3m rm...

 

.9,

.2 x. z :3
lat . 51....
.9. A.

is.“
.fl

.
. ‘ , . . El! ..
I. rmflfin x .rkh.‘ JV.“
A 3 I. . .

:.IZRA

. . h.
73:30... 1|. .4!
. .IR . »
.fl!¥..‘¢~...i(hw.x

fix) .

a no...“

. .

i.uwm.i.na...r . is, ..
.3553

 

 

,n .;ul...7.

. .n. 9.2;?

-i . . : A
Animatfi 1,. 1....-. 3.1%! .. ‘ V . . A ,4 ., . .
II!

 

meme

IIIIIIIIIIII‘I'I‘III'IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

3 1293 01770 4358

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

ANALYSIS OF SAUDI COLLEGE STUDENTS'
REPORTED AND ACTUAL READING STRATEGIES ALONG WITH THEIR
METACOGNITIVE AWARENESS AS THEY READ IN ENGLISH AS A
FOREIGN LANGUAGE

presented by

Abdul lah M . Al-Melhi

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

 

 

Ph . D . degree in Engl 1811

\7/2LLLLL; wt/ {Ll/my

Ma 1y professor

Date May 14, 1999

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

 

PLACE IN REFURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINE return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11” mm"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ANALYSIS OF SAUDI COLLEGE STUDENTS’ REPORTED AND ACTUAL
READING STRATEGIES ALONG WITH THEIR METACOGNITIVE AWARENESS
AS THEY READ IN ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE

By

Abdullah M. Al-Melhi

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of English

1 999

ABSTRACT

ANALYSIS OF SAUDI COLLEGE STUDENTS’ REPORTED AND ACTUAL
READING STRATEGIES ALONG WITH THEIR METACOGNITIVE AWARENESS
AS THEY READ IN ENGLISH AS A FOREING LANGUAGE

By

Abdullah M. Al-Melhi

This study examined the reported and actual reading strategies and the
metacognitive awareness of a random sample of fourth-year Saudi college students as
they read in English as a foreign language. It consisted of two parts: part one surveyed
students’ metacognitive awareness using Carrell’s (1989) metacognitive awareness
questionnaire. Students were given a thirty -six-item questionnaire to answer along with a
reading proficiency test. Out of 90 participants, twenty students were chosen for the
second part of the study; based on the results of the reading proficiency test, ten students
who have achieved the highest scores and ten of those who have achieved the lowest
scores were met individually for the think-aloud protocol session. In this part, participants
were asked to read a selected passage and reflect on their reading/thinking process using
the think-aloud protocol.

Analyses of the subjects’ actual readings suggest that they interacted with text as
they applied mixture of global and local strategies in their reading. Their interactions
seem to support Stanovich’s (1980) assumption of an integrative compensatory model of
reading as they appeared to rely on either their higher/lower information in their reading

processes to compensate for possible weaknesses.

Furthermore, results of the study show, among other things, that some differences
did exist between skilled and less-skilled readers in terms of their actual and reported
reading strategies, their use of global and local strategies, their metacognitive awareness,

their perception of a good reader, and their self-confidence as readers.

To my parents for their endless love, prayers and scarifies.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

All praise is due to Allah the almighty. I praise Him and thank Him for the
opportunity and ability that He bestowed on me to complete this work.

There are almost an uncountable number of people without whose time and effort
in both large and small ways this work would have been impossible or at least much more
difficult and less educational than it was.

First, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my doctoral committee
whose support and guidance have made it possible to complete this work. In particular, I
am most grateful to my major advisor, Professor Marilyn Wilson, for her enthusiasm,
advice, and faith in me to conduct this study. Dr. Wilson served not only as my academic
advisor, but as a friend who shared her time and expertise and was instrumental in seeing
this research to fruition. I have been a fortunate recipient of Dr. Wilson’s continuous
support and inestimable kindness. Being aware of my family situation, she combined
scholarly insight and the gentlest of tactful pressure in such a balance that I can only hope
that our relationship does not end here. Special thanks must go to Professor James Stalker
for his support and insightful feedback throughout the stages of this work. Dr. Stalker
welcomed me to his office whenever I needed help or advice. My deepest gratitude goes
to Professor Marcellette Williams, who agreed to continue serving on my committee
despite her numerous commitments at the University of Massachusetts. Dr. Williams’s
continuous encouragement since the first course I took with her was a source of
inspiration to me. I am also thankful to Dr. Malik Bela for his valuable comments and his
help in proofreading the Arabic translation of the questionnaire. Thanks also go to

Professor Erick Lunde for serving as an outside reader and for his useful comments.

I am indebted to my friends Mr. Ahmed Al-Hajjaj and Dr. Bader Aloliwi for their
help in bringing this work to completion. Mr. Alhajjaj took the burden of the data entry
and their statistical analysis while Dr. Aloliwi helped with the final format of the
dissertation. Both of them sacrificed their time and patiently worked long hours despite
their family and school commitments.

Thanks also go to my friends Dr. Naji Al-Arfaj, Dr.Abdulrahman Al-jamhoor, Dr.
Saud Mushait, and Dr. Suad Abdulhameed for their encouragement and their useful
comments.

My deepest appreciation is due to my old friend Dr. Abdulrhman Asiri for his
help from the first day I arrived in Michigan. Not only did he help during the early stages
of the data collection, but also he continued to support and encourage me despite the
thousands of miles between us.

I would like to thank Dr. Abdullah Al-Kahtani, Dr.Ali Areshi, Dr. Abdullah Abu
Ashi, Dr. Othman Al-Semari, Dr. Ibrahim Al-Falay and my friend Abdulaziz Fageeh for
their help during the data collection. My gratitude is also extended to my friends Saad Al-
kahtani, Khalid Abalhasan, and Dr. Ali Al-Shanqeeti for their help in proofreading the
Arabic translation of the questionnaire.

I am also grateful to King Saud University, Abha branch (currently King Khalid
University) which granted me a full scholarship to pursue my M.A. and Ph. D. degrees in
the United States. Moreover, I am grateful to Dr. Ahmad Al—Asswad, my advisor at the
Saudi Cultural Mission, for his continuous encouragement and help during the last three

years of my study.

vi

Sincere appreciation is due to the subjects of this study; although they were
approaching their finals during the data collection, they agreed to participate. Without
them, this work would have been impossible.

My words fail to fully express my deepest gratitude and appreciation to my family
and relatives who patiently endured with me the many obstacles that I faced throughout
my study. In particular, I would like to thank my parents, Mofareh and Zainah, my
brothers Mohammed, Ali, and Mossa for their continuous encouragement and prayers;
my wife Saleha for her support and understanding; my beloved children Wafaa, Walid,
Hanaa, Nabil, and Nadda for their touching encouragement and kindness. Special thanks
go to my cousin, Ayed Adeed and my brothers-in-law Dr. Ahmed Al-Serhan and Dr.
Mohammed Hatoori for their support and advice.

To all of you and to all of the unnamed individual and relatives, who contributed

directly or indirectly to this work. I am deeply grateful.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: 3
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM: 4
1.3 RESEARCH HYPOTHESES: 6
1.4 IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY: 6
1.5 SUBJECTS: 7
1.6 MATERIALS: 8
1.7 DEFINITION OF TERMS 9
1.8 LIMITATION OF THE STUDY: 10
2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ........................................................................... 11
2.1 INTRODUCTION: 11
2.2 DEVELOPMENTS OF READING RESEARCH AND THEORIES: 12
2.2.1 BOTTOM-UP MODEL OF READING: ............................................................................... 12
2.2.2 THE TOP-DOWN MODEL OF READING: .......................................................................... 14
2.2.3 THE INTERACTIVE MODEL OF READING: ...................................................................... 16
2.3 THE SCHEMA THEORETIC APPROACH: 18
2.4 METACOGNITIVE APPROACH: 21
2.5 METACOGNITIVE AWARENESS (KNOWLEDGE ABOUT ONE’S COGNITION): .................. 23
2.6 COMPREHENSION MONITORING: 27
2.7 VARIABLES AFFECTING COMPREHENSION MONITORING: 31
2.7.1 THE PERSON VARIABLE: ............................................................................................... 31
2.7.2 THE STRATEGY VARIABLE: .......................................................................................... 32
2.7.3 THE TASK VARIABLE: .................................................................................................. 35
2.8 L2 STUDENTS’ COMPREHENSION MONITORING: 37
2.9 VERBAL REPORTS: 41

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

RATTONALE:
PARTICIPANTS:

 

 

SAMPLING:
MATERIALS:

 

 

PROCEDURES AND INSTRUMENTATION:
THE PILOT STUDY: .......................................................................................................
DEVELOPMENT OF THE MAQ: .....................................................................................
THE DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE: ........................................................................
PHASE I (THE SURVEY PART): ......................................................................................
THE READING COMPREHENSION TEST MTELP: ...........................................................

 

viii

45
45
46
48
49
50
50
5 l
54
55
55

3.6.6 THE METACOGNITIVE AWARENESS QUESTIONNAIRE (MAQ): ..................................... 57

   

 

 

 

 

3.6.7 PHASE 11 OF THE STUDY: .............................................................................................. 58
3.6.8 DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURES: ................................................................................... 6O
DATA ANALYSIS ...... .. ..... . ........ . ....... . .......................... . .............. . ....... . ................ 62
4.1 INTRODUCTION: 62
4.2 PART 1: ANALYSIS OF SKILLED AND LESS-SKILLED READERs’ ACTUAL READING
STRATEGIES 62
4.2.1 COMPREHENSION DIFFICULTY: .................................................................................... 63
4.2.2 DISCUSSION OF THE COMPREHENSION DIFFICULTY: .................................................... 65
4.2.3 SYNTACI'IC DIFFICULTY: ............................................................................................. 68
4.2.4 DISCUSSION: ................................................................................................................ 68
4.2.5 VOCABULARY DIFFICULTY: ......................................................................................... 74
4.2.6 . CONNECTING IDEAS: .................................................................................................... 80
4.2.7 IMAGING/USE OF PAST EXPERIENCE: ........................................................................... 81
4.2.8 COMPREHENSION MONITORING: ................................................................................. 82
4.2.9 PREDICTION: ................................................................................................................ 86
4.2.10 QUESTIONING: ........................................................................................................... 87
4.3 PART II: ANALYSIS OF INFORMANTs’ ACTUAL AND REPORTED READING STRATEGIES
90
4.3.1 INTRODUCTION: ........................................................................................................... 90
4.3.2 SIMILARITIES: .............................................................................................................. 94
4.3.3 DIFFERENCES: .............................................................................................................. 94
4.3.4 NEUTRALITY: ............................................................................................................... 99
4.3.5 INCONSISTENCY (CONTRADICTION): ......................................................................... 101
4.3.6 USE OF GLOBAL AND LOCAL STRATEGIES: ................................................................ 106
4.4 PART III QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE DATA 110
4.4.1 INTRODUCTION: ......................................................................................................... 1 10
4.4.2 SELECTION OF SRs AND LSRS: ................................................................................. 1 10
4.4.3 DETERMINATION OF SUBJECTs’ METACOGNITIVE AWARENESS: ............................... 1 12
4.4.4 SUBJECTS’ COMPREHENSION SCORE IN RELATION TO THEIR METACOGNITIVE SCORES:
1 14
4.4.5 ANALYSIS OF THE CONFIDENCE STATEMENTS: .......................................................... 1 15
4.4.6 ANALYSIS OF THE REPAIR STRATEGY STATEMENTS: ................................................. 1 17
4.4.7 SUBJECTs’ PERCEPTION OF DIFFERENT STRATEGIES IN TERMS OF EFFECTIVENESS: . 1 18
4.4.8 SUBJECTS’ PERCEPTION OF WHAT MAKES READING DIFFICULT: ............................... 121
4.4.9 SUBJECTS’ PERCEPTION OF A GOOD READER: ............................................................ 123
4.4.10 INFORMANTS’ SELF-RATING: ................................................................................... 125
4.5 CONCLUSIONS OF THE ANALYSIS 126
4.5.1 CONCLUSION OF PART I: ............................................................................................ 126
4.5.2 CONCLUSION OF PART II: ........................................................................................... 128
4.5.3 CONCLUSION OF PART III: .......................................................................................... 130
4.5.4 DISCUSSION OF THE HYPOTHESES ............................................................................. 135

5 CONCLUSION, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE

 

5.1 INTRODUCTION: ' 138

 

ix

5.2 CONCLUSION: 138

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.3 IMPLICATIONS: 142
5.4 RECOMMENDATION FOR FUTURE RESEARCH: I45
6 APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................... 147
6.1 A LETTER TO THE STUDENT 148
6.2 THE ARABIC VERSION OF THE MET ACOGNITIVE QUESTIONNAIRE (MAQ) ................ 150
6.3 THE DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE 157
6.4 METACOGNITIVE AWARENESS QUESTIONNAIRE (MAQ) 159
6.5 THE READING PASSAGE 163
6.6 THE READING COMPREHENSION TEST 165
6.7 A SAMPLE OF THINK-ALOUD PROTOCOL I70

 

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3-l: Skilled readers’ reading comprehension scores ............................................... 47
Table 3-2: Less-skilled readers’ reading comprehension scores ....................................... 48
Table 4-1: SRS’ reported and actual reading strategies* ................................................... 92
Table 4-2: LSRS’ reported and actual reading strategies* ................................................ 93
Table 4-3: distribution of all subjects’ reading comprehension scores ........................... 111
Table 4-4: distribution of all subjects‘ metacognitive awareness scores ........................ l 14

Table 4-5: Percentage of subjects’ responses to Statements l-6 When I read silently in
English, I’m ............................................................................................................. 115
Table 4-6: Percentage of subjects’ responses to Statements 7-1 I (repair statements) When
I read Silently in English, ifI don’t understand something. I .................................. l 17
Table 4-7: Percentage of subjects’ responses to statements 12-20 When I read silently in
English, the things that I do to read effectively are to focus on .............................. 118
Table 4-8: Percentage of subjects’ responses to statements 21-28 When I read silently in
English, things that make reading difficult are... .................................................... 121

Table 4-9: Percentage of subjects’ responses to statements 29-36 The best reader I know

in English is a good reader because of his/her ability to ......................................... 123
Table 4—10 continued ....................................................................................................... 124
Table 4-11: Correlation between subjects’ extra reading and self-confidence ............... 125

xi

LIST OF CHARTS

Chart 4-1: Comprehension difficulty ................................................................................ 64
Chart 4-2: Syntactic difficulty ........................................................................................... 68
Chart 4-3: Vocabulary difficulty ....................................................................................... 74
Chart 4-4: Strategy used for difficult words ...................................................................... 75
Chart 4-5: Comprehension monitoring .............................................................................. 83
Chart 4-6: Questioning ...................................................................................................... 87

xii

Chapter 1

1 Introduction

The last two decades saw enormous changes in the theoretical orientation towards
learning. The common view of the learner changed from one of a passive recipient to one
of the learner making an active contribution to the learning process. Reading is no
exception in this matter where “[o]ur understanding of reading, both in terms of theory
and practice, has changed considerably...”(Grabe, 1991: 376). In other words, the old
view of reading, which considered reading as a one-way process starting with visual
information and proceeding to higher-level encoding, has changed (Stanovich, 1980). It is
currently viewed as an active process where the reader interacts with the text and makes
use of efficient strategies to understand printed information (Goodman, 1967; Anderson
et al., 1984; Anderson et al., 1985; Valencia & Pearson, 1987). It’s widely accepted that
effective reading requires readers’ active involvement in the reading process (Cohen,
1983; Carrel], 1989). In light of this perspective, a lot of attention has been devoted to
studying readers’ cognitive strategies and their important role in reading comprehension
(e.g. Winlkinson, 1980; Linden and Wittrock, 1981; Cohen, 1983). Recently, research has
shown a surge of interest in the metacognitive area loosely defined as “thinking about
thinking” (El-Hindi, 1996), or “...one’s knowledge of and control over his/her own
thinking” (Walczyk, 1994). According to Jimeneze et al., (1996), investigation in the
metacognition area has been proven to be fruitful (Jimenez et al., 1996). The study of
metacognition in general, and more specifically its connection to effective reading has

received increasing attention from many researchers (e.g. Brown, 1980; Carrel], I989;

Baker et al., 1984; Hosenfeld, 1977b). One example is the descriptive study of Hosenfeld
in which his study of a small number of individual students using think-aloud techniques
yielded certain types of reading strategies employed by successful/unsuccessful readers
as they read in their foreign language. For example, the successful readers: I) kept the
meaning of the passage in mind; 2) read in “broad phrases”; 3) skipped words Viewed as
unimportant and guessed the meaning of new words from the context; and 4) had a
positive self-concept as a reader. On the other hand, according to Hosenfeld, the
unsuccessful readers: I) lost the meaning of the sentence as soon as it was decoded; 2)
read in short phrases; 3) seldom skipped words as unimportant, viewing words as “equal”
in terms of their contribution to the total phrase meaning; 4) had a negative self-concept
as a reader.

The study of students’ metacognitive awareness relies on studying
learners’ knowledge and use of their own cognitive resources (Garner, 1987). According
to Wade et al. (1993), having adequate processing skills appears to be insufficient if
readers fail to monitor their comprehension process and/or fail to use their processing
resources efficiently. Brown et al. (1986) state that:

Understanding in the context of reading can be revealed in two
ways: First, in one’S knowledge of strategies for learning from text,
differing demands of various reading chores, textual structures, and one’s
own strength and weaknesses as a learner; second, in the control readers
have of their own actions while reading for different purposes. Successful
readers monitor their state of learning, they plan strategies, adjust effort
appropriately, and evaluate the success of their own ongoing efforts to
understand ( p.49).

Similarly, Brown (1980) pointed to two important factors for defining

metacognition and the importance of readers’ interaction. The first factor, according to

her, is the readers’ awareness of their own cognitive processes; the second is their

knowledge of cognitive resources and use of self-regulatory mechanisms such as
planning, monitoring effectiveness, and evaluating the outcome of their strategy use.

Having said that, it is fundamental to understand the interaction between a
reader’s available resources and his/her awareness and control of such resources to
understand the nature of reading. In fact, studying this interaction in successful readers
might reveal how it “breaks-down” in less successful readers (Walczy, 1994). In
Walczy’s words: “[u]nderstanding this interaction in successful readers can suggest how
it may break down in the cases of less successful readers” (p. 174.)

Of equal importance to readers’ awareness of their available resources and their
control over these resources is their perception of the reading task. Readers may perceive
reading tasks differently. For example, Gambrell and Heathington (1981) interviewed a
group of good and poor readers (28 of each group) and found that unlike good readers,
adult poor readers have a “limited understanding of reading as a cognitive process” and
they perceived reading as a decoding process rather than “as a meaning construction or

comprehension task” (p.215.)

1.1 Purpose of the study:

This Study aimed at exploring Saudi male students’ perceptions about their
metacognitive awareness as they read in English as a foreign language. In an attempt to
take the research one step further, it tried also to obtain and analyze the actual reading
strategies (the reading-thinking process) of skilled and less-skilled readers and compare

these with their reported strategies drawn from their answers to the metacognitive

 

questionnaire. It was hoped that the study would explore the Saudi students’ perceptions
about their reading strategies and would shed light on their metacognitive awareness as

well.

1.2 Statement of the problem:

Unlike reading in the first language, reading in a second language involves
reading difficulties as well as language difficulties. Research indicates that 30-40% of
first-year college native students have reading and writing deficiencies in their native
English language (Moore and Carpenter, 1985 cited in El-Hindi’s, 1996) which suggests
that the number should be higher in the case of the non-native Speakers. Not only is the
number higher, but also the reading difficulties encountered by non-native speakers “may
differ from those experienced by monolinguals” (Knight et al., 1985: 789); and the
. reading strategies of monolingual and bilingual readers tend to differ as well (Padron et
al., 1986).

Early research in reading in English as a second language followed the same
route as the early work in reading in a first language where the reader was assUmed to
construct the authors’ intended meaning by decoding the printed information from letters
”and words and then work their way up to larger and larger units to get the meaning of the
given text. Because of these assumptions, it’s no wonder that readers interact passively
with text and concentrate on words’ pronunciation and mastering the details the writer
had set forth. Consequently, comprehension problems were attributed to decoding
deficiency (for example, see Rivers 1964, 1968). Moreover, a lot of attention has been

directed towards the product of reading rather than the process of reading (Hulstijn,

1993). Recently, researchers began to account for the active involvement of the second
language reader in the reading process (e.g. for the interaction between readers’
background knowledge and the visual clues represented in the printed text, see Carrell,
I981, I982; Carrell and Eisterhold 1983).

Emphasis on the reader’s active involvement in the reading process has led
researchers to pay more attention to the reader’s cognitive process and its connection to
strategic processing in reading comprehension (Baker and Brown, 1984; Pressley, et al.,
1989; Wade et al., 1993). However, non-native speakers’ cognitive processes and
awareness Still lack the proper attention by researchers compared to that of native
speakers.

After reviewing a great deal of literature, including dissertation abstracts, I found
that some Studies have dealt with readers’ metacognitive awareness of normative Speakers
from background/s other than Arabic (e.g. Chinese, Spanish). Nevertheless, the reading
strategies and metacognitive awareness of Arab Students in general, as far as I know,
have not received much attention. For example, I found no single study that deals with
Saudi students’ metacognitive awareness as they read in English as a foreign language.
Moreover, despite the importance of students’ metacognitive awareness and their actual
reading strategies and control of these strategies, I didn’t find any study that combines the
two approaches that have been incorporated in this study (the reporting approach
represented in informants’ answers to the metacognitive questionnaire and the actual
reading approach depicted in their think-aloud process). It is hoped that this study will
shed light on Saudi students’ reading Strategies and highlight some of their reading

problems as well.

1.3 Research Hypotheses:

Given the existing research, it was hypothesized that the informants’ reading
proficiency in English correlates significantly with their metacognitive awareness. The
higher the score the better the awareness and vice versa (H1). H2 predicted that skilled
readers’ actual and reported reading strategies would correspond with one another more
than that of the less-Skilled readers. H3 held that skilled readers would interact with the
text and apply “top-down” models in their actual reading. In contrast, H4 anticipated that
the less-skilled readers would be text bound readers and incorporate “bottom-up” models
more frequently in their actual reading. H5 postulated that skilled readers would have
more positive self-confidence about their reading abilities as opposed to the less-skilled
readers. Finally, H6 predicted that Skilled readers would be more articulate and consistent
in their reported reading strategies while the less-skilled readers would be less articulate

and less consistent.

1.4 Importance of the study:

Of major importance in this study is the relationship between Saudi students’
perceptions of the reading strategies they use and the actual strategies that they use. To
what extent are their reported strategies similar to their actual ones? These questions have
been studied using native speakers of English, but no study of metacognition (as far as I
know) and of metacognitive awareness and its impact on the reading process of Saudi

students has been done. This study, makes valuable contributions to the research on ESL

reading in general and the reading of Saudi students in particular. Another essential
element (of equal importance) is the use of the think—aloud approach in conjunction with
the metacognitive awareness questionnaire (MAQ) which, according to Casanave (1988),
holds “great promise.” Besides the incorporation of these approaches, students were
allowed to use their native language in their verbal repons to eliminate any possible
interference of the language difficulty as they explain their reading strategies (Knight et
al., 1985). Last but not least, the study offers some suggestions on teaching reading for

Arab students in general and for Saudi students in particular.

1.5 Subjects:

Ninety college students majoring in English as a foreign language enrolled in four
different colleges (King Saud University, Riyadh, Imam Mohammed Ibn Saud
University, Riyadh, King Saud University, Abha branch and Imam Mohammed Ibn Saud
University, Abha branch) participated in this study. Subjects resembled a homogeneous
population in terms of knowledge, gender, age, and background. That is, all were
undergraduate English majors, all were males, all had almost the same educational
background, all were seniors, and were of similar age (with the exception of a few
students who were older than the rest of the group by two or three years). Educationally
speaking, the system of Saudi requires students to study 12 years prior to their college
education (elementary school 6 years, middle school 3 years, and high school 3 years). In
terms of studying English as a foreign language, typical Saudi students begin learning

English in the 7’h grade. In other words, all subjects studied English 6 years before they

1—. Illa“? °fl

 

were admitted to their universities. In these 6 years, English is taught for four periods a
week and each period lasts for 45 minutes in all Saudi public schools. Furthermore,
according to Al-Arfaj (1996), “English teachers...are given an identical syllabus with
guidelines and deadlines and required to apply and follow it” in their teaching of the
identical English textbooks (p. 3). Saudi schools are controlled and Operated by the
Ministry of Education of Saudi Arabia. So, the system is identical in the whole country
and sometimes higher grades’ final exams in all subjects (including English) are designed
and graded by the Ministry of Education (i.e. the last year of the high school).

With that previous background in mind, the research randomly assigned subjects
to do the first part of the study (the reading comprehension test and the MAQ). In other
words, each university was Visited more than one time to do the first part only where in
each visit a class or two was randomly selected to take the first part of the study. Then
out of the total number of the participants, 20 students were selected on the basis of their
reading comprehension test scores to do the second phase of the study (the think aloud

protocol).

1.6 Materials:

Carrell’s (1989) Metacognitive Awareness Questionnaire translated into Arabic
along with a standardized reading comprehension test was administered by the researcher
to each group of students. The reading comprehension test was taken from an older
version of the Michigan Test of English Language proficiency (MTELP). The MTELP

test consisted of four passages and twenty multiple questions (five for each passage), but

students were asked to answer three passages only instead of four due to the time
limitation. Students who participated in the pilot Study were able to finish only three
passages within the allowed time (45 minutes) and based on that the fourth passage was
eliminated in the actual study. The twenty students who participated in the second part of
the study were given a passage to read and were instructed to stop at certain places (five
places altogether) and reflect on their reading process. The passage is titled “Art and
Humor” and was taken from Reading between the lines a reading book intended for

intermediate to advanced non-native speakers.

1.7 Definition of Terms

The following terms are defined according to their use in the study:

Metacognitive awareness: the reader’s awareness and perception of different reading
strategies employed during the reading process.

Reading strategy: the mental operations involved when readers approach a certain text.
Comprehension: the amount of understanding of a certain passage or paragraph while
reading.

Comprehension monitoring: the state of consciousness of checking one’s understanding
of what he/she read.

Global strategies: Any strategy which appears to exert reader’s involvement and
interaction with the text.

Local strategies: Decontextualized pieces of data.

1.8 Limitation of the study:

Due to the detailed nature of the study and the time needed to study each case
individually, it was not possible to study a large number of subjects; therefore the results
are suggestive rather than conclusive. Procedures required to conduct this study and
similar studies that revolve around the issue of metacognition from a diagnostic
perspective place excessive demands on researchers and learners as well (Schraw et. al.,
1994). Furthermore, the study focused on a group of Saudi college students which limits
its results and interpretations to that group only. Finally, female Subjects were excluded
from this study due to religious reasons. Results of the current study might have been

different had female subjects participated.

10

Chapter 2

2 Review of related Literature

2.1 Introduction:

Interaction between readers’ cognitive processes and the printed information is a
complex and invisible phenomenon. A reader’s thoughts, struggle and search for
meaning, his/her reflections and interpretation “are hidden from the outside observer”
(Block, 1986: 463). Our information about this hidden phenomenon and whether and how
this interaction happens comes “of secondhand external behaviors [such as] answering a
question perceptively, discussing an idea or a comprehension problem convincingly,
following written instruction successfully” (Casanave, 1988: 296-7). The control of such
an interaction is attributed to readers’ abilities to regulate and monitor this hidden process
(Baker & Brown, 1984). Flavell (1979) describes metacognition as the knowledge and
control of cognitive processes, which is influenced by three variables: person, task, and
strategy.

This chapter provides an overview of literature relevant to this study. First, it lays
out some background about reading theories. In doing so, a brief discussion of three
models will be presented, namely: the “Bottom-up” model, the “Top-down” model, and
the “Interactive” model. Next, the schema theoretic approach (as one of the interactive
models) will be emphasized along with a summary of some Studies that deal with it.
Following the summarization section is a review of metacognition, comprehension

monitoring, and finally a representation of verbal reports research.

11

2.2 Developments of reading research and theories:

Although research in L2 reading must differ from accepted L1 constructs (Koda,
1994), reading in L1 has no doubt provided the theoretical basis and shape for L2 reading
research and theories (Barnett, 1989; Grabe, 1991; Koda, 1994). Thus, it is beneficial to
provide a brief background about the theoretical development of L1 reading research and
its relationship to research in L2. More specifically, five models of reading will be
presented, namely: The bottom-up model, the top-down model and the interactive model,

which includes the schema theoretic model and the cognitive model.

2.2.1 Bottom-up model of reading:

Earlier concepts Of reading hold that reading is a series of discrete stages,
proceeding from incoming visual information to higher-level encodings (Stanovich,
1980). This concept has been known as the “bottom-up” model of reading which,
according to Goodman (1967), involves “exact, detailed, sequential perception and
identification of letters, words, spelling patterns and larger language Units” (p. 126). The
reader’s role, according to this model, is mostly decoding the printed information rather
than interacting with it. In this model, a reader approaches the text by moving his/her
eyes across the line starting with letters to be combined to form words, then combining
words to form phrases and sentences (Eskey, 1986). In simple terms, this model considers
the information to be text-driven and the reader basically decodes this information.
Despite the insistence of some researchers on viewing reading as a decoding process (i.e.

Gough. 1976), Eskey (1973) considers this model of reading to be inadequate since it

12

4

'_.__-"I. I

 

fails to recognize the reader’s contribution to the text and to the reading process.
Similarly. Garner (1987) indicates that these early conceptualizations of reading “ are
now seen as inadequate, for they fail to explain important empirical findings” (e.g. how
syntactic and semantic processing affects word perception) (p.2). In the same vein, Smith
(1971) argues that decoding as described by this model (letter-by-letter or word-by-word)
represents a burden on readers since the meaning of one word is hard to retain until the
next word is added and as a result no meaningful relationship will be established between
the words. In conclusion, the “bottom-up” View of reading was rejected since it failed, as
I mentioned earlier, to recognize the reader as an active participant and failed also to
explain empirically what actually happens during the reading process.

The rejection of the bottom-up models of reading opened the door for new models
to surface. These included, but were not limited to, the top-down model, the interactive

model, the schema theoretic model, and the cognitive model.

13

 

2.2.2 The top-down model of reading:

Among the top-down models of reading, is the “psycholinguistics model”
(Goodman, 1967; Smith, 1971) that will be presented briefly due to its new look at
reading, its popularity (Paran, 1996) and its “impact on Views of second language
reading” (Carrell, 1988: 2). Linguistic cues, according to this model, provide a minimal
contribution to the reading process. Instead of picking up information from the text (letter
by letter and word by word) Goodman’s (1967) description of the reading process in this
model is summarized in his famous phrase “a psycholinguistic guessing game” in which
reading “ involves partial use of available minimal language cues ...but from skill in
selecting the fewest, most productive cues necessary to produce guesses which are right
the first time” (p.127). This partial use of minimal language cues might be helpful for L1
readers but not necessarily for L2 readers (Eskey, 1988). Unlike L1 readers who make
use of the textual cues, Eskey believes that L2 readers’ restricted linguistic ability hinders
them from doing so. Thus, he thinks that L2 readers have to attend more to bottom-up
processes than the L1 readers.

Similar to Goodman’s (1967) view of reading, Smith (1971) emphasizes the
importance of prediction and asking certain questions prior to reading and seeking their
answers while reading. He states that: “[t]he twin foundations of reading are to be able to
ask specific questions in the first place, and to know how and where to look at print so
that there is at least a chance of getting these questions answered” (Smith, 1982: 166).

Criticisms of top-down models revolve around their “reliance on prior linguistic

and conceptual knowledge...[their tendency] to downplay the importance of the text

14

 

itself’ (Eskey, 1986), the difficulty of generating predictions when the topic is not
familiar and the time needed to generate a prediction (Samuels et al. 1988), and their
vagueness of conceptualization (Stanovich, 1980). Yet, the psycholinguistic model of
reading is credited for its contribution to a better understanding of the reading process
than the bottom-up approach (Eskey, 1986). The psycholinguistic view of reading
accounts for the active involvement of readers in both the first and second languages,
according to Carrell (1988), in which the reader is perceived to be “an active participant
in the reading process...” (p.3). Moreover, according to Eskey (1986), curriculum
planners have been influenced by this model and thus a good deal of “credit for a new
concern in language teaching with reading as an independent skill must be accorded to
the work of Goodman and Smith who have successfully promoted a top-down model
of process” (p. 13). In terms of teaching reading, the psycholinguistic model of reading
doesn’t provide a method for teaching reading, according to Clarke et al. (1977), but the
value of this model stems from its insights into the reading process.

Unlike Clarke et al., other researchers (Paran, 1996; Bernhardt, 1991; Eskey,
1986) believe that the psycholinguistic model of reading (the top-down model) goes
beyond its insights into the reading process. According to Paran (996), the top-down view
exceeded L2 research and was incorporated into its training, its methodology books and
its materials. In his words: the top-down view of reading

. .did not remain in the realm of L2 research, but permeated the training courses,
methodology books, and teaching materials written in the late 19705 and 1980s, through

which it still exerts a powerful influence” (p. 26).

15

 

2.2.3 The interactive model of reading:

Psycholinguists’ insights into the reading process led to a new concept of reading known
as “the interactive model of reading”. Unlike the “bottom-up” and “the top-down”
models of reading, this model accounts for the interaction between higher and lower
information during the reading process. Moreover, this model of reading, according to
Mitchell (1982), treats both types of information, Visual and non-visual, equally. The
interactive model of reading holds that reading is both “top-down” and “bottom-up” in
that graphic information is interpreted and interacts Simultaneously with the reader’s pre-
existing knowledge (Rumelhart, 1980). This interaction is balanced between bottom-up
and top-down information where “several kinds of knowledge...blend into one as, in the
normal process of reading, the reader makes the text a part of what he knows (Eskey,
1986: 16). In Gamer’s view. Rumelhart’s (1977) description of reading as the
.“simultaneous jOint application of multiple knowledge sources is probably the best
articulation of a current interactive model” (Garner, 1987: 3).

Different models of the “interactive approach” were presented (e.g. McClelland and
Rumelhart’s (1981) interactive—activation model, Stanovich’s (1980) interactive-
compensatory model, Taylor and Taylor’s (1983) bilateral cooperative model among
others). However, in Grabe’s opinion, there is no single interactive model and any model
that “takes into account the critical contribution of both lower—level processing skills
and higher-level comprehension and reasoning skills is an interactive model (Garbe,

19991: 386).

16

 

For the sake of brevity, I’ll not discuss all of these models. Instead, I’ll try to highlight
Stanovich’s model along with other interactive approaches that appear to be relevant to
the current study, namely: the schema theoretic approach and the cognitive approach.
While Stanovich (1980) acknowledges the simultaneous interaction between upper and
lower information, he argues convincingly that this interaction operates in a redemptory
manner. In other words, individual readers compensate for their reading deficiencies by
relying more on either their lower or higher level processes depending on their need and
area of strength (e.g. poor readers may rely on their higher level process to make up for
their lower deficiency such as letter or word recognition or Vice versa). Stanovich (1980)
referred to a number of previous studies (e.g. Stanovich, 1979a; Smith, 1971) that dealt
with the reader’s use of orthographic structure and the effect of contextual information on
word identification. He concluded that the pattern results of these research are best
explained by the “interactive-compensatory model” which accounts for readers’
individual differences. According to this model, the interaction between higher and lower
information is not necessarily a Simultaneous and balanced one; rather this interaction is
highly affected by individual reading differences. He says:

Interactive models, best exemplified in the work of Rumelhart (1977), assume that a
pattern is synthesized based on information provided simultaneously from several
knowledge sources. The compensatory assumption states that a deficit in any knowledge
source results in a heavier reliance on other resources, regardless of their level in the

processing hierarchy. (p.63)

17

2.3 The Schema Theoretic Approach:

Linguistic knowledge of any language does not alone necessarily result in full
comprehension. In other words, the reader’s knowledge of “language” components (e.g.
vocabulary, grammar, word formation etc...) does not ensure comprehension. In fact, this
knowledge is one variable while comprehension involves several variables. Among these
variables is the reader’s involvement with and contribution to the text as recognized by
the psycholinguistic model of reading (Goodman, 1971; Smith, 1973). Such involvement
requires another type of knowledge Stored in the reader’s mind about “all concepts: those
underlying objects, situations, events, sequences of events, actions and sequence of
actions” (Rumelhart 1980: 34). The aforementioned knowledge has received a lot of
attention and has come to be known as schema theory. That theory holds that “any
text...either spoken or written, does not by itself carry meaning. Rather...a text only
provides directions for listeners or readers as to how they should retrieve or construct
meaning from their own, previously acquired knowledge” (Carrell et al., 1988: 76). In the
same vein, Dubin (1986) discems the contribution of the text, yet emphasizes the
contribution of the reader. In doing so, Dubin acknowledges that “[m]ost of the words. ..,[
their] ...organization into sentences, and the division of ideas into paragraphs conveys
meaning... [b]ut real comprehension [will be incomplete if the reader lacks previous
knowledge of the topic]” (p.140).

It is evident that the psycholinguistic model of reading has influenced research in
ESL. More specifically, research in schema theory has been within the boundaries of this
model and according to Carrell (1984), “demonstrated the truth of both Kant’s and [more

recently] Anderson’s observations” that relate the act of comprehension to the

18

 

individual’s knowledge of the world. Within this domain, reading theorists emphasize the
reader’s background knowledge (known as schema) as an important variable of the
reading process.

Research in schema theory indicates that there are two types of schemata known
as culture-specific content schemata and formal schemata. The latter refers to reader’s
knowledge of the rhetorical and formal structure of the text whereas the former
designates the reader’s knowledge corresponding to the domain of the topic (Carrell,
1983; 1987).

Familiarity with the topic (both content and form but mainly content) makes it
easy for readers to comprehend. For example, a scientific topic would be very difficult
for someone of a different major (e. g. history). By the same token, culturally-based topics
have been found to affect readers’ comprehension. That is, readers may interpret what
they read according to their own schema in shared-topics like marriage ceremonies or
they might comprehend little/none in topics of unique-cultural topics (e.g. Christmas for
non—Christians).

In a cross-cultural study, Steffensen et al. (1979) studied groups of Indian and
American students (19 Asian Indians and 28 Americans) to assess their recall of familiar
and unfamiliar passages. Two letters describing American and Asian Indian weddings
containing 136 and 127 idea units (respectively) were given to them to read and recall. As
Steffensen et al. predicted, results of this study Show that subjects read the familiar
passage faster and recalled more idea units than the unfamiliar one. Moreover, interaction
of nationality and passage (presented in subjects’ elaboration and distortions) was evident

in both groups’ recalls. Steffensen et al. concluded by saying, “the schemata embodying

l9

 

background knowledge about the content of the discourse exert a profound influence on
how well the discourse will be comprehended, learned, and remembered” (p. 19).

In a similar study, Johnson (1981) studied two groups of students (46 Iranians and
19 American who were included in the study for comparison purposes) to investigate the
effect of language complexity and the cultural origin of the prose. Two reading passages
were given to the subjects to read and recall in writing along with some multiple-choice
questions regarding some information from the two stories. Half of the two groups were
randomly assigned to read the two stories in an “unadapted” English text and the other
half read both Stories in an “adapted” (Simplified) English text. Analysis of the written
recall and the multiple-choice questions indicates that the effect of the language
complexity of the text was less than the effect of the cultural origin of the story.
especially for the ESL Iranian students. Subjects’ recall of a native folklore story was
better compared to that of the foreign story despite the language complexity. Results of
Johnson’s study seem to support the previous study (Steffensen et al. (1979) and other
studies that emphasize the role of cultural background in students’ reading
comprehension.

Another study that combines content and formal schemata in one study was
conducted by Carrell in 1987. In her study, Carrell studied two groups of high-
intermediate—level ESL students (28 of Muslim background and 24 of Catholic Spanish
background) to see the effect of both content and formal schemata on students’ reading
comprehension. Subjects were given two religious fictional passages (Ali Affani as a
Muslim text and Saint Catherine as a Catholic text) to read, then recall in writing and

answer multiple choice questions on two successive days. On each day, one text was

20

given to them where half of the group read the original unaltered text while the other half
read the altered version of the text. The overall findings of this study indicate that
subjects’ familiarity with content is more important than form. However, Carrell
indicates that “each component-content and fonn- plays a significant, but different role in
the comprehension of text [thus] further research ...is needed” (p.476).

The dramatic escalation of research in schema theory has shown the major role it
plays in reading comprehension. Yet, it has to account for other factors to continue to be
useful as an overall theory (Casanave, 1988). Among these factors, according to
Casanave, are context and purpose, cognitive process factors, meaning construction,
and comprehension monitoring” (p.297). If we move in this direction and account for
more of these factors, a third type of schemata, which is strategy schemata can be added
to the well-known types (content and formal schemata). The question of the existence of
such type of schemata has to be investigated, but in Casanave’s point of view “ it can
serve to remind us of the many unexplored, underconceptualized, and interacting facets

of the reading process” (p.298).

2.4 Metacognitive approach:

It appears that the extensive research in schemata has already led to a related area
of research known as “metacognition”. As a matter of fact, Rumelhart (1980) attributes
the focus in cognitive science research to research in schema and other related notions
(e.g. beta structures, frames, scripts, plans, and so on) (p. 33.) Advocates of

metacognition and its role in reading argue convincingly that it highlights the active

21

 

involvement of the reader. Also. interviews of children reveal that they know little about
reading as a task, and it “offers a tangible alternative to traditional instruction” (Jacob and
Paris, 1987: 256). Moreover, improving Students’ reading comprehension can be
attributed to research that deals with students’ cognitive strategies during reading
(Brown, 1980; Baker & Brown, 1984).

Metacognition has been related to different kinds of cognitive abilities (e.g.
memory, reading, writing, and intelligence) and due to its fuzziness, it “cannot be pinned
down or demarcated easily” (Jacob and Paris, 1987 referring to Wellman’s (1985)
definition of metacognition as a “fuzzy concept” (p. 257). However, our concern here is
its definition in regards to the reading act. These definitions provide useful perspectives
on the dynamics of understanding text. Falavell’s (1977) definition of metacognition as
“...one’s knowledge concerning one’s own cognitive processes and products or anything
related to them” (p.232) seems to encompass our concern as a starting point. Similarly,
' metacognition is referred to as the knowledge and control one exerts over his/her thinking
and learning activities (Brown, 1985; Brown et al. 1983; Jacobs and Paris, 1987) or
“...one’s knowledge of and control over his/her own thinking” (Walczyk, 1994). But in
the domain of reading, I think, McNeil’s (1987) definition of metacognition seems to fit
accurately. McNeil (1987) defined metacognition as “ being aware of what one’s purpose
of reading is, and how to proceed in achieving this purpose, and how to regulate progress
through self-checking of comprehension” (cited in Mclain, 1993). Within these
definitions, Brown (1985) identified two aspects of metacognition: first, the knowledge
about cognition, and second, the regulation of cognition. In a like manner, Baker et al.

(1984) mention that metacognition involves three components: it involves the reader’s

22

knowledge about his/her own cognitive resources; the control a reader exerts over his/her
ongoing activities; and one’s “remedial activities” or strategies when a reading problem

occurs. Each of these clusters will be presented separately in the following section.

2.5 Metacognitive awareness (knowledge about one’s cognition):

Reading successfully not only requires readers to access the appropriate reading
strategy when needed, but also it requires their cognitive awareness of the presence and
availability of such a strategy. Brown et al. (1986) refer to Forrest & Waller, 1979 as they
describe poor readers’ actions while reading by saying: “...[t]hey behave the same if told
to read for fun or to learn, remembering no more in the second case than in the first...”.
“...They read statements that are incoherent, inconsistent, or just plain untrue without
indication that they have detected a problem” (referring to Paris & Myers, 1981). Brown
et al.’s reference to these sources is an attempt to emphasize the importance of readers’
metacognitive awareness during the reading process. In fact, according to Auerbach et al.
(1997), “metacognitive awareness is key in proficient reading” (p. 240). If a reader reads
an incoherent or inconsistent sentence without detecting the problem, then his “Strategy
schemata” is not activated (Casanave, 1988). Brown (1985) defines
knowledge/awareness of cognition as “the knowledge readers have about their own
cognitive resources and the compatibility between themselves as readers and the demands
of a variety of reading situations” (p.502). Lack of awareness of such cognitive resources
or lack of activation of this knowledge might lead to an automatic processing of the text
(e.g. pronounces words correctly, moves her/his eyes along the line, Stops at the end of

sentences and shows even the voice intonation as he/she goes on reading). Yet, it might

23

happen automatically to the extent that the reader might be daydreaming and might have
something else in mind other than the task at hand. Thus, Casanave (1988) considers the
activation of strategy schemata of equal importance in shaping comprehension to that of
formal and content schemata. Reading goes beyond automatic processing and utilizing
certain productive strategies to cover the consciousness of doing so (Devine, 1993). This
awareness, according to Auerbach et al. (1997), “...entails knowledge of strategies for
processing texts, the ability to monitor comprehension, and the ability to adjust strategies
as needed” (pp.240-241).

In many instances, I found myself just parking my car in front of my house after
coming from work or coming from my children’s school. But how did I get there? Which
road did I take and how? I was busy thinking of something else to the extent that some of
my friends thought 1 ignored them when they waved to me as I passed by. Did I stop at
the traffic lights, did I use the right and left signals as I was turning right or left and more
importantly how did I get home, not somewhere else? I often ask myself these questions
when I recall these instances. I’m sure I followed and obeyed all of the traffic rules, used
the brakes at certain places to stop, the gas pedal to move on, the mirrors to watch for
other cars, but I did all of that automatically while my cognitive awareness was “ turned
off". Instances similar to these of mine might happen to readers who lack cognitive
awareness of their reading strategy processes or fail to activate their cognitive strategy
schemata (turn it on). This is known as “metacognitive breakdown...which makes our
eyes move but our brain to channel elsewhere” (Miholic, 1994: 84). The automatic
performance of a certain task (reading a text, operating a machine) doesn’t necessarily

mean a lack of experience. In fact, experts are more likely to perform a certain task

24

 

automatically without being conscious of what they are doing. Fluent readers, for
example, tend to operate with “a lazy processor” (Rumelhart, 1980). They’re fluent to the
extent that their top-down and bottom up skills can proceed “on automatic pilot until
[something goes wrong] to alert [their]...comprehension failure” (Baker and Brown,
1984: 365). Therefore, Paris et al. (1983) relate that current work in metacognition
distinguishes between “being able to perform an action [c.g. read or drive] and
understanding the procedures of the action itself” (p. 303). This understanding/awareness
of the procedures (the process of reading and reading strategies being employed) is
essential to detecting and repairing comprehension difficulties (Paris et al., 1983).
Knowledge of cognition also includes readers’ “...awareness of the purposes and
goals of reading as well as the strategies that contribute to comprehension” Meloth (1990:
792). Furthermore, knowledge is described as “declarative”, “conditional”, and
“procedural” (Paris et al., 1983). Declarative knowledge “knowing that” encompasses,
but is not limited to, knowledge of the task at hand in terms of its structure and goals,
knowledge that some variables affect comprehension (e. g. exam pressure) and knowledge
of one’S strengths and weaknesses. Conditional knowledge refers to the reader’s
awareness and use of certain reading strategies and reasons for doing so. And finally,
procedural knowledge “knowing how” denotes how to use different strategies
successfully. However, “knowing that” a certain strategy is effective doesn’t necessarily
result in applying it. According to Baker and Brown (1984), a reader might indicate
knowledge of certain strategy’s effectiveness but “they don’t use it.” On the other hand,

readers might not “describe how to use a particular strategy, but ...[do] use it”. In the

25

former case, according to them, metacognitive strategy knowledge appears to precede
strategy use; while in the latter, it seems to follow it (p.377).

Can this metacognitive knowledge be developed or enhanced? Yes, it can be
developed, but metacognitive development seems parallel with readers’ level of reading.
Successful readers, according to Otto (1985), learn “how and why at the same time.” On
the other hand poor readers’ “metacognitive development tends to lag behind their
cognitive development” (p.575). Not only does poor readers’ metacognition lag behind,
but it gets worse if they lack metacognitive awareness. Lack of metacognitive awareness
may stand as an obstacle “in the way of normal cognitive development” (p.575).

Some researchers have even developed a method to help students think about
what they do while reading. Miholic (1994), for example, presented a metacognitive
reading awareness inventory which consists of 10 multiple choice questions to help
students develop metacognitive awareness and “provide them with a more'concrete idea
of important strategies” (p.84). According to Miholic (1994), it is helpful for reading
teachers as well. Teachers may use it to gain insight into students’ knowledge “with
respect to achieving a higher level of comprehension” (p.85). Another attempt to
enhance students’ metacognitive awareness is represented in El-Hindi’s (1996)
instructional model. In her model, El-Hindi argues that Students’ metacognitive
awareness for both reading and writing can be increased “through direct instruction” (p.
226.) Her argument was based on the results from 43 participants who were given a
training program aimed at enhancing participants’ metacognitive awareness in reading
and writing. The results indicate that the metacognitive knowledge post-tests for reading

and writing were “significantly higher than participants’ pre-tests” (p.225).

26

 

To conclude, it seems that the term “metacognition” has received wide acceptance
from reading educators and researchers alike and that metacognitive training gets positive
results. However, this reception is not universal (Jacobs and Paris, 1987). Reading
educators, according to Jacob and Paris (1987), believe that the focus on cognitive skills
(for example, reflection, and planning) will be at the expense of reading itself. In other
words, “they worry that [readers] will be taught about reading rather than taught how to
read with fluency and enjoyment” (p. 256). Reading educators are concerned about the
broadness of metacognition which covers a “wide variety of reading behaviors [that have]
not been measured in any consistent fashion” (Jacobs and Paris, 1987: 256). Therefore,
they seem to offer a balanced opinion that accounts for the metacognitive opponents’
concerns as well as the supporters’ enthusiasm. That is, although they acknowledge the
research in metacognition and its contribution to a better understanding of reading, they
call for more extensive research in regard to its definition and measurement. They write:

Theories of reading have neglected cognitive aspects of strategies
and self-regulated learning for too long, and metacognition offers
some promise as a remedy. But the term may have been embraced
and accepted prematurely. If metacognition is to be useful...it must
be studied more extensively and in great detail. In particular, more

attention needs to be paid to the definition of metacognitive and the
creation of the appropriate measures of metacognition. (p. 257)

2.6 Comprehension Monitoring:

Although the reading process or what actually goes on in the reader’s mind is
hidden from the outside observer, this invisible process is extremely important to teachers
and researchers alike (Block, 1986; 1992). This hidden cognitive process is believed to

be controlled by readers which in turn affects their amount of understanding and learning

27

 

(Baker & Brown, 1984; Garner, 1987; Block, 1992). Research in metacognition indicates
that “[s]tudents who monitor their reading comprehension, adjust their reading rates,
consider their objectives, and so on, tend to be better readers” (Grabe, 1991: 393).

Aside from reading for pleasure, there are two types of reading: reading for
meaning and reading for Studying (Baker & Brown, 1984; Wagoner, 1983). An example
of reading for studying is studying for the TOEFL in which students’ concern is to
practice and memorize in order to pass the exam, but little attempt, if any, is devoted to
meaning. Though reading for studying is important, it is not as important as reading for
meaning. Thus, I’ll attempt to focus on reading for meaning since it involves an
“immediate recall” (Wagoner, 1983) and is an “attempt to comprehend, and any attempt
to comprehend must involve comprehension monitoring” (Baker and Brown, 1984: 355).
Comprehension monitoring has been perceived to involve two component processors,
evaluation and regulation (Baker, 1985; Bossert and Schwantes, 1995-96). The latter
' refers to strategies employed to “fix up” any breakdown in comprehension while the
former refers to a reader’s realization of a comprehension failure and assessment of
comprehension progress (Zabrucky and Ratner, 1992; Bossert and Schwantes, 1995-96).
As mentioned earlier, recent theories of reading view reading as an active process. Part of
this process is making predictions and hypotheses to be tested against what one reads as
an assessment of comprehension monitoring (Goodman, 1976). Regulation of
comprehension, on the other hand, takes place when readers apply certain strategies such
as asking questions, looking back to double check or clarify certain ideas, proceeding in
their reading to resolve ambiguity or consulting their dictionary to find out word

meanings. However, comprehension evaluation is a prerequisite for regulation to occur.

28

That is, regulation “cannot occur until after evaluation” (Bossert and Schwantes, 1995-
96).

Similarly, Wagoner (1983) points out that there are two types of comprehension
monitoring: knowing “about” comprehension and knowing “how” to comprehend.
Knowing about comprehension is similar to comprehension evaluation since it requires
readers’ conscious awareness and realization of comprehension failure. Furthermore,
knowing about comprehension, according to her, “appears to involve some kind of
triggering mechanism or recognition by the reader of failure to understand the text
message” and precedes knowing how (p.330). Once the failure is recognized, a fix-up -
“knowing how to comprehend” -strategy follows which in turn varies according to the
level of the comprehension failure (Wagoner, 1983). In the same vein, Baker and Brown
(1984) argue that realizing a comprehension failure “ is...on1y a part of comprehension
monitoring”. The other essential part of comprehension monitoring, according to them, is
the reader’s decision about what to do next and what kind of remedy to employ, if
necessary. These important decisions or “remedial actions” will be discussed later.

Unlike Wagoner who insists on readers’ consciousness of the comprehension
process, Baker and Brown (1984) think it is not usually the case. They point out that it is
not often true and more importantly it is not “...usually a conscious experience” (p.356).
Their remarks support what has been said about the automatic processing of skilled
readers and their metacognitive awareness which operates on “lazy process” (Rumelhart,
1980). Skilled readers depend on their “automatic monitoring” until something goes
wrong to activate their conscious monitoring (Anderson, 1980). While skilled readers

tend to operate on an automatic monitoring until a comprehension failure occurs, less-

29

 

skilled readers appear to lack self-monitoring and often fail to realize a comprehension
failure (Spires, 1993). Not only do they lack self-monitoring, but also they often lack the
experience to use effective strategies to resolve a comprehension problem if they are told
about it (Baker & Brown, 1984; Schommer & Surber, 1986). However, Zabrucky &
Ratner (1989) note that lack of development of regulation skills is not limited to poor
readers. In fact, “...even some good readers identified as being able to “monitor” their
comprehension... may still not have developed basic and necessary regulation Skills”

(p. 71).

3O

 

2.7 Variables affecting comprehension monitoring:

2.7.1 The person variable:

Comprehension monitoring is believed to be affected by three variables: person,
strategy, and task (Flavell, 1981; Wagoner, 1983). The person variable has to do with the
reader him/herself. Flavell (1981) describes this variable comprehensively when he says:
“[This]...category encompasses all the things an individual could learn or become aware
of concerning himself and others as a mnemonic being” (p. 38). However, we all know
that differences do exist among learners. For example, reader’s awareness of
comprehending or not comprehending differs from one reader to other. Not only do they
differ in self-awareness, but also in their willingness to admit their comprehension
failure. In this regard, Baker and Brown (1984) refer to Holt (1964) as he described the
unwillingness of some students to admit their lack of comprehension “even to
themselves” and their hesitations to ask questions due to their fear of appearing stupid.
Aside from some students’ fear of being perceived as “Stupid”, personal characteristics
(such as closed-mindedness) and differences in cognitive styles may influence
comprehension monitoring (Baker and Brown, 1984). In addition to reader’s personal
characteristics, previous research suggests that readers’ perception of their ability as
readers is echoed in their actual reading ability. For instance, in her study of L2
metacognitive awareness, Carrell (1989) found that subjects’ actual reading performance
correlated positively with their perception of themselves as readers.

Differences in cognitive strategy seem to favor monolingual students when

compared with bilingual students. Knight et al. (1985) conducted a study with 23

31

 

Spanish—speaking ESL students and 15 English monolingual students (from the third and
the fifth grade classes of an inner city-public school) to determine whether there were
differences in either the type or frequency of cognitive reading strategies reported by the
two groups. San Diego Quick Assessment was used in their study to determine students’
reading levels, then they were asked to read an appropriate passage, stopping at pre-
marked places to explain their reading comprehension strategies. Knight et al. (1985)
accounted for the language interference by allowing the bilingual Students to explain their
reading process in either Spanish or English. Knight et al. (1985) constructed a table that
contains 14 Strategies categorized by type and summed for frequency of occurrences.
Results of their study Show that out of the 14 Strategies, the monolingual students
reported that they used “concentrating, noting/searching for salient details, and self
generated questions more than did the bilingual students”. They also found, among other
things, that the monolinguals used significantly more strategies than did the bilinguals.
Knight et al. acknowledged the fact that the bilinguals’ L2 limited ability might have
been a possible factor in yielding these results; yet they think that such “results are still a
cause of concern” (p.432).

The aforementioned research highlights the importance of the person, the
reader, who appears to play an important role in facilitating or hindering readers’

comprehension monitoring.

2.7 .2 The strategy variable:

The Strategy variable signifies the reader’s knowledge/awareness of different

strategies and when to use them (Kletzien, 1992). When a comprehension problem

32

 

occurs, different strategic options are available for the reader to choose from. But
comprehension goes beyond Strategy knowledge to include utilization of this knowledge
in a reading situation leg. when to use it, which strategy seems to be valuable, or even if
a remedial action is necessary (Baker & Brown, 1984)]. Differences may exist between
good and poor readers in terms of their awareness of strategy variables, their role in
facilitating comprehension (Gambrell & Heathington, 1981), or strategy knowledge and
“the actual use of strategies in a reading situation” (Kletzien, 1991: 70). Moreover,
variance in regards to readers’ ability to use effective strategies and when to use them
seem to be found between Skilled and less skilled readers (Baker & Brown, 1984; Paris,
Lipson, & Wixson, 1983). For example, Olshavasky (1976-1977) studied a group of tenth
grade students (24 students) as they read a short story. Subjects’ strategy use was
collected and analyzed in relation to three factors (interest, high and low; reader
proficiency, good and poor; and writing style, concrete and abstract). Analysis of
subjects’ verbal reports yielded 10 different strategies employed by subjects of the study.
Results of Olshavasky’s study indicate that although all subjects used the 10 strategies,
good readers used certain strategies significantly more often” (p.644). Interestingly
enough, Olshavasky did not find change in types of strategies as the situation changed,
but did find change in the frequency of use of strategies. She writes: “ [t]he results
indicate a tendency for readers to apply the most strategies when they want to
comprehend (are interested), when they can (are proficient readers), and when they need
to (are faced with abstract material)” (p.670).

In a similar study, Kavale & Schreiner (1979) studied above average and average

students’ reading levels (8 students form each group) to identify and compare the

33

reasoning strategies used as the subjects responded to a 40-item reading comprehension
test. Analysis of students’ verbal reports showed that above average students
outperformed average Students in the magnitude and variety of reasoning strategies use.
Based on the result of this Study, Kavale & Schreiner (1979) emphasized the necessity of
finding “how best to teach less skilled readers to apply the reasoning strategies in a
reading situation” (p. 125).

Differences in strategy use appear to exist among younger group readers as well.
For example, Zabrucky & Ratner (1989) assessed children’s comprehension regulation as
they read inconsistent stories. The study consisted of 20 sixth-graders who read eight
stories in two sessions (four in each session) and were audio-taped individually as they
recall and are later interviewed. Results of their study indicate that although all subjects
read inconsistent stories more slowly than the consistent ones, good readers did better in
looking “back at inconsistencies during reading, to give accurate verbal reports of
° passage consistency following reading, and to recall text inconsistencies” (p.69).

Prior research suggests that differences in type of strategies as well as the
frequency of their. use seem to be in favor of monolinguals when compared with
bilinguals (i.e. Knight et al., 1985; Padron et al., 1986). For example, the study of Knight
et al. (1985) which I mentioned earlier, indicates that the most mentioned strategies “by
monolinguals was concentrating (i.e., thinking about the Story, keeping it mind,
remembering it) [and none of them mentioned] teacher’s expectations [strategy] (i.e.,
reading to answer questions that the teacher might ask). On the hand, they reported that
the most cited strategy by bilingual children was “ teacher’s expectations [strategy and

none of them] mentioned the strategies of imaging noting/searching for salient details

34

or predicting outcomes” (p.432). As I noted earlier, Knight et al. (1985) were cautious
enough to account for the possible influence of the bilinguals’ foreign language fluency.
It is worth mentioning before I conclude the strategy variable to note that strategy
training might help poor readers to improve their reading strategy awareness. Contrary to
the previous studies where good readers outperformed poor readers in terms of strategy
use and awareness, N gandu (1977) collected reports of high school students who have
been given remedial classes in reading for four months. Interestingly enough, the
remedial reading program proved to be helpful for poor readers who adapted many of the
good readers’ strategies and became more aware of effective reading behaviors which

promote their comprehension.

2.7.3 The task variable:

The third factor known to affect comprehension monitoring is the task variable.
Though this variable seems to be accommodated within the person and the strategy
variables, there is no doubt that it determines the comprehension quality and monitoring
(Wagoner, 1983). Furthermore, according to Wagoner, (1983), it “...may have a critical
effect upon other variables [the person and the strategy variables]”(p. 330). Flavell (1976;
1981) in reference to this variable, points to readers’ knowledge/awareness, goals and
demand of the task at hand. Further, he divides this knowledge/awareness into two sub-
categories with regards to the difficulty level of a memory problem. These memory task
problems were subcategorized in terms of:

1) function of the memory task regarding the amount of information to be remembered

(easier vs. harder), and

35

2) demands of the memory task (e.g. some task demands are more difficult to meet
than the others).

Like the other two variables, the person and the strategy variables, studies that
dealt with the task variable suggest some differences between good and poor readers. For
instance, Kletzin (1991) found that poor comprehenders’ use of the total strategies
decreases as text became more difficult. Although there was no difference between the
two groups in terms of type and number of the strategies, She found that good readers
used more types of strategies and used strategies more often than the poor readers as the
passage difficulty increased.

In a more recent Study, Zabrucky and Ratner (1992) investigated the effect of
passage type on comprehension monitoring and recall of texts. 32 students (16 poor
readers and 16 good readers) read inconsistent narrative and expository passages.
Different measures (on and off-line) were used to examine Students’ look-backs and
evaluation of inconsistencies. Findings of their study suggest, among other things, that
poor readers’ regulation of their understanding is less likely to occur when reading
difficult text. Passage type did affect students’ regulation and evaluatiOn where good
readers tend to look back at inconsistencies; they found that good readers seemed to
regulate their understanding more as they looked back more often when “the sentences
were embedded in the more difficult expository text.” On the other hand, they found that
“passage type had no effect on poor readers’.use of look-backs to these sentences” (p.
385). They believe that there might be other variables that affect students’ reading skills
other than the variables they studied (reading proficiency and passage type on

monitoring) such as students’ prior knowledge of different genres. That is, they think that

36

 

students’ prior expectation of a certain text (e.g. expository text) might direct their
reading behavior. They say: “ [in their study]... students may have reread expository
passages more because they had come to understand that texts like these are typically

more difficult [than narrative texts]” (p. 388).

2.8 L2 students’ comprehension monitoring:

Studies that dealt with comprehension monitoring varied in terms of age and level
of reading (e.g. children vs. adults and skilled vs. less-skilled readers, see Garner 1987).
Yet, these studies tended to be conducted mostly with monolingual students despite the
importance of comprehension monitoring for L2 readers (Block, 1992; Casanave, 1988).
In fact, research in literacy in the United States has, generally speaking, almost confined
itself to “White. middle class, or native speakers of English” communities (Jimenez et al.
1996: 90).

To date, a handful of studies have been directed to L2 readers’ cognitive
monitoring and its role in reading comprehension. Among these studies, is Carrell’s
(1989) study of two groups of students (45 native speakers of Spanish studying English
and 75 native speakers of English studying Spanish). Her study aimed at investigating the
relationship between readers’ metacognitive awareness of different kinds of reading
strategies and their reading abilities in both their L1 and L2. Results of her study indicate
that unlike reading in L1 in both groups where they tended to process text
“automatically” rather than “attentionally”, some differences in reading in L2 were

found. For example. readers of ESL of the higher proficiency level “tended to be more

37

global or top-down in their perception of effective and difficulty-causing reading
strategies” (P.128). On the other hand, lower proficiency levels of Spanish as a foreign
language “tended to be more local or bottom-up in their perception of effective and
difficulty-causing reading strategies”. Thus, Carrell concluded by saying “...we may be
seeing metacognitive reflexes of the language short circuit”(p.128). Carrell was referring
to Clarke’s (1980) study when he mentioned the language short circuit. In that study,
Clarke studied two groups of Spanish ESL students reading in both their native and their
target languages. Students were categorized into proficient and good readers on the basis
of their performance on Spanish cloze tests. Results of the Clarke study indicated that
unlike poor readers, proficient readers relied more on semantic cues rather than syntactic
cues as they read in Spanish. However, proficient readers’ reliance on semantic cues
shrunk when they read in English. Clarke (1980) doubted full transfer of L1 reading skills
utilized by proficient readers to their L2 due to their limited control of the language
proficiency. He calls this limited control the “short circuit” which according to him,
caused good readers “to revert to poor readers’ strategies”. He concluded by saying “
[p]erhaps there are not “good” and “poor” readers but merely “good” and “poor” reading
behaviors...”(P.206). He further urged ESL teachers to integrate “traditional” and
“global” teaching methods in teaching reading for ESL students.

Another study that dealt with ESL students’ comprehension monitoring is that of
Block (1992). Using the think-aloud method, Block (1992) explored and compared the
comprehension monitoring of two groups of first and second language readers of English.
The first group consisted of eight proficient native Speakers and eight proficient non-

native speakers. The second group consisted of Six non-proficient non-native speakers

38

and three non-proficient native speakers. Both groups were given a passage of expository
text to read and reflect on their reading process. Results of her study seem to be
consistent with Carrell’s (1989) and Clarke’s (1980) findings which Show, among other
things, that differences that existed in comprehension monitoring seemed to be more
related to reading proficiency than the language background. Although readers of both
groups seemed to recognize when a problem existed; “the proficient readers identified the
problem’s source more frequently and more explicitly than did the less proficient
readers”(p.335) and seemed to take an action such as ignoring an unknown word they
considered unimportant. In term of verbalizing, proficient L1 readers seemed to do more
than proficient L2. On the other hand, she found that the less proficient readers use the
process incompletely. Even when they recognize a problem, they don’t know what to do
next. As an outcome of this study she criticized the traditional method in teaching reading
to L2 students along with the material of language-specific trends. She writes:

...the results of this investigation of monitoring run counter
to the common sense wisdom of the reading classroom. For years,
ESL teachers have sought to predigest printed material for students
believing that comprehension depends on understanding of all
language features of the text. Thus, reading traditionally enters the
ESL classroom late and texts used are most often adapted so that
students will understand every word they read. When graded texts
are not used, difficult vocabulary, Structure, and concepts are
pretaught so that the process will be smooth. This investigation
reveals that the process is not a smooth one and suggests that, by
chewing up the text for students, we are distorting the process and
not preparing them to eat on their own. The proficient L2 readers
in this study did not have to understand all the words or structures
to understand what they read. Part of the strength of their reading
was in being able to decide which problems they could ignore and
which they had to solve. (p. 337)

39

In a more recent study, Jimenez et al. (1996) conducted a study aimed at
exploring the question of how bilingualism and biliteracy affect metacognition by
examining the reading process of eight bilingual Latina/o children who were identified as
successful English readers. For comparison purposes, Jimenez et al. (1996) included two
smaller samples (three monolingual Anglo successful readers and three bilinguals
Latina/o less successful English readers). Data were gathered by using unprompted and
prompted think alouds, interviews, a measure of background knowledge, and passage
recalls as the participants read varieties of instructional texts. Results of their Study
showed that successful Latina/o readers tended to resolve comprehension problems as
they identified them by using different Strategies such as “invoking prior knowledge,
inferencing, questioning, using context, and monitoring” (p. 106).‘Unlike the successful
readers, the less successful readers according to Jimenez et al. (1996), used fewer
strategies and “were often less effective in resolving comprehension difficulties in either
' language” (p. 91). Moreover, successful readers showed awareness of the relationship
between Spanish and English and used it to enhance their reading comprehension
compared to less successful readers who did not take advantage of their knowledge of
Spanish to enhance their reading comprehension.

In a similar study, Carrell et al. (1993) used the cloze test to examine the reading
Strategies of first and second language readers (60 native speakers of Chinese and 28
native speakers of English who provided baseline data). Chinese subjects were given two
cloze passages (one in Chinese and one English); the native speakers were given the
English cloze passage only in which each 7’h word has been deleted except for the first

sentence, and were instructed to fill in the blanks. Among the results of their study, they

40

 

found that the Chinese didn’t use the same strategies in Chinese and English clozes.
However, with the exception of some differences, subjects’ reading strategies appeared to
be Similar in English. Since the Chinese students used different strategies in performing
the task in Chinese (L1) and in English (L2), they indicate that their
...research supports that of Anderson (1991), showing that the
picture of reading strategy use is not only a complex one, but also
further showing that what seems to be important is that being a
good reader means the ability to use strategies flexibly...as

required by the linguistic features of the given language in which
the reading occurs. (p. 963)

2.9 Verbal Reports:

Reading research directed to studying the cognitive process has emphasized the
importance of verbal reports/think-aloud protocols (researchers use both terms
interchangeably) as a useful tool to gain more information about readers’ internal states.
Thinking-aloud protocols (developed by Newell and Simon 1972) require readers’
periodic “overt” reflection on their “covert” mental processes as they engage in the task
of reading or writing (Ericsson and Simon, 1980; Garner, 1982; 1987; Afflerbach and
Johnston; 1984; Pressley and Afflerbach, 1995). Therefore, “...think-aloud protocols
provide a direct view of a reader’s mental activity, a kind of window into those processes
which are usually hidden” (Block, 1986: 464).

Ericsson and Simon (1980) classify verbal reports into two types: retrospective
and concurrent verbalizations. The first refers to subjects’ verbal report of their cognitive
process which took place at an earlier point of time while the second refers to the

verbalization of the current cognitive process. In other words, the retrospective type

41

requires subjects to verbalize their cognitive process after finishing the task (e.g. after
reading a passage or part of it) and the concurrent type requires a Simultaneous
verbalization of the cognitive process and the performance of the task. Similar to
Ericsson and Simon’s (1980) classification, Block (1986) identifies two types of verbal
reports to obtain “process-oriented” data: (a) retrospective and (b) introspective reports
and think -alouds which are the same as retrospective and concurrent verbalizations.
While Block’s classification is similar to that of Ericsson and Simon’s, Hayes and
Flowers (1983) distinguish between two types of concurrent verbalization: directed
reports and think-aloud protocols. The latter, according to them, requires subjects to
report on every thought that comes to their mind while in the former subjects are directed
to report on specified behavior while performing the task.

Generally speaking, verbal reports are achieved by asking subjects to stop
occasionally and describe their thinking process as they perform the task (Pressley and
Afflerbach, 1995). In doing so, they are expected to perform at least two tasks: the
reading or writing task and the verbal reporting task (Afflerbach and Johnston, 1984:
Starks-Martin, 1996). Studies that have used think-aloud protocols mostly ask subjects to
read texts and stop every now and then to reflect on how text is being processed and
understood, how a problem (e.g. word deletion or sentence inconsistencies) is being
solved, how word meaning is being guessed from the surrounding context and how
comprehension questions are answered (see Afflerbach and Johnston, 1984). Ericsson &
Simon (1980) name three ways of probing subjects’ thinking and consequently their

verbal reporting:

42

 

1. to instruct them to think aloud or talk aloud (heeded information may be
Verbalized either through direct articulation or by verbal encoding of
information),

2. through concurrent probing , or

3. by retrospective procedure.

Researchers who have used the think aloud method in Studying students’
reading/writing processes argue that they favor this method for a number of reasons.
First, important information about subjects’ metacognitive strengths and weaknesses has
been captured by the implementation of this method (Block, 1986; 1992; Carrell; 1984;
1989; Garner, 1982; Hays and Flower, 1983; Padron, Knight, & Waxman, 1986, among
others). Second, Ericsson and Simon (1984) believe that the think-aloud procedure, when
appropriately used, allows researchers to access and View invisible cognitive processes
that can’t be viewed otherwise and thus provides direct evidence about processes. Third,
in reading, think-aloud protocols “allow access to the reasoning processes underlying
higher level cognitive activity” (Afflerbach and Johnston, 1984: 308).

In spite of these assets, acceptance of verbal reports is far from universal
(Afflerbach and Johnston, 1984; Fawcett, 1993). Critics of verbal reports question the
validity of data gathered by this method, especially the concurrent reporting, claiming
that it may interfere with the subjects’ reading process (see Garner, 1982). However,
Olshavsky (1976-77: 662) offers a solution to this concern by saying that this interference
“can be minimized by giving the subjects a practice session” prior to the actual verbal

reporting.

43

Another limitation of verbal reporting, defined by Garner (1982), is the
accessibility of some cognitive processes. According to her, automated processors that
are below “conscious level” are beyond reporting as in the case of expert readers. That is.
what might be available to the novice readers might not be so to the expert readers as
their cognitive control moves to an automated level.

A final limitation that can be added to the previous concerns is the researchers’
influence on the subjects’ verbal reporting. In other words, critics of the think aloud
method are concerned that the researchers’ comments/questions, especially in interviews,
may direct the outset of the activity and consequently sway the findings. In this regard,
Olshavsky (1976—77) again suggests that the researcher Should not say “anything while
the subjects [are reading and verbalizing]” (p.662).

Despite these methodological limitations. verbal reporting has made its
contribution to our understanding of the cognitive processes (Afflerbach and Johnston,
1984; Pressley and Afflerbach, 1995; Kavale and Schreiner, 1979) and will continue to
provide a direct access to the readers’ invisible cognitive processes ( Ericsson and Simon,

1980).

 

Chapter 3

3 Methodology

3.1 Introduction:

This study comprised two methodological research approaches: the survey
research method and the qualitative research method. Therefore, the current chapter starts
with the rationale behind the selection of these research methods. Second, the population
of the study and the materials that have been used will be presented. Following this
section is a representation of the procedures and instrumentation used in collecting the

data and finally, the procedures of the data analysis.

3.2 Rationale:

Despite the difficulty of combining the quantitative and qualitative approaches in
one study, it is common and sometimes desirable to do so (Bogdan et al., 1982). With
that in mind, the present study attempted to combine the two approaches: whereas phase
one surveyed students’ perceptions about their metacognitive awareness, the second
phase was an attempt to describe their actual reading.

The two approaches differ in regards to the data collection and analysis. That is,
while quantitative research relies on survey and uses Statistical software packages to
analyze and present its findings, qualitative research, on the other hand, uses different

means of data gathering (i.e. interviews, observations, think-aloud protocols) and applies

45

 

descriptive analysis instead of statistical analysis (Roy, 1991; Bogdan et al., 1982).
Although the two methods (quantitative and qualitative) appear to oppose one another,
they can, according to Roy (1991) “be used to compliment each other” (p. 105.)

Having said that, it should be acknowledged that all research methodologies have
their problems and inadequacies. Hence, the combination of these two methodological
approaches. in the current study was an attempt to compensate for the inadequacies of

each.

3.3 Participants:

The total population of phase one of the study was ninety fourth year college
students distributed among two main universities, King Saud University and Imam
Mohammed bin Saud University, both located in Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia, and
. their branches at. Abha city which is located in the southern part of Saudi Arabia about
one thousand kilometers from Riyadh (see Table 3.1). This population is believed to be
homogeneous where all of them were English majors, were all in their last year, were in
the same age group, with the exception of a few cases, and to the best of my knOwledge,
all had the same background educationally and culturally. Educationally speaking, as I
mentioned in the first chapter, the Saudi educational system is controlled and operated by
the Saudi Ministry of Education which distributes unified textbooks for the whole
kingdom (from 1" grade in elementary schools to 3rd grade in high schools). Teachers in
all grades are instructed to follow certain syllabi (Al-Arfaj, 1996; Aljamhoor, 1996) and
sometimes final exams are controlled, too (e.g. 3rd grade in high schools). As far as

subjects’ background in English is concerned, they began studying English in their 7‘h

46

grade four times a week (each period lasts for 45 minutes), English textbooks in each
level are the same in the whole country, and they all majored in English after the first
year of college. Culturally speaking, all subjects are Saudis and share the same cultural
background.

Out of the total population, twenty participants were involved in the second phase
of the study. The selection of the second group was determined by the participants’
scores in the reading comprehension test. In other words, ten students who have achieved
the highest scores representing the skilled readers (SRS’) group and ten students who
received the lowest scores representing the less-Skilled readers (LSRS’) group were
chosen to participate in the second part of the Study. SRs’ raw scores fell between 13 to 8
while the LSRs’ scores fell between 1 to 5 (see Tables 3.1 and 3.2). Percentage wise,
students’ scores in these two groups fall either in the upper 25% quantile (as in the case
of SR3) or in the lower 25% quantile to be considered LSRs. More will be said about this

scale in part III of the data analysis.

Table 3-1: Skilled readers’ reading comprehension scores

Case number score
13
12
12
12
1 1
l 1
10
10
9
8

 

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l

47

--—’ Vim

Table 3-2: Less-skilled readers’ reading comprehension scores

Case number score
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O

 

l
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
5

3.4 Sampling:

The following steps were taken in the overall sampling of the study. 1) the Saudi
universities that have English departments were sorted out. These universities were as
follows: King Saud University, King Abdulaziz University, Imam Mohammed bin Saud
University, and Um Alqura University. Two criteria were involved in listing these
universities. First and foremost, they all focus on preparing their students to teach English
as a foreign language after graduation. Each university uses a wide Spectrum of
curriculum, which aims at enhancing their English background as well as their teaching
abilities. Curriculums of English departments in Saudi Arabia focus on, but are not
limited to, reading, writing, listening, and speaking, as well as other areas of inquiry
related to their English major. Second, each university has a branch in a different
province of the Kingdom, which helped in including a wide range of population.

However, King Abdulaziz University and Um Alqura University were excluded from the

48

list due to the time needed to obtain their official permission to conduct the study. That is,
the long routine and the time needed to get their permission was a major obstacle that
prevented the inclusion of these universities since students were approaching the finals
and the time was running out. Therefore, the researcher focused only on the other
universities and their branches. 3) Although two universities and their branches were
included in the study, classes were assigned randomly. In other words, the reading
comprehension test as well as the metacognitive questionnaire was administered to
random groups of fourth-year English major students in each university. This kind of
sampling is called “cluster sampling” (McBee, 1993;) and according to McBee,
“...subjects [in cluster sampling] are randomly selected in equal numbers from naturally
occurring groups, such as a school system in the northern section of the state or groups in

certain neighborhoods of the city” (p. 6).

3.5 Materials:

Carrell’s (1989) Metacognitive Awareness Questionnaire (MAQ) translated into
Arabic and a standardized reading comprehension test were administered by the
researcher to each group of students. The reading comprehension test was taken from an
older version of Michigan Test of English Language Proficiency (MTELP) (see appendix
E). The MTELP test consisted of four passages and twenty multiple-choice questions
(five for each passage), but students were asked to answer three passages only instead of
four, due to the time limitation. Students who participated in the pilot study were able to

finish only three passages along with the MAQ within the allowed time (45 minutes) and

49

 

based on that the fourth one was eliminated in the actual Study. The twenty students who
participated in the second part of the study were given a passage to read and were
instructed to stop at pre-marked places (five places altogether) and reflect on their
reading process (see the appendix E). The passage is titled “Art and Humor” and was
taken from Reading Between the Lines, a reading book intended for intermediate to
advanced non-native speakers. Subjects, I assumed, would be motivated to read this type
of passage since it talks about an interesting topic, “Cartoons”, and more importantly it
was of a moderate difficulty. That is, the passage was not so easy as to bore SRs and was
not so difficult as to frustrate the LSRS. Moreover, I made sure that this book was not

among the curriculum of any of the above mentioned universities.

3.6 Procedures and Instrumentation:

3.6.1 The pilot study:

Both the MAQ and the reading comprehension tests were pilot tested prior to the
data collection. That is, the final version of the MAQ and the MTELP were given to four
undergraduate MSU students to check their clarity and provide any comments. All of
them had almost the same background as the intended subjects of the actual study. All are
Saudis, have already passed the English Language Center placement test, and all were
taking academic courses at the MSU. AS for the MTELP, they needed more than forty-
five minutes to finish the four passages. But they were able .to answer three passages in
about thirty minutes. Therefore, the last one was eliminated since the researcher had only

forty-five minutes to administer the MTELP and the MAQ. Scores of the MTELP pilot

50

test varied among the four participants, as did their comments. Two students got 10
correct answers out of 15, one student got 14 out of 15 and the fourth one answered four
questions correctly. Their comments in regards to the test difficulty were easy (1 student),
moderate (2 students), and difficult (1 student). Hence, the test was believed to be an
appropriate measure for the intended study with the exception of its length, which was
solved by eliminating the last passage. As far as the MAQ is concerned, the pilot students
were confused about the first and the last options used in the questionnaire namely: the
use of strongly agree, agree, strongly disagree, and disagree options. They suggested the
use of a three-point Likert scale format instead of the five-point Likert scale since the
terms “strongly agree” and “strongly disagree” are not widely used in Arabic and more
importantly they are confusing. Though these terms are common in Studies conducted in
the English language, they are somehow less familiar in the Arabic language. So, their
recommendation was taken into consideration and the final format of the MAQ used a
three-point Likert Scale: 1) Agree, 2) Neutral, and 3) Disagree. IMoreover, they
suggested adding an open-ended question at the end of the questionnaire to allow subjects
to report any reading strategy that has not been mentioned in the survey. This
recommendation was taking into consideration also and a final open-ended question was

added.

3.6.2 Development of the MAQ:

The fact that the MAQ was written in English provided the challenging task of

translating it into Arabic with a minimum change in both its content and form. It was

 

1 Only three informants responded to this question by saying “no”: thus. it was ignored during the analysis.

51

 

necessary to modify it in order to fit the Arabic language characteristics as well as the
subjects of the study. This modification aimed at getting as much as possible of Saudi
students’ perception about their English reading process. But prior to this modification,
Dr. Carrell was contacted by e-mail and later by phone to get her permission to adapt her
questionnaire. Her verbal permission was given over the phone and she requested a c0py
of the Arabic translation when finished.

The format of the Arabic version is different from that of the English. Aside from
the difference in the script, the numbering of the items was modified. First, an example
was added after the introduction to give the subjects an idea of what they were supposed
to do. Second, the English version starts with number one and ends with number thirty—
six while the Arabic version Starts with number one and ends’ with number eleven.
Numbers one through six are the same as the English version. However, numbers seven
through ten were. subdivided into subcategories. For example, number seven contains five
' subcategories, number eight has nine, number nine carries eight subcategories and so
does number ten. The subdivisions of these four items plus the first six items equals thirty
six which is similar to the English version. The subdivision in the Arabic version was
believed to be helpful for the subjects of the study to answer all questions without
confusion and was based on recommendations volunteered by four readers, who kindly
reviewed the first draft of my translation. All of those readers are bilingual and have an
outstanding grasp of Arabic and English. As a matter of fact, one of them is an Arabic
instructor while the other three were Ph.D candidates in different fields.

A copy of the first draft was given to each one of the volunteer readers to evaluate

it in terms of quality, clarity, and translation accuracy. In addition to the format

52

suggestion, a few changes were recommended. For instance, they pointed out the
inconsistency of the Arabic translation of the word “Silent” which appeared in two
different words. Although the meaning of the two words is the same since they are
synonyms, they thought that it might confuse the informants. Other suggestions were the
deletion of some words or phrases such as in item two and six since the meaning was
clear without them, use of different words’ synonyms in the third and the fifth sub-
categories of question number seven, and the deletion of the Arabic translation of
“concentrate on” from the sub-categories of question number eight and the translation of
“ the difficulty” from the sub-categories of question number nine since these words were
mentioned in the core of each question. They were concerned also about the use of five
options in each question and the confusion that they might cause in the actual setting.
This concern was confirmed in the pilot study, as I mentioned earlier, and a three-point
Likert scale was used instead of five. Finally, they suggested adding an open ended
question at the end of the questionnaire to allow subjects to report any reading strategy
that they felt or perceived to be effective but which was not mentioned in the
questionnaire. These suggestions were taken into consideration in the second draft that
was given to the pilot students except the switch to a three-point scale Likert scale. The
final version, as it appears in the appendix, accounted for the recommendation of the
switch initiated by the four readers and confirmed by the pilot students. Although these
necessary modifications were made, I think the content and the meaning of the original
questionnaire were kept to a maximum.

Finally, it should be mentioned that the original sub-division of the questionnaire

was adapted in the final data analysis. For example, Carrell’s (1989) four categories were

53

used in the final analysis. In her analysis, Carrell (1989) divided her thirty-six item
questionnaire into four categories. Statements 1 through six aimed at gathering
information about subjects’ perceived ability to read in English, statements 7 through 1 1
related to subjects’ repair strategies, statements 12 through 28 deal with reading strategies
perceived by the reader to be effective strategies and 8 statements related to aspects that
make reading difficult. As I mentioned earlier, this division was used in the final analysis

due to its complete and precise coverage of these four categories.

3.6.3 The Demographic Questionnaire:

A one-page demographic questionnaire was designed by the author to collect
more information about individual subjects. The first set of questions aimed at gathering
some Optional information such as the subject’s name and age, and college. While the
first part of the demographic questionnaire was optional, the other part was not. The
subjects were instructed to answer the rest in the hope that these questions would give
some answers to a specific research hypothesis or help in comparing subjects’ scores and
their answers to these questions. In question number five, for example, students were
asked if they do extra readings outside their classroom and what kind of reading. If the
subject’s answer was yes, then another question follows to see what kind of outside
reading he is engaged in (e.g. short stories, books, magazines and newspapers, novels, or
something else as a last choice) and subjects were instructed to mark whatever applies. It
was hoped that the researcher might find a relationship between students’ answer
(whether yes or no) and their reading comprehension scores. The sixth question aimed at

students’ self-judgment as readers. That is, on a scale from one to ten (where 10

54

represents an advanced level and one is a beginning level) students were asked to put a
circle around the number that describes their level of reading. It was assumed that the
skilled readers are more confident about their reading ability in contrast to the non-skilled

readers (see appendix C).

3.6.4 Phase I (the survey part):

The researcher visited each university, or its branch, at least two times to
administer the reading comprehension test and the MAQ. Students were given the
following:

1- a consent letter to read and sign if they were willing to participate,
2- the reading comprehension test MTELP, and
3- the MAQ

Subjects who agreed to participate were given 30 minutes to answer the MTELP
and were instructed to turn them in within that time. After 30 minutes, the MTELP tests
were collected so subjects would not go back to them later on. The remaining 15 minutes
were devoted to answering the MAQ but students were allowed to take extra time if they
needed to. Moreover, subjects were encouraged to ask the researcher if they did not

understand any of the MAQ.

3.6.5 The reading comprehension test MTELP:

At the early stage of the study the researcher planned to adapt an older form of the
English Language Test (ELT) at Michigan State University. The ELT placement test is

developed by the English Language Center and is intended for determining foreign

55

students’ language competence and whether or not intensive English training is needed
for Michigan State University students before they enroll in academic courses. However,
the ELC test is not popular compared to that of the University of Michigan (MTELP)
which is widely known for its reliability and validity. So, the researcher decided to
contact the English Language Center at the University of Michigan for a permission to
use one of their tests. Unlike the TOEFL test, the MTELP test is rarely used in Saudi
institutions and the chance of Saudi Students’ earlier exposure to it is slim. But as an extra
precaution, form Q of an older version- each version consists of different forrns- was
chosen to minimize this slight chance more.

This part, as I mentioned before, aimed at evaluating subjects’ reading
competence and determining if any relationship existed between subjects’ reading scores
and their reading strategies or their answers to the survey questionnaire. Moreover, it was
hoped that the reading comprehension test would give the researcher an idea about the
subjects’ reading fluency and based on their scores, the researcher would determine the
subjects of the second part of the Study.

The test consists of four pages. The first page is general instruction that shows
students how to answer the test with two short examples. The other three pages contained
the three passages where in each page a passage (approximately 200 words in length) is
introduced followed by five multiple choice questions. Students were instructed to
answer all three passages within thirty minutes and turn it in to the researcher before they
start answering the MAQ. The topics of these passages varied where’the first one talks

about the Scottish Causeway, the second is about memory function in human brains, and

56

“mi-l

the third discusses the Jazz pianist “Jelly Roll Morton”. (See the appendix F for more

details)

3.6.6 The metacognitive awareness questionnaire (MAQ):

Originally, P. L. Carrell developed this questionnaire for her 1989 study
“Metacognitive Awareness and Second Language Reading”. It aims at collecting
information regarding subjects’ conceptualization about their reading strategies. It
contains thirty-six statements divided into four major categories: Confidence, Repair
strategies, Effectiveness, and Difficulty. This questionnaire was translated into Arabic to
eliminate the possibility of the language difficulty factor.

The formatting of the Arabic translation, as I mentioned in the beginning of this
chapter, looks different from that of the English version though the meaning of the
statements was kept to a maximum. The first six statements attempt to highlight subjects’
perceptions about their reading ability (the confidence category). Following these six
Statements are another five various statements (7-11) which aim at explOring subjects’
conceptions of their repair strategies when comprehension failure occurs. As far as the
effective category is concerned, the questionnaire contains 17 statements to cover the
following subcategories: Sound-letter (3 statements), Word meaning (5 statements), Text
gist (2 statements), Background knowledge (2 statements), Content details (2 statements),
Text organization (2 statements), and Sentence syntax (1 statement). The fourth category
contains 8 different statements as an attempt to gather more information about subjects’
concepts of What makes their reading in English difficult. Again different subcategories

were covered: Sound-letter (3 statements), Word meaning (1 statement), Text gist (1

57

statement), Background knowledge (1 Statement), Text organization (1 statement), and
Sentence syntax (1 statement). Each one of these thirty-Six statements was followed by
three options: 1. Agree 2. Neutral 3. Disagree and subjects were instructed to circle one
option only which they believe fits the statements the most. It must be mentioned,
however, that subjects were given an example at the beginning of the questionnaire.
which explains how to answer the following thirty-six items. Furthermore, they were
highly encouraged to ask the researcher if they had any difficulty understanding any
statement. A copy of both the Arabic and the English version is included in appendix B

and D for more details.

3.6.7 Phase II of the study:

Twenty students participated in part two of the study. Those individual cases
represent two distinct groups, namely: the SRs as one group and the LSRS as another
group. Although the population of phase one of the study was random, participants of the
second phase were selected based on their performance on the MTELP. Subjects were
encouraged to write their actual names on the MAQ as well as on the MTELP forms to
enable the researcher to meet them later on to complete the second part of the study.
Subjects were ensured that their identity would be kept confidential and would not be
revealed. Furthermore, they were told also that they had the option not to write their
names if they wished. Some of them exercised this option and did not write their names,
so they were eliminated from the final selection even if they happened to fall in either
category (high score achievers or low score achievers). Low and high score achievers

were met individually to complete the second part of the study (ten participants of each

58

category). The researcher did the following to maximize the quality and accuracy of
participants’ verbal reporting:

First, the researcher tried his best to explain and demonstrate the think aloud
protocol procedure in one setting at each university/its branch (usually in the second day),
and then met each case individually for the actual recording. However, a few subjects
were not present and the researcher had to explain and demonstrate the think aloud to
those cases individually. It should be mentioned, however, that the researcher rehearsed a
lot before conducting the study. That is, based on the pilot study and the
recommendations of those who participated in it, the researcher did a lot of practice to the
point that almost the exact words were repeated in each demonstration. A one-paragraph
excerpt, taken from Ahlan Washlan was read by the researcher to demonstrate the think
aloud protocol procedures. Ahlan Washlan is a monthly magazine, which is published by
the Saudi Airlines. The demonstration and explanation of the procedures lasted about ten
minutes and were repeated when needed.

Second, the participants were given a pre-marked passage to read and stop to
report their cognitive processes at every red dot, five stops altogether (see appendix E),
but were encouraged to report them whenever they wanted to. To make sure that subjects
understood the procedure, each one was given a short paragraph to practice before he was
asked to do the actual verbal reporting. Third, participants were encouraged to elaborate
more if they provided a brief or unclear report during the recording session. However, the
researcher made sure that the provided comments were noncueing, nonspecific ones
(Kletzien, 1992; Garner and Kraus, 1981-1982), such as “Can you explain more or can

you tell me more” or “ What do you usually do” (when faced with a reading problem and

59

did not report what he was doing) and a comment like Gamer’s (1987) “Remember, tell
me what you are thinking” when a participant fell silent. (p. 69)

Fourth, the effect of the non-native language on participants’ verbal reporting was
kept to a minimum by encouraging them to use their mother tongue language. In other
words, knowing that the language proficiency might hinder or interfere with the ability to
state their reading strategies as they were reading (Padron et al., 986), participants had the
option of using the language of their preference, either Arabic or English, but were
encouraged to use their Arabic language to eliminate the language proficiency variable.

Finally, the researcher tried to minimize participants’ nervousness by chatting
with them for a while before the actual recording took place by doing three things:

a. General topics such as “weather”, “school”, “future plans” were usually brought up to
break the ice and minimize any tenseness or discomfort on the participants’ part.

b. A small recording device was used in all recording sessions.

c. Participants were ensured that their reading performance wouldn’t be judged or

graded, that their identities wouldn’t be revealed, and they were encouraged to act

naturally and ignore my presence.

3.6.8 Data analysis procedures:

The researcher analyzed the data as follows:

1. SRS and LSRs’ actual use of different reading strategies were compared;

2. SRS’ and LSRS’ actual and reported reading strategies were examined in terms of
their similarities, differences, neutrality, and consistencies or contradiction.

Presentation of this section depended on the availability of these strategies in the

60

3.

actual reading. Descriptive-based analyses were used in analyzing 1 and 2 (the
qualitative data);

The collected questionnaires were quantitatively analyzed. More specifically,
attention was paid to SRs and LSRS’ questionnaire with some reference to all subjects
when further comparison was needed. The researcher used different statistical
methods in analyzing the data (e.g. percentage, regression, correlation test and t-test
in the quantitative analysis ).Tables and charts were used to represent the results of

this study.

61

Chapter 4

4 Data Analysis

4.1 Introduction:

This part consists of three sections: section 1 examines Skilled and less-Skilled
readers’ actual reading Strategies (their think-aloud protocols) and analyzes them by
comparing their usage of different strategies as they encountered a reading difficulty.
Section 11 deals with individual cases’ actual reading strategies and compares them with
their reported ones. Finally, section 111 represents the quantitative analysis of all

informants’ responses to the Metacognitive questionnaire.

4.2 Part 1: Analysis of Skilled and Less-skilled readers’ actual reading
strategies

As stated earlier, this part is a comparison of SRS and LSRs’ actual reading
strategies. The task of this comparison was not an easy thing to do due to uniqueness of
informants’ reading strategies. Therefore, the researcher studied each transcript
individually then compared only common strategies that were applied by at least one of
each group. Two things were considered during the analysis: first, how reader/s went
about solving reading difficulties if any, and secondly, what kind of strategies they
employed either in solving that reading difficulty or in their reading as a whole. Under
the reading difficulty, the following categories will be discussed: comprehension

difficulty, syntactic difficulty and vocabulary difficulty. The following categories of

62

reading strategies will be examined: ideas’ connection, imaging/use of past experience,
monitoring, prediction, and questioning. Charts are used, when necessary, to provide a
clearer picture.

Analysis of the actual reading strategies of skilled and less-skilled readers reveal
an overlapping use of top-down and bottom-up reading models. That is, in the following
analysis, we can see that readers from both groups used a mixture of both reading models
during their actual reading. This overlapping, I think, is a sign of their interaction with the
printed material and will be highlighted in the second part of the analysis as we look at
informants’ overall use of local and global strategies. Earlier in the discussion of the
literature, Stanovich (1980) presented a model of reading known as the Interactive
Compensatory Model. In this model, Stanovich acknowledges other researchers’
definition of interaction (e.g. Rumelhart (1977) as it suggests some individual differences
during the interaction process. However, he believes that this interaction between higher
and lower information is not balanced: rather it is regulated by individual readers’ needs.
It seems that the findings of this study support Stanovi‘ch’s view of reading interaction.
For example, we can see that in some cases less skilled readers used top-down strategies
more than skilled readers; and in other cases skilled readers relied more on their skills of
utilizing higher information and outperformed less-skilled readers in this regard.

The following analysis starts with the first category (the comprehension

difficulty), then proceeds to cover the rest of the aforementioned categories.

4.2.1 Comprehension difficulty:
The reading comprehension difficulty category (Chart 4.1) marks the first

example of what has been said earlier regarding the use of mixed strategies. In this

63

 

category, informants varied in the way they chose to solve their reading comprehension

difficulty.

Chart 4-1: Comprehension difficulty

 

comprehension difficulty

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

reread all paragraph

'_1 sns 1:1 LSRS

 

While SRs and LSRS appeared to favor the first strategy as they continued
reading, it is clear that they differed in regards to the other two strategies. As can be seen
in Chart 4.1, both groups appeared to apply an effective reading strategy as they
continued reading hoping that their comprehension difficulty would be cleared later on.
Results show that LSRS were slightly higher in applying this method (8 times compared
to 7 times in the case of the SRs). Though the two groups applied this method effectively,
differences were found among those who chose to apply different methods. For example,
the LSRS were found to do one of two things: they either reread the problematic part or

they continued reading but none of them reread the whole paragraph. On the other hand,

SRS went back and reread the whole passage 3 times compared to none who did this in
the case of LSRS. SRS reread the problematic part less than did the LSRS 8 times

compared to 2 times in the case of the SRs.

4.2.2 Discussion of the comprehension difficulty:
Inforrnants’ reading comprehension difficulty varied from one subject to anotherz.

Some had difficulties understanding one sentence/phrase and others faced some
difficulties comprehending a whole paragraph. The following informant, for example,

had a problem understanding a whole paragraph and this is how he dealt with it:

I read the second paragraph twice”

Why?

I felt I did not understand it very well, so I decided to read it again

Could you describe your reading process in both readings?

The first time was kind of fast where I just tried to read everything fast but
the

second time was slower than the first time where I concentrated more.

What made you concentrate more?

Sometimes when I feel I don’t understand, I repeat with more concentration until I
understand especially when there are difficult words or the structure is difficult.
Did you reread the difi’icult part only or the whole paragraph?

When there is something causing comprehension difficulty for me, I reread
the

whole thing. . .I prefer to reread the whole thing rather than a specific
sentence or word.

A first reaction to his comments suggests that he applied a top-down strategy as
he skimmed the second paragraph and then he reread it with more concentration.

However, his later answers to the researchers’ question “what made you concentrate

more?” reveals that he follows a text-based strategy once he faces a meaning or a

 

2 No reference to either the SRs nor the LSRS was made in this example as well as the following examples
for two reasons: first, comparison between them (percentage/and or number-wise) preceded the
presentation of these examples; and second, not necessarily the same problem was encountered by one of
each group (some were encountered by SRS, some were encountered by LSRS, and some were encountered
by both groups). Thus, students’ reports were presented with no reference to their group.

65

Structure difficulty. Furthermore, he might have had a problem understanding a sentence
or part of a sentence, yet his policy was to reread the whole paragraph until he understood
“everything”. He seems to apply the rereading strategy extensively, which might be at the
expense of other effective strategies (i.e. getting the overall meaning of the paragraph).
Jimeneze et al. (1996) referred to their less successful Latina/o readers as having used
fewer strategies. Rereading, in this case, appears to be part of this reader’s reading habits
even when there was no comprehension difficulty. Let’s see how he approached the first
and the last paragraphs and what he said in regards to his rereading:

I read this sentence twice “This may be the reason that many of them turn
their

half-opened eyes to the comics section of the newspaper as they sip their
first cups of coffee of the day.”

Why?

Because I think it contained the main point and I wanted to double check
my understanding of it.

So, you reread it twice because you thought it contained the main point of
the paragraph not because you faced any difiiculty?

Just because it contained the main point of the paragraph.

At the end of the passage he reread the last paragraph three times
because it, according to him, contained the summary of the whole
passage. He put it:

I reread the last paragraph three times

Why? What seemed to be the problem?

The last paragraph is always a summary of the whole topic, so I usually
pay more attention to it and in most cases, I read it more than two times.
Repeating here helped me to understand what has been said in this
paragraph and helped me to connect it with other ideas which have been
mentioned earlier.

It is clear that this reader was monitoring his comprehension and was trying to
connect ideas, yet the body of the text, according to his comments, seems to receive little

attention compared to the first and the last paragraphs. This might be attributed to his

66

perception of the task at hand which according to Wagoner (1983) affects the readers’
comprehension quality as well as the comprehension monitoring itself.

While the previous reader reread because he wanted to connect ideas and
understand what has been said earlier, another had a problem with a single phrase in a
sentence but couldn’t locate the source of the problem without the help of the researcher.
Here is what happened:

“ Cartoons also make people laugh at their own personal worries. Young people
who are not always sure of how to act can always smile at their awkwardness
...awkwardness...old people whose grown children pay little attention to them can
chuckle at their neglect and loneliness”. . .ahhh. . .”old people ...and loneliness.”

You read this sentence twice why?

ltried to understand it but i couldn’t.

What seems to be the problem?

I couldn’t get its meaning.

Which part of it, or was it the whole thing?

“ can chuckle” I don’t know what he means by “ chuckle” and it seems to be a
key word.

What do you want to do?

Check it up in the dictionary ...yeah...now everything is clear

It is obvious that the above reader was concentrating on the meaning of what he
read at a word level as he concentrated on one sentence and later it turned out to be one
word. This reader seems to fall into the second category of Devine’s (1993) classification
of readers (sound-, word, or meaning-oriented). Not only did he appear to be a word-
meaning level reader, but also he was not successful in selecting the appropriate strategy.
Thus, he could have gone on and on in his rereading, thinking that he had a

comprehension difficulty while, in fact, he had a meaning difficulty; this difficulty was

solved immediately after looking up one word in the dictionary.

67

4.2.3 Syntactic difficulty:

AS far as the syntactic difficulty is concerned, Chart 4.2 indicates that a few
informants from both groups experienced some kind of difficulty with the structure of the

given passage (30% of each group).

Chart 4-2: Syntactic difficulty

 

l syntactic difficulty

 

 

 

experienced difficulty didn’t experience

: SFls El LSRS

 

 

4.2.4 Discussion:

Analysis of informants’ think-aloud protocol suggests that word hyphenation
caused some reading difficulty where some informants wondered about its presence in

certain places in the passage. For example, some informants wondered about the use and

68

necessity of clashes in the following phrase “bigger-than-life” where it caused
comprehension difficulty for some readers like the following informants:

...l’m wondering why this dash is here (referring to the phrase “bigger-
than-life”). I mean why did the writer put such dash in here? Or why did
he put it in the first place....I mean he could have expressed what he
wanted to say without using the dashes.

Do you think that the presence of dashes in this sentence created a
comprehension problem for you or just you’re wondering about its
location?

It caused a comprehension problem for me...you see when I come to a
sentence or a phrase like that one, I know that there is a complex meaning
for it, so I don’t like some writers’ way of expressing their ideas...they try
to create a reading difficulty for us by using uncalled for methods like
dashes you see in order to understand that phrase or similar sentences, I
have to combine the meaning of the whole phrase and get its meaning.
Could you explain more?

Yes, first “in my mind”, I find the individual meaning of each word in
Arabic, then combine the two meanings (the Arabic and the English) to
see if there are any similarities between them then apply that meaning to
what I read to see if it makes sense or not.

A process like the above one is a very complicated one, especially if we take into
consideration that the above reader switches back and forth between two languages
(Arabic and English) just because the structure of the sentence included dashes. It’s worth
mentioning that word hyphenation is not used in the Arabic language which is the native
language of our informants here. The interactions between Arabic and English literacy
might be the cause of such difficulty encountered by this reader; and in fact Hudson
(1998) indicates that “ different L1 orthographies and literacy practices will affect L2
reading ability and strategies” (p. 44). Furthermore, it seems that this reader is highly
dependent on his L1 (Arabic) reading strategies to process the L2 text.

Another reader followed a different reading strategy when he found out that he
faced a Similar problem. First he reread the whole thing twice, then he reread the

problematic part alone, then he identified a small part of the sentence as the source of the

69

problem, looked it up in the dictionary, reread the same sentence for the last time and
finally he went on in his reading hoping that the following paragraph might help him out.
Let’s see what happened:

Millions of people struggle out of bed...this need maybe the reason that
many of them turn their half-opened eyes to the comics section of the
newspaper as they sip their first cups of coffee of the day”. Uhh...I think
I need to read it again... “ Millions of people struggle out of bed...this
need maybe the reason that many of them turn their half-opened eyes to
the comics section ...to the comic section of the newspaper as they sip
their first cups of coffee of the day The first part of the paragraph is fine,
but I still couldn’t connect the last sentence with the rest of the paragraph.

What do you think the source of the difi’iculty here...I mean in this
sentence?

The Structure of the sentence. It’s a long and a complex sentence

What do you do in such case?

I usually read it again

0K.

“ This need maybe the reason that many of them turn their half-opened
eyes to the comics section of the newspaper” so far I think the difficulty is
in the last words “the comics section of the newspaper”...actually the “
comics section”...l think this word “comic” is a major source of the
sentence difficulty. . .so I’ll check it up in the dictionary

After he consulted his dictionary, he commented:
OK. I got its meaning ...now let’s see “ This need may be the reason that
many of them turn their half-opened eyes to the comics section of the
newspaper as they sip their first cups of coffee of the day”. I think I
grasped the general idea of the paragraph...so I’ll continue reading
...maybe the coming paragraph will provide more information.
It might appear to us that he had a meaning difficulty Since he consulted the
dictionary, but he was aware that the problem had something to do with the structure of
the sentence from the beginning. He explicitly said that it was “ the Structure of the

sentence. It’s a long and a complex sentence...”. Consulting the dictionary, I think, was

one of his own strategies to solve the complexity of the sentence, which he had to try

70

before he continued on in his reading. It might be a sequence of Strategies that he had to
utilize to solve a reading problem, which, according to Shuy (1977), increase in a
sequential order of sophistication. Thus, this reader started by concentrating on the
meaning at a lexical level but applied a more effective method as he chose to continue in
his reading. Application of this strategy reveals his awareness/knowledge of this strategy
and its effectiveness in solving his reading difficulty (Baker & Brown, 1984).

He realized also upon consulting his dictionary that it was not a meaning
difficulty; had it been a meaning difficulty, it should’ve been solved after getting the
meaning of the difficult word. Hence, his sequence of Strategies seems better than the
previous reader since he was able to minimize the source of the problem and was able to
get the general meaning rather than switching back and forth between two different
languages as did the former.

Interestingly enough, some readers were so much involved with the passage
where they wanted to adapt the writer’s style or even say how a certain sentence or
phrase should have been written as we can see in the following comments of one
informant:

“ Cartoons reflect the times and the troubles. .

Why did you stop? What are you thinking of?

“ troubles” Why did he use the plural form? It’s a mass noun and

shouldn’t be written as plural...

What do you want to do about it?

I might underline it...in fact, I’ll underline it and read the sentence again.

“Cartoons reflect the times and the troubles and worries of people” I think

that “worries” here is the noun form of “worry”...

How about “troubles ” are you still thinking about it?

Yeah, I think the writer made a mistake here but it doesn’t affect the

meaning. I’m also wondering because he used “and” three times in one

sentence...so instead of saying “ Cartoons reflect the time and troubles

and worries of people” he Should have used commas so the sentence
would be like this “ Cartoons reflect

71

the times, the troubles and the worries of people”.

Does it cause any comprehension drfifitculo‘ for you?

In terms of comprehension, No, but I was concerned about its grammatical

correctness only.

In another place, the researcher asked him why he read the following sentence

twice: “ They also make fun of the problems that people make for themselves-like making a
problem out of which type of car to buy”. He said:

“I think the sentence is well-formed and as a non-native speaker of

English, the writer was able to convey his message to me despite the

complexity of the sentence. I read it twice because I liked the way he put

it and wanted to apply the same style of writing in the future”.

But he seemed to be confused later on and went back to his concern about
grammatical correctness when he faced a problem similar to that he encountered earlier.
It appears that this reader was preoccupied by the grammatical correctness of what he
was reading. Even though he finally continued reading, I think that his frequent stops and
concerns about the grammatical correctness might have interrupted the flow of his
comprehension. He said:

“ In hard times- time...uhh...times ...again he shouldn’t have used the plural
indicator with a mass noun...I don’t know why he is doing that, but it is not my
concern here. “ In hard times- times of economic troubles- people want someone
or something to blame their troubles on”...ummm...l don’t recall this usage for
this prepositional of phrase “ to blame their trouble on”. I have heard “ don’t
blame me” and “ I’m the one to be blamed “ but not “ blame it on”

How about “ don ’t blame it on me ”?

No, I haven’t heard of it.

What do you want to do now?

I’ll continue because it doesn’t affect the general meaning.

While the above reader looked at it as a grammatical error, another reader saw it

as a typo and believed that the presence of such dashes must be a typing mistake. His

comments read:

72

In hard times-time of ...ummm is it times or time...Is this a typing
error or

what?

What do you think?

I think there are some typing mistakes in this passage, like “ half-opened
eyes”, “themselves-like”, “ in time of troubles-people” and this one “In
hard times-time of”.

But you just mentioned them now. You didn’t say anything about them
before why?

Well...the first three looked like typing errors, in which the writer
mistakenly typed hyphens between the these words.

What makes you think they are typing errors?

Because in each one, the second word is different from the first one, but
the last one “ times-time” seems to me the writer the writer put it
intentionally...or you might be the one who put these dashes to see what
we are going to do.

No, no...l didn ’t add anything to this passage except the red dots where I
wanted you to stop.

Or it could be additional information.

You mean the last one “ times-time ” or all of them ?

No, the last one only.

How do you solve this confusion?

I’ll read the sentence twice...one as is with the dashes and in the second
one I’ll delete the phrase “time of economic troubles” If the meaning is
not affected by the deletion, then this phrase is an additional information.
UK

“ In hard times-time of economic troubles - people want someone to
blame their troubles on”... “ In hard times people want someone to blame
their trouble on”...ahhh ...the sentence was not affected by the deletion ,
so it is an additional information. This additional information explains
what he meant by “ hard times”

Two different readers encountered the same sentence differently, but the overall
meaning of the sentence was a major concern for both of them. The former thought that
the sentence contained a grammatical problem but proceeded despite the fact that he was
confident of the sentence incorrectness. The latter, on the other hand, believed that the

sentence had a typo error but he, too, continued reading because the meaning wasn’t

affected by the deletion of the phrase.

73

4.2.5 Vocabulary difficulty:

Both SRS and LSRS encountered unfamiliar words/phrases as they read the given
text. In this category we want to see what happened when informants encounter such

difficulty and what kind of Strategy they employed.

Chart 4-3: Vocabulary difficulty

 

 

mad

 

 

 

 

 

 

- “it It; ( .
52'. JR

never stopped

 

 

 

 

stopped always stopped sometimes ’

: SRs E] LSRS

,_.._.M ._.....__

 

Analysis of this category indicates that skilled readers used somewhat better
Strategies than less-skilled readers. Only 10% of the skilled readers stopped when faced
with unknown words or phrases compared to 40% of less-Skilled readers who always
stopped. On the other hand, 60% of SRs sometimes stopped during their reading process
compared to 50% of the LSRS. We shouldn’t be surprised as we see the 60% (though it

seems to be a big percentage) for two reasons: First, the rest of the results indicate that

74

30% of skilled readers applied a global strategy as they continued their reading compared
to 10% of the LSRS. Second, what happened after they stopped? What did they do? In
other words, what kind of strategy/strategies did they employ? Informants in this study
differed in regards to this issue; some readers in both groups did stop for a while, maybe
reread the new word/phrase, or tried to guess the meaning of that word/phrase and some
continued their reading and didn’t stop while others insisted on knowing everything in
the text before they proceeded in their reading. Referring back to the same reader, who
pointed out that he is “ different from others”, we can see that some readers can’t go on in
their reading unless they decode and know everything in the text including names of
people and places. This suggests that some readers appear to be text-based readers who
might Still view reading as a decoding process rather than an interaction process. Further,
it might support Walker’s (1983) suggestion that readers of this type- word by word

processors- can be classified as beginners.

Chart 4-4: Strategy used for difficult words

75

 

strategy used for difficult words

 

  

 

 

NG-meVOCD

—L

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

looked up meaning reread guesses meaning

 

 

: ans [:1 LSRS

The overall results of what the informants did as they encountered unfamiliar
words/phrases indicate that informants were not consistent. For example, sometimes an
informant would continue reading though he was facing a meaning difficulty but later on
the same informant would consult his dictionary upon reading a difficult word. Both
groups had this inconsistent pattern and this will be highlighted in the second part of the
analysis. However, as we can see in Chart 4.33, the SRS seemed to consult their
dictionaries less than the LSRS. That is, on 6 occasions SRs consulted their dictionaries
upon encountering an unfamiliar word/phrase compared to 9 times in the case of the
LSRS. Moreover, they used the rereading strategy less than LSRS (five times compared to

eight times for the LSRS) though this Strategy can be effective as long as it doesn’t

 

3 Results of this chart shouldn’t be mixed with that of the comprehension difficulty chart. This one talks
about subjects’ strategies on the word level while the comprehension chart talks about their strategies on
the paragraph level.

76

become a reading habit. That is to say, and based on the researcher’s experience, the
rereading might hinder reader’s comprehension when it occurs more often at unnecessary
places.

We can see also in the same chart that the number of times that informants in both
groups guessed the meaning of the unfamiliar word/phrase was equal (five times for each
group). Subjects’ effort to guess the overall meaning of the sentence appears to be an
indication of their awareness of this important strategy.

With non-native speakers of English, as is the case with our informants here, the
unfamiliarity of some English words is normal and, as a matter of fact, is expected.
Knowing how readers deal with this difficulty is essential for learners and researchers
alike.

Examples of subjects’ actual reading strategies in the current study indicate that
they differ from one another in the way they approached the difficult words/phrases and
in the strategy being employed. For example, the following reader guessed the meaning
of two words but consulted the dictionary for the third one since he considered it
“important”. Here is how:

I’m wondering about the meaning of “comics”.

Do you want to look it up in the dictionary? What would you do if you
were alone?

I know it’s a section in the newspaper, but I don’t know which one...so, I
would look it up in the dictionary...OK. .. now I see what it means...

Do you usually consult the dictionary in your reading?

I consult it when I can’t guess the meaning ...so in this paragraph, I
guessed the meaning of “fumble”, and “struggle out” from the context.
But when I couldn’t guess the other word, and I thought it was an
important one, I went back to the dictionary. Sometimes when I find a
good word... or a new word which sounds important, I check its meaning
and try to memorize it - along with its spelling- it for a later use.

77

Another reader indicated that finding the meaning of new words is important
when reading a required course or topic. In other words, he only guesses in his free
reading but not in his required reading. In his reading, he encountered a number of
unfamiliar words and stopped at the first dot, which had been placed in the passage. He
was asked to do exactly as he would usually do in his reading and this is what he said:

You mentioned that you didn’t know the meaning of “struggle out”

and “fumble ” what else ?

Also “cheerful”, “half—opened eyes”, “comics”, and “sip”.

0K...What do you want to do about them? Actually, what would you

do if you were alone?

Well, it depends. . .If it is a required reading. then I have to find out the
meaning of each individual word and write it down so I can understand
what I read.

In our case here, let ’5 suppose that you ’re reading a required topic. What
would you do?

First, I’d find out the meaning of these words before I continue.

Please do (Informant looks up words in the dictionary and writes each
word’s meaning in Arabic above the English word or next to it. Then he
starts rereading the paragraph).

“Millions of people struggle out bed each moming...as they sip their first
cups of coffee of the day”. . .Now it makes sense...
As I noticed, you first located each word that you didn ’t know by
underlining it, found their meanings, wrote the meaning of each word in
the text and then you reread the paragraph. Is this your reading strategy?
Yes, when I read a required topic.

How about when you read for pleasure

I sometimes look up words in the dictionary, but not as often as I do in my
required reading.

Obviously, this reader followed a long and complicated strategy. Not only did he
insist on finding the meaning of each individual word, but also he wrote their meanings in
Arabic in the passage. Finding the meaning of unknown words and then writing their
meaning in Arabic might be traced to traditional methods of teaching English at lower

levels (middle and high schools) in which a lot of emphasis is directed towards the

meaning of each individual word. Such a reading Strategy would definitely interrupt his

78

comprehension process, especially if he stops after each unknown word as he indicted

later in response to this comment:

But I noticed that you finished the first paragraph first before you
consulted your dictionary. Do you consult your dictionary after each
paragraph?
No, I just wanted to stop at the red mark that you put here. . .that was why I
continued. Otherwise, I would have stopped after the second word that I
didn’t know.

Unlike the previous reader, this reader encountered a similar problem but dealt

with it differently. In the same paragraph, he encountered the following unknown words:

,9 66

“ fumble , Struggle out” and “ comics”, but continued reading and tried to get the
general meaning of the paragraph instead of finding their exact meanings. He reflected by

saying:

I encountered some new words in this paragraph... ‘

Like what?

Like “fumble”, “struggle out”, and “comics”

Could you tell me what happened later?

I tried to read the whole paragraph without stopping...that helped me to
guess their meanings ...I was able to understand the general meaning of
the paragraph without referring to the dictionary.

Do you usually apply this strategy in your reading?

Yes, I always try to guess the meaning of new words from the context.

A third reader indicated that looking up an unknown word depends on its
importance to the given passage. For him, if the unknown word is a key word, then it’s
better to find out its meaning rather than the general meaning of the sentence or
paragraph. The word “scapegoats” appeared twice and triggered the following comments:

“being able to use the leaders as scapegoats and to laugh at the leaders

somehow makes people feel better about their Situation.” Umm... Another

scapegoats in the same paragraph...so i need to look it up.

Is it because it appeared twice only?

No, it’s not only that. Actually, I didn’t fully understand the sentence and it’s a
key word too.

79

The previous quote shows that the reader did two things: First, he skipped the
unknown word “scapegoats” for the first time despite the fact that he didn’t know its
exact meaning. But when the word appeared for the second time, he decided to look it up.
He applied an effective reading strategy where he intentionally ignored it as it appeared
for the first time, but realized its importance to the paragraph and wanted to know its

exact meaning to fully understand the sentence.

4.2.6 Connecting Ideas:

Keeping track of the presented ideas by connecting new ideas with previous ones
is a sign of a good reading strategy. Analysis of informants’ transcripts indicate that 50%
of each group applied this top-down strategy. By the same token, 50% of each group
either read each paragraph and did not attempt to relate them, or failed to report this
strategy during their reading process. Among those who tried to apply this strategy is the
reader whom I quoted earlier. It is clear that he paid attention to ideas’ connection
especially at the end of the passage where, according to him, connection is essential to
the overall comprehension. In his comments about rereading the last paragraph three
times he said: “...The last paragraph is always a summary of the whole topic, so I usually
pay more attention to it and in most cases, I read it more than two times. Repeating here
helped me to understand what has been said in this paragraph and helped me to connect
with other ideas which have been mentioned earlier.”

But that was not necessarily the case. While some readers tended to pay attention

to ideas’ connection, others showed no interest in doing so. The following reader

80

represents the latter type of readers since he made no effort at relating or connecting ideas
together. His comments that revealed this strange strategy were prompted by the
following observation:

You read the first paragraph and read part of the second

paragraph. . .almost half of it. Did you try to connect what you’ve read

with what you were reading?

He responded:

Well, no...actually I usually read each paragraph separately and I didn’t
try to connect the ideas together.

4.2.7 Imaging/use of past experience:

Another interesting finding is the readers’ use of images and recall of experiences
during their reading process. SRS were found to invoke more images from their life
experience than LSRS (70% compared to 40%). One might say that maybe the passage
did not have something that could have triggered their imagination. That might be true,
but it is worth mentioning that subjects were approaching their finals during the data
collection and the passage contains something about the exam that could have, I think,
triggered their imagination. Most subjects who recalled a certain situation which had
occurred in their past did so when they read this part “. .. students who have studied too
little before an examination can laugh at their anxiety.” So, absence of such imagination
concerning the previous part or any other part of the passage might be due to either
nonrecall of a related experience or a complete failure to report it.

One subject’s recall of past experience reads:

“...and make their way to a cup of coffee and the morning news paper”.

Ahh “to a cup of coffee and the morning news paper”

Why did you repeat this part twice?

“It reminds me of the British family that I used to live with. .
ahh.

81

“Early in the moming...and while the women prepares the breakfast, the man used to get
a cup of coffee while reading the newspaper.”

I think the recall of this experience has made the comprehension process of this
part easier for him. Culturally speaking, most Saudi people drink coffee in the morning
but rarely do so as they read newspaper. So, I think the image of the household drinking
and reading newspaper in the morning has contributed to this reader’s comprehension
process.

Another reader commented on the anxiety of the finals when he read the following
sentence: “Students who have studied too little before an examination can laugh at their
anxiety”. He said:

Yaah ...that is true [laughing]

You laughed. . . why ?

You know when I read this sentence, I remembered the finals of last semester. We had a
lot of pressure especially in the first week... we had to study hard since we covered a lot
of materials during the term and we were behind after we finished the exams and
passed wa alhamdu le Alleh [thanks to God] we used to get together and laugh at our
neglect and laziness.

I see. . .do you think remembering this situation helped your comprehension?

Of course it did... you know when I read it, it made sense to me.

4.2.8 Comprehension Monitoring:

In this category (the comprehension category), results Show that 70% of skilled

readers checked their comprehension all times while less-skilled readers appeared to

82

neglect this essential strategy. During their reading and thinking process, 60% of less—
Skilled went on in their reading without checking their reading comprehension and only

40% did check it to make sure that they were following up with the presented ideas.

Chart 4-5: Comprehension monitoring

 

comprehension monitoring

 

I

l

l

i L
l 70% -, 2
l 60%

I 50%

l

40%
30%
20%

1 0%

  

  

 

 

00/ . L. , . L L—-
0 Checked comp. didn't check comp.

IT‘I SFls El LSRS

Comments such as: “OK”, “Now I understand”, “Now everything is clear" “I see", “I
don’t know what he meant by so and so” and similar comments suggest that informants
were checking their comprehension. To be more accurate, subjects’ verbalization of such
comments helped the researcher to detect their comprehension monitoring. It must be
noted, however, that the previous result was a result of stirdying the process of their
overall comprehension which seems to be in favor of the SRs. Amazingly enough, as we

will see in the second analysis, 80% of the LSRS reported a comprehension failure at one

83

point of their reading compared to 30% of the SRS. But as I examined such reports, I
found most of these reports were at word or sentence levels, which might interrupt rather
than promote their comprehension. On a few occasions which represents 40%, LSRS
were found to monitor their comprehension at the paragraph level. Monitoring at a word
or a sentence level, according to August et a1. (1984), “ do not

[ help in] constructing a coherent representation of the whole Story that can then be
evaluated for consistency (p.40).

Those who appeared to monitor their comprehension in both groups tended to
change their reading strategies (as a fix-up strategy) when they failed to comprehend. For
example, the following quote represents a comprehension problem and how this
informant tried to fix it:

In this paragraph, I was hesitant because I was moving my lips a lot trying
to pronounce different words and I think it caused me to lose the meaning
of many things.

Like what?

You see.. I was reading and moving my lips ( pronouncing what I was
reading ) so I was concentrating on my pronunciation rather than my
comprehension.

Did it happen from the beginning of the paragraph ?

Yes .. so 1 did not grasp that much from this paragraph. I was trying to see
how my comprehension would be.. I mean would my comprehension be
better when I read and pronounce at the same time or not.

So, what did you do when you realized that you had a comprehension
difiicult‘y?

I stopped moving my lips and reread the part which I did not understand
and continued reading in the same way until I finished.

Do you mean to say without moving your lips?

Yes, I meant that and my comprehension was much better than before.

Sub-vocalization, which means repeating words to oneself (Al-Arfaj, 1996),
caused comprehension interruption for this reader. As a result of his comprehension

monitoring, he realized that he was not following up with the writer; thus, a rereading

84

strategy plus avoiding the sub-vocalization were used to repair this comprehension
failure.

Another reader reflected on his reading strategy adjustment where he believes that
each paragraph has to be approached differently. He says:

"Each paragraph needs a different approach, at least for me. For example,
this paragraph needed a lot of concentrating. I took more time reading it,
so my reading speed was slow compared to the previous one".

On the other hand, those who didn‘t monitor their reading comprehension either
concentrated on a small portion of the text (e.g. sentence level) and neglected the rest of
the text or, as I said earlier, tried to monitor on a word level which is a sign of being text-
driven reader. One subject even went further to explain his frustration when he comes
across names of people or places that he does not know in a given text. He says:

"... when I read something and find an unfamiliar thing that I don’t know,
whether it's a word or an idea, I feel disappointed. I’m different from
others, for example, If I read a Story and this story contains names of
character or places, I feel frustrated when I don’t know how to pronounce
these names.

Why do you feel frustrated ?

The names are important to the reading process. ..that is what I think. If
these names appear once or twice, they can be ignored. But in a story or a
novel, names of characters and places appear repeatedly and interrupt my
reading speed and comprehension and even my reading desire is strongly
affected by not knowing them. I feel frustrated because there is no way of
checking their pronunciation.

What do you do in such case?

As I said, I can’t ignore them and go on...so I simply close the book and
do something else. In my reading now, the word “fumble” might mean
wearing some clothes...I think it’s listed in the dictionary, but if I couldn’t
find it, I can’t go on in my reading.

It’s clear that this reader pays attention not only to pronunciation of new words

(including names of people and places), but also to their meanings. His reading

85

comprehension seems to be coupled with his ability to pronounce individual words as

well as knowing their exact meaning.

4.2.9 Prediction:

Our next category in this comparison is the prediction strategy. Results suggest
that only 30% of each group utilized this strategy and 70% of each group either did not
apply it or failed to verbalize it. Although prediction Strategy cant be compared to
comprehension monitoring in terms of importance, this strategy is still considered a
favorable one that could enhance readers’ metacognitive awareness of their reading
strategies. However, presence of anticipation or prediction alone may not be a sign of
reader’s interaction with the text as we can see in the following quote:

After reading the first paragraph, do you anticipate what is he going to

talk about?

Yes, I think he going to talk about the daily routine of our life.

Then after he read the next paragraph he said:

“ my guess was wrong. He is talking about cartoons while I thought he

would talk about our daily routine!

It's OK. Don’t worry. But let me ask you ...do you usually try to predict

when you read?

Yes, I usually do.

I see...but let me ask you about your share as a reader...do you depend

mainly on the text or bring some of your own ideas into it?

I depend mainly on what the text says.

The previous quote indicates that even though the subject predicted what would

come up next, he seemed to be a text-based reader later on as he appeared to avoid

contributing to the text information.

86

4.2.10 Questioning:

Unlike prediction, questioning the presented ideas in any given text tells us what
type of readers we are. That is, questioning the writers‘ ideas is an indication of our
interaction with the text, which enhances our comprehension and designates us as

interactive readers.

Chart 4-6: Questioning

 

questioning I

 

 

 

questioned didn‘t question

 

E SRs 1:1 LSRS !

Chart 4.4 reveals that 60% of skilled readers questioned the writer’s ideas at one
point in their reading process as suggested by their think-aloud protocols. The remaining
(40%) did not show any Sign of questioning. On the other hand, we found the opposite
results in the case of the less-skilled readers where 40% questioned the writers’ ideas at
one point in their reading process and 60% did not utilize this important strategy or failed

to reflect it during their reading process.

87

The following is an example of questioning the writer’s ideas:

he talks about cartoons and how they provide solutions to people’s problems...but I
don’t think they solve people’s problems at least in our culture. I don’t know that much
about other cultures where cartoons might play such role in people’s lives”.

50, in a way you disagree with the writer here?

Yes, I do.

Reflection of this informants’ questioning is evident in his statement “ but I don’t
think they solve people’s problems” (referring to cartoons). This suggests, I think, that
the reader was interacting with the text as he wondered about the extended role of
cartoons given by the writer and objected to this role at least in “his culture.” It implies
that the reader didn’t take the writer’s information for granted, rather he questioned it
from his point of View.

In contrast to the previous reader, amazingly enough, some readers believe that
printed textbooks can’t be questioned and the only thing they question is newspapers or
magazines. Let’s look at what this informant says in response to the researcher’s
questions:

Do you agree with the writer so far?

I agree with him

When you read about any topic do you try to question what you read?

Only when I read newspapers or magazines, but text-books or anything

related to them, I don’t question what I read. Textbooks are different from

newspapers and magazines where we have to follow what the writes says

or believes...newspapers contain opinions while texts-Book or any

educational materials contain facts...

Although the above reader might be right that some textbooks contain facts,

others don’t, and as a matter of fact, some articles that appear in a textbook could be

reprinted in newspapers or magazines and in this case according to what he said earlier,

88

can be questioned simply because they are not textbooks or they are not related to
education. Moreover, theories, facts, or results of a certain experiment are subject to
challenge and questioning by other researchers or readers; having them printed in the
form of a text-book or an article doesn’t necessarily mean that they are secured from
opinions of other readers. I think that previous education, especially in middle and high
schools, of this reader has contributed to his way of viewing reading. Culturally speaking,
as far as I know, early education in some of Saudi Arabia schools teaches reading in a
way that prevents- or to be more accurate- discourages questioning printed textbooks. I
think that some of the Padron et al.’s (1986) observation in regards to the bilingual
students’ reliance on decoding skills is apparent in the reading strategies of this reader. I
might add, however, to their explanation of this reliance, the cultural aspect implied in
the reader’s previous reading education as an important factor that could have transferred

to their reading behaviors in the second language.

89

4.3 Part II: Analysis of informants’ actual and reported reading
strategies

4.3.1 Introduction:

This part looks closely into informants’ actual reading Strategies and compares
them with their reported answers to the metacognitive questionnaire. In doing
so, actual reading strategies were analyzed separately to be compared with that of the
reported ones (skilled readers SRs vs less skilled readers LSRS). In an attempt to do this
task, the researcher depended heavily on informants’ actual strategies and compared them
with their equivalents from the reported strategies. In other words, items from the
reported data were compared to that of the actual data upon their availability in the actual
data. Reported items that had no equivalents in the actual data were ignored. Second, due
to the uniqueness of each inforrnant’s actual reading method, the comparison of SRS and
LSRS’ actual and reported strategies will be examined from the following perspectives:
the similarities, the differences, the inconsiStencies/contradiction between their reported
and actual reading strategies; the informants’ neutrality (e.g. when informants chose a
neutral response but in the actual reading used a certain method); and finally their use- as
a whole- of local and global strategies.

To make this comparison easy for my readers, two separate tables will be
presented in which the 20 cases are summarized. The SRS are summarized in Table 4.1
(case 1 through 10) while cases 11 through 20 are summarized in Table 4.2 reflecting the
LSRS. Number 1, 3, or the letter (n) was inserted in the provided space upon the
availability of a certain strategy in the actual data. Number one means that the indicated

informant agreed with the statement in his reported strategies and number 3 means that he

90

disagreed. Following the appropriate number (i.e. 1 or 3), one of the following letters was
inserted:

an (s) when the actual and reported Strategies match one another, a (d) letter to indicate a
mismatch between them. If the indicated informant was inconsistent or contradicted
himself later on an (in) was inserted to indicate such inconsistency or contradiction. A
(0) Sign indicates absence of the indicated strategy from the actual data of a certain case/s
and finally an (n) was inserted when an informant chose to be neutral in his reported

strategies but applied certain method/s in his actual reading.

91

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

=2.oEEEOoEEBEEOBE E. :ofiEflE 6 :29: “m
.3285 2: .3 because no 02935 um .850: E 02mm A. ..
c c c o o c c c o c 95.33:: .0: : mice“: 9: Dim.
a c o w. _ m _ o m _ c o c 22%.. C955 be 8:3 96:
o o o o o c a o u _ c 258 52. .88. e 55.2
o c o o o c o c o c 39388? .53. 2 :52. cs .38...
c o a _ c v. _ w. _ a _ c o a _ 828325 .c: t can EEQ .583.
o o c a _ c c c c u m c 853 91.258. .5 .38..
v. _ o c c .r. _ o c c o : 232:5 .EEw 513cm
c o c c c c m _ c o o PCB :28 .8 W552: 23:59.:
O c o w _ o a. _ o c c p m EC; :28 36:20:35 as uncon—
.. _ E: u _ E: u _ E: .. _ o .. _ c E: .. _ o a wage: ...seosamm .5 38...
o = a _ .. _ c o .s _ a _ o .. _ @2865
c E: a _ :5 a . 2.: _ .9. _ c a _ E: v. _ c 3 €53 Exes—a: geos—
c c o c o c c c c o vocab—E: .o: L. wEesE .5 .53.
c v. _ w. _ p _ c c a _ m _ v. _ m _ 8:25qu EEC: 3.:
v. _ o c c c a c o a. _ c 5.22.55
c v. _ v. _ c a _ v. _ c c c m _ 5:558... 2&3.
c. #950 o #656 w #850 b 243.50 c #850 m #980 v #630 m $.an N #030 _ u 3&0 323%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$233.3 3:32 .38.“ use cocoa—8 .35 “.-v 633.

92

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5:28:583:03E505 “E 5895:: 6 :85: um

.3287. 2: be 8:33." no onamfi ”m :53: E new.“ n. _.,
c c o c o o a _ o o o 9338?... 5: 0. wE—uao. a: 03w
x _ v. _ m _ o a m c v. _ m _ m _ m _ 05:8 .558 ..o 92% as:
o o o o o o o c o v m mEEmSaE .mooo. o. 3:72
o o o o a c m _ c c o 5328:“. one 2 2.53. a: was”.
3 v. _ m _ a m _ a _ v m y. _ v. _ z _ vocab—E: .c: 0. E5 .cEm 3.89m
c c o c . c c c o c c €53 9. mass... .5 32E
c c c c c z _ c c c c 232:5. .EEw :c 7.3:".
c a m c E: c m E: .x. _ c o E: .9. _ o c 2:3 :28 .3 ”45:.on 3:57.8ch
.r. _ v. _ c c m a _ w. _ a m c = e E9: :98 ”Ens—5:35 :c was”.
c :5 c m o E: a m :5 v. _ c :5 v. _ E: v. _ o c mics:— =Eo>o NEE; £53”.
c o o u _ c 3 c .,. _ o = @5585
E: .1. _ E: a _ v. _ c c o E: v. _ c c c €53 5525:: a: :95
E: v. _ c m c c a m c a _ c c c 95552: .c: .: wig“: cc 980.
c c c o c c _ c c o m _ 85.398 7.90.3 3.3
c o m _ a _ c a _ c c c o .5223...
v. _ c c c c m _ c c u. . c _ 5.8.585 223.
em $.30 a. 330 x. «9.80 C #080 c. #850 m. 0330 E #350 m. #980 ~— toaaU __ 3630 325%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$238.7. $532 .528 can 3:38 3.me— Hmé 2an

93

4.3.2 Similarities:

The above tables show that SRs’ actual and reported strategies matched
one another in 46 places compared to 41 places in the case of LSRS. This
difference seems to be small at a first glance but when we look closely, we can
note two things: first, the matching between SRs’ reported and actual data is
higher in five places all of which are global strategies compared to that of the
LSRs’. These places are: relating information (5 compared to 3), use of previous
knowledge (6 compared to 1), getting the overall meaning (6 compared to 3), and
questioning (4 to 1). Secondly, even when LSRS outnumbered SRS they did so in
local strategies- with the exception of one global- (e.g. pronouncing each
individual word and focusing on the details) or in the rereading strategy which, as
I mentioned in my discussion of the first part, can be considered a local or a
global strategy depending on the situation. In one place only we find that LSRS
outperformed SRs in applying a global strategy (have sense of comprehension
failure where their reported strategies matched their actual ones in 7 places

compared to 3 in the case of SRS).

4.3.3 Differences:

The case of differences creates a clearer picture than that of the
similarities. As shown in the above tables the SRs’ actual and reported strategies

differed only in three places compared to the LSRS who had 15 differences; this

94

big difference might be a sign of the LSRs’ lack of metacognitive awareness. That
is, the small differences between SRs’ actual and reported strategies, based on the
available data, suggest that the SR5 are more metacognitively aware of their
reading strategies than the LSRS.

The above data indicate the 8125’ reported and actual strategies differed in
three places. The first is found in case number one where he indicated his
disagreement with the following statement, but he reflected his concern about

pronunciation when he was reading the word “scapegoats”. So, we can see

 

 

 

Reported strategy Actual strategy Notes
When reading silently in “ scapegoats" is a new word for different
English, the things that I do to me. . .so I tried to pronounce it three

read effectively are to focus on times...

being able to pronounce each

whole word...

I. Agree 2. Neutral 3. Disagree

 

 

 

 

that his reported strategy is a global one as he disagreed with the statement, but in
reality he applied a local one.

The other two differences are found in case number 4 and case number 7.
One of these differences is a global difference “questioning the presented
information" while the other one “rereading the problematic part” depends on the
situation itself and the frequency of the rereading as I mentioned earlier.

As far as the LSRS are concerned, the available data reveal that their
reported reading strategies differed from their actual strategies in fifteen places.
Interestingly enough, not all of these differences are negative differences though
the number is still high compared to the SRS. For instance, 4 of these differences

are considered positive differences where they reported local strategies but

95

applied global ones. The first two cases of this positive difference are found in
cases 16 and 19 where they disapproved the “keep on reading if they don’t
understand something” in their reported strategies, but in their actual reading they
continued on reading hoping that they would find clarification later on. This
reader’s reported and actual strategies, for example, highlight this positive

mismatching: (case # l6)

 

 

 

Reported strattgL Actual stratgy Notes
When reading silently in “Millions of people struggle out of Different
English, If I don’t understand bed each morning, fumble into some
something... clothes and make their way to a cup
coffee and the morning newspaper. .
-I keep reading and hope for being read twice
clarification further on... I tried to understand what he meant
I. Agree 2. Neutral 3. Disagree by “struggle out“ and “fumble.”
Were you able to do that?
Not really, but I got the general idea.
I'll continue and see how it works..."

 

 

 

 

Other cases of these positive differences are found in items 14 and 15 of
the same chart. In item 14 case #11 reported his inability to recognize the
difference between main points and supporting details, but in his actual reading he

demonstrated that ability as seen in the following quote:

 

 

 

 

Reported strategy Actual stratgy Notes
When reading silently in “ I pay more attention to the first and Different
English, I am able to recognize the second paragraphs and make sure
the difference between main I do understand them... then I might
points and supporting details... follow the same strategy in any part

of the topic which I don’t understand
I. Agree 2. Neutral 3. Disagree depending on its importance to the
rest of the topic.”

 

 

 

96

The fourth and final positive difference is found in item number 15 case #
16. In this case, the disagreement between the reported and actual strategy is
favorable. When asked why he stopped for a while, he indicated that he wanted to
think about what he had read before he continued. One might say that there is no
indication of comprehension monitoring in his comments, but it’s evident that he
was engaged in comprehension monitoring otherwise he could have continued

reading without any concern about what he just read. The quote reads:

 

Reported strategy Actual strategy Notes

 

 

When reading silently in “In hard times-times of economic Different
English, I have a sense of when I troubles- people want something or
understand something and when someone to blame their trouble on
I don’t. .. in reading this sentence, I prefer to

I. Agree 2. Neutral 3. Disagree read it this way... In hard times
...stop for a while and reread it
without stopping until the end"

Why did you stop for a while?

“to think about what I have just read
before I continue"

 

 

 

 

 

Other than these four favorable differences, the previous table indicates
that the LSRS reported using global strategies (e.g. relate current information to
previous ones in case # 1, use of past experience as in case # 15, questioning as in
cases 15 and 17) as they agreed with the provided statements but indicated local
strategies in their actual readings. One example of this mismatching is the
questioning of the presented information (cases 15 and 17). Their comments read

respectively as follows:

 

 

 

Reported strategy Actual strategy Notes
When reading silently in when you said earlier that you had to Different
English, I am able to question finish before you draw any
the significance or truthfulness conclusion. did you mean before you
of what the author says... question his ideas?

“No, what I meant was to draw a

 

 

 

 

97

 

1. Am 2. Neutral 3. Disagree conclusion”

But generally speaking. when you
read something, do you question what
you read?

“In Arabic I read and question, but in
English I read for the sake of reading
and learning only."

 

 

When reading silently in “ I was not expecting such an odd Different
English, I am able to question construction... it looked strange when

the significance or the I read it and that is why I hesitated a

truthfulness of what the writer bit.”

says... Do you agree with the writer so far?

1. Agree 2. Neutral 3. Disagree I agree?

Do you try to question what you
read?

“only when I read newspapers or
magazines. but text-books or anything
related to them I don't”

 

 

 

 

While these two subjects reported that they question the presented ideas,
the previous quotes indicate otherwise. For instance, case 15 notes that he doesn’t
question anything written in English but he does in Arabic. Case number 17, on
the other hand, does not question textbooks whether in Arabic or in English.
However, he does question newspapers’ and magazines’ information. It seems
that this subject, as I mentioned in my first analysis, is not aware that some of
textbook’s articles might be reprinted in newspapers or magazines.

In short, the above tables reveal that despite some of the favorable
differences in LSRs' actual and reported data, the number of the mismatching is
still higher than that of the SRs. In other words, we can say that SRs’ actual and
reported strategies had more similarities and fewer differences compared to the
LSRS. This, as I said earlier, might be a reflection of their metacognitive
awareness which, according to the available data, is higher in the case of SRS , but

a little bit lower in the case of LSRS.

98

4.3.4 Neutrality:

In the reported data, subjects sometimes remained neutral in their answers '
to the given statements. As indicated earlier, when a subject chose the neutral
option, an “n” was placed to indicate that he did so but applied a different strategy
in his actual reading. The above tables show that SRS had few neutral responses
compared to the LSRs (5 to 10). This is not necessarily a negative indication since
a subject might not be aware of a certain strategy but applies it automatically in
his/her reading. In other words, failure to report a certain strategy means lack of
awareness of that strategy but not necessarily lack of activation of that strategy
when needed. Interestingly enough, skilled and less skilled readers seem to share
this “automatic” processing contrary to the remarks of Anderson (1980) who
attributes this processing to skilled readers only.

When we look back to our tables, we find that SRs remained neutral in
five places. As I mentioned earlier, three of them were global ones' (relate
information, continuation of reading and questioning) and the other two were
local ones (focus on grammatical structure and focus on the detail of the text to
read effectively). There is no doubt that their neutrality and lack of awareness of
the first three strategies can be counted in their favor but can not be considered as

such in the other two. Similarly, the same thing can be said about the LSRs in
regards to their neutrality. However, we find that the LSRs’ number of neutral

responses is higher than that of the SRs. We can note that they chose neutral

responses in ten places. Five of these were global ones (relate information 2, use

99

of past experience 2, and questioning 1) and the other five responses were local
ones (look up words 2, focus on pronunciation 1 and focus on grammatical
structure 2).

The following example represents one of the SRs’ passive responses to the
given statement. However, as can be noted in the following quote, he applied two
reading strategies to solve the reading problems that he faced. He applied the
rereading strategy as he encountered the first reading problem and when it failed,
he consulted his dictionary while he consulted his dictionary right away in another

part of the passage.

 

 

Reported Strategy Actual Strategy Notes
When reading silently in Why did you read the first paragraph Was not specific.
English, if I don’t understand twice?
something.. .. Rereading helps me to comprehend
more
-I keep on reading and hope for What seems to be the problem?
clarification later on... I found two or three difficult words
l.Agree 2.Neutral 3.Disagree that I didn't know and I wanted to

 

look them up in the dictionary...

In another place he said:

“ I had to look the word
“awkwardness” up in the dictionary
immediately as you might have
noticed.

 

 

 

 

 

LSRs’ neutrality is no different from that of the SRs in terms of
application. Both groups, as I mentioned earlier, chose to remain neutral in their
reported strategies but applied different methods in their actual reading. The
following quote illustrates one of the LSRs’ reported and actual reading strategies.

It reads:

100

 

Reported strategy

Actual strategy

Notes

 

When reading silently in
English, if I do not understand
something.

- I look up unknown words in a
dictionary...

1. Agree 2. Neutral 3. Disagree

 

 

“I’m wondering about the meaning of
comics"...

What do you want to do about it?

“I know it’s a section in the
newspaper, but I don‘t know which
one, so I’ll look it up in the
dictionary. . .OK. Now I know what it
means."

“Scapegoat is a new word, so I need
to look it up in the dictionary. It‘s a
useful word and easy to remember, so
I'll write its meaning down...”

. .awkwardness is a new word and I
need to look it up... I know that
“ward" has a different meaning and
that is the problem ahhh one of its
meaning is a wing ofa
hospital...umm wardness ...I don’t
know what it means... the word in
question is “awkwardness" which I
think is the opposite of wardness, but
I have to check it in the dictionary.”

 

Was not specific

 

It can be noted in the above quote that LSRs, too remained neutral in some

of their responses but applied different strategies as they approached the text in

reality.

One can conclude by saying that the SRs’ neutrality in terms of use of
local strategies is lower than that of the LSRs. It is true that LSRs applied 5 global

strategies in their actual reading though they failed to report them, but they used 5

local strategies compared to 2 local strategies in the case of the SRS.

4.3.5 Inconsistency (Contradiction):

One of the interesting findings of this study is the inconsistency/ contradiction
between some subjects’ reading strategies that we see in the previous tables. In this

l~"€=gard, we find that some of the subjects’ strategies contradict one another despite the

101

 

match between their reported and actual strategies. For example, some subjects reported
that they focused on getting the overall meaning of what they read (e.g. case # 13) which
matched their actual reading, but we find the contradiction later on when the same subject
focused on getting the meaning of each word.

It is interesting to note that contradiction was not limited to LSRs’ reading
strategies only. In fact, SRs were found to do a similar thing. However, the LSRs’
inconsistencies are higher than those of the SRs’ (12 compared to 8). Surprisingly
enough, all of the SRs’ strategies’ contradiction is found to be in two areas:
looking up new words and getting the overall meaning. They reported that they
look up new words. In their actual reading they did so, but at the same time they
reported that they focus on getting the overall meaning and applied this strategy in

their actual reading. Let’s see some examples of such contradictions: (case 9)

 

 

 

Reported strategy Actual strategy Notes

When reading silently in .. fumble into some clothes, and Not consistent
English, if I don't understand make their way to a cup of coffee and

something, the morning newspaper” to start with,

- I look up unknown words in a I don’t know the meaning of

dictionary... “fumble”. ..

Here is the dictionary if you need to
use it as I told you before.

Agree 2.Neutral 3.Disagree “ fumble. . .fumble. .. OK I got it. .
In another place. he found another
- getting the overall meaning of word “ cheerful”
text... “ Cheerful" I need to look this up
in the dictionary.”

1 . Agree 2. Neutral 3. Disagree Later he tried to guess
“the word prosperity” is a new word
so I stopped and looked at it again
and preferred to finish the sentence
and guess its meaning. I guessed it
and I think it means “a period of
time" and it matches the sentence
perfectly... so I’ll continue...

Then later he said '

“It’s a long paragraph, so I need to
read it again”

What seems to be the problem?
“meaning difficulty mostly... so I’ll

 

 

 

 

 

refer to the dictionary and check some

102

 

 

 

words before I read it again... I want
to check “scapegoats,” “humor," and
“ridiculous”.

 

 

Another subject’s reported and actual reading strategies read:

 

Reported strategy

Actual strategy

Notes

 

When reading silently in
English, the things that I do to
read effectively are to focus
on...

- I look up unknown words in a
dictionary...

l.Agree 2. Neutral 3. Disagree

“old people whose grown children
pay little attention to them can
chuckle at their neglect and
loneliness” reads it twice

You read this sentence twice why?
I‘m trying to understand it but still I
don’t...

What seems to be the problem ?

-. .. “chuckle” I don‘t know what he
means by “chuckle”...

What do you want to do?

Check it in the dictionary...
“scapegoats” I don’t know the
meaning of this word... I’ll look it up
in the dictionary...

Do you usually check your
dictionary?

“ I check my dictionary once I read a
new word... I feel nervous and
worried ifl don’t do so...this is my
habit and I think I feel secure to know
every word in the topic

Same but
inconsistent later
on

 

When reading silently in
English, the things that I do to
read effectively are to focus
on...

- getting the overall meaning of
the text...

I noticed that you stopped at the word
“sip " for a moment and then
continued, why?

I didn’t know the meaning of “sip”,
but I continued and guessed its
meaning from the surrounding
context...

Same but
inconsistent with
the other strategy

 

 

 

 

 

l I. Agree 2. Neutral 3. Disagee

 

The previous quotes from the SRs’ reported and actual reading strategies
illustrate their apparent inconsistencies. As we can see, there was no pattern as to
when to look up new words and when to focus on getting the overall meaning. We

will find later in the quantitative analysis that they seem to follow a certain pattern

Where they prefer to refer to their dictionaries if they have a comprehension

103

difficulty and this difficulty is concerning a word meaning; otherwise, they would
continue reading and hope for further clarification.

Unlike the SRS, the LSRs accumulated more varieties of contradictions.
That is, they contradicted themselves in 12 places and more importantly in more
strategies. For example, the SRs’ contradiction was limited to two areas
(categories 5 and 7), while we find that the LSRs contradicted themselves in
categories 3, and 4, 5 and 7, 7 and 9. Although these categories seem similar at
first glance, another look reveals that categories number 3, 4 and 5 are repair
strategies while the other categories are perceived strategies in which subjects
were asked about their perception of what they believed to be more effective. So,
we find that the LSRs’ contradiction was not limited to the repair strategies (as in
the case of SRs) but also included what they perceived to be more effective in

terms of reading policy. The following is an illustration of some of the LSRs’

inconsistencies: (case 13)

 

 

 

Reported strategy Actual straiegy Notes
When reading silently in “this is new -fumble- ...I’ll look it up
English. things that I do to read in the dictionary" Inconsistent
effectively are to focus on... here is scapegoat again... I don’t

know its exact meaning, but I’ll
getting the overall meaning of continue reading. . .OK I finished this
the text... paragraph and I understood the

l.Aggge 2. Neutral 3. Disagree general meaning ,

so I don‘t have to check the
dictionary.”

- understanding the meaning of
each word

1. Aggge 2. Neutral 3. Disagree

 

 

 

 

The preceding quote illustrates one of the LSRs’ contradictions in what he

perceived to be an effective reading method. It is clear that the above reader

104

contradicted himself when he reported that he focuses on getting the overall
meaning of the text, but later on he reported another method, namely:
understanding the meaning of each word which he perceived as an effective one.

Another example of the LSRs’ reported and actual reading strategies further
highlights the aforementioned contradiction where this reader (case # 20) reported his
repair strategies, which contradicted one another especially in his actual reading. That is,
when we examine his reported strategies, we find that he insisted on looking up unknown
words if he didn’t understand something. He confirmed this policy later on when he
disagreed with the statement that says “if I don’t understand something,... I keep on
reading hoping for clarification further on. . So far, everything seems to be consistent,
but in his actual reading, he followed another strategy. He stated that he tries to guess the

meaning though he disagreed with this policy in his reported reading strategies.

 

 

 

Reported stratgy Actual strategy Notes

When reading silently in “fumble is a new word... so as might Was not consistent
English, if I don’t understand have noticed. I consulted the

something,. .. dictionary. I usually check the

- I look up unknown words in a dictionary and I feel some

dictionary... disappointment if I don’t find what

l-AEEQ 2- Neutral 3- Disagree I’m looking for is not listed”
If you didn’t find the word fumble

When I read silently in English, listed. what were going to do?

if I don’t understand “ I usually suggest the meaning, try to

something,. .. guess it from the context. Checking it
up in the dictionary helps me to stop

I keep on reading hoping for worrying about the exact meaning.

clarification further on... However, if I couldn’t guess it and

the word is not listed, then I give up
1. Agree 2. Neutral 3. Disagree reading.”

“Cartoons provide scapegoats... I
need to check the dictionary to look
up the word scapegoats.”

 

 

 

 

105

4.3.6 Use of global and local strategies:

The final comparison of SRs and LSRs’ reported and actual reading
strategies is their use- as a whole- of global and local strategies. The available
data indicate that LSRs’ use of global strategies is lower than that of the SRs’.
That is, when we count their use of global strategies, we find that the SRs slightly
outnumbered LSRs in terms of use of global strategies (27 times versus 21 times
in the case of LSRs). As noted in the first part of the analysis, both groups used a
mixture of both global and local strategies in their actual readings. The finding of
this part confirms what has been indicated earlier and further suggests that both
groups applied the interactive model in their reading. It appears that Stanovich’s
(1980) compensatory model of reading was applied in subjects’ reading behavior.
That is, the findings of this study support that of Stanovich in regards to
informants’ reliance on either higher or lower processing depending on their area
of strength and their need at the time of reading. The following are examples of
the SRs’ and LSRs’ use of global strategies:

SRs’ use of global strategLeS:

 

 

 

Reported Strategy Actual Strategy Notes
When reading silently in I’ve encountered some difficult Same
English, the things that I do to words, but I didn‘t pay much
read effectively are to focus attention to them...
on... What do you mean?

Their specific meaning was not my
-getting the overall meaning of concern. . .I tried to guess their

the text... meaning from the context itself

1. Aggee 2. Neutral 3. Disagree In another place he said:

I skipped the word “scapegoats”
Why?

I skipped it hoping to guess its
meaning from the context. . .I mean I
got the overall meaning of the.

 

 

 

 

106

 

SRs’ use of global strategies continued:

 

Reported Strategy Actual Strategy Notes

 

 

paragraph and I didn’t need to
know the precise meaning of
that particular word.

 

 

 

 

The previous quote, as well as the following quote, illustrate SRs’ and
LSRs’ awareness and application of a global strategy, which is “focusing on the
overall meaning” of what they read. So, they didn’t stop when they encountered
unknown words. They rather continued on in their reading in the hope that they
would get the overall meaning.

Example of the LSRs’ use of global strategies:

 

 

 

Reported Strategy Actual Strategy Notes
When reading silently in “ this is new -fitmble- ...I’ll finish the Inconsistent
English, things that I do to read sentence and try to guess its meaning

effectively are to focus on... from the context.”

- getting the over all meaning of
the text...
I. m 2. Neutral 3. Disagree

 

 

 

 

It’s worth mentioning, however, that each group seems to use different
global strategies in its actual reading though they might differ in which strategy
they use more (e. g. in item # 15- have sense of comprehension failure- LSRs used
this strategy seven times compared to three in the case of SRs and in item # 3- use
of past experience— SRs used this strategy more than the LSRs).

Unlike the use of global strategies, the overall use of local strategies in
both groups is equal (13 times in both groups). Items that have been considered as
local strategies are: item number 5 (looking up unknown words), item number 8

(focus on pronouncing each word), item number 9 (understand the meaning of

107

each word), item number 10 (focus on grammatical structure), item number 11
(focus on looking up words), item number 13 (focus on details to read
effectively), and item number 16 (give up reading if not understood). Again, in
light of Stanovich’s model of reading, this use of lower processing is an indication
of informants’ interaction with the given text.

In the following quotes, we can see examples of the SRs’ and LSRs’ use
of these local strategies. The first quote was taken from one of the SRs’ actual
reading in which we can see that he concentrated on the grammatical correctness
of what he was reading. Amazingly, this strategy seemed to be a part of this

reader’s reading strategies as his actual reading matched his reported data.

 

Reported Strategy Actual Strategx Notes

 

 

When reading silently in “ Cartoons reflect the times and the Same
English, the things that I do to troubles. ..”

read effectively are to focus on Why did you stop? What are you

. .. thinking of?

- the grammatical structures... “Troubles” Why did he use it as a
plural? It’s a mass noun and shouldn’t
I“ 2.Neutral 3. Disagree be used as a plural.

What do you want to do about it?

“I might underline it...in fact, I'll
underline it and read the sentence
again. “ Cartoons reflect the times
and the troubles and worries of
pe0p1e.” I suspect that “ worries” here
is the noun form of “worry.”

And in another place he says:

“show people enjoying the good
economic situation.” ...the sentence
should be “show people how to
enjoy” rather than “show people
enjoying the good economic
situation.”

Later he says:

“in hard times- time..." again, here he
shouldn’t have used the plural
indicator with a mass noun...

 

 

 

 

108

Similarly, the following quote is an example of LSRs’ use of local
strategies. In this example, it can be noted that this reader was paying more
attention to the sentence structure where it seemed to create a reading problem for
him. Again, this reader agreed with the importance of focusing on the

grammatical structure of what he reads to read effectively.

 

 

 

Reported Strategy Actual Strategy Notes
When reading silently in Subject’s comment after reading the Same
English, the things that I do to sentence that says “ old people whose
read effectively are to focus grown children have neglected them
on... can chuckle at their neglect”
- the grammatical structure... ...well the sentence structure is kind
I. Am 2. Neutral 3. Disagree of difficult, sol wanted to make sure
that I understood it and read it
correctly...”

 

 

 

 

As I mentioned earlier, I have just looked at their use of global and local
strategies as a whole to avoid redundancy since this use was discussed in some

detail in the first part.

109

4.4 Part III Quantitative analysis of the data

4.4.1 Introduction:

In this section, the collected data will be quantitatively analyzed using different
statistical methods (e.g. regression, correlation test, percentage, and t-test) and will be
represented in graphs and tables as needed. In doing so, more attention will be paid to
comparing SRs’ and LSRs’ results for different variables with some occasional reference
to all participants when needed. It should be mentioned, however, that variables’ results
would be discussed on the basis of their significance. In other words, variables that didn’t
yield significant results when they were tested will be ignored; and to do so, a 0.10 level
will be chosen as'a determining point of significance. The current section starts by
explaining how SRs and LSRs were selected and how subjects were determined in terms
of metacognitive awareness. Following this brief explanation are the results of different
statistical tests along with their interpretations. As I mentioned earlier, all variables were
tested whether for the whole population of the study or for a specific group (e.g. SR5 or
LSRs), but only variables that yielded significant results are discussed. Finally, the

chapter concludes with a brief summary of the findings.

4.4.2 Selection of SRs and LSRs:

The selection of SRs and LSRs was determined on the basis of the lower and

upper 25% quantile of the informants’ scores. To do so, the lower 25 quantile

110

(0%- %25) of the subjects’ scores was taken to represent LSRs group and the upper 25%

quantile (%75- %100) as a representation of the SRs. The result of the quantile is as

follows:
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

I S 6 8 13
Based on this distribution, students who scored 5 5 were considered LSRs and

those who scored 2 8 were considered SRs (see Table: 4.3).
Table 4-3: distribution of all subjects’ reading comprehension scores

Score ' Number of
students

6

3

5

7

14

l 2

1 3

I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

-~
-o

 

—e
00

The distribution of all subjects’ reading comprehension scores, as we can see in
Table 4.1, reveals a normal distribution of these scores. According to Fraenkel et al.
(1990), when the majority of “the scores are concentrated in the middle of the
distribution, and the scores decrease in frequency the further away from the middle” then

the distribution curve is normal (p.148). The mean of all students’ scores is (X: 6.5) and

111

we can see that the majority of the students (50 students) scored around 5 and 8. It’s
worth mentioning that there were 15 multiple-choice questions; so the highest students
scored 13 out of a possible 15 and the lowest scored 1 out of a possible 15. So, with the
exception of those who scored 1 and 12, we can say that according to the definition of the
normal curve distribution, our informants’ reading comprehension scores were normally

distributed.

4.4.3 Determination of Subjects’ metacognitive awareness:

The same procedure that was used to identify SRs from LSRs was applied again
to determine students’ metacognitive awareness. First, to distinguish between subjects’
metacognitive awareness scores (for each statement, a I point was given when a subject
matched what appeared to be global strategy, when a neutral answer was chosen a 0 point
was given and when a subject chose what appeared to be local strategy a - 1 was given).
For example, the following statement says:

“When reading silently in English, I have a good sense of when I do understand
something and when I do not...”

1. Agree 2. Neutral 3. Disagree

This statement was considered global strategy. 80, if a subject agreed with the
statement, then a 1 point was given to him, if he disagreed a -1 point was given, and if a
neutral choice was chosen a 0 point was given. However, not necessarily agreeing with
the given statement resulted in gaining 1 point. In other words the 1 point was given to

subjects’ agreement to what appeared to be global strategies like the previous example

112

and the —1 point was given to choices that appeared to reflect local strategies (either by
agreeing or disagreeing). For example:

“When reading silently in English, the things that I do to read effectively are to focus
i”liming able to pronounce each whole word.

1. Agree 2. Neutral 3. Disagree

Unlike the previous statement, this one appears to highlight a local strategy, so if
a subject agreed with it a -—1 point was given to him. On the other hand, if he disagreed
with it, a 1 point was given; the same procedure was followed in all statements. As far as
the neutral response is concerned, a 0 point was given in all cases whenever this option
was chosen.

Second, subjects who fell in the lower 25 quintile (-2 to —1 1) were considered
metacognitively less aware (MLA) and those who fell in the upper 25 quintile (7 - 24)
were considered metacognitively more aware (MA). Results of this distribution yielded:

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

-ll -2 3 7 24
Based on this distribution, subjects who scored 2 7 were ranked as an MA and those who
scored 5 -2 were ranked as an MLA (see Table 4.4). As we can see, in this table the
number of the MA students is slightly higher than that of the MLA (26 compared to 24).
However, the number of those who fall in between is 40 students which is also expected
to have the majority in the middle. It is worth mentioning, as I mentioned earlier, that the
population of this study is small and the results of this distribution as well as the reading
comprehension scores could have been different had a larger number of participants been

available.

113

Table 44: distribution of all subjects’ metacognitive awareness scores

Metacognitive awareness Number of students
score

-1 l

-10

-9

-8

-5

   

2
2
l
3
6
3
1
2
4
4
6
3
4
8
5
5
5
5
6
2
6
1
I
2
2
1

4.4.4 Subjects’ comprehension score in relation to their metacognitive
scores:

Having separated SRs from LSRs and the MA from LMA, the researcher wanted

to see if there was a correlation between students’ comprehension scores and their

114

metacognitive awareness scores. To do that, the Chi-square test was performed and the
result was (X 2 = 3.29, p-value = 0.069). Interpretation of this result indicates that the
reading proficiency is not independent of the metacognitive awareness since the p-value
is small (0.069). In other words, this result suggests that the SRs are metacognitively
more aware of their reading strategies than LSRs who appeared to have less

metacognitive awareness.

4.4.5 Analysis of the confidence statements:

Table 4-5: Percentage of subjects’ responses to statements 1-6 When I read silently in

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

En glrsh, I’m
Strategy Aggee Neutral Disafl‘
I. able to anticipate what will come next in the text (all subjects)’ 56 29 I6
( SRs) 43 40 I7
(LSRs) 66 23 I I
2. able to recognize the difference between main points and supporting details
63 19 18
70 20 10
66 I4 29
3. relate information which comes next in the text to previous information in the text 70 18 12
67 23 IO
71 I7 I l
4. questions the significance or truthfulness of what the author says 57 23 20
67 17 I7
49 26 26
5. use my prior knowledge and experience to understand me content of the text 79 16 6
9O 7 3
71 20 9
6. lhaveagood sense ofwhenlunderstand somethingandwhen Idon't 77 12 ll
87 10 3
71 I 1 l7

 

 

 

 

 

The above six statements are related to subjects’ perception about their self-confidence.
In these statements, the more they agree with the statement the better their self-
confidence. We find that when all subjects were included, their perception of their
confidence is higher than 60% except in the first statement (the ability to anticipate what

will come next). Their disagreements to all statement is not higher than 20% and even far

 

'All subjects: all 90 subjects were included in this calculations, SRs: only skilled readers, and LSRs: only

115

less in regards to some statements (e.g. using the prior knowledge). Furthermore, the
percentage of their neutral perception is less than 20% to four statements and less than
30% in the other two.

However, when the SRs’ and LSRs’ perception of the same statements was calculated,
different results were found. For instance, the LSRs’ perception was higher than the SRs’
(60% compared to 43% and 71% compared to 67% respectively) in regards to the
following statements:

able to anticipate what will come next in the text; and

relate information which comes next in the text to previous information in the text.

On the other hand, SRs appeared to be more confident in their responses to the other four
statements namely:

able to recognize the difference between main points and supporting details;

question the significance or truthfulness of what the author says;

use my prior knowledge and experience to understand the content of the text; and

have a good sense of when I understand something and when I don’t.

Interestingly enough, results of the first statement (able to anticipate what will come next
in the text) show that 40% of the SRs remained neutral with only 3% less than those who
agreed to the statement. Moreover, we find that the difference between LSRs’ and SRs’
perception of statement number three (relate information which comes next in the text to
previous information in the text) and SRs and LSRs’ perception of the second statement
(able to recognize the difference between main points and supporting details) is only 4%
in both statements which is not, I think, that high. Though it might not be that high, one

can say that the overall results of the same table indicate that SRs are more confident in

 

less skilled readers.

116

regards to distinguishing between main points and the supporting details, questioning
what the authors says, using their prior knowledge, and in realizing when a
comprehension failure occurs. On the other hand, LSRs appeared to be more confident
than SRs in their perception when it comes to the other statements (anticipating what

comes next and relating information that comes next to the previous one).

4.4.6 Analysis of the repair strategy statements:

Table 4-6: Percentage of subjects’ responses to statements 7-11 (repair statements) When
I read silently in English, if I don’t understand something, I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strategy Agree Neutral DisagE_
7. keep on reading and hape for further clarification later on... (all subjects) 62 9 29
( SRs) , 60 I3 27
(ISRs) 6O 9 3|
8. reread the problematic part 84 9 7
70 I7 I3
91 3 6
9. go back to a point before the problematic part and reread from there 67 l7 17
70 l3 I7
69 17 14
10. look up unknown words in a dictionary 81 14 4
83 10 7
83 1 I 6
l I. give up and stop reading... 2 12 68
0 IO 90
6 17 77

 

 

 

 

 

Statements 7 through 11 reflect subjects’ perception of their repair strategies
when comprehension failure occurs. As can be noted, all results seem to be close to one
another (when all subjects were included or when SRs were separated from LSRs) with
the exception of the eighth and the last statements (look up unknown words in a
dictionary, and give up and stop reading respectively). As far as the seventh statement
(keep on reading and hope for further information later on) is concerned, 60% of SRs and
60% LSRs favored it compared to 27% and 31% respectively who didn’t favor this
strategy. Interestingly enough, it appears that if the comprehension problem is unknown

word/s, the chance of consulting a dictionary right away is higher than that of the keep on

117

reading strategy (83% in statement 10 compared to 60% in statement 7). Results of SRs
and LSRs in both statements are the same, which might reflect subjects’ reliance on their
dictionaries.

Another interesting finding can be seen in the last statement (give up reading)
where 0% of the SRs perceived the “give-up” strategy as a favorable one to a
comprehension problem compared to 6% of LSRs. To some of the LSRs, this strategy
seems to be more than perception where it was applied in reality in one of the subject’s

actual reading.

4.4.7 Subjects’ perception of different strategies in terms of
effectiveness:

Table 4-7: Percentage of subjects’ responses to statements 12-20 When Iread silently in
English, the things that I do to read effectively are to focus on

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

StratgL Agge Neutral Disag5_ea_e_q
12. mentally sounding out parts of the words (all subjects) 37 % 28 % 36 %
‘ (SRs) 40 % 23 % 37 %
(LSRs) 6 % l7 % 77 %
l3. understanding the meaning of each word 46 % l I % 43 %
30% 10% 60%
23 % 37 % 40 %
14. getting the overall meaning of the text 97 % 2 % 1 %
97% 3 % 0 %
$4 % II % 34 %

15. being able to pronounce each whole word 48 % 20 % 32 % -

33 % 23 % 43 %
94% 3 % 3 %
I6. the grammatical structures 40 % 37 % 23 %
33 % 37 % 30 %
46 % l7 % 37 %
I7. relating the text to what I already know about the topic 72 % 22 % 6 %
87 % IO % 3 %
37 % 34 % 29 %
18.lookingupwordsinthedictionary 68% 16% 17%
60 % 27 % I3 %
66% 26% 9 %
19. the details ofthe content 48 % 26 % 27 %
‘ 37 % 37 % 30 %
63 % ll % 26 %
20. the organization of the text 30 % 40 % 30 %
27 % 40 % 33 %
3l % 37 % 31 %

 

 

 

 

 

118

Statements 12 through 20 contain what we categorize “global strategies” (e.g.
relating the text to what I already know” and what we rank as “local strategies” (e.g.
mentally sounding out parts of the words, understanding the meaning of each word, being

able to pronounce, being able to pronounce each whole word, etc). In regards to the
global strategies (getting the overall meaning and relating the text to what I already
know), it can be noted that SRs’ perception of these two strategies was higher than that of
the LSRs (97% compared to 54% and 87% compared to 37% respectively).

As far as the local strategies are concerned, SRs’ percentage is higher than that of
the LSRs in two of these strategies namely: mentally sounding out parts of the words and
understanding the meaning of each word. Other than two strategies, LSRs were found to
rate the rest of the local strategies (i.e. being able to pronounce each word, focusing on
the grammatical structures, looking up words in the dictionary, the detail of the content
and the organization of the text) higher than SRs in term of their effectiveness.
Percentage wise, it is worth mentioning that in some strategies the difference between
SRs and LSRs is quite small (i.e. looking up words in the dictionary and the organization
of the text); while in others, a big difference was found. Another thing that should be
mentioned here is the fact that we are looking at their perception of what causes them to
read effectively. On this ground, we might say that if subject “A”, for example, found
that applying a certain strategy such as focusing on the details of the content helped him
to read effectively and this strategy doesn’t cause him any reading difficulty, then we
can’t say his reading performance is affected.

Aside from the notion of difficulty and effectiveness, it is clear that the results

were in favor of the SRs as they included two global strategies compared to none for the

119

 

LSRs and only two local strategies compared to six in the case of the LSRs. This result
along with the results of subjects’ use of local and global strategies, as indicated in the
first and second parts, reflects a specific kind of interaction with the text explained by
Stanovich’s (1980) Compensatory Model of reading. As a matter of fact, the findings of
this study are in line with the findings of Clarke (1986) and that of Carrell (1989). As
indicated by Clarke (1986), the language constraints, which is to say the limited control
of the target language, causes L2 students to incorporate more lower level strategies.
Clarke’s remarks in regards to the language constraints do not contradict Stanovich’s
interpretation of interaction. As a matter of fact, his remark along with the findings of this
study, support Stanovich’s view of interaction. As mentioned earlier, the SRs used two
local strategies compared to six in the case of the LSRs. This might suggest that the LSRs
relied on their lower level processing to compensate for their lack of higher level
processing while the SRs relied more on their higher information.

Another thing that should be added here is the fact that students may report a
certain strategy to be effective but that does not mean that they necessarily use it. In fact
they might indicate their knowledge of it, but in reality they don’t apply it (Baker and
Brown, 1984). Thus, we should refer to Paris et al.’s (1983) categorization of knowledge
as being, among other categories, “conditional”. In this regard, they say that knowledge

refers to the reader’s awareness and use of a certain strategy and why. .

120

 

4.4.8 Subjects’ perception of what makes reading difficult:

Table 4-8: Percentage of subjects’ responses to statements 21-28 When I read silently in
English, things that make reading difficult are. ..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strategy Agree Neutral Disagr_e_e__‘
21. the sounds of the individual words (all subjects) 18 9 73
‘ ( SRs) 20 3 77
(LSRg) 20 9 71
22. pronunciation of the words 47 12 41
47 IO 43
43 9 49
23. recognizing the words 76 14 IO
80 10 IO
71 14 I4
24. the grammatical structures 59 22 I9
57 23 20
63 20 17
25. the alphabet 4 16 8O
17 83 O
9 I4 77
26. relating the text to what I already know about the topic 31 24 44
33 23 43
31 26 43
27. getting the overall meaning of the text 57 12 31
‘ 63 17 20
54 14 31
28. the organization of the text 57 24 I9 .
63 23 13
57 29 14

 

 

 

 

 

The above table (Table 4.8) concerns subjects’ perceptions of what makes reading
difficult for them. Two of these strategies are among what we call global strategies
“relating the text to what I already know about the topic” and “getting the overall
meaning of the text”. As for the first strategy, only a slight difference was found between
the two groups; both groups seemed to consider it a less difficult strategy than the other
one “getting the overall meaning”. In other words, both groups appear to perceive
“getting the overall meaning of the topic” as a difficult strategy compared to the “relating
the text to what I already know about the topic” strategy. Interestingly enough,
percentage of the SRs who perceived it as difficult is higher than that of the LSRs (63%

vs. 54%).

121

As far as the rest of the strategies are concerned, four of them (recognizing the
words, the grammatical structure, getting the overall meaning of the text, and the
organization of the text) were perceived to be difficult by both groups; one appeared to be
in the middle (pronunciation of the words); recognizing the alphabet, and the sound of the
individual words were considered easy strategies. As for the grammatical structure and
the text organization, I think that they are common difficulties for all Arab students. It is
no surprise, I believe, since the two languages- Arabic and English- use different set of
grammatical rules (e.g. the latter follows SVO order whereas the former uses VSO) and
has opposite directionality (right to left in Arabic vs. left to right in English). Not to
mention the nature of the script which is completely different in the two languages.
Furthermore, the two languages differ in text organization. For instance, English uses
more or less the following style: the t0pic sentence is usually introduced in the first
paragraph or the second, then the supporting details, followed by the conclusion. That is
not necessarily the case in the Arabic style where you might read a long introduction
before you know what the writer is going to talk about. Taking these differences between
the two languages into consideration, it is not surprising that learners face such
difficulties. As far as the looking up words and getting the overall meaning of the text are
' concerned, these difficulties might be traced to previous English teaching, methodologies
especially in mid and high schools- where students were taught to pay more attention to
finding individual meanings of difficult words rather than getting the overall meaning of
the text. Back in my high school years, our concern was mostly devoted to finding words’
meaning as we used to stop our teacher regularly to ask about individual words’

meanings. Not only that, but also we used to write the meaning of each word in Arabic to

122

 

the extent that in some pages you hardly could see the English text. As a result, I don’t
recall finishing any of the assigned books, which were intended to improve our reading
comprehension skills. I think that high and middle school teachers contributed to that
extensive reliance on meaning at the word level since they indirectly encouraged us to do
so by giving us the Arabic meaning of the English words rather than training us to guess
their meaning or the overall meaning of the whole paragraph. Another explanation of
such difficulties might be an indication of informants’ lack of sufficient vocabulary
knowledge in the target language and that could cause, according to Kern (1989), a major
problem when reading.

Generally speaking, the available data reveal that strategies that were considered
difficult appear to be either of a syntactic/word level (i.e. grammar, pronunciation) or of a

meaning level such as relating the text to what they already know.

4.4.9 Subjects’ perception of a good reader:

The following Table 4.9 deals with subjects’ perception of what, in their
perception, a good reader is. As can be seen in this table, statements varied from reader’s
ability to decode words and sounds to a higher level of interaction such as “understanding

the overall meaning or integrating the text with the preexisting”.

Table 4-9: Percentage of subjects’ responses to statements 29-36 The best reader I know
in English is a good reader because of his/her ability to

 

 

 

Strategy Agree Neutral DisagreLI
29. recognize the words (all subjects) 89 4 7
( SRs) 83 3 l3
(LSRs) 89 6 6
30. sound out words 70 I2 18
63 IO 27
69 ll 20

 

 

 

 

 

 

123

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

31.nnderstandtheoverall meaning ofthetext 81 17 2
77 23 0
83 14 3
32. use a dictionary 39 26 36
43 20 37
34 31 34
33.guessat word meaning 71 16 13
73 17 10
69 l7 I4
34. integrate the information in the text with what he/she already knows 69 l6 16
77 I3 10
6O 14 26
35. focus on die details of the content 47 28 26
43 17 4O
54 29 17
36.grasptheorganization ofthe text 67 18 16
63 27 10
63 14 23

 

 

Analysis of this table yielded close results in all statements. Furthermore, results
were close when including or excluding “all subjects” in our calculation. This result
might support our findings in the first part of the analysis as subjects used a mixture of
top-down and bottom-up strategies in their actual reading. Subjects highly agreed to three
interactive-type statements (i.e. understand the overall meaning of the text, guess at word
meaning, and integrate the information in the text to what he/she already knows). By the
same token, they agreed to other statements (i.e. recognizing words, sound out words, use
a dictionary, focus on the detail of the text, and grasp the organization of the text) all of
which can be categorized as “local strategies”. SRs’ disagreement with two of these
strategies (use a dictionary and focus on the detail of the text) is relatively high, 37% and

40% respectively, compared to only one strategy in the case of the LSRs (use of the

dictionary 34%).

4.4.10 Informants’ self-rating:

In one of the demographic questions, students were asked to rate themselves as

readers. That is, on a ten-point scale they were asked to circle the number that best

124

._fl

'I’f‘ . '_‘

 

describes their reading ability. 0 score represents a beginning reader while 10 denotes an
advanced and more confident reader (appendix C). T-test was used to see if there is a
significant difference between inforrnants’ self-confidence and their reading ability.
Results of this test show that SRs are more confident than LSRs (t = 1.63, p-value =
0.054). Since the p—value is small, we can conclude that there is a relationship between
subjects’ scores and their self-rating.

Subjects were asked also in the demographic questionnaire to indicate whether
they engage in non-textual reading activity in English language or not. To analyze the
gathered information, the two-sample t-test was applied and the results yielded (t=-1.65,
p-value =0.052). This indicates that SRs do engage in non-textual (extra reading) more
than the LSRs do.

Later, the correlation test was applied to see if there is a relationship between the

informants’ extra reading and their self-confidence. Following is the result of that test:

Table 4-10: Correlation between subjects’ extra reading and self-confidence

 

 

 

 

Sample Correlation Statistic p—value
All informants 0.77 10.8 0
SRs 0.86 6.69 0
LSRs 0.69 5.8 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

The above table suggests that there is a significant positive correlation between
extra reading and self-confidence. The correlation is higher for SRs (0.86) compared to
LSRs (0.69). In other words, this test suggests that informants who do outside classroom
reading appear to have more self-confidence than those who don’t.

It was predicted that there is a positive correlation between informants’ scores and

their self-confidence. To test that hypothesis, a correlation test was applied for all

125

 

subjects and the result is (correlation = 0.23, t-value = 2.16, p-value = 0.016). Since the
pvalue is very small, the hypothesis is confirmed significantly. The same thing is true for
SRs and the result is correlation = 0.24, t-value = 1.28, p-value = 0.099, but this is not the
case for LSRs con=0.20, t=1.18, p=0.l2. That is, LSRs self-confidence doesn’t affect
their scores.

To test the relationship between informants’ extra reading and their scores (which
is expected to be positive), the correlation test was applied and the result was: correlation
= 0.72, t-value = 10.05, p-value = 0. It is obvious that there is a strong positive

correlation since the p—value is 0. The same thing is true for SRs and LSRs.

4.5 Conclusions of the analysis

4.5.1 Conclusion of part I:

Analysis of this part showed that there was no clear distinction between skilled
and less-skilled readers in term of their use of local and global reading strategies. Results
of their actual reading strategies indicated that readers in both groups used a mixture of
top-down and bottom-up reading models as they interacted with the given text; and that
less-skilled readers- to some extent- were slightly different in their use of effective
reading strategies from the skilled readers. Results of this kind of interaction are in line
with Stanovich’s (1980) view of reading explained in his Interactive Compensatory

Model of reading. In this model, individual differences between poor and skilled readers

126

 

take the form of their reliance on either their lower or higher information to compensate
for any weakness they might have.

Further, analysis of the available transcripts suggests that skilled readers
outperformed less-skilled readers in eliciting effective strategies such as comprehension
monitoring, recall of past experience, and questioning the presented ideas. This finding is
in line with the findings of Jimeneze et al. (1996) and Carrell (1989) presented earlier in
the literature review. As I mentioned in chapter H, Jimeneze et al. found that successful
Latina/o readers used effective strategies by “Invoking prior knowledge, inferencing,
questioning, using context, and monitoring” as opposed to the less successful readers who
did not use these strategies except monitoring their problems, nor did “they know how to
use knowledge of Spanish to enhance their comprehension of English text and vice
versa” (p.106). Variance in skilled readers and less skilled readers’ use of effective
strategies is in line with the outcome of research in this domain (i.e. Baker & Brown,
1984; Paris, Lipson, & Wixson, 1983; Olashvasky, l976-1977; Kavale & Schreiner,
1979; Schommer & Surber, 1986). However, some researchers (e.g. Clarke, 1980) point
out to interference of reader’s L2 as a possible cause of relying on certain strategies over
the others. As explained by Clarke (1980), the “limited control over the language short
circuits the good reader’s system, causing him/her to revert to poor strategies when
confronted with a difficult or confusing task in the second language” (p.206.) Others (i.e.
Carrell et al., 1993) found out that their subjects’ reading strategies differed in Chinese—
their mother tongue- but with some exception were the same in their target language

(English). Hence, the researcher does not rule out the possible impact of the subjects’

127

 

mother tongue as well as that of their target language as a possible cause of such
performance.

Results of the study also showed that SRs monitored their comprehension more
than did the LSRs. This result was based on the analysis of readers’ comprehension
monitoring on the paragraph level. Realizing a comprehension failure is important, but of
equal importance is the knowledge of what to do about it (knowing “about” and knowing
“how” as explained by Wagoner, 1983). Fix-up strategies that had been used by those
who appeared to monitor their comprehension in both groups seemed to revolve around,
but are not limited to, rereading, concentration and speed adjustment, and lookin up

unfamiliar words.

4.5.2 Conclusion of part II:

Analysis of part II showed that SRs’ reported and actual reading strategies
seemed to match one another rather than to differ. Although the difference
between SRs and LSRs’ strategies matching was not that high, it was clear that
SRs outperformed the LSRs in other areas. For example, differences between
subjects’ reported and actual strategies were found to be in favor of SRs as well as
the number of contradictions between them. Moreover, the number neutrality (i.e.
selection of neutral options to certain strategies’ statements in the MCQ, but
application of these strategies in the actual reading) is higher in the case LSRs.
Finally, the overall use of global strategies was found to be slightly higher in the

case of SRs though the local strategies’ use was equal in both groups.

128

 

The finding of this part seems to parallel the findings of previous research (e.g.
Carrell, 1989; Block, 1992; limmenez 1992. It also goes hand in hand with the findings
of Zaburcky & Ranter (1989); Kavale & Schreiner (1979); and Olshavaky (1976-1977)
where skilled readers were found to use certain strategies significantly more and were
found to do better in giving accurate verbal reports of passage inconsistency.

Analysis of subjects’ comprehension monitoring, prediction, imaging, questioning
and ideas’ connection appear to contradict the reported findings of Knight et al. (1985)
and Padron et al. (1986) in regards to bilinguals’ use of these strategies. As I mentioned
in the second chapter, they reported that none of the bilingual children mentioned the
“imaging”, “noting/searching for salient details”, or “predicting the outcome”. However,
both groups in the current study demonstrated their ability — in various degrees- to apply
these strategies in their actual reading.

Subjects from both groups failed to report certain strategies when they were asked
about them in the MAQ; hence, a number of neutral choices in the reported data were
found. Interestingly enough, the comparison of subjects’ actual and reported data
revealed that some subjects were found to apply these reading methods despite that fact
that they chose the “neutr ” options in the MAQ. It’s worth mentioning, however, that
the number of the neutral responses was higher in the case of the LSRs. Generally
speaking, this failure can be attributed to either their lack of metacognitive awareness or
the hidden nature of some of the available strategies that seem to operate automatically

when needed (Rumelhart, 1980). The amazing thing is that research in comprehension

monitoring appears to limit this automatic processing to skilled readers only (e.g.

129

 

Rumelhart, 1980; Anderson, 1980) but the findings of the current study suggest that less-
skilled readers seem to share skilled readers in this regard.

As far as the overall use of global and local strategies is concerned, the finding of
this part indicate that the SRs were slightly higher in their use of global strategies. This
result appears to correspond with Kletzin’s (1991) study who found that good readers
used more types of strategies and to that of the Carrell (1989) who found that good

readers outperformed poor readers in their use of global strategies.

4.5.3 Conclusion of part III:

This part resembled the quantitative analysis of the study as the final part. As
mentioned in this part, all 90 participants were included in the analysis. Informants’
reading ability (skilled readers vs. less-skilled readers) as well as their metacognitive
. awareness were determined on the basis of lower and upper 25% quintile. Findings of
this part are summarized in the following:

First, the result of the Chi-square which was used to see if there was a relationship
between subjects’ reading comprehension scores and their metacognitive awareness
scores insinuates a positive relationship between subjects’ scores and their metacognitive
scores; the higher the reading comprehension score the better the awareness. Generally
speaking, this suggests that the SRs were metacognitively more aware than the LSRs. A
similar finding discovered also in the qualitative analysis was that the differences
between SRs’ reported and actual reading strategies were fewer than that of the LSRs’ (3
compared to 15); that might support the quantitative findings in regards to the LSRs’ lack

of metacognitive awareness.

130

 

Second, it was found that SRs’ and LSRs’ metacognitive scores correlated
positively with their extra reading (0.71 and 0.54 respectively). As can be noted, the
correlation was higher in the case of the SRs, which might be an indication of the
contribution of the non-textual reading to sharpening subjects’ metacognitive awareness.

Other variables yielded interesting results as well. In the confidence variable, for
example, the subjects’ perceptions of their self-confidence was higher than 60% in most
of the statements. However, different results were found in regards to SRs’ and LSRs’
separate perceptions. For instance, SRs were found to be more confident in regard to their
ability to:

I recognize the difference between main points and supporting details;

I question the significance or truthfulness of what the author says;

I use their prior knowledge and experience to understand the content of the text; and
I know when they understand something and when they don’t.

Interestingly enough, SRs outperformed the LSRs in the above strategies except
the first one. That is, as mentioned in the first part of the analysis, SRs utilized
comprehension monitoring, recall of past experience and questioning the presented ideas
more than the LSRs did.

On the other hand, the LSRs’ perception of their self-confidence was stronger
than that of the SRs’ in only two places namely: their ability to
I anticipate what will come next in the text; and
I relate information which comes next in the text to previous information in the text.

So, as can be noted, the SRs seem to have more self-confidence in their

perception of more global strategies than the LSRs. Not only that, but they also have

131

 

more confidence in utilizing these strategies in real situations. These findings are in line
with Jimeneze et al.’s (1996) and Carrell’s (1989) findings in regard to the less proficient
readers’ use of fewer effective strategies.

As far as the repair strategies are concerned, results indicated that SRs and LSRs
were somewhat close in their perception of what reading strategy they would employ if
they don’t understand something. Interestingly enough, both groups seemed to rely on
their dictionaries to solve a comprehension ambiguity if it concerns an unknown word.
That is, 60% of each group reported that they would “keep on reading”, but 83% of each
group reported that they would consult their dictionaries to “look up unknown words”. It
might be, as I mentioned earlier in the analysis of previous parts, that the impact of
previous education (e. g. middle and high schools teaching methods) contributed to Saudi
students’ preference/reliance on dictionaries to find out meanings of difficult words.

Amazingly enough, 6% of the LSRs seemed to have a strange option as a solution
to their comprehension ambiguity; this Option is to “give up reading”. Although, this
percentage seems to be low, it shouldn’t be overlooked for two reasons: first and
foremost it didn’t seem to be only a perception of a reading strategy as one of the LSRs
applied it in reality during the data collection. Second, none of the SRs reported using
that strategy nor used it in reality, which opens our eyes to an existing problem that
should accounted for.

In terms of informants’ perception of “effective strategies”, results seemed to be
in favor of the SRs. For example, the SRs considered the following strategies to be
effective:

I getting the overall meaning; and

132

 

In terms of informants’ perception of “effective strategies”, results seemed to be
in favor of the SRs. For example, the SRs considered the following strategies to be
effective:

I getting the overall meaning; and
I relating the text to what they already know.

In comparison, the LSRs perceived the two previous strategies lower than did the
SRs in terms of their effectiveness (54% compared to 97% and 37% compared to 87%).
However, knowledge of a certain strategy or its effectiveness doesn’t mean utilization of
this strategy as I mentioned in the analysis of this part and referred to Paris et al. (1983)
and Baker and Brown (1984). This note is not limited to LSRs only. In fact it applies for
the SRs as well.

While the two previous strategies are considered “global strategies”, other
differences were found in what we might consider “local strategies”. For example, SRs’
perception was higher than that of the LSRs in the following strategies only:

I mentally sounding out part of the words; and
I understanding the meaning of each word.

But the LSRs perception of the following strategies appeared to be higher than

that of the SRs:

I being able to pronounce each word;

I focusing on the grammatical structures;
I looking up words in the dictionary; and

I focusing on the details of the content and the organization of the text.

133

 

the words”. As far as the meaning difficulty is concerned, they reported that “getting the
overall meaning of the text” was a cause for their reading difficulties.

Concerning subjects’ perception of a good reader, all informants’ results were
close. Their perception of a good reader ranged from his ability to decode words and
sounds to a higher level of interactive strategies. For example, a good reader was viewed
as such based on his ability to do the following interactive strategies:

I understands the overall meaning of the text;
I guesses at word meaning; and
I integrates the information in the text to what he/she already knows.

In a like manner, they perceived a good reader to be such on the ground that he is
able to do the following decoding strategies:
I recognizes words;

I sounds out words;
I focuses on the details of the text; and
I grasps the organization of the text.

It was concluded that such perception might be embedded in their actual reading
behavior. As I mentioned in the first part of the analysis, both SRs and LSRs applied a
mixture of global and local strategies in their actual reading.

Finally, a positive result was found as the subjects’ comprehension scores were
tested against their self-rating scores. It was found that the SRs appeared to have more

self-confidence as readers than the LSRs.

4.5.4 Discussion of the Hypotheses

134

 

The Chi-square test which was applied to the gathered data indicated that there
was a correlation between students’ reading comprehension scores and their
metacognitive awareness and that the higher the score the better the students’
metacognitive awareness. Quantitatively speaking, H1, which predicted this correlation,
was accepted. In fact, it was found in the analysis of the second part that the differences
between SRs’ reported and actual reading strategies were fewer than those of the LSRs (3
compared to 15) which could be attributed to the LSRs’ lack of metacognitive awareness.

As far as the second hypothesis is concerned, the analysis of the qualitative data
indicated that SRs had higher similarities and fewer differences in their reported and
actual reading strategies when compared with those of the LSRs. Although the LSRs’
actual and reported strategies corresponded in some places, the hypothesis didn’t rule out
that correspondence completely but stated that it would be higher in the case of the SRs.
Thus, this hypothesis is also accepted.

Hypothesis three, which predicted that skilled readers would interact with the text
and apply the “top—down” model in their actual reading, is rejected. As noted in the
analysis of the first part, there wasn’t a clear demarcation as to the determination of
interaction with the given text as well as to the application of the top-down and bottom-
up models since both groups applied a mixture of the two models. In some instances, the
SRs applied the top-down model in their actual readings but they also applied the bottom-
up model as well. This type of application is known as the “Compensatory” interaction
(Stanovich, 1980) and will be explained again as I discuss the fourth hypothesis.

In regard to the fourth hypothesis, which predicted that less-skilled readers would

be text bound readers and would incorporate the “bottom-up” model more frequently in

135

 

their actual reading, this hypothesis, is rejected since the LSRs were not totally passive
readers who didn’t interact with the given text. It’s true that some of the LSRs showed
some kind of this passiveness as they indicated their boundness to the provided
information, but so did some of the SRs. As far as the second part is concerned, the same
thing that was said about the SRs in hypothesis three could be repeated here. As I said
earlier, there was no clear difference between the two groups’ use of top-down and
bottom-up models and both groups applied a mixture of the two models in their actual
readings. It appears that each group was interacting with the text in a manner that suited
their need and areas of strength. This type of interaction is best explained by Stanovich’s
(1980) Compensatory Model of reading. According this model, readers differ in their
reliance on either lower or upper information, which is controlled by their individual
needs.

Hypothesis five predicted that SRs would have more self-confidence in regard to
' their reading abilities than that of the LSRs. This hypothesis is accepted. As I mentioned
in the analysis of the third part, the result of the t-test which was applied to test this
hypothesis shows that there is a correlation between subjects’ self-rating and there
comprehension scores, and that the SRs were found to be more self-confident than the
LSRs.

Finally, hypothesis six is partially accepted. This hypothesis anticipated
that skilled readers would be more consistent in their reported reading strategies when
matched with their actual ones as opposed to the less-skilled readers who would be less
consistent. To test this hypothesis, the researcher looked at similarities, differences,

neutrality, and inconsistencies/contradiction in subjects’ reported and actual readings. It

136

 

appeared that the SRs and LSRs were close in terms of similarities (46 compared 41
respectively). However, the mismatching, the neutrality and contradiction seemed to be

higher in the case of the LSRs. In light of these findings, it can be said that this

hypothesis was partially but not totally accepted.

 

137

Chapter 5

5 Conclusion, Implications and recommendations for future research

5.1 Introduction:

Mainly, this study set out to explore Saudi students’ perceptions of their
metacognitive awareness as they read in English as a foreign language. Further, it looked
closely at the actual and reported reading strategies of skilled and less-skilled readers to
see the kinds of similarities/differences between them. Thus, the study employed
qualitative and quantitative methods of research in collecting its data. Results of the data
analysis were highlighted in the previous chapter.

This chapter starts by highlighting the major findings of the study in its
conclusion. Following the conclusion, is a discussion of the implications of the study.

Finally, it concludes with the researcher’s recommendation for future research.

5.2 Conclusion:

Due to the limitation of this study, interpretation of the findings is limited to its
population only. With that in mind, it is obvious that one of the major findings was the
subjects’ use of mixture strategies in their actual readings. Theoretically speaking, the
subjects’ application of this mixture is in accordance with the current view of reading
which defines reading as an active process (Rumelhart, 1980). More importantly, it

appears to be in opposition to those who viewed reading as a decoding process (e.g.

138

 

Gough, 1976) as it adds more weight to the scale of interactive models of reading.
Specifically speaking, subjects’ applications of higher and lower information appear to
support Stanovich’s (1980) assumption of an integrative compensatory model of reading
and contradict that of Mitchell’s (1982). Unlike Mitchell (1982) who believes that the
interaction between visual and non-visual information is equal, Stanovich believes that
this interaction is based on readers’ need and area of strength. In other words, he assumes
that readers compensate for their weakness in higher information, for example, by relying
more on other resources (e. g. their decoding process).

While this finding is in line with Stanovich’s model, subjects’ reliance appeared
to be affected by two variables: namely, the possible transfer of L1 reading strategies to
L2. In this regard, all foreign language learners are subjected to its effect in various
degrees. The other, however, is exclusive to this group of subjects and to all Arab
students pertaining to the uniqueness of the Arabic language orthographically and
typologically (VSO vs. the English structural sequence SVO). Aside from the apparent
difficulties associated with orthographic differences between L1 and L2 (Grabe, 1991;
Hudson, 1998) as well as the typological difficulties (Koda, 1989), it was not possible to
determine whether subjects actually transferred some of their L1 reading strategies to
their reading strategies in English. More likely, subjects as fluent readers of Arabic,
might have transferred some of their Ll reading skills, but because of their lack of
fluency in L2, and the possible Ll interference, they demonstrated Stanovich’s
compensatory reading model. Since language transfer/interference was beyond the scope
of this study, one can only speculate that some transfer/interference may have occurred

between the two languages. An example of such possible influence, as we noted in the

139

 

actual reading analysis, is that some readers had to switch back and forth between Arabic
and English and to think in Arabic to understand what they were reading. Thus, further
research, as will be suggested later, to investigate this phenomenon, is definitely needed.
What is unique about the subjects of this study, however, is their relative reliance on
some of the decoding strategies (i.e. looking up unfamiliar words encountered while
reading and paying more attention to the grammatical structure of the given passage).
This reliance, or reading behavior as it is called by Hulstijn, (1993), was obvious
especially in the case of the LSRs’ group, but it can be justified if we take into
consideration that traditional methods were extensively used in the Saudi intermediate
and high schools. To be more accurate, traditional approaches in teaching English were
used by English language teachers in Saudi middle and high schools; these approaches
tended to put more emphasis on grammar lessons and vocabulary knowledge at the
expense of other global strategies (e.g. guessing, understanding the overall meaning,
questioning etc...). To be fair and not to put all the blame on middle and high school
English teachers, another possible reason for such reliance may be related to Arabic
reading text-books in grades 1-12. In other words, the organization of reading lessons in
these levels tend to follow the following pattern: reading passage first, followed
immediately by a list of unfamiliar words’ meanings, and a set of comprehension
questions that rarely encourage readers to interact with the text (not to mention that, in
most cases, students are required to memorize both the answers to these questions and the
words’ meanings). So, subjects might have transferred at least this reading strategy into

their L2 reading behavior.

140

 

Another important finding of this study, as noted in part I and II of the analysis, is
the subjects’ applications of global strategies (i.e. connecting ideas, predicting what
comes next, questioning, imaging). Contrary to the existing research (i.e. Knight et
al.,1985; Padron et al., 1986), subjects of this study were found to use these strategies in
their actual readings, although the SRs group appeared to outperform the LSRs group in
some of these strategies. Another counter evidence to their studies was also found in
subjects’ fix-up strategies as they did one or more of the following to fix-up their
comprehension difficulties: rereading, concentration and speed adjustment, and checking
up unfamiliar words.

We noted also that the findings of the MAQ were relatively close between SRs
and LSRs. Although this relative closeness is surprising, it is possible that readers are
consciously or unconsciously choosing different strategies for L1 and L2 reading. Such
differences in using different strategies in L1 and similar strategies in L2 was found in
previous research, as mentioned in chapter 11 (i.e. Carrell et al. 1993). Since the current
study was limited to L2 reading, it is hard to determine whether this closeness in subjects’ '
perception is limited to L2 only. Thus, future research will be suggested in regard to this
matter.

Finally, previous research on comprehension monitoring (e.g. Rumelhart, 1980,
Baker and Brown, 1984) indicated that skilled readers tend to operate in automatic
processing until something goes wrong to alert them. Findings of this study propose that
this automatic processing is not limited to proficient readers only, but applies to LSRs as
well. For instance, the analysis of subjects’ neutrality in their reported data to some

reading strategies but the application of these strategies in their actual reading was found

141

 

in both groups’ data not only in the SRs’. Another contribution to the existing research
pertains to the current study’s methodological aspect. Although limited to a certain group,
I think that the combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches in this study has
provided tangible evidence of how individual Saudi students’ perceptions of their reading

strategies is similar to/different from their actual reading strategies.

5.3 Implications:

It is imperative to know when a comprehension failure occurs, but equally
important is the knowledge of the available strategies and when to use them to fix this
comprehension failure. As mentioned in the literature review section, Baker and Brown
(1984) point to the importance of knowing when to use a certain strategy, which strategy
seems to be valuable, or even if a remedial action is necessary. Thus, one implication of
'this study is to teach poor readers how to monitor their comprehension and which
strategy they might use and when to use it upon detecting a comprehension failure.
Furthermore, the research of El-Hindi (1996) and Moholic (1994) suggests some methods
that might enhance readers’ metacognitive awareness. El-Hindi (1996), for instance,
found that a training program that was given to 43 participants yielded positive results in
participants’ metacognitive awareness. Similarly, Miholic (1994) suggested an inventory
that consists of ten multiple choice questions to increase students’ metacognitive
awareness which in turn provides firsthand information to teachers concerning their
students’ needs. Therefore, students’ metacognitive awareness can be promoted through

direct instruction as argued by El-Hindi (1996) or through other means of instruction

142

 

such as Miholic’s (1994) metacognitive awareness inventory. A remedial class maybe
needed to help students who might lag behind in terms of metacognitive awareness.
Ngandu (1977) found that poor readers benefited from remedial classes and became more
aware of effective reading behavior. Perhaps reading strategy training programs-
especially for poor Saudi student readers- might yield positive results. Remedial classes
can be offered for them to increase their metacognitive awareness of their reading
strategies and their use of effective strategies.

In this study, results show that both SRs and LSRs tend to consult their
dictionaries more often when they have a comprehension problem related to an unknown
word/phrase. Saudi students’ frequent consultation of an Arabic/English dictionary might
be traced, as I noted earlier, to previous teaching methodologies, especially in middle and
high schools. This strategy might be favorable when it puts an end to a reading
comprehension difficulty or is used every now and then. However, it might hinder
readers’ comprehension process if it becomes a reading habit (i.e. the reader who was
quoted earlier in my discussion of solving vocabulary difficulty as he insisted on finding
the meaning of each unknown word). One implication in regard to words’ definitions is
to lay different techniques on the table for students to choose from. In other words,
students’ attention could be drawn to trying to resolve obstacles caused by unknown
word/s by using different strategies such as using the context to guess the meaning,
invoking relevant prior knowledge, inferencing, and direct consultation of their
dictionaries. This method, I think, will enhance students’ metacognitive awareness, as
well as, direct their attention to the availability of other strategies that can be tried out

instead of total reliance on dictionaries.

143

 

Traditional approaches to teaching English in Saudi mid and high schools, as far
as I know, are dominant. We can’t undermine the importance of these methods as we all
know that acquiring language skills is fundamental for language learning in general and
for effective reading in particular (Clarke, 1980). By the same token, it is imperative to
arm FL readers with effective reading strategies that create interactive readers rather than
passive readers. In my opinion, solving this dilemma starts from middle and high schools
by eliminating some of the restriction imposed by the Ministry of Higher Education in
requiring certain reading text-books and syllabi that restrict English teachers to traditional
approaches to teaching. I think if middle and high schools teachers are unleashed and are
encouraged to emphasize both approaches in teaching reading comprehension, their
students will develop productive reading strategies. For example, L2 reading teachers
might consider giving their students a metacognitive awareness questionnaire similar to
that of Carrell’s (1989) to have a rough idea about their reading behaviors and then work
from there. The same questionnaire or a similar one can be repeated at the end of the term
to see if their reading behavior changed. Enhancing L2 students’ metacognitive
awareness will contribute to their learning progress in general and to their reading in
particular (Block, 1992).

It is important that future reading instruction might shift the focus from content to
process in countries that are lagging behind in this regard. A case in point is to include
comprehension monitoring and fix-up strategies in future reading classrooms. According
to Block (1992), “[t]eaching students that problems exist when reading and that there are
ways of solving them may be more important than teaching the meaning of specific

words, phrases, and concepts” (p. 338).

14-4

5.4 Recommendation for future research:

What goes on in the reader’s mind is a hidden process and can’t be accessed
directly. Yet, this internal process is essential to the advancement of reading research. To
date, verbal reports seem to be the best way available to find out more about readers’
reading process. Without this kind of research, “educators must resort to designing
reading programs based on intuitions and guesses about students’ problems” Block
(1986: 463). Thus, I think that more research concerning L2 students’ reading
comprehension in general and their metacognitive awareness in particular is needed.

Combining quantitative and qualitative research seems to be fruitful. However,
further modification might be needed in the future; for instance, making use of computers
software designed for reading to investigate students’ reading strategies might be useful.
A passage that contains unfamiliar words, for example, could be programmed where
informants only move the cursor to the desired word/phrase and click on it to get its
meaning without forcing them to refer to their dictionaries. The same software could be
programmed to record the frequency of their consultations and which word/s have been
checked. Moreover, the same thing can be done to paraphrase complex sentences as well
as to record informants’ reflection on their reading process. A computer programmer will
be needed of course, but I think that integrating technology in future research will
minimize researchers’ influence, will make the task more enjoyable, and moreover will

make data analysis easier and increase its accuracy.

145

This study focused only on college level Saudi male English majors. Future
research might include female subjects as well. An effort like this requires a female
researcher to collect the necessary data considering the difficulties facing the male
researcher especially in working with female subjects. Two researchers (male and
female) could work together in order to come up with the necessary data. Despite the
difficulty of recruiting female participants, I think that it would no doubt reveal the
hidden picture of their reading comprehension in general and their metacognitive
awareness in particular.

Another factor that might be taken into consideration in the future is the number
of the informants. That is, more Saudi informants should be recruited as a first step, but
future steps might include a random sample of Arab students who are majoring in the
English language.

An area of future research that should be considered is to investigate the role of
teaching effective reading strategies and metacognitive awareness to Saudi students.
Perhaps such investigation can include skilled and less-skilled readers separately or in
conjunction with a control group. The effect of instruction versus no instruction in
comprehension monitoring is a rich field that might help to improve Saudi students’
metacognitive awareness in particular, and that of Arab students in general.

Last but not least, a possible transfer/interference might be attributed to students’
L1. Thus, future research might consider including a survey of Saudi students’
perceptions of their reading strategies in Arabic and another one for their L2. The step

may be taken further to include their actual reading process in both languages.

146

6 APPENDICES

I47

 

6.1 A letter to the student

APPENDIX A

148

 

vjtgrjtbt‘...

@1161an
I») QIQQI'ilbgélfir’n-ll

1.9.», .ngyimtgsptwwg $914.5 ,Lfiau ,k. ,s ab{;fl¢31¢g.91 up
.ZS/eradllaEYJIQ 1313493? Jungian Jam, ,Llél'rl 43,31 and...

...,JM maggot 91th r" ,a ,grggy u} 1!. lagonLYl my!) Leg
”Jet Li . agar makes.» 3,15 13ml, dueling tsp spanned; wgsyl
. 5‘11: panel‘s (nugget,

JLE‘Y‘JIJI‘EJ‘ 3.5 ‘5- uéfi“ ‘ucg—e-‘J‘LWr-tdrhramorfid" leg-‘6!
.L‘awi 1.3.»li .ui 132,4 , .dlflslyaotslngcléwiédsr ,tt

JyuybgfifildWAEbbl us, .oyruugsmgiayw u»,u...~ti m1

0:.le

«.J'J‘ceh‘v

I49

APPENDIX B

6.2 The Arabic version of the metacognitive questionnaire (MAQ)

150

are)“ on)“ 4" one

L‘Jyl a)?”
:w cab}...
:M 2).-31"]
1,1511 :1...“ ("3’2

 

w are um ea) use» w..- J!" c» w: w W1 “111-21)“ «Jr-3
:(W

Y (‘3'

:qflt o- .1}: ‘53“ ”(p-J) new 1.31s 13}
5M 0.4.1
99115-9
we
c1311....)
...... J.- ufilg

Mums-w e‘JMB-vltsfit-l‘afi-thaqilqmmefi-H
“1* 4w ...“... ,1. we 0‘ ...: c3“ 9‘)" ,1. um 8:410 9‘)“ a...)
A .wr

pm. < — ——=— — ———— > an.»
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l

 

151

“.313“ e fill

Mfiflly uaw.w«wrw¢&m ammonia.»
.wlhll pijl‘fleijlaehxdmj

erg-art (pm tar, 1M Ml .th
.ulpOaélynlJoufifluofiWlmalfilhp‘“
ably at... 551,1
3 2 1

.I flJdpiJilacn’AJdeUGUMuk‘filfiflislsy

,rj upzjsugafljeueuputgytsljuntwaauywheat-assist,
'3 c‘J d» ‘5'" a": V! 4U" UM ale alter “51313-2

Yjelglewtoilt, .3 gflubtjtmemwpwubfitfixeulmjifi
Malemlrc-I‘Jlm‘ro‘ufibwhakU-fl‘JW‘d-ell‘e‘}

.55,» at, Qua-yr 1.3a “huge an...) are All)“,

152

0993”“
.wagtuawuerfidwwmuuwmmljmJ

am ar- an}
3 2 1
Juumjwjrmwwww.unuuwmnmljw.2
. gnaw
all.“ art- .5031
3 2 1
JMmWMfl-flcmuhuamwflhwfiwfimmlfltub-3
«nil
JU‘I 411- (N
3 2 1
.dfldfijhwjifilmawwcm‘blfiwuhflalflWA
an an an)
3 2 1
war-unammamamwwsmwwmmuwas
.aquil
am alt-— an}
3 2 1
Ape-Jttul-J-ifihwfluhlmdfiwsZN-MJWMWUW-é
am an an)
3 2 1
:wwmwuu ljwarqaflrgkuprm
.magrmauauufiduuemfivtfl .1
an alt-.- .er
3 2 1
.Wflqn a)! 6'1} aplug
«9'3” Ail-e J”
3 2 1
..aaanmsplpmugbmgngnnuudaj .e.
an“: alts a“)

3 2 l

153

 

:JfivflWafinaIS<-'
:wwmmm} ljubumametupuj

.wgnuruflrgnwumaeu .c..

or) v Arl- all

3 2 r
.‘Dlfl (p ”U3 5‘ .5

an} x Art- at)

3 2 1

vialflwjdafleWclM-N-MJWWUW-S

.59.: w 5,. purl my: .1

all) Y ail-a all}
3 2 I
.14: ‘3 ”he ”I .9
GU Y 43‘“ Us”
3 2 1
...-m «u ..u «a ....
Us“) Y 41b a)
3 2 l
...u are. Us at m uh syn .e.
an} ‘1 4:1- 6H '
3 2 1
....m w dam -e
t3“) ‘1 Art-a all}
3 2 l
u.»- ce «3t 1.. u ,n ...:- nu .:
Us") Y Alla Us“)
3 2 l
.M o- M “In 51M .t
at) v alt- an)
3 2 l

154

 

:Jfiuslwu.fill¢,u<--
vlmlfllubfiJafierhu-WJWMUW
.wmuwny .3

a!) ‘1 art-- a“)
3 2 1
«I! «U “ul- A
or} Y 41"“ all
3 2 t
:q. auteur Mun mart amateur.” mat} 1.13.9

...and uh. an .1

all} Y 41"“ all}

3 2 1
.w uh; “I .crr

an) x at- an}

3 2 1
.w ,1. a» .e.

an) x Ail- an}

3 2 1
.w 1.5 fil .es

{all} ‘1 411-- 3'31

3 2 1
-W 53.04 w -c

at} ‘1 411-- a")

3 2 t
{JV-.04 Cf “J" hi all on on“ 5U -:

an) ‘1 all- an)

3 2 1
cairn ,u a“ “J'- -e

a!) ‘l 411- 6“)

3 2 1
eras-I (0"!) a» hub .4

at) Y at- an)

3 2 1

155

 

MHJMaflWWV-flwfiwwm .10

.w jab “y .l
or} ‘1 411- all}
3 2 l
5‘“ (air) m .9
at) Y art-- or}
3 2 l
...-m in ..u 96‘ ....
or} Y Arb- (9‘31
3 2 I
.M pm .tb
a») v Ail-- east
3 2 l
.M “In M .5
an) ‘1 ail-‘- all}
3 2 l
M-finhemflql‘mfl dull-led -c
a») ‘2 air-- all
3 2 l
{363-4 rut- w uh 1m -¢
or) ‘1 4:1- an} -
3 2 1 .
~00 WU: oi) ilull ~49“ «3
an) ‘1 Art- 6431
3 2 l

156

 

 

APPENDIX C

6.3 The Demographic Questionnaire

157

 

1. Age ......... 3. Major ...........

2. University ......................... 4. College .........

 

5. Do you read in English, as an extra reading, besides your assigned
textbooks? Circle the right answer:

Yes No
- If the answer is yes, what do you read? Mark all that applies.

short stories

novels

newspapers

magazines.

others, please specify ...............

sup-99's»

4. Using the provided scale, please circle the number that best describes
your level of reading in English. Number 1 refers to beginners while
number 10 to advanced readers.

If

 

....
N
w
A
Ur
Ox
\)
00
\o
5‘

158

 

APPENDIX D

6.4 Metacognitive Awareness Questionnaire (MAQ)

159

 

 

The following statements are about reading silently in English. Please indicate your level of
agreement or disagreement by circling the appropriate number: 1 indicates strong agreement, 5
indicates strong disageement. (e.g. 1: strongly agree (SA) , 2: agree (A), 3: neutral (N), 4:
disagree (D), and 5: strongly disagree(SD)).

SA A N D SD

1. When reading silently in English,
I’m able to anticipate what will
come next in the text ........................... 1 2 3 4 5

2. When reading silently in English,
I’m able to recognize the difference
between main points and supporting
details ................................................. 1 2 3 4 5

3. When reading in silently in English,
I’m able to relate information which
comes next in the text to previous
information in the text .......................... l 2 3 4 5

4.When reading silently in English,
I’m able to question the significance
or truthfulness of what the author
says ..................................................... l 2 3 4 5

5. When Reading silently in English,
I’m able to use my prior knowledge
and experience to understand the content
of the text I am reading ........................... l 2 3 4 5'

6. When reading silently in English,
I have a good sense of when I understand

something and when I do not ................... 1 2 3 4 5
When reading silently in English, if I don’t
understand something,
7. I keep reading and hope for

clarification further on ....................... 1 2 3 4 5
8. I reread the problematic part ................... l 2 3 4 5

9 I go back to the point before the
problematic part and reread from
there .................................................. 1 2 3 4 5

160

 

10. I look unknown words in a
dictionary ......................................... 1

11. I give up and stop reading ................... 1
When reading silently in English, the
things that I do to read effectively

are to focus on...

12. mently sounding out part of
the words ..................................... l

13. understanding the rneaningof
the words .................................... 1

l4. getting th eoverall meaning of
the text ........................................ l

15. being able to pronounce each
whole word ................................... 1

16. the grammatical structure ................ 1

l7. relating the text to what I already
know about the topic ....................... 1

18. looking up words in the dictionary ..... 1
19. the details of the content ................... 1
20. the organizationof the text .................. 1

When reading silently in English, things

that make reading difficult are

21. the sounds of the individual words ........ l
22. pronuncaition of the words ................... l
23. recognizing the words .......................... 1
24. the grammatical structures ................... l
25 .the alphabet ........................................ l

26. relating the text to what I
already know ...................................... l

27. getting the overall meaning
of the text ........................................... 1

161

 

28. the organization of the text .................. l

The best reader I know in English is

a good reader because of his/her

ability to...

29. recognize the words .................. l
30. sound out words .................. l

31. understand the overall

meaning of the text .............. l
32. use a dictionary .................. 1
33. guess at word meaning .......... l

34. integrate the information in

the text with what he/she
already knows .................... l
35. focus on the details of the content. . l
36. grasp the organization of the text 1
figure, etc.

162

 

APPENDIX E

6.5 The Reading Passage

163

 

Art and humor"

Millions of people struggle out of bed each morning, fumble into some clothes, and
make their way to a cup of coffee and the morning newspaper. They need something
cheerful to remind them that the rest of the day will be less difficult than getting up. This
need may be the reason that many of them turn their half-opened eyes to the comics
section of the newspaper as they sip their first cups of coffee of the day.*

Cartoons reflect the times and the troubles and worries of people. They give people an
opportunity to laugh at themselves and at familiar situations. In times of prosperity, for
example, cartoons show people enjoying the good economic situation. They also make
fun of the problems that people make for themselves-like making a problem out of which
type of car to buy.* In hard times -time of economic troubles-people want someone or
something to blame their trouble on. Cartoons provide scapegoats. They also help people
to see the humor in not-so—funny situation. For example, a cartoon might say that the
government of a country is responsible for the bad economy and also show the
government people as a group of ridiculous people. Being able to use the leaders as
scapegoats and to laugh at the leaders somehow makes people feel better about their
situation.*

Cartoons also make people laugh at their own personal worries. Young people who
are not always sure of how to act can always smile at their awkwardness. Old people
whose grown children pay little attention to them can chuckle at their neglect and
loneliness. Students who have studied too little before an examination can laugh at their ‘
anxiety.* Everyone’s problems are made bigger-than-life in the comics. Perhaps the
problems seem funny because there is humor in something that is real being made
unreal.

A cartoon combines art and humor. When it is skillfully done, a simple line drawing
and a few words can make people laugh. their troubles seem less important, and they
enjoy life more fully.*

 

‘Adapted from Zukowski/Faustl.etal.(l983). ' : ' 'lsf rm: 'at -a van c ' h asa
W. Orlando. Florida: Holt. Rinehart and Winston. Inc.

* Indicates the pie-marked places where subjects were asked to reflect on their reading process.

164

 

APPENDIX F

6.6 The Reading Comprehension Test

165

Name:

 

University: College:

 

READING COMPREHENS ION

This is a test to show how well you read in English. There are three reading passages
each followed by some questions about the passage. You should read each passage carefully and
then try to answer the questions following that passage. If you do not know the answer at first,

you may read the passage again, but do not sgnd too much time 9n the passage or you will not
have enough time to finish.

 

 

EXAMPLE:

While I was getting ready to go to town one morning last week, my wife handed
me a little piece of red cloth and asked if I would have time during the day to buy her two
yards of cloth like that. I told her I would be glad to do it. And putting the piece of cloth
into my pocket, I took the train for town.

D. The person telling the story is
a) a married lady
b) an unmarried lady
c) a married man
d) an unmarried man.
You know that the person telling this story is a married mg because he says,

“...my wife handed me...” Because _c_, a married man is the correct answer, a cross has
been made in the space next to g for Example D on the answer sheet.

E. When was the author given a piece of red cloth?
a) In the morning.
b) At noon.
c) In the afternoon.
(1) In the evening.
The passage says, “. . .one morning last week, my wife handed me a little piece of
red cloth. ..” To show that g, In fig; morning is the correct answer, a cross has been made
in the space nest to g for examfle E on the answer sheet.

 

Answer all questions in this manner.
Mark only one answer for each problem.

CONTINUE

166

 

 

, The Giants Causeway has attracted the curiosity of travelers for centuries. It is
composed of thousands of strangely symmetrical basalt columns which just out to sea.
Legend has it that the Causeway was built by the Irish giant, Finn MacCuil, so as to
travel dry-shod across the sea to Scotland. Generations of guides have embroidered the
tale until it is hard to disentangle modern invention from ancient folklore. In fact the
Causeway is a product of the volcanic activity which altered the face of Ireland, Scotland,
Iceland and Greenland many millions of years ago.

Between Runkerry and Causeway Head three caves, Runkerry, Rock Pigeon, and
Portcoon, pierce the cliffs. Portcoon is the sole one accessible from the land, but a visit is
only for the agile and care is needed at the high tide. A side passage gives access to the
main cave. The entrances to the others may be seen from the cliffs with some difficulty
but access is only possible from the sea. Runkerry cave is over 700 feet long. These
caves were formed by marine erosion along lines of weakness in the basalt. In the old
days these caves were very much a part of the Causeway attractions and local boatmen
rowed visitors, twenty in each boat, into them when the seas were moderate.

1. The basalt columns were formed by. . ..
a) glacial action
b) volcanoes.
c) Finn MacCuil.
d) marine erosion.

2. The guides who told the Firm MacCuil tale...
a) disagrees among themselves.
b) learned it in Scotland.
c) never changed it.
d) kept adding to it.

3. The passage implies that nowadays the caves
a) are more popular than in the past.
b) are less popular than in the past.
c) are more easily reached than the past.
d) have been closed to tourists.

4. Runkerry and Rock Pigeon differ from Portcoon in that they
a) have more than one entrance.
b) were formed by marine erosion.
c) cannot be seen from the land.
(I) cannot be entered on foot.

5. According to the story, Finn MacCuil built the Causeway because he
a) had no other way to get to Scotland.
b) wanted his Scottish friends to be able to visit him.
c) didn’t want to get his feet wet.
d) wanted to prove his strength.

167

 

Until recently there has been little evidence about how the brain functions
in cognition and precisely how and which of the 12 billion cells within the brain
store memory. One noted explores in his field is Dr. Wilder Penfield who in 1951
began to produce exiting evidence to confirm theoretical concepts which had been
formulated about memory functioning. During the course of brain surgery, in
treating patients suffering from focal epilepsy, Penfield conducted a series of
experiments during which he touched the temporal cortex of the brain of the
patient with a weak electric current transmitted through a galvanic probe. In each
case, the patient under local anesthesia was fully conscious during the exploration
of the cerebral cortex and was able to talk with Penfield.

Penfield found that the stimulating electrodecould force recollections clearly
derived from the patient’s memory. Penfield reported that such recollections stop
when the electrode is removed and may re-occur when the electrode is applied
again. One of Penfield’s significant conclusions was that the electrode evoked a
single recollection, not a mixture of memories or a generalization. Secondly, the
response of the electrode was found to be totally involuntary, but perhaps the
most important discovery was that not only past events are recorded in detail but
also the feelings that were associated with these events. An event and the feeling
which was produced by the event are in extricably locked together in the brain so
that one cannot be evoked without the other.

 

One conclusion reached by Penfield was that
a) the response to the electrode was involuntary.
b) electrical stimulation caused loss of consciousness.
c) electrical stimulation caused a lasting improvement.
(1) electrical stimulation can evoke events but not feelings.

The passage states that events and feelings...
a) can be remembered independently of each other under normal conditions.
b) are inextricably linked.
c) are stored in different places in the brain.
(I) can be remembered independently of each other only under experimental conditions.

The original purpose of the brain surgery performed by Penfield was to
a) treat epilepsy.
b) Treat memory problem.
c) Test memory functioning in the patients.
d) Enable patients to speak normally.

When electrode was removed .. ..
a) the memory that had been elicited stopped.
b) The elicited memory became stronger.
c) The patient’s memory problem was cured.
d) The patient suffered a complete loss of memory.

As a result of this experiment, Penfield found that
a) the electrode improved but did not cure epilepsy.
b) a surgical approach to memory problems is effective.
c) an electrode can force a patient to remember past experiences.
d) the electrode had no effect on memory.

168

Jelly Roll Morton was born Ferdinand Joseph LaMenthe in Gulfport,
Louisiana in 1885 or 1886, and raised in New Orleans. From the age of seventeen
he began to earn his living as a jazz pianist, travelling throughout the United
States. After five years in Los Angeles he went to Chicago in 1923, beginning his
publishing and recording activities, as a soloist and a band leader, in the city
where most of the best jazz musicians of the time were playing. When the center
of jazz activity moved to New York, Morton did too, in 1928. The expiration of
his recording contract in 1930, along with the depression, changing jazz styles and
the increasing ability of white jazz musicians brought him hard times which were
compounded by his uncompromising attitude toward music. Morton moved to
Washington, D. C. to mange and play in a small night club but before returning to
New York in 1938, he described his own and jazz history to Alan Lomax in a
lengthy set of interviews recorded for the Library of Congress. This brought about
his “rediscovery”; however, he was viewed more as a historical figure than as the
vital musician he still was and had very modest successes in recording, radio and
publishing. Poor health and prevailing tastes in jazz limited his success, and he
died in 1941 in Los Angles, just before the historical revival movement which
later benefited many of his slightly younger contemporaries could rescue him, and
before public recognition such as that which came to Louis Armstrong could be of
help to him.

 

What was Morton’s attitude toward music?
a) He preferred to write and play the kind of music the public liked.
b) He preferred talking about the history of jazz to writing jazz.
c) He preferred playing music to writing.
d) He preferred to write and play what he felt was good music.

Why did Morton move to New York?
a) He got a job there managing a night club.
b) Most of his best jazz musicians were there.
c) He lost his job in Chicago.
d) He wanted to begin publishing his music.

When Morton was “rediscovered,” the public felt he was . ..
a) important mainly as a historical figure in music.
b) important as both a historical figure and vital musician.
c) too modest about his ability.
d) the greatest band leader of the day.

The author believes that Morton, in his last years...
a) benefited from the historical revival movement in jazz.
b) was still a vital musician.
c) was too modest about his abilities.
d) changed prevailing tastes in jazz

What does the author believe would have happened if Morton had lived longer?
a) Morton would have changed the prevailing taste in jazz.
b) Morton would have enjoyed greater public recognition.
c) Morton would have helped his slightly younger contemporaries.
d) Morton would have been rescued by slightly younger contemporaries.

END OF TEST

169

 

APPENDIX G

6.7 A sample of think-aloud protocol

170

[Subjects starts reading]

“Millions of people struggle out of bed each morning, fumble into some clothes,
and make their way to a cup of coffee and the morning newspaper. Millions of people
struggle out of bed each morning, fumble into some clothes, and make their way to a cup
of coffee and the morning newspaper.”

You read the first sentence twice. Why?

I tried to understand what he meant by “struggle out” and the meaning of
“fumble”.

Were you able to do that?

Not really, but I got the general idea. I’ll continue and see how it works.

UK.

They need something cheerful to remind them that the rest of the day will be less
difficult than getting up. This need may be the reason that many of them turn
their half-opened eyes to the comics section of the newspaper as they sip their
first cups of coffee of the day. There are two words here that I don’t know their

9’ 66

meanings “cheerful,” “half-opened eyes, comics,” and “sip.”

0k. What you want to do about them? Or let me put it this way, what do you usually do in
such case?

Well it depends. If it is a required course or topic then I have to find out each individual
word’s meaning and write it down so I can understand what I read.

In our case here let’s suppose that you 've been asked to read this passage by your

teacher. What would you do?

First I’d find out the meaning of these words before I continue.

171

 

Please do exactly the way you read if you were by yourself.
[Subject is looking words in the dictionary and writes its meaning in Arabic, then he
starts rereading from the beginning]

“Millions of people struggle out of bed each morning, fumble into some clothes,
and make their way to a cup of coffee and the morning newspaper. Millions of people
struggle out of bed each morning, fumble into some clothes, and make their way to a cup
of coffee and the morning newspaper. They need something cheerful to remind them that
the rest of the day will be less difficult than getting up. This need may be the reason that
many of them turn their half-opened eyes to the comics section of the newspaper as they
sip their first cups of coffee of the day.”

So, first you located each word in the dictionary, underlined it in the text, and wrote its
meaning in Arabic. Is this your reading strategy?

Yes, when I read-a required topic.

' How about when you read for pleasure?

I sometimes look up words in the dictionary, but not as often as I do in reading a
textbook.

But I noticed that you finished the first paragraph before you consulted your dictionary.
You see... I wanted to stop at the mark that you put. That is why I continued. Otherwise,
I would have stopped after the second word that I didn’t know.

Please ignore these marks and read exactly the way you read, but try to tell me what is
going on as you read.

OK.

[ Subject starts reading the second paragraph]

172

“Cartoons reflect the times and the troubles and worries of people. They give people an
opportunity to laugh at themselves and at familiar situations. In times of prosperity
prosperity. ” I need to check this word.

0K. [ checking his dictionary]

It has three meanings, so I’ll read the sentence again to see which one would fit... In
times of prosperity, for example, cartoons show people enjoying the good

economic situation... umm I don’t think prosperity means success, so it must be the third
definition. Let me read it again... in times of prosperity, for example, cartoons show
people enjoying the good economic situation. They also make fun of the problems that
people make for themselves-like making a problem out of which type of car to buy. In
hard times .. .in hard times or time! Is this a typing error here or what?

What do you think?

I think there are some typing mistakes in this passage, like “half-opened,” “themselves-
like”, “troubles-people,” and this one “times-time.”

But you just mentioned them now. You didn ’t say anything about them before. My?
Well, the first three looked like a typing error where the writer typed hyphen between
these words.

What makes you think so?

Because in each one the second word is different from the first, but in the last one
“times-time” seem to me that the writer put it in or you might be the one who put these
hyphens to see what we are going to do.

No... no. I didn ’t add anything to this passage except the red dots where I wanted you to

stop and reflect on your reading process.

173

 

Or it could be additional information.

Which one?

The last one “times-time”.

How do you solve this confusion?

I’ll read the sentence twice. One time as is and the second time without time... I’ll delete
it and see. “in hard times-time of economic troubles- people want someone or something
to blame their troubles on.” OK. Now let me read it without time...

“in hard times people want someone or something to blame their troubles on.”

What do you think?

The sentence was not affected by the deletion, so is additional information. This
additional information explains what is meant by “hard times”.

0K. Does this kind of sentences cause any kind of problem for you?

In most cases, yes. I feel that my thinking is interrupted whenever I see extra information
in the text.

I see.

“In hard times-time of economic troubles- peOple want someone or something to blame
their trouble on. In reading this sentence, I prefer to read it this way “in hard times... stop
for a while and reread it without stopping until the end.

Why?

To think about what I just read before I continue.

0K. Please continue.

“cartoon provide scapegoats... scapegoats. .. I need to look this word up.

[subject finds the word ’s meaning and then restart reading]

174

 

“Cartoons provide scapegoats.” Did I pronounce it correctly?

Pronunciation is not our concern here, but since you mentioned it, does it affect your
reading?

Yes, when there is a word like this one which contains more than one syllable, I try to
pronounce it correctly.

I see... do you want to continue or you want to add something?

I’ll continue... “They also help people see the humor in not-so-funny situations. For
example, a cartoon might say that the government of a country is responsible for the bad
economy and also show the government people as a group of ridiculous people. Being
able to use the leaders as scapegoats and to laugh at the leaders somehow makes people
feel better about their situation.”

Remember! I want you to tell me about your reading process.

Uhh... this paragraph talks about cartoons and everything is OK. I also remember
watching cartoon movies at home.

Did you recall specific moment or experience?

Yes, I imagined myself watching them with my younger brothers.

Did it help your comprehension ?

Yes, it did.

Please continue if you don ’t have anything to add.

“Cartoons also make pe0ple laugh at their own personal worries. Young people who are
not always sure of how to act can always smile at their awkwardness.” I need to look
awkwardness”

0K.

175

 

Now I’m going to read the sentence again. . .. cartoons also make people laugh at their
own personal worries. Young people who are not always sure of how to act can always
smile at their awkwardness. Ok the sentence is clear “old people whose grown children
pay little attention to them can chuckle here is another word... I need to look it up.

[Subjects consults his dictionary]
Chuckle chuckle chuckle... here it is. OK. “...can chuckle at their neglect and

loneliness. Students who have studied too little before an examination can laugh at heir
anxiety. What does he mean by anxiety let me see...

[Consults his dictionary again]

Now it’s clear... let me continue and see “Everyone’s problems are made bigger-than-Iife
in the comics. Perhaps the problems seem funny because there is hum... humor ...humor
in something that is real being made unreal. A cartoon combines art and humor. When it
is skillfully skillfully done, a simple line drawing and a few words can make people
laugh. Their troubles seem less important, and they enjoy life more fully.

In this part, I had some difficulties concerning pronunciation of some words. That is why
I repeated words like “humor” and “skillfully” trying to pronounce them correctly.
Although you told me not to worry about pronunciation, I can’t help it. I tend to pay more
attention to it more than I should.

Do you think it affects your comprehension?
Yes, it affects my comprehension. I want to read this part again.... Not because I didn’t

understand the get the general meaning, but I just want to see if I’d be able to pronounce
these words correctly and to make sure also that I didn’t misssomething important.

[subject rereads the last part]

176

 

“Everyone’s problems are made bi gger—than-life in the comics. Perhaps the problems
seem funny because there is humor in something that is real being made unreal. A
cartoon combines art and humor. When it is skillfully done, a simple line drawing and a
few words can make people laugh. their troubles seem less important, and they enjoy life
more fully.”

Did you find it easier this time?
Much easier than the first time.

So, as a reader, we could say that you tend to repeat what you read at least once?

Yes, in most cases, unless the topic is too easy or I have read it before.

End of protocol.

I77

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

178

 

Bibliography

Afflerbach, p. & Johnston, P. (1984). Research methodology on the use of verbal reports
in reading research. oumal of Readin behavior, 16(4), 307-22.

Al-Arfaj, Naji (1996). Factors causing reading difficulties for Saudi male students of

English as a foreign language. Unpublished dissertation: Michigan State
university.

Aljamhoor, Abdulrahman (1996). The English writing process of two Saudi ggaduate
students before and after ESL instruction. Unpublished dissertation: Michigan

State university.

Anderson, N. (1991). Individual differences in second language reading strategies.
Modem Langpage joumal, E, 460-475.

Anderson, R. C. (1978). Schema-directed processes in language comprehension. In A.M.
Lesgold, J.W. Pellegrino, S.D. FOKkema, and R. Glaser (Eds), Cogpitive
psychology and instruction (pp. 67-82). New York, N.J.: Ablex.

Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in
reading comprehension. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil & P. Mosenthal
(Eds), The handbook of reading research (pp. 255-92). New York: Longrnan.

Anderson, R. C., Hierbert, E. H., Scott, J. A., & Wilkinson, I. A. G. (1985). ecomin a

nation of readers: The report of the commission on reading. Washington, D.C:
The National Institute of Education.

Anderson, T. H. (1980). Study strategies and adjunct aids. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, &

W. F. brewer (Eds), jIheoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 483-502).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlabum Associates.

Assor, A. & Connel, J. P. (1992). The validity of students self-reports as measures of
performance affecting self-appraisals. In D. H. Schhunk & J. L. Meece (Eds),

Students perceptions in mg classrppm (pp. 25-50). Hillsadale, NJ: Erlabum

Associates.

Auerbach, E. & Paxton, D. (1997). “It’s not the English thing”: Bringing reading research
into the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 3 (2), 237-261.

August, D., Flavell, J., & Clift, R. (1984). Comparison of comprehension monitoring of
skilled and less skilled readers Reading Research matterly, 23(1), 39- 53.

Baker, L. (1985). How do we know when we don’t understand?: Standards for evaluating
text comprehension. In D. L. Forrest, G. E. Mackinnon, & T. G. Waller (Eds),

179

Metacogpition, cogpition, and human Erformance (pp. 155-205). New York:
Academic Press.

Baker, L. & Anderson, R. (1982). Effects of inconsistent information on text processing:
evidence for comprehension monitoring. Reading Resegrch Quarterly. _11 (2),
281-93.

Baker, L. & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson, R.
Barr, M. L. Kamil & P. Mosenthal (Eds), The handBook of reading research
(pp.353-94). New York: Longman.

Barnett, M. A. (Ed). (1989). More than meets the eye. Foreigp language reading: Theory
and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Bernhardt, E. B. (1991). Reading development in a second language: Theoretical,
empirical, and classroom mrspgctives Norwood, NJ: Albex Publishing

Corporation.

Black, D. J. (1994). An investigation into the knowing and regplating comprehension
behaviors of skilled and less skilled seventh ggade readers. Unpublished

dissertation: University of Manitoba.

Block, E. L. (1986). The comprehension strategies of second language readers. TESOL
Quarterly, 29, 463-93.

. (1992). See how they read: comprehension monitoring of L1 and L2 readers.

EEO]. marterly, 26, 319-343.

Bogdan, R., and Biklen, S. (1982). Qpalitative research for educatipn: an iptroduction to
theory and mgthods. Allyn and Bacon, Inc: Boston.

Bossert, T. S., & Schwantes, F. M. (1995-96). Children’s comprehension monitoring:
Training children to use reading to aid comprehension. Reading Research and
Instruction, 2}; (2), 109-121.

Bowen, B. D., & Weisberg, H. F. (1980). An introdugtipp to data analysis. W. H.
Freeman and Company: CA: San Francisco.

Brown, A. L. (1980). Metacognitive development and reading. In R. J. Spiro, B. C.

Bruce, & W. F. brewer (Eds), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlabum Associates.

. (1985). Metacognition: the development of selective attention strategies for
learning from text. In H. Singer & R. B. Ruddell (Eds), Theoretical models and
processes of reading.(3rd ed.) (pp. 501-526). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.

 

l. 80

 

Brown, A. L., Arrnbruster, B. B., & Baker, L. (1986). The role of metacognition in
reading and studying.In J. Orasanue (Ed.), Reading comprehension: From
research to practice (pp. 49-75).Hillsadle, NJ: Erlbaum Associates

Brown, A. L., Bransford, J. D.;Ferrara, R. A.; & Campione, J. C. (1983). Learning,
remembering, and understanding. In J. H. Flavell & E.M. Markman (Eds),

Handbook of child psychology: V91, 3. gpguitive development (pp. 77-166). New
York: Wiley.

Byrd, D. M. & Gholson, B. (1985). Reading memory and Metacognition. Journal of
Educational Psycholugy, 21(4), 428-436.

Carrell, P. L. (1981). Culture-specific schemata in L2 comprehension. In Selected papgrs
from the ninth Ill'nois TESO E convention the rst 'd-west 80]
conference, R. Orem and J. Haskell (Eds), 123-I32. Chicago: Illinois
TESOUBE.

. (1982). Cohesion is not coherence. TESOL Quarterly, E (4), 479-488.

. (1983). Three components of background knowledge in reading
comprehension . Igguage Learning, 3; (2), 183-207..

. (1984) . The effects of rhetorical organization on ESL readers. TESOL
Quarterly, _1§ (3), 441-469.

. (1984c). Schema theory and ESL reading: classroom implications and
applications. Modern Iflguagg Juugual, _6_8(4), 332-343.

. (1987). Content and formal schemata in ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 2]
(3), 461-481.

 

. (l988a).Interactive text processing: Implication for ESU second language
reading classrooms. In P. Carrell, J. Devine, & D. Eskey (Eds), Interactive

upproaches to secondlanguage reading (pp.239-59). New York: Cambridge

University Press.

 

. (1988).Introduction: Interactive approaches to second language reading. In

P. Carrell, J. Devine, & D. Eskey (Eds), Intergtive approaches to second
W (pp.I-7). New York: Cambridge University Press.

 

. (1989a). Metacognitive strategy training for ESL reading. TESOL
My. 23.. 647-679.

 

. (1989b). Metacognitive awareness and second language reading. Modern
Language Journal, 13, 121-34.

 

181

Carrell, P. L.; and Carson, J. G. with Zhe, D. (1993). First and second language reading
strategies: Evidence from cloze. Reading in a Foreigu Language, _1_Q (1), 953-965.

Carrell, P. L., & Esterhold, J ..(1983). Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy. TESOL
marterly, 11 (4), 553-75.

. (1988). Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy. In P. Carrell, J. Devine,

& D. Eskey (Eds), Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp.73-92).
New York: Cambridge University Press.

 

Carrell, P. L. , Pharis, B. G., & Liberto, J. C. (1989). Metacognitive strategy training for
ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 647-73.

Casanave, C. P. (1988). Comprehension monitoring in ESL reading: A neglected
essential. TESOL Quarterly, Q (2), 283-302.

Clarke, M. A. (1980). The short circuit hypothesis of ESL reading- or when language
competence interferes with reading performance. Modern Language Journal, fl,
203-209.

Clarke, M. A. & Silberstein, S. (1977). Toward a realization of psycholinguistic
principles in the ESL reading class. W, _21 (1), 135-154.

Cohen, A. C., & Hosenfeld, C. (1981). Some uses of mentalistic data in second language
research. Language Learning, .3_I_, 285-313.

Cohen R. (1983). Self-generated questions as an aid to reading comprehension. m
adin acher, 16 (8), 770-775.

Devine, Joanne (1983). ESL readers’ Intemalized models of reading process. gm TESOL

’83 : The guestipn of control: selected pauper: from the seventeenth annual

convention of teachers of English to sgakers of other languages, Toronto,
Canada.

(1993). The role of metacognition in second language reading and

writing. In J. Carson & Leki (Eds), Reading in the commsition classroom:
Sggond languagg gmmgtives (pp.105-l21). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

 

Dubin, F. (1986). Dealing with texts. In F. Dubin; D. E. Eskey; & W. Grabe (Eds)

Teaching second language reading for academic pumes. Massachusetts:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Dubin, F. ;Eskey, D. E. and Grabe, W. (Eds) (1986). Teaching second language reading
for; ugademic purp_oses. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

182

 

Ericsson, K. A. and Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychologicg Review,
QB), 215-251.

(1984). Protocol a_n_ulvsis: Verbal remrt as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT

 

Press.

Eskey, David (1973). A model program for teaching advanced reading to students of
English as a foreignlanguage. Language Learning, 23 (2), 169-184.

. (1986). Theoretical foundations. In F. Dubin, D. Eskey, & W. Grabe (Eds),
Teghing econd lan a e readin for ac mic u ses ( pp.3-23).
Massachusetts: Addisn-Wesley Publishing Company.

. (1988). Holding in the bottom: an interactive approach to the language
problems of second language learners. In P. Carrell, J. Devine, & D. Eskey (Eds),

hteractive approaches to second language reading (pp. 93-100). New York:

Cambridge University Press.

El-Hindi, A. E. (1996). Enhancing metacognitive awareness of college learners. Reading
Horizons, _3_6, (3), 214-30.

Falvell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive —
developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 3_4, 109-118.

. (1981). Cognitive Monitoring. In W. Patrick Dickson (Ed.), Children’s oral
communication skills (pp.35-60). New York: Academic Press Inc.

Fawcett, G. (1993). Using students as think aloud models. Reading Resgupgh and
hsuuction, 13 (2), 95-104.

Forrest, D. L., & Waller, T. G. (1979). Qoguitive and metacognitive asmgts of Leading.
Paper presented at the meeting of the society for research in child development.

San Francisco.

Fraenkel, J. R. and Wallen, N. E. (1990). How to desigu and evguate research in
education. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.

Gambrell, L. B. & Heathington, B. S. (1981). Adult disabled readers’ metacognitive
awareness about reading tasks and strategies. Journal of Reading Behavior, 1;,
215-222.

Garner, Ruth (1982). Verbal-report data on reading strategies. Journal pf Reading
Behavior, _1_4 (2), 159-167.

. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Ablex Publishing
Corporation: Norwood, New Jersey.

183

 

Garner, R., and Kraus, C. (1981-1982). Good and poor comprehender differences in

knowing and regulating reading behavior. Educational Research Quarterly, 6 (4),
70-76.

Goodman, K. S. (1967). Reading: a psycholinguistic guessing game. Joumfial of Reading
Smcialist, _6_ (1), 126-135.

. (1968). The psycholinguistic nature of the reading process. Detroit:
Wayne State University Press.

 

. (1971). Psycholinguistic universals in the reading process. In P.
Pimslecur and T. Quinn (Eds), The psychology of second language learning, pp.
135-142. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

.437

. (1976). Reading: a psycholinguistic guessing game. In H. Singer and R.
Ruddell (Eds.),Theoretical models a_r1d processes of reading, (2“I edition). New :
York, Delaware: International Reading Association, pp. 497-508. (originally [J
published 1967)

 

 

 

Gough, Philip (1976). One second of reading. In H. Sin er and R. Ruddel (Eds),
Theoretical models and processes of reading. 2n ed. (pp. 519-32). Newark, DE:
International Reading Association. -

Grabe, W. (1991). Current development in second language reading. TESOL marterly,
25 (3), 375-406.

. Guzzetti, Barbara J. (1993). Critical review of qualitative research on conceptual change
from science education. Paper presented at he annual meeting of the national
reading conference (43", Charleston, SC, December 1-4, 1993) 20p. ED 364 841

Hays, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1983). Uncovering cognitive process in writing: an '
introduction to protocol analysis. In L. Mosenthal , L. Tamor and S. Walmsley

(Eds), Research in writing: principles and methods. New York: Longman.
Holt, J. (1964). How children fail. New York: Dell.

Hosenfeld, C. (1977b). A preliminary investigation of the reading strategies of
successful and nonsuccessful second-language learners. System, 5, 110-123.

Hudson, T. (1998). Theoretical perspective on reading. In G. William (Ed. in chief),

Auuual Review of Applied Linguistics: foundations of language teaching, Vol. _l§
(1998). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hulstijn, Jan H. (1993). When do foreign-language readers look up the meaning of
unfamiliar words? The influence of task and learner variables. The Modern

nguage Journal, 12 (2), 139-47.

184

Jacobs, J .; & Paris, S. (1987). Children’s metacognition about reading: Issues in
definition, measurement, and instruction. Eucational Psychologist, 22, 255-278.

Jimenez, R. T., Garcia, G. E., and Pearson, P. D. (1996). The reading strategies of
bilingual Latino/o students who are successful English readers: Opportunities and
obstacles. Reading Research Quarterly, 3_1, 90-112.

Johnson, P. (1981). Effect of reading comprehension of language complexity and cultural
background of a text. IIESQL Quarterly, 15 (2), 169-181.

Kavale, K.; & Schreiner, R. (1979). The reading processes of above average and average
readers: a comparison of the use of reasoning strategies in responding to
standardized comprehension measures. Reading Research marterly, 15 (1), 102-
128.

Kern, R. G. (1989). Second language reading strategy instruction: its effects on
comprehension and word inference ability. The Mgem Language Journal, 7_3_ (2),
135-149. "

 

Kletzien, S. B. (1992). Proficient and less proficient comprehenders’ strategy use for
different top-level structures. Journal of Reading Behavio . 2_4_ (2), 191-215.

. (1991). Strategy use by good and poor comprehenders reading expository
text of different levels. Reading Research Quarterly, 26 (1), 67-86.

 

Knight, 8.; Padron, Y.; & Waxman, H. (1985). The cognitive reading strategies of ESL
students. TESOL Quarterly, 12 (4), 789-792.

Koda, K. (1989). The effect of transferred vocabulary knowledge on the development of
L2 reading Proficiency. Foreign nguage Anna], E (6), 529-540.

. (1994). Second language reading research: problems and possibilities. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 1_5_ (1), 1-28.

Linden, M.; and Wittrock, M. C. (1981). The teaching of reading comprehension
according to the model of generative learning. Reging Research marterly, 1_7
(1), 44-57.

 

McBee, Robin H. (1993). Dernistifying research in education and the social sciences. A
primer for LRE folks. ED 381 481

McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context
effects in letter Perception: Part 1. An account of basic findings. Psychological
Review, _8_8_ (5), 375-407.

Knight, 8.; Padron, Y.; & Waxman, H. (1985). The cognitive reading strategies of ESL

185

students. TESOL marterly, fl (4), 789-792.

Mcklain, K. V. (1993). Effects of two comprehension monitoring strategies on the
metacognitive awareness and reading achievement of third and fifth grade
students. ED 364 840

Meloth, M. (1990). Changes in poor readers’ knowledge of cognition and the association
of knowledge with regulation of cognition and reading comprehension. Journal of

Educational Psychology, Q (4), 792-798.

Milholic, V. (1994). An inventory to pique students’ metacognitive awareness of reading
strategies. Journal of Reading, 3 (2), 84-86.

Mitchill, D. (1982). jljhe process pf reading. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.

Ngandu, K. (1977). What do remedial high school students do when they read? Journal of
Reading, 21, 231-234.

Olshavsky, J. B. (1976-1977). Reading as a problem solving: an investigation of
strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, Q (4), 654-674.

Otto, W. (1985). Metacognition and reading instruction. Joumal of reading, 28 (6), 573-

575.

Padron, Y.; Knight, 8.; Waxman, H. (1986). Analyzing bilingual and monolingual
students’ perceptions of their reading strategies. e Readin r, 32 (5),
430-433.

Paran, Amos (1996). Reading in EFL: facts and fictions. ELT Journal, 59 (1), 25-34.

Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y.; & Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader.
Qphtgmmrguy Eucau'oufl Psychology, 8, 293-316.

Paris, S. G., & Myers, M. (1981). Comprehension monitoring, memory, and study
strategies of good and poor readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 1_3,, 5-22.

Pressley, M. , & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal flutocgls of Reuding: The hature of
constructively respgnsive readihg. Hillsadle, NJ: Erlbaum.

Pressley, M. L., Goodchild, F., Fleet, J ., Zajchowski, R., and Evans, E. D. (1989). The
challenges of classroom strategy instruction. Elementm School Journal, 8_9, 301-
342.

186

 

Prichard, R. (1990). The evolution of introspective methodology and its implications for
studying the reading process. Reading Psychology, _1_1. 1-13.

Rivers, W. (1964). The psycholgist und the foreign-language teacher. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

. (1968). Teaching foreigh language skills. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

Roy, Loriene (1991). What is qualitative research? Journal of Youth Services in
Libraries, 8 (1), 105-107.

Rumelhart, D. E. (1977). Toward an interactive model of reading. In S. Domic (Ed.),
Attention and mrformance, V], pp. 573-603. New York: Academic Press.

. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. J. Spiro, B.
C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension:

Eerspectives from coghitive psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence, and
education (pp.33-58). Hillsadle, NJ: Erlbaum.

 

Rumelhart, D., and J. L. MaClelland (1982). An interactive activation model of the
effects of context in perception. Psychological Review, 82, 60-94.

Samuels, S. J., & Kamil, M. L. (1988). Models of the reading process. In P. Carrell, J.

Devine, & D. Eskey (Eds), Interactive approaches to second language reading
(pp.22-36). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sasaki, Yoshinori (1991). English and Japanese inter-language comprehension strategies:
An analysis based on competition model. Applied Pscycholinguistics, 1;, 47-73.

Schommer, M. & Surber, J. (1986). Comprehension-monitoring failures in skilled adult
readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 28, 325-339.

Schraw, G. & Dennison, D. (1994). Assessing Metacognitive Awareness. Cpntemmrzuy
Eucational Psychology, _12, 460-475.

Shuy, Roger (1977). Linguistics theory: what can it say about reading? Intgggational
Reading Association.Newark: DE.

Smith, F. (1971). Understanding reading: a psycholinguistic analysis of reading and
learning to read. New York: Hot, Rinehart and Winston.

. (1973). Psycholinguistics and readihg. New York: Hot, Rinehart and Winston.

 

. (1982). Understanding Reading. (3rd Ed.) New York: Hot, Rinehart and
Winston.

 

187

 

Smith, J. K. (1983). Quantitative versus qualitative research: an attempt t clarify the
issue. Educational researcher, _1_2_ (3), 6-13.

Spires, H. A. (1993). Learning from a lecture: Effects of comprehension monitoring.
Reading Research and Instruction, 82 (2), 19-30.

Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Towards an interactive-compensatory model of individual
differences in the development of reading fluency. Readin Research arterl ,
16(1), 32-71.

Starks-Martin, G. (1996). Using “think-alouds,” journals, and portfolios to assess Hmong
students’ perceptions of their study/learning strategies. ED 399 803.

Steffensen, M., Joag-Dev C., and Anderson, R. (1979). A cross-cultural perspective on
reading comprehension. Reading Research marterly, 16 (1), 10-29.

Taylor, 1., and M. Taylor (1983). The psychology of reading. New York: Academic
Press.

Valencia, S., & Pearson, P. D. (1987). Reading assessment: Time for a change. 1h;
eadin Teacher, 49, 726-732.

Wade, 8. E., Schraw, G., Buxton, W. M., and Hayes, M. T. (1993). Seduction of the
strategic reader: Effects of interest on strategy and recall. Reading Research

marterly, 28 (2), 92-114.

Wagoner, Shirley (1983). Comprehension monitoring: What it is and what we know

about it. Reading Research Quarterly, 18 (3), 328-346.

Walczyk, Jeffrey. J. (1994). The development of verbal efficiency, metacognitive
strategies, and their interplay. Educational Psychology Review, _6_ (2), 173-189.

Walker, Laura (1983). Word identification strategies in reading a foreign language.
Foreigh Language Annals, 16(4), 293-99.

Wilkinson, A. (1980). Children’s understanding in reading comprehension: effects of

sentence organization instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 12(4), 561-
574.

Zabrucky, K., & Ranter, H. H. (1989). Effects of reading ability on children’s
comprehension evaluation and regualtion. Journal of Reading Behavior, 21(1),
6983.

. (1992). Effects of passage type on comprehension monitoring and recall in
good and poor readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, a (3), 373-391.

188

 

"uhwith“