EXPLORING METACOGNITIVE READING STRATEGIES USED BY LOW AND HIGH PROFICIENCY FORM THREE ESL STUDENTS
Abstract
Background and Purpose: The purpose of this research is to explore the metacognitive reading strategies used by low and high proficiency Form Three ESL (English as Second Language) students and highlight suitable strategies that can be exposed to the low proficiency students.
Methodology: To serve the purpose of this research, an explanatory sequential mixed method design was used. As for the sampling, purposive sampling was employed in this study. The respondents were drawn from two Form Three classes in the selected secondary school in Pasir Gudang, Johor, Malaysia. There were twenty-four boys and thirty-six girls. They were all fifteen years old and represented three main ethnic groups which are Malays, Indians and Chinese. The number of respondents was equally the same for both groups; 30 from the low proficiency group and 30 from the high proficiency group.
Findings: The data gathered in this study revealed that the most popular metacognitive reading strategy among the respondents is self-evaluation. In addition, the most significant difference between the high and low proficiency students is that the latter employed fewer metacognitive reading strategies than the former. Furthermore, through the findings, this research also suggested the metacognitive reading strategies suitable for the low proficiency students; advanced organization, selective attention, self-management, directed attention and monitoring.
Contributions: This research aids the teachers in adapting their instructions and putting extra effort into training students, especially low proficiency students, to use suitable metacognitive reading strategies.
Keywords: Low proficiency students, high proficiency students, purposive sampling, metacognitive reading strategies, explanatory sequential mixed method design.
Cite as: Jeevaratnam, J. A., & Stapa, M. (2022). Exploring metacognitive reading strategies used by low and high proficiency form three ESL students. Journal of Nusantara Studies, 7(1), 335-365. http://dx.doi.org/10.24200/jonus.vol7iss1pp335-365
References
Almasi, J. F. (2003). Teaching strategic process in reading. The Guilford Press.
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2012). Proficiency guidelines. https://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/guidelines/ACTFLProficiencyGuidelines2012.pdf
Anderson, N. J. (2002). Using telescopes, microscopes, and kaleidoscopes to put metacognition into perspective. TESOL Matters, 12(4), 1–4.
Athami, S. (2019). The effectiveness of using self monitoring approach to reading and thinking (SMAR) strategy in students’ reading comprehension at the first semester of eighth grade of SMP N 1 Pulaupanggung in the academic year 2019/2020.
Tarbiyah and Teacher Training Faculty Raden Intan State Islamic University Lampung.
Aziz, N. A., Rahim, S. A., Harun, E. H., Adzmi, N. A., Ahmat, H., Bidin, S., & Shaharudin, M. R. (2011). The reading strategies awareness among English as a Second Language (ESL) learners in Malaysia’s university. Theory and Practice in Language
Studies, 1(7), 778-784.
Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum. (2018). Dokumen standard kurikulum dan pentaksiran Bahasa Inggeris tingkatan 3. https://sumberpendidikan.com/2018/10/dskp-bahasa-inggeris-tingkatan-3-kssm/
Blaxter, L., Huges, C., & Tight, M. (2010). How to research. New York University Press.
Buehl, D. (2009). Classroom strategies for interactive learning. International Reading Association.
Cakici, D. (2017). An overview of metacognitive strategies in reading comprehension skill. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 57(1), 67-82.
Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, J. M. (1994). The cognitive academic language learning approach. Addison Wesley Longman.
Ciesielka, M., Bostrom, K. W., & Ohlander, M. (2018). Observation methods. In M. Ciesielska, D. Jemielniak (Eds), Qualitative methodologies in organization studies (pp. 33-52). Palgrave Macmillan, Cheam.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson Education Limited.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage.
Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography: Principles in practice (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Harmer, J. (2007). How to teach English. Pearson Education Limited.
Harris, T., & Hodges, R. (1995). The literacy dictionary: The vocabulary of reading and writing. International Reading Association.
Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2000). Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension to enhance understanding. Stenhouse Publishers.
Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2(1), 127-160.
Israel, S. E. (2007). Using metacognitive assessments to create individualized reading instruction. International Reading Association.
Karami, H. (2008). Reading strategies: What are they? https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED502937.pdf
Kiew, S., & Shah, P. M. (2020). Factors affecting reading comprehension among Malaysian ESL elementary learners. Creative Education, 11(1), 2639-2659.
Koleva, M. B. (2008). Reading comprehension in the classroom – How to motivate students to read difficult texts full of unfamiliar words? https://www.beta-iatefl.org/1736/blog-publications/reading-comprehension-classroom-motivate-students-
read-difficult-texts-full-unfamiliar-words/
Mokhtari, K., & Sheorey, R. (2002). Measuring ESL students’ awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Developmental Education, 25(3), 2-10.
Oxford, R. (2011). Teaching & researching: Language learning strategies. Routledge.
Paris, S. G., & Jacobs, J. E. (1984). The benefits of informed instruction for children's reading awareness and comprehension skills. Child Development, 55(6), 2083–2093.
Prichard, C. (2014). Reading strategy use of low-and high-proficiency learners and the effect of reading instruction.
http://ousar.lib.okayamau.ac.jp/files/public/5/53178/2016052812143234680/bhe_010_115_122.pdf
Raj, A. S. (2008). The effectiveness of the Question and Answer Relationship (QAR) strategy in enhancing reading comprehension among ESL students. Faculty of Education and Languages, Open University Malaysia.
Robb, L. (2000). The myth of learn to read. http://teacher.scholastic.com/professional/readexpert/mythread.htm
Schoenbach, R., Greenleaf, C., Cziko, C., & Hurwitz, L. (1999). Reading for understanding. Jossey-Bass, A. Wiley Company.
Schunk, D. H. (1990). Goal setting and self-efficacy during self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 71-86.
Semtin, S. A., & Maniam, M. (2015). Reading strategies among ESL Malaysian secondary school students. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 4(2), 54-61.
Steinagel, L. O. (2005). The effects of reading and reading strategy training on lower proficiency level second language learners. Brigham Young University Scholars Archive.
Tandean, D. (2020). Metacognitive strategy in teaching reading to students. A Journal on Applied Linguistics and Language Education, 8(1), 124-139.
Wang, J., Spencer, K., Minjie, & Xing, M. (2009). Metacognitive beliefs and strategies in learning Chinese as a foreign language. System, 37(1), 46-56.
Wittrock, M. C., & Alesandrini, K. (1990). Generation of summaries and analogies and analytic and holistic abilities. American Educational Research Journal, 27(3), 489-502.
Zare-ee, A. (2008). The relationship between cognitive and meta-cognitive strategy use and EFL reading achievements. Journal of Thought & Behavior in Clinical Psychology, 2(5), 105-119.
Zare, P., & Othman, M. (2013). The relationship between reading comprehension and reading strategy use among Malaysian ESL learners. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 3(13), 187-193.
Zhang, L., & Seepho, S. (2013). Metacognitive strategy use and academic reading achievement: Insights from a Chinese context. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 10(1), 54-69.
