Metacognitive reading strategies of Filipino college learners Marianne Jennifer M. Gaerlan De La Salle University
Introduction The development of reading skills is basic for the success of any college student because reading tasks are inevitable in a college student’s life. Ideally, students at university would be aware of and adept at using effective reading strategies. Unfortunately, that is usually not the case. Nowadays, many students do not read analytically, cannot distinguish between important and unimportant ideas, cannot adjust their reading to the different materials they encounter, and do not seem to enjoy reading hence approaching texts unenthusiastically. A distressing observation is that the ability to read well appears to be something which college instructors assume their students possess. However, the fact remains that students seem to have more and more trouble reading (Huang, 2006; Jackson, 2005; McDaniel, Hines & Guynn, 2002), and since reading is comprehension, students who cannot acceptably reconstruct the author's main idea, supporting ideas and supporting facts as well as some critical evaluation of those things, cannot read for the purposes of their course, regardless of what types of material they read outside of class (Botsas & Padeliadu, 2003, Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001). Most studies on reading comprehension have involved younger learners (i.e. children). It is typically assumed that university students come to campus already equipped with the necessary reading skills. However, though they are technically more “experienced” or mature readers as compared to children, this group of learners obviously still need some assistance in strategy awareness and selection in order for them to maximize their potentials. In fact, Baker
and Brown (1984) argue that perhaps there is room for improvement in reading among college readers given that students tend not to receive formal instruction in evaluating and regulating their understanding. Among all the reading theories, the metacognitive theory (Flavell, 1979) seems to be highly applicable to college students since it presents reading as a task that one approaches with personal awareness and regulation of cognitive behavior. The literature on metacognitive reading theory suggests that proficient readers are purposeful and strategic: they appropriately use metacognitive skills and seek to make meaningful connections in their reading. Thus, they engage in deliberate comprehension monitoring during the reading task. This exploratory study looked into the metacognitive strategies that skilled and less skilled readers use when reading a narrative text and an expository text and how the factors of reading ability, prior knowledge, and interest affect strategy choice and use as reported by the participants? Methodology Purposive sampling was used to select 10 participants from among 40 college freshmen enrolled in an English One class during the first trimester of school year 2005-2006 at the College of Engineering of De La Salle University-Manila (DLSU-M). Five students were classified as skilled readers and five students as less skilled. The instruments for this study consisted of a narrative and an expository text in English that were used both for the written recall task to ascertain reading level, and during the think aloud procedure to elicit actual strategy use. The participants were allowed to use English, Filipino, or both as they wrote their recalls. In each text used in the think aloud procedure, there
were red dots and substantial space after each sentence to prompt the participant to think aloud. For the modeling and training part of the think aloud procedure, two texts comparable to the ones that were used during the actual recorded think aloud were used. A modified version of the Barnett questionnaire (1988) was used to elicit self-reported strategy use. As was done in the study of Sadorra (2000), only 15 out of the 17 original questions were retained due to the fact that the third question is irrelevant to the reading task, and the ninth question is inapplicable to the reading passages used in the present study. Interviews were conducted to elicit information as to how reader factors such as prior knowledge and interest affect metacognitive strategy choice and use. Likewise, questions meant to elicit information as to how the type of text affects metacognitive strategy choice and use were included. The written recall protocols were scored following a scoring system adapted from the one devised and employed by Sadorra in her 2000 study. The researcher enlisted the help of two other teachers of English One in scoring the written recall protocols. Following a scoring template adapted from Sadorra (2000), the researcher explained to the two raters how the scoring system works. A sample protocol written by a student was used in order for the researcher and the two raters to deliberate and reach agreements as to how the protocols will be scored.
Responses to the think aloud procedure were transcribed verbatim. The researcher, along with the two raters, sampled four transcripts (one type of text each for a skilled and less skilled reader) and (a) read and reread each transcript done on the texts, (b) individually described each strategy found in the transcripts, and (c) compared descriptions and agreed to consult each other for and deliberate on unclear reader moves in the rest of the transcripts. They then together described all the strategies employed by each individual reader. Agreement between any two
raters settled any differences or discrepancies. After all the transcripts had been analyzed by each rater, a list of all the strategies was drawn and individual strategies described and identified. To facilitate description and identification, pre-existing taxonomies of strategies (Block, 1986; Barnett, 1988; Phakiti, 2003) were first examined. The individual strategies and categories found in the sample transcripts in the present study were then compared and contrasted with the taxonomies the strategies of which most resemble those of the present data. Subsequently, it was found that Phakiti’s and Sarig’s taxonomies provided the best fit for the present data. This yielded a tentative taxonomy that was used in the present study. The tentative taxonomy was then assessed in terms of: (a) how well the categorization reflects the concept of strategies for reading, (b) whether the strategies will theoretically be subsumed by categories to which they will be assigned, (c) whether functional distinctions are clearly presented which will subsequently avoid or resolve ambiguities and overlaps, and (d) whether the categories will comprehensively cover the various strategies found in the data. Modifications were then made accordingly and strategies generated from the think aloud protocols were again analyzed using the final categories. Number of strategies and frequency of strategy use among skilled and less skilled readers for the two types of texts were compared and analyzed. Results and discussion Skilled readers. With the narrative text, dominant strategies employed were: performance evaluation, comprehension monitoring, word monitoring, and self-correction. On the other hand, the skilled readers more frequently used self-correction, anticipation, performance evaluation,
word monitoring, conscious organizing of task performance, double-checking, and comprehension monitoring to make sense of the expository text. It is possible that these readers used different strategies to comprehend the two texts because they were aware that the texts were structured differently, and thus required unique strategies. It can be seen that frequently used strategies varied from one reader to another, with the exception of word monitoring which was dominant among all the strategies used with the narrative text because it was frequently used by two out of five readers. Since word monitoring involves the reader’s monitoring of his own understanding, pacing, or pronunciation of words (e.g. “I’m not really sure what whimper means…silent…whispering silently to himself?”), it is possible that skilled readers are more concerned about understanding specific words more than general ideas. During the interview, three skilled readers verbalized that they try to understand the meaning of each and every word in a narrative because it might be vital to understanding the whole story. In comparison, no strategy surfaced as being used predominantly with the expository text. As regards number of strategies used and frequency of use, all but one of the five skilled readers used more strategies with the narrative than with the expository text. As Alvermann and Boothby (1982, in Kent, 1984) observed, readers are more familiar with the narrative type of text because this is usually the type of structure that they are first exposed to. In fact, “children usually acquire reading through the use of narrative material in the early grades and encounter expository material for the first time at about third or fourth grade” (p.233). Hence, if the narrative text is more familiar to readers, then it should be easier to comprehend and should require less strategy use. Weaver and Kintsch (1996) posited that the main thrust of expository texts is to communicate information so that the reader might learn something, whereas the main
focus of narrative texts is to tell a story to entertain the reader. Thus, a reader might be expected to use fewer strategies with a narrative text. However, it appears that the skilled readers in the present study found the narrative text more difficult to comprehend than the expository text as evidenced by the use of more strategies with the narrative text. This might be because the subject of the narrative text was outside the realm of experience of college freshmen. The topic of a family experiencing a crisis during the Japanese occupation was probably not something they could relate to. The expository text, on the other hand, talked about weight gain, which is a topic that the respondents were probably more familiar with.
Less skilled readers. With the narrative text, dominant strategies employed by the less skilled readers were: comprehension monitoring, conscious organizing of task performance, word recognition, and word monitoring. On the other hand, they more frequently used comprehension monitoring, desertion of a “hopeless” segment of text, word monitoring and performance evaluation to make sense of the expository text. This finding supports the contention of Janzen and Stoller (1998) that text type can play a role in strategy selection. However, it seems that this finding opposes the observation of Brown et al. (1986) and Horowitz and Rogers (1984, in Horowitz, 1985) that only mature readers are sensitive to text structure and therefore use unique strategies for different types of texts. It now appears that even less skilled readers are able to tell which strategy or strategies will work best with certain types of texts. An implication of this finding is that less skilled readers might be just as sensitive to text structure as skilled readers, except that the skilled readers probably have knowledge of more strategies. In addition, among the strategies employed by the less skilled readers, there are those that were utilized more than the others with either type of text. Comprehension monitoring is the
dominant strategy since it was frequently used by three out of five readers with both types of texts. Since comprehension monitoring requires the reader to check or verify information, or correct understanding of mistakes in comprehending the text (e.g. “Okay, okay, I was wrong. Metabolism is the rate or speed”), it appears that less skilled readers are more concerned with their understanding of the text rather than other aspects of reading such as individual word meaning or task performance. This opposes the findings of Garner and Kraus (1982) which reported that less skilled readers tend to focus more on individual word meaning than on integration of information. It is thus possible that the less skilled readers in the present study might have been classified as such due to slow rather than unskilled reading. This implies that less skilled readers are also aware of the need to use appropriate strategies. However, as Block (1992) also reported, less skilled readers might lack the ability or inclination to take action when they are aware of a problem. This might be the reason why the less skilled readers in the present study did not pay attention to individual word meaning. They were probably not aware of the possible effects of unfamiliarity with vocabulary on the comprehension of a text. As for the number of strategies used and frequency of use, two less skilled readers used an equal number of strategies with both types of texts, two others used more strategies with the expository than with the narrative text, and only one used more strategies with the narrative text than with the expository text. As earlier mentioned, the skilled readers used more strategies with the narrative text possibly due to the lack of topic familiarity. Since the topic of the narrative text was something they were not familiar with, they had more difficulty comprehending it, and hence used more strategies. On the other hand, the less skilled readers appeared to be unaware of the problem, and probably did not have, as Block (1992) pointed out, the ability or inclination to
take action even when they were aware that there was a problem. This perhaps explains why they did not use more strategies with the narrative text despite its difficulty.
Effect of reading ability, prior knowledge, and interest on strategy choice and use. It can be observed that both skilled and less skilled readers use more strategies in comprehending the narrative text. Further, it is interesting to note that there were two skilled and two less skilled readers who did not use any metacognitive strategy to comprehend the expository text. It is also apparent that the skilled readers generally used more strategies than the less skilled readers as August et al. (1984) also found. This is probably due to the fact that skilled readers are either more aware of the need to use strategies, or the simple fact that they have more knowledge of strategies and when to use them. However, these findings of the present study are different from those of Zhang (1999) which revealed that proficient readers use strategies more effectively and thus their use of strategies is less frequent, which is in contrast with the less proficient readers whose use of these strategies is more frequent, especially with regard to strategies that are cognitively less demanding. The less skilled readers in this study probably do not have enough knowledge of strategies, which is why they used less compared to the skilled readers. Another possibility is that both skilled and less skilled readers have the metacognitive knowledge, which is “knowledge about the interplay among person characteristics, task characteristics, and available strategies in a learning situation” (Flavell, 1979 in Veenman & Verheij, 2003, p. 260), but it is the skilled readers who have metacognitive skillfulness. Metacognitive skills concern “procedural knowledge that is required for the actual regulation of and control over one’s learning activities” (Brown, 1978; Veenman & Elshout, 1999; Wang et al., 1990 in Veenman &
Verheij, 2003, p. 261). Similarly, as Zhang (1999) observed, having metacognitive knowledge does not always mean the deployment of this knowledge. As regards strategy type, there is a difference between those used by the skilled readers with the narrative text as compared with those used by the less skilled readers for the same text. Two strategies are found to be typical of skilled readers, that of word monitoring (“I was actually wondering what a shawl was. I thought it was for the formal thing”) and self-questioning (“I kept asking myself why there was a date, 1944”), while only one strategy is found to be typical of less skilled readers, that of word monitoring (“At first, at first reading, what was this? Cut, cot…”). This is still consistent with earlier statements that skilled readers tend to use more strategies and at times different types of strategies as compared to those used by the less skilled readers. As Strang and Rogers (1965, in Baker & Brown, 1984) observed, although strategy differences between skilled and less skilled readers are minimal, there are interesting differences due to reading ability. Skilled readers often try to describe their process or method of reading a short story, while less skilled readers seemed almost completely unaware of the processed of reading. In addition, less skilled readers were less likely to take remedial measures when they encountered ideas and words they did not understand. It appears, however, that aside from differences in strategy use, there are also commonalities between the two groups of readers since both used the strategy word monitoring. This implies that, at least for the narrative text, word meaning is something that both groups of readers find necessary to focus on. With regard to the expository text, there does not seem to be a pattern of strategy use that distinguishes the skilled from the less skilled readers in this study. There is no strategy found to be typical of the skilled readers; each one used a different type of strategy to comprehend the expository text. On the other hand, the strategy word monitoring was the only
strategy choice used by the less skilled readers with both types of texts. This suggests that even though less skilled readers appear to be more concerned with their understanding of the text (as evidenced by dominant use of comprehension monitoring), they also consider word meaning important whether they are comprehending a narrative or expository type of text. It is interesting to note, however, that in both groups, there are readers who did not use any strategy at all in comprehending the expository text: two out of the five skilled readers, and two out of the five less skilled readers. It is possible that they did not feel the need to use any metacognitive reading strategy with the expository text because they found it easier to comprehend compared to the narrative text. Among the skilled readers, three reported having prior knowledge of the narrative text and used more types of strategies than two who reported having no prior knowledge. This suggests that having prior knowledge in this case allowed the readers to “experiment” with strategies because they were more “equipped” with necessary information to be able to comprehend the text. Nist and Simpson (2000) suggested that some knowledge that college students bring to learning situations is highly resistant to change even when they have read information to the contrary. In such cases, the presence of prior knowledge can inhibit comprehension. In the present study, therefore, prior knowledge of the skilled readers might have also inhibited comprehension and thus led to the use of more strategies. However, this appears to be unusual in the sense that previous studies such as that of Freebody and Anderson (1983) and Yu (2001) reported that the presence of prior knowledge leads to easier reading and better understanding of material. It can thus be inferred from these studies’ observations that if a text were easy to read and understand, then there would be minimal use of strategies
On the other hand, three skilled readers who also reported having prior knowledge of the expository text did not make use of some strategies and one who reported having prior knowledge of the expository text but none with the narrative used the same strategy, which is word monitoring with both texts. It is thus possible that the presence or absence of prior knowledge affects different readers in different ways. It either leads to the use of more strategies, or less. Freebody and Anderson (1983) pointed out that when the topic of the reading material is familiar, the reader has available schema that serves as the basis for appropriate estimates of meaning when difficult or unknown words are encountered. When the hypotheses generated from the schema are unavailable, that is, when the topic is unfamiliar, unknown words are expected to lead to inaccuracies and uncertainties in reading. Therefore, it can be surmised that lack of prior knowledge could lead to problems in comprehension, but the deployment of a strategy to deal with those problems probably also depend on a reader’s metacognitive skillfulness. As regards types of strategies used, three skilled readers who had prior knowledge used strategies that were different from those used by two who had no prior knowledge. In addition, all skilled readers either used a different strategy or an additional type of strategy with the expository text of which they all had prior knowledge. This implies that among skilled readers, prior knowledge does affect strategy choice in the sense that they use different strategies with texts of which they have prior knowledge and with texts of which they have none. However, it can also be observed that there is no definite pattern with regard to types of strategies used. It might also be concluded that the presence or absence of prior knowledge does not necessarily affect types of strategies used.
With regard to the less skilled readers, none of them reported having prior knowledge of the narrative text, and it is apparent that all of them used a strategy in comprehending the said text. This is consistent with the earlier observation that lack of prior knowledge tends to lead to difficulty in reading comprehension and thus entails the need to use strategies. With the expository text however, all the less skilled readers had prior knowledge yet only two did not make use of any strategy. Three readers all used a strategy to comprehend said text. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that the presence of prior knowledge makes reading comprehension easier and leads to strategy use. Two readers who had prior knowledge of the expository text but none of the narrative used the same strategy, word monitoring, with both texts. Only one reader used different strategies for the expository text of which he had prior knowledge, and for the narrative text of which he had none. Again, there does not seem to be a pattern of strategy use among the less skilled readers when it comes to presence or absence of prior knowledge. This finding seems to agree with that of Bransford, Stein, Arbitman-Smith, and Vye (1985, in Brown et al., 1986) that academically less successful students, though equipped with background knowledge necessary to learn new information, consistently fail to use this knowledge. Although the less skilled readers in the present study may not necessarily be academically less successful, they may also lack the skill to put their background knowledge to proper use when dealing with reading tasks. As Carrell (1988, in Grabe, 1991) pointed out, lack of schema activation is one major source of processing difficulty with second language readers. In the present study, this lack of schema activation and not the presence or absence of schema, was probably the factor that affected strategy choice and use. With regard to the effect of interest, three out of five skilled readers reported being interested in the narrative text, and two signified that they were not. Two readers who both
expressed interest in the text used a common strategy which is word monitoring. This implies that interest in a text compels a reader to pay attention to individual words. Similarly, McLoyd (1979, in Guthrie & Alao, 1997) found that students who read books that interested them spent more time reading and read a larger number of words in the books than did students who read books that were not interesting to them. However, one skilled reader also used two other types of strategies so there does not seem to be a pattern in strategy use. Two who reported that they were not interested in the text had a common strategy, which is desertion of a “hopeless” segment of text (“I just skipped…no, not really skipped, but ignored some stuff”). This outcome is not surprising because the tendency to “desert” probably came from the lack of interest in the text. As regards the expository text, all the skilled readers reported being interested in it, however, only three readers used strategies and there was no pattern found in the ones that they used. Each of them used unique strategies in comprehending the text. Two readers did not use any strategies though they reported being interested in the text. This finding seems to be different from what Brozo and Simpson (1995) found. They observed that students exert more effort and expend more energy to learn if they are interested in the material. Similarly, Alexander and Jetton (2000) suggested that interest can be a powerful catalyst for students to persist in their pursuit of understanding reading material. On the other hand, Anderson et al. (1985) and Mork (1973, in Guthrie & Greaney, 1996) stressed that interest alone is not sufficient to persuade poor readers to complete a book. In the case of the present study, interest in a text did not seem to be sufficient reason for the respondents to make use of metacognitive strategies. In the light of the findings, the use of metacognitive strategies in reading does not seem to be dependent on reading ability as evidenced by the fact that both skilled and less skilled readers use a variety of said strategies. Interestingly, contrary to what previous studies have
revealed, less skilled readers might be just as sensitive to text structure as skilled readers, except that the skilled readers probably have knowledge of more strategies. Nevertheless, although the use of strategies does not seem to be dependent on reading ability, types of strategies used appear to be affected by reading ability as shown by differences between types of strategies used by the two groups. Text type, on the other hand, seems to affect both strategy choice and use as both skilled and less skilled readers opted to use unique strategies with narrative and expository texts. Moreover, some readers also appear to have been affected by text type with the regard to the utilization of strategies as evidenced by the fact that some of them used strategies with one type of text and none with the other. Note however that difficulty of the text athat affects strategy choice and use. Readers appear to use more strategies with texts that are more difficult in an attempt to comprehend it. Similarly, prior knowledge and interest tend to affect both strategy choice and use. Both skilled and less skilled readers use unique strategies with texts of which they have prior knowledge and with texts of which they had none. In addition, some readers used no strategies with texts of which they have prior knowledge and others used strategies with texts of which they have none, and vice versa. This same observation can be seen with regard to the effect of interest. On the whole, the use of metacognitive strategies in reading appears to be highly individualized. No two readers, skilled or less skilled, use the same types of strategies or the same number of strategies with different types of texts. Future researchers would do well to explore metacognitive reading strategies with more participants and with alternative methodology. Metacognitive reading strategies should
be explicitly taught to both skilled and less skilled college level readers as they might not have received instruction and training on this in their earlier years in school. Readers should also be made to realize that different criteria are necessary for different kinds of texts, and that they should adjust reading behavior accordingly. Teachers on the other hand would do well to explicitly teach text structure to better facilitate reading. They should also give explicit instruction as to how prior knowledge can be activated and the advantages of maximizing existing prior knowledge for easier comprehension. This instruction would be even more useful if explained in relation to metacognition.
References
August, D.L., Flavell, J.H. & Clifft, R. (1984). Comparison of comprehension monitoring of skilled and less skilled readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 39-48. Baker, L. & Brown, A. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. David Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.). Handbook of Reading Research, Vol.2 (pp.353-393). New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum. Barnett, M.A. (1988). Reading through context: How real and perceived strategy use affects L2 comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 72, 150-162. Block, E. (1986). The comprehension strategies of second language readers. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 463-494. Block, E. (1992). See how they read: Comprehension monitoring of L1 and L2 readers. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 319-343. Botsos, G. & Padeliadu, S. (2003). Goal orientation and reading comprehension strategy among students with and without reading difficulties. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(4-5), 477-495. Brozo, W.G. & Simpson, M.L. (1995). Readers, teachers, learners: Expanding literacy across the content areas. NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Brown, A.L., Arbruster, B. & Baker, L. (1986). The role of metacognition in reading and studying. In Orasanu, J. (Ed.) Reading comprehension: From research to practice. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Earlbaum.
Flavell, J.H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitivedevelopmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-910. Freebody, P. & Anderson, R.C (1983). Effects of vocabulary difficulty, text cohesion, and schema availability on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 277-293. Garner, R. & Kraus, C. (1982). Good and poor comprehender differences in knowing and regulating reading behaviors. Educational Research Quarterly, 6, 5-12. Grabe, W. (1991). Current developments in second language reading research. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 375-406. Guthrie, J.T. & Greaney, V. (1996). Literary acts. In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. David Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.). Handbook of Reading Research, Vol.2 (pp.88). New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum. Guthrie, J.T. & Alao, S. (1997). Designing contexts to increase motivations for reading. Educational Psychologist, 32, 95-105. Huang, S. (2006). Reading English for academic purposes – What situational factors may motivate learners to read? System,34(3), 371-383. Jackson, N. E. (2005). Are university students’ component reading skills related to their text comprehension and academic achievement? Learning and Individual Differences(15)2, 113139. Janzen, J. & Stoller, F.L. (1998). Integrating strategic reading in L2 instruction. Reading in a Foreign Language, 12, 251-265. Kent, C. (1984). A linguist compares narrative and expository prose. Journal of Reading, 28, 232-236. McDaniel, M., Hines, R. & Guynn, M. (2002). When text difficulty benefits less-skilled readers. Journal of Memory and Language(46)3, 544-561. Nist, S.L. & Simpson, M.L. (2000). In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. David Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.). Handbook of Reading Research, Vol.2 (pp.645-661). New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum. Phakiti, A. (2003). A closer look at gender and strategy use in L2 reading. Language Learning, 53, 649-702.
Sadorra, M.L. (2000). “Reading in English and Filipino: A study of self-reported strategy use and reading performance.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, De La Salle UniversityManila. Sheorey, R. & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among native and non-native readers. System, 29(4), 341-449.
