Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This mixed methods study examined whether perceived metacognitive reading strategies differed in Iranian EFL learners with different reading abilities. It also compared their actual (real) utilization of metacognitive reading strategies in different English text types (narrative and expository). Four hundred Iranian university students studying TEFL were selected according to their performance on the Oxford Placement Test. A Persian Reading Comprehension Placement Test, Reading Section of PET, and English and Persian Perceived Reading Strategy Questionnaires were administered. One hundred thirty-three students were selected and divided into two groups based on the Persian Reading Comprehension Placement Test scores. Those who achieved above the mean score were classified as high readers and others as low readers. After administering the questionnaires and conducting think-aloud, the data were analyzed through chi-square, MANOVA, and theme-based analysis. The findings revealed that the realizations of global reading strategies regarding frequency and type were not different in Iranian EFL learners’ perceived metacognitive reading strategies. The findings also indicated a significant difference between the frequency and type of problem-solving reading strategies. The results confirmed that learners used the same global and problem-solving strategies in reading narrative and expository text types, while the pattern of using support-reading strategies was different. The most frequent support reading strategies used in expository text were paraphrasing, circling the information, and reading aloud while summarizing and asking questions were the most frequent support reading strategies used in narrative text. The theoretical and pedagogical implications of the study were finally pointed out.

Keywords

EFL learners perceived reading strategies real used reading strategies reading comprehension

Reading is a vital skill in learning a second language since it is a way to access a wealth of knowledge exclusively (Kung, 2019). For EFL/ESL learners, mastery of the reading skill can contribute to creating knowledge and becoming successful in academic settings. However, such competence needs students to possess several learning strategies to assist them in comprehending a text without much challenge. Learners use Reading Strategies (RS) when comprehension problems occur (Feller et al., 2020). Learners need metacognitive strategies to understand and interpret texts. As Mokhtari and Sheorey (2013) argue, Metacognitive Reading Strategies (MRS) fall under Global (GLOB), Problem-solving (PROB), and Support strategies (SUP). GLOB strategies are intentionally used to prepare the ground for practicing reading. For instance, one may decide on the content of the text, make guesses, and find out its characteristics. PROB includes problem-solving-oriented strategies employed when problems appear in comprehending textual knowledge. Support reading strategies (SUP) are the support system used to maintain reading responses. L2 learners do not have adequate MRS to set up and monitor their reading skills effectively. Most learners are not cognizant of the nature of MRS. Notably, poor readers do not recognize which approaches are suitable for reading in academic contexts, nor do they understand how they can enhance their reading ability. When learners neglect MRS to comprehend academic materials, they feel confused about following proper reading techniques and methods (Yoshikawa & Leung, 2020). Accordingly, they cannot evaluate and monitor their reading practice appropriately. Thus, studying MRS in L2 reading is essential.

A review of previous studies indicates a link between first language (L1) and second language (L2) MRS. Such investigations confirm the possibility of transference of L1 and L2 MRS (L. Lin & Yu, 2015; Maarof & Yaacob, 2011). For instance, Tsai et al. (2010) examined Chinese learners’ L1 and L2 reading strategies (RS) and concluded that professional readers employed the same L1 and L2 MRS. In contrast, less skilled readers did not notice that they could use the same strategies when reading in L1 and L2. In other words, they could not transfer first-language RS to second-language reading, an issue emphasized by L. Lin and Yu (2015), who argued that the identical pattern of using MRS in L1 and L2 reading indicates the transferability of MRS. Along the same line, Maarof and Yaacob (2011), who investigated Malaysian students’ L1 strategy transfer, found that English proficiency levels were significantly affected by utilizing some common types of L1 and L2 strategies.

Research findings show that most Iranian university students have inadequate command of reading academic texts (Jamalipour & Khomeijani Farahani, 2015). Several reasons can explain their inabilities, such as a lack of L2 language proficiency and lexicon (Sidek & Rahim, 2015), lack of comprehension of the material, lack of formal schemata of the texts (El Kouti & Goui, 2018), and ineffective RS (Al-Mekhlafi, 2018). Therefore, as Alsheikh and Mokhtari (2011) stated, RS research offers a practical explanation and insight into the essence of interpreting reading comprehension.

Additionally, several studies have pointed to Iranian EFL learners’ unacceptable performance on the reading sections of proficiency tests (e.g., TOEFL, IELTS) (Amiri et al., 2018; Rezvani & Tavakoli, 2013; Taghizadeh & Khalili, 2019). The reading sections of these proficiency tests evaluate test-takers’ reading comprehension and RA. For example, TOEFL iBT has various question types that consist of high cognitive and metacognitive strategies for the learners to answer. Inferential questions necessitate thinking about the nature of words and the logical consequence of what the writer intends to convey to make inferences about the outcomes. However, it seems to the current study’s researchers that learners’ reading comprehension ability has rarely been the cannon of inquiry. In other words, the researchers assume that L2 readers’ degree of success in reading might be partially due to their L1 background. Therefore, this study examined the difference between Iranian EFL learners’ perceived MRS with various reading abilities. The study also investigated whether their perceived MRS differed while reading English and Persian.

Literature Review

Learning Strategies

Dörnyei and Ryan (2015) argue that the intentional use of learning strategies is more significant than the specific features of every strategy. They suggest an association between language learning strategies and self-regulation elements in languages. Learning strategies are dynamic constructs that link self-regulating learners’ strategic ability, purpose, and learning behavior. Oxford’s (2017) thorough definition of learning strategies distinguishes the main issues related to strategy use. Nonetheless, according to Oxford (2017), assuming that only self-regulated and autonomous students employ language learning strategies is not acceptable. Some students may still be other-regulated and dependent on others for selecting, learning, scaffolding, or monitoring strategic utilization. However, such learners can be regarded as strategic readers if they can apply RS.

Since previous research studies endeavored to put all students and situations under one broad umbrella term, new related topics, known as learning strategies, have emerged. Research into language learning strategy can be enhanced by separating self-directness from strategy utilization, creating an alternative stance, and focusing on diverse learning environments and students. Similarly, as Thomas and Rose (2018) state, the continuum shows that turning into a strategic language learner is a dynamic procedure in which others’ role is significant.

Reading Strategies

The categorization of RS is controversial, with different scholars presenting various definitions (Bećirović et al., 2017). Few classifications primarily focus on cognition and metacognition as essential dimensions of using strategies, including planning, making decisions, and self-monitoring (Anderson, 2003). According to Kasemsap and Lee (2015), cognitive and metacognitive strategies can group RS. Research findings hold that adequate interpretations of the reading materials occur not automatically but through various cognitive procedures (Thomas & Rose, 2018). Wallace (2007) maintains that efficient reading incorporates dynamic and critical rules where the reader poses inquiries to move toward the content by executing different reading skills, such as forecasting and knowing the text’s structure.

MRS are strategies constructed and developed to enhance readers’ reading skills, improve their comprehension and control, and monitor their comprehension progress (Zhang & Seepho, 2013). Many studies (Huang & Newbern 2012; Nash-Ditzel 2010; Shamsi Nejad & Shahrebabaki, 2015, to name a few) confirmed the positive impacts of MRS on student-readers’ reading comprehension. As stated by Hudson (2007), MRS are higher-order executive skills that involve planning, monitoring, and evaluating, which may assist L2 readers in organizing their learning process.

As Sheorey and Mokhtari (2001) put forth, support, cognitive, and metacognitive strategies can also be added to the ESL reading context. MRS are global and cognitive strategies equal to problem-solving reading strategies. The depictions of every class are clarified as follows:

Global Reading Strategies (GLOB) are deliberate, painstakingly arranged methods by which students screen their reading. Employed in the pre-reading phase, they include previewing the text for content and length or having a presumption.

Problem-solving Strategies (PROB) are activities and methods that readers employ when reading intentionally for the content. When breakdowns happen in finding and recognizing printed materials, readers use them to guess the meaning of written letters.

Support Strategies (SUP) are essential instruments planned to assist readers in understanding the content (e.g., taking notes and using dictionaries).

Examining Norwegian students’ metacognitive awareness, Busby (2018) investigated L1 and L2 reading of academic texts. The study showed a significantly meaningful correlation between RS in L1 and L2. In the same vein, Al-Mekhlafi (2018) found no significant difference between learners with different proficiency levels and their use of MRS. Similarly, Rezaei (2015) researched the association between MRS and reading comprehension. The study showed a close nexus between learners’ reading ability scores and strategy use. It also revealed a substantial difference between the more and the less successful readers’ use of strategies, verifying that the more successful readers utilized more strategies than other language readers. Jeevaratnam and Stapa (2022) found a significant difference in the frequency of MRS used by high and low-proficient students. In another study, Fırat and Koyuncu (2023) evaluated the MRS used by developing and skilled EFL learners in Turkey. Results indicated that skilled readers used the advantage of MRS, such as summarizing and remembering, compared to the less skilled readers. However, the current researchers did not come across previous studies on the MRS used by Iranian EFL learners with different reading abilities.

Systematically reviewing the factors that contributed to the use of RS among academic EFL students, J. Lin (2019) explored the studies conducted from 2000 to 2017. She found out that learners’ English proficiency, gender, motivation, and L1 background were the influential factors resulting in the frequent use of RS among academic EFL students, adding that higher proficient readers utilized more RS compared to lower proficient readers and possessed more metacognitive knowledge of RS use than low-proficiency. In a recent study, Yapp et al. (2021) also investigated strategy-instruction intervention. They indicated that participants’ reading comprehension significantly increased, suggesting the effectiveness of strategies instruction for learners when they read in L2.

Recently, some studies have focused on the role of text type in learners’ use of metacognitive reading strategies. For instance, Maniati et al. (2022) investigated MRS used in two different text types, namely, English for General purposes and English for Medical purposes, by medical students. They found a significant difference in MRS in the two different text types. Pammu et al. (2022) also explored how using narrative texts could induce EFL students’ MRS and observed a significant improvement in their use of MRS and reading narrative texts after a period of 6 months. However, these studies have focused on perceived reading strategies and ignored the real use of MRS in different text types. Thus, to fill the gap in the previous studies, the researchers proposed the following research questions:

Do perceived metacognitive reading strategies differ in Iranian EFL learners with different reading abilities?

How do Iranian EFL learners’ actual (real) use of metacognitive reading strategies in different English text types (expository and narrative) compare?

Method

Participants

The participants were selected in three varying stages based on convenience sampling. First, 400 male and female students, chosen from different reading classes at Islamic Azad University, North Tehran and Parand Branches, as well as Farhangyan University, took a placement test. Second, 133 (85 female and 48 male) learners with scores between one standard deviation above and below the mean score were selected out of 400 students and took a reading test, which enabled the researcher to divide them into high (n = 65) and low (n = 67) readers. The learners were graduate students whose ages ranged from 19 to 24. The participants had taken Reading I, Reading II, or Reading III courses. They attended the reading classes once a week for a 4-hour session during the whole semester. Figure 1 shows the distribution of the participants in terms of their gender and reading proficiency.

Figure 1.

Distribution of the participants regarding their gender and reading ability.

Instruments and Materials

Oxford Placement Test (OPT)

The OPT (Allen, 2004) was used to select the participants with an intermediate English language proficiency level in the first selection process. The OPT is a standard test for placement purposes; however, it is used frequently for language-related research worldwide because it is a highly economical and easy-to-administer objectively scorable test. Listening and grammar comprise the two main sections, with 100 items each. The first section addresses reading, listening, and vocabulary knowledge—the second section tests grammar, vocabulary, and reading skills in the context. The total score is 200 (one point for each item). Considering the test guideline, the researchers selected students who scored 51 to 59 as intermediate students.

Reading Test

The results of the reading section of the Preliminary English Test (PET), designed for intermediate-level English learners, divided the participants into high and low readers. The test has five subsections with 25 questions. In this study, students who scored above 12 (the mean score obtained in the pilot study) were identified as high-ability, and those below 12 were low-ability English readers. The test was piloted among 60 TEFL students whose characteristics were similar to the main study participants. The respondents were supposed to answer the questions in 30 minutes. The test’s internal consistency was calculated through Cronbach’s alpha to ensure that each item on a multi-item scale correlates with other items in the subscales and the total test score. The reliability of the test was .71, indicating its appropriateness for the study.

English and Persian Perceived Reading Strategy Questionnaire

Mokhtari and Reichard’s (2002) Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS) was used to evaluate English, and Persian perceived MRS. The questionnaire consists of 30 items examining the participants’ perceived reading strategies in three categories: GLOB, PROB, and SUP. Most items either inquire about some information or require the participants to take different options. SORS is on a 5-point Likert scale, and its validity has been reported in previous studies (e.g., Chen & Chen, 2015).

The Persian version of the questionnaire (translated by one of the researchers and a translator from English) was content validated and piloted among 100 native Iranian Persian speakers with characteristics similar to the study participants. Cronbach’s alpha showed a high-reliability index (.89) of the piloted questionnaire. The translated SORS was employed to determine the participants’ perceived MRS when they read in Persian.

Think Aloud

The participants undertook the think-aloud task and the English and Persian reading comprehension texts. The think-aloud protocols examined the way participants utilized strategies during the actual reading process. The think-aloud protocol process was piloted among five students to discover and remove practical obstacles in administering the think-aloud protocol. As Polio (2012) asserts, a think-aloud must be done relatively near the event for maximum accuracy. Therefore, the researchers conducted the think-aloud procedure 3 days after the original event.

Narrative and Expository Texts

Two reading texts, including one narrative and one expository, were selected to examine the participants’ real use of RS in English. Two different types of Persian reading texts, one narrative and one expository (Soozanchi Kashani, 2021), were selected to assess the actual utilization of RS during the learners’ L1 (Persian) reading.

Two English text types (expository and narrative) were selected from Mosaic I (Wegmann & Knezevic, 2013) reading textbook appropriate for the intermediate language proficiency level. The book has exciting topics and has been designed explicitly for RS. The expository text was on “Hybrid Cars,” and the narrative story was “Future Journey.” The length of the texts for English expository and narrative text types were 950 and 1050 words, respectively. Their readability indices obtained through Flesch-Kincaid readability scales (available at: http://www.readabilityformulas.com/) were 70.4 for narrative and 80 for expository text, indicating their appropriateness for intermediate English language proficiency.

Data Collection

Primarily, 400 students took the Persian Reading Comprehension Placement Test. They took the OPT and the Reading Section of the PET in the second session. English and Persian Perceived RS Questionnaires were administered in the following session. After scoring the OPT and Reading tests and the strategy questionnaires, 133 students whose scores were between 120 and 149 (±1 standard deviation) were recognized to be at the intermediate English language proficiency level; the data of other students were removed. In the second stage of participant selection, 67 students who achieved 12 (the mean score) on the Persian Reading Comprehension Placement Test were excluded from the study as low readers of Persian reading comprehension.

Finally, 133 students were selected as the main groups, including high and low English readers, based on their scores in the Reading Section of the PET. Those who achieved above the mean score (M = 12) were considered high readers, and others low readers. Then, two groups filled in the strategy questionnaires. The data gathered from the strategy questionnaires were coded, ranked, and analyzed via the SPSS database.

The think-aloud protocols were conducted at the end to enable the researchers to determine the RS the participants utilized while reading different Persian texts. The participants did the think-aloud protocols for two various reading texts. Before performing the think-aloud tasks, the participants received training on thinking aloud. If a student paused for more than 15 seconds (piloting had verified the appropriateness of this time), the researcher, who was present at the event, asked the student what they were thinking. Students had sufficient time to read the texts and process them while not giving them too much time to distract them from their immediate thoughts. The data obtained from think-aloud tasks were audio-recorded. The think-aloud tasks were performed for both Persian and English reading texts. The students expressed their thoughts about the passage, its level of difficulty, and why it was easy or difficult. According to Creswell (2013), a fifteen-second interval was the best time for the think-aloud protocol.

Data Analysis

After calculating descriptive statistics of three categories of perceived MRS, chi-square tests were performed to recognize the difference between the type and frequency of MRS. Besides, the difference between the MRS in each text type was examined separately through Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA). Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of three categories of perceived MRS. As evident, the means and standard deviations for GLOB, PROB, and SUP are (M = 2.583, SD = 1.272), (M = 2.416, SD = 1.223), and (M = 2.560, SD = 1.337), respectively. The highest mean score is for GLOB (M = 2.583, SD = 1.272), and the lowest mean score is for SUP (M = 2.560, SD = 1.337).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics, Three Types of Perceived Metacognitive Reading Strategies.

	N	M	SD	Min.	Max.
Global	132	2.583	1.272	1.00	5.00
Problem-solving	132	2.416	1.223	1.00	5.00
Support	132	2.560	1.337	1.00	5.00

After calculating the descriptive statistics, to determine the difference between types and number of Iranian EFL learners’ perceived MRS, separate one-way chi-squares were run, respectively. Table 2 presents the results for GLOB.

Table 2.

Chi-Square Test, Global Reading Strategies.

	Chi-square value	df	p Value
Pearson chi-square	14.298^a	2	.622
Likelihood ratio	14.304	2	.001
Linear-by-linear association	11.239	1	.001
N of valid cases	132

0 cells (0.0%) have expected counts less than 5. The minimum expected count is 62.02.

A significant difference between the type and frequency of GLOB (χ² = 14.298, df = 2, *p > .05) is observed (Table 3). The realizations of GLOB regarding frequency and type are not different in learners’ perceived MRS. Another chi-square was run to examine the difference between the frequency and strategy type for the PROB. As illustrated in Table 3, there was a significant difference between the frequency and type of PROB (χ² = 16.40, df = 2, *p < .05).

Table 3.

Chi-Square, Problem-Solving Reading Strategies.

	Chi-square value	df	p Value
Pearson chi-square	16.405^a	2	.001*
Likelihood ratio	16.585	2	.001
Linear-by-linear association	13.506	1	.000
N of valid cases	132

0 cells (0.0%) have expected counts less than 5. The minimum expected count is 69.01. Additionally, for the SUP, chi-square was calculated, and no significant difference between the frequency and type of SUP (χ² = 15.005, df = 2, *p > .05) was found (Table 4).

Table 4.

Chi-Square Test on the Support Reading Strategies.

	Chi-square value	df	p Value
Pearson chi-square	15.114^a	2	.622
Likelihood ratio	15.005	2	.622
Linear-by-linear association	14.677	1	.000
N of valid cases	132

0 cells (0.0%) have expected counts less than 5. The minimum expected count is 71.91.

The second research question compared Iranian EFL learners’ actual (real) utilization of MRS in different English text types (narrative and expository). MANOVA was performed to determine the difference between the perceived MRS of the participants with varying reading abilities. Table 5 presents the difference between the perceived MRS of high and low readers, F(4, 65) = 1.732, p = .14; Wilks’ Lambda = .75; Partial eta squared = .24. However, Wilks’ Lambda does not tell which variables differed between the groups. Therefore, tests of between-subjects effects were run.

Table 5.

MANOVA (Tests of Within-Subjects Effects).

Effect strategies	Value	F	Hypothesis df.	Error df	Sig.	Partial eta Sq.
Intercept
Pillai’s trace	.993	718.584	5.000	65.00	.000	.993
Wilks’ Lambda	.596	718.584	5.000	65.00	.000	.993
Hotelling’s trace	.679	718.584	5.000	65.00	.000	.993
Roy’s largest root	.679	718.584	5.000	65.00	.000	.993
Group
Pillai’s trace	.40	1.732	5.000	65.00	.000	.249
Wilks’ Lambda	.596	1.732	5.000	65.00	.000	.249
Hotelling’s trace	.679	1.732	5.000	65.00	.000	.249
Roy’s largest root	.679	1.732	5.000	65.00	.000	.249

Table 6 shows between-subjects effects, which investigated the mean score change between the low and high reader groups. The difference between PROB and SUP was not statistically significant between the low and high reader groups (p = .20 and p = .30). In contrast, there was a significant difference between the groups regarding GLOB (p = .007), with an effect size (η²) of .21.

Table 6.

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects.

Source strategies	Type III sum of squares	df	Mean square	F	Sig.	Partial eta squared (η²)
Group global	1.213	2	1.213	8.265	.007	.216
Support	0.254	2	0.254	1.672	.206	.053
Problem-	0.201	2	0.201	1.703	.302	.054
Error global	4.404	2	0.147
Support	4.551	2	0.152
Problem-	3.541	2	0.118

Furthermore, based on think-aloud protocol results, the learners used the same GLOB and PROB in reading narrative and expository text types; however, the pattern of using SUP was different. For example, for GLOB, one of the learners, in facing a narrative text, first skimmed it to examine the length and organization and stated, “it’s a long text, and it doesn’t have many paragraphs. It seems a bit complex to me.” She did the same for the expository text and said, “this text seems to be more organized. It has sub-titles and is divided into paragraphs.” Regarding SUP, while reading narrative texts, one of the learners stopped to think about what she had read about the text and did the same in facing expository text.

Considering the difference in SUP, such as paraphrasing expository text, one of the participants paraphrased the following statement:

“Electric engines tend to use the motion of the car to help recharge their batteries, in the same way that a gasoline car battery is recharged” as:

(a)

“The gasoline car battery should be recharged the battery of electric engine is also be recharged, and this is done when the car is moved.”

For reading expository text aloud, another learner paraphrased it as:

(b)

“At the same time, it utilizes electric batteries to reduce emissions and improve fuel consumption greatly. The result is a vehicle that is better for the environment but still offers a vehicle means of transport for the owner.”

To summarize the narrative text:

“It was twenty years ago, and I was living in Paris. I had a tiny apartment in the Latin Quarter overlooking a cemetery, and I was earning barely enough money to keep body and soul together. She had read a book of mine and had written to me about it. I answered, thanked her, and presently I received from her another letter saying that she was passing through Paris and would like to have a chat with me, but her time was limited, and the only free moment she had was on the following Thursday.”

One learner stated:

(c)

As I got, he was in Paris. He wasn’t a rich person. He was a writer and a girl read his book and wrote him about the book, and then she went to Paris and wanted to meet him.

The findings also indicated that learners used more MRS in expository texts than narrative texts. Therefore, the researchers inferred that text types affect readers’ performance. The results showed that learners used the same GLOB and PROB in reading both text types, while the pattern of using SUP was different. The most frequent SUP used in expository text was paraphrasing, circling the information, and reading aloud while summarizing and asking questions were the most frequent SUP used in narrative text.

Discussion

The present study examined whether perceived MRS differs among Iranian EFL learners with varying reading abilities. The results verified no significant differences between the low and high reader groups using the two perceived MRS (PROB and SUP). However, the groups showed significant differences in GLOB. One justification for the finding is language proficiency level. Low readers are usually less proficient in English than high readers. Therefore, low readers require some RS to compensate for the deficit. In addition, low readers are typically supposed to use RS more than high readers to solve reading failures and breakdowns due to their L1 and L2 differences. Students’ background knowledge may also result in differences in the use of RS. The findings do not align with Sheorey and Mokhtari (2008), who found a significant difference between the more and less skilled EFL readers using RS.

The results obtained from the qualitative data also indicated no differences between the categories of MRS. The participants believed they knew many strategies and could use them in authentic contexts. However, what they used in practice was different from what they supposed. Concerning the difference between Iranian learners’ really used MRS, the results revealed that the pattern of reported strategies was the same in L1 and L2. In other words, the most frequent strategies were PROB, SUP, and GLOB, respectively. Out of SUP, summarizing was significantly higher in learners’ L1, whereas the use of underlying strategy was seen higher in L2. In GLOB, text features and contextual clues were more frequent in L2. Rereading for better understanding and guessing strategies were dominant strategies in L2 PROB.

The findings are consistent with Taylor et al. (2006), who indicated that not all learners in all contexts use a set of effective strategies. High readers seemed to use more than one strategy in one context to enhance reading interpretation. In contrast, low readers were supposed to use one RS at a time. Additionally, one should not attribute all the reasons to a set of specific RS. Other reasons that do not necessarily require using any of the RS may result in successful reading comprehension. For instance, learners’ actual literacy level can improve reading comprehension (Yapp et al., 2021).

The present study also compared learners’ actual (real) utilization of MRS in different English text types (narrative and expository). The results showed that they employed more MRS in expository than narrative texts. That is, text types affected readers’ performance. The results showed that learners used the same GLOB and PLOB in reading both text types, while the pattern for the SUP was different. As the findings indicated, the most frequent SUP used in the expository text included paraphrasing, circling the information, and reading aloud. However, summarizing and asking questions were the most frequent SUP in reading narrative texts. One justification for such results is that learners’ perceptions of their reading skills might be decisive in their reading ability. Learners with positive perceptions are likely to read more than readers whose perception is negative, enriching their repertoire of words and structures that facilitate reading. Learners with negative perceptions do not generally improve their reading competence due to a lack of reading practice.

Reading rate was a differentiating factor between high and low-level readers. Notably, low readers read slowly and hesitated during the reading process. They also seemed to be confused since they focused on singular words. However, high readers were more likely to read with a significant speed rate. Most high readers required very few minutes to skim the texts. In addition, they read at a faster rate since they read for larger chunks of meaning rather than for singular items.

Further, this research partly lends support to the results obtained from L2 readers. For example, Anderson (2003) showed a noticeable impact of learners’ L2 proficiency on the RS. The present study also accords with Grabe (2009), who showed that good readers are more skillful in strategy utilization than poor readers because good readers use a more comprehensive range of strategies and can adapt strategy utilization to text difficulty. Moreover, the findings align with the studies by Hong-Nam and Leavell (2011) and Sheorey and Mokhtari (2001), which showed a meaningfully direct association between learners’ reading proficiency and strategy use, verifying that high readers were more strategic and more cognizant of metacognitive knowledge. Likewise, advanced EFL students monitor the cognitive information process and utilize the RS more frequently than low readers.

Furthermore, the results correspond with Alhaqani and Riazi (2012) and Hansen (2010), who reported a positive relationship between learners’ MRS and reading performance. The current study also indicated that PROB and GLOB predicted the amount of reading comprehension among learners. Skillful readers utilize more PROB and GLOB.

The overall findings can be justified by the theories underlying automaticity and restructuring. Based on these theories, language teachers can assist learners in automatizing RS use by recreating knowledge in the reading process (Aryanjam et al., 2021; Feller et al., 2020). According to McLeod and McLaughlin (2006), high readers possess more autonomous decoding skills than low readers, which helps them comprehend texts easily. They also argue that high readers do not achieve their complete reading performance where restructuring occurs. McLeod and McLaughlin (2006) believe that although high readers had not yet restructured their L2, they might approach L1 reading in the same way. They did not utilize strategic utilization of semantic and syntactic information.

Another possible interpretation is that the reading tasks required L2 learners to utilize controlled processing for appropriate articulation. However, since reading skill is an individual practice and the latent section of it may not be seen, MRS may help readers create meaning since this knowledge requires to be contextualized. Accordingly, learners’ metacognitive awareness of RS shows that their failures in EFL reading are both matters of reading problems and language (Kasim & Raisha, 2017). The active role of readers is also essential for successful reading (Bahardoust & Ahmadi, 2017).

Conclusion

The researchers argue that when low readers realize their strengths and weaknesses as language learners, they recognize the effectiveness of metacognitive strategies for meaning-making, taking control of their learning, and using remedial calculations to enhance their processing skills. The MRS would also assist them in recognizing that besides linguistic competence in the target language, other types of knowledge are necessary for efficient reading. Another conclusion is that RS instructions should be integrated into the reading curriculum to enhance learners’ attitudes toward reading. The current study shows metacognitive strategy instruction can improve L2 readers’ comprehension of English texts. The study also indicates that strategy instruction can help learners detect their reading errors and adopt practical ways to correct them. The study reveals that L2 reading practice involves restructuring and automaticity of knowledge-creating in a new language, mainly when learners are unfamiliar with some strategies. The study may allow L2 teachers to understand the reading problems L2 learners encounter in their reading skills. However, L2 teachers need training courses for manipulating the RS involved in L2 reading in their classes.

For further studies, the researchers propose that since expository texts are more difficult for learners, they should receive more attention than narrative texts. In dealing with English expository texts, explicit teaching of some strategies seems necessary. Reading expository texts in the first language is influential in comprehending them in the second language. The role of personality factors in learning MRS can be the focus of future studies.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Mojgan Rashtchi

Gholam-Reza Abbasian

References

Alhaqani

Riazi

(2012). Metacognitive awareness of reading strategy use in Arabic as a second language. Reading in a Foreign Language, 24(2), 231–255. https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en

Allen

(2004). Oxford placement test. Longman.

Al-Mekhlafi

A. M.

(2018). EFL learners’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. International Journal of Instruction, 11(2), 297–308. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.11220a

Alsheikh

Mokhtari

(2011). An examination of the metacognitive reading strategies used by native speakers of Arabic when reading in English and Arabic. English Language Teaching, 4(2), 151–160. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v4n2p151

Amiri

Ghonsooli

Ghabanchi

(2018). Iranian EFL learners’ performance in the reading section of TOEFL: The role of two strategies. Journal of Language and Translation Studies, 51(2), 51–74.

Anderson

N. J.

(2003). Scrolling, clicking, and reading English: Online reading strategies in a second/foreign language. The Reading Matrix, 3(3), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1037//00220663.94.2.249

Aryanjam

Rashtchi

Maftoon

(2021). Boosting reading achievement by employing learner autonomy curriculum: Effects of strategy instruction. Iranian Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(3), 51–70. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v5n2p24

Bahardoust

Ahmadi

(2017). A comparison of highly successful, moderate successful, and unsuccessful test-takers’ performance on EFL reading comprehension test regarding test taking strategies use. Journal of Instruction and Evaluation, 10(38), 135–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.11.016

Bećirović

Brdarević-Čeljo

Sinanović

(2017). The use of metacognitive reading strategies among students at international Burch University. European Journal of Contemporary Education, 6(4), 645–655. https://doi.org/10.13187/ejced.2017.4.645

10.

Busby

N. L.

(2018). Comparing first and second language reading: The use of metacognitive strategies among Norwegian students. Acta Didactica Norge, 12(2), 4–27.

11.

Chen

K. T. C.

Chen

S. C. L.

(2015). The use of EFL reading strategies among high school students in Taiwan. The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 15(2), 156–166.

12.

Creswell

J. W.

(2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE.

13.

Dörnyei

Ryan

(2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. Routledge.

14.

El Kouti

Goui

(2018). Text structure awareness impact on ESP learners’ reading comprehension. Lambert Academic Publishing.

15.

Feller

Kopatich

Lech

E. F.

Higgs

(2020). Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61(5), 364–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219420932139

16.

Fırat

Koyuncu

. (2023). Examining metacognitive strategy preferences of students at different reading proficiency levels. International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies, 10(1), 224–240. https://doi.org/10.52380/ijpes.2023.10.1.997

17.

Grabe

(2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. Cambridge University Press.

18.

Hansen

G. F.

(2010). Word recognition in Arabic as a foreign language. The Modern Language Journal, 94, 567–581. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01094.x

19.

Hong-Nam

Leavell

A. G.

(2011). Reading strategy instruction, metacognitive awareness, and self-attitude of striving college developmental readers. Journal of College Literacy and Learning, 37, 3–17. https://doi.org/10.29329/mjer.2019.218.12

20.

Huang

Newbern

(2012). The effects of metacognitive reading strategy instruction on reading performance of adult ESL learners with limited English and literacy skills. Journal of Research and Practice for Adult Literacy, Secondary, and Basic Education, 1(2), 66–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2018.1527279

21.

Hudson

(2007). Teaching second language reading. Oxford University Press.

22.

Jamalipour

Khomeijani Farahani

(2015). The effect of vocabulary knowledge and background knowledge on Iranian EFL learners’ L2 reading comprehension. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2(2), 107–121. https://doi.org/10.17244/eku.319267

23.

Jeevaratnam

J. A.

Stapa

(2022). Exploring metacognitive reading strategies used by low and high proficiency from three ESL students. Journal of Nusantara Studies, 7(1), 335–365. https://doi.org/10.24200/jonus.vol7iss1pp335-365

24.

Kasemsap

Lee

H. Y. H.

(2015). L2 reading in Thailand: Vocational college students’ application of reading strategies to their reading of English texts. The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 15(2), 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1411036

25.

Kasim

Raisha

(2017). EFL students’ reading comprehension problems: Linguistic and non-linguistic complexities. English Education Journal, 8(3), 308–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2018.1475589

26.

Kung

F.-W.

(2019). Teaching second language reading comprehension: The effect of classroom materials and reading strategy use. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 13(1), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2017.1364252

27.

Lin

(2019). Factors related to EFL/ESL learners’ reading strategy use: A literature review. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics,1(42), 91–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688205052143

28.

Lin

(2015). A think-aloud study of strategy use by EFL college readers reading Chinese and English texts. Journal of Research in Reading, 38(3), 286–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12012

29.

Maarof

Yaacob

(2011). Meaning making in the first and second language: Reading strategies of Malaysian students. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 12, 211–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.02.029

30.

Maniati

Haydari

Tazik

I. K.

(2022). The effect of ESP text type on Iranian first-year medical students’ language use strategies and test-taking strategies. MEXTESOL Journal, 46(4), 1–12.

31.

McLeod

McLaughlin

(2006). Restructuring or automaticity? Reading in a second language. Language Learning, 36(2), 110–123. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190505000061

32.

Mokhtari

Reichard

(2002). Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249–259. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.94.2.249

33.

Mokhtari

Sheorey

(2013). Measuring ESL students’ awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Developmental Education, 25(3), 2–10. https://doi.org/10.29997/35000358

34.

Nash-Ditzel

(2010). Metacognitive reading strategies can improve self-regulation. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 40(2), 45–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.819356

35.

Oxford

R. L.

(2017). Teaching and researching language learning strategies. Self-regulation in context. Routledge.

36.

Pammu

Sahraeny

Nasmilah

Rosmiaty

(2022, April). Applying cultural–based narrative text to induce metacognitive reading strategies of proficient EFL learners at English department, Hasanuddin University Makassar [Conference session]. 9th Asbam international conference (archeology, history, & culture in the nature of Malay) (ASBAM 2021), ASBAM, Malaysia (pp. 447–452). Atlantis Press.

37.

Polio

(2012). How to research second language writing. In Mackey

Gass

S. M.

(Eds.), Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide (pp. 139–157). Wiley-Blackwell.

38.

Rezaei

(2015). Examining and dealing with the issue of reading strategy use by Iranian EFL learners. The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 15(2), 34–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/jrir.12003

39.

Rezvani

Tavakoli

(2013). Investigating Iranian test-takers’ cognitive and metacognitive strategy use: IELTS reading section in focus. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 13(7), 956–962. https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2013.13.7.3174

40.

Shamsi Nejad

Shahrebabaki

M.M.

(2015). Effects of metacognitive strategy instruction on the reading comprehension of English language learners through cognitive academic language learning approach (CALLA). International Journal of Languages Education and Teaching, 35(2), 133–164. https://doi.org/10.18298/ijlet.463

41.

Sheorey

Mokhtari

(2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among native and non-native readers. System, 29, 431–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00039-2

42.

Sheorey

Mokhtari

(2008). Introduction. In Mokhtari

Sheorey

(Eds.), Reading strategies of first-and-second language learners: See how they read (pp. 1–10). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

43.

Sidek

Rahim

T. E.

(2015), EFL reading instruction: Communicative task-based approach. International Journal of Instruction, 5(2), 109–128. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586670

44.

Soozanchi Kashani

(2021). Scientific life. Rasa Publication.

45.

Taghizadeh

Khalili

(2019). The relationship between reading self-efficacy beliefs, reading strategy use and reading comprehension level of Iranian EFL learners. World Journal of Education, 2(2), 64–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2011.640097

46.

Taylor

Stevens

J. R.

Asher

J. W.

(2006). The effects of explicit reading strategy training on L2 reading comprehension: A meta-analysis. In Norris

J. M.

Ortega

(Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 213–244). John Benjamins.

47.

Thomas

Rose

H. L.

(2018). Do language learning strategies need to be self-directed? Disentangling strategies from self-regulated learning. TESOL Quarterly,53(1), 248–257. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.473

48.

Tsai

Y.-R.

Ernst

Talley

(2010). L1 and L2 strategy use in reading comprehension of Chinese EFL readers. Reading Psychology, 31, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710802412081.

49.

Wallace

(2007). Vocabulary: The key to teaching English language learners to read. Reading Improvement, 44(A), 189–193. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587625

50.

Wegmann

Knezevic

(2013). Mosaic 1 reading (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill Contemporary.

51.

Yapp

de Graaff

van den Bergh

(2021). Effects of reading strategy instruction in English as a second language on students’ academic reading comprehension. Language Teaching Research, 3(5), 47–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2013.783875

52.

Yoshikawa

Leung

C. Y.

(2020). Transitional shift of metacognitive awareness of reading strategy along with L2-English reading proficiency. The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 20(1), 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688205052143

53.

Zhang

Seepho

(2013). Metacognitive strategy use and academic reading achievement: Insights from a Chinese context. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 10(1), 54–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2018.1475589

Exploring the Perceived and Real Metacognitive Reading Strategies of Iranian EFL Learners: Different Text Types in Focus

Abstract

Keywords

Literature Review

Learning Strategies

Reading Strategies

Method

Participants

Instruments and Materials

Oxford Placement Test (OPT)

Reading Test

English and Persian Perceived Reading Strategy Questionnaire

Think Aloud

Narrative and Expository Texts

Data Collection

Data Analysis

Discussion

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iDs

References