Metacognitive reading strategies awareness and reading comprehension: A correlational study.

(1)

xiv ABSTRACT

Dangin. 2016. Metacognitive Reading Strategies Awareness and Reading Comprehension: A Correlational Study. Yogyakarta: English Language Studies, Graduate Program, Sanata Dharma University

The present study was aimed to investigate the relationship between students’ metacognitive reading strategies awareness and reading comprehension gains. The investigation could reach students’ better reading comprehension and identify students’ awareness in metacognitive reading strategies use, such as planning, monitoring and evaluation. The investigation of metacognitive in language learning is important for the development of language learning and teaching (Chammot & O’Malley 1995).

The study applied TOEFL test in order to collect the data of students’ reading comprehension. Then the study also conducted an investigation into students’ awareness in using metacognitive reading strategies by utilizing Survey of Reading Strategies Questionnaire (SORS) developed by Mokhtary & Sheorey (2002). The questionnaire was distributed 30 junior college students of Universitas Islam Indonesia, Yogyakarta. Afterwards, the study also administered a semi-structured interview to get in-depth information related to students’ perception about metacognitive reading strategies and reading comprehension gains.

The study came up with three main results that were also in line with the proposed research questions. First result was focused on the students’ awareness about metacognitive reading strategies. The study found that the overall strategy use was rated at level medium-usage level (M = 3.45, SD = .42). Moreover, PROB strategies became the most preferred subcategories of reading strategies (M = 3.55, SD = .38) and SUP and GLOB strategies were used at medium-usage level (M = 3.45 and 3.34, SD = .46 and .39). The second result was addressed to get information about students’ reading comprehension. The result revealed that the level of students’ reading comprehension was on B1 (according to Common European framework of reference for language).

Finally, the last result was related to the correlation between students’ metacognitive reading strategies awareness and reading comprehension gains. The result reported there was positive relation between those both variables (F = 6.627, p = .002). Additionally, the study also conducted multiple regression analysis to get deeper insight of the impact of metacognitive reading strategies on reading comprehension gains. PROB strategies came to be the only independent variable that had predictive influence on students’ reading comprehension gains (t = 2.761, p = .010).

Keywords: Metacognitive reading strategies, reading comprehension, PROB strategies, SUP strategies, GLOB strategies

(2)

xv ABSTRAK

Dangin. 2016. Metacognitive Reading Strategies Awareness and Reading Comprehension: A Correlational Study. Yogyakarta: English Language Studies, Graduate Program, Sanata Dharma University

Penelitian ini ditujukan untuk mengulas hubungan antara kesadaran siswa tentang strategi membaca metacognitif dan pemahaman membaca. Penelitian ini diharapkan mampu memberi positif benefit kepada para pelajar di tingkat mahasiswa khusunya. Pengulasan tentang metakognitif dalam pembelajaran bahasa dinilai penting untuk perekembangan pengajaran dan pembelajaran bahasa (Chammot & O’Malley 1995).

Penelitian ini menggunakan TOEFL test untuk mengumpulkan data berkaitan dengan kemampuan membaca mahasiswa. Sedangkan untuk mengetahui tingkat kesadaran mahasiswa dalam menggunakan strategi membaca metakognitif, penelitian ini mengggunakan Survey of Reading Strategies Questionnaire yang dikembangkan oleh Mokhtary & Sheorey (2002). Selanjutnya, kuesioner didistribusikan kepada 30 responden yang berasal dari Uversitas Islam Indonesia, Yogyakarta. Penelitian ini juga menggunakan semi-structured interview untuk mendapatkan informasi mendalam terkait dengan persepsi mahasiswa tentang strategi membaca metakognitif dan kaitanya dengan pemahaman membaca.

Terdapat tiga hasil utama yang sesuai dengan perumusan masalah dalam penelitian ini. Hasil pertama berkaitan dengan tingkat kesadaran mahasiswa tentang penggunaan strategi membaca metakognitif. Penilitian ini menemukan bahwa secara keselurahan tingkat kesadaran mahasiswa berada pada tingkat menengah (M = 3.45, SD = .42). Selanjutnya, strategi membaca pada sub kategori PROB menjadi sub katogori yang paling diminati oleh mahasiswa dengan tingkat kesadaran (M = 3.55 SD = .38). Kemudian subkategori SUP dan GLOB secara berurutan menempati posisi kedua dan ketiga (M = 3.45 dan 3.34, SD = .46 dan .39). Hasil kedua ditujukan untuk mendapatkan informasi tentang pemahaman membaca mahasiswa. Hasil menunjukan bahwa tingkat pemahaman membaca siswa berada pada kategori B1 (menurut Common European framework of reference for language).

Hasil terakhir pada penelitian ini berkaitan dengan hubungan antara kesadaran mahasiswa tentang strategi membaca metacognitif dan pemahaman membaca siswa. Hasil menunjukan bahwa terdapat hubungan positif antara kedua variabel tersebut (F = 6.627, p = .002). Selanjutnya, penelitian ini juga melakukan analisa regresi berganda untuk mendapatkan informasi mendalam tentang dampak kesadaran mahasiswa tentang strategi membaca metacognitif pada pemahaman membaca mahasiswa. Hasilnya, subkategori PROB menjadi satu satunya variabel independen yang dapat memprediksi kemampuan membaca sisiwa.

Kata kunci: Strategi membaca metacognitif, pemahaman membaca, strategi PROB, strategi SUP dan strategi GLOB

(3)

Metacognitive Reading Strategies Awareness and

Reading Comprehension: A Correlational Study

A Thesis Presented to

The Graduate Program in English Language Studies

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Magister Humaniora (M.Hum.)

in English Language Studies

by

Dangin

146332031

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA

(4)

Metacognitive Reading Strategies Awareness and

Reading Comprehension: A Correlational Study

A Thesis Presented to

The Graduate Program in English Language Studies

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Magister Humaniora (M.Hum.)

in English Language Studies

by

Dangin

146332031

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA

(5)

A TIIESIS

METACOGNITIVE REAI}ING STRATEGIES AWARENESS ANI)

REAI}TI\TG COMPtrLEHENSION: A CONBEI.ATIONAL STUDY

Approved by

OI

F.X. Mukarto, Ph.D.

Thesis Advisor

(6)

A TIIESTS

METACOGNTTIYE READING STRATEGIES AWARENESS AND

READING COMPREHENSION: A CORRELATIONAL STUDY

Presented by

Ilangin

Students Number: 146332031

Was defended in front of Thesis Committee

and Declared Acceptable Thesis Committee

Chairperson

Secretary

: F.X. Mukarto, Ph.D

Members : L Dr. J. Bismoko

2.Dr. E. Sunarto,

M.Hum

fS

_rud{

O-ll

(7)

STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY

This is to certiff that all the ideas, phrases, and sentences, unless otherwise stated, are mine. I understand the full consequences including degree cancellation if I took somebody else's ideas, phrases, or sentences without proper reference.

Yogyakarta, August 5n, 2016

(8)

LE MBAR PE RNYATAAN P E RS E TUJUAN

PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH UNTAK KEPENTII{GAN AKADEMIK

Yang bertanda tangan

di

bawah ini, saya mahasiswa Universitas Sanata Dharma:

Nama

:Dangin

NomorMahasiswa :146332031

Demi

pengembangan

ilmu

pengetahuan,

saya

memberikan kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma karya ilmiah saya yang berjudul:

METACOGNITIVE READING STRATEGIES AWARENESS AND READING COMPREHENSION: A CORRELATIONAL STUDY

Beserta perangkat yang diperlukan (bila ada). Dengan demikian, saya

memberikan kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma hak untuk menyimpan, mengalihkan dalam bentuk media lain, mengelolanya dalam

bentuk pangkalan data, mendistribusikannya di Internet atau media lain untuk kepentingan akademis tanpa perlu meminta ijin ataupun memberikan royalti kepada saya selama tetap mencantumkan nama saya sebagai penulis. Demikian pernyataan ini saya buat dengan sebenarnya.

Dibuat di:Yogyakarta

Pada tanggal: 5 Agustus2076

(9)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Alhamdulillah, I give thanks to Allah swt who has given me his protection and chance to conduct this thesis.

First and foremost my sincere gratitude is extended to my supervisor F.X

Mukarto, Ph.D. for guiding and being wonderful consultant at my thesis. It is with his supervision that this work came into existence.

Besides my supervisor, I would also like to thank the rest of my thesis committee: Dr. B.B. Dwijatmoko, M.A., Dr. J. Bismoko and Dr. E. Sunarto, M.Hum. for their encouragments, isightful comments, and critical questions.

I am also deeply thankful to my respondents (college students of English Department of Universitas Islam Indonesia) . I want to acknowledge and

appreciate their help and transparency during my research. Their information have helped me complete this thesis.

I would like to thank my family who encouraged me and prayed for me throughout the time of my research.

I would also like to thank my collegues in English Language Studies program, Sanata Dharma University. I particularly thank you Eli, Vita, Tita, Sisilia, Indra, Kosmas, Ruly, Pras, Anngi and Adit for your support and entertaiment.

Thank you very much, everyone! May Allah always bless you all..

(10)

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

COVER ………...…...I APPROVAL PAGE ... II DEFENSE APPROVAL PAGE... III STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY ... IV LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH ... V ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... VII

TABLE OF CONTENTS ………VII

LIST OF TABLES ... X

LIST OF FIGURES ... XII LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ... XIIII LIST OF APPENDICES ... XIIIII ABSTRACT ... XIV ABSKTRAK ... XV

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION ... 1

1.1 THE PLACE OF THE CURRENT STUDY IN THE CONTEXT OF METACOGNITION AND READING COMPREHENSION RESEARCH ... 1

1.2 STATEMENTS OF THE PROBLEM ... 6

1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS... 7

1.4 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ... 8

1.5 SCOPE AND LIMITATION OF THE STUDY ... 9

1.6 RESEARCH BENEFITS ... 9

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ... 11

2.1 THEORETICAL REVIEW ... 11

2.1.1 DEFINING METACOGNITIVE STRATEGIES ... 11

2.1.1.1 Cognition in learning process ... 12

2.1.1.2 Flavell's of cognitive monitoring ………....13

2.1.1.3 Metacognition ……….15

2.1.1.4 Metacognitive reading strategies awareness………16

2.1.1.4.1 Knowledge of cognition……..….………..18

2.1.1.4.2 Regulation of cognition ………..…...21

2.1.1.5 Significances of metacognitive reading strategies ……...22

2.1.1.6 The measurements of metacognitive reading strategies awareness ………..…23

(11)

viii

2.1.2.1 Models of reading comprehension………...28

2.1.2.2 Bilingualism and reading process………....30

2.1.2.3 Measurement of reading comprehension ………32

2.1.2.4 The levels of reading comprehension ………...…..32

2.1.2.1.1 The top-down model ………....27

2.1.2.1.2 The bottom-up model………....…....28

2.1.2.1.3 The interactive model ………..…28

2.1.3 Metacognition and Reading ... 34

2.1.3.1 The role of metacognition in understanding and supporting reading comprehension ………..…..…33

2.1.3.2 Relationship between metacognitive reading strategies awareness and reading comprehension………...…………..35

2.2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 38

2.2.1HYPOTHESIS ... 39

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ... 41

3.1 RESEARCH METHOD ... 41

3.2 RESPONDENTS ... 43

3.3 INSTRUMENTS ... 43

3.4 DATA COLLECTING TECHNIQUE ... 45

3.5 DATA ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE ... 45

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ... 48

4.1 RESULTS ... 48

4.1.1 Students’ Awareness in Using Metacognitive Reading Strategies ... 49

4.1.2 Frequency of Use of the Metacognitive Strategies ... 53

4.1.3 Students’ Level of Reading Comprehension ... 54

4.1.4 Correlation Between Students’ Metacognitive Awareness and Reading Comprehension ... 56

4.2 DISCUSSION ... 59

4.2.1 Students’ awareness in using metacognitive reading strategies... 60

4.2.2 Strategies mostly and rarely used by students ... 67

4.2.3 Students’ reading comprehension score ... 69

4.2.4 Correlation between Metacognitive Reading Strategies and Reading Comprehension ... 70

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION, IMPLICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ... 78

5.1 CONCLUSION ... 78

5.2 IMPLICATIONS ... 81

(12)

BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 85

(13)

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Metacognitive knowledge of strategies ……… 20

Table 2.2 A strategy evaluation matrix ……… .……….. 21

Table 2.3 Common reference of reading comprehension level……….34

Table 3.1 Frequency scales of strategy use………. ..46

Table 4.1 Descriptive statistic of overall strategy usage ………...49

Table 4.2 Problem solving strategies……….50

Table 4.3 Support reading strategies ……….………51

Table 4.4 Global reading strategies ………...………52

Table 4.5 List of frequency of use of the metacognitive setrategies……...53

Table 4.6 Statistic dataset reading comprehension score………...54

Table 4.7 Pearson correlation of students’ metacognitive reading strategies awareness and reading comprehension……...………...56

Table 4.8 Model Summary……….………57

Table 4.9 Analysis of Variance of Students’ Metacognitive reading strategies awareness and Reading Comprehension………....57

(14)

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 A componential approach to reading comprehension………27

Figure 2.2 Interactive language procesing in bilingual learners……….31

Figure 2.3 Framwork of learners’ levels ………33

Figure 2.4 Metacognitive theory and reading comprehansion………36

Figure 2.5 Theoritical framework of the study………...38

Figure 3.1 Explanatory design ………...42

(15)

xii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ANOVA : Analysis of variance

CEFRL : Common European framework of reference for language

EFL : English as forein language

ESL : English as second language

GLOB : Global reading strategies

M : Mean

MARSI : Metacognitive awareness of reaidng strategies inventory

PROB : Problem solving strategies

SD : Standart deviation

SORS : Survey of reading strategies

SUP : Global reading strategies

(16)

xiii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Survey of reading strategies (SORS) Appendix 2 TOEFL score (Reading Comprehension) Appednix 3 Semi-structured interview guidelines Appendix 4 Data of semi-structured interview

(17)

xiv ABSTRACT

Dangin. 2016. Metacognitive Reading Strategies Awareness and Reading Comprehension: A Correlational Study. Yogyakarta: English Language Studies, Graduate Program, Sanata Dharma University

The study came up with three main results that were also in line with the proposed research questions. First result was focused on the students’ awareness about metacognitive reading strategies. The study found that the overall strategy use was rated at level medium-usage level (M = 3.45, SD = .42). Moreover, PROB strategies became the most preferred subcategories of reading strategies (M = 3.55, SD = .38) and SUP and GLOB strategies were used at medium-usage level (M = 3.45 and 3.34, SD = .46 and .39). The second result was addressed to get information about students’ reading comprehension. The result revealed that the level of students’ reading comprehension was on B1 (according to Common European framework of reference for language).

Keywords: Metacognitive reading strategies, reading comprehension, PROB strategies, SUP strategies, GLOB strategies

(18)

xv ABSTRAK

Dangin. 2016. Metacognitive Reading Strategies Awareness and Reading Comprehension: A Correlational Study. Yogyakarta: English Language Studies, Graduate Program, Sanata Dharma University

Penelitian ini menggunakan TOEFL test untuk mengumpulkan data berkaitan dengan kemampuan membaca mahasiswa. Sedangkan untuk mengetahui

tingkat kesadaran mahasiswa dalam menggunakan strategi membaca

metakognitif, penelitian ini mengggunakan Survey of Reading Strategies Questionnaire yang dikembangkan oleh Mokhtary & Sheorey (2002). Selanjutnya, kuesioner didistribusikan kepada 30 responden yang berasal dari Uversitas Islam Indonesia, Yogyakarta. Penelitian ini juga menggunakan semi-structured interview untuk mendapatkan informasi mendalam terkait dengan persepsi mahasiswa tentang strategi membaca metakognitif dan kaitanya dengan pemahaman membaca.

Terdapat tiga hasil utama yang sesuai dengan perumusan masalah dalam penelitian ini. Hasil pertama berkaitan dengan tingkat kesadaran mahasiswa tentang penggunaan strategi membaca metakognitif. Penilitian ini menemukan bahwa secara keselurahan tingkat kesadaran mahasiswa berada pada tingkat menengah (M = 3.45, SD = .42). Selanjutnya, strategi membaca pada sub kategori PROB menjadi sub katogori yang paling diminati oleh mahasiswa dengan tingkat kesadaran (M = 3.55 SD = .38). Kemudian subkategori SUP dan GLOB secara berurutan menempati posisi kedua dan ketiga (M = 3.45 dan 3.34, SD = .46 dan .39). Hasil kedua ditujukan untuk mendapatkan informasi tentang pemahaman membaca mahasiswa. Hasil menunjukan bahwa tingkat pemahaman membaca siswa berada pada kategori B1 (menurut Common European framework of reference for language).

Kata kunci: Strategi membaca metacognitif, pemahaman membaca, strategi PROB, strategi SUP dan strategi GLOB

(19)

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter introduces some of the study on the metacognitive reading

strategies use in reading comprehension. In the first point, issue of The Place of

the Current Study in the Context of Metacognition and Reading Comprehension Research is involved as the benchmark of the study and used to know the current issue of the study. Then, in the second point, continued by statement of the

problem, which is concerned on the found problems in the study’s domain (metacognition and reading comprehension) as the empirical background for

initial investigation. The scope and limitation of the study is presented in order to

notice the framework of the study. The later point is formulation the research

questions as the direction in reaching the research goal. In the last point, significances of the research are presented as well.

1.1 The Place of the Current Study in the Context of Metacognition and Reading Comprehension Research

Reading comprehension becomes a sophisticated issue that involves learners’ background knowledge, numerous strategies and the environmental factor within the process. Background knowledge refers what the readers have

already known related to the new topics they are working on. It enables the

readers to predict or interrelate the existing experience with reading text. It is also

influenced by readers’ ability in organizing various strategies according to the needs. Beside that, environmental factors such as self-planning, elf-evaluation,

(20)

self-regulation and motivation of the readers also come to be important aspects

need to be concerned.

Reading comprehension has been described by Kreeyanord (2010, p.279)

as the complex and multifaceted ability that includes learners’ convention in using a number of skills and strategies thoughtfully and critically when facing the

written text. In addition, Woolley (2011, p.33) acquires reading comprehension as

the process of making meaning from text whereas its goal is to gain an overall

understanding of what is described in the text rather than to obtain meaning from

isolated words or sentences. In this activity, the readers make an effort to

understand the information within reading text by utilizing some reading

strategies. Moreover, in this context, the readers are required to actively interact

with the reading materials and the environment. The environment herein includes

teachers as the supervisors of those learners as well.

Moreover, metacognitive reading strategy becomes one of crucial aspects

for learners in comprehending the reading text. Subjectively, Ahmadi, Ismail &

Abdullah (2013, p.235) assert that reading comprehension is a complex process

involving a combination of text and readers and refers to the ability of readers to

understand the surface and the hidden meanings of the text using metacognitive

reading strategies. The awareness of metacognitive reading strategy influences

learners comprehension because it controls the ways learners arrange their

interaction with the context and also for how the use of strategies is related to

effective reading comprehension (Mokhtary and Sheorey: 2003, p.6). As Alireza

(21)

Metacognition refers to the knowledge and control that we have over our cognitive processes. With regard to reading, it is common to talk about metacognitive awareness (what we know) and metacognitive regulation or control (knowing when, where, and how to use strategies, that is, what we can do). On a general level, metacognition includes awareness and control of planning, monitoring, repairing, revising, summarizing, and evaluating. Essentially, we learn awareness of our comprehension processing. It is the combination of conscious awareness of reading, strategic reading processes, and the actual utilization of reading strategies that distinguishes skilled from unskilled readers (p.6).

Several researches had been conducted in this scope (Kolic-Vehovec 2006,

Alhaqbani & Riazi 2012, Magogwe: 2013, Othman & Jaidi 2012, Keskin 2013,

and Huang & Newbern: 2012). Most of those researches are related to the ability

of learners in dealing with consistency of the readers in using the reading

strategies in the course of reading actively.

In reading strategy context, the significance of the metacognitive strategies

cannot be neglected. It is adequately substantiated by some researches conducted in metacognition area such as Jacob & Paris’ (1987) study in children’s metacognition about reading; they found that by measuring metacognition directly

helps teachers to diagnose specific misconceptions and nonstrategic reading.

Furthermore, Takallou (2006), Outhman & Jaidi (2012),) Huang & Newbern

(2012) and Keskin (2013) conducted experimental study about the impact of

metacognition toward reading comprehension. They come up with the result that

metacognition has significant influence toward readers performance and

comprehension. It assuredly discloses that metacognitive strategies increase readers’ motivation and their understanding.

(22)

In recent years, in other studies, many researchers such as Carrell (1989),

Kolic-Vehovec (2006), Young & Fry (2008), and Zhang & Sheepo (2013)

conducted correlational study concerning metacognitive reading strategies and

reading comprehension. The result reveals that there are significant relationships

between metacognitive reading strategies awareness and reading comprehension.

However, more proficient readers used more high awareness in using metacognitive strategies than the lowers’.

Some researchers (Carrel 1989, Alireza 2011, Zhang & Sheepo 2013)

conclusively affirm that the readers are able to attain reading comprehension

through reading strategies. They found that learning strategy becomes effective tools used to improve readers’ ability and also the motivation of the readers in learning activity. Additionally, it explicitly aligns that reading strategies take a

role in the reading comprehension issue. Reading strategies are the way readers

manage their interaction with the reading materials (Carrel 1989, p.121).

Another research related to the effect of metacognitive scaffolding and monitoring toward students’ reading comprehension was conducted by Dabarera, Renandya & Zhang (2014). By means of experimental research design, they found

that metacognitive awareness rising has positive relationship with students

reading comprehension improvement. Moreover, they also found that

metacognitive strategy instruction effectively increases metacognitive awareness

that also is linked in significant reading comprehension.

In similar year, Pammu, Amir and Maasum (2014) also conducted quantitative research related to Indonesian learners’ metacognitive awareness. By

(23)

means of questionnaire as the main data collector, they found that 40 Indonesian

respondents reported high-usage level of PROB strategies. Unfortunately, they

also found that last two subscales reading strategies was reported in

medium-usage level. The result that the less proficient Indonesian students were not likely

aware about their metacognitive strategies. Considering the level of students’ metacognitive awareness, they claimed that those less proficient students were not

strategic learners.

The latest research related to the relationship between students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies and reading comprehension was

conducted by Fitrisia, Tan & Yusuf (2015). They conducted correlational study

with 272 students in Banda Aceh, Indonesia. They found that there was weak relationship between participants’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies and performance in reading comprehension. In other words, the study came up

with the empirical discovery that the generally students herein were not

thoroughly aware their reading strategies during reading task or facing

school-related reading materials.

Regarding those sentences above, this study assumedly affirms that the

good readers or commonly called rich readers are the learners who are able to use

some strategies in order to reach their comprehension level while the poor one

does not instead.

It is important to instruct students about what, how, when, and why to use various reading strategies, and it is equally important to assess whether or not students understand and apply reading strategies effectively (Paris & Flukes: 2005, p.137)

(24)

Thus, subsequently the readers can reach the better reading comprehension if the supervisors are able to identify leaners’ awareness in metacognitive reading strategies use and promote it to them. It also can be useful for them by pointing to

the certainty that metacognitive strategies are constructed on the basis of planning,

arrangement and evaluation and emphasizing on the active execution of these

strategies during reading. Particularly, metacognition as leading knowledge about

cognition will be regarded in chapter 2 as declarative, procedural and conditional

knowledge (Jacob & Paris: 1987).

1.2 Statements of the Problem

As mentioned previously, metacognition has significant influence toward readers’ reading comprehension. It is evidently strengthened by some researchers who are concerned on the importance of metacognition in reading comprehension.

As Chammot & Omalley (1995, p.99) say "students without metacognitive

approaches are essentially learners without direction and ability to review their

progress, accomplishments, and future learning directions". Additionally,

Anderson (2002) also highlights the important role of metacognition as “orchestrator of various strategies”. It means that metacognition has a prominent role to control various reading strategies and cognitive strategies as well. The

study calls the attention to several problems related to the scope of metacognition

and reading comprehension research:

1. Reading comprehension becomes a complex activity. The readers are

required to understand the meaning exists on the reading material. They are

(25)

2. The lack of readers’ awareness in using numerous strategies gets to be most problems in reading comprehension. This condition also influences the decrease in readers’ motivation to solve difficulties when the comprehension breaks down.

3. Poor readers or low- ability readers are not prepared to read academic reading

materials such as text book and fail to encode to construct representations that

are consistent with the topic of a text (Mokhtary and Sheorey: 2003, p.4)

1.3 Research Questions

This study is aimed to investigate the level of students’ awareness in utilizing metacognitive reading strategies while interacting with reading materials

and to look over the relationship between students’ awareness in using metacognitive reading strategies to reach the reading comprehension and reading

comprehension achievement of the students. Hence, the study formulates two

research questions in order to reach the goals of the study as below:

1) What is Level of students’ awareness in using metacognitive reading strategies and which reading strategy categories are perceived to be used

more by the participants during reading activities?

2) Which strategies do students favor?

3) What is Level of students’ reading comprehension?

4) Does the students’ awareness of metacognitive strategies have any relationship with their English reading comprehension?

(26)

1.4 Research objectives

Associated with the foregoing research questions, this study carried out

four objectives. The first question was aimed to investigate the level of students’ awareness of metacognitive reading strategies use while interacting with written

text. It was meant to explore the general awareness of students’ in applying metacognitive reading strategies. Afterwards, this study was also aimed to

describe the students’ awareness in using each subcategory of metacognitive reading strategies.

The second question was proposed to find strategies preference of

students. It was supposed to rank the five highest of strategies preference. I was

also expected to find the five-lowest strategies preference of the students.

The third question was directed to describe the level of students’ reading comprehension. By means of CEFR standard, this study was aimed to consider the level of students’ reading comprehension globally.

The fourth question was intended to explore the relationship between both

metacognitive reading strategies use and reading comprehension. This study was

aimed to investigate the relationship between metacognitive reading strategies

awareness and reading comprehension. This study was also supposed to make

enquiries about how far metacognitive reading strategies can explain the students’’ reading comprehension. Finally, this study was aimed to investigate the influence of subcategories of metacognitive reading strategies

(27)

1.5 Scope and Limitation of the Study

As mentioned in the previous point (1.3), there are a number of problems

in reading comprehension. In academic reading, exhaustive reading has come to be essential because it is associated with readers’ knowledge and ability in using various strategies. The nature of reading comprehension becomes complex if the

readers could not find the appropriate reading strategies as the problem solver

when the comprehension breaks down.

Thus, it deliberately concerns this study into problem number 1 and 2 in

statements of the problem point, that are the relationship between metacognitive strategies use and reading comprehension considered as indicator of reading

competency and reading comprehension of the students.

1.6 Research Benefits

It is believed that learning strategies take an important role for the students’ success in reading. By means of correlational design, the study leads the result to

give both sides theoretical and practical significances. In theoretical scope, this

study is expected to enhance the theory of metacognitive reading strategies use

while reading. Afterwards, this study practically aims to provide teachers and

students an overview of investigation of metacognitive reading strategies use and

its relation with reading comprehension. It is important to the teacher recognize learners’ metacognitive awareness level as Mbato (2013) says “a metacognitive teacher should promote students’ active engagement in reading by engaging students in planning, monitoring and evaluating their understanding” (p.13).

Learners/ readers could be motivated to improve reading skill and effective

(28)

preferred reading strategies and consider their less preferred reading strategies.

Moreover, this study is also directed to promote learning strategies in order to

reach the success in reading. These terms (metacognition and reading

comprehension) can provide us with in-depth insights into the complexity of

reading process and give us ideas about how to help learners to develop their

reading competence and how to assess their metacognitive strategy use (Zhang &

Sheepo: 2013, p.55). Eventually, the lecturers as the stakeholders in this

opportunity are supposed to explicitly lead the learners to recognize and

effectively operate the reading strategies.

This study is also intended to provide the latest circumstances of the

development of metacognitive awareness. The result of the study can be used as

scientific references for the future research. It is supposed to be research-based

information source for future researchers. The present study also would like to

lead the future research to use more complex research design after reading the

(29)

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

In order to synchronize the theory within this research, this segment

provides the related theory as the guide or framework of the study. The main

focuses of this segment are the explanation of several aspects in metacognitive

reading strategies, reading comprehension and the relationship between those both

sides metacognitive awareness of reading strategies and reading comprehension

gains.

2.1 Theoretical Review

Theoretical review is intended to provide a selective review of related

theories in this study. The first section will be the theory of metacognitive strategy

that is also as the independent variable of this study. Then, followed by related

theory of reading comprehension that comes to be the dependent variable of the

study. At the last section of the theoretical review, the existing theory of

relationship between those both variables metacognitive reading strategies and

reading comprehension are presented as well.

2.1.1 Defining Metacognitive Strategies

As noted earlier in the first chapter, this study is intended to focus on

metacognitive reading strategies as the independent variable. Metacognition is

generally related on how an individual manage and regulate own thinking. The

notion of metacognition issue was influenced by some experts that were also seen

(30)

Paris & Jacob 1987). The following subtitles will explore more closely about

metacognitive strategies. Cognition and metacognition are also considered as

interrelated topic of metacognitive reading strategies.

2.1.1.1 Cognition in learning process

In the next passage of this chapter (point 2.1.1.2), the definition

metacognition comes up with cognition as the root of metacognition term. There

is no stable definition proposed by worldwide experts in cognition scope. Then,

the definition from McDowell (2015) gets to be the main source of cognition

term. Cognition can be defined as conscious mental action activities: the activities

of thinking, understanding, learning, and remembering. This definition shows that

knowledge acquisition and understanding occurs within mental action activities or

process. In other word, we can understand the mind as an information processor

that continually adding to its repertoire of mental representations as well as

producing overt physical behaviors (Wiley & Jee, 2010, p.3). Then, the following

explanation from Pons, Rosnay & Cuisinier (2010, p.79) may give more detail

about the overview of cognition:

…. Cognition refers to the different forms of knowledge (e.g., belief, thought, etc.) that we have and, critically, to the mental functions (e.g., systems, schemas, processes, etc.) making the acquisition, storage, retrieval, transformation, and use of this knowledge possible, for example, memory, attention, intelligence, language, mental imagery, and so on.

Moreover, it can be understood that cognition refers to how an individual

mind works to acquire and understand the information through thinking of new

experiences, remembering the old experiences, and sensing or noticing those

experiences as well. It also describes the acquisition, storage, transformation and

(31)

2.1.1.2 Flavell’s model of cognitive monitoring

Flavell in his article (1979) believes that cognitive monitoring occurs

through the action and interactions among four variables such as metacognitive

knowledge, actions (strategies), goal (tasks) and metacognitive experiences. Then, he separately defines each variable as a mean to make it easier to understand. In other words, he believes that one’s ability to monitor or control their cognition is depending on their ability in activate and interrelate those variables.

Metacognitive knowledge is believed as a belief about active or interactive

factors that give an impact toward the course and outcome of cognitive enterprise.

He assumes that it is a process of how an individual acquires worldwide

knowledge about cognitive processes. Metacognitive knowledge could be

construed as how an individual frames their mind about their own cognitive

abilities. This kind of variable is divided into three majors categories such as

person, tasks and strategies.

Person is assumed as the executor of the cognition. It means that this

person is labeled as the cognitive processor. This category is related into beliefs

about individual or intra-individual differences (e.g. a boy beliefs that he is better

in expressing his idea by writing than speaking). This category also relates to

universal of cognition (e.g. a girl believes that her friend is more active than her or

she knows that there is a different degree of knowledge among her friends.

Then, tasks refer the information available to that person during cognitive

undertaking. This might be as an understanding about how to maximize the

cognitive enterprise and how well is someone in achieving their goals. In this

(32)

instance, “the child needs to learn that the quantity and quality of available information can sometimes be insufficient to warrant confident judgments about

what another person is really like” (p.907).

Moreover, strategies could be interpreted as a tool of someone in

achieving the goal and sub-goal. In this category, individual is required to take the

concern on what strategies are likely to be efficient and effective in its application

as a mean of plan of action in learning process. It actually concerns on how an

individual utilizes single strategy based on the demand and then, combines

various strategies as a mean to solve the problem and achieve the proposed goals.

Metacognitive experience reflects one’s self-regulation of cognition. It occurs in in a situation that encourages an individual to do carefully and

consciously. Generally, this category requires three aspects in cognitive

managements. First, planning comes to be the first aspect in order to reach good

achievements or goals. By means of planning, an individual is able to predict the

run of goal achievement process. It enables that person to prepare the essential

features of cognitive process. Second, metacognitive experience enables an

individual to monitor their progress. It stimulates person observe their

development in reaching the goal by adding to something, deleting from

something or revising something to keep the progress still on the track. Finally,

metacognitive experience could activate strategies based on the goals and

achievement. It allows person evaluates his or her own progress cognitively or

(33)

2.1.1.3 Metacognition

Metacognition becomes a central part of the contemporary educational

paradigm (Donndelinger, 2008, p.243). Research in metacognition comes to be

crucial issue in current study. Not only focused on language teaching, latest

researchers also found that metacognition is related in other subjects. For instance,

Legg & Locker (2009) & Pennequin et.al (2010) found that metacognition has significant relations with students’ problem solving in mathematics subject. Then, Jayapraba & Kanmani (2013) found that the students in science classroom

indicate high metacognitive awareness. But, this passage will only go further with

metacognition and literacy subject especially reading comprehension.

The definition of metacognition is contentious. Etymologically,

metacognition deals with “meta” which means beyond and “cognition” that means the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through

thought, experience, and the senses (Baker & Brown, 1980, p.13). The terms “metacognition” itself refers to how someone directs their cognition that deals with strategy and foregoing knowledge. It means that metacognition has such thing as one’s awareness and understanding of her/ his thought processes. Additionally, metacognition is the awareness of an individual to control or

manage her/ his mental cognition process.

Further definition may make it easier to understand. In the forgoing

studies, many experts in reading and metacognition scope variously define

metacognition. For instance, Jacob & Paris (1987), Anderson (2002), Livingston

(2003) and McDowell (2015) define metacognition as thinking about thinking process. Meanwhile, O’Malley & Chamot (1995) define metacognition as

(34)

knowledge about cognition or the regulation of cognition. More completely,

Baker (2010) proposes a definition of metacognition as below

Metacognition refers to thinking about thinking; knowledge about cognition and regulation of cognition; knowledge about person, task, and strategy variables that affect performance in a given domain; and cognitive monitoring and control (p.128).

The term of metacognition in this study is broadly defined as intentional

and conscious knowledge of how cognition works and cognition is regulated. It

takes a control over cognition to work effectively. It means that the readers who

are aware about their metacognition intentionally will draw attention to their

cognitive development. They consciously manage their cognition as well as their

achievement. Additionally, metacognition also places the emphases concerned in

learner development over learner environment interactions (Dismore, Alexander

& Loughlin, 2008, p.393).

Hence, it can be drawn a conclusive idea that cognition and metacognition

are interrelated variables of individual in processing the information. As discussed previously that cognition refers one’s individual to acquire the existing information while metacognition refers to one’s way to manage and control their cognition. It means that metacognitive strategy has a role as the stakeholder in directing the application of cognitive strategy. “Cognitive strategies are invoked to make cognitive progress, metacognitive strategies to monitor it” (Flavell, 1979, p. 909).

2.1.1.4 Metacognitive reading strategies awareness

This subsection firstly would like to discuss the term of awareness.

(35)

understanding and interpreting the knowledge based on situation or fact.

Etymologically, awareness could be interpreted as knowing something and having

well knowledge of particular situation or development of something (Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary). It means that metacognitive reading strategies awareness refers to the ability of students in understanding and using metacognitive strategies. In other words, the awareness in this scope is readers’ awareness of various strategies during the reading process (Singhal in Aziz et.al, p.780, 2011). Thus, investigating readers’ awareness is related to an enquiry into how far are their awareness of metacognitive reading strategies. The term of

metacognitive reading strategies will be discussed in the next paragraph.

Metacognitive reading strategies encourage readers to comprehensively

get the information of the text. It knowingly leads the readers to be aware about

another aspect of the reading itself. For instance, while reading the text, the

readers are acquired to get the information within the reading text. But, if the

readers only read the passage without any knowledge of relevant strategies, then

they will get doubtful about what have to do, what have to ignore, what need to

skip etc. Another example can be as a student has known numerous reading

strategies, but he does not know what time is appropriate to execute those

strategies. Then, he employs extensive reading strategy to get the whole

information while the time is not long enough. Consequently, the student does not

get complete information because of a misapplication of reading strategies.

Furthermore, the occurrence of misapplication can be rectified by

understanding the regulation of cognitive strategies. By means of regulation of

(36)

strategies, as he needs. This occurrence is in line with previous findings such

(Huang & Newbern, 2012) who found that metacognitive reading strategies

instruction can be effective for adult ESL learners with limited English and

literacy skills.

Most experts interested in metacognitive scope distinguish metacognitive

term into two main basic distinctions. For instance, Flavell (1979) sets out

metacognition into both metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive experience.

Jacob and Paris (1987) also distinguish metacognitive into two main categories

such as self-appraisal of metacognition and self-regulation of metacognition.

Furthermore, Brown (1987) and Schraw & Moshman (1995) divide metacognitive

into knowledge of cognition and regulation of cognition. Regarding those various

distinctions, this study deliberately uses the term of metacognitive strategies types

into knowledge of cognition and regulation of cognition.

2.1.1.4.1 Knowledge of Cognition

Knowledge of cognition means understanding what someone knows about

what the task is or what an object is used for. Paris and Jacob (1987) propose

three components of metacognition, which is labeled declarative knowledge that

refers to the readers ability in understanding the kinds of reading strategies can be

utilized; procedural knowledge that is relevant to how to execute the reading

strategies appropriately; and conditional knowledge that talk about the state of

affairs in reading strategies.

Declarative knowledge refers to what an individual knows about appropriate approach in gaining information. “It involves factual information and is the state of knowledge referred to as ‘knowing what’ ” (Maggioni & Alexander, 2010,

(37)

p.118). It also refers to what is known in propositional manner (Jacob & Paris,

1987, p.259). For instance, a reader may know that previous knowledge and setting the reading’s goal has significant impact toward his reading comprehension and fluency.

Procedural knowledge alludes to awareness of structural mechanism in

thinking process. It leads the learner to use procedural skills automatically and

become more self-directed in how to use the strategies appropriately and how to solve the problems effectively. “It consists of information for how to perform particular actions to accomplish task goals, and is commonly referred to as knowing how” (Nokes, Schunn & Chi, 2010, p.104). For instance, a student could know how to skim, how to use context, how to underline, how to summarize, and

how to find the min idea while reading (Jacob & Paris, 1987, p.259).

“Conditional knowledge refers to a state of knowledge that pertains to when and where knowledge (declarative or procedural) could or should be applied; for this reason, it has been described as ‘‘knowing when and where’’ “(Maggioni & Alexander, 2010, p.118). It leads the students to know the reason why particular is

utilized and when particular strategies should be employed etc. For instance, a

student needs to know when he should use paraphrase, and know why the

paraphrase strategy should be applied.

It can be seen that those three kinds of knowledge (declarative, procedural

and conditional) interrelate with all the others. Figure 2.1 briefly illustrates the

(38)

Table 2.1. Metacognitive knowledge of strategies

Declarative knowledge Procedural knowledge Conditional knowledge

A reader knows what the strategies are

A reader knows how to utilize the numerous strategies

A reader knows when and where to utilize strategies appropriately A reader knows why the

strategies need to be learned and utilized

Furthermore, as an effort to promote metacognitive awareness, Schraw

(1998) sets out an instructional aid for promoting metacognitive awareness as

simple as possible. He proposes a simple overview of metacognitive knowledge

called strategy evaluation matrix assumed could improve students’ ability in comprehending the reading materials. Actually, this schema adopted

metacognitive knowledge forms from the former pioneers such as flavell (1979),

Brown & Baker (1980), and Jacob & Paris (1987). As shown in table 2.2 that

there are three columns separated as how to use strategy; when to use strategy

and; why to use strategy. Those three categories basically are included in the

(39)

Table 2.2. A strategy evaluation matrix (Schraw, 1998)

Strategies How to use When to use Why to use

Skim Search for headings,

highlighted words, previews,

summaries

Prior to reading an extended text

Provide conceptual

overview, helps to focus one’s attention

Slow down Stop, read, and think

about information

When information seems especially important

Enhances focus of one’s attention Active prior

knowledge

Pause and think about what you already know, ask what you don’t know

Prior to reading or an familiar task

Makes new

information easier

to learn and

remember

Mental integration

Relate main ideas. Use these to

construct a theme or conclusion

When learning complex

information or a deeper

understanding is needed

Reduces memory load. Promotes deeper level of understanding.

Diagrams Identify main ideas,

connect them, list supporting details under main ideas, and connect supporting details.

When there is a lot of interrelated factual info

Helps identify main ideas and organize them into categories. Reduces memory load.

2.1.1.4.2 Regulation of Cognition

Management skills have relevance to the regulatory process for operating

the strategies. Jacobs & Paris (1987) and Schraw & Moshman (1995) also

provide regulatory skills of metacognitive reading strategies into three essential

(40)

Planning here means the students making a preview what reading material

will be about. They also forecast those upcoming materials by using previous

knowledge or experience. It refers to the selective coordination of a cognitive

means to a cognitive goal (Jacobs & Paris, 1987 p.259). For example, making

predictions before reading, strategy sequencing, and allocating time or attention

selectively before beginning a task (Ahmadi, Ismail & Abdullahm, 2013, p.237).

Monitoring at this point means the readers use the strategies to analyze the

information as a project progresses. It is aimed to increase the effectiveness and

efficiency of reading activities. It also refers to individual awareness of using

strategies while facing written text. Self-monitoring thinking requires an

individual to monitor some progresses and then revise or modify plans and

strategies depending on how well they are working (Jacobs & Paris: 1987, p.259).

It also allows the reader to regulate or rearrange the step based on the needs.

Evaluation is defined as the process of appraisement in what the readers

have conducted. The readers assess their work in order to look over the difficulties

or obstacles faced in reading activities. For instance, readers can evaluate their

own understanding as they pause, paraphrase, answer question, or summarize the

information in text (p.259).

Thus, by understanding those regulatory skills, the instructor or teacher in

this scope can promote the numbers of strategies as the effort to increase learners

understanding in reading comprehension. Then, by emphasizing those regulator

processes (planning, monitoring, and evaluation), the readers can be more aware

of their reading procedure rather than read without any strategies implementation.

(41)

such as attention, better employment of strategies, and a greater awareness of

comprehension breakdown (Ahmadi, et.l: 2013, p.238).

2.1.1.5 Significance of Metacognitive Reading Strategies Awareness

As mentioned before, that metacognitive reading strategies are the

wide-awake strategies where the readers monitor their own reading process covering

evaluation and regulation about the strategies being implemented. Yet,

Livingstone (2003) intentionally reviewed this talking point. He used Flavell’s definition of metacognition to define the metacognition term. Accordingly, he defined metacognitive as “thinking about thinking” and cognitive strategies as an effort of individual in dealing with exact direct information acquisition. It means

that cognitive strategies were construed as executive strategies as a mean to

acquire the information in reading. At the same time, metacognitive strategies was

believed as deliberative strategies that is used to clarify that cognitive strategies

have and reach the goal and running well.

Cognitive strategies are used to help an individual achieve a particular goal (e.g., understanding a text) while metacognitive strategies are used to ensure that the goal has been reached (e.g., quizzing oneself to evaluate one’s understanding of the text). Metacognitive experiences usually precede or follow a cognitive activity. They often occur when cognition fails, such as the recognition that one did not understand what just read (Livingstone, 2003, p. 4).

Further illustration might be if cognitive reading strategies are about

having knowledge of what strategy to use and how it is applied, for further

metacognitive strategic knowledge involves understanding the rationale to apply a

particular strategy in a particular context, and evaluate its usefulness in terms of

appropriateness and effectiveness for that context (Karbalaei: 2011, p.8). Thus, it

(42)

reading strategies become the strategies that help students to regulate or monitor

their cognitive strategies. in other words, metacognitive strategies enable the

students to become director of their own reading strategies implementation.

2.1.1.6 The Measurements of Metacognitive Awareness (SORS)

The issue of metacognitive is currently related to the ability of readers in

gaining good reading comprehension. Flavell firstly declared the booming

investigation of metacognitive awareness since 1979. This innovation has been

altered by a number of researchers such as Baker & Brown (1980), Jacob & Paris

(1989), Schraw (1998), Carrel, Linda & Teresa (1998) and Ahmadi, et.al (2013).

Accordingly, the measurements of this metacognitive awareness

practically and theoretically have been developed time by time. For instance, Paris

& Lindauer, (1982) designed Index of Reading Awareness (IRA). This

multiple-choice instrument was designed to measure three main subscales of

metacognition. Two decades later, Mokhtary and Reichard (2002) deliberately formulated a questionnaire as an instrument to measure readers’ metacognitive awareness in utilizing reading strategies called Metacognitive Awareness of

Reading Strategies Inventory (MARSI). They both drew up 30 lists of reading

strategies packaged into 30 statements as one unity into MARSI. As they said that

the major purpose of this instrument is to generate an instrument that would help

one assess whether the students are or not aware of various strategies and process

involved in reading comprehension. Therefore, they validated the inventory into

825 native students in Grades 6-12 selected from 10 urban, suburban, and rural

districts in five Midwestern states. Then, the result factor analysis found that Cronbach’s alpha of three subscales strategy were Global Reading Strategies

(43)

(.92), Problem Solving Strategies (.79) and Support Strategies (.87). It indicates that this instrument is reliable instrument to measure metacognitive students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies.

In the same year, Mokhtary & Shorey (2002) revised the MARSI that

basically is intended to measure metacognitive awareness of native- language

learners. They made several changes as a mean to make an alteration to Second

Language or Foreign Language learners. Consequently, they both formulate

new-appropriate instrument purposed to measure metacognitive awareness of reading

strategies called Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS).

The operationalization of SORS, like MARSI, is proposed to measure adolescent or adult ESL students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies as well as the type and frequency of them. As noted previously that SORS is in

line with MARSI, yet this instrument also consist of three subscales as follows:

Global Reading Strategies (GLOB), Problem Solving Reading Strategies (PROB)

and Support Reading Strategies. Additionally, this instrument has been utilized by some researchers to get the data of students’ metacognitive awareness such as Temur & Bahar (2011) Yuksel & Yuksel (2011).Madumathi & Ghosh (2012),

Hang-Nam & Page (2014), Lixia Pei (2014), Tavakoli (2014) and Meniado 2016.

2.1.2 Reading Comprehension

Reading comprehension reflects how readers acquire the information from

written text. It requires interrelating system between previous knowledge of the

readers and their new knowledge to comprehend the message included in the text.

It is a process of making meaning from text and its goal is to gain an overall

(44)

isolated words or sentences (Woolley, 2011, p.15). Additionally, Burn & Kidd

(2010) believe that reading comprehension occurs when readers interact with the

written word in an exchange of ideas between themselves and the message in the

text to construct the meaning (p.188).

Moreover, the definition of reading comprehension comes up with

componential aspects as the preparation for the students achieving success in

reading. Componential reading comprehension comes to be an instructional

approach for triggering the students to turn account their strength to gain

understanding of important content involving what they are going to understand

through the integration of analytical, creative, and practical aspects of reading text

(Stenberg in Randi, Grigirenko & Sternberg, 2015, p.28). As shown in figure 2.1,

analytical refers to think of what the text exactly means; the reason why the reader

think so; finding or questioning where the evidence is and what the component of

the text is. Then, practical turns out to be related to the readers experience in facing the written text. “Creative” as found in the next cycle is included in the figure intended to encourage students’ creative thinking in creating the text as their own. Eventually, after those three components of reading comprehension,

there is a reflection aimed to think about what the reader have already done with

the written text.

(45)

Figure 2.1. A componential approach to reading comprehension (Randi et.al, 2005, p.35)

2.1.2.1 Models of Reading Comprehension

In this section, this study goes to explain three main models of reading

comprehension. Smith (1979) in Smith deliberately divides reading

comprehension into two radical divergent points of view related the reading nature. He broadly identified them as “inside-out” and “outside-out. Nowadays, these two terms are well known as “top-down” or “bottom-up”. And the last model is “interactive” model that permits the reader to combine those both models. These models could facilitate the readers to get the point of reading

Memory: what do these words mean? Does this text make sense?

Analytical: what do I think this teaxt means? Why do I think so? Where is the evidence? What makes this text what it is?

Practical: what does this text mean to me?

Does it remind me of something or someone I know? What can I learn from this text?

Creative: what question do I want to ask this author? if I were the author of this text, wht would I write?

Authenthic assessment of reading comprehension

Analytical: How unusual is my interpretation of this text? Practical: Will others accept my interprtation?

Creative: What can I write that is both the same and different from this text-something that keep the essence

(what makes this text what it is)

(46)

passage easier. As suggested by Ahmadi et.al (2013), these three models of

reading comprehension could help the students or readers to develop their ability

in reading field and it also support first and second language learning cognitive

process. For instance, Top-down model enables the readers to re-track their

experience to help them decode the meaning within the text. Furthermore,

Bottom-Up model also allow the readers to construct the meaning systematically

such as word by word, then phrase stage and gradually move to sentences and

linguistics stage. Eventually, interactive model that comes to be the combination

between those both models give the readers the means to collaborate top-down

and bottom-up models situationally. Specifically, those three models of reading

comprehension will be discussed as below.

2.1.2.1.1 The Top–Down Model

Smith (2004, p.232) defines top-down model as model that enables the

readers determine how text will be approached and interpreted. This model

suggests the readers to use prior knowledge or experience to understand the reading passage. In other words, the human’s prior knowledge and their expectations will guide the gains of information (Treiman 2001, p.3).

Furthermore, this model has a concept that background knowledge has

significant role in determining readers’ performance. It can be construed as that background knowledge links the old experience of readers and new information they are facing. “On the other hands, contexts themselves have no meaning in the top-down reading model but they are readers who construct the meaning of the

texts by fitting them into his/her background knowledge” (Ahmadi et.al 2013,p.239).

(47)

2.1.2.1.2 The Bottom-Up Model

Different from top-down model, bottom-up model enables the readers to

take a concern on the each part of reading features. It allows the readers to

construct the meaning based on the analysis every part consisted on the reading

passage. This model suggests that understanding first the part of reading such as

letters, phrases, clauses, sentences and semantic features of the reading passage can solve the problems. “Bottom-up processes are those that take in stimuli from the outside world, letters and words, for reading and deal with that information

with little recourse to higher-level knowledge” (treiman 2001, p.3).

Accordingly, proficient readers have great ability to integrate what is in

mind and the reading passage. It means that they use their ability to decode the

message as well as construct the meaning in the reading. Ahmadi et.al (2013) also

argue that this model leads the readers to understand the letters, chunk, prefixes,

suffixes and the authentic words quickly.

2.1.2.1.3 The Interactive Model

The last model of reading comprehension could be interactive model. The conception of “interactive” refers to the way of readers in interacting with both phonics and written text. It is a combination between both models top-down and

bottom-up model or it could be best described as “human” reading process (Nagao 2002, p.3).

Reading can be seen as an “interactive” process between a reader and a text which leads to automaticity or (reading fluency). In this process, the reader interacts dynamically with the text as he/she tries to elicit the meaning and where various kinds of knowledge are being used: linguistic or systemic knowledge (through bottom-up processing) as well as schematic knowledge (through top-down processing) (Alyousef 2006, p.63)

(48)

2.1.2.2 Bilingualism and Reading Process

The issue of bilingualism or multilingualism is assumedly needed to

discuss. The term of bilingualism itself has reasonably been related to EFL/ ESL

learners. They who come from non-native environment have tendency to apply

this bilingualism. For that reason, this study deliberately links the issue of

bilingualism to reading comprehension.

This occurrence might lead the students to use two or more languages

whilst facing English written text. By means of translating the English written text

into their native one, the students are able to get more understanding of the text

rather than use only one language. The flows of leaners in using more than one

language can be seen in the figure 2.2. The figure shows that there is similarity

between first language and second language use while reading process. The

linguistic input can lead the memory to activate the prior knowledge of language

systems. Therefore, it encourages them to use more abilities as well as their

(49)

Figure 2.2 interactive langauge processing in bilingual learners (adopted from Verhoeven 2011, p.662)

(50)

2.1.2.3 Measurement of reading comprehension

The term measurement refers to the process of quantification the reading

comprehension. In language studies, there is a standardized language proficiency

test. This test is intended to examine language learners’ proficiency or knowledge of English language. The most common test applied in Indonesia is Test of

English as Foreign Language: Institutional Testing Program (TOEFL ITP). This kind of test is commonly used as international standard for not English-speaking

country (Brown, 2003, p.84). In its sections, there is reading comprehension section, which is intended to examine students’ reading comprehension level. This section consists of 50 questions related to reading passage and 55 minutes to

finish the test.

2.1.2.4 The level of reading comprehension

Several stakeholders of the international language association have

broadly defined the level of reading comprehension. The Common European

Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) became one international

organization that concern on standardizing and describing the level of language

ability. Firstly this study would like to provide the six initial divisions and three

(51)

Figure 2.3 Framework of learners’ levels

It can be seen that the levels of language learners’ ability were divided into three broad levels and six initial divisions. Level A was categorized as basic user

that was divided into two initial divisions such as A1 (breakthrough) and A2

(waystage). In the second level, there was level B or independent user. This level

was also divided into two initial divisions such as B1 (threshold) and B2

(ventage). Finally the level C or proficient user came to be the last or the highest level of learners’ ability. In accordance with the previous level, this level was divided into two initial divisions (C1 for effective personal proficiency and C2 for

mastery).

Afterward, it was followed by the specific skill such the levels of reading

comprehension. They were summed up as below.

A Basic user

Independent user

Profocient user

A1 (Breaktrhough )

B2 (Ventage) B1

(Treshold) A2

(Waystage)

C2 Mastery C1

(Effective Opertional proficiency)

(1)

Appendix 2 TOEFL scores of the students (Reading Comprehension)

Students

Correct

Score

Student 1

32

490 Student 2

31

480 Student 3

32

490 Student 4

27

460 Student 5

15

350 Student 6

27

460 Student 7

22

420 Student 8

29

470 Student 9

22

420 Student 10

27

460 Student 11

26

450 Student 12

25

440 Student 13

25

440 Student 14

31

480 Student 15

17

370 Student 16

19

390 Student 17

20

400 Student 18

19

390 Student 19

20

400 Student 20

15

350 Student 21

31

480 Student 22

22

420 Student 23

17

370 Student 24

20

400 Student 25

19

390 Student 26

26

450 Student 27

21

410 Student 28

25

440 Student 29

22

420 Student 30

26

450

(2)

Appendix 3 Semi-structured interview guidelines

Semi-structured Interview

1. Hello, what’s your name??

2. What did you do before you start to read?

3. Did you have any purpose while reading?

4. Have your lecturer ever introduced or promoted you a number of

reading strategies? What’re those?

5. Did you plan your reading process?

6. Did you monitor your ongoing reading process?

7. Did you evaluate your reading activities?

8. When text became difficult, what strategies did you use whilst it?

9. Did you apply those strategies appropriately?

10. Did you perceive that reading strategies determine your successive

achievement in reading? Could you please explain it to me?

11. Have you ever learned or been taught how to regulate those

strategies?

12. Have you ever heard the term of metacognitive reading strategies? if

so, how far do you know?

13. Your level of metacognitive reading strategies awareness is indicated

as high/ low, could you please tell me your reason of this?

(3)

Appendix 4 Data of interview

Interviewee Statements Line

1 Hello, my name is ….

Im a college students, English study program at faculty of education, Universtas Islam Indonesia.

Before reading, I look first at the big picture of reading passage..

I mean I look the number of paragraph..

Look at the title… it will help me understand what reading passage will be..

Looking for the unknown vocabulary.

My purpose is to get the point of that reading text 3 Aaaa relating reading strategy right?? I have

learned it in class writing and reading.. I learned what the strategies are and how to apply those strategies..

We’ve been taught to look over the big picture and unknown word of the text..

I plan my reading for determining the easier or sorter part of the reading. Hence I can go first with that..

I think sometimes I monitor my reading..

But I takes my time, and sometimes I think I better go further rather than go back to look at what I have read.

For evaluation, I don’t think I do that. But when I couldn’t get the point, I ask my self what’s wrong with me.

When the text becomes difficult

I often re read the materials until I get the answer..

I usually reading slowly when I don’t understand the meaning or I could not get the point of the paragraph or question.

He.e. I am not sure mas..

I just use it when I will or it is needed to do that. 9 Relating to my point of view about reading

strategies,.. I think several strategies support my success .

I think yes but in particular situation yahh.. It depends on … for example my mood is good then I use the reading strategies, it will be usefull for me..

But if I have bad mood, it will take a long time for 10

(4)

me to understand ..

I have learned how to utilize those various strategies..

It depends on the need of reading passage..

Metacognitive ??

I think I have not learned it yet..

2 My name is ---- 13

Before reading..

I take a look at the first big picture..

I’m looking for what the reading are and try to correlate the main idea among them..

For the purpose ya.. it depends on many things.. Sometimes I have reading purpose to understand the given text.

For example when I look at the title, it’s interesting for me… I am curious about that.. That’s why I read..

I have learned reading strategies such as skimming and scanning…

I have learned what it is and

Strategy like in reading toefl.. I read the question first.. then I read the title, then I corscheck the answer..

I foten did it..

When I think my understanding was notrelated to the title or it was iut f the box I did monitoring until I fell it’s enough..

Evaluation??

I prefer to evaluate my work.. I ask my self whether my understanding is in line with the reading passage or not.

Sometimes I check my understanding to my partners.. I ask them either I am on the track or not..

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.. in fact 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..

My perception about reading strategies?? I don’t think that it determines my success in reading.. sometimes I prefer reading the passage just follow the flow……

Reading strategies determines my success, it was useful for me..

(5)

Translate, ??

I always translate I to my language,… I often underline it.. it helps me well..

Knowledge of cognition..

I read slowly, re read the passage if I could get the point until I think it is good enough..

sometimes I scan it by guessing.. it depends on the time…

Metacognitive reading strategies?? I never heard that term..

3 Hello.. my name is…… 26

Before reading I prepare the needs..

I mean if it is allowed to use dictionary then I will bring it.

My purpose in reading actually depends on the question and instruction of my lecturer.

But if in some cases, I have purpose to add my knowledge.

I have learnt several reading strategies. I can access it in internet or refer it to the books. I learnt scanning, skimming, using clue, reading diagram etc.

Plan? I am not sure what you mean about plan. Actually I use several minutes to look over the whole part of reading text first. Then I decide which one is easier to read first.

I don’t think that monitor is important for me.. I mean I am sure with what I have done.. and if I go back to

I evaluate when I get wrong or bad understanding.

I try to search the problem of my reading. When text become difficult I use several strategies like guessing the meaning or even reading it oftenly 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

I think reading strategies determines my success,

it was useful for me..

It helps me solve several problems such limited

time,

limited vocabulary or even when I don’t any

(6)

mood to read..

When I don’t have any mood to read,

I use skimming or scanning to make it faster

Do you mean how to use?

Yes I have learnt when to use several strategies. 34 Checking my understanding?

Yeah.. actually I did, but I am not sure it is what you mean.

I think I can go further without checking my understanding.

You know that there is limited time, if I do checking I will loss the time as well.