60 related to studen
ts’ reading comprehension. It was further continued by the discussion about a number of metacognitive reading strategies students rarely or
mostly use. Eventually, correlation between both variables metacognitive reading strategies awareness and reading comprehension were discussed as well.
4.2.1 Stu
dents’ awareness in using metacognitive reading strategies
The findings suggested that moderate-usage level of metacognitive reading strategies was moderately used see table 4.1. PROB strategies got to be the
leading category with highest means score. Then, the study also found that the GLOB strategies fell into the lowest preference and were categorized on
moderate-usage level. Generally, these findings became evidence that those students were relatively aware of metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive
experience. These findings the rank of three subcategories confirmed the previous studies that investigated stu
dents’ awareness in utilizing metacognitive reading strategies via SORS Alsheikh Mokhtari 2011, Mokhtari Reichard
2002, Hong-Nam Page 2014 and Pammu et.al 2014. In accordance with the overall means of SORS score, the study also
reported that PROB strategies were the most-preference reading strategies with the highest level of precedence. Strategies such as “manipulating the reading
speed”, “intending the focus on reading”, “pausing the thinking about reading”, “rereading the material to increase the understanding” and “guessing for unknown
word” were the most preferred strategies and utilized at high-usage level. Yet, the students also reported medium-
usage level at strategies such as “paying closer attention situationally”, “adjusting reading speed” and “picture and visualize the
information”. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
61 The choice of PROB strategies as the most preferred strategies as
demonstrated in table 4.1 might be construed as the preference of students in using problem solving strategies during reading the material. It indicates that the
students mostly tend to manage and plan their reading strategies to better understand as well. The predominant use of PROB strategies was also similar to
previous studies such as Yuksel Yuksel 2011, Alhaqbani Riazi 2012 Magogwe 2013.
Another possible explanation of high-usage level of PROB strategies are that these students were generally aware of taking deeds to solve existing
difficulties in reading process by selecting some appropriate strategies. For instance, as listed previously see table 4.2, strategies such as “reading slowly
and carefully in or der to get precise information”, “re-reading the passage when
facing difficulties of understanding” and “guessing the meaning of unknown word” were utilized by students in the high-level usage. This preference indicates
that those students were widely aware of their reading process and had abilities to solve the difficulties Alhaqbani Riazi, 2012, p.239. Similarly, Al_Dawaideh
Al-Saadi 2013 also claim that the items provided in this subscale help student to solve the difficulties whilst reading and enable students to concentrate and
understand the text efficiently might encourage the students to prefer PROB strategies p.229.
Several strategies usage of PROB strategies may lead another explanation relating second language acquisition. For instance, strategy such as “reading
slowly and carefully” and “guessing unknown word” came to be a sign that the students herein were trying to get better comprehension. Reading carefully and
62 slowly means that the students were trying to set up the reading flows. It indicates
that they had an initiation to establish the running of reading activities. This finding came up the characteristics of good reader that they automatically adjust
reading strategies appropriately. These findings were in line with Baker Brown 1984 that skilled readers use problem-solving strategies as an effort to increase
and adjust their reading comprehension. With respect to those findings, the students also reported the high-level
preference of the use of “guessing unknown word”. It shows that they were consciously trying to break the deadlock of unknown or unfamiliar words by
guessing them into relevant meaning. According to the interview, entire interviewees showed the same problem related to the limited vocabulary gains.
They all agreed that the limited vocabulary gains came to be the prime problem in reading the passage. Hence they reported the high-level usage of guessing
unknown words because they had a belief that the problem such unknown words or limited vocabulary could be handled by guessing or relating it to the previous
clauses or sentences. This problem was relatively similar to the problem of the respondents of Pammu et.al 2014. They also found that the less proficient of
Indonesian learners had serious problem in vocabulary acquisition. This finding was supported by statements of the interviewees as follows:
When the text becomes difficult. Usually I guess them.
I guess it by considering the previous text. If I still do not understand, I verify it the title and instead.
Actually the most problem I found is in vocabulary. I have limited vocabulary.
Then I translate it, I skip, or even I guess the possible meaning I2, L20.
63 In accordance with interviewee 2, interviewee 3 also reported the problem looked
alike.
Unknown word?? Yes mas, I think I have very limited vocabulary.
It makes me sometimes hopeless of what I am reading. Sometimes I underline or skip it because it drives my mood bad.
But I usually guess it into the closer meaning based on my belief. I guess because I think it is synonymous of other words may be.
I wont this unfamiliar word destroys my focus I3, L33.
These occurrences break away from the deadlock of unknown words could be construed as that those students were consciously aware of the problems
they were facing. It means that they had such a critical thinking whilst facing the written texts. Accordingly, they tended to use several strategies they had learnt to
solve the problems. As seen in the case of interviewee 2 and 3, they seemed to have similar problem that was limited vocabulary gains. Then, they also tried to
handle that problem by using “guessing unknown word” strategy. Problem could be defined as difficulties in particular reading aspects
regarded as obstacle and needs to be dealt with and find the solution indeed. These problems might be caused by various factors either internal factors of the
reader personality motivation or external factors such as environmental factors, technical factors, or procedural factors. Those various factors may influence an
individual while solving a problem. “Factors such as whether the problem is
suitable for the age of the person involved, whether heshe has prior knowledge and skills to find the solution, and personal characteristics can be effective in
solving problems ” Sengul Katranci, 2012, p. 2179.
The second issue needs to be discussed is the place of SUP strategies as the second most favored subscale strategies. In other words, the preference of
SUP strategies is categorized on moderate-usage level. As demonstrated in table PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
