臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究旨在比較文學院及理學院大學生對於四項英文閱讀後設認知策略之覺察，並對文、理學院學生在英文閱讀中遇到的困難及解決方法進行探討。本研究之對象為台灣南部一所大學的兩百位新生，其中文學院學生共一百位，理學院學生共一百位。基於學生英文閱讀運用後設認知策略之覺察問卷、出聲思考，以及訪談的資料分析，本研究的結果總結如下：
一、文學院學生和理學院學生對英文閱讀的覺察有一項顯著差異。進而，文學院學生的平均分數高於理學院學生。因此，文學院學生較理學院學生對英文閱讀持有正面的覺察。具體而言，文學院學生對於透過英文閱讀學習語言持有正面的覺察。透過出聲思考和訪談可以看出，文學院學生認為透過閱讀可以學習英文，而理學院學生則強調透過閱讀達到特定目的。
二、文學院學生和理學院學生對預測的覺察有兩項顯著差異。進而，文學院學生的平均分數高於理學院學生。因此，文學院學生較理學院學生對預測持有較正面的覺察。具體而言，文學院學生對於透過目錄猜測文本中將發生的事，以及會修正文本內容和接下來即將發生的內容不合邏輯的預測有正面的覺察。透過出聲思考和訪談可以看出，理科生在沒有足夠的資訊基礎時鮮少做出假設。因此，他們對於在英文閱讀中進行預測會表現出猶豫。
三、文學院學生和理學院學生對於掃讀的覺察有顯著差異。進而，文學院學生的平均分數高於理學院學生。因此，文學院學生較理學院學生對掃讀有正面的覺察。具體而言，文學院學生對於迅速掃讀文本中跟時間有關的資訊持有正面態度。透過出聲思考和訪談，可以推論文學院學生熟悉與時間相關的語言元素，如時間副詞。相反地，理學院學生可以經由掃讀尋找數字等時間資訊，但掃讀與時間相關的英文術語對於他們而言是困難的。
四、文學院學生和理學院學生對心智圖法閱讀的覺察有三項顯著差異。進而，理學院學生的平均分數高於文學院學生。因此，理學院學生較文學院學生對於心智圖法閱讀有正面的覺察。具體而言，理學院學生使用心智圖法閱讀英文時，將文本中人及事物做連結，將文本中發生事件的因果關係做連結，或將文本中發生的事與物的關係做連結。透過出聲思考和訪談可以推斷，由於學科課程的學習活動，理學院學生傾向於進行抽象思維且習慣於尋找因果關係。相反地，文學院學生不習慣以抽象思維進行心智圖策略閱讀。他們較習慣專注於文章中的文字內容。
五、文學院學生和理學院學生對摘要的覺察有兩項顯著差異。進而，文學院學生的平均分數高於理學院學生。因此，文學院學生較理學院學生對於摘要持有正面的覺察。具體而言，文學院學生對於在英文閱讀後使用兩三句英文句子寫出文本大意以及英文閱讀後，可以用兩三句英文句子寫出文本的主旨有正面的覺察。此外，文學院學生和理學院學生偏好使用的後設認知策略相同，他們偏好使用的後設認知策略依順序為掃讀、預測、摘要和心智圖策略閱讀。另一方面，他們較少使用的後設認知策略依順序為心智圖法閱讀、摘要、預測和掃讀策略。
六、在英文閱讀中，文學院學生所遇到的困難為詞彙知識不足、複雜的文法以及慢速的閱讀。另一方面，理學院學生所遇到的困難為詞彙知識不足、慢速的閱讀以及複雜的文法。對於文學院學生而言，解決這些困難的方法依序為查詞彙、大量閱讀、以及使用閱讀策略。對於理學院學生而言，解決這些困難的方法依序為查詞彙、使用閱讀策略、以及詢問同學。根據本研究結果，研究者提供了三項教學意義。首先，文學院學生和理學院學生可以嘗試透過大量英文閱讀來精進閱讀，並練習不同類型的閱讀策略。具體來說，文學院的學生可更熟悉心智圖策略，而理學院學生可更熟悉摘要。其次，英語教師可以幫助學生擴展英語詞彙庫，加深他們對每種策略的理解，並指導他們有效地使用不同的後設認知策略，以期可以幫助學生成為更好的讀者。最後，課程設計者可以根據後設認知技能設計不同類型的閱讀問題和活動，以期幫助學生熟悉不同的後設認知策略。

The present study aims to compare the perceptions of four metacognitive strategies in English reading for the humanities and the science students. The perceptions of the difficulties and solutions in English reading for the humanities and the science students are also discussed. To achieve the study purpose, 200 freshmen students were recruited from a university in southern Taiwan, including 100 humanities students and 100 science students. Based on the data analyses of a questionnaire, a think-aloud, and an interview form, the findings of this study are summarized as follows:
1. There is one significant difference in the perceptions of English reading for the humanities students and the science students. In addition, the mean score of the humanities students is higher than that of the science students. Therefore, the humanities students have more positive perceptions than the science students in terms of English reading. To be specific, the humanities students show positive perceptions of learning language by reading in English. Through the think-aloud and the interview, it is inferred that humanities students believe that they could learn English through reading, while the science students place an emphasis on achieving immediate purposes in reading.
2. There are two significant differences in the perceptions of prediction for the humanities students and the science students.In addition, the mean scores of the humanities students are higher than those of the science students. Therefore, the humanities students have more positive perceptions than the science students in terms of prediction. To be specific, the humanities students show positive perceptions of guessing what will happen in the text through the table of contents, and revising their predictions if the prior prediction is found to be illogical. Through the think-aloud and the interview, it is inferred that the science students are not willing to make hypotheses when they do not have sufficient information base. As a result, they are hesitant to make predictions in English reading.
3. There is one significant difference in the perception of scanning for the humanities students and the science students. In addition, the mean score of the humanities students is higher than that of the science students. Therefore, the humanities student shave more positive perceptions than the science students in terms of scanning.To be specific, the humanities students show positive perceptions of scanning to find time-related information. Through the think-aloud and the interview, it is inferred that the humanities students are familiar with linguistic elements associated with time, such as time adverbs. On the other hand, the science students can scan for time numbers, but find it difficult to scan for English time-related terms.
4. There are three significant differences in the perceptions of mind-mapping for the humanities students and the science students. In addition, the mean scores of the science students are higher than those of the humanities students. Therefore, the science students have more positive perceptions than the humanities students in terms of mind-mapping. To be specific, the science students show positive perceptions of connecting people with objects and events during mind mapping,causal relationships between events during mind-mapping, and objects with events during mind-mapping. Through the think-aloud and the interview, it is inferred that the science students tend to facilitate abstract thinking and are used to finding causal relationships due to the learning activities in science classes. Therefore, science students can make connections during mind-mapping. On the other hand, humanities students are not accustomed to dealing with abstract thinking in mind-mapping. They tend to focus on words in the texts.
5. There are two significant differences in the perceptions of summarization for the humanities students and the science students. In addition, the mean scores of the humanities students are higher than those of the science students. Therefore, the humanities students have more positive perceptions than the science students in terms of summarization. To be specific, the humanities students show positive perceptions of using two or three English sentences to write down the gist of the text after reading in English, and using two or three English sentences to write down the main idea of the text after reading in English. In addition, the priority of preferred strategies for the humanities students and science students are scanning, prediction, summarization, and mind-mapping. On the other hand, the priority of least preferred strategies for the humanities students and science students are mind-mapping, summarization, prediction, and scanning.
6. The priority of difficulties in English reading for the humanities students are insufficient vocabulary knowledge, complex grammar, and slow reading. On the other hand, the difficulties in English reading for the science students in priority are insufficient vocabulary knowledge, slow reading, and complex grammar. For the humanities students, the solutions to these difficulties in priority are looking up vocabulary, extensive reading, and using reading strategies. For the science students, the solutions to these difficulties in priority are looking up vocabulary, using reading strategies, and asking classmates.
Based on the study findings, three pedagogical implications are provided. First, the humanities and the science students may try to promote English reading abilities by extensive reading, and practice different types of reading strategies. Specifically, the humanities students may become familiar with mind-mapping strategies, and science students may become familiar with summarization strategies. Second, EFL teachers may help students expand English vocabulary banks, developing their understanding of each strategy, and guiding them to use different metacognitive strategies efficiently. Hopefully, they may help students become better readers. Finally, curriculum designers may design different types of reading questions and activities based on metacognitive skills. Hopefully, they may help students be familiar with different metacognitive strategies.

CHAPTER ONE   INTRODUCTION 1
Background and Motivation 1
Statements of Problems 5
Purposes of the Study 7
Research Questions 7
Significance of the Study 8
Limitations of the Study 9
Definition of Terms 9


CHAPTER TWO   LITERATURE REVIEW 12
Insights into Reading and Reading Comprehension 12
Importance of Reading and Reading Comprehension 13
Nature of Reading Comprehension 15
Three Models of Information Processing in Reading 17
Insights into Impacts of Reading on EFL Students 20
From L1 Reading to L2 Reading 20
Crossing the Boundary between L1 and L2 Reading 22
Impacts of Reading on EFL Students 24
Exploring Metacognitive Strategies 27
Cognition and Metacognition in Reading 28
Types of Metacognitive Strategies 29
Research on Reading with Metacognitive Strategies 32


CHAPTER THREE   METHODOLOGY 38
Subjects 38
Instruments 38
A Questionnaire on the Students’ Perceptions of Four Metacognitive Strategies in English Reading 39
A Guidance to Think-aloud Reading 40
Two English Reading Materials 40
An Interview Form 41
A Consent Form 41
Results of the Pilot Study 42
Procedures 44
Data Analysis 45
A Quantitative Analysis 46
A Qualitative Analysis 46


CHAPTER FOUR   RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 47
A Comparison of the Perceptions of English Reading for the Humanities Students and the Science Students 47
A Comparison of the Perceptions of Prediction for the Humanities Students and the Science Students50
A Comparison of the Perceptions of Scanning for the Humanities Students and the Science Students 54
A Comparison of the Perceptions of Mind-mapping for the Humanities Students and the Science Students 57
A Comparison of the Perceptions of Summarization for the Humanities Students and the Science Students 63
A Comparison of the Perceptions of the Strategy Preference for the Humanities Students and the Science Students 67
The Perceptions of the Difficulties and Solutions in English Reading for the Humanities Students and the Science Students 71


CHAPTER FIVE  CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 81
Conclusions 81
Implications 84
Suggestions 84


REFERENCES 86
APPENDICES                            101
Appendix A-1 A Questionnaire on the Students’ Perceptions of Four Metacognitive Strategies used in English Reading (Chinese Version)101
Appendix A-2 A Questionnaire on the Students’ Perceptions of Four Metacognitive Strategies used in English Reading 105
Appendix B-1 A Guide to Think-Aloud Reading (Chinese Version)109
Appendix B-2 A Guide to Think-Aloud Reading 110
Appendix C English Reading Material for Think-Aloud 1 111
Appendix D English Reading Material for Think-Aloud 2 112
Appendix E-1 Interview Form (Chinese Version) 113
Appendix E-2 Interview Form 114
Appendix F-1 Interview Form (Chinese Version) 115
Appendix F-2 Interview Form (English Version) 116
Appendix G-1  A Consent Form (Chinese Version) 117
Appendix G-2  A Consent Form (English Version) 118
Appendix H The Reliability of the Questionnaire on the Students’ Perceptions of Four Metacognitive Strategies in the Pilot Study 119
Appendix I The Validity of the Questionnaire on the Students’ Perceptions of Four Metacognitive Strategies in the Pilot Study 121
Appendix J The Reliability of the Questionnaire on the Students’ Perceptions of Four Metacognitive Strategies 123
Appendix K The Validity of the Questionnaire on the Students’ Perceptions of Four Metacognitive Strategies 125
Appendix L Sample Humanities Student’s Response to the Think-Aloud 127
Appendix M Sample Science Student’s Response to the Think-Aloud 128
Appendix N Sample Humanities Student’s Response to the Interview 129
Appendix O Sample Science Student’s Response to the Interview 131
 
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table                                                  
1. Previous studies on Metacognitive Strategies 33
2. Significant Differences in the Perceptions of the Four Metacognitive Strategies for the Humanities Students and Science Students in the Pilot Study 43
3. A Comparison of the Perceptions of English Reading for the Humanities Students and Science Students 48
4. A Comparison of the Perceptions of Prediction for the Humanities Students and Science Students 51
5. A Comparison of the Perceptions of Scanning for the Humanities Students and Science Students 55
6. A Comparison of the Perceptions of Mind-mapping for the Humanities Students and Science Students 58
7. A Comparison of the Perceptions of Summarization for the Humanities Students and Science Students 64
8. A Comparison of the Priority of Preferred Strategy for the Humanities Students and Science Students 68
9. A Comparison of the Least Preferred Strategy for the Humanities Students and Science Students 69
10. The Perceptions of Difficulties in English Reading for the Humanities Students and Science Students 71
11. The Solutions to the Difficulties in English Reading for the Humanities Students and Science Students 76


Figure                                   
Figure 1 A sample mind-map 11
Figure 2. A flow chart of the study procedures 45

Abu-Snoubar, T. (2017). English as a foreignlanguage learners’ major and meta-cognitive reading strategy use at Al-BalqaApplied University. English Language Teaching, 10(9), 69-85. doi:10.5539/elt.v10n9p69.
Aghaie, R., & Zhang, L. J. (2012). Effects of explicit instructionin cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies on Iranian EFL students’reading performance and strategy transfer. Instructional Science, 40(6),1063-1081. doi:10.1007/s11251-011-9202-5
Ahmed, R. (2020). Investigating EFL learners' awarenessof cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies of students in differentdisciplines. Arab World English Journal,11(3), 294-304. doi:10.24093/awej/vol11no3.18.
Aizawa, I., Rose, H., Thompson, G., & Curle, S.(2020). Beyond the threshold: Exploring English language proficiency,linguistic challenges, and academic language skills of Japanese students in anEnglish medium instruction programme. LanguageTeaching Research, 27(4).
doi: 10.1177/1362168820965510
Alami, M. (2016). Cross-gender comparison of metacognitive strategiesutilized by Omani students in reading comprehension classes. InternationalJournal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 5(4), 20-28.
Alaofi, A.O. (2020). Difficulties of summarizing andparaphrasing in English as a Foreign Language (EFL): Saudi graduate students’perspectives. International Journal of English Language Education, 8(2), 193-211. doi:10.24093/awej/vol13no3.3
Albaili, M. A. (1993). Inferred hemisphericthinking style, gender, and academic major among United Arab Emirates collegestudents. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 76(3),971-977. doi:10.2466/pms.1993.76.3.971
Alderson, J. C. (1984). Readingin a foreign language: A reading problem or a language problem. In J. C.Alderson & A. H. Urquhart (Eds.), Readingin a foreign language (pp. 1-24). London, England: Longman.
Alderson, J.C. (2000) Assessing reading. Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511732935
Almasi, J. F. (2003). Teachingstrategic process in reading. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Al-Mekhlafi, A. M. (2018). EFL learners’ metacognitive awareness ofreading strategies. International Journal of Instruction, 11(2),297-308. doi:10.12973/iji.2018.11220a
Andeska, L., Sutiyono, A.,Hastomo, T., & Angraini, N. (2021). The correlation of vocabulary masteryand reading interest with quick reading ability. IJLHE: InternationalJournal of Language, Humanities, and Education, 4(1), 50-58.
Andrés, I.C. (2020). Enhancing readingcomprehension through an intensive reading approach. HOW, 27(1),69-82. doi:10.19183/how.27.1.518
Azizah, A. N., Susilohadi,G., & Sulistyawati, H. (2017). The correlation between reading interest,grammatical competence and reading comprehension. English Education, 5(2),92-99. doi: 10.20961/eed.v5i2.36052
Baker, L. (1989). Metacognition, comprehension monitoring, and the adultreader. Educational Psychologist, 1, 3-38.
Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitiveskills and reading. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil & P. Mosenthal(Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 353-394). New York, NY:Longman.
Bakhshalinezhad, L., Nikou, F. R., & Bonyadi, A. (2015). Using thethink-aloud technique for determining different reading strategies used byIranian EFL learners. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 6(3),15-22. doi:10.7575/aiac.alls.v.6n.3p.15
Bang, H., & Zhao, C. (2007). Reading strategies used by advancedKorean and Chinese ESL graduate students: A case study. The Reading Matrix, 7, 30-50.
Bećirović, S. & Brdarević Čeljo, A. & Polz, E. (2017). The useof metacognitive reading strategies among students at International BurchUniversity: A case study. European Journal of Contemporary Education, 6(4).
doi: 10.17323/jle.2021.10771.
Beldaji, M.A.K. (2006). Relationship betweenlearning styles and self-efficacy concept and field of study among high schoolstudents. Quarterly Journal ofEducational Innovations, 4(14), 107-131.
Bernhardt, E., & Kamil, M.L. (1995) Interpreting relationshipsbetween L1 and L2 reading: Consolidating the linguistic threshold and thelinguistic interdependence hypothesis. Applied linguistics, 16(1),15-34.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introductionto theory and methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Briggs, C., & Elkind, D. (1973). Cognitivedevelopment in early readers. Developmental Psychology, 9(2),279-280. doi:10.1037/h0035060
Brooks, G. (1984). Nineteenth and twentieth-century models of L2reading. In A. K. Pugh &J. M. Ulijn (Eds.), Reading for professionalpurposes: Studies and practices in native and foreign languages (pp.27-34). London, England: Heinemann.
Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control,self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert, &R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, Motivation, and Understanding (pp.65-116). Hillsdale, MI: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy.New York, NY: Longman.
Brown, R. (2002). Straddling two worlds: Self-directed comprehensioninstruction for middle schoolers. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehensioninstruction: Research-based best practices (pp.337-350). New York, NY: TheGuilford Press.
Buckley, J. (2004). Fit to print:The Canadian student’s guide to essay writing. (6th ed.). Toronto, Canada:Nelson.
Buzan. T., & Buzan. B. (1994). The mindmap book. New York, NY: Penguin.
Carrell, P. L. (1985). Facilitating ESL reading by teaching textstructure. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 727-752.
Carrell, P.L. (1984). The effects of rhetorical organization on ESLreaders. TESOL Quarterly, 18(3),441-469.
Carrell, P.L. (1987). Content and formal schemata inESL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 21(3), 461-81.
Cascella, M., & Khalili, Y.A. (2019). Short termmemory impairment. In: StatPearls.Retrieved fromhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/335677371_Short_Term_Memory_Impairment
Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, J. M. (1987). Thecognitive academic language learning approach: A bridge to the mainstream. TESOLQuarterly, 21(2), 227-49. doi:10.2307/3586733
Chen, M. R., Ogata, H., Hwang, G. J., Lin, Yi., & Akçapınar, G.(2020). Effects of incorporating a topic-scanning guiding mechanism in E-bookson EFL reading comprehension, learning perceptions, and reading behaviors. InShen, J., Chang, Y.C., Su, Y.S., & Ogata, H. (Eds.), Communications in computer and information science: Vol 1227. IC3 2019: Cognitive cities (pp.323-332). Springer, Singapore. doi:0.1007/978-981-15-6113-9_37
Chen, P.H. (2020). The interplay between Englishproficiency and reading strategy use in English Reading: Validating thelinguistic threshold hypothesis and the interactive-compensatory model. Taiwan Journal of TESOL, 17(2),1-37.
Chen, Y. (2005). The learning strategies of Taiwanese universitystudents: English majors versus non-English majors and males versusfemales. Journal on English Language Teaching, 1(2), 91-107.
Cho, Y. A., & Ma, J. H. (2020). The effects of schema activation andreading strategy use on L2 reading comprehension. English Teaching, 75(3),49-68.
Chuang, H.K., Joshi, R.M. & Dixon, L. (2012). Cross-Languagetransfer of reading ability: Evidence from Taiwanese ninth-grade adolescents. Journalof Literacy Research, 44(1), 97-119. doi:10.1177/1086296X11431157.
Coady, J. (1979). A psycholinguistic model of the ESL reader.In R. Mackay, B. Barkman, & R. R Jordan (Eds.), Reading in a secondlanguage (pp. 5-12). Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.
Cohen, A.D. (2014). Strategies in learning and using a secondlanguage. Abingdon-on-Thames, England: Routledge.
Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). Aspreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review,82(6), 407-28. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.82.6.407
Corder, S. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. In J. C.Richards (Ed.), Error analysis: Perspectives on second language analysis (pp.19-27). London, England: Longman
Cubukcu, F. (2008). Enhancing vocabulary development and readingcomprehension through metacognitive strategies. Issues in EducationalResearch, 18(1), 1-11.
Daguay-James, H., & Bulusan, F. (2020).Metacognitive strategies on reading English texts of ESL freshmen: A sequentialexplanatory mixed design. , 15(1), 20-30.
Davis, F. B. (1944). Fundamentalfactors of comprehension in reading.Psychometrika, 9(3), 185-197.
Davis, F. B. (1968). Research in comprehension inreading. Reading Research Quarterly, 3(4),499–545. doi:10.2307/747153
Djudin, T. (2017). Using metacognitive strategies toimprove reading comprehension and solve a word problem. Journal of EducationTeaching and Learning, 2(1), 124-29. doi: 10.26737/jetl.v2i1.151
El-Dali, H. M. (2021). Insights into L2 reading: Theeffects of content knowledge on reading comprehension of Egyptian universitystudents. International Journal of Education & Social Sciences, 2(2),113-125.
Elkind, D. (1976). Cognitivedevelopment and reading. In H. Singer, & R. Rudell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading(pp. 331-340). Newark, NJ: International Reading Association.
Fischer, K.W. (1980). A theory of cognitive development: The control andconstruction of hierarchies of skills. PsychologicalReview 87(6), 477-531. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.87.6.477.
Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. InResnick, L. B. (Ed.), The nature ofintelligence (pp. 231-235).Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A newarea of cognitive developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10),906-911.
Forrest-Pressley, D. L., & Waller, T. G. (2013). Cognition, metacognition, and reading (Vol. 18). New York, NY: Springer Science &Business Media.
Gagne RM. 1968. Presidential address of division 15 learninghierarchies. Educational Psychologist 6(1),1-9. doi: 10.1080/00461526809528968
Garcia, J., & Michaelis, J. U. (2001). Social studies forchildren: A guide to basic instruction (12thed.). Hoboken, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ghafournia, N., & Afghari, A. (2013).Exploring the relationship between learning strategies, academic disciplines,and reading comprehension test performance. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics(IJAL), 16(2), 21-51.
Gheibi, M., Arefi, M., & Danesh, E.(2012). Relationship between learning styles and self-efficacy in students ofacademic groups. Quarterly Journal ofApplied Psychology (Shahid Beheshti University), 6(21), 53-70.
Goldenberg, C. (2011). Reading instruction for English languagelearners. In M. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. Moje, & P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbookof reading research (Vol. IV). Newark, DE: International ReadingAssociation.
Goodman, K. S. (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journalof the Reading Specialist, 6(4), 126-135. doi:10.1080/19388076709556976
Grabe, W. (1999). Developments in reading research and theirimplications for computer adaptive reading assessment. In M. Chalhoub-Deville(Ed.), Issues in computer-adaptivetesting of reading proficiency (pp.11-48). Cambridge, England: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Grabe, W. (2009) Reading in asecond language: Moving from theory to practice. New York, NY: Cambridge UniversityPress.
Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (2002). Teaching and researching reading. New York, NY: Pearson Education.doi:10.4324/9781315833743
Gregory, R. (1970). The intelligent eye. London:Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Gu, Y. (2002). Gender, academic major, andvocabulary learning strategies of Chinese EFL learners. RELC journal, 33(1),35-54.
doi: 10.1177/003368820203300102
Harish, S. (2014). Social strategy use andlanguage learning contexts: A case study of Malayalee undergraduate students inIndia. System, 43, 64-73. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2014.01.002
Hasruddin, N., Nappu, S., & Rum, E. P. (2021). The implementation ofprediction strategy in improving students’ reading comprehension on Englishrecount text. English Language Teaching Methodology, 1(3),217-221. Retrieved from https://jurnal.fkip.unismuh.ac.id/index.php/eltm/article/view/53
Hazaymeh, W., & Alomery, M.K. (2022). theeffectiveness of visual mind mapping strategy for improving English languagelearners' critical thinking skills and reading ability. European Journal of Educational Research, 11(1), 141-150.doi:10.12973/eu-jer.11.1.141.
Hedgcock, J.S., & Ferris, D.R. (2018). Teaching readers of English: Students,texts, and contexts (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.doi:10.4324/9781315465579
Herber, H. L. (1978). Teachingreading in the content areas (2nd ed.).Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Herrera, S. G.& Murry K. G. (2016). Mastering ESL/EFL methods: Differentiatedinstruction for culturally and linguistically diverse students (3rd ed.).Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Holden, J. (2004). Creativereading. London, England: Demos.
Holschuh, J. & Nist, S. (2000). Activelearning: Strategies for college success. Boston, MA: Allyn &Bacon.
Hu, T. C., Hsu, Y. J., & Sung, Y.T. (2020). Vocabulary size, lexical threshold, and readingcomprehension of elementary-school EFL learners. Journal of Researchin Education Sciences, 65(1), 137-174.
doi:10.6209/JORIES.202003_65(1).0006
Huang, J., & Nisbet, D. (2014). The relationship between readingproficiency and reading strategy use: A study of adult ESL learners. Journalof Adult Education, 43(2), 1-11.
Ibrahim, E.H.E., Sarudin, I., & Muhamad,A. (2016). The Relationship between vocabulary size and reading comprehensionof ESL learners. English LanguageTeaching, 9(2), 116-123. doi:10.5539/elt.v9n2p116.
Izquierdo Castillo, A., & Bonilla, S. (2014). Building up autonomy throughreading strategies. PROFILE Issues inTeachers' Professional Development, 16(2), 67-85.doi:10.15446/profile.v16n2.39904.
Jenkins, E. W. (1994).Scientific literacy. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), TheInternational Encyclopedia of Education (2nd ed., Vol. 9, pp. 5345-5350).Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
Jeon, E. H., & Yamashita, J. (2014). L2 reading comprehension andits correlates: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 6(1), 160-212.
Jiang, X. Y. (2011). The role of first language literacy and secondlanguage proficiency in second language reading comprehension, The ReadingMatrix 11(2), 177-190.
Kavani, R., Amjadiparvar, A., & Lu, X.F. (2018). The effect ofstrategy-based instruction on motivation, self-regulated learning, and readingcomprehension ability of Iranian EFL learning. Cogent Education, 5(1), 1-17.
doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2018.1556196
Kern, R. (2000). Literacy and language teaching.Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Kim, K. (2011). Reading motivation in twolanguages: An examination of EFL college students in Korea. Reading and Writing, 24(8),861-881.
doi: 10.1007/s11145-010-9229-z.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension:A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Kintsch, W. (2005). An overview of top-down and bottom-up effects incomprehension: The CI perspective.Discourse Processes, 39(2-3), 125-128. doi: 10.1207/s15326950dp3902&3_2
Koda, K. (2005). Insights into secondlanguage reading. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139524841.
Komara, C., & Dewi, S.M. (2021). Theapplication of scanning strategy in teaching students’ reading comprehension ofnarrative text. Journal of English Language Teaching and Linguistics,6(1), 141-151.
doi: 10.21462/JELTL.V6I1.516
Köse, N., & Güneş, F. (2021). Undergraduate students’ use ofmetacognitive strategies while reading and the relationship between strategyuse and reading comprehension skills. Journal of Education and Learning,10(2),99-108. doi:10.5539/jel.v10n2p99.
Krashen, S.D. (1981) Second language acquisition and second languagelearning. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
Ku, D. & Chang, C. (2011). The effect ofacademic discipline and gender difference on Taiwanese college students'learning styles and strategies in web-based learning environments. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology,10(3), 265-272.
Kuhn, D. (2005). Educationfor thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures. Ann Arbor, MI:Michigan University Press.
Leeser, M.J. (2007). Learner-based factors in L2reading comprehension and processing grammatical form: Topic familiarity andworking memory. Language Learning, 57(2), 229-270.doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00408.x
Lewis, R., & Teale, W. H. (1980). Another look atsecondary school students’ attitudes toward reading. Journal of ReadingBehavior, 12(3), 187-201. doi:10.1080/10862968009547370
Magogwe, J. (2013). Metacognitive awareness of reading strategies ofUniversity of Botswana English as second language students of differentacademic reading proficiencies. Reading & Writing, 4(1).doi:10.4102/rw.v4i1.29.
Malekzadeh, B., & Bayat, A. (2015). The effect ofmind mapping strategy on comprehending implicit information in EFL readingtexts. International Journal ofEducational Investigations, 2 (3), 81-90.
McDonald, S.M. (2012), Perception: A concept analysis. InternationalJournal of Nursing Knowledge, 23(1), 2-9. doi:10.1111/j.1744-618X.2011.01198.x
Mohaidat, M. (2018). The impact of electronic mind mapson students’ reading comprehension. EnglishLanguage Teaching, 11(4), 32-42. doi:10.5539/elt.v11n4p32.
Mohseni, F., Seifoor, Z., & Ahangari, S. (2020) The impact ofmetacognitive strategy training and critical thinking awareness-raising onreading comprehension. Cogent Education, 7(1), 1720946.
doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2020.1720946
Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. (2002). Assessing students’metacognitive awareness of reading strategies inventory. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 94(2), 249-259.
Mokhtari, K., & Sheorey, R. (2002). Measuring ESLstudents' awareness of reading strategies. Journal of DevelopmentalEducation, 25(3), 2-10.
Munby, J. (1978). Communicativesyllabus design. Cambridge, London: Cambridge University Press.
Nadea, A.B., Jumariati, & Nasrullah.(2021). Bottom-up or top-down reading strategies: reading strategies used byEFL students. In Proceedings of the 2ndInternational Conference on Education, Language, Literature, and Arts (ICELLA2021), 30-36. doi: 10.2991/assehr.k.211021.005
Nation, P. (1997). L1 and L2 use in theclassroom: A systematic approach. TESLReporter, 30(2), 19-27.
National Institute of Child Health and HumanDevelopment (NICHD). (2000). Report of the national reading panel. In Teachingchildren to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific researchliterature on reading and its implications for reading instruction.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Nguyen, H. T. T. (2016). How does an interactive approach to literarytexts work in an English as a foreign language context? Learners' perspectivesin close-up. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 10(3),171-89.
doi: 10.1080/17501229.2014.932361
Nurhayati, W. A. D., & Fitriana, W. M. (2018). Effectiveness ofsummarizing in teaching reading comprehension for EFL students. IJOTL-TL:Indonesian Journal of Language Teaching and Linguistics, 3(1),33-50. doi:10.30957/ijoltl.v3i1.403
Nuttall, C. (1996). Teaching reading skills in a foreignlanguage. Bath, England: Heinemann.
O’Malley, J. M, & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Oxford, London:Oxford University Press.
Olson, A. V., & Ames, W. S. (1972). Teaching reading skills in secondaryschools. Michigan: Intext EducationalPublishers.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What everyteacher should know. Toronto, Canada: Heinle & Heinle.
Oxford, R., & Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables affecting choice oflanguage learning strategies by university students. The Modern Language Journal,73(3), 291-300. doi: 10.2307/327003
Palinscar, A. & Brown, A.L. (1984).Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-Fostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2),117-75. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1
Palmer, H.E. (1917). The scientific study andteaching of languages. London, England: Oxford University Press.
Pan, G., & Chen, Y. (2014). Research on the use of metacognitivestrategies of liberal arts and science English majors. Proceedings of theInternational Conference on Education, Language, Art and InterculturalCommunication, 2352-5398. doi: 10.2991/icelaic-14.2014.57
Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., & Botella, J. (2017). Effects ofself-assessment on self-regulated learning and self-efficacy: Fourmeta-analyses. Educational Research Review, 22, 74-98. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2017.08.004
Paran, A. (2003). Intensive reading English. Teaching Professional,28, 40-48.
Paris, S. G., Wasik, B. A., & Turner, J. C. (1991). The developmentof strategies readers. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson(Eds.), Handbook of reading research(Vol. 2, pp. 609-640). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Peacock, M., & Ho, B. (2003). Student language learning strategiesacross eight disciplines. International Journal of Applied Linguistics,13(2),179-200. doi:10.1111/1473-4192.00043.
Phonhan, P. (2016). Language learning strategies of EFL educationstudents: A case study of Thai undergraduate students. Silpakorn University Journal of Social Sciences, Humanities, and Arts,16(2), 115-135. doi: 10.14456/sujsha.2016.10
Potocki, A., Ros, C., Vibert,N., & Rouet, J. F. (2017). Children’s visual scanning of textual documents:Effects of document organization, search goals, and metatextualknowledge. Scientific Studies of Reading, 21(6), 480-497. doi:10.1080/10888438.2017.1334060
Pradhan, S., & Das, P. (2021). Influence of metacognition onacademic achievement and learning style of undergraduate students in TezpurUniversity. European Journal of Educational Research, 10(1), 381-391.
doi: 10.12973/EU-JER.10.1.381
Prastika, R. M., Ismiyati, Y., & Munawwaroh K. (2020). The effect ofprediction strategy toward students’ reading comprehension for the tenth gradestudents at SMAN 8 Muaro Jambi. Jelt: JournalOf English Language Teaching, 4(2),144-151.
Pressley, M. (2002a). Reading instruction thatworks (2nd ed). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.  
Pressley, M. (2002b). Metacognition and self-regulated comprehension. InA. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.). Whatresearch has to say about reading instruction (pp. 291-309). Newark, DE:International Reading Association.
Putri, S.R., Pulugan, A.H., & Husein, R. (2020).Cognitive process by students’ majoring in natural and social science inwriting analytical exposition text. Linguistik Terapan, 17(3): 264-272.
Q.L. Wu, J.C Luo., & H.M. Yang. (2013) Study on the metacognitiveawareness of English major students in English reading strategies. Journal of East China University of Scienceand Technology, 2013(4), 105-116.
Raelin, J. A. (2002). “I don’t have time to think!” versus the art ofreflective practice. Reflections, 4(1),66-79.
Rahmasari, B. S. (2017).Peer tutoring: An effective technique to teach reading comprehension. KnESocial Sciences, 1(3), 245-258.
doi: 10.18502/kss.v1i3.745
Rao, Z., & Liu, F. (2011). Effect of academic major on students’ use oflanguage learning strategies: A diary study in a Chinese context. TheLanguage Learning Journal, 39(1),43-55. doi:10.1080/09571731003653565
Ravindranath, S., Abrew, W., & Nadarajah,V. (2016). Student's perception of mind mapping in Problem-based learning. Journal of Contemporary Medical Education,24(2), 60-66. doi:10.5455/jcme.20160620013341.
Rayner, K., Pollatsek, A., Ashby, J, andClifton Jr., C. (2012). Psychology ofreading (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. W. (2013). Longman dictionary oflanguage teaching and applied linguistics (4th ed.). London, England:Routledge.
Rosvita, M. & Misesani, D. (2021). Improving students’ readingcomprehension using intensive reading technique on a narrative text at theninth grade of SMPK Yapenthom 1 Maumer. Edunipa Journal, 2(2), 9-20.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1994). Toward an interactive model of reading. In R.B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical modelsand processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 864-894). Newark, DE: InternationalReading Association.
Ryder, J. (2001). Identifying scienceunderstanding for functional scientific literacy. Studies in ScienceEducation, 36(1), 1-44. doi:10.1080/03057260108560166
Saunders, W. & O'Brien, G. (2006). Oral language. In Genesee, F.,Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D. (Eds.), EducatingEnglish language learners (pp. 14-63). New York, NY: Cambridge UniversityPress.
Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. InstructionalScience, 26(1), 113-125. doi: 10.1023/A:1003044231033
Seifoori, Z. (2014). Metacognitive awareness of readingstrategies & reading comprehension among Iranian English major students. Journalof Academic and Applied Studies, 4(12), 28-44.
Serra, M., & Metcalfe J. (2009). Effective implementation ofmetacognition. In D. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. Graesser (Eds.), Handbookof metacognition in education (The educational psychology series). NewYork, NY: Routledge.
Sheikh, I., Khan, M.A., Rehman, S. (2022).Metacognitive awareness of reading strategies and socioeconomic status ofuniversity students. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 6(11),1117-1131.
Shuqin, N., & Kamarudin, D. (2023). The effect of meta-cognitivereading strategy instruction on English majors' and non-English majors’ readingproficiency. International Journal of Education & Technology, 1(3),67-79. doi:10.59021/ijetech.v1i3.39.
Simanullang, M., & Lumban Gaol, E. S. (2018). Improving students’reading comprehension of descriptive text by applying prediction strategy atthe eighth　grade students at smpnegeri 1 Pollung in academic year 2018/2019. Tapanuli Journals, 1(1),220-228. doi:10.2201/unita.v1i1.167
Snow, C. (1959). The Rede Lecture. Cambridge, England: CambridgeUniversity Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511819940.002
Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D programin reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
Someren, M., Barnard,Y., & Sandberg, J. (1994). The think aloud method-A practical guide to modelling cognitiveprocesses. London, England: Academic Press.
Stanovich, K. & Stanovich, P. (1999) How research might inform thedebate about early reading acquisition. In J. Oakhill & R. Beard. (Eds.), Reading development and the teaching ofreading (pp. 12-41). Oxford, England: Blackwell
Suraprajit, P. (2019). Bottom-up vs Top-down Model: Theperception of reading strategies among Thai university students. Journal of LanguageTeaching and Research, 10(3), 454-459.
Urban, M., Urban, K., & Nietfeld, J. L. (2023).The effect of a distributed metacognitive strategy intervention on readingcomprehension. Metacognition Learning, 18, 405-424.doi:10.1007/s11409-023-09334-1
Urquhart, A. H., & Weir, C. J. (1998). Readingin a second language: Process, product and practice. London, England:Routledge
Vakili, P., & Mohammed, R. (2022). Across-disciplinary corpus-based analysis of the frequency and syntacticpositions of adverbials. European Journalof Language and Culture Studies, 1(6), 31-40.doi:10.24018/ejlang.2022.1.6.43.
Veenman, M.V.J., VanHout-Wolters, B.H.A.M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006) Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. MetacognitionLearning, 1, 3-14.
doi:10.1007/s11409-006-6893-0
Vengopal, K. (2012). Styles of learning andthinking: Hemisphericity functions. In Seel, N.M. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning (pp. 3226-3230). Boston,MA: Springer.
Vijaya, R. J. (2012). Students’ socioaffective strategy in reading.Journal of English and Education, 6(1), 76-100.
Vogt, M., & Echevarria, J. (2008). 99 Ideas and activities for teaching English language learners with theSIOP model. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon
Walters, T.S. (1992). Questioning strategies for content subject areas. MichiganReading Journal, 25(1), 39-46.
Warren, V., & Bell, R. (2022). Therole of context in qualitative case study research: understanding serviceinnovation. Sage Publications.
Wenden, A. L. (1998) Meta-cognitive knowledge and language learning.Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 515-37.
Wenden, A. L., & Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies in languagelearning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Widdowson H. G. (1983). Learning purpose and language use.London, England: Oxford University Press.
Wolf, M. (2007). Proust and the squid: The story and science of thereading brain. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Woolfolk, A. E. (1995). Educational psychology (6thed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Zafarani, P., & Kabgani, S. (2014). Summarization strategy trainingand reading comprehension of Iranian esp learners. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98(6), 1959-1965.doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.629.
Zailaini, M., Ismail, W. & Muzammil, A. (2014).Reading metacognitive awareness in Malaysian secondary schools: Some aspects ofstudents background differences. OIDA International Journal of SustainableDevelopments, 7(11), 65-74.
Zare, J., & Maftoon, P.(2015). Reading strategy use and field of study: A mixed-methods study. IranianJournal of Applied Language Studies, 7(1), 171-196. doi:10.22111/ijals.2015.2390
Zhang, L., & Seepho, S. (2013). Metacognitive strategy use andacademic reading achievement: Insights from a Chinese context. Electronic Journal of Foreign LanguageTeaching, 10(1), 54-69.
Zhou, X. & Zhao, Y. (2014). A comparative study of readingstrategies used by Chinese English majors. English Language Teaching, 7(3),13-18. doi:10.5539/elt.v7n3p13.