerned, students showed a moderate to high strategy use, with problem-solving strategies (Mean = 3.53) as their prime choice, followed by global strategies (Mean = 3.18) and support strategies (Mean = 2.61).
Keywords: Metacognition, Reading research, Reading strategies
Introduction
There has been a negative assumption that many students find reading class the most difficult course in English. They dislike reading because they often do not understand the text. One of the many problems students face nowadays is not their inability to read but their lack of interest, indifference or rejection of reading. When reading a text, learners will stop reading when they find difficult words. Moreover, when they find a word that they do not understand, it slows down their reading and they look it up in the dictionary, which is time consuming. In order to understand a text, students need to know some strategies for reading. In this study, I would like to explore students‟ reading strategies in
The current research in second language reading has begun to focus on readers' strategies. Reading strategies are of interest for what they reveal about the way readers manage their interaction with written text and how these strategies are related to text comprehension. Research in second language reading suggests that learners use a variety of strategies to assist them with the acquisition, storage, and retrieval of information (Rigney, 1978). Strategies are defined as learning techniques, behaviors, problem solving or study skills, which make learning more effective, and efficient (Oxford and Crookall, 1989). In the context of second language learning, a distinction can be made between strategies that make learning more effective, versus strategies that improve comprehension.
Since the early seventies, for the most part, research in this area has concentrated on teaching second language students to use a variety of language strategies in order to read better. According to Anderson (2003), reading is the interaction of four things including the reader, the text, the fluent reading or "the ability or read at an appropriate rate with adequate comprehension," and strategic reading, or "the ability of the reader to use a variety of reading strategies to accomplish a purpose for reading" (p. 8). Discovering the best methods and techniques or processes the learners choose to access, is the goal of research in reading strategies.
An Investigation of Metacognitive Reading Strategies of English Department Students at Satya Wacana Christian University
3
learners to master in academic contexts. Since reading comprehension has been distinctively important both in first and second/foreign languages, reading strategies are of great interest in the field of reading research. Reading research has also shed light on metacognitive awareness of reading strategies, perception of strategies, and strategy training and use in reading comprehension. Readers‟ use of reading strategies is informed by their metacognitive awareness of the strategies and how these strategies can be maximized for optimal effects in solving comprehension problems (Cohen, 2007; Hudson, 2007).
Metacognition is defined as "thinking about thinking" (Anderson, 2002, p. 23). Oxford (1990) believes that metacognitive strategies "provide a way for learners to coordinate their own learning process" (p. 136). Metacognition refers to the knowledge and control that we have over our cognitive processes. As far as it is concerned with 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). As a whole, metacognitive involves awareness and control of planning, monitoring, repairing, revising, summarizing, and evaluating. Research on the relationship between metacognition and reading comprehension has progressed through several different stages. During the early stages, research focused on the investigation of the relationship between metacognition and reading comprehension from the developmental perspective.
Generally, the studies on the metacognitive aspects of reading have indicated a need to increase understanding of readers‟ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies to
(1984) were among the first influential researchers in this field. They concluded that young students are ignorant of metacognitive strategies in knowing when they are comprehending, knowing what they need to know and what they have comprehended, knowing where they fail to comprehend, and knowing what they need to do in order to repair comprehension failure.
An Investigation of Metacognitive Reading Strategies of English Department Students at Satya Wacana Christian University
5
It is hoped that the results of this study can be beneficial to language learners and reading instructors in ESL/EFL contexts, particularly in academic reading instruction at the college level. Firstly, the finding demonstrates the differences in the use of strategies. The teacher then can plan the reading lesson to suit the students' proficiency level. Secondly, the results of the study can be useful for course developers and reading instructors to create or provide activities to train their students to use their reading strategies more effectively.
The Study
This study primarily used descriptive method to gain broader perspectives on English Department learners‟ strategy use and to identify overall average strategy use.
Descriptive research is thus a type of research that is primarily concerned with describing the nature or conditions and degree in detail of the present situation (Landman 1988: 59). The emphasis is on describing rather than on judge or interprets. The participants involved in this study were randomly selected from five different reading classes in Satya Wacana Christian University. There were 150 students have been learning English in English Department of Satya Wacana for almost 2 years. The questionnaire was administered at the beginning of semester with the help of the classroom teacher, since they have passed through the long vacation, and were not burdened with many tasks; it was believed would affect their intention to complete a questionnaire, which was distributed to them to be filled.
An Investigation of Metacognitive Reading Strategies of English Department Students at Satya Wacana Christian University
7
components of a well-constructed argument as well as to respond to readings through group work and journals. English Department of Satya Wacana Christian University has four reading courses should be taken by the students, they were Academic reading, Reading across genre, Reading skills, and Critical reading. The data were collected through a questionnaire (see Appendix A) adapted from the Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory (MARSI) by Mokhtari and Reichard (2002) due to several reasons: guided by the principle that constructing meaning from text is an intentional, conscious, and purposeful act, while reading academic materials, this questionnaire has been developed and tested by reviewing an extensive body of recent research literature on metacognition and reading comprehension (Baker & Brown, 1984; Pressley, 2002). Several researchers (Anderson, 2002; Berkowitz & Cicchelli, 2004) provide evidence that the instrument is a reliable and valid measure for assessing adult students' metacognitive awareness and perceived use of reading strategies while reading for academic purposes. Moreover, the items in the questionnaire were simply and easy for the students to understand. The questionnaire was distributed to 50 students outside their reading class. They were given times to finish filling the questionnaire out, and they were asked to collect the questionnaire, moreover, all of the students returned the questionnaire.
The MARSI Questionnaire measures three broad categories of reading strategies.
2. Problem-Solving Strategies (PROB), which are localized, focused problem-solving or repair strategies used when problems develop in understanding textual information (e.g., checking one's understanding upon encountering conflicting information, re-reading for better understanding, etc.), and
3. Support Reading Strategies (SUP), which involves using the support mechanisms or tools aimed at sustaining responsiveness to reading (e.g., use of reference materials like dictionaries and other support systems).
The 30-item questionnaire was validated by Mokhtari and Reichard (2002) using large subject population representing students with equivalent reading abilities ranging from middle school to college. Taking into consideration of the students‟ proficiency
level, this study made an adaptation to MARSI to increase feasibility of the present study. It was decided that the questionnaire be administered in Indonesian, the native language, which the participants were most proficient in and comfortable with. This was to guarantee successful data collection and avoid comprehension difficulties that participants might encounter when given the English version (see Appendix B). A 5-point Likert scale following each item indicates the frequency of strategy use ranging from 1 (never do) to 5 (always do). The overall MARSI inventory score was determined by summing responses from all three subscales and calculating the mean. Scores below 2.4 were considered low scores, between 2.5-3.4 were medium and 3.5 and higher were high. (Mokhtari & Sheorey, 2002).
An Investigation of Metacognitive Reading Strategies of English Department Students at Satya Wacana Christian University
9
statements in the MARSI Questionnaire and circle the number which best indicated their perceived use of the strategies described in the statement using a Likert scale ranging from 1 ('I never or almost never use this strategy') to 5 ('I always or almost always use this strategy'). Lastly, they were told that there were no "right" or "wrong" responses to the statements and that they could take as much time as they needed to complete the inventory.
The mechanism to carry out this study was a quantitative survey. It helped measure the extent of students‟ awareness of reading strategies through an examination of the
frequencies of strategy use. The students were then compared for strategy use and for use of each of the three categories of strategies. Microsoft office excel for Windows was used to analyze data. Frequencies and percentages were calculated for the questionnaire items.
Discussion
With regard to the research question (i.e., “What are strategies used by English Department students in reading in language learning?”), Figure 1 presents descriptive
statistics for overall frequency of each of the three categories of strategies in reading. The results show that as far as the three categories of strategies were concerned, the students
2.5 3 3.5 4
3.18 3.53
[image:15.612.90.524.172.603.2]2.61
Figure 1: Overall frequency of reading strategies
showed a moderate to high strategy use, with problem-solving strategies (Mean = 3.53) as their prime choice, followed by global strategies (Mean = 3.18) and support strategies (Mean = 2.61). In other words, when problems in reading arise, most of these students were ready to adopt strategies like reading slowly and carefully to be sure, going back when losing concentration, rereading for better understanding and so on to solve problems. By contrast, they used far fewer Support Reading Strategies like reading aloud when the text gets hard, discussing to check understanding, asking oneself questions and so on. This result was consistent with the findings in Mokhatari and Reichard‟s (2002) study in which the Problem Solving Problems Strategies fall into the high strategy use, and Support Reading Strategies are the least frequently used among the three subcategories.
Figure 2 presents questions within the category of problem-solving strategies (PROB). From the total of 9 strategies, the data showed the highest three strategies were trying to get back on track when they lose concentration (Mean = 3,9), reading slowly but carefully to be sure, they understand what they are reading (Mean = 3,7) and when text becomes difficult; they pay closer attention to what they read (Mean = 3,6). The lowest strategy use was guessing the meaning of unknown words by separating different parts of
2.5 3 3.5
4 3.9
3.2 3.45
3.7
3.4 3.6
[image:16.612.89.523.258.589.2]3.5 3.5 3.55
Figure 2: Problem-solving strategies
An Investigation of Metacognitive Reading Strategies of English Department Students at Satya Wacana Christian University
11
a word (Mean = 2,94). Problem solving strategies showed that students were generally conscious of their comprehension process and were able to take actions when comprehension reduced. As indicated in the figure the overall average score of Problem Solving Strategy was 3,53. Based on the scale in the questionnaire this average fell between „sometimes‟ (3) and „usually do it‟ (4). It can be concluded that the use of
Problem Solving Strategy was relatively high or was used relatively frequently. This result was consistent with the findings in Mokhatari and Reichard‟s (2002) study in which the Problem Solving Strategies were considered as their primary choice with highest scores.
Figure 3 presents questions within the category of global strategies (GLOB). From the total of 12 strategies, the data showed the highest three strategies were deciding what to read closely and what to ignore (Mean = 3,44), checking to see if their guesses about the text are right or wrong (Mean = 3,4) and trying to guess what the material is about when they read (Mean = 3,38). The lowest strategy use was using tables, figures, and pictures in text to increase their understanding (Mean = 2,8). While displaying ability to detect comprehension difficulty and adjust strategies accordingly, students also
[image:17.612.95.521.186.532.2]2.5 3 3.5 4 3.2 2.8 3.12 3.1 3.04 3.18 3.44 2.94 3.28 3.02 3.38 3.4
Figure 3: Global strategies
demonstrated capacity of planning for reading. As indicated in the figure the overall average score of Global Strategy was 3,18. Based on the scale in the questionnaire this average fell between „sometimes‟ (3) and „usually do it‟ (4). It can be concluded that the
study Global Strategy was relatively medium. This result was consistent with the findings in Mokhatari and Reichard‟s (2002) study in which the Global Strategies considered as their medium scores.
Figure 4 presents questions within the category of support strategies (SUP). From the total of 9 strategies, the data showed the highest three strategies were underlining or circling information in the text to help them remember it (Mean = 3), discussing what they read with others to check their understanding (Mean = 2,9), and taking notes while reading to help them understand what they read (Mean = 2,85). The lowest strategy use was when text becomes difficult, they read aloud to help them understand what they read (Mean = 2,2). As indicated in the figure the overall average score of Support Strategy was 2,61. Based on the scale in the questionnaire this average fell between „occasionally‟ (2) and „sometimes‟ (3). It can be concluded that the use of Support Strategy was relatively
low or was used relatively rarely. This result was consistent with the findings in Mokhatari and Reichard‟s (2002) study in which the Support Strategies considered as
2.5 3 3.5 4
2.85
2.6 3
2.4 2.7
2.2 2.9
[image:18.612.92.527.191.589.2]2.4 2.5
Figure 4: Support strategies
An Investigation of Metacognitive Reading Strategies of English Department Students at Satya Wacana Christian University
13
their lowest scores. Even though the scores of Support Strategies was the lowest scores compared to Problem Solving Strategies and Global Strategies, it did provide some information about the students reading strategies.
Conclusion
processes involved in reading and the development of thoughtful and constructively responsive reading. Teaching students to become constructively responsive readers can promote skillful academic reading, which, in turn, can enhance academic achievement (Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001).
Looking ahead, more research is needed to investigate why certain strategies are used or not used in learning contexts. Individual learning styles may further demonstrate which strategies are implemented during the reading process. Perhaps future research could examine more deeply the interaction of metacognitive reading strategies on learners. There is a clear need to investigate empirically the role of teaching 'important' strategies and studying their impact on learner reading comprehension in learning contexts. Simply knowing what strategy to use is not sufficient. An investigation into the orchestration of strategies is certain to shed new light on the issues here investigated; thereby revealing important new perspectives of what readers actually do when they become actively involved in reading activities.
Limitations
An Investigation of Metacognitive Reading Strategies of English Department Students at Satya Wacana Christian University
15
Acknowledgement
References
Anderson, N. J. (2002). The role of metacognition in second/foreign language teaching and learning. ERIC Digest. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics.
Anderson, N. J. (2002). Using telescopes, microscopes, and kaleidoscopes to put Metacognition into perspective. TESOL Matters, 12, 1-2.
Anderson, N. J. (2003). Teaching reading. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Practical English language teaching (pp. 67-86). New York: McGraw Hill Publishers.
Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 353-394). New York: Longman.
Brown, A. L. (1980). Metacognitive development and reading. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 453-481). Hillsdale, N J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Berkowitz, E. & Cicchelli, T. (2004). Metacognitive strategy use in reading of gifted high achieving and gifted underachieving middle school students in New York City. Education and Urban Society, 37, 37-57.
Cohen, A. D. (2007). Coming to terms with language learner strategies: Surveying the experts. In A. D. Cohen & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learner strategies: Thirty years of research and practice (pp. 29–46). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
An Investigation of Metacognitive Reading Strategies of English Department Students at Satya Wacana Christian University
17
Hudson, T. (2007). Teaching second language reading. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press
Hyland, K. (1990). Providing productive feedback, ELT Journal. 44 (4): 294-304
Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. (2002). Assessing students' metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249-259.
Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. (2004). Investigating the strategic reading processes of first and second language readers in two different cultural contexts. System, 32, 379-394.
Oxford, R., & Crookall, D. (1989). Research on Language learning strategies: methods, language findings, and instructional issues. Modern Language Journal, 73, 404-419.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New York: Newbury House.
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal reports of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Pressley, M. (2002). Comprehension strategies instruction: A turn-or the century status report. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practice (pp. 11-27). New York: The Guilford Press.
An Investigation of Metacognitive Reading Strategies of English Department Students at Satya Wacana Christian University
19
Appendix A
Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory
Nim : ……….
The purpose of this survey is to collect information about the various strategies you use in reading the text. Please indicate the frequency of reading strategies you use by circling the following appropriate number (1,2,3,4,5), and each number means the following:
• 1 means "I never or almost never do this."
• 2 means "I do this only occasionally.
• 3 means "I sometimes do this."
• 4 means "I usually do this."
• 5 means "I always or almost always do this."
No Type Strategy
1 Glob I have a purpose in mind when I read.
2 Sup I take notes while reading to help me understand what I read.
3 Sup I summarize what I read to reflect on important information in the text. 4 Prob I try to get back on track when I lose concentration.
5 Sup I underline or circle information in the text to help me remember it.
6 Sup I use reference materials such as dictionaries to help me understand what I read. 7 Glob I use tables, figures, and pictures in text to increase my understanding.
8 Glob I use context clues to help me better understand what I am reading.
11 Glob I think about what I know to help me understand what I read. 12 Glob I preview the text to see what it is about before reading it.
13 Sup When text becomes difficult, I read aloud to help me understand what I read. 14 Prob I think about whether the content of the text fits my reading purpose.
15 Prob I read slowly but carefully to be sure, I understand what I am reading. 16 Sup I discuss what I read with others to check my understanding
17 Glob I skim the text first by noting characteristics like length and organization. 18 Prob I adjust my reading speed according to what I am reading.
19 Glob I decide what to read closely and what to ignore.
20 Prob When text becomes difficult; I pay closer attention to what I am reading. 21 Prob I stop from time to time and think about what I am reading.
22 Prob I try to picture or visualize information to help remember what I read. 23 Glob I use typological aids like boldface and italics to identify key information. 24 Glob I critically analyze and evaluate the information presented in the text. 25 Sup I go back and forth in the text to find relationship among ideas in it. 26 Glob I check my understanding when I come across conflicting information. 27 Glob I try to guess what the material is about when I read.
28 Prob When text becomes difficult; I reread to increase my understanding. 29 Sup I ask myself questions I like to have answered in the text.
30 Glob I check to see if my guesses about the text are right or wrong.
INVESTIGATION OF STUDENT READING STRATEGIES 21
Appendix B
Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory
Nim : ……….
Tujuan dari angket ini adalah untuk mengumpulkan informasi tentang macam-macam strategi yang kalian gunakan di dalam membaca. Silahkan lingkari nomor yang sesuai dengan ketentuan berikut ini:
1 = Saya tidak pernah atau hampir tidak pernah melakukan hal ini 2 = Saya melakukan hal ini hanya sesekali
3 = Saya terkadang melakukan hal ini 4 = Saya biasanya melakukan hal ini
5 = Saya selalu atau hampir selalu melakukan hal ini
No Strategis Frekuensi
1 Saya memiliki tujuan ketika saya membaca 1 2 3 4 5 2 Saya mencatat ketika membaca untuk membantu saya
memahami apa yang saya baca
1 2 3 4 5 3 Saya meringkas apa yang saya baca untuk mengulas kembali
informasi penting dalam bacaan
1 2 3 4 5 4 Saya mencoba untuk kembali ke bacaan ketika saya
kehilangan konsentrasi
1 2 3 4 5 5 Saya menggaris bawahi atau melingkari informasi penting
dalam bacaan untuk membantu saya mengingatnya
1 2 3 4 5
6 Saya menggunakan bahan-bahan referensi seperti kamus untuk membantu saya memahami apa yang saya baca
1 2 3 4 5 7 Saya menggunakan tabel, angka, dan gambar dalam bacaan
untuk meningkatkan pemahaman saya
1 2 3 4 5 8 Saya menggunakan petunjuk dalam bacaan untuk membantu
saya lebih memahami apa yang saya baca
1 2 3 4 5 9 Saya menuliskan kembali ide-ide dalam kata-kata saya
sendiri untuk lebih memahami apa yang saya baca
1 2 3 4 5 10 Saya menerka makna kata yang tidak saya ketahui dengan
cara memisahkan bagian yang berbeda dari sebuah kata
saya memahami apa yang saya baca
12 Saya meninjau ulang bacaan untuk mengetahui isi bacaan tersebut sebelum membacanya
1 2 3 4 5 13 Ketika bacaan menjadi sulit, saya membaca keras-keras
untuk membantu saya memahami apa yang saya baca
1 2 3 4 5 14 Saya berpikir apakah isi dari bacaan sesuai dengan tujuan
membaca saya
1 2 3 4 5
15 Saya membaca perlahan-lahan tetapi hati-hati untuk memastikan bahwa saya mengerti apa yang saya baca
1 2 3 4 5 16 Saya mendiskusikan apa yang saya baca dengan orang lain
untuk memeriksa pemahaman saya
1 2 3 4 5 17 Saya membaca bacaan sekilas terlebih dahulu, dengan
mencatat ciri-ciri seperti panjang bacaan dan susunannya.
1 2 3 4 5 18 Saya menyesuaikan kecepatan membaca saya sesuai dengan
apa yang saya baca
1 2 3 4 5 19 Saya memutuskan apa yang harus saya baca dengan cermat
dan apa yang harus saya abaikan
1 2 3 4 5 20 Ketika bacaan menjadi sulit, saya memperhatikan lebih
cermat apa yang saya baca
1 2 3 4 5 21 Saya berhenti dari waktu ke waktu dan berpikir tentang apa
yang saya baca
1 2 3 4 5
22 Saya mencoba menggambarkan dan membayangkan informasi untuk membantu saya mengingat apa yang saya baca
1 2 3 4 5
23 Saya menggunakan alat bantu seperti huruf cetak tebal dan miring untuk mengenali kata kunci.
1 2 3 4 5
24 Saya secara kritis menganalisa dan menilai informasi yang disajikan dalam bacaan
1 2 3 4 5 25 Saya bolak-balik bacaan untuk menemukan hubungan antara
ide-ide di dalamnya
1 2 3 4 5 26 saya memeriksa pemahaman saya ketika saya menemukan
informasi yang bertentangan.
1 2 3 4 5 27 Saya mencoba menerka isi dari bacaan ketika saya membaca 1 2 3 4 5 28 Ketika bacaan menjadi sulit, saya membaca ulang untuk
meningkatkan pemahaman saya
1 2 3 4 5 29 saya bertanya pada diri sendiri tentang
pertanyaan-pertanyaan yang ingin saya jawab di dalam bacaan.
1 2 3 4 5 30 Saya memeriksa untuk melihat apakah terkaan saya tentang
bacaan benar atau salah
1 2 3 4 5
