THE USE OF COGNITIVE – METACOGNITIVE STRATEGIES IN READING PROCESS AMONG CAN THO UNIVERSITY ENGLISH MAJORED FRESHMEN AND JUNIORS

CAN THO UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF EDUCATON
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT

B.A. THESIS

THE USE OF COGNITIVE –
METACOGNITIVE STRATEGIES
IN READING PROCESS AMONG
CAN THO UNIVERSITY ENGLISH MAJORED FRESHMEN AND JUNIORS

Supervisor:
Nguyen Thanh Duc

Researcher: Trinh Hong Tinh
Class: NN0752A2
Code: 7075911

Can Tho, May 8th, 2011


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This thesis would not have been accomplished without the help of many people.
First and foremost, I owe my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Mr. Nguyen Thanh Duc,
a lecturer at the English Department, Can Tho University (henceforth CTU) for shaping
me on the path towards being an independent researcher. I deeply appreciate for his
valuable time, encouragements and constant guidance in my work in the very first drafts
of the chapters. Thanks to his critical comments, I was inspired to be closer to the reality
I had initially perceived.
Secondly, I gratefully acknowledge Ms. Bui Minh Chau, a lecturer at the English
Department. She is one of my impressive lecturers that I have ever known in CTU during

the time I attended her Reading and Second Language Acquisition Classes. It was the
unforgettable days that I acquired a great deal, triggering my interest in these fields.
Thirdly, I would like to express my special thanks to lecturers at English Department,
CTU who were ready to offer me the opportunities in collecting the data in their classes.
Then, my sincere thanks also go to English – majored freshmen course 36 and juniors
course 34 at English Department of School of Education and of School of Social and
Science Humanities, CTU for responding to my questionnaires enthusiastically and
seriously.
Next, I am heartily thankful to my friends, Ms. Vo Thi Kim Tuyen, Mr. Dang Tran
Thanh Danh, Ms. Le Thi Bich Thuy, Mr. Lieu Nguyen Duy Tan, Ms. Van Thi Bao Tran
and Ms. Ly Thi Anh Tuyet for their useful pieces of advice. Their encouragements evoke
my responsibilities to achieve my goal.
Last but not least, I am indebted to my family raising me up whenever I intended to give
up. Their love and sharing sustained this study.
All of the mistakes left in this thesis are mine.

i


ABSTRACT
As an investigation into the cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies, the current
descriptive-approached thesis aims at (1) discovering the most frequently-used reading
strategies of cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies in the perception of the CTU
English-majored freshmen and juniors and (2) recognizing the difference in the
perception of two subjects to cognitive-metacognitive reading strategies in reading
process. To measure the degree of frequencies of using the most frequent reading
strategies and the differences in the perception towards cognitive-metacognitive reading
strategies in the population’ s perception, the questionnaire titled “The questionnaire on
your reading of tertiary related academic materials” was used to find the answers of 196
respondents. From the data obtained, the three most frequently-used reading strategies of

cognitive-metacognitive reading strategies were found. Three strategies of cognitive
reading strategies: “predicting”, “recognizing cognates and word families” and
“activating general knowledge” were the most preferred to the freshmen, whereas
planning strategies of metacognitive reading strategies were used most frequently (52%).
Then, in cognitive reading strategies used among the juniors, “skimming and scanning”,
“recognizing cognates and word families” and “guessing meaning of the unknown words
from context clues” were the most favorite, while they exerted planning strategies (51%)
most regularly. Regarding the perception, freshmen perceived the cognitive reading
strategies higher than juniors did (M= 4.12, M=3.48 respectively), whilst the perception
of both subjects to the metacognitive reading strategies was nearly similar (M=3.4).
Therefore, to improve learners’ metacognitive reading strategies in reading process,
pedagogical actions (teachers’ instruction, relevant exercises and “learner-centered”
environment) should be considered for further research in the future.

ii


TÓM LƯỢC
Với mục đích điều tra chiến thuật đọc nhận thức và siêu nhận thức, bài nghiên cứu theo
hướng miêu tả được thực hiện với hai mục tiêu : (1) khám phá những chiến thuật đọc
hiểu được sử dụng thường xuyên nhất trong chiến thuật đọc nhận thức và siêu nhận thức
trong nhận thức sinh viên chuyên ngành Anh văn năm nhất và sinh viên chuyên ngành
Anh văn năm ba, và (2) tìm ra sự khác biệt trong nhận thức của hai đối tượng trên về
chiến thuật đọc nhận thức và siêu nhận thức trong quá trình đọc hiểu. Để tìm ra mức độ
thường xuyên sử dụng chiến thuật của việc đọc nhận thức và siêu nhận thức và sự khác
biệt trong nhận thức về vấn đề được nêu của hai đối tượng, bảng câu hỏi với tựa đề:
“Bảng câu hỏi về việc đọc của bạn với những tài liệu học thuật liên quan đến bậc đại
học” được thực hiện để tìm ra câu trả lời trong 196 người tham gia trả lời câu hỏi. Sau
khi phân tích số liệu, ba chiến thuật được sử dụng nhiều nhất của chiến thuật đọc nhận
thức và siêu nhận thức đã được tìm ra. Ba chiến thuật thuộc chiến thuật đọc nhận thức:

“dự đoán chủ đề”, “nhận ra những từ cùng họ”, “sử dụng kiến thức nền” được sử dụng
đối với sinh viên năm nhất, trong đó, “những chiến thuật lên kế hoạch” trong chiến thuật
đọc siêu nhận thức được sử dụng nhiều nhất (52%). Đối với sinh viên năm ba trong chiến
thuật đọc nhận thức, “đọc lấy thông tin tổng quát và đọc lấy thông tin chi tiết”, “nhận ra
những từ cùng họ”, “đoán nghĩa từ không biết dựa vào các manh mối của ngữ cảnh” được
sử dụng nhiều nhất, và trong chiến thuật đọc siêu nhận thức, “những chiến thuật lên kế
hoạch” được sử dụng nhiều (51%). Xét đến việc tìm ra sự khác biệt trong nhận thức,
nhận thức của sinh viên chuyên ngành Anh văn năm nhất đối với chiến thuật đọc nhận
thức cao hơn so với sinh viên chuyên ngành Anh văn năm ba (M=4.12, M=3.48 với vị trí
tương ứng), trong khi đó, nhận thức về chiến thuật đọc siêu nhận thức của hai đối tượng
gần như là như nhau và trên mức trung bình (M=3.4). Do đó, để củng cố việc sử dụng
chiến thuật đọc siêu nhân thức của người học, những hoạt động (cách hướng dẫn của giáo
viên, bài tập liên quan và môi trường học) cần được quan tâm cho các nghiên cứu sắp tới.

iii


TABLE OF THE CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................................. i
ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................... ii
TÓM LƯỢC .................................................................................................................. iii
TABLE OF THE CONTENTS........................................................................................iv
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................ vii
LIST OF FIGURES...................................................................................................... viii
TABLE OF ABBREVIATION ...................................................................................... ix
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................1
1.1 Rationale ................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1.1 The importance of reading comprehension for language learners..................................................... 1
1.1.2 The significance of cognitive-metacognitive strategies in reading process ....................................... 2
1.2 Research aims ............................................................................................................................................ 3

1.3 Research questions..................................................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Hypotheses ................................................................................................................................................ 3
1.5 Organization of the thesis........................................................................................................................... 4

Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................................5
2.1. Definition of cognitive strategies............................................................................................................... 5
2.2. Definition of metacognitive strategies ....................................................................................................... 6
2.3. Empirical Evidence about the Positive Effects of Metacognitive strategy use on EFL/ESL reading............ 8
2.3.1 Studies in Vietnam ......................................................................................................................... 8
2.3.2 Studies overseas ............................................................................................................................. 9
2.3.2.1 In Oriental (Asian) countries........................................................................................................ 9
2.3.2.2 In Western countries .................................................................................................................. 10

iv


2.4. Comments on empirical evidence about the positive effects of metacognitive strategy use on EFL/ESL
reading.................................................................................................................................................. 12

Chapter 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ..................................................................14
3.1 Research design ....................................................................................................................................... 14
3.2 Participants .............................................................................................................................................. 14
3.3 Research Instrument................................................................................................................................. 14
3.4 Procedure................................................................................................................................................. 16
3.4.1 Pilot study .................................................................................................................................... 16
3.4.2 Administering the questionnaire ................................................................................................... 17

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ............................................................19
4.1 The perception of cognitive -metacognitive reading strategies of CTU English-majored freshmen in reading
process.................................................................................................................................................. 19

4.1.1 The most frequently-used reading strategies in cognitive reading strategies in CTU English-majored
freshmen’ perception............................................................................................................................. 19
4.1.2 The least frequently-used reading strategies in cognitive reading strategies in CTU English-majored
freshmen’ perception............................................................................................................................. 21
4.1.3 The most frequently-used reading strategies in metacognitive reading strategies in CTU Englishmajored freshmen’ perception ............................................................................................................... 22
4.1.4 The least frequently-used reading strategies in metacognitive reading strategies in CTU Englishmajored freshmen’ perception ............................................................................................................... 24
4.2 The perception of cognitive -metacognitive reading strategies of CTU English-majored juniors in reading
process.................................................................................................................................................. 25
4.2.1 The most frequently-used reading strategies in cognitive reading strategies in CTU English-majored
juniors’ perception ................................................................................................................................ 25
4.2.2 The least frequently-used reading strategies in cognitive reading strategies in CTU English-majored
juniors’ perception ................................................................................................................................ 27

v


4.2.3 The most frequently-used reading strategies in metacognitive reading strategies in CTU Englishmajored juniors’ perception................................................................................................................... 28
4.2.4 The least frequently-used reading strategies in metacognitive reading strategies in CTU Englishmajored juniors’ perception................................................................................................................... 30
4.3 The difference in the perception of cognitive-metacognitive reading strategies of CTU English-majored
freshmen and juniors in reading process ................................................................................................ 31
4.3.1 The difference in the perception of cognitive reading strategies of CTU English-majored freshmen
and juniors in reading process ............................................................................................................... 31
4.3.2 The difference in the perception of metacognitive reading strategies in reading process of CTU
English-majored freshmen and juniors................................................................................................... 33
4.4 Discussions.............................................................................................................................................. 34

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS, WEAKNESSES AND

SUGGESTIONS FOR

FURTHER RESEARCH ................................................................................................37
5.1 Pedagogical implications.......................................................................................................................... 37
5.2 Weaknesses of the thesis .......................................................................................................................... 39
5.3 Suggestions for further research ............................................................................................................... 39
5.4 Conclusion............................................................................................................................................... 40

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ i
APPENDIX.....................................................................................................................iv

vi


LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1: A taxonomy of cognitive – metacognitive strategies in questionnaire sheet ..
................................................................................................................................. 24
Table 4.1: CTU English-majored freshmen’ most used cognitive reading strategies
...................................................................................................................................... 29
Table 4.2: CTU English-majored freshmen’ least used cognitive reading strategies
...................................................................................................................................... 31
Table 4.3: CTU English-majored freshmen’ most used metacognitive reading strategies
...................................................................................................................................... 32
Table 4.4: CTU English-majored freshmen’ least used metacognitive reading strategies
...................................................................................................................................... 33
Table 4.5: CTU English-majored juniors’ most used cognitive reading strategies.......... 34
Table 4.6: CTU English-majored juniors’ least used cognitive reading strategies .......... 35
Table 4.7: CTU English-majored juniors’ most used metacognitive reading strategies
...................................................................................................................................... 36
Table 4.8: CTU English-majored juniors’ least used metacognitive reading strategies
...................................................................................................................................... 37

Table 4.9: Descriptive statistics of the difference in the perception of freshmen and
juniors to cognitive reading strategies............................................................................ 38
Table 4.10: Descriptive statistics of the difference in the perception of freshmen and
juniors to metacognitive reading strategies .................................................................... 39

vii


LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4.1: Total mean of two participants’ perception towards cognitive reading
strategies ....................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 4.2: Total mean of two participants’ perception towards metacognitive reading
strategies ....................................................................................................................... 40

viii


TABLE OF ABBREVIATION
EFL: English as a Foreign Language
ESL: English as a Second Language
L1: A person’s native language
L2: A person’s target language
FL: Foreign Language
CTU: Can Tho University
MARSI: Metacognitive Awareness Reading Strategies Inventory
RCT: Reading Comprehension Test
MSAS: Metacognitive Strategies Awareness Scale
TOF: Teacher Observation Form
SORS: Survey of Reading Strategies
Q: Question

ix


Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION
This chapter will address (1) the rationale of the research, (2) the research aims, (3) the research
questions, (4) hypothesis, and (5) the organization of the thesis.

1.1 Rationale
In this chapter, two reasons are presented for conducting this research: (1) the importance
of reading comprehension for language learners and (2) the significance of cognitivemetacognitive strategies in reading process.
1.1.1 The importance of reading comprehension for language learners
Cognitively, reading is by and large a pause button for comprehension and insight into
one’s idiosyncrasy. Therefore, from the viewpoint of a language learner, reading yields
the positive outcomes.
First of all, it is a well-known fact that reading is a primary leisure activity among a great
number of interesting activities in this new century. Reading can help language learners
travel to far-away lands in their mind and provide the productive consequences such as
word power and abundant vocabulary sources (Quach, 2010). Second, reading can
promote the degree of concentration and passion during reading process (Gherardi et al.,
2007). Also, learners’ minds become sharper and more nimble in solving the problems
(Huckin & Coady, 1999). It is thus advisable for language learners to become proficient
readers in reading performance inasmuch as reading is the most fundamental tool for
language learners to develop their abilities in linguistic field (McNamara, 2001).
Understandably, without solid reading proficiency, approaching the extensive number of
academic materials written in English, especially to the tertiary context in which many
assignments and papers are required, is impossible. Many varied factors impacting
language leaners’ reading ability such as insufficiency of target language proficiency,
unfamiliarity with the content and reading strategies (Zare-ee, 2007). Moreover, many
findings investigated that students had the difficulties with an array of reading tasks, such

as identifying the main ideas in the simple folktales (Douglas, 2009). Especially,
language learners are detected not to pay close attention to the actions which are about to
do for the next steps; i.e. their awareness to meet the comprehension goals are not
inspired enough to accomplish their current tasks (Douglas, 2009).
Researcher: Trinh Hong Tinh

1


In conclusion, amongst the impacts, reading strategies are paramount to facilitate leaners
to confront with the texts and contents in the complex nature of reading. Cognitive –
metacognitive strategies are considered to help the researcher have insights into language
learners during the receptive language process; i.e. reading (Zare-ee, 2007).
1.1.2 The significance of cognitive-metacognitive strategies in reading process
According to Pelletier (2006),

Kummin and Rahman (2010), as well as Carrell,

Gajdusek, and Wise (1998) and so forth, metacognitive strategies are earth-shattering
discoveries to EFL/ESL reading achievements.
Tremendous studies have marked the values of metacognitive strategies in reading aspect
(Douglas, 2009). Metacognitive strategies have been considered all-important to assist
learners in their performance, particularly in problem-solving and reading comprehension
(Quach, 2010). Also, the strong correlation between reading achievements and cognitivemetacognitive strategies was endorsed in many studies of Ali (2007), Anderson (2002),
Dhieb-Henia (2003) and so forth . According to Baker and Brown (1984), proficient
readers exert a number of metacognitive strategies during their reading process,
facilitating them to understand a text. Though many controversial discussions around the
significance of metacognitive strategies have remained elusive, Robert (2008; cited at
Douglas, 2009, p. 9) adjudged that
“…In the early days, metacognition was more of curiosity and some psychologists

wondered whether it was a viable construct. Today, I think the question is not a viable
construct, but rather, how it best can be understood, assessed and developed…”
In addition, albeit some ideas to metacognition’s characteristics (potentially controllable,
reportable and tacit), metacognitive strategies highlight the importance of instruction to
some experienced learners during their reading process (Douglas, 2009). Apparently,
instructions of teacher during the reading period play a key role in the awareness of
learners in actions to direct the next steps. As O'Malley et al. (1985, p. 561) declared that
“students without metacognition approaches are essentially learners without direction or
opportunity to review their progress, accomplishments and future directions”. As being
competent at metacognitive reading strategies, learners are easy to become successful

Researcher: Trinh Hong Tinh

2


readers, in other words, awareness about reading strategies is the cognitive gain (Sen,
2009).
To sum up, reading comprehension evinces to parallel the discussion of the significance
of cognitive-metacognitive strategies. As a result, this research aims at the perception of
language learners in using cognitive-metacognitive strategies in reading for further
possible pedagogical actions.
1.2 Research aims
The current research aims (1) to discover what the most frequently-used reading
strategies of cognitive-metacognitive reading strategies in CTU English-majored
freshmen’ and juniors’ perception are and (2) to investigate the difference in perception
of the population in using the cognitive-metacognitive strategies in reading process.
1.3 Research questions
As an investigation into the population’s perception, the study targets to answer the three
following questions:

1. What are the most frequently used reading strategies of cognitive-metacognitive
reading strategies in reading process of CTU English-majored freshmen’s perception?
2. What are the most frequently used reading strategies of cognitive-metacognitive
reading strategies in reading process of CTU English-majored juniors’ perception?
3. What is the difference in the perception of CTU English-majored juniors and CTU
English-majored freshmen in using the cognitive and metacognitive strategies in EFL
reading process?
1.4 Hypotheses
It is hypothesized that (1) in cognitive reading strategies, “skimming and scanning” is the
most popular choice, and in metacognitive reading strategies, “planning strategies” are
the most favored to the freshmen; (2) in cognitive reading strategies, “guessing the
unknown words” is the most preferred, and “monitoring strategies” are the most common
to the juniors; and (3) the juniors perceive the cognitive-metacognitive strategies more
than the freshmen do.

Researcher: Trinh Hong Tinh

3


1.5 Organization of the thesis
This thesis consists of five chapters: (1) Introduction, (2) Literature review, (3) Research
methodology, (4) Results and Discussions, and (5) Conclusion, weaknesses, and
suggestions for further research. In chapter 1, I have illustrated the rationale of the
research, the research aims, the research questions, hypotheses, and the organization of
the thesis. I will review the literature, in chapter 2, relevant to the cognitivemetacognitive

reading

strategies,

the

empirical

evidences

between

reading

comprehension and cognitive-metacognitive reading strategies and comments on those
reviewed empirical studies. I will introduce the research methodology (research design,
participants, research instruments, and procedure of the study). In chapter 4, I will report
the investigation, interpret the data I collected, and discuss the implications of the
research results. In chapter 5, I will reflect on the weakness of the research, and put
forward suggestions for further research and reach conclusion of the thesis.

Researcher: Trinh Hong Tinh

4


Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
In this chapter, I will address (1) the definitions of cognitive strategies, (2) the definitions of
metacognitive strategies, and (3) empirical evidences about the positive effects of metacognitive
strategy use on EFL/ESL reading

2.1. Definition of cognitive strategies
There are various accumulations of cognitive strategies definitions impacting

significantly the realm of education. The term has caught the linguists’ and experts’
attention; therefore, many exhaustive definitions will be strived to illustrate in the
chronological order.
Derry and Murphy (1986, p. 15) asserted in their studies that “cognitive strategies signify
the collection of mental tactics selected, employed and controlled by an individual in a
particular learning situation to facilitate their acquisition of knowledge or skill, and to
achieve their desired objectives”. Crowley and Siegler (1993) also took the cues from
researchers in defining cognitive strategies to be conscious and planned process, but he
also argued that cognitive strategies are any goal-directed cognitive activities, obligatory
or non-obligatory, conscious or unconscious, efficient or inefficient. Conversely, Luke
and Hardy (1999) officially proclaimed that cognitive strategies can be characterized as
being deliberate, learner-initiated and learning.
In terms of the functions of cognitive reading strategies, Oxford (1989) issued notetaking, summarizing, inferencing, using prior knowledge, predicting, analyzing, and
using context clues. Likewise, Goh and Kwah (1997) described in their study that the
four sets of functions are practicing, receiving and sending messages, analyzing and
reasoning, and creating structures for input and output. After that, Goodman (1998)
advanced the functions by referring the “binary division” of cognitive strategies in
reading including bottom-up and top-down theory. The former implies reading is a
process of decoding, a series of letters, words, phrases, and sentences identified for its
meaning. The latter, on the contrary, requires the readers to fulfill the predictions and to
formulate the hypothesis related to the text content by incorporating the new information
with the prior knowledge and cueing many the language signals. Phakiti (2003) has
recently clustered the cognitive reading strategies into comprehending and retrieval.

Researcher: Trinh Hong Tinh

5


According to Hamdan et al. (2010), cognitive strategies are regarded as the mental

process related entirely straightforward to the information transaction system comprising
of obtaining, storage, retrieval or use of information to serve for learning, which are more
general than Phakiti (2003)’s study.
After many aforementioned definitions, I deem that cognitive reading strategies used in
three phases (pre-reading, while-reading, and post-reading) are skills that learners apply
into the reading text consciously; i.e. they are aware of extracting and synthesizing the
linguistic facts in reading text to encode the reading questions. To lay a foundation for the
questionnaire sake, the thesis will follow the taxonomy of cognitive reading strategies of
Phakiti (2003)’s and Hamdan et al.(2010)’s theoretical framework to show the
comprehending and retrieval in cognitive strategies used by the subjects. Next, I will
provide the succinct illustration about the metacognition strategies to better understand
the other terminology of the thesis.
2.2. Definition of metacognitive strategies
Metacognition, a branch of Indirect Strategies in language learning strategy by Oxford
(2003), is one of the most widely concerned studies in the educational, instructional and
developmental psychology, although the conundrum to delimit the diversification of its
definition remains elusive (Douglas, 2009). Thus, the successively hierarchical
organization will make the sweeping generalization in facilitative comprehension.
First of all, the term “metacognition” coined by Flavell (1979) refers to the individual’s
awareness of thinking and learning. In other words, it is the notion of thinking about
thinking, “cognition about cognition”, specifically what, how and why the person is
currently thinking and thinking in a particular way in the learning tasks. Metacognition is
also engaged to the ability in regulating the thinking process. He acknowledged to
propose a formal model of metacognitive monitoring consisting of metacognitive
knowledge, metacognitive experience, tasks or goals, activities or strategies that further
highly evolved from the 1976 construct of active monitoring, consequent regulation, and
orchestration of cognitive processes to strive for cognitive goals.
In O'malley and Chamot (1990)’s study, metacognitive strategies involve both knowledge
about learning (cognitive knowledge) and regulation over learning (metacognitive

Researcher: Trinh Hong Tinh

6


strategies). Cognition knowledge refers to knowledge of one’s own cognitive processes
and that of others. Regulation over learning entails the use of metacognitive strategies.
These strategies consist of three functions: planning strategies or advance organization,
self - monitoring strategies, and self-evaluating activities. In terms of planning strategies,
learners are in the pre-reading phrase, using background knowledge to stick with the
knowledge to be learned with a series of skimming, scanning, predicting, overviewing
statement, and K-W-L (what I know, what I want to know, and what I learned). Self–
monitoring strategies are the binary division of comprehension monitoring and
production monitoring through the activities as ongoing summary, paraphrasing, thinking
aloud, outlining, writing reflections, etc. Self –evaluation includes the modification of
learner’s task execution, strategy use and language repertoire.
Apparently, O'malley and Chamot (1990) developed the definition of the term, specifying
the system of the strategy. In lieu of restricting in regulating the thinking process
acclaimed by Flavell (1979), O'malley and Chamot (1990) added cognitive knowledge as
a part of the term and classified into three strategies: planning, monitoring and evaluating
so that the other researchers could take that framework in their studies as a standard.
Oxford & Zhan (1990) supported that another advantage of their studies was to raise
learners’ awareness on explaining the strategies they use and why they employ them.
Rather, Phakiti (2003) in his study bored metacognitive strategies which are defined as
ones’ intentionally mental manners in order to direct and control their arranged executive
cognitive strategies process for successful performance. Metacognitive planning
strategies and metacognitive monitoring strategies have pieced together in his study. The
former helps allocate resources to the current tasks, establish the order of steps to fulfill
the tasks and set time or intensity to work on the tasks. The latter bolsters to identify the
contemporary tasks, examine the ongoing progress, evaluate the progress and augur the

outcomes of that progress. This study results in the deeper understanding to the planning
strategies and monitoring strategies so that the researcher can observe and examine the
reliability and validity of the participants’ perception as well as capacity towards the
metacognitive strategies. The weaknesses of the research obviously lack the standard of
O'malley and Chamot (1990)’s theoretical framework, but it can bore deeply the
functions of planning and monitoring.

Researcher: Trinh Hong Tinh

7


After presenting the varied metacognitive strategies definitions, metacognitive reading
strategies, in my opinion, are cognitive reading strategies over cognitive reading
strategies; i.e. metacognitive reading strategies have higher order cognition in learners’
thinking, they can control the cognition function to manage learner’s thinking towards
solving the problems, especially and clearly in answering the reading questions in
particular as well as in controlling the reading process in general. Language learners thus
fail to recognize their current cognition to call out that process. To accomplish the thesis;
hence, the researcher appreciates Phakiti (2003)’s study for the questionnaire sake in
purpose of analyzing the question aims. Therefore, metacognitive reading strategies will
have two subscales: planning strategies and monitoring strategies.
I have just mentioned the multidimensional definitions of metacognition, and recognized
its functions are crucial to language learning, especially in reading performance.
Therefore, in the next part, I will manifest the relationship of metacognitive strategies use
and achievements in reading performance.
2.3. Empirical Evidence about the Positive Effects of Metacognitive strategy use on
EFL/ESL reading
2.3.1 Studies in Vietnam
Studies related to the productive impacts of metacognitive reading strategies use and

reading process have been humbly conducted. The two studies conducted by Tran (2006)
and Quach (2010) are among the featured ones in Vietnam in general and in CTU in
particular.
Tran (2006) carried out the research to investigate CTU non-English majors’ level of
metacognitive strategies use and the reciprocation between students’ metacognitive
strategies use and their reading performance. The findings investigated that a very strong
correlation occurred in such two variables (r=.96, with 1.0 as maximum) and level of
students’ metacognitive strategies use was moderate (M= 3.16, on the scale of 5.0 as the
maximum) based on two instruments: questionnaires and reading English test.
Quach (2010) did the research which targets at uncovering to what extent EFL learners
employed metacognitive strategies and which strategies were utilized most frequently
when learners read English texts. All of 35 participants were Vietnamese from the

Researcher: Trinh Hong Tinh

8


beginning class of the level B of CTU Foreign Language Center in Can Tho city. Two
instruments used in this study were questionnaire and think-aloud protocol. The findings
discovered exerting metacognitive strategies of EFL learning in reading comprehension
was positive, though the participants differed in utilizing kinds of metacognitive
strategies, in which monitoring was used most frequently (91%). Then, the studies
overseas will be illustrated in the event of the incontrovertible evidence.
2.3.2 Studies overseas
There are various studies with great emphasis on the positive virtues of metacognitive
strategy use on EFL/ESL reading succinctly manifested as the chronological order with
the stratified arrangement in Oriental (Asian) and Western Countries.
2.3.2.1 In Oriental (Asian) countries
The first study reviewed in this part was conducted by Li and Munby (1996). This paper

partially posed a concrete picture of metacognitive strategies employed by ESL students
in their academic reading and explored the idiosyncrasy of those strategies. The
participants were two Chinese students of Queen’s University selected based on no
specific criteria with the aim of indicating their willingness in participation. Interview,
think-aloud and participants’ journals provided the data for the study. Then, the data were
analyzed through open coding, i.e. a process of breaking down, examining, repairing,
conceptualizing, and categorizing data. The findings showed that (1) the predominant
strategies used by the participants were the translation, use of background knowledge,
self-questioning, prediction and context clues, attention of topic sentence, “picking out
key words,”, and “comparison and contrast to L1 knowledge domain”, (2) the
participants had a substantial awareness and control of cognitive activities as well as
process verbalization capacity in English. The researcher furthermore implicated that (1)
a wide range of strategies had to be exerted by ESL readers to achieve the efficiency in
reading due to some inapplicable or inadequate ESL reading instructions, (2) it would be
timely to enhance the exhaustive picture of L2 reading in which metacognitive strategies
could be considered, e.g. the metacognitive process of L1 and L2 readers in a similar
environment.

Researcher: Trinh Hong Tinh

9


A recent research conducted by Lawrence (2009) strongly advocated the vital importance
of metacognition to reading comprehension. There were 270 students in Hainan province
of China in this research to help respond to 28-item survey of reading strategies (SORS)
adopted by Mokhtari and Sheorey (2002). Methodologically, this research was set up in a
quantitative way.

In the result, the participants were recognized to apply the problem-

solving strategies from moderate to high level (M=3.78, SD=0.59), followed by global
strategies (M=3.63, SD=0.59) and support strategies (M=3.06, SD=0.64), and the
effectiveness of global strategies use correlated to the general EFL‘s student proficiency,
i.e.: higher English achievements.
In the descriptive-approached research, Temur el al. (2010) strived for discovering the
difference among the participants of 6th, 7th and 8th grades in respect of metacognitive
reading awareness. Likewise, Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory
(MARSI) was adopted to assess students’ metacognitive reading awareness. Though
there was no statistically important difference in supportive reading strategies, the study
unveiled those students in the lower grade utilized the metacognitive strategies in reading
frequently.
2.3.2.2 In Western countries
While the bulk of studies dealing with the EFL/ESL reading outcomes in oriental
countries have attracted researchers’ attentions, a great number of the relevantproblematic studies in western contexts have still occurred.
Mokhtari and Reichard (2002)’s study was carried out to assess adolescent and adult
readers’ metacognitive strategies awareness and to examine their perception towards use
of reading strategies in tertiary-related academic materials by using a new self-report
instrument, the Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory (MARSI). The
findings showed the moderate use (M=2.83) amongst the users from grade 6 to college
students. The researchers suggested using interviews and observation for further research.
Berkowitz and Cicchelli (2004) have adapted the MARSI instrument, think-aloud
protocols and interview in their study with the scope of detecting the similarities and
differences in metacognitive reading strategies exploited by 5 high achieving and 5
underachieving gifted middle school students in New York city. The result produced

Researcher: Trinh Hong Tinh

10

three subscales of metacognitive strategies (global, problem-solving and support) were
homogeneously used by both groups in MARSI, whereas there was frequency of
metacognitive reading strategies exertion in think-aloud protocol. As interviewed, the
high achievers responded to apply more frequently assorted metacognitive reading
strategies than the others did; more specifically, monitoring emerged as the predominant
choices. Moreover, MARSI testified the accumulation of the participants was consciously
aware of metacognitive strategies at the medium level strategy users.
Poole (2005) has conducted a research whose goal was to discover whether or not ESL
males and females have similar or different strategic reading habits. The population of
248 (138 males and 110 females) involved in the research was the advanced college ESL
students. The quantitative survey followed by the Survey of Reading Strategy (SORS)
aims to record adolescent and adult ESL students’ self-perceived academic reading,
comprising global reading strategies, problem-solving strategies and support strategies.
The results revealed there are no significance in strategy use (p>.05) among the subjects
(M=3.42).
One recent research related to the relationship between the use of metacognitive
strategies and reading comprehension reported at World Conference Education Science
2009 carried out by Sen (2009) examined the liaison between students’ reading
comprehension level and metacognitive strategies use in finding the main idea, guessing
the end of the text and achievement scores. The participants consisted of 228 individuals:
222 the 5th grade student and six teachers. The research model was the pre- and post- test
control group design. Data collection tools were reading comprehension test (RCT),
Metacognitive Strategies Awareness Scale (MSAS) and Teacher Observation form
(TOF). The result revealed the experimental groups were more successful at guessing the
end of the text, acquired how to operate metacognitive strategies better than the control
groups.
2.4. Comments on empirical evidence about the positive effects of metacognitive
strategy use on EFL/ESL reading
With regards to the studies related to non-native and native readers using metacognitive

strategies in reading, Lawrence (2009) investigated in the bulk of studies that (1) nonnative readers apply into L2 or FL reading contexts through L1 background knowledge of
Researcher: Trinh Hong Tinh

11


reading process and strategies, (2) L1 and L2 employ the same kinds of reading strategies
and (3) proficient L1 and L2 readers show the comparably degree of metacognitive
reading strategies use than the non-proficient ones.
I strongly recognize the importance of conducting this research on the profound basic of
incontrovertibly aforementioned evidence. Firstly, in Vietnamese educational setting, the
studies documenting the positive impacts of metacognitive strategy use have made odds
compared to the oversea studies. Besides, the participants are the non-English majors
(Tran, 2006) or the small population of the immediate foreign language learners’ level
(Quach, 2010) is 35. Since the insufficiency of the quantity and the quality of the
prevailing topic of metacognitive strategies on reading that impedes further pedagogical
actions to increase Vietnamese language learners’ proficiency, it is necessary and crucial
to conduct a research to meet these demands. It is thoughtfully believed to be the priority
reason for me to carry out the research.
Secondly, regarding the Asian full-blown educational context, I endorse that Asian
researchers have acquired the definitions and functions of metacognitive strategies pretty
selectively and explicated the radical comparatively germane with the reliable and valid
findings in their studies. In Li and Munby (1996)’s study, the findings acclaimed that
there was a substantial awareness in ESL students’ perception towards metacognitive
strategies in academic reading. Likewise, Lawrence (2009)’s participants were 270
students attending the survey to respond 28-item questionnaire. The results witnessed the
high frequency of using metacognitive strategies leading to higher English achievements.
The productive outcomes of metacognitive strategies were recognized to be conducive to
the lower levels (grade 6, 7, 8) who are the subjects in Temur et al. (2010)’s research.
This proves that metacognitive strategies can be operated in the young children’s

perception. To sum up, Asian researchers have attested the reciprocal relation between
metacognitive strategies use and the higher English achievements in reading regardless of
the age of subjects. My present research will thus demonstrate Vietnamese milieu clearly
related to the current issue to ponder more implications for further research.
Thirdly, cogently, the western countries’ studies have resonated for the quantity and
quality so far. In their studies, Mokhtari and Reichard (2002) examined the language
learners’ perception by using the new instrument MARSI; after that, Sheorey and

Researcher: Trinh Hong Tinh

12


Mokhtar (2001) adapted it and explicated the weaknesses of the previous one for better
research, the results of both studies recognized that the language learners (the gifted high
school students and the 6th- tertiary students) used metacognitive strategies at the medium
level. Genders were found not to interplay to the frequency of using metacognitive
strategies in Poole (2005)’s study, thus I will not include this aspect in the research. Sen
(2009) had the predisposition in researching the 5th grade youth for the newer path, but I
stress the main importance that even 5th grade pupil also acquired the metacognitive
strategies and used them successfully after the post-test control group. On the basis of the
solid evidence, I strongly believe the applicability of metacognitive strategies will occur
in the intended participants, and I have been inspired to conduct the reliable research.
Moreover, for the restriction in research to examine the degree of frequency in using
cognitive strategies, the current research partially opens a new path for further research.
For such the three motivational reasons, I decided to conduct this research to contribute a
clearer picture of cognitive-metacognitive strategies used in Vietnam to make the positive
impacts on Vietnamese students’ proficiency level in the future.
To sum up, I have just presented the literature studies related to the current topic. The
researcher considers it the foundation for the questionnaire sake in the next chapters.

Chapter 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes (1) the research design, (2) the participants, (3) the research instruments
for data collection and (4) the procedure of the study.

3.1 Research design
To conduct this study, descriptive approach was used because according to Seliger and
Shohamy (1995), descriptive approach was used to establish the naturalness of the
phenomenon by describing them explicitly. (1) The most frequently-used reading
strategies of cognitive-metacognitive reading strategies in reading process in the
perception of English-majored freshmen and juniors, and (2) the difference in perception

Researcher: Trinh Hong Tinh

13


of two groups of subjects about the cognitive and metacognitive strategies in reading
process will be demonstrated.
3.2 Participants
At the outset, participants in this study were 200 English – majored freshmen course 36
and juniors course 34 at English Department of School of Education and of School of
Social and Science Humanities, CTU. All of them are Vietnamese, the L1 readers.
Freshmen have been studying Reading 2 in the second semester, while juniors will have
finished their Reading 5 by the end of the sixth semester. In the curriculum of English
majors in CTU, the students have to pass five reading levels (from reading 1 to reading
5).
3.3 Research Instrument
After the pilot study, 196 valid responses were utilized for statistical analysis. Four
questionnaires were invalid. Two respondents did not answer the first 20 sentences, one

left 10 sentences without making any responses and the other did not do anything with
the questionnaire sheet.
To answer the three research questions, I measured the participant’s perception towards
the cognitive-metacognitive strategies in reading process through the questionnaire.
Therefore, I will describe the questionnaire in detail below.
To design this questionnaire titled “The questionnaire on your reading of tertiary related
academic materials”, I based on Phakiti (2003)’s and Hamdan et al. (2010)’s theoretical
frameworks of cognitive and metacognitive strategies. I adapted and collected the items
to make the final complete questionnaire sheet.
The questionnaire comprises 49 items in total. These items are categorized into two
clusters: cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies based on a five-point Likert
scale.
Table 3.1: A taxonomy of cognitive – metacognitive strategies in
questionnaire sheet
Clusters

Number
of items

Researcher: Trinh Hong Tinh

Items used

14

Aims


1, 2, 3, 5, 6
4, 7, 8, 9,

21

10, 11, 12,

Comprehending

13, 14, 15,

Cognitive reading

16, 17, 18,

strategies

19, 20, 25

2

21, 22

Retrieval

23, 24, 26,
12

27, 28, 29,

Planning

33, 36, 37,

42, 45, 46

Metacognitive
reading strategies

30, 31, 32,
14

34, 35, 38,

Monitoring

39, 40, 41,
43, 44, 47,
48, 49
Total

49

3.4 Procedure
3.4.1 Pilot study
Seliger and Shohamy (1995) suggested that a pilot study will crucially qualify the quality
of the data obtained; hence, the current researcher decided to use the English version of
the 50-item questions for a group of 10 freshmen and 10 seniors of English Department.
Because the subjects were English students, English version was chosen; however,
English in the questionnaire was carefully worded to be relevant to the readers’
proficiency. As a result, the purpose of the pilot study was to check clarity and
comprehensibility of the items. Additionally, the amount of time to answer the questions
was calculated in detail. Some modifications to the questionnaire were made in response
to the problem arising from the pilot test. I will thus present clearly the pilot procedure.

Researcher: Trinh Hong Tinh

15