Intern
ati
o
n
a
l
Jo
urn
a
l
o
f
E
v
al
ua
ti
o
n
and
Rese
arch in
Education (I
JE
RE)
V
o
l.4
,
No
.2
,
Jun
e
2
015
, pp
. 54
~61
I
S
SN
: 225
2-8
8
2
2
54
Jo
urn
a
l
h
o
me
pa
ge
: h
ttp
://iaesjo
u
r
na
l.com/
o
n
lin
e/ind
e
x.ph
p
/
IJERE
Reading Strat
e
gies am
ong ESL Malaysi
a
n S
e
condary
School Students
Semry Anak
Semtin
1,2
, Mahendr
an Mani
am
2
1
SMK Kapit,
Sarawak, Malay
s
ia
2
Faculty
of
Lan
guages and
Communication
,
Sult
an Idris
Education University
,
Malay
s
ia
Article Info
A
B
STRAC
T
Article histo
r
y:
Received Feb 22, 2015
Rev
i
sed
Mar
c
h 20
,
20
15
Accepted Apr 26, 2015
This stud
y
aim
e
d to invest
igat
e the t
y
p
e
s of cognitive
and m
e
tacognit
i
ve
reading str
a
teg
i
es emplo
y
ed b
y
seconda
r
y
scho
ol students in
Malay
s
ia to
improve
their comprehension. The
stud
y
emplo
y
ed a mixed-method
approach which
involves the instruments
of a questionnair
e and an interview.
This stud
y
was
conducted at S
M
K Kapit,
involving ninety
For
m
4 students.
Based on the fin
d
ings, the stud
ents had
used var
i
ous reading str
a
tegies. The
use of particular
reading strategies is
implied as their autonomous learning
efforts
to beco
m
e
m
o
re profi
c
ien
t
read
ers
.
However, ac
cor
d
ing to th
e
frequency
s
cales of strateg
y
u
s
ed
, the findin
g
s from the questionnair
e
indicate th
at most of the reported read
ing strateg
i
es have a mean between 2.5
and 3.49 as the students sometimes us
e thes
e reading s
t
ra
t
e
gies
. Th
is
revea
l
ed the
i
r la
ck of awarenes
s
of practis
ing th
es
e reading s
t
ra
t
e
gies
. Thus
,
teachers play
a
vital role in
training
students on
the r
ead
ing strateg
y
use
in
order to
enh
a
nc
e
the
eff
ect
iven
es
s
of the
i
r r
ead
ing
.
Keyword:
English as
a Se
cond
Language
Reading Strate
gies
Sch
ool
st
u
d
ent
s
Copyright ©
201
5 Institut
e
o
f
Ad
vanced
Engin
eer
ing and S
c
i
e
nce.
All rights re
se
rve
d
.
Co
rresp
ond
i
ng
Autho
r
:
Se
mry
Ana
k
Semtin
SMK Kapit,
Sarawak, Malay
s
ia
Em
ail:
cham
e_
tin@
y
a
hoo
.com
1.
INTRODUCTION
Eng
lish
is reg
a
rd
ed
as an
in
tern
ation
a
l lang
uag
e
use
d
bot
h
gl
o
b
al
l
y
and l
o
cal
l
y
[1]
.
Engl
i
s
h, w
h
i
c
h
fun
c
tion
s
as the seco
nd
lang
uag
e
in
Malaysia, h
a
s b
e
en
wi
d
e
ly u
tilised
as a
m
ean
s o
f
in
teraction
in
variou
s
field
s
p
a
rticu
l
arly in
ed
u
cation
[2
]. Th
e ab
ility to
read
in
En
g
lish
is d
eemed
an
im
p
o
r
tant sk
ill to
b
e
acq
u
i
red
fo
r aca
dem
i
c, b
u
si
ness
an
d
ot
he
r
pu
r
pos
es. I
n
M
a
l
a
y
s
i
a
, En
gl
i
s
h
i
s
a com
pul
sary
sub
j
ect
i
n
M
a
l
a
y
s
i
a
n
schools.
R
eadi
n
g st
rat
e
gi
es are pa
rt
o
f
l
a
ng
ua
ge l
ear
ni
n
g
st
rategies. Reading strate
gies are “deliberate, goal-
di
rect
ed at
t
e
m
p
t
s
t
o
c
ont
rol
and m
odi
fy
t
h
e reade
r’s
ef
fo
rt
s t
o
dec
o
de t
e
xt
, u
n
d
erst
a
n
d w
o
rds a
n
d c
onst
r
uct
m
eani
ngs
of t
e
xt
” [
3
]
.
Al
t
h
o
u
g
h
a fe
w st
u
d
i
e
s ha
ve b
e
e
n
d
o
n
e wi
t
h
i
n
t
h
e En
gl
i
s
h a
s
a Fo
rei
g
n L
a
ng
ua
ge
(EFL
) c
ont
e
x
t
,
eve
n
l
e
ss ha
s
been
st
u
d
i
e
d i
n
a m
i
xed En
g
l
i
s
h Lan
g
u
age
set
t
i
ng s
u
ch a
s
M
a
l
a
y
s
i
a
[4]
.
Som
e
stu
d
e
n
t
s in
Malaysian
seco
nd
ary schoo
ls esp
ecially t
hose in suburban
areas suc
h
as Kapit, Sara
wa
k are
una
wa
re o
f
o
r
do
n
o
t
ha
ve ef
fect
i
v
e st
rat
e
gi
es t
o
com
p
re
h
e
nd
En
gl
i
s
h
re
adi
n
g m
a
t
e
ri
als. Thi
s
i
s
beca
use i
n
Malaysia, the teaching
of English la
nguage
foc
u
ses m
o
re
on
gramm
a
r than
othe
r as
pe
cts such as
rea
d
ing,
listening, writing and spea
ki
ng
[5]. Th
e
students
need sca
f
folding and
guid
ance
from
their t
eache
r
s or
friends
to
h
e
lp
t
h
em
u
n
d
e
rstand
th
e
read
ing
m
a
teria
l
s. Th
ey seem
to
lack
vo
cab
u
lary, an
d
t
h
is im
p
e
d
e
s th
eir read
ing
com
p
ehensi
on.
Thu
s
, t
h
is study is co
n
c
ern
e
d w
ith
an
i
n
v
e
stig
atio
n
o
f
th
e r
e
ad
ing
str
a
teg
i
es em
p
l
o
y
ed b
y
Fo
r
m
4
seconda
ry school stude
n
ts in a su
burban
area of Ka
pit, Sarawa
k in
order to
help
teachers ide
n
tify the
stu
d
e
n
t
s’ p
r
eferen
ces o
f
p
a
rticu
l
ar
read
i
n
g
strateg
i
es
and
ex
ert m
o
re effo
rts to
trai
n
stud
en
ts t
o
u
tilise
appropriate reading strategie
s
. This
study aim
s
to investigate the
types of cognitive and m
e
tacognitive
readi
n
g strategies use
d
by the
students.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
J
ERE
I
S
SN
:
225
2-8
8
2
2
Rea
d
i
n
g
St
rat
e
gi
es A
m
o
n
g
E
S
L Mal
a
ysi
a
n
S
econ
d
a
ry
Sc
ho
ol
St
ude
nt
s (
S
e
m
ry A
n
ak
Semt
i
n
)
55
In t
h
e seco
n
d
l
a
ng
uage l
e
a
r
n
i
ng c
ont
e
x
t
,
re
adi
n
g st
rat
e
gi
e
s
are i
m
port
a
n
t
i
n
assi
st
i
ng t
h
e l
ear
ners
’
read
i
n
g pro
cess and
prov
id
i
n
g
them
with
a
clear sen
s
e
o
f
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e in their in
terp
retati
o
n
of
written
tex
t
[6
].
Th
ere is a
g
a
p
in
t
h
e literatu
re, as so
m
e
o
f
th
e
p
r
ev
iou
s
st
u
d
i
es are situ
ated
with
in
p
r
e-un
iv
ersity
and
uni
versi
t
y
st
u
d
e
nt
s (e.
g
. [
7
]
,
[
8
]
). Al
t
h
o
u
g
h
t
h
ere are pre
v
i
ous st
u
d
i
e
s co
ncer
ni
n
g
rea
d
i
ng st
rat
e
gi
es am
ong
M
a
l
a
y
s
i
a
n secon
d
a
r
y
sch
o
o
l
st
ude
nt
s, t
h
e st
udi
es
ha
ve
di
f
f
e
rent
st
rat
e
gy
cl
assi
fi
cat
i
ons
suc
h
as
su
pe
rv
i
s
i
n
g
strateg
i
es, supp
ort strateg
i
es
an
d
pa
ra
ph
rase
strategies
[9]
.
Figure
1. The
o
retical an
d Concep
tu
al Fr
am
e
w
or
k
Figure
1
prese
n
ts a sim
p
le theoretical and concep
tu
al fra
m
e
w
o
rk
f
o
r
th
is r
e
sear
ch
.
In
th
e second
l
a
ng
uage l
ear
n
i
ng co
nt
ext
,
re
adi
n
g st
rat
e
gi
e
s
are vi
t
a
l
i
n
assi
st
i
ng t
h
e l
earne
rs’
readi
ng
pr
ocess a
nd
gu
i
d
i
n
g
th
em
in
th
eir in
terp
retation
of written
tex
t
[6
].
In th
e
framewo
rk
, th
e
use of read
i
n
g
strateg
i
es is cl
o
s
ely
related
to
two
th
eories: cog
n
i
tio
n
and
m
e
tac
o
gn
itio
n. Reg
a
rd
i
n
g
t
h
e cognitiv
e th
eo
ry
o
f
learn
i
ng
,
readin
g
is
n
o
t
j
u
st con
c
ern
e
d
with
how read
ers carry o
u
t
an
assig
n
e
d
co
m
p
rehen
s
ion
task, bu
t also
th
e cog
n
itiv
e
p
r
o
cesses i
n
volv
e
d
[10
]
. It is in
d
i
cated
th
at
“th
e
cog
n
itiv
e p
s
ycho
log
i
sts in
v
e
stig
ated
men
t
al stru
ctu
r
es and
p
r
o
cesses t
o
ex
p
l
ain
learn
i
n
g
an
d
ch
an
ge in b
e
h
a
v
i
or”
[11]. Read
in
g
i
nvo
lv
es a co
m
p
lex
cogn
itiv
e activ
it
y
th
at is im
p
o
r
tan
t
in
d
e
v
e
lop
i
ng
literacy am
o
n
g
stud
en
ts in
o
r
d
e
r to
fu
n
c
ti
o
n
well in th
e
m
o
d
e
rn
era
[12].
Pertain
i
ng
t
o
t
h
e m
e
taco
g
n
itiv
e th
eory of l
earn
i
n
g
, stud
en
ts can
m
o
n
ito
r
co
m
p
reh
e
n
s
io
n
t
h
rou
gh
ev
alu
a
tion
of th
eir progress to
ward
l
earni
ng objectives, a
n
d they exert c
ont
rol
o
f
t
h
ei
r
l
earni
n
g
p
r
oce
ss by
deciding
on effective strate
gies to ena
b
le t
h
em
to carry out learning
task
s
[13
]
. Flavell (as cited
in [14
]
),
in
d
i
cated th
at
metaco
g
n
ition
co
m
p
rised
b
o
t
h
learn
i
ng
aspects su
ch
as
m
o
n
ito
rin
g
and
regu
latio
n, as th
ese
asp
ects reflect
o
n
t
h
e learn
e
r’s ab
ility to
o
r
gan
i
se th
e i
n
pu
t
,
sto
r
ag
e, search
, and
retriev
a
l o
f
t
h
e con
t
ents o
f
h
i
s own
m
e
mo
ry.
He m
e
n
tio
n
e
d
t
h
at m
e
t
aco
gn
itio
n com
p
rises selecti
n
g, ev
alu
a
ting
,
rev
i
si
n
g
or
deletin
g
co
gn
itiv
e task
s, go
als, and
st
rateg
i
es.
Thi
s
pre
s
ent
s
t
udy
i
s
conce
r
ne
d wi
t
h
an
i
nvest
i
g
at
i
o
n
of t
h
e rea
d
i
n
g
st
rat
e
gi
es based o
n
t
h
e
cl
assi
fi
cat
i
on of l
ear
ni
n
g
st
r
a
t
e
gi
es by
O’
M
a
l
l
e
y
and
C
h
am
ot
(ci
t
e
d in [
15]
)
.
Th
ey indicated
that learning
strateg
i
es are
men
t
al an
d
socio
-
affectiv
e pro
cesses. Th
e learn
i
ng
strateg
i
es are catego
r
ised
in
to
cog
n
itiv
e,
metaco
g
n
itiv
e, and
so
cio-affectiv
e strate
g
i
es. As th
is
stud
y
is ai
m
e
d
to
exp
l
ore th
e read
i
n
g strateg
i
es that are
cl
osel
y
rel
a
t
e
d
t
o
rea
d
i
n
g c
o
m
p
re
he
nsi
o
n a
n
d
use
d
m
a
i
n
l
y
b
y
th
e ESL learn
e
rs in
do
ing
read
ing
task
s, it
will
con
s
i
d
er t
h
e i
n
vest
i
g
at
i
o
n of
t
w
o rea
d
i
n
g st
rat
e
gi
es:
cog
n
i
t
i
v
e st
rat
e
gi
es and m
e
t
acogni
t
i
v
e st
rat
e
gi
es.
It
i
s
asserted
th
at the co
gn
itiv
e strateg
i
es are closely asso
ciated
with
sp
ecific l
earn
i
n
g
task
s an
d
em
p
l
o
y
ed
in
th
e
l
earni
n
g
p
r
oce
ss such as rel
a
t
i
ng t
h
e ne
w w
o
r
d
s i
n
m
i
nd and
wri
t
i
ng
do
wn t
h
e m
a
i
n
i
d
ea, l
i
s
t
i
ng key
poi
nt
s
,
or s
u
m
m
a
rising the text in order to
de
velop
a clear unde
rst
a
ndi
ng
of the
text. On the contrary, m
e
tacognitive
strategies re
quire planning for lear
ning, t
h
inking about the
learning pr
oc
ess that takes place, m
onitoring of
one'
s
c
o
m
p
reh
e
nsi
o
n,
an
d e
v
al
uat
i
ng l
e
a
r
ni
ng
aft
e
r
a c
o
m
p
l
e
t
i
on
o
f
a t
a
s
k
.
2.
R
E
SEARC
H M
ETHOD
Thi
s
st
u
d
y
use
s
a
m
i
xed
m
e
tho
d
desi
g
n
. T
h
e
m
i
xed
m
e
t
h
o
d
desi
gn i
s
a r
e
search
desi
g
n
t
h
at
can be
u
s
ed
to ob
tain
b
o
t
h
q
u
a
litative and
q
u
a
n
titativ
e d
a
ta in
o
r
der to g
e
t a ho
li
stic u
n
d
e
rstandin
g
of th
e research
t
opi
c [1
6]
.
2.
1.
Sampling procedures
Thi
s
st
u
d
y
i
n
c
o
r
p
orat
es c
o
n
v
e
ni
ence sam
p
l
i
n
g
.
It
i
n
v
o
l
v
es
ni
net
y
Fo
rm
4 st
ude
nt
s f
r
om
SM
K Ka
pi
t
,
a seco
nda
ry
sc
ho
ol
w
h
i
c
h i
s
l
o
cat
ed i
n
a s
u
bu
r
b
an a
r
ea o
f
Kapi
t
,
Sa
ra
wa
k.
A sam
p
l
e
pop
ul
at
i
on
o
f
ei
ght
y
Lack
of
U
n
der
s
t
a
ndi
ng
o
f
R
e
adi
n
g Te
xt
am
ong
ESL
St
ude
nt
s
The Use
o
f
Re
adin
g
Str
a
te
gies
Im
provem
e
nt
o
f
U
n
derst
a
n
d
i
n
g
of
R
eadi
n
g Te
xt
a
m
ong ESL
St
u
d
ent
s
M
e
ta
co
gn
it
iv
e Th
e
o
ry
Cogniti
v
e The
o
ry
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
SN
:
2
252
-88
22
I
J
ERE
Vo
l.
4
,
N
o
.
2
,
Jun
e
201
5 :
5
4
– 61
56
stu
d
e
n
t
s are the p
a
rticip
an
ts
fo
r th
e
qu
estio
nn
aire. Ano
t
her
t
e
n st
ude
nt
s a
r
e rec
r
ui
t
e
d i
n
t
h
e sem
i
-st
r
uct
u
r
e
d
in
terv
iews.
2.
2. D
a
t
a
c
o
l
l
ect
io
n instruments
Th
e stud
y u
s
es th
e in
stru
m
e
n
t
s o
f
a qu
estio
nn
aire an
d
an in
terv
iew.
Th
e quest
i
o
n
n
ai
r
e
on rea
d
i
n
g
st
rat
e
gi
es i
n
t
h
i
s
st
udy
i
s
a
d
a
p
t
e
d
fr
om
t
h
e que
st
i
o
n
n
ai
re
on
rea
d
i
n
g st
r
a
t
e
gi
es [
15]
.
It
em
pl
oy
s t
h
e 5-
p
o
i
n
t
Likert scale: (1) “I
ne
ver
or al
mos
t
ne
ver
d
o
th
is.”, (2
) “I do
th
is
onl
y
occa
si
on
al
l
y
.”
,
(3) “
I
some
ti
mes
do
th
is.” (Ab
o
u
t
50%
of the time.), (4) “I
usua
lly
do
th
is.”, and
(5) “I
al
w
ays
or
al
most
al
w
a
ys
d
o
th
is”.
Besides,
a se
m
i
-st
r
uct
u
re
d i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w p
r
ot
o
c
ol
i
s
desi
g
n
e
d
base
d o
n
t
h
e cl
assi
fi
cat
i
on of l
a
n
gua
ge l
earni
ng
st
rat
e
gi
es
by
O
’
M
a
l
l
e
y
and C
h
am
ot
(ci
t
e
d i
n
[
15]
)
.
2.
3.
Data anal
ysis
procedures
The a
n
alysis of c
o
llected
data from
the que
s
tionnaire
encom
p
asses t
h
e types a
n
d
fre
que
ncy
of
readi
ng st
r
a
t
e
g
i
es em
pl
oy
ed by
ei
ght
y
F
o
r
m
4 st
ude
nt
s.
Acco
r
d
i
n
g t
o
t
h
e f
r
eq
ue
ncy
scal
es of st
rat
e
gy
us
e
[1
7]
, m
ean sco
r
es
bet
w
ee
n 3
.
5 a
nd
5.
0 a
r
e
r
e
gar
d
e
d
as
hi
g
h
i
n
fre
q
u
en
cy
, an
d m
ean sco
r
es
bet
w
ee
n 2
.
5 a
n
d
3.
49
are
vi
e
w
e
d
as m
e
di
um
. M
ean sc
ores
b
e
t
w
een
1.
0 a
n
d
2.
49
are
re
g
a
rde
d
as
l
o
w.
Apa
r
t
f
r
o
m
t
h
at
, dat
a
fro
m
th
e in
terview tran
scrip
t
s is an
alysed
qualitativ
ely. Th
e d
a
ta is co
d
e
d
with
th
e typ
e
s
o
f
read
i
n
g
st
rateg
i
es
rep
o
rt
e
d
by
t
h
e
part
i
c
i
p
ant
s
i
n
t
h
i
s
st
udy
. Th
em
at
i
c
anal
y
s
i
s
i
s
done
by
fo
r
m
ul
at
i
ng t
h
em
es based
o
n
t
h
e
t
y
pes
o
f
read
ing
strat
e
g
i
es an
d th
e
data is
recorded
on an analysis
sche
dule.
3.
R
E
SU
LTS AN
D ANA
LY
SIS
B
a
sed o
n
t
h
e
fi
ndi
n
g
s f
r
o
m
t
h
e quest
i
onnai
r
es an
d i
n
t
e
rvi
e
ws
, t
h
e st
ude
nt
s ha
ve
used va
ri
o
u
s
readi
ng st
rat
e
g
i
es. The
use
of
part
i
c
ul
ar
rea
d
i
n
g st
rat
e
gi
es
i
s
im
pl
i
e
d as aut
o
nom
ous e
f
fo
rt
s t
o
b
ecom
e
m
o
re
pr
ofi
c
i
e
nt
rea
d
ers.
3.
1.
An
al
ysi
s
o
f
que
sti
o
nn
ai
r
e
3.
1.
1. C
o
g
n
i
t
i
v
e
s
t
ra
te
gi
es
In
Tab
l
e 1
,
item
s
1
-
10
represen
t th
e state
m
en
ts in
th
e q
u
e
stio
nn
aire related
to
cog
n
itiv
e strateg
i
es.
Acco
r
d
i
n
g t
o
t
h
e
fre
que
ncy
s
cal
es of
st
rat
e
gy
us
e [
1
7]
, t
h
e fre
quency
sc
ales of the
st
rateg
i
es of tran
sl
atio
n
,
rep
e
titio
n and
i
n
ferri
n
g
are
h
i
g
h
with
a m
e
a
n
ab
ov
e
3
.
5
an
d
th
ey are “u
sually u
s
ed
”
b
y
m
o
st p
a
rticip
an
ts. Th
e
resu
lts show that Ite
m
5
(M=
3
.8
8, SD=1
.107
) is th
e m
o
st f
r
equ
e
n
tly u
s
ed strateg
y
o
f
all
th
e ten
state
m
e
n
ts o
f
co
gn
itiv
e strat
e
g
i
es and
its freq
u
e
n
c
y scale is h
i
g
h
, so
it is “u
su
ally u
s
ed” b
y
th
e p
a
rtici
p
an
ts. Th
e stat
e
m
en
t
of
It
em
5 i
s
“I t
r
ansl
at
e
what
I
have
rea
d
i
n
t
o
m
y
fi
rst
l
a
ng
ua
ge”
(Tra
nsl
a
t
i
o
n)
.
Tabl
e 1.
Descrip
tiv
e statistics o
f
cogn
itiv
e strateg
i
es
It
em
St
at
em
ent
(
S
t
r
at
egy)
n
Mean (
M
)
Standard Deviati
o
n
(SD)
1
I
skim
the text quickly
to have
a gen
e
r
a
l under
s
tanding of the text.
(
S
kim
m
ing)
80
2.
75
.
834
2
I
pr
edict the
content of the upco
m
ing passage or
section while
r
eading.
(
P
rediction)
80
2.
87
1.
129
3
I
analy
s
e the relationship
s
between the given r
eading text and
reading tasks. (An
a
ly
sing)
80
2.
84
1.
141
4
I
atte
m
p
t to under
s
tand the im
plicit
m
eaning of the give
n text.
(In
f
e
rrin
g
)
80
3.
55
1.
168
5
I
tr
anslate what
I
h
a
ve r
ead into
m
y
fir
s
t language.
(
T
r
a
n
s
lation)
80
3.
88
1.
107
6
I su
mm
a
r
ise
the i
m
port
a
nt inform
at
ion and the
m
a
in ideas of the
text.
(
S
u
m
m
a
r
i
sing)
80
2.
86
1.
088
7
I
r
e
late
m
y
pr
ior
k
nowledge to ne
w inform
ation so as to under
s
tand
the given r
eading text.
(
E
labor
ation)
80
3.
01
1.
185
8
W
h
en the given text or
questions
bec
a
m
e
difficult to under
s
tand,
I
reread the
m
to i
m
p
r
ove
m
y
understanding. (Repetition)
80
3.
82
1.
088
9
I guess the
m
e
aning of un
known wor
d
s or phrases according to the
context of text clu
e
s.
(
G
uessing)
80
3.
26
1.
199
10
I
take notes when reading to help
m
e
m
o
r
i
se useful infor
m
ation.
(
N
ote-
taking)
80
2.
96
1.
335
It reflects th
at m
o
st
o
f
th
e p
a
rticip
an
ts u
s
u
a
ll
y tran
slate wh
at th
ey h
a
v
e
read
in
th
eir first lan
g
u
a
g
e
in
o
r
der to
im
pro
v
e t
h
ei
r
un
de
rst
a
n
d
i
n
g
of t
h
e
readi
n
g
t
e
xt
. O
n
e
p
o
ssi
bl
e ex
pl
anat
i
o
n f
o
r t
h
i
s
ca
n
be
due
t
o
t
h
ei
r
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
exp
o
s
u
re t
o
E
ngl
i
s
h l
a
ng
ua
g
e
and t
h
e soci
ocul
t
u
ral
bac
k
gr
o
u
n
d
s o
f
t
h
e st
udent
s w
h
ose fi
rst
l
a
ng
u
a
ge i
s
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
J
ERE
I
S
SN
:
225
2-8
8
2
2
Rea
d
i
n
g
St
rat
e
gi
es A
m
o
n
g
E
S
L Mal
a
ysi
a
n
S
econ
d
a
ry
Sc
ho
ol
St
ude
nt
s (
S
e
m
ry A
n
ak
Semt
i
n
)
57
B
a
hasa M
a
l
a
y
s
i
a
, M
a
nda
ri
n
or B
a
ha
sa Iba
n
. The res
u
l
t
s
sho
w
t
h
at
It
em
8 i
s
t
h
e secon
d
hi
ghe
st
st
rat
e
gy
use
with the m
ean of
3.82. T
h
e
state
m
ent of It
e
m
8 is
“
W
he
n the
give
n te
xt or questions becam
e diffi
cult to
unde
rstand, I
reread them
to
im
prove m
y
unde
rstanding”
(Repetition).
It
em
4 is als
o
i
n
high freque
nc
y with
th
e
m
ean
o
f
3.5
5
. Th
e statemen
t o
f
Item
4
i
s
“I atte
m
p
t
to
u
n
d
e
rstand
th
e i
m
p
lic
it
mean
in
g
o
f
th
e g
i
v
e
n tex
t
”
(I
nfe
rri
ng
). M
eanw
h
ile, Item
1 (M
=2
.7
5
)
,
Item
2 (M
=2.
8
7
)
,
Item
3 (
M
=2.8
4
)
, Item
6 (M
=2
.8
6
)
,
Item
7
(M
=3.
0
1)
, It
e
m
9 (M
=3.
2
6)
and
It
em
10 (2
.9
6)
bel
o
n
g
t
o
“som
et
im
es use
d
” an
d t
h
e fre
que
ncy
s
cal
e i
s
medium
. The respective
stra
tegies that are
im
plied in
these ite
m
s
are sk
immin
g
,
pred
ictio
n
,
an
alysin
g
,
summ
arising, elaboration, guessing
an
d
no
t
e
-tak
ing
.
Item
1
is t
h
e sligh
tly less frequ
en
tly u
s
ed strategy with
t
h
e
m
ean of 2.
75
. The st
an
da
rd de
vi
at
i
o
n o
f
.8
34 i
n
It
em
1 i
s
t
h
e l
o
west
one. It
i
ndi
c
a
t
e
s t
h
at
t
h
e degree
score
s
in the 5-Like
rt scale chos
en
b
y
th
e particip
an
ts toward
th
is stat
ement are ve
ry close to the m
e
a
n
, and
t
h
e use
of t
h
i
s
st
rat
e
gy
d
o
es
not
vary
great
l
y
am
ong t
h
e i
ndi
vi
d
u
al
s. T
h
e st
at
em
ent
of
It
em
1 i
s
“I sk
im
t
h
e
t
e
xt
q
u
i
c
kl
y
t
o
have
a
gene
ral
un
de
rst
a
n
d
i
n
g
of
t
h
e t
e
xt
”.
3.
1.
2. Me
tac
o
gni
t
i
v
e
s
t
ra
teg
i
es
In
Tab
l
e 2
,
ite
m
s
1
1
-
20
represen
t th
e state
m
en
ts i
n
th
e read
ing q
u
e
stionn
aire related
to
metaco
g
n
itiv
e strateg
i
es. From
th
e
tab
l
e,
it can
b
e
seen
t
h
at th
e frequ
e
n
c
y scales of m
o
st read
i
n
g strat
e
g
i
es
are i
n
m
e
di
u
m
use wi
t
h
a m
ean bet
w
een
2
.
5 a
nd
3.
49
, w
h
i
c
h ar
e refl
ec
t
e
d i
n
It
em
12 (M
=2.
8
4),
It
e
m
1
3
(M
=3.
2
6)
, It
e
m
14 (M
=2.
8
7
)
,
It
em
15 (
2
.
7
5)
, It
em
16
(M
=3.
0
2
)
,
It
em
17 (M
=
3
.
0
6),
It
em
18
(M
=2
.7
9)
, It
em
19 (M
=3
.0
5
)
, and It
em
20
(
M
=2.5
6
)
.
T
h
e respect
i
v
e
st
rat
e
gies that are
im
plied in thes
e ite
m
s
are advance
d
o
r
g
a
n
i
satio
n
,
selectiv
e attentio
n
,
self-m
an
ag
em
en
t, d
i
rected
atten
tion
,
m
o
n
ito
ring
,
an
d self-ev
a
l
u
atio
n
.
Al
t
h
o
u
gh t
h
es
e st
rat
e
gi
es are som
e
t
i
m
e
s used by
t
h
e par
t
i
c
i
p
ant
s
, It
em
13 sh
ow
s t
h
e
hi
ghest
m
ean score,
whi
c
h i
s
3.
2
6
.
The st
at
em
en
t
of It
em
13 i
s
“I pay
at
t
e
nt
i
on t
o
t
h
e q
u
e
s
t
i
ons a
nd m
e
m
o
ri
se t
h
em
befo
re
read
i
n
g
th
e tex
t
” (Selectiv
e atten
tio
n
)
. It im
p
l
ies th
at
some participants are aw
are
of the im
portance of
scru
tin
isi
n
g
t
h
e q
u
e
stio
n
s
carefu
lly as it
may b
e
h
e
l
p
fu
l to
th
em
in
p
e
rfo
rm
in
g
th
e
read
ing
task
s. Besid
e
s,
It
em
12 has t
h
e
m
ean of
2.
8
4
an
d t
h
e l
o
w
e
st
st
anda
rd
d
e
vi
at
i
on
of
.9
6
1
, as c
o
m
p
ared t
o
It
em
19 wi
t
h
t
h
e
m
ean of
3.
0
5
and t
h
e hi
ghe
s
t
st
andar
d
devi
at
i
on o
f
1.
32
1.
It
reveal
s t
h
at
t
h
e de
gree sc
ores i
n
t
h
e
5-
Li
ker
t
scale ch
o
s
en
by th
e p
a
rticip
an
ts to
ward
th
e
state
m
en
t o
f
It
e
m
12 are
very close to the
mean, and the
use of
t
h
i
s
st
rat
e
gy
d
o
es n
o
t
va
ry
g
r
eat
l
y
am
ong t
h
e i
ndi
vi
d
u
al
s.
The st
at
em
ent
of It
em
12 i
s
“I am
aware o
f
t
h
e
ob
ject
i
v
e
o
f
t
h
e rea
d
i
n
g t
a
s
k
s
.
(
A
d
v
a
n
ce
d
or
gani
sat
i
o
n)”
,
a
n
d the
state
m
e
n
t of
Item
19
is “I try t
o
find
out
my weak
n
e
ss in
th
e
read
ing
activ
ity, an
d
t
h
in
k
ho
w to
im
prove m
y
reading efficien
cy. (Self-e
valuation)”. On
t
h
e c
ont
ra
ry
,
I
t
em
11
(M
=2
.
3
6
,
S
D
=.
9
9
7
)
i
s
t
h
e l
east
fre
que
nt
l
y
use
d
s
t
rat
e
gy
.
It
s f
r
e
que
ncy
scal
e
i
s
l
o
w.
Acco
r
d
i
n
g t
o
t
h
e f
r
eq
ue
ncy
scal
es o
f
st
ra
t
e
gy
use
[
17]
,
It
em
11
bel
o
ngs
t
o
“ge
n
er
al
l
y
not
u
s
ed”
.
T
h
e
state
m
en
t o
f
It
e
m
1
1
is “I
set p
l
an
s
on
how
to
co
m
p
lete
th
e read
i
n
g
task
s”. It ind
i
cates that the
participant
s
lack awa
r
e
n
ess
of
planning
how they ca
n
pe
r
f
o
r
m
t
h
ei
r rea
d
i
ng t
a
s
k
s e
ffi
ca
ci
ousl
y
.
Tabl
e 2.
Descrip
tiv
e statistics o
f
m
e
taco
g
n
itiv
e strateg
i
es
It
em
St
at
em
ent
(
S
t
r
at
egy)
n
Mean (
M
)
Standard Deviati
o
n
(SD)
11
I
set plans on how
to co
m
p
lete the
r
e
ading tasks.
(
A
dvanced
or
ganisation)
80
2.
36
.
997
12
I a
m
aw
are of
the
objective of
the reading tasks. (Advanced
or
ganisation)
80
2.
84
.
961
13
I
pay attention to the questions a
nd
m
e
m
o
r
i
se the
m
befor
e
r
eading
the text. (S
elective
attention)
80
3.
26
1.
028
14
I
r
ead
the text quickly
to find out the r
e
levant inform
ation of the
reading tasks. (Sel
ective attention)
80
2.
87
.
973
15
I
adjust r
eading speed on the basis of
differ
e
nt r
eading pur
poses o
f
the reading tasks. (
S
elf
-
m
anage
m
ent
)
80
2.
75
1.
258
16
I
know what to r
ead closely
and what to
ignor
e.
(
D
ir
ected attention)
80
3.
02
1.
102
17
I
m
onitor
the under
s
tanding of the r
eading
m
a
ter
i
als
and r
eading
tasks. (Monitoring)
80
3.
06
1.
162
18
I
a
m
awar
e of
m
y
ongoi
ng r
eading tasks.
(
M
onitor
i
ng)
80
2.
79
1.
040
19
I
try
to find out
m
y
weakness in
the re
ading activity, and
think how
to i
m
p
r
ove
m
y
rea
d
ing eff
i
ciency. (
S
elf
-
evaluation)
80
3.
05
1.
321
20
I evaluate the
ef
f
ectiveness of
str
a
tegies I
used while doing the
reading tasks. (Sel
f
-
evaluation)
80
2.
56
1.
123
3.
2.
An
al
ysi
s
o
f
i
n
ter
v
i
e
w
Based
on
Tab
l
e 3
,
an
alysis o
f
th
e d
a
ta
g
a
thered
fro
m
th
e
ten
in
terv
iews elicits
m
o
re u
n
p
red
i
cted
resp
o
n
ses o
n
s
t
ude
nt
s’ pe
rce
p
t
i
o
n
s
on t
h
ei
r
use of rea
d
i
n
g
st
rat
e
gi
es. So
m
e
st
rat
e
gi
es are sim
i
l
a
r
t
o
som
e
of
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
SN
:
2
252
-88
22
I
J
ERE
Vo
l.
4
,
N
o
.
2
,
Jun
e
201
5 :
5
4
– 61
58
th
o
s
e m
e
n
tio
n
e
d
in th
e
qu
estio
nn
aire. Th
ose read
ing
stra
teg
i
es fro
m
th
e in
terv
iews are an
alysed
b
a
sed
o
n
th
e
classification
of language
learni
ng
strateg
i
es
b
y
O’Malley an
d Ch
am
o
t
(cited
in [15
]
).
Tab
l
e
3
.
Ty
p
e
s of
p
a
rticu
l
ar st
rateg
i
es
repo
rt
ed
b
y
p
a
rticip
an
ts in th
e i
n
terv
iews
Cat
e
gory Q
u
est
i
on
Types of Partic
ul
ar
Strategies R
e
port
ed
No. of
Participants
Cognitive
Strategies
i)
W
h
at do y
ou do when y
ou encounter
unfa
m
iliar words o
r
phrases that affec
t
y
our
r
eading co
m
p
r
e
hension
?
Resour
cing
Repetition
Guessing
9
3
1
ii)
How do y
ou use and or
ganise im
por
tant
inform
ation in a
re
ading text
?
Gr
ouping
Note-taking
Su
mm
a
r
ising
Reco
m
b
ination
E
l
abor
ation
5
4
2
1
1
Metacognitive
Strategies
i)
How do you identify the specific deta
ils
in a reading text?
Selective attention
M
onitor
i
ng
8
2
ii)
How do you identify the general idea
s in
a reading text?
Directed a
ttention
Self-evaluation
M
onitor
i
ng
8
1
1
3.
2.
1. C
o
g
n
i
t
i
v
e
s
t
ra
te
gi
es
Per
t
ain
i
ng
to
t
h
e f
i
rst in
terv
iew
qu
estion
o
f
‘W
h
a
t do
you d
o
wh
en you
en
coun
ter
u
n
f
a
mil
i
ar
w
o
rd
s
o
r
p
h
rases that affect yo
ur
read
i
n
g
co
m
p
reh
e
nsion
?
’,
t
h
e p
a
rticip
an
ts repo
rted
three typ
e
s o
f
co
gn
itiv
e
strateg
i
es
su
ch
as
reso
urcing
, rep
e
titio
n,
and
g
u
e
ssing
. Nin
e
p
a
rticip
an
ts ind
i
cated
th
ey
u
s
e a d
i
ctio
n
a
ry o
r
t
h
e
In
tern
et t
o
u
nderstand
un
fam
i
liar wo
rd
s i
n
t
h
e
read
i
n
g tex
t
. It is ind
i
cated
that th
e u
s
e
o
f
prin
ted
resou
r
ces
suc
h
as di
ct
i
o
n
a
ri
es, w
o
r
d
l
i
s
t
s
, gram
m
a
r books
, an
d p
h
ras
e
bo
oks i
s
use
f
ul
i
n
un
der
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g w
h
at
i
s
heard o
r
read
[1
7]
. T
h
re
e part
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
i
ndi
cat
ed
t
h
at
t
h
ey
use
repet
i
t
i
on t
o
u
nde
rst
a
nd
w
o
r
d
s,
p
h
ra
ses o
r
sent
e
n
ce
s i
n
a
readi
ng t
e
xt
.
The st
rat
e
gy
of
rep
eat
i
ng i
n
v
o
l
v
e
s
re
ad
ing
a tex
t
m
o
re th
an
on
ce to u
n
d
e
rstand
it
m
o
re
co
m
p
letely [1
7
]
.
On
e p
a
rticip
an
t i
n
d
i
cated th
e st
rateg
y
o
f
gu
essi
n
g
the m
ean
in
g
s
o
f
un
fam
iliar wo
rds
or
phrases
according t
o
the
c
ont
ext of te
xt clue
s.
For t
h
e sec
o
n
d
i
n
t
e
rvi
e
w q
u
e
st
i
on o
f
“H
o
w
d
o
y
ou use
and o
r
ga
ni
se im
port
a
nt
i
n
f
o
rm
ati
on i
n
a
readi
ng t
e
xt
?
”
,
t
h
e part
i
c
i
p
ant
s
rep
o
rt
e
d
fi
ve
t
y
pes of co
gni
t
i
v
e st
rat
e
gi
es t
h
at
i
nvol
ve g
r
ou
pi
n
g
,
not
e
-
t
a
ki
n
g
,
sum
m
ari
s
i
ng, recom
b
i
n
at
i
o
n
and el
ab
orat
i
on. Fi
ve pa
rt
i
c
i
p
ant
s
i
ndi
c
a
t
e
d t
h
e st
rat
e
gy
of
gr
o
upi
ng
b
y
or
ga
ni
si
ng i
n
f
o
rm
ati
on t
h
at
t
h
ey
have
read i
n
t
h
e rea
d
i
n
g t
e
xt
i
n
t
h
e
fo
rm
of m
i
nd m
a
ps or
gra
p
hi
c o
r
ga
ni
sers
.
An
de
rso
n
(
c
i
t
e
d i
n
[1
5]
) st
at
ed t
h
at
a m
a
p or s
k
et
ch
o
f
l
i
nke
d i
d
ea
s can
be u
s
ed t
o
sh
ow t
h
e rel
a
t
i
o
nshi
p
s
bet
w
ee
n
wo
r
d
s
an
d i
d
ea
s i
n
or
der
t
o
e
n
han
ce rea
d
i
n
g c
o
m
p
rehensi
o
n.
I
t
i
s
assert
ed
t
h
at
gr
o
upi
ng
i
n
vol
ves
classifying or
reclassi
fyin
g
wh
at is read
in
to
m
ean
in
gful g
r
oup
s, thu
s
redu
cing
th
e
n
u
m
b
e
r of irrelev
a
nt
com
pone
nt
s [
1
5]
. Fo
ur
part
i
c
i
p
ant
s
ga
ve fai
r
l
y
suffi
ci
e
n
t
r
e
sp
onses t
o
i
m
ply
t
h
at
t
h
ey hi
g
h
l
i
ght
an
d
wri
t
e
d
o
wn
k
e
y word
s or co
n
c
epts th
at th
ey hav
e
en
coun
tered
in a read
i
n
g tex
t
in
ord
e
r t
o
im
p
r
ove th
eir
u
n
d
e
rstand
ing
o
f
a
read
i
n
g tex
t
. Two
p
a
rticip
an
ts ind
i
cated th
at th
ey
su
m
m
arise so
m
e
i
m
p
o
r
tan
t
d
e
tail
s in
t
h
e
tex
t
in
th
eir own
word
s to
im
p
r
o
v
e
th
eir
read
ing
co
m
p
reh
e
nsion
.
On
e
p
a
rticip
an
t repo
rted
th
e strat
e
g
y
o
f
reco
m
b
in
atio
n
wh
ich
invo
lv
es writin
g
a m
e
an
ing
f
u
l
se
nt
e
n
ce
by
c
o
m
b
i
n
i
ng
k
n
o
w
n el
e
m
ent
s
suc
h
as
wo
rd
s
and phrases. One
partic
i
p
a
n
t
rep
o
rt
e
d
t
h
e
st
rat
e
gy
of
ass
o
ci
at
i
ng back
gr
ou
n
d
kn
o
w
l
e
d
g
e wi
t
h
ne
w
c
once
p
t
s
in
ord
e
r
t
o
u
nder
s
tand
a
r
e
ad
in
g tex
t
.
3.
2.
2. Me
tac
o
gni
t
i
v
e
s
t
ra
teg
i
es
Per
t
ain
i
ng
to
t
h
e f
i
rst in
ter
v
i
e
w
qu
estion
o
f
‘
H
o
w
do
you id
en
tif
y th
e sp
ecif
i
c d
e
tails
in
a r
e
ad
ing
tex
t
?
’
, th
e p
a
rticip
an
ts repo
rted
two
typ
e
s o
f
m
e
taco
g
n
itiv
e strateg
i
es su
ch
as selectiv
e atten
tio
n an
d
m
o
n
ito
rin
g
. Ei
g
h
t
p
a
rticip
an
t
s
in
d
i
cated
th
at th
ey g
i
v
e
atten
tio
n to
sp
ecifi
c d
e
tails or
q
u
estio
n
s
, and
read
the
tex
t
carefu
lly t
o
find
ou
t th
e relev
a
n
t
in
fo
rmatio
n
o
f
th
e
read
i
n
g
task
s.
Two
p
a
rticip
an
ts i
m
p
lied
th
at th
ey
m
o
n
ito
r th
eir un
d
e
rstand
ing
of a tex
t
and
t
h
e read
ing
task by reread
ing
the tex
t
.
Fo
r th
e second in
terv
iew
qu
estio
n
o
f
“How
d
o
you
id
en
tify th
e g
e
n
e
r
a
l id
eas i
n
a
r
e
ad
in
g tex
t
?
”
, th
e
p
a
rticip
an
ts rep
o
rted three typ
e
s
o
f
m
e
taco
g
n
itiv
e strateg
i
es su
ch as
d
i
rected
atten
tion
,
self-ev
a
lu
ation, and
m
o
n
ito
rin
g
. Ei
g
h
t
p
a
rticip
an
ts in
d
i
cated
t
h
at th
ey g
i
v
e
atten
tio
n
t
h
e m
a
in
p
o
i
n
t
s, in
terestin
g
top
i
cs, th
e titles
o
r
th
e h
e
ad
lin
es o
f
a read
ing
tex
t
in
o
r
d
e
r to
g
e
t th
e g
e
n
e
ral id
eas o
f
th
e tex
t
. On
e p
a
rticip
an
t im
p
lied
th
at h
e
assesses how well
he has
ca
rried out
the reading
task
by
rerea
d
ing the
text and chec
king the
ans
w
e
r
s. One
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
J
ERE
I
S
SN
:
225
2-8
8
2
2
Rea
d
i
n
g
St
rat
e
gi
es A
m
o
n
g
E
S
L Mal
a
ysi
a
n
S
econ
d
a
ry
Sc
ho
ol
St
ude
nt
s (
S
e
m
ry A
n
ak
Semt
i
n
)
59
part
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
im
pl
i
e
d t
h
at
he
m
oni
t
o
r
hi
s un
de
r
s
t
a
ndi
ng
of a r
eadi
n
g t
e
xt
an
d t
h
e rea
d
i
n
g t
a
sk by
di
st
i
n
gu
i
s
hi
n
g
di
ffe
re
nt
co
nce
p
t
s
i
n
rea
d
i
n
g.
The
fi
n
d
i
n
gs
reveal
t
h
e a
u
t
o
n
o
m
ous l
e
a
r
ni
n
g
e
f
f
o
rts
that are
re
flected in
the
re
p
o
rte
d
re
adi
n
g
st
rat
e
gi
es as
s
o
m
e
part
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
have
do
ne
ext
e
nsi
v
e
rea
d
i
n
g t
h
at
i
n
cl
ude
aca
dem
i
c m
a
t
e
ri
al
s, com
i
cs,
m
a
gazi
nes or
news
pa
per
s
wi
t
h
t
h
e
u
s
e of
part
i
c
ul
a
r
read
i
ng st
rat
e
gi
es
. B
e
si
des, t
h
e p
a
rt
i
c
i
p
ant
s
’ l
e
a
r
ni
ng
efforts are also pre
v
alent through th
e use
of E
nglish m
e
dia such as the
Internet to look for m
eanings
of
un
k
n
o
w
n w
o
r
d
s o
r
p
h
ra
ses i
n
t
h
e rea
d
i
n
g
t
e
xt
s. As rea
d
i
n
g st
rat
e
gi
es
are one
of t
h
e com
pone
nt
s i
n
t
h
e
researc
h
fi
el
d
of l
a
ng
ua
ge l
earni
ng st
rat
e
gi
es, t
h
ese
fi
n
d
i
ngs
are s
u
pp
o
r
t
e
d
by
M
o
ha
m
e
d Am
i
n
Em
bi
’s
e
m
p
h
a
sis
o
n
au
ton
o
m
o
u
s
lang
u
a
g
e
learn
i
ng, ex
ten
s
iv
e
read
ing
,
and
th
e
utilisat
io
n
of Eng
lish
m
e
d
i
a as p
a
rt
o
f
l
a
ng
uage
l
ear
n
i
ng st
rat
e
gi
es
[4]
.
Al
t
h
ou
g
h
t
h
e soci
o-a
ffec
t
i
v
e st
rat
e
gi
es
are
not
part
of t
h
i
s
st
u
d
y
,
som
e
participa
n
ts re
ported the a
doption of
t
h
e strategies suc
h
a
s
disc
ussion a
b
out t
h
eir
readi
n
g tasks
with teachers
,
pare
nt
s a
n
d
f
r
i
e
nd
s t
o
hel
p
t
h
em
un
derst
a
nd
readi
n
g
t
e
xt
s.
3.
3.
Summ
a
ry
B
a
sed o
n
t
h
e
fi
ndi
n
g
s f
r
o
m
t
h
e quest
i
onnai
r
es an
d i
n
t
e
rvi
e
ws
, t
h
e st
ude
nt
s ha
ve
used va
ri
o
u
s
readi
ng st
rat
e
g
i
es. The
use
of
part
i
c
ul
ar
rea
d
i
n
g st
rat
e
gi
es
i
s
im
pl
i
e
d as aut
o
nom
ous e
f
fo
rt
s t
o
b
ecom
e
m
o
re
pr
ofi
c
i
e
nt
rea
d
ers
based
o
n
t
h
e r
eadi
n
g
p
u
r
pos
es a
n
d
t
a
sk requirem
ents.
Howe
ver, analysis of c
o
llected
data
f
r
o
m
th
e q
u
e
sti
o
nn
air
e
show
ed
th
at t
h
e fr
eq
uen
c
y of
r
e
po
r
t
ed
r
e
ad
ing
str
a
teg
i
es is m
o
d
e
rate. Th
e
r
e
su
lts show
th
at th
e frequen
c
y o
f
u
s
ing co
gn
itiv
e strateg
i
es u
s
ed
b
y
th
e stu
d
e
nts is al
m
o
st
eq
u
a
l to
th
e
u
s
e of
metaco
g
n
itiv
e strateg
i
es. Th
e strateg
y
o
f
tran
slation
(M=3
.88) is the
m
o
st freq
u
e
n
tly u
s
ed
on
e in
the
co
gn
itiv
e strat
e
g
y
catego
r
y,
wh
ile th
e
strat
e
g
y
of sk
immi
n
g
with
t
h
e lowest m
ean
o
f
2
.
7
5
is so
m
e
ti
mes u
s
ed
b
y
th
e
stud
en
ts in
th
e co
gn
itiv
e strateg
y
cat
eg
ory. Th
e
sequ
en
ces o
f
10
su
b
categ
ories of
co
gn
itiv
e
strateg
i
es
are
tran
slation
,
rep
e
titio
n
,
in
ferri
n
g
, gu
essing
, n
o
t
e-
tak
i
n
g
,
p
r
ed
ictio
n
,
su
mm
ari
s
in
g, an
alysing
,
and
sk
immin
g
.
In
t
h
e m
e
taco
g
n
iti
v
e
categ
ory, the strateg
y
o
f
selectiv
e atten
t
i
o
n
wh
ich
in
vo
l
v
es p
a
ying
atten
tio
n
to
th
e qu
estion
s
and
m
e
m
o
risin
g
th
em
before
read
i
n
g
th
e tex
t
h
a
s th
e
h
i
gh
est m
ean
o
f
3.26
and
it is
som
e
t
i
m
e
s used by
pa
rt
i
c
i
p
ant
s
. The st
rat
e
gy
of a
dva
nce
d
o
r
ga
ni
sat
i
o
n whi
c
h i
n
v
o
l
v
e
s
pl
an
ni
n
g
o
n
ho
w t
o
co
m
p
lete read
in
g task
s h
a
s the lo
west m
ean
o
f
2.36
and
it is g
e
n
e
rally no
t
u
s
ed
b
y
th
e st
ud
en
ts.
An
alysis of the d
a
ta g
a
th
ered
fro
m
th
e in
terv
ie
ws elicits
m
o
re un
pred
icted
resp
on
ses o
n
st
u
d
e
n
t
s’
p
e
r
c
ep
tion
s
on
th
eir
u
s
e
of r
ead
i
n
g
str
a
t
e
g
i
es.
A
lth
ough
a
v
a
r
i
ety of
str
a
teg
i
es
wer
e
im
p
lied
in
th
eir
responses, s
o
m
e
strategies are sim
ilar to som
e
of
t
h
o
s
e m
e
nt
i
oned
i
n
t
h
e q
u
est
i
o
nnai
r
e. T
h
e st
ude
nt
s
in
d
i
cated
th
eir u
s
e o
f
cogn
itiv
e strateg
i
es su
ch
as resou
r
cin
g
,
rep
e
tition
,
gu
essi
n
g
, group
ing
,
no
te-t
ak
ing
,
su
mm
arisin
g
,
reco
m
b
in
ation
and
elab
oratio
n
.
Th
ey
also
im
p
lied
in
th
eir
respo
n
s
es th
at they u
s
e
metaco
g
n
itiv
e
strateg
i
es su
ch as selectiv
e at
ten
tio
n
,
d
i
rected
atten
tio
n, m
o
n
ito
ri
n
g
, and
ev
alu
a
tion
.
Based
on
th
e find
ing
s
, it is n
o
t
ewo
r
t
h
y th
at th
e u
s
e of p
a
rticu
l
ar
rea
d
ing strategies
are associated with the students
’
l
earni
n
g
ef
fo
rt
s of bec
o
m
i
ng aut
o
n
o
m
ous
reader
s wi
t
h
t
h
e brea
dt
h
of e
x
t
e
nsi
v
e
reading, their reading
purposes
a
n
d task
requirem
ents.
4.
CO
NCL
USI
O
N
Thr
o
ug
h
out
t
h
i
s
st
u
d
y
,
t
h
e
r
e
h
a
ve
been
va
ri
o
u
s
rep
o
rt
e
d
rea
d
i
n
g st
rat
e
gi
es
em
pl
oy
ed
by
t
h
e st
u
d
e
n
t
s
in readi
ng c
o
m
p
re
he
nsion. It is im
portant tha
t
langua
ge
teachers s
h
ould
be m
a
de awar
e that reading strategies
are i
m
port
a
nt
fo
r st
ude
nt
s’
l
a
ng
ua
ge l
e
a
r
ni
ng
, a
n
d t
h
us
st
ude
nt
s s
h
oul
d
be e
x
po
sed
t
o
vari
o
u
s
t
y
p
e
s o
f
read
i
n
g
strategies th
at can
b
e
p
r
actically u
s
ed
in
read
ing. Th
is is also
p
r
ev
alen
t in
th
e literatu
re wh
ich
asserted t
h
at it is m
o
re effect
ive for
student
s
to rea
c
h
t
h
ei
r
l
earni
ng
g
o
al
s
i
f
t
h
ey
have
a
hi
g
h
er
f
r
eq
ue
ncy
o
f
em
pl
oy
i
ng
a
v
a
ri
et
y
of
st
rat
e
gi
es i
n
t
h
ei
r
re
adi
n
g
pr
ocess
[
18]
,
[
1
9
]
.
In l
i
g
ht
of t
h
e prese
n
t
de
vel
o
pm
ent
and nee
d
s i
n
ed
ucat
i
o
n
,
on
e of t
h
e pe
dag
o
g
i
cal
im
pli
cat
i
ons t
h
a
t
can be
dra
w
n
from
the findi
ngs
of the
pre
s
ent study is
that langua
ge teachers
play
a vital role in e
x
posi
ng
st
ude
nt
s t
o
va
r
i
ous
rea
d
i
n
g st
rat
e
gi
es t
h
e
r
e
b
y
al
l
o
wi
n
g
st
u
d
ent
s
t
o
deci
de
o
n
st
rat
e
gi
es t
h
at
are
ap
pr
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
ly
alig
n
e
d
with
th
eir read
ing
p
u
rp
o
s
es and task
requ
iremen
ts. In
stead
of facilitati
n
g
st
u
d
e
n
t
s’
read
i
ng
com
p
rehe
nsion, the teac
hers
can inte
grate t
h
e
use
of
rea
d
ing st
rategies i
n
the
m
a
terials
and the class
r
oo
m
activ
ities. Th
ey can
train
st
u
d
e
n
t
s to
u
s
e
ap
pro
p
riate read
ing
strateg
i
es wh
ich
will
en
ab
le th
em
t
o
learn
Eng
lish
lang
u
a
g
e
m
o
re efficien
tly. Th
is corro
borates Par
ila
h M. Shah et a
l
.’s assert
i
on that educators
play an
im
port
a
nt
rol
e
i
n
em
pl
oy
i
ng a
p
p
r
op
ri
at
e pe
d
a
go
gi
cal
t
ech
n
i
ques t
h
at
can
hel
p
l
ear
ne
rs e
nha
nce t
h
ei
r se
con
d
l
a
ng
uage
rea
d
i
n
g
p
r
ofi
c
i
e
ncy
[9]
.
As rea
d
i
n
g st
ra
t
e
gi
es are part
of t
h
e re
searc
h
fi
el
d of l
a
n
gua
ge l
earni
ng st
r
a
t
e
gi
es, t
h
e fi
n
d
i
n
gs o
f
t
h
e
prese
n
t
st
udy
e
c
hoe
d
M
o
ham
e
d
Am
i
n
Em
bi’s em
phasi
s
o
n
aut
o
n
o
m
ous l
a
ng
ua
ge l
ear
ni
n
g
,
ext
e
nsi
v
e
re
adi
n
g,
and t
h
e i
n
c
o
r
p
orat
i
o
n o
f
En
gl
i
s
h
m
e
di
a i
n
l
a
ng
ua
ge l
earni
n
g
[4]
.
It
i
s
im
port
a
nt
t
h
at
t
eachers s
h
o
u
l
d
be aware
o
f
th
e n
e
ed
t
o
d
e
leg
a
te m
o
re
respon
sib
ility to
t
h
e st
u
d
e
n
t
s
in
th
eir read
i
n
g
st
rateg
y
u
s
e
an
d th
i
n
k of
feasib
le
way
s
t
o
hel
p
st
ude
nt
s beco
m
e
aut
o
n
o
m
ous
l
ear
ner
s
.
In the prese
n
t s
t
udy, m
o
st of the re
ported
readi
ng
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
S
SN
:
2
252
-88
22
I
J
ERE
Vo
l.
4
,
N
o
.
2
,
Jun
e
201
5 :
5
4
– 61
60
st
rat
e
gi
es em
pl
oy
ed
by
t
h
e
st
ude
nt
s a
r
e
rel
a
t
e
d t
o
t
h
ei
r a
u
t
o
n
o
m
ous l
ear
n
i
ng e
f
f
o
rt
s t
o
i
m
prove t
h
ei
r
r
eadi
n
g.
If teache
r
s ca
n
m
a
ke stude
nts
responsibl
e for their
own lea
r
ni
ng, the
n
the
y
can entrust the st
udents with
the
respon
sib
ility o
f
practisin
g variou
s read
i
n
g strateg
i
es
ou
tsid
e th
e classro
o
m
. Th
e
app
r
o
ach
es to
prom
o
t
ing
au
ton
o
m
y
m
a
y
d
r
aw atten
tion
to
th
e
u
tilisatio
n
of techn
o
l
o
g
y
o
r
o
t
h
e
r reso
urces, th
e learn
e
rs th
em
sel
v
es
or
decision-m
aking in t
h
e
l
ear
ni
ng
co
nt
ext
[
20]
.
B
e
si
des, e
x
t
e
n
s
i
v
e rea
d
i
n
g pl
ay
s an essent
i
a
l
rol
e
i
n
rea
d
i
ng st
rat
e
gy
us
e and t
h
e i
m
provem
e
nt
of
stu
d
e
n
t
s’ read
i
n
g
co
m
p
reh
e
nsio
n. Th
e fi
n
d
i
n
g
s
o
f
th
e in
terv
iews i
m
p
l
y s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s’ in
itiativ
es to
read
En
g
lish
readi
ng m
a
terials which are
not solely for academ
ic
purposes but also reading
for ge
neral knowle
dge. The
stude
nts not only read acade
m
ic
materials
but also
m
a
g
azines, com
i
cs
and ne
ws
papers. Thus
, langua
ge
teachers can e
s
tablish a class library
progra
mm
e
by which students ca
n
easily gain access to a variety of
in
terestin
g En
glish
read
ing
m
a
terials [4
].
Eq
ual
l
y
im
port
a
nt
, t
h
e
r
o
l
e
o
f
En
gl
i
s
h m
e
di
a suc
h
as t
h
e I
n
t
e
rnet
n
eed t
o
be em
phasi
sed
i
n
E
ngl
i
s
h
readi
n
g
l
e
sso
n
s
as i
t
i
s
a
use
f
ul
s
o
u
r
ce
of
i
n
put
t
o
t
h
e l
ear
n
i
ng
o
f
E
n
gl
i
s
h
l
a
ng
uage
. T
h
e
prese
n
t
st
udy
r
e
po
rt
s
th
e u
s
e of
th
e In
tern
et aid
s
st
ud
en
ts’
r
e
ad
ing
co
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
ion as th
ey ab
le t
o
f
i
nd
u
nkn
own w
o
rd
s an
d ph
rases
easily. Th
e find
ing
s
of th
e i
n
terv
iews is streng
th
en
ed
b
y
Mo
h
a
m
e
d
Amin
E
m
b
i
’s assertio
n
t
h
at lan
g
u
a
g
e
teachers nee
d
to think of
ways to
utilise the
English m
e
dia
in language
le
arni
ng [4]. One possi
ble way is to
establish a c
o
m
puter lab
where
Internet-base
d
rea
d
ing lessons ca
n
be c
o
nducted
efficiently.
Hs
ieh and
D
w
y
er’
s
study asser
t
ed
th
at w
e
b
-
b
a
sed
o
r
o
n
lin
e learn
i
ng
env
i
ro
nmen
ts can
b
e
estab
lish
e
d
w
ith
th
e
in
teg
r
ation
of
read
i
n
g strategy u
s
e t
o
cater
to
stud
en
ts
’
di
stinct learni
ng
sty
l
es fo
r
p
r
o
cessing
in
fo
rm
atio
n
[2
1]
.
In
t
h
is presen
t stu
d
y
, it is wo
rt
h
no
ting
that stu
d
e
n
t
s wi
th
m
i
x
e
d
ab
ilities u
s
e d
i
fferen
t read
i
ng
strateg
i
es to
un
d
e
rstand
a read
ing
tex
t
. The in
tegra
tio
n
o
f
read
ing
strateg
y
in
stru
ctio
n in
t
h
e lang
u
a
g
e
cu
rricu
l
u
m
is im
p
o
r
tan
t
to
p
r
o
m
o
t
e read
ing
p
r
o
f
icien
c
y
am
o
n
g
second
lang
u
a
g
e
learn
e
rs
o
f
d
i
fferi
n
g ab
i
lities
[9]. Thus
, teachers
need to
be
m
o
re
flexibl
e
in their peda
gogical sel
ection a
nd inc
o
rporate va
rious reading
strateg
i
es in
th
e lang
u
a
g
e
classroo
m
so
t
h
at stu
d
e
n
t
s
will b
e
ab
le to
id
en
tify
an
d d
r
aw up
on
particu
l
ar
st
rat
e
gi
es rel
e
v
a
nt
t
o
t
h
ei
r
rea
d
i
n
g
pu
r
pose
s
and
t
a
sk
re
qui
r
e
m
e
nt
s.
ACKNOWLE
DGE
M
ENTS
It was
a
great experie
n
ce t
o
com
p
lete this study
with the supp
ort
o
f
th
e scho
o
l
admin
i
strato
rs,
teachers and st
ude
nts. First
of all, ou
r since
r
e thanks and
gratitude t
o
the
school a
d
m
i
nistrato
rs for gi
ving us
su
ppo
rt, gu
id
an
ce an
d adv
i
ce in
co
m
p
letin
g
th
is stud
y.
Besid
e
s,
we
wo
u
l
d
lik
e t
o
ex
press ou
r gratitu
de and
appreciation to teachers who
have
gi
ve
n us
support and encouragem
ent,
as they are willing to share
their
knowledge a
n
d experience rel
e
vant t
o
th
e
stud
y.
Ap
art fro
m
th
at, we wou
l
d
lik
e t
o
th
an
k
th
e Fo
rm
4
stud
en
ts
at SMK
Kap
it for th
ei
r
p
a
rticip
atio
n in
t
h
is st
u
d
y
.
REFERE
NC
ES
[1]
M
c
Ka
y
S
L
., “
T
each
ing Engl
is
h as
an int
e
rnat
io
nal lan
guage
: re
thinking goa
ls
a
nd approach
es
”,
Oxford: Oxford
University
Press
,
2009
.
[2]
Noor AI., Nurul
s
y
a
id
a MS.,
“
A
stud
y
of
th
e cog
n
itiv
e
re
ading st
rateg
i
es em
plo
y
ed b
y
ESL re
ade
r
s”,
A Stud
y of th
e
Cognitiv
e
Readi
ng Strateg
i
es E
m
ployed b
y
ESL
Readers,
pp
. 1-9
,
2010
.
[3]
Afflerbach P.
, Pearson PD., Pari
s SG., “
C
larif
y
i
ng differe
n
ces between r
eading
skills and read
in
g strategi
es”,
The
Reading
Teach
e
r.
Vol/issue: 61(
5), pp
. 364-373
,
2008.
[4]
Mohamed Amin
E., “Langu
age
Learn
i
ng Strateg
i
es: A Mala
y
s
ian
Context”, Bangi, Selangor
: Facu
lty
of
Educatio
n
,
Universiti Kebangs
aan Malay
s
ia, 2000
.
[5]
Airil Haimi Mohd A., ”The lin
k
betw
een cognitive dev
e
lopmen
t and languag
e
acquisition in th
e early
y
e
ars an
d
implications for English la
nguage teaching in Malay
s
ian
classrooms. In: Ka
misah Ari
ffin, Mohd Rozaidi Ismail,
Ngo Kea Leng,
and Roslina Abdul Aziz (eds.)”,
English in
the
M
a
laysian con
t
e
x
t
. Selangor: University
Publication
Centre (UPENA), UITM, 2006.
[6]
Nurazila AA., S
u
zana Ab R., Etty
HH., Nor AA., Hasfaz
ilah
A., Samsiah B., Mohd Rizaim
y
S., “The readin
g
strateg
i
es awar
eness among English
as a Second
Languag
e
(
E
SL) Learne
rs in M
a
lay
s
ia’s Univer
sity
”,
Theory an
d
Practice
in Lang
uage Stud
ies
, vo
l/issue: 1
(
7), pp.
778-784, 2011
.
[7]
Noorizah Mohd
. N., “Reading
academic
text: Aw
aren
ess and
exp
e
rien
ces
among uni
versity
ESL learners”,
GEMA
Online™
Journal of Language S
t
udies,
vo
l/issue:
6(2), pp
. 65-78
,
2006.
[8]
Zair
a AH., “Peer interaction
and m
eaning co
nstruction among
ESL
learn
e
rs
in compreh
e
nd
ing tex
t
s in 2n
d
languag
e
contex
t”,
Unpublished Ph.D.
th
esis,
Facult
y
of Modern
Languages, Un
i
v
ersiti Putra Malay
s
ia, Serdang
,
2008.
[9]
Parilah MS., Aminuddin Y., S
uhana
ML., Nu
rulhafizah M.,
Yurni EAH.,
S
h
ahirah MH., “Comparing read
ing
processing strategies of
second language
r
ead
ers”,
Am
erican Jou
r
nal of Applied
Scien
ces
,
vo
l/iss
u
e: 7(1),
pp. 140
-
144, 2010
.
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.
I
J
ERE
I
S
SN
:
225
2-8
8
2
2
Rea
d
i
n
g
St
rat
e
gi
es A
m
o
n
g
E
S
L Mal
a
ysi
a
n
S
econ
d
a
ry
Sc
ho
ol
St
ude
nt
s (
S
e
m
ry A
n
ak
Semt
i
n
)
61
[10]
Baker
L.
, Brow
n AL.,
“
M
etaco
gnitive
skills
an
d read
ing. In
: P
earson PD (ed.
)
”
,
Handbook of
reading research.
New York: Lon
g
man, 1984.
[11]
Yilmaz K., “Th
e
cognitiv
e pers
pective on
learn
i
ng: Its
theor
e
tical underp
innings
and implication
s
for classroo
m
pract
ices
”
,
C
l
ear
i
ng House,
vol/issue: 84(5), pp
. 2
04-212, 2011
. d
o
i:10.1080
/0009
8655.2011.5689
89.
[12]
Alfassi M., “Reading to learn
:
Effects of combin
ed strateg
y
instructi
on on high school students”,
Journal o
f
Educationa
l Res
e
arch.
Vol/issue: 97(4), pp. 171-
184, 2004
.
[13]
Wilson NS., Smetana L.
, “Questioning as thinking:
A metacognitive fram
e
work”,
Middle School Journal
,
vol/issue: 41(2), pp.
20-28
,
2009
.
[14]
Bautista RG.
,
“
T
he im
pact of
c
ognitive
and m
e
tacogn
itiv
e le
arn
i
ng strateg
i
es in
desktop tea
c
hin
g
”,
Internationa
l
Journal of Liter
a
ture, Lingu
istic
s &
Interdisciplinary
Studies,
v
o
l
/
i
s
s
u
e
:
1
(
2)
,
p
p
.
135
-143,
2012
.
[15]
Sun L., “Investigating Chin
ese
English majors’ use of
reading
strategies: A stud
y
on th
e relationship between
reading
strategies and r
eading
achievements”,
Do
ctoral d
i
ssertation,
Kristi
anstad
Universit
y
,
Sweden, 2011
.
[16]
Creswell JW., “Educational rese
arch: Plann
i
ng,
conducting and
evalu
a
ting qu
antitative and qu
alitativ
e research
”,
4th ed
.
Essex: P
earson Edu
c
atio
n Limited, 2014.
[17]
Oxford RL., “Language Learning St
rategies:
What Ever
y
Teacher
Shoul
d K
now”, New Yor
k
: Newbur
y
Ho
use
Publishers, 1990
.
[18]
Chamot AU., “Languag
e
learning strateg
y
inst
r
u
ction: Curr
ent
issues and research”,
Annual Review of
Applied
Linguistics,
vol.
25, pp
. 112-130
, 2005. http
://dx
.
doi.org/10
.
1017/
S0267190505000061.
[19]
Zhang LJ., “Constructivist p
e
dag
o
g
y
in str
a
tegic r
eading
in
structio
n: Exploring p
a
thway
s
to learn
e
r
development
in
the English as a second la
ngu
age (ESL) class
r
oom”,
Instructional Science
:
An International Journal of the
Learning Sciences,
vol. 36
, pp
. 8
9–116, 2008
.
[20]
Benson P., “Teaching
and r
e
sear
ching
autonom
y
in
language lear
ning”, Oxford: P
e
rgamon Press,
2001.
[21]
Hsieh PH., Dwyer F., “
T
he instruction
a
l effe
ct o
f
online r
ead
ing strateg
i
es and learning
sty
l
es on student academic
achi
e
vem
e
nt
”,
Educational Tech
nology
&
Society
, vo
l/issue: 12(
2), pp
. 36–50
, 2
009.
BIOGRAP
HI
ES OF
AUTH
ORS
S
e
m
r
y
Anak S
e
m
tin is
a teacher
in S
M
K Kapit, S
a
rawak, M
a
la
ys
ia. He is
s
t
ud
y
i
ng in the
Faculty
of Lan
guages and Co
mmunication, S
u
ltan Idris Edu
cation University
, Perak,
Mala
y
s
ia
.
Dr. Mahendran
Maniam is senior lecturer
. He
is
working in F
acul
t
y
of L
a
ngu
ages
and
Com
m
unication,
Sultan
Idris
Edu
cat
ion Universi
t
y
,
Perak
,
M
a
la
ys
ia
Evaluation Warning : The document was created with Spire.PDF for Python.