165

The Reading Matrix © 2010

Volume 10, Number 2, September 2010

A Comparison of the Metacognitive Reading Strategies Used by

EFL and ESL Readers
Alireza Karbalaei
Mysore University

ABSTRACT

This study investigated whether there are any significant differences between EFL and ESL
readers in metacognitive reading strategies when they are reading academic texts in English.
One hundred and ninety undergraduate students (96 Iranians and 93 Indians) completed an
instrument designed to measure the students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies
after performing a reading comprehension test. The result of this study indicated that the
subjects in both groups reported a similar pattern of strategy awareness while reading academic
texts although the two student groups had been schooled in significantly different socio-cultural
environments. Regarding the difference existing among both groups, Indians reported more
awareness and use of global support and total metacognitive reading strategies. Iranian students
reported no significant difference in using problem-solving reading strategies. These findings
explain some of the differences and similarities between EFL and ESL readers by employing
metacognitive strategies in both contexts.

INTRODUCTION

Interest in second language acquisition, particularly as it relates to reading in the second

language, has burgeoned in the past decade. This has resulted in a growing demand for both
effective reading courses as well as high-quality second language materials. Research has
demonstrated that in essence, reading in a second language is a dynamic and interactive process
by which learners make use of background knowledge, text schema, lexical and grammatical
awareness, L1-related knowledge, and real-world knowledge, as well as their own personal
purposes and goals, to arrive at an understanding of written material. At the same time, readers‘
views of the nature of reading are seen to be shaped by their own social, cultural, and personal
histories.
According to Anderson (2003), reading is the interaction of four things including the
reader, the text, the fluent reading or ―the ability or read at an appropriate rate with adequate
comprehension,‖ and strategic reading, or ―the ability of the reader to use a variety of reading
strategies to accomplish a purpose for reading‖ (p. 8). Discovering the best methods and
techniques or processes the learners choose to access, is the goal of research in reading
strategies.
 166

In addition, reading is the kind of process in which one needs to not only understand its
direct meaning, but also comprehend its implied ideas. As Tierney (2005) states, ―[l]earning to
read is not [only] learning to recognize words; it is [also] learning to make sense of texts‖ (p. 51).
It involves a great deal of cognitive capacity available for comprehension (Pressley, 2002). For
example, good readers know that comprehension is most likely to occur from reading activity.
They know how to relate what is being read to prior knowledge, how to predict what might be
coming up in the text, and summarize what is being read (Pressley, 2002). These comprehension
strategies are metacognitive concepts in reading. If students are capable of comprehending what
they are reading through a variety of strategies, they will create an interested and self-regulative
attitude toward the path of academic achievement.
Regarding the importance of reading comprehension, it should be pointed out that it is
specifically the basic goal for ESL/EFL students to gain an understanding of the world and of
themselves, enabling them to think about and react to what they read (Tierney, 2005). According
to Grabe (1991), reading is an essential skill and probably the most important skill for second
language learners to master in academic contexts. Since reading comprehension has been
distinctively important both in first and second/foreign languages, reading strategies are of great
interest in the field of reading research. Reading research has also shed light on metacognitive
awareness of reading strategies, perception of strategies, and strategy training and use in reading
comprehension.

METACOGNITION

Metacognition is defined as ―thinking about thinking‖ (Anderson, 2002, p. 23). This term
was first coined by Flavell in the mid 1970s. According to Byrd, Carter, and Waddoups (2001), it
is accounted as self-awareness of mental process. Oxford (1990) believes that metacognitive
strategies ―provide a way for learners to coordinate their own learning process‖ (p. 136).
Others contend that metacognition refers to the knowledge and control that we have over
our cognitive processes. As far as it is concerned with reading, it is common to talk about
metacognitive awareness (what we know) and metacognitive regulation or control (knowing
when, where, and how to use strategies, that is, what we can do). As a whole, metacognitive
involves awareness and control of planning, monitoring, repairing, revising, summarizing, and
evaluating. Essentially, we learn strategies that support our comprehension (our awareness of
strategies) and we learn how to carry out these strategies effectively (our control of strategies)
(Baker, 2002, 2008; Pressley, 2002b).
Since its development in the late 1970s, the theory of metacognition has received a great
deal of attention and serious consideration from cognitive and developmental psychologists, as
well as reading researchers. Although the theory of metacognition originated from the research
on learning and memory, the success of research studies in cognitive/developmental psychology,
especially Kreutzer, Leonard, Flavell, and Hagen‘s (1975) study on children‘s metamemory, has
undoubtedly exerted a significant influence on reading research. Cognitive and developmental
psychologists have provided reading researchers with deep insights into problems of reading
comprehension, and have created an ongoing enthusiasm for further exploration and
investigation of reading problems within the theoretical and conceptual framework of
metacognition.
 167

Research on the relationship between metacognition and reading comprehension has

progressed through several different stages. During the early stages, research focused on the
investigation of the relationship between metacognition and reading comprehension from the
developmental perspective. Brown (1980) and Baker and Brown (1984) were among the first
influential researchers in this field. They concluded that young students are ignorant of
metacognitive strategies in knowing when they are comprehending, knowing what they need to
know and what they have comprehended, knowing where they fail to comprehend, and knowing
what they need to do in order to repair comprehension failure.

READING STRATEGY RESEARCH

A strategy is an individual‘s comprehension approach to a task. It includes how a person

thinks and acts when planning and evaluating his or her study behavior. In effect, successful
people are good strategy users; they know how to use a variety of goal-specific tactics, execute a
planned sequence, and monitor their use (Weinstein & Mayer, 1985; Weinstein & Underwood,
1985; Gettinger & Seibert, 2002; Adams & Hamm, 1994). There are many reading strategies
employed by successful language learners such as being able to organize information, use
linguistic knowledge of their first language when they are learning their second language, use
contextual cues, and learn how to chunk language, to name a few.
Successful language learners know how to use such reading strategies efficiently. The
purposes of reading strategies are to have general knowledge, get a specific detail, find the main
idea or theme, learn, remember, delight, summarize, and do research (Hyland, 1990). Regarding
the importance of reading strategies, Pressley and Afflerbach (1995) identified several key
strategies that were evident in the verbal protocols they reviewed, including: (a) overview before
reading; (b) look for important information and pay greater attention to it; (c) relate important
points to one another; (d) activate and use prior knowledge; (e) change strategies when
understanding is not good; and (f) monitor understanding and take action to correct inaccuracies
in comprehension.
The current understanding of reading strategies has been shaped significantly by research
on what expert readers do (Bazerman, 1985; Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995). These studies
demonstrate that successful comprehension does not occur automatically. Rather, successful
comprehension depends on directed cognitive effort, referred to as metacognitive processing,
which consists of knowledge about and regulation of processing. During reading, metacognitive
processing is expressed through strategies, which are ―procedural, purposeful, effortful, willful,
essential, and facilitative in nature‖ and ―the reader must purposefully or intentionally or
willfully invoke strategies‖ (Alexander & Jetton, 2000, p. 295), and does so to regulate and
enhance learning from text. Through metacognitive strategies, a reader allocates significant
attention to controlling, monitoring, and evaluating the reading process (Pressley, 2000; Pressley,
Brown, El-Dinary, & Afflerbach, 1995). Additionally, Sheorey and Mokhtari (2001) stated that it
is the combination of conscious awareness of the strategic reading processes and the actual use
of reading strategies that distinguishes the skilled from unskilled readers. Studies show that
unsuccessful students lack this strategic awareness and monitoring of the comprehension process
(Garcia, Jimenez, & Pearson, 1998).
Research addressing metacognitive awareness and use of reading strategies by first and
second language readers of English has shown that important reading strategies which deal with
 168

planning, controlling, and evaluating one‘s understanding (e.g., setting purpose for reading,
prediction, summarization, questioning, use of text structural features, self-monitoring, etc.) are
widely used by first and second language readers (Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001). Furthermore, the
supply of strategies used by proficient bilingual and biliterate readers often include some
strategies that may be unique and particularly useful to reading in a second language, e.g., code-
mixing, translation, and use of cognates (Jimenez, Garcia, & Pearson, 1995, 1996). With respect
to this issue, Feng and Mokhtari (1998) examined the reading strategies of 20 Chinese proficient
college students employed when reading easy and difficult texts in English and Chinese. They
found that readers appealed to a wide-ranging supply of strategies while reading in English and
Chinese. However, a majority of the strategies employed while reading were used more
frequently in English than in Chinese. Besides, more strategies were used when the subjects read
texts that proved difficult rather than their easier counterparts.
In addition, Sheorey and Mokhtari (2001) examined differences in the metacognitive and
perceived use of reading strategies among 105 United States (US) and English as Second
Language (ESL) university students in the US. They draw the conclusion, first, that both the US
and ESL students showed a high level of various reading strategies awareness. Second, both
groups attributed the same order of importance to categories of reading strategies in the survey,
regardless of their reading ability or gender. Third, both ESL and US high-reading-ability
students show comparable degrees of higher reported use for cognitive and metacognitive
reading strategies than lower-reading ability students in the respective groups, and while the US
high-reading-ability students seem to consider support reading strategies to be relatively more
valuable than low-reading-ability US students, ESL students attribute high value to support
reading strategies, regardless of their reading ability level.
Mokhtari and Reichard (2004) also investigated whether significant differences exist
between first and second language readers in their metacognitive awareness and perceived use of
specific strategies when reading for academic purposes in English. Regarding this study, a total
of 350 college students, including 141 American and 209 Moroccan students, completed an
instrument designed to measure their metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. The results
revealed that despite the fact that the two groups had been schooled in significantly different
socio-cultural environments, they reported remarkably similar patterns of strategy awareness and
use while reading academic materials in English. Both groups demonstrated a moderate to high
awareness level of reading strategies. Concerning the types of strategies reported by the subjects,
Moroccan students reported using certain types of strategies more often than their American
counterparts.
Despite the rapidly expanding research on different aspects of second and foreign
language readings, a limited number of studies have centered on reporting the types of
metacognitive reading strategies EFL and ESL readers use while they are reading in English. No
research currently exists regarding the study of the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies
in different social, cultural, and linguistic contexts. As Mokhtari and Reichard (2004) stated,
most of the research available focuses on monolingual and bilingual children with similar
backgrounds on specific metacognitive knowledge, metalinguistic skills, and reading
performance. In addition, with the exception of a few studies, most of the research on the reading
strategies of first and second language readers has been limited to students at lower levels of
proficiency or those studying at the secondary school or in pre-university programs.
However, EFL and ESL university students have to read a large volume of academic
texts in English, but many of them entering university education are unprepared for the reading
 169

demands placed on them (Dreyer & Nel, 2003). They show an inability to read selectively or to
extract what is important for the purpose of reading and discarding what is insignificant. Also,
they often select ineffective and inefficient strategies with little strategic intent (Wood, Motz, &
Willoughby, 1998).
Having known about the importance of the reading strategies and their impact on
learning, and considering that presently no research has been done in relation to metacognitive
reading strategies among EFL and ESL college learners (namely, Iran and India) who vary in
cultural, linguistic, and educational backgrounds, this research serves as the focus of the present
study. My underlying hypothesis in doing this comparative study was that although both groups
of subjects may be considered to have the introductory language proficiency for college-level
academic reading in English, they are not expected to utilize similar strategic awareness in
dealing with their academic reading tasks thanks to the differences existing in their social,
cultural, and educational backgrounds. I conducted the present research in order to find answers
to the following two questions concerning students‘ awareness of reading strategies while
reading texts for comprehension:
1. Are there any significant differences between EFL and ESL learners in their
perceived use of reading strategies while reading academic text in English?
2. What reading strategies do EFL and ESL learners use better when they are
reading academic text in English?

METHODOLOGY

Subjects

The participants in this study consisted of 189 college students including 93 Indians and
96 Iranians. The students, who were both freshman and sophomore and were admitted to their
respective universities for full-time academic study, were majoring in English Translation and
Literature. All the participating students had completed 12 years of schooling and had graduated
from high school prior to their enrollment in college. According to background information
questionnaire (see Appendix A), both groups had similar characteristics with respect to age
(Indian mean age = 20; Iranian mean age = 22), proficiency level (Indian mean = 17; Iranian
mean = 15), language of instruction (English for both Indian and Iranian), and gender
distribution (Indian: 54% males versus 46% females; Iranian: 32% males versus 68% females).
The only difference is the instructional context in which both groups are studying English (i.e.,
ESL and EFL).

Instructional Context

In this study, the participants were studying English in two completely different
instructional contexts, which represent a significantly different socio-cultural level. What has
attracted more attention in this study is the place or context in which instruction is taking place,
particularly in regard to the instructional practices used in teaching reading to students. Iranian
students enjoy learning English in a monolingual society in which learning English is confined to
the classrooms while Indians are experiencing it in a multilingual country in which, at least, three
 170

primary languages coexist: Kannada, Hindu, and English. It should also be mentioned that
English is being learned as the Indian students‘ second language. However, Nayar (1994)
characterized the English situation in today‘s Indian as ESL1 thanks to some reasons including:
English is not ―native‖ to the Indian environment, although it is used extensively by a small but
influential group of people ―as a medium of communication in a variety of domains like
education, administration, and commerce‖ (p. 15). Second, in multilingual Indian, English serves
as a link language among educated Indians who typically speak a variety of indigenous
languages. Third, there is ―a certain amount of environmental support for English, in the form of,
for example, popular English media and indigenous literature in English‖ (p. 15). Fourth, English
is one of the official languages of the country, with the status of associate national language, and
mastery of English is considered a social and educational accomplishment. Indians secretly
believe, if not openly say, that competence in English makes a considerable difference in their
career prospects—politicians and bureaucrats denounce the elitism of (English-medium) students
but surreptitiously send their children to them (Gupta, 1995, p. 76). Ultimately, as Kachru (1986)
announced, English ―has now become an integral part of Indian‘s linguistic repertoire‖ (p. 32).
In spite of the importance of English and a demand for it, the teaching of reading in
English in Iran and India at the college level is still fraught with a multitude of difficulties and
obstacles; it is an overlooked skill. It is crucial to also mention that while the theoretical
foundations and instructional approaches employed in teaching reading may be similar in some
ways in both contexts, the Indian students studying English in an ESL setting have two obvious
advantages over their Iranian counterparts studying in an EFL context. First, they have more
access to educational resources because most of their courses are presented or taught in English.
Second, English is considered a native-like language for Indian students, while it is a foreign
language for the Iranian students with little exposure to it.

Materials

Reading Comprehension Test

The test of reading comprehension was taken from Kit of Reading Comprehension
(Rajinder, 2008). The time allotted for this study was 60 minutes as it was determined in the
piloting stage. The reading passages used in this study included general content which was of
interest to the students. Running through K-R21, it was demonstrated that this reading
comprehension test was reliable enough (0.78, and 0.68, for Indian and Iranian respectively) for
the relevant goals in the current study. Further, the test proved itself suitable to this study after
the correlation coefficient (0.70, and 0.66) between the TOEFL proficiency test and the test of
reading in English (in the piloting stage) were calculated for creating a valid test.

Background Questionnaire

A background questionnaire was developed by this investigator for the purpose of

eliciting information about the participants‘ age, gender, place of living, years of studying
English, and medium of instruction (see Appendix A).
 171

Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory (MARSI)

The students‘ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies was assessed through the use
of the Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory (MARSI) Questionnaire
designed to measure adolescent and adult students‘ awareness and use of reading strategies while
reading academic or school-related materials. The MARSI Questionnaire (see Appendix B)
measures three broad categories of reading strategies including:
(1) Global Reading Strategies (GLOB), which can be thought of as generalized
or global reading strategies aimed at setting the stage for the reading act
(e.g., setting a purpose for reading, previewing text content, predicting what
the text is about, etc.),
(2) Problem-Solving Strategies (PROB), which are localized, focused problem-
solving or repair strategies used when problems develop in understanding
textual information (e.g., checking one‘s understanding upon encountering
conflicting information, re-reading for better understanding, etc.), and
(3) Support Reading Strategies (SUP), which involves using the support
mechanisms or tools aimed at sustaining responsiveness to reading (e.g., use
of reference materials like dictionaries and other support systems).

The 30-item questionnaire was validated by Mokhtari and Reichard (2002) using large
subject population representing students with equivalent reading abilities ranging from middle
school to college. The internal consistency reliability coefficient for its three above subscales
ranged from 0.89 to 0.93 and reliability for the total sample was 0.93, showing a reasonably
dependable measure of metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. However, to see whether
this question is reliable for the subjects of this study or not, it was given to 20 students of the
similar group participating in the study for both contexts. Based on the collected data, the
reliability coefficient alpha for this questionnaire was calculated to be 0.70 and 0.65 for Indian
and Iranian, respectively, which confirmed the appropriateness of this questionnaire for both
contexts.

Procedure

The following procedures were adopted in order to meet the objective of this study. First,
the background questionnaire was given to the subjects after some modifications were made due
to recommendations given on the part of advisors. Second, the subjects were given the reading
comprehension test in order to answer the questions based on the background knowledge on
reading strategies. Finally, the subjects were given the metacognitive reading strategies
questionnaire after completing the reading comprehension test. The MARSI Questionnaire was
administered to the subjects in a similar way in Iran and India as it was the case for all
questionnaires in this study. It was conducted during a regular class period, with the help of the
classroom instructors who were well acquainted with the general objective of the research
project. The researcher gave an overview of the purpose of the study, and a description of the
instrument with an explanation of the steps involved in completing it was presented to the
subjects in both contexts. The students were instructed to read each of the 30 statements in the
 172

MARSI Questionnaire and circle the number which best indicated their perceived use of the
strategies described in the statement using a Likert scale ranging from 1 (‗I never or almost never
use this strategy‘) to 5 (‗I always or almost always use this strategy‘). In addition, the students
were informed to work at their own pace while bearing in mind the reading comprehension test
and other academic reading materials. Lastly, they were told that there were no ―right‖ or
―wrong‖ responses to the statements and that they could take as much time as they needed to
complete the inventory.

RESULTS

The paired T-test was employed to analyze the data in this study. Statistical
representation of the analyzed data is given in Tables 1 and 2. Table 1 contains data regarding
the first question—Are there any significant differences between EFL and ESL learners in their
perceived use of reading strategies while reading in English? As shown in Table 1, EFL
(Iranian) and ESL (Indian) college students differed significantly in their total metacognitive
reading strategies (t= 3.465; p<005), two of the subscales (Global and Support reading strategies)
and 19 individual strategies. Regarding the total reading strategies, Indians as ESL learners
reported better use of these strategies (M= 104.16; SD= 12.81) than Iranian as EFL learners (M=
95.81; SD= 19.52). Concerning the global reading strategies, Indians were also reported as
having better use of these strategies (M= 43.47; SD= 6.83) than Iranians (M= 40.90; SD= 9.09).
With respect to support reading strategies, Indians reported using these strategies better (M=
31.83; SD= 4.73) in comparison to their Iranian counterparts (M= 26.61; SD= 5.99). However,
both subject groups reported the same use of problem-solving strategies. Similarly, concerning
the significant differences among individual strategies‘ use on the part of both groups, in all
except four strategies, Indian students stated greater strategy use than Iranian students. Among
the global reading strategies, Indians reported to be better in using the strategies like setting
purpose for reading, previewing text, determining what to read, resolving conflicting
information, and confirming prediction, while Iranians stated better use of typographical aids and
critically evaluating what is read. Regarding problem-solving strategies, Indian ESL learners
reported using three strategies: reading slowly and carefully, adjusting reading rate, and
visualizing information read, whereas Iranian EFL learners reported using only the strategy of
pausing and thinking about reading. As concerns support strategies, Indians reported to be better
users of almost all strategies including note-taking, reading aloud, summarizing, discussing
reading, underlining, paraphrasing, and asking questions, while Iranians reported better
employment of using reference materials such as a dictionary.
As Table 1 indicates, for Indian ESL students, the means of individual strategy use
ranged from a high of 4.23 (reading slowly and carefully) to a low of 2.60 (checking how text
content fits purpose),with a low overall reported strategy usage mean of 104.16 (SD= 12.81).
Conversely, for Iranian EFL students, the mean of individual strategy usage ranged from a high
of 4.13 (using reference materials) to a low of 2.34 (taking notes while reading), with an overall
reported strategy usage mean of 95.81 (SD= 19.52).
 173

Table 1. Differences in Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies

Used by Iranian and Indian Students
Name Strategy Iranian Indian
Mean SD Mean SD T p-value
GLOB1 Setting purpose for reading 3.26 1.29 3.71 .92 2.751 .007
GLOB2 Using prior knowledge 3.45 1.26 3.48 1.17 .203 .839
GLOB3 Previewing text before reading 3.13 1.32 3.65 1.20 2.824 .005
GLOB4 Checking how text content fits purpose 2.56 1.18 2.60 1.42 .209 .835
GLOB5 Skimming to note text characteristics 3.18 1.34 2.89 1.31 1.479 .141
GLOB6 Determining what to read 3.06 1.08 3.44 1.32 2.154 .033
GLOB7 Using text feature (e.g., tables) 2.84 1.35 2.78 1.21 .316 .753
GLOB8 Using context clues 3.22 1.30 3.27 1.14 .281 .779
GLOB9 Using typographical aids (e.g., italics) 3.55 1.12 2.89 1.22 3.870 .000
GLOB10 Critically evaluating what is read 2.90 1.05 3.56 1.17 4.112 .000
GLOB11 Resolving conflicting information 3.19 1.10 3.82 1.05 4.022 .000
GLOB12 Predicting or guessing text meaning 3.63 1.10 3.65 1.13 .124 .901
GLOB13 Confirming prediction 2.94 1.32 3.73 1.26 4.224 .000

PROB1 Reading slowly and carefully 3.77 1.20 4.23 .99 2.837 .005
PROB2 Trying to stay focused on reading 3.73 1.01 3.51 1.27 1.340 .182
PROB3 Adjusting reading rate 3.10 1.21 3.63 1.23 2.873 .005

PROB4 Paying close attention to reading 3.68 1.35 3.81 1.19 .698 .486
PROB5 Pausing and thinking about reading 3.48 1.18 3.01 1.28 2.617 .010
PROB6 Visualizing information read 3.20 1.24 3.66 1.20 2.571 .011
PROB7 Re-reading for better understanding 3.92 1.10 3.92 1.15 .049 .961
PROB8 Guessing meaning of unknown words 3.44 1.23 3.12 1.29 1.684 .094

SUP1 Taking notes while reading 2.34 1.29 3.74 1.17 7.805 .000
SUP2 Reading aloud when text becomes hard 2.83 1.29 3.34 1.38 2.633 .009
SUP3 Summarizing text information 2.58 1.19 3.49 1.21 5.207 .000
SUP4 Discussing reading with others 2.59 1.17 3.31 1.19 4.177 .000
SUP5 Underlining information in text 3.43 1.42 3.83 1.28 2.035 .043
SUP6 Using reference materials 4.13 1.27 3.62 1.09 2.970 .003
SUP7 Paraphrasing for better understanding 3.00 1.35 3.43 1.19 2.323 .021
SUP8 Going back and forth in text 3.31 1.17 3.45 1.03 .867 .387
SUP9 Asking oneself questions 2.40 1.16 3.61 1.18 7.163 .000

GLOB Global Reading Strategies 40.90 9.09 43.47 6.83 2.198 .029
PROB Problem-Solving Reading Strategies 28.30 6.15 28.86 4.59 .705 .482
SUP Support Reading Strategies 26.61 5.99 31.83 4.73 6.630 .000
ORS Overall Reading Strategies 95.81 19.52 104.16 12.81 3.465 .001
 174

Table 2. Reading Strategies Reported Being Used MOST and LEAST

by Iranian and Indian Students
Iranian ( n=96) Indian (n=93)
Name Strategy Name Strategy
SUP6 Using reference materials PROB1 Reading slowly and carefully
PROB7 Re-reading for better understanding PROB7 Re-reading for better understanding
PROB1 Reading slowly and carefully SUP5 Underlining information in text
PROB2 Trying to stay focused on reading GLOB11 Resolving conflicting information
PROB4 Paying closer attention to reading PROB4 Paying closer attention to reading

GLOB12 Predicting or guessing text meaning SUP1 Taking notes while reading
GLOB9 Using typological aids (e.g., italics) GLOB13 Confirming predictions
PROB5 Pausing and thinking about reading GLOB1 Setting purpose for reading
GLOB2 Using prior knowledge PROB6 Visualizing information read
PROB8 Guessing meaning of unknown words GLOB12 Predicting or guessing text meaning
SUP5 Underlining information in the text GLOB3 Previewing text before reading
SUP8 Going back and forth in text PROB3 Adjusting reading rate
GLOB1 Setting purpose for reading SUP6 Using reference materials
GLOB8 Using context clues SUP9 Asking oneself questions
PROB6 Visualizing information read GLOB10 Critically evaluating what is read
GLOB11 Resolving conflicting information PROB2 Trying to stay focused on reading
GLOB5 Skimming to note text characteristics SUP3 Summarizing text information
GLOB3 Previewing text before reading GLOB2 Using prior knowledge
PROB3 Adjusting reading rate SUP8 Going back and forth in text
GLOB6 Determining what to read GLOB6 Determining what to read
SUP7 Paraphrasing for better understanding SUP7 Paraphrasing for better understanding
GLOB13 Confirming predictions SUP2 Reading aloud when text becomes hard
GLOB10 Critically evaluating what is read SUP4 Discussing reading with others
GLOB7 Using text features (e.g., tables) GLOB8 Using context clues
SUP2 Reading aloud when text becomes difficult PROB8 Guessing meaning of unknown words

SUP4 Discussing reading with others PROB5 Pausing and thinking about reading
SUP3 Summarizing text information GLOB9 Using typological aids (e.g., italics)
GLOB4 Checking how text content fits purpose GLOB5 Skimming to note text characteristics
SUP9 Asking oneself questions GLOB7 Using text features (e.g., tables)
SUP1 Taking notes while reading GLOB4 Checking how text content fits purpose

Furthermore, a closer look at Table 1 indicates that 16 (48%) of the 30 strategies reported
by the Indian college students fell in the high usage category (3.5 or higher mean), 14 strategies
(42%) place in the medium usage category of mean (mean between 2.5 and 3.49), while none of
the strategies fell in the low usage category (mean below 2.4). In contrast, 7 (21%) of the 30
strategies reported by the Iranian college students fell in the high usage category; two strategies
(6%) fell in the low usage category, and the remaining 21 (63%) strategies had means in the
medium use range.
Concerning the second research question—What reading strategies do EFL and ESL
learners use better when they are reading academic text in English?—and as presented in Table
2, the strategies used by Iranian and Indian students have been arranged from most used to least
used. Specifically, the top five and bottom five for each group are in bold text. Among the most-
used strategies, re-reading for better understanding (Prob7), reading slowly and carefully
 175

(Prob1), and paying closer attention to reading (Prob4) were reported to be used by both groups,
although Iranians preferred to use the strategy of ―using reference materials‖ (Sup6) at the top
whereas Indians favored the use of ―underlining information in text‖ (Sup5) at the top. Among
the least-used strategies, three strategies were reported to be used less by both groups: using text
features (Glob7), using context clues (Glob8), and checking how text content fits purpose
(Glob4). In addition, Indians reported to make the best use of ―note-taking‖ while reading as a
support strategy whereas Iranians preferred not to use this strategy. Regarding the remaining
strategies present in Table 2, both groups showed a mix of global, problem-solving, and support
reading strategies.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This study aimed to explore whether there were any significant differences in the
metacognitive awareness and perceived use of reading strategies between EFL and ESL college
students while reading academic materials. To this end, both groups completed a 30-item scale of
the MARSI Questionnaire. The results of the study showed that both groups exhibited almost
similar patterns of strategy awareness and reported usage when reading college-level materials in
English, although both of them were studying English in quite different sociocultural
environments (EFL vs. ESL). Regarding the differences between both groups, Indian students
reported using most types of strategies more often than did their Iranian counterparts. As already
noted, Indians reported using almost all the strategies included in ―support reading strategies‖
compared to the Iranians such as summarizing, paraphrasing, note-taking, and the like. This
indicated that Indians are more interested in using top-down strategies for better comprehension
during reading while Iranians are more focused on using bottom-up strategies, as they are more
interested in using reference materials like a dictionary to find the meaning of unknown words
during reading which causes interference in comprehension. Yet another explanation supporting
this result is that Indians are proficient writers which can be surmised as the main reason for a
higher frequency of using the above-mentioned strategies.
In addition, both EFL and ESL college students reported select problem-solving
strategies as the ―most used‖ strategies such as ―reading slowly and carefully‖ or ―re-reading for
better understanding.‖ This suggests that both groups are not well versed in employing various
useful and effective strategies for better comprehension such as summarizing, underlining, or
note-taking.
Taken together, the findings reported here underscore the importance of helping EFL and
ESL college readers alike develop their metacognitive awareness of specific reading strategies
deemed necessary for proficient reading. As Pressley and Afflerbach (1995) have argued,
teachers can play a part in enhancing students‘ awareness of such strategies, and in assisting
them to become ―constructively responsive‖ readers. It bears noting here that an awareness of
strategic reading does indeed lead to actual use of these strategies while reading. Furthermore,
the integration of metacognitive reading strategy instruction within reading curricula in both
countries will no doubt play a vital role in enriching students‘ awareness of the mental processes
involved in reading and the development of thoughtful and constructively responsive reading.
Teaching students to become constructively responsive readers can promote skillful academic
reading, which, in turn, can enhance academic achievement (Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001).
 176

Looking ahead, more research is needed to investigate why certain strategies are used or
not used in EFL and ESL contexts. Individual learning styles may further demonstrate which
strategies are implemented during the reading process. Perhaps future research could examine
more deeply the interaction between metacognitive reading strategies and learning styles on a
group of EFL and ESL learners. There is a clear need to investigate empirically the role of
teaching ‗important‘ strategies and studying their impact on learner reading comprehension in
both EFL and ESL contexts. Simply knowing what strategy to use is not sufficient. An
investigation into the orchestration of strategies is certain to shed new light on the issues here
investigated, thereby revealing important new perspectives of what readers actually do when
they become actively involved in reading activities.

Alireza Karbalaei earned his PhD in TEFL from Mysore University in India. His main
research areas include reading strategies, affective variables, language acquisition and
learning, TEFL, and TESL and he has published extensively on these subjects in various
journals.
Email: [email protected]
 177

REFERENCES

Adams, D., & Hamm, M. (1994). New designs for teaching and learning: Promoting
active learning in tomorrow's schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Alexander, P. A., & Jetton, T. L. (2000). Learning from text: A multidimensional and
developmental perspective. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr
(Eds.), Handbook of reading research, 3, 285–310. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Anderson, N. J. (2002). The role of metacognition in second/foreign language teaching and
learning. ERIC Digest. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and
Linguistics.
Anderson, N. J. (2003). Teaching reading. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Practical English language
teaching (pp. 67-86).New York: McGraw Hill Publishers.
Baker, L. (2002). Metacognition in comprehension instruction. In C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.),
Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp.77-95). New York:
Guilford Press.
Baker, L. (2008). Metacognitive development in reading: Contributors and consequences.
In K. Mokhtari & R. Sheorey (Eds.), Reading strategies of first and second –
language learners: See how they read (pp. 25-42). Norwood, MA: Christopher-
Gordon.
Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.),
Handbook of reading research (pp. 353-394). New York: Longman.
Bazerman, C. (1985). Physicist reading physics: Schema-laden purposes and purpose-laden
schema. Written Communication, 2(1), 3-23.
Brown, A. L. (1980). Metacognitive development and reading. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W.
F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 453-481). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Byrd, E. H., Carter, E. C., & Waddoups, S. D. (2001). Taking control of your college reading
and learning. Orlando, FL: Harcourt College Publishers.
Dreyer, C., & Nel, C. (2003). Teaching reading strategies and reading comprehension within a
technology-enhanced learning environment. System, 31, 349-365.
Feng, X., & Mokhtari, K. (1998). Strategy use by native speakers of Chinese reading easy and
difficult texts in English and Chinese. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 8,
19-40.
Garcia, G. E., Jimenez, R. T., & Pearson, P. D. (1998). Metacognition, childhood bilingualism,
and reading. In D. Hacker, J. Dunlowsky, & A. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in
educational theory and practice (pp. 200-248). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gettinger, M., & Seibert, J. K. (2002). Contribution of study skills to academic competence.
School Psychology Review, 31(3), 350-365.
Grabe, W. (1991). Current developments in second language reading research. TESOL
Quarterly, 25(3), 375-406.
Gupta, R. (1995). English in a postcolonial situation: The example of India. Profession,73-78.
Hyland, K. (1990). Providing productive feedback. ELT Journal, 44(4), 294-304.
Jimenez, R., Garcia, G., & Pearson, P. (1995). Three children, two languages, and strategic
reading: Case studies in bilingual/monolingual reading. American Educational Research
Journal, 32(1), 67–97.
 178

Jimenez, R., Garcia, G., & Pearson, P. (1996). The reading strategies of bilingual Latina/o
students who are successful English readers: Opportunities and obstacles. Reading
Research Quarterly, 31, 90–112.
Kachru, B. (1986). The indianization of English. English Today, 6(April), 31-33.
Kreutzer, M. A., Leonard, C., Flavell, J. H., & Hagen, J. W. (1975). An interview study of
children‘s knowledge about memory. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development, 40(1),1-60.
Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. (2002). Assessing students‘ metacognitive awareness of reading
strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249–259.
Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. (2004). Investigating the strategic reading processes of first and
second language readers in two different cultural contexts. System, 32, 379-394.
Nayar, P. B. (1994). ESL/EFL dichotomy today: Language politics or pragmatics? TESOL
Quarterly, 31, 9-37.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New
York: Newbury House.
Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M. L.
Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research,
3,545-61. Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum.
Pressley, M. (2002). Metacognition and self-regulated instruction. In A. Farstrup & S. Samuels
(Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 291-309).
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal reports of reading: The nature of constructively
responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pressley, M., Brown, R., El-Dinary, P., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). The comprehension instruction
that students need: Instruction fostering constructively responsive reading. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 10(4), 215-224.
Rajinder, S. D. (2008). Kit of reading comprehension. New Delhi: Dhillon Group of Publication.
Sheorey R., & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading
strategies among native and non-native readers. System, 29(4), 431-449.
Tierney, J. E. (Ed.). (2005). Reading strategies and practices (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson
Education, Inc.
Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. F. (1985). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C. Wittrock
(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 315-329). New York: Macmillan.
Weinstein, C. E., & Underwood, V. (1985). Learning strategies. In J. Segal & S. Chipman (Eds.),
Thinking and learning skills (pp. 241-258). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wood, E., Motz, M., & Willoughby, T. (1998). Examining students‘ retrospective memories of
strategy development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 698-704.
 179

Appendix A. Student Background Questionnaire

No. Question Answer
1 Name
2 Age
3 Gender
4 Name of college
5 Class studying
6 Language
7 Urban or rural home
8 Familiarity with English a. Complete
b. Average
c. Little
9 Years/months studying English
10 Purpose of learning English a. Continue education
b. Travel
c. Find a good job
d. Compete with other students
e. Other (please write)
11 Attitudes toward English a. Positive
b. Negative
c. No comment
 180

Appendix B. Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory

Directions: Listed below are statements about what people do when they read academic or
school-rated materials such as textbooks or library books. Five numbers follow each statement
(1, 2, 3, 4, 5), and each number means the following:
 1 means ―I never or almost never do this.‖
 2 means ―I do this only occasionally.
 3 means ―I sometimes do this.‖
 4 means ―I usually do this.‖
 5 means ―I always or almost always do this.‖

No. Type Strategy Score

1 Glob I have a purpose in mind when I read.
2 Sup I take notes while reading to help me understand what I read.
3 Sup I summarize what I read to reflect on important information in the text.
4 Prob I try to get back on track when I lose concentration.
5 Sup I underline or circle information in the text to help me remember it.
6 Sup I use reference materials such as dictionaries to help me understand what I read.
7 Glob I use tables, figures, and pictures in text to increase my understanding.
8 Glob I use context clues to help me better understand what I am reading.
9 Sup I paraphrase (restate ideas in my own words) to better understand what I read.
10 Prob I guess the meaning of unknown words by separating different parts of a word.
11 Glob I think about what I know to help me understand what I read.
12 Glob I preview the text to see what it is about before reading it.
13 Sup When text becomes difficult, I read aloud to help me understand what I read.
14 Prob I think about whether the content of the text fits my reading purpose.
15 Prob I read slowly but carefully to be sure I understand what I am reading.
16 Sup I discuss what I read with others to check my understanding
17 Glob I skim the text first by noting characteristics like length and organization.
18 Prob I adjust my reading speed according to what I am reading.
19 Glob I decide what to read closely and what to ignore.
20 Prob When text becomes difficult, I pay closer attention to what I am reading.
21 Prob I stop from time to time and think about what I am reading.
22 Prob I try to picture or visualize information to help remember what I read.
23 Glob I use typological aids like boldface and italics to identify key information.
24 Glob I critically analyze and evaluate the information presented in the text.
25 Sup I go back and forth in the text to find relationship among ideas in it.
26 Glob I check my understanding when I come across conflicting information.
27 Glob I try to guess what the material is about when I read.
28 Prob When text becomes difficult, I reread to increase my understanding.
29 Sup I ask myself questions I like to have answered in the text.
30 Glob I check to see if my guesses about the text are right or wrong.