150

The Reading Matrix 2011

Volume 11, Number 2, April 2011

The Effects of Metacognitive Reading Strategies: Pedagogical Implications
for EFL/ESL Teachers

Yuko Iwai
University of Wisconsin, La Crosse


ABSTRACT

Research regarding the teaching of reading for English as a Foreign Language (EFL) and
English as a Second Language (ESL) is still ongoing. This study focused on metacognitive
reading strategies for these learners, first revisiting the concept of metacognition as proposed by
Flavell, and then going on to explain reading strategies that require metacognitive skills within
three knowledge dimensions: declarative, procedural, and conditional. Existing literature on
metacognitive reading strategies for EFL/ESL learners is discussed, and pedagogical
implications for teachers are offered, which include providing learners with explicit instruction
as well as a variety of metacognitive reading strategies to help students to become independent
learners.


INTRODUCTION

In the process of globalization, English has become a predominate language, and as a
result the population of learners who study English has grown. There are two types of English
learners: EFL and ESL. The former learn English in non-English speaking countries, and are
therefore called English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners (e.g., Japanese people who learn
English in their country are EFL learners). The latter learn English in countries where English is
used as a tool for communication and is formally spoken, and are identified as English as a
Second Language (ESL) learners. People who live in the US and are immersed in English, such
as Hispanic people who are learning English, are ESL learners.
This paper explores reading theories and practices for EFL/ESL learners, and in
particular, reading practices from a theoretical framework of metacognition. Schwartz and
Perfect (2002) note that there are two types of foundations in metacognition research. The first
one is rooted in the study of Hart (1965), who investigated feeling-of-knowing judgments, which
emphasized memory. The second type originated in the study of Flavell (1976), an American
developmental psychologist. Influenced by Piaget, Flavell was interested in how people manage
the interplay of consciousness and the cognitive process. Indeed, the term metacognition was
coined by Flavell (1976).

151
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

What is Metacognition?

Flavell first introduced the term metacognition in his 1976 article, saying that
metacognition is defined as ones knowledge concerning ones own cognitive processes and
outcomes or anything related to them (Flavell, 1976, p. 232). Flavell further explains that
metacognition is the active monitoring and consequent regulation and orchestration of these
processes in relation to the cognitive objects or data on which they bear, usually in the service of
some concrete goal or objective (p. 232). Flavell (1977), and Flavell, Miller, and Miller (2002)
point out that the improvement of metacognitive skills is a key to the success of the formal
operational stage (in children older than eleven years) in Piagets Theory of Cognitive
Development, and that metacognition is generally fundamental in a variety of areas, such as oral
skills, reading, writing, language acquisition, attention, memory, and social interactions.

Flavells Model of Cognitive Monitoring

Flavells (1979) model of metacognition is the foundation for research in the field of
metacognition today. According to his model, there are four categories: (1) metacognitive
knowledge, (2) metacognitive experiences, (3) goals/tasks, and (4) actions/strategies. He reported
that people monitor their cognitive process by using components described in these four
categories. Metacognitive knowledge, the first category in the model of cognitive monitoring, is
a persons knowledge or beliefs about the factors that impact cognitive enterprises. It is acquired
knowledge about ones cognitive process and the diverse cognitive tasks, goals, actions, and
experiences (p. 906), and has three variables: person, task, and strategy. The person variable is
concerned with any knowledge or awareness about how one learns and processes their cognitive
activities. For example, older learners recognize their memory abilities and limitations better
than younger ones (Flavell, Friedrichs, & Hoyt, 1970). The person variable also includes the
ability of a learner to evaluate strengths and weaknesses in reading; in other words, a persons
awareness of their abilities. The task variable, the second variable in metacognitive knowledge,
is knowledge about the nature of the task and the demands of the task. For example, one
understands the level of difficulty of the task and how to successfully meet the goal. Another
example includes how a learner may know that he or she needs more time in understanding an
expository text than others. The strategy task, the third variable, involves the strategies needed
for achieving the goals. A learner might know that taking notes is an effective strategy for the
summarization of a passage. All three variables of person, task, and strategy are interdependent
when learners are engaged in metacognitive activities.
The second category, metacognitive experiences, is internal responses that people have
regarding their metacognitive processing. Flavell defined metacognitive experiences as any
conscious cognitive or affective experiences that accompany and pertain to any intellectual
enterprise (p. 906). For example, when a person is having a conversation with another, he or she
might suddenly feel unsure about what the other person said. An individuals awareness of
failure, success, uncertainty, or satisfaction about things is included in this category.
Goals (or tasks), the third category in Flavells model of cognitive monitoring, are the
objectives of a cognitive enterprise (p. 907). For example, in the case of reading, a goal or task
may represent a comparison between amphibians and reptiles from a passage.
152
In the last category, actions (or strategies) are used by learners to achieve their cognitive
and metacognitive objectives. That is, metacognitive strategies exist in order for them to monitor
cognitive development, to control thinking activities, and to decide whether or not their cognitive
aims are met. It should be noted that all four categories of metacognitive knowledge,
metacognitive experiences, tasks or goals, and actions/strategies of Flavells model of cognitive
monitoring may be integrated during the process of monitoring and regulating.

Knowledge and Regulation in Metacognition

Subsequent research has revealed that there are two dimensions in metacognition (Baker
& Brown, 1984; Brown, 1985; Brown, Bransford, Ferrara, & Campione, 1983; Carrell, Gajdusek,
& Wise, 1998; Flavell, 1976, 1978). The first dimension is knowledge of cognition. Three factors
make up this dimension: declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, and conditional
knowledge (Jacobs & Paris, 1987; Paris, Lipson, & Wixson, 1983; Schraw & Moshman, 1995).
Declarative knowledge refers to knowledge that a person may have about his or her abilities and
about the salient learning characteristics that affect cognitive processing (McCormick, 2003, p.
80). In the example of reading, declarative knowledge indicates a learners understanding about
what reading strategies are; knowing what summarizing, skimming, inferring, and taking notes
are is declarative knowledge. Procedural knowledge is identified as knowledge of how to
execute procedures such as learning strategies (McCormick, 2003, p. 80), or how to use the
particular reading strategies. This knowledge requires learners not only to understand what
reading strategies are, but also to understand how to actually use them. Conditional knowledge
goes further, to include when, where, and why learners use particular strategies and assessments
of their effectiveness. For example, readers know which strategies are most suitable for a variety
of tasks in order to achieve their reading goals, and they are able to reflect on their use of the
strategies.
The second dimension in metacognition is regulation of cognition. In the field of reading,
regulation of cognition includes planning, monitoring, testing, revising, and evaluating strategies
(Baker & Brown, 1984). Hacker (1998) notes that two parts can be recognized in regulation of
cognition: monitoring and regulating. Determining tasks, reflecting on the step of task
accomplishment, and predicting the results comprise monitoring. Regulation consists of selecting
proper approaches and organizing processes of how to effectively conduct these strategies
(McCormick, 2003). Van Kraayenoord and Goos (2003) assert that planning, choosing
appropriate strategies, monitoring progress, evaluating outcomes, and revisiting employed plans
and strategies are involved in the regulatory mechanisms.


METACOGNITIVE READING STRATEGIES

What are Metacognitive Reading Strategies?

Strategies specific to reading can be classified in the following three clusters of
metacognition: planning, monitoring, and evaluating strategies (Israel, 2007; Pressley &
Afflerbach, 1995). Planning strategies are used before reading; activating learners background
knowledge to get prepared for reading is an example of planning strategies (Almasi, 2003; Israel,
2007). Also, previewing a title, picture, illustration, heading, or subheading can help readers
153
grasp the overview of the text. Readers may also preview the general information in the text and
its structure (Almasi, 2003; Paris, Wasik, & Turner, 1991). Learners may check whether their
reading material has a certain text structure, such as cause and effect, question and answer, and
compare and contrast. Further, setting the purpose for reading can also be categorized as a
planning strategy (Paris et al., 1991; Pressley, 2002).
Monitoring strategies occur during reading. Some examples of monitoring strategies are
comprehension of vocabulary, self-questioning (reflecting on whether they understood what they
have read so far), summarizing, and inferring the main idea of each paragraph (Israel, 2007;
Pressley, 2002). Readers may also identify and focus on key information or key words, including
but, however, on the other hand, in addition, also, and in conclusion. Determining which part of
the passage can be emphasized or ignored based on the purpose of the task is another monitoring
strategy (Hudson, 2007).
Evaluating strategies are employed after reading. For example, after reading a text,
learners may think about how to apply what they have read to other situations. They may identify
with the author, a narrative, or main character, and may have a better perspective of the situation
in the book than they did at first.
In summary, metacognitive reading strategies are classified into three groups of planning
(pre-reading), monitoring (during reading), and evaluating (post-reading) strategies, and each
group has a variety of strategies that require readers metacognitive processing.

Research on the Effectiveness of the Metacognitive Reading Strategies

The following studies address the question: Can EFL/ESL learners improve their reading
English comprehension using metacognitive reading strategies?
OMalley, Russo, Chamot, and Stewner-Manzanares (1998) conducted a study in the US
in order to identify different kinds of strategies used in the ESL classrooms, and to examine the
relationship between the task and the proficiency level of the ESL students. The participants of
this study were 70 high-school ESL students at the beginning and intermediate levels (ages 14 to
17). The students were from Vietnam, Puerto Rico, and Central and South America, consisting of
approximately half boys and half girls. They were interviewed regarding their English learning
experiences, particularly in reading. Spanish speaking ESL students were allowed to use their
native language, if necessary. Their teachers were also interviewed regarding their students
learning strategies to gain a better understanding of the students learning experiences. From the
interviews, three categories were recognized: metacognitive, cognitive, and social affective
categories. The metacognition category included planning (e.g., advance organizers), monitoring
(including self-monitoring), and evaluating (including self-evaluation). The results of the
interviews showed that subjects in the beginning stage employed metacognitive strategies 27.4%
of the time, while participants in the intermediate stage used them 34.9% of the time.
Furthermore, the findings indicated that the metacognitive strategy, planning, was most applied
(82.3%) among both groups of ESL students, compared to other metacognitive strategies of
monitoring and evaluating (9.4% and 8.3 %, respectively).
In another study (Upton, 1997), 11 beginning and intermediate Japanese ESL college
students (ages 20 to 36) in the US were chosen based on their academic statuses (i.e., students at
the ESL institute and students enrolled in college classes) and the levels of English proficiency
evidenced by the results of the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL). The ESL
students had lower TOEFL scores than those enrolled in college. The participants were asked to
154
try to think aloud in Japanese when they were processing in Japanese or to think aloud in English
when they were processing in English. After the think-alouds, the subjects were interviewed
regarding the results of their tape-recorded think-aloud tasks, and asked to explain how they
were processing and why they were thinking in either English or Japanese while reading the
passage. These interviews were conducted in Japanese. In this study, Upton looked at the role of
the first and second languages in reading comprehension, and how students with diverse levels of
English proficiency used the languages differently. The analysis of the think-aloud protocols
indicated that there was a difference in using metacognitive strategies between more and less
proficient students: Global strategies (such as prediction, identifying a text structure, integration,
questioning about the text, interpretation, relating, commenting, and monitoring) are used more
often among advanced participants than among less advanced ones. Not only did students in the
more advanced group show more frequency of using these global metacognitive strategies, but
they also depended more often on English (their second language) rather than Japanese (their
first language) while processing these strategies. Learners in the lower level of the group
depended on more local strategies, (such as paraphrasing, questioning of clause, questioning of
word meaning, and word solving) rather than the global strategies. Uptons study suggested that
ESL students with high levels of English proficiency used more metacognitive strategies.
Sheorey and Mokhtari (2001) examined differences in awareness of metacognitive
strategies among ESL and native English speakers (of three hundred subjects, approximately half
were ESL and half were native English-speakers), with average ages of 21.75 and 19.14 years,
respectively, who were studying at a university in the US. They were given a survey asking
questions regarding their awareness of reading strategies. Of the ESL subjects, more than half
were from Asian regions, about 6% from the Middle Eastern areas, about 4% from Latin
America, and the rest from the other places in the world. In their study, metacognitive reading
strategies consisted of the following: (1) setting goals for reading, (2) previewing a book before
reading, (3) monitoring the appropriateness of the textbook for the purpose, (4) identifying text
structure, (5) determining important information in the textbook, (6) utilizing supplemental
features (such as tables), (7) using cue words and typographical support (e.g., italics), (8)
inferring, and (9) confirming predictions. The findings revealed that both ESL and native English
readers in the more advanced groups were applying metacognitive strategies more often than
those who were in the less advanced groups. Moreover, among ESL and native English readers,
ESL learners applied metacognitive strategies more often. Overall, the study supported the
effectiveness of using metacognitive strategies for both types of learners. The study also showed
a correlation between high-proficiency students and the high frequency use of the strategies.
Zhang (2001) looked at awareness of metacognitive strategies for different English-
proficiency levels of Chinese EFL college students who were learning English in their country.
Based on the results of the College English Test Band II, 10 students (five subjects from each
group of high and low English-proficiency levels) were selected from the larger group of 312 in
the study. These 10 participants were asked about their awareness and strategies of reading,
using the interview prompts, which were based on Flavells (1979) model of metacognition and
created by the author. These semi-structured interviews, during which the author occasionally
asked the participants for further clarification, were conducted in Chinese to ensure clear
communication. Zhang reported that after the analysis of the interviews, twelve kinds of
awareness about metacognitive strategies emerged. They included (1) predicting content in the
text, (2) monitoring, (3) acknowledging deficiency of vocabulary knowledge, (4) admitting
inadequate prior knowledge, (5) skimming for key information, (6) translating into the first
155
language, (7) re-reading, (8) using a dictionary, (9) inferring, (10) conducting grammatical
analysis, (11) cooperating with others for better meaning-making, and (12) interacting with the
text and author. There was a significant difference among more advanced and less advanced
participants: the former group was aware of their strengths and weaknesses in reading strategies,
while the latter was not. It was reported that the participants in the high scoring group used
strategies such as monitoring their reading comprehension, skimming for the key ideas, and
guessing meaning, while the subjects in the low-scoring group noted that they depended on a
dictionary for word meaning, and translated passages from English into Chinese. The common
themes found for both groups were that they were struggling with insufficient knowledge of
vocabulary, and that they re-read sentences or paragraphs for clarification of the meaning.
Similar to the finding of Uptons (1997) study, Zhangs study found that more advanced EFL
students tend to use global strategies, while less advanced ones depend on local strategies. Zhang
called for further research on using metacognitive strategies for specific tasks.
Salataci and Akyel (2002) explored the effectiveness of instruction for metacognitive
strategies in both Turkish and English among Turkish learners. They were interested in whether
or not an explicit training for metacognitive strategies would make a difference in reading
comprehension for EFL learners. Twenty EFL learners at a university in Turkey participated in
the study. They took pre- and post-tests both in Turkish (their first language) and English (their
foreign language). Observation and interviews were also included in the study, and eight of the
subjects also employed think-aloud tasks. For four weeks, in a three-hour-per-week class, the
participants were taught how to use metacognitive strategies, especially how to activate
background knowledge and how to monitor their reading process. Differences of reading
strategies before and after the training were found in the study: local strategies (such as using a
dictionary and focusing on grammar or word meaning) for reading in both Turkish and English
were used less often after the training than before, and after instruction, the use of global
strategies (including predicting, skimming for main ideas, and summarizing) increased for
reading in both languages. In other words, the explicit training positively influenced the use of
the global strategies for the EFL students.
Fung, Wilkinson, and Moore (2003) studied whether or not learning metacognitive
strategies in the first and second languages of ESL students would make a difference for their
English reading comprehension. Twelve sixth- or seventh-grade Chinese ESL students in New
Zealand participated in an intervention for metacognitive reading strategies in both Chinese and
English. During this training, instructors explicitly taught how to monitor reading progress,
summarize, question, clarify, and draw inferences. Each session was approximately thirty-five
minutes long and conducted on a daily basis for fifteen to twenty days. Both languages were
used in turns (on the first day, the participants were instructed in Chinese; on the second day,
their instruction was in English; the third day, Chinese instruction was used, and so on). After the
training, student performance in the think-aloud protocols indicated that their use of
metacognitive strategies when reading expository passages in both languages tremendously
increased. Specifically, their abilities to draw inferences from the text in both languages were
developed through reciprocal teaching support. The authors concluded that ESL students
benefited from the treatment of metacognitive reading strategies in their first and second
languages, and developed appropriate usage of these strategies. Their study is distinctive in that
all students showed great improvement, whereas in other studies, only the high-level students
improved the most.
156
As the above studies show, intervention for metacognitive strategies is advantageous for
EFL/ESL learners. However, this was not the case for Janzens (2003) study of strategic training
for third-grade Navajo students. Twenty-one students in an intervention group and 18 students in
a control group participated in the study. The former group received a thirty-minute intervention
(on average) per week. They learned strategies such as guessing, previewing, questioning,
determining goals for reading, and activating background knowledge through whole class
discussion and group work. Students in the control group received more traditional instruction
and while the students still worked in groups and received the teachers instruction focusing on
decoding and word meanings, there was no discussion about specific reading strategies. Research
shows that the style of instruction employed in the control group was typical for Navajo learners
(Hartle-Schutte, 1992). Data was collected from standardized reading tests, questionnaires about
reading behaviors (prior to and following the intervention), and think-aloud protocols (after the
intervention). After one year, the post-reading test indicated that there was no significant
difference between the subjects in the training and control classes. However, from an analysis of
the questionnaires, it was discovered that consciousness of reading strategies in the intervention
group did increase, and that more metacognitive strategies were performed during the think-
aloud task among these subjects than among those in the traditional group.
In summary, although Janzens study did not directly support the effectiveness of
teaching metacognitive reading strategies, the other previously discussed studies illustrate its
positive influence for EFL/ESL learners. Learning what strategies are, how to use them, when
and where to use particular strategies, and the importance of evaluating their use is, therefore,
key to the development of reading comprehension for students whose first language is not
English.


PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHERS AND CONCLUSION

How can teachers support learners whose first language is not English? Teachers
regularly use metacognitive reading strategies with their students, expecting students to also use
them independently, which may or may not be the case. Three suggestions may be offered for
teachers: First, teaching metacognitive strategies explicitly is a key for success. As studies
demonstrate, students benefit from receiving a direct explanation of strategies that facilitate their
reading outcome (Anderson & Roit, 1993; Baker, 1996; Dole, Duffy, Roehler, & Pearson, 1991);
that is, teaching strategies step by step is important. Moreover, clarifying why it is important for
the students to learn a variety of strategies helps them understandand want to learn.
Second, it is recommended that EFL/ESL teachers use diverse metacognitive reading
techniques during classroom instruction. A picture walk for previewing texts is one example; it
consists of looking at pictures to gain an understanding of what a story is about before it is read.
Teachers and students may look through the text together and discuss any ideas students come up
with from the pictures. Teachers may expand the ideas by adding further prompt questions for
preparation of the actual reading, activating their background knowledge. Using semantic
mapping to organize ideas may be applied before, during, and after reading. Semantic mapping is
defined as a graphic display of a cluster of words that are meaningfully related (Harris &
Hodge, 1995, p. 230). Students first draw a map to describe what they already know about a
topic they are about to explore, then during reading, they may add information obtained from a
passage, modifying their map as they read. After reading, they may reflect on whether activating
157
their prior knowledge about the topic was useful or not. This strategy helps students not only
reflect on their learning process, but also confirm their understanding of the text.
Another metacognitive teaching technique is utilizing graphic organizers, which are
visual representations or illustrations that organize the information of a text. For example, they
can be used for teaching expository text structures, including cause and effect, question and
answer, simple listing, chronological order, compare and contrast, and description. Students who
understand how a text is structured have better ideas about what information comes next, or what
information they are expected to look for. It is important that teachers employ a variety of
methods, appropriately selecting strategies in order to achieve specific goals.
Equally important, teachers are encouraged to model metacognitive strategies, supporting
students as they learn how to use them, then reducing that support as students learn how to use
them independently. Revisiting the model of Vygotskys zone of proximal development, Pearson
and Gallagher (1983) introduce gradual release of responsibility: teachers first teach what a
strategy is and model how to use it before students actually try. At first, teachers may elicit input
while they model strategy use. As students become familiar with the strategies, they continue to
work with teacher assistance and, lastly, students will independently employ strategies without
any support from their teachers. In this process, teachers involvement is gradually reduced,
while students engagement in the strategy increases.
Finally, metacognitionthinking about thinkingis key to reading comprehension.
Based on Flavells (1979) model, this paper has explored the role of metacognitive reading
strategies for EFL/ESL learners. Students would do well to acquire not only declarative
knowledge (knowing what strategies are) but also procedural knowledge (knowing how to use
the strategies) and conditional knowledge (knowing when, where, and why to use the strategies
and evaluating their use). For EFL/ESL teachers, it is essential to teach metacognitive strategies
explicitly, provide diverse methods, and facilitate students learning to help them become
independent practitioners. Exploring the role that both first and second languages play in
developing students metacognitive strategies remains a fertile ground for further research.



Yuko Iwai, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Studies at the
University of Wisconsin, La Crosse. Her research interests include reading, English language
learners, and teacher education. She has published articles on varied topics, including ESL
students perceptions of reading and effective literacy strategies for struggling readers.

Email: iwai.yuko@uwlax.edu



REFERENCES

Almasi, J. F. (2003). Teaching strategic process in reading. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Anderson, V., & Roit, M. (1993). Planning and implementing collaborative strategy instruction
for delayed readers in grades 6-10. The Elementary School Journal, 94(2), 121-137.
Baker, L. (1996). Social influences on metacognitive development in reading. In C. Cornoldi & J.
Oakhill (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and intervention (pp. 331-
352). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
158
Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson, M. Kamil,
R. Barr, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 1, pp. 353-394).
New York, NY: Longman.
Brown, A. L. (1985). Metacognition: The development of selective attention strategies for
learning from texts. In H. Singer & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and
processes of reading (3
rd
ed., pp. 501-526). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Brown, A., Bransford, J., Ferrara, R., & Campione, J. (1983). Learning, remembering, and
understanding. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 3, 4
th
ed., pp.
77-166). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Carrell, P. L., Gajdusek, L., & Wise, T. (1998). Metacognition and EFL/ESL reading.
Instructional Science, 26(1 & 2), 97-112.
Dole, J. A., Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., & Pearson, P. D. (1991). Moving from the old to the
new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research,
61(2), 239-264.
Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The
nature of intelligence (pp. 231-235). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Flavell, J. H. (1977). Cognitive development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Publishing.
Flavell, J. H. (1978). Metacognitive development. In J. M. Scandura & C. J. Brainerd (Eds.),
Structural/process theories of complex human behavior (pp. 213-245). Alphen aan den
Rijn, the Netherlands: Sijthoff and Noordhoff.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-
developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911.
Flavell, J. H., Friedrichs, A. G., & Hoyt, J. D. (1970). Developmental changes in memorization
processes. Cognitive Psychology, 1(4), 324-340.
Flavell, J. H., Miller, P. H., & Miller, S. A. (2002). Cognitive development (4
th
ed.). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Publishing.
Fung, I. Y. Y., Wilkinson, I. A. G., & Moore, D. W. (2003). L1-assisted reciprocal teaching to
improve ESL students comprehension of English expository text. Learning and
Instruction, 13, 1-31.
Hacker, D. J. (1998). Definition and empirical foundations. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C.
Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 1-23). Mahwah,
NJ: The Erlbaum Group.
Harris, T. L., & Hodge, R. E. (Eds.). (1995). The literacy dictionary: The vocabulary of reading
and writing. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Hart, J. T. (1965). Memory and the feeling-of-knowing experiences. Journal of Educational
Psychology 56, 208-216.
Hartle-Schutte, D. (1992). Literacy development in Navajoland: Multiple paths to success.
Journal of Navajo Education, 9(3), 36-47.
Hudson, T. (2007). Teaching second language reading. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Israel, S. E. (2007). Using metacognitive assessments to create individualized reading
instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Jacobs, J. E., & Paris, S. G. (1987). Childrens metacognition about reading: Issues in definition,
measurement, and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22(3 & 4), 255-278.
Janzen, J. (2003). Developing strategic readers in elementary school. Reading Psychology, 24,
25-55.
159
McCormick, C. B. (2003). Metacognition and learning. In I. B. Weiner (Series Ed.), W. M.
Reynolds & G. E. Miller (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Educational psychology
(Vol. 7, pp. 79-102). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
OMalley, J. M., Russo, R. P., Chamot, A. U., & Stewner-Manzanares, G. (1998). Applications
of learning strategies by students learning English as a second language. In C. E.
Weinstein, E. T. Goetz, & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Learning and study strategies: Issues
in assessment instruction and evaluation (pp. 215-231). San Diego: Academic Press.
Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 8(3), 293-316.
Paris, S. G., Wasik, B. A., & Turner, J. C. (1991). The development of strategies readers. In R.
Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research
(Vol. 2, pp. 609-640). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 317-344.
Pressley, M. (2002). Metacognition and self-regulated comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J.
Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 291-309).
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively
responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: The Erlbaum Group.
Salataci, R., & Akyel, A. (2002). Possible effects of strategy instruction on L1 and L2 reading.
Reading in a Foreign Language 14(1), 1-17.
Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review
7(4), 351-373.
Schwartz, B. L., & Perfect, T. J. (2002). Introduction: Toward an applied metacognition. In T. J.
Perfect & B. L. Schwartz (Eds.), Applied metacognition (pp.1-11). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading
strategies among native and non-native readers. System, 29, 431-449.
Upton, T. A. (1997). First and second language use in reading comprehension strategies of
Japanese ESL students. Teaching English as a Second Language Electronic Journal, 3(1).
Retrieved October 15, 2009 from http://tesl-ej.org/ej09/a3.html
Van Kraayenoord, C. E., & Goos, M. (2003). Metacognition. In J. P. Keeves & R. Watanabe
(Eds.), International handbook of educational research in the Asian-Pacific region (pp.
477-494). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Zhang, L. J. (2001). Awareness in reading: EFL students metacognitive knowledge of reading
strategies in an acquisition-poor environment. Language Awareness, 10(4), 268-288.