www.ssoar.info

An overview of metacognitive strategies in readingcomprehension skillÇakıcı, Dilek

Veröffentlichungsversion / Published VersionZeitschriftenartikel / journal article

Empfohlene Zitierung / Suggested Citation:Çakıcı, D. (2017). An overview of metacognitive strategies in reading comprehension skill. The Journal of AcademicSocial Science Studies, 57, 67-82. https://doi.org/10.9761/JASSS7074

Nutzungsbedingungen:Dieser Text wird unter einer Free Digital Peer Publishing Licencezur Verfügung gestellt. Nähere Auskünfte zu den DiPP-Lizenzenfinden Sie hier:http://www.dipp.nrw.de/lizenzen/dppl/service/dppl/

Terms of use:This document is made available under a Free Digital PeerPublishing Licence. For more Information see:http://www.dipp.nrw.de/lizenzen/dppl/service/dppl/

Diese Version ist zitierbar unter / This version is citable under:https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-57261-7

The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies

International Journal of Social ScienceDoi number:http://dx.doi.org/10.9761/JASSS7074

Number: 57 , p. 67-82, Summer I 2017Yayın Süreci / Publication Process

Y ayı n Geli ş Tarih i / Article Arrival Date - Yayı nl an ma Tari hi / ThePublished Date29.04.2017 15.07.2017

AN OVERVIEW OF METACOGNITIVE STRATEGIESIN READING COMPREHENSION SKILL

OKUDUĞUNU ANLAMA BECERİSİNDE ÜST-BİLİŞSEL STRATEJİLEREGENEL BİR BAKIŞ

Asst. Prof. Dr. Dilek ÇakıcıOndokuz Mayis University Faculty of Education Department of English Language Teaching

AbstractA universal agreement among scholars is that reading is one of the most diffi-

cult skills to develop a high level of proficiency for foreign language learners. Avast amount of research within the field of foreign language has indicated that readingcomp- rehension is an interactive, constructive, meaning-making process, also entails theuse of certain skills, and specific components. In that sense, the concept of metacognitionis a valuable and a critical tool in reading comprehension skill. Because, both experimentaland descriptive studies claimed that metacognitive strategies play an outstanding role inenhancing comprehension in reading. Therefore, the use of metacognitive strategies inthe reading process has been considerably supported as a remarkable aid for its positiveeffects of employing in reading process. With the ever-growing significance of metacog-nitive strategies, this review study mainly aims to indicate the necessity of teaching me-tacognitive strategies to the students and shed light on metacognitive strategy use in re-ading skill in English as a foreign language (EFL). Namely, this paper attempts to explo-re the necessities of using metacognitive strategies and their functions through the rea-ding comprehension literature. Furthermore, the views of prominent scholars about theuse of metacognitive strategies and the raising of metacognitive awareness in readingcomprehension skill are elobarated from different perspectives. To this end, the currentstudy is framed around to provide a deep and clear understanding about close relati-onship between reading and reading comprehension process, and then certain differentdefinitions and the functions of metacognitive strategies in reading are presented. Af-terwards, diverse taxonomies of metacognitive strategies in literature are explored. Ad-ditionally, the relation between metacognitive strategies and reading comprehension inEFL classrooms is deeply explained. Finally, alternative effective metacognitive readingstrategies and strategy-based models are represented to promote the employment of me-tacognitive stategies among EFL readers.

Keywords: Reading, Reading Comprehension, Cognition, Metacognition, Me-tacognitive Awareness

68

Dilek Çakıcı

ÖzOkuma becerisinin yabancı dil öğrenenler için yüksek yeterlilik düzeyinde

geliştirilmesi en zor becerilerden biri olduğuna dair ortak bir görüş vardır. Yabancı dilöğrenimi alanında yapılan oldukça fazla sayıdaki araştırma, okuduğunu anlama beceris-inin okuyucu ile yazar arasında karşılıklı iletişimi gerektiren bir anlam çıkarma süreciolduğunu ve bazı özel bileşenler gerektirdiğini öne sürmektedir. Bu anlamda, üstbilişkavramı okuma becerisinde değerli ve çok önemli bir kavramdır. Çünkü, üst-bilişselstratejilerin okuduğunu anlamayı geliştirmede üstün bir rol oynadığı yapılan deneyselve betimsel çalışmalarla da ortaya konmuştur. Bu nedenle üst-bilişsel stratejilerinkullanımı okuduğunu anlama sürecine yaptıkları önemli katkılardan dolayı hepdesteklenmiştir. Giderek artan öneminden dolayı, bu çalışma üst-bilişsel stratejilerinyabancı dil okuma derslerinde öğrencilere mutlaka öğretilmesi ve kullanımınıngeliştirilmesi gerekliliğine vurgu yapmayı ve ışık tutmayı amaçlamaktadır. Bir başkadeyişle, bu çalışma bilişüstü stratejilerinin kullanımının gerekliliği ve üst-bilişselfarkındalığın artırılmasıyla ilgili okuduğunu anlama alanında söz sahibi olan ünlü biliminsanlarının farklı görüşlerini de ortaya koyarak tartışmayı amaçlamaktadır. Bunun için,öncelikle yabancı dil sınıflarında okuma ve okuduğunu anlama ilişkisi detaylandırılmış,daha sonra biliş-üstü stratejilerin farklı tanımları aktarılarak üst-bilişsel stratejileringörevleri sıralanmış ve alanyazında kabul görmüş farklı sınıflandırılmalar sunulmuştur.Ayrıca, biliş-üstü stratejilerin okuduğunu anlama sürecine katkıları, ve gerekliliğininyanısıra biliş-üstü strateji kullanımı ve okuduğunu anlama arasındaki ilişki derinleme-sine açıklanmaya çalışılmıştır. Son olarak, yabancı dil sınıflarında okuma çalışmalarındaanlamayı geliştirici alternatif üst-bilişsel stratejiler ve strateji eğitimi modellerisunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Okuma, Okuma Anlama, Biliş, Üst-Biliş, Üst-Bilişsel

Farkındalık

INTRODUCTIONReading is regarded as one of the es-

sential skills to be taught in foreign languagesettings. Furthermore, it is noteworthy thatreading is the most difficult skill to be develo-ped as it is multidimensional in nature and akind of complex mental process. Reading isassumed to be the primary means for learningnew information and gaining access to interp-retations in almost each aspect of our dailylives (Grabe & Stoller, 2001). Besides, it isdefined as an interactive and dynamic process(Karbalaei, 2010), and a meaning-constructionprocess (Al-Rubaye, 2012). As Nunan (1999:249) states ‚reading involves highly complexcognitive processing operations‛. A wealth ofstudies related to reading process has appea-red in both foreign language and L2 languagesettings. Researchers are in fairly strong agre-ement that reading is an active and complexprocess for making sense out of what youread. Indeed, reading is the capacity through

which the reader receives knowledge fromatext and integrates it with his/her knowledgeand assumptions (Grabe, 1991). Namely, rea-ding entails combining information takenfrom the text with the reader’s own backgro-und knowledge to make meaning (Anderson,2003). In that reading is an active and fluentprocess including the reader and the text inbuilding meaning (Anderson, 2004), it requi-res monitoring comprehension as a metacog-nitive activity (Baker & Brown, 1984).

Many researchers have argued thatreading is a fluent and interactive processinvolving ever-increasing numbers of variab-les to make sense out of the text such asthe employment of metacognitive strategies.Re- cent years have seen much debate on thedep- loyment of metacognitive strategies inreading comprehension in EFL settings. It isreported that skilled readers are more able toreflect on and monitor their cognitiveprocesses while reading (Sheorey & Mokhtari,2001). It is cle-

An Overview Of Metacognitive Strategies In Reading Comprehension Skill 69

arly evident that successful comprehension isassociated with the effective use of metacogni-tive strategies in reading process. Hence, inte-rest in metacognitive strategies has burgeonedin the three past decades. This has resulted in agrowing demand for research in readingliterature. Metacognition has emerged as oneof the most salient constructs effecting thesuccess in foreign language learning. Accor-dingly, this review study presents an over-view of metacognitive strategies in readingcomprehension in EFL contexts.

Reading and Reading Comprehen-sion

Over the past decades there has beenan upsurge of interest in reading researchaiming to explore the components of readingprocess. According to the major claim madeby some scholars, reading as a complex set ofcognitive activities includes many diverseskills and related components. Undoubtedly,various definitions have been put forward forthe term ‚reading‛ so far. The notions such asrapid, purposeful, interactive, comprehen-ding, flexible, and gradually developing exp-lain reading ability (Grabe (1991: 378). In EFLsettings, reading is assumed to be the coremeans for learning new information in targetlanguage. Virtually, reading is the essentialmeans for learning more about any subjectmatter, or developing other abilties. Readingis a necessary skill since foreign language (FL)learners need to read to improve their otherlanguage abilities and skills (Richards & Re-nandya, 2002). As a receptive skill, readingenables learners to improve FL learning. Besi-des, reading is an active skill involving boththe reader and the text to master success inlanguage learning (Anderson, 2004). Recently,all researchers recognize that it is of vital im-portance to state the dynamic relationshipbetween reading and reading comprehension.There remains great debate as to a causal linkbetween reading and reading comprehension.Reading is a complex skill and reading comp-

rehension isbetween the

the interaction ofinformationwriter and the reader (Nuttal,1982). In essence, reading fulfills the demand

made by reader. The reader is responsible formaking sense out of the text. In other words,reading comprehension is an interactive pro-cess of deriving meanings from a text (Ru-melhart, 1977). In a somewhat similar manner,restating the idea made by Rumelhart, Grabe& Stoller (2001) maintain that reading requiresthe reader to draw information from a textand combine it with the experiences that thereader (he/she) already has. This interaction ofinformation implies reading comprehension.Supporting these claims, it is posited thatreading is an interactive process in whichreaders use their background knowledge andcultural experiences to interact with the text(Carrell (1988). The text, the reader, the authorand strategies are combined together to definethe act of reading (Anderson, 2003). As a verysimple model of the process of communica-tion, reading implies a kind of phenomenonthat provides a direct communicationbetween the reader and the author in bothliterary and informative scripts (Genç, 2007).Similarly, it is asserted that that reading is aninteractive process which is a dynamic relati-onship between the text and the reader. Thereader struggles to make sense out of the text.From this perspective, reading is a kind ofdialogue between the reader and the text, orbetween the reader and the author. The readermay construct a personal interpretation of atext or may get the author’s own intentions(Hedge, 2000).

The central concepts labelled as ‘top-down’, ‘bottom up’, and ‘interactive’are themodels of reading process. Top-down proces-ses are characterized as higher-level processessuch as discerning meaning at whole textlevel and using schemata or backgroundknowledge to support comprehension (Erler& Finkbeiner, 2007). In other words, ‚readingis a selective process. It involves partial use of

70

Dilek Çakıcı

available minimal language cues selectedfrom perceptual input on the basis of the rea-der’s expectation‛ (Goodman, 1970: 260). Top-down approaches or conceptual-driven pro-

requires the knowledge of metacognitive rea-ding strategies and conscious use of thesestrategies to comprehend the text.

Metacognitive StrategiesDuring the 1990s, there continued to

be the growing debate about the use of lear-ning strategies in language learning. A majorclaim of learning strategy research is that stra-tegies are observable, mental and consciousactions that learners take to develop theirlanguage learning (Anderson, 2004). Simi-larly, language learning strategies are ‚parti-cular approaches or techniques that learnersemploy to try to learn a language (Ellis, 1994:76-77), also they are ‚consciously and purpo-sefully chosen by learners to regulate theirown language learning‛ (Griffith, 2007: 2).The most noteworthy definition to date asfollows: ‚language learning strategies areoperations employed by the learner to aid theacquisition, storage, retrieval, and use of in-formation‛(Oxford, 1990: 8).

Oxford (1990) has suggested a morecomprehensive and detailed classificationmodel of learning strategies. Language lear-ning strategy system is classified into twomain categories as ‚direct strategies‛ and‚indirect strategies‛ (Oxford, 1990: 37). As oneof indirect strategies: "Metacognitive strate-gies allow learners to control their own cogni-tion and to coordinate the learning processthrough using functions such as centering,arranging and planning, and evaluating".Metacognitive strategies (e.g., identifyingone’s own learning style preferences and ne-eds, planning for an L2 task, gathering andorganizing materials, arranging a study spaceand a schedule, monitoring mistakes, andevaluating task success, and evaluating thesuccess of any type of learning strategy) areemployed for managing the learning processoverall (Oxford, 2003: 12). In other words,‚metacognitive strategies provide a way forlearners to coordinate their own learning pro-cess‛ (Oxford, 1990: 136). Nonetheless, me-tacognitive strategies may also divided intothree basic strategy groups as follows: Plan-

cessings underline the significance ofnetworks of information stored in mind, andthe reader’s contribution to the text (Alderson,2000). In contrast, bottom-up or data-drivenprocesses included so-called lower-level pro-cesses, such as identifying words and basingcomprehension on meanings at word andphrase level. Bottom-up approaches are serialmodels, where the readers begins with theprinted word, recognises graphic stimuli,decodes them to sound, recognises words anddecodes meanings (Alderson, 2000). The bot-tom up model is the ‚common sense notion‛(Goodman, 1986: 11). Reading is the processof decoding, identifying letter, words, phra-ses, and sentences to construct the meaning.These two metaphors described various pro-cessing directions during reading: from thereader to the text, and from the text to thereader. Interactive combine both the lower-level processes and higher-level processes(Erler & Finkbeiner, 2007). In this manner,reading process is an active ‚psychologicalguessing game‛ (Carrell, 1998: 2). The efficientreading requires the readers to make predicti-ons and hypothesis about the text content byrelating the new information to their priorknowledge and by using as few languageclues as possible. It is hypothesized that areader needs to employ the text and his/herbackground information so as to get the mea-ning from a text. Thus, reading is viewed as acomplex process requiring the interaction ofreaders shemata and the text. For Genç (2004),reading also entails raising awareness of thereader and the development of reading sensi-bility.

Based on the considerations, it is putforth that research on reading comprehensionhas deepened the understanding of ever-increasing numbers of factors as being key toreading comprehension. As a kind of complexcognitive process, reading comprehension

An Overview Of Metacognitive Strategies In Reading Comprehension Skill 71

ning, monitoring, and evaluating in anothersignificant taxonomy developed by Chamot &O’Malley (1994). Planning strategies enablekearners to plan and arrange his/her ownlearning process, while monitoring requireslearner to check his production or compre-hension, and evaluating strategies providelearners with evaluation and judgement oflearning task. In essence, meta-cognitive stra-tegies involve knowing about learning andcontrolling learning through planning (inclu-ding advance organizers, directed attention,functional planning, selective attention and

oversee, regulate, or direct the language lear-ning task, and involve thinking about thelearning process‛ (Vandergrift, 2002: 559),‚students without metacognitive approachesare essentially learners without direction oropportunity to plan their learning, monitortheir progress, or review their accomplish-ments and future learning directions‛(O’Malley & Chamot, 1990: 8). Namely, me-tacognitive strategies enable learners to playactive role in the process of their own lear-ning, to regulate, manage, and direct theirown learning and to judge what they havelearned. In support of this view, it is maintai-ned that metacognitive strategies play "a sig-nificant, positive, direct effect on cognitivestrategy use, and has an executive functionover cognitive strategy use in task comple-tion" (Purpura, 1999: 61). Because, metacogni-tive strategies are essential factors which gobeyond cognitive devices and enable learnersto coordinate their own learning process(Oxford, 1990). As for higher order skills, me-tacognitive strategies are as follows: ‚thinkingabout the learning process, planning for lear-ning, monitoring of comprehension or pro-duction while it is taking place, and self-evaluation after the learning activity has beencompleted‛ (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990: 8). Inlink with aforementioned functions of me-tacognitive strategies, it is averred that me-tacognitive strategies are ‚executive processesassociated with the regulation and manage-ment of learning, and include strategies used toplan a task, to monitor a task in progress, andevaluate the success of a task after itscompletion‛ (Chamot, 1995: 15).

Research suggests that there is a widerepertoire of metacognitive strategies availab-le that efficient reader employs to meet besteach reading purpose. The major metacogni-tive strategies are: Integrating new informa-tion to the previous knowledge, selectingthinking strategies deliberately, and planning,monitoring, and evaluating thinking proces-

self-management), monitoring (checking,verifying, or correcting one’s comprehensionor performance in the course of languagetask) and evaluating the learning activity(checking the outcomes of one’s own langua- gelearning against a standard after it has beencompleted) (Chamot & O’Malley, 1994).

The research on learningstrategies

has highlighted that metacognitive strategiesplay a central role than the other learningstrategies because once a learner understandshow to regulate his or her own learning thro-ugh the use of strategies, language acquisitionshould proceed at a faster rate (Anderson,2005). Within the field of foreign languagelearning, metacognitive strategies have beenstudied by many scholars. Metacognitive stra-tegies are ‚higher order executive skills thatentail planning for, monitoring, or evaluatingthe success of a learning activity‛ (O'Malley &Chamot, 1990: 135). It is highly emphasizedthe function of metacognitive strategies byarguing that metacognitive strategies enablelearners to manipulate, control, and managetheir own cognition by planning, observing,and evaluating the learning process.However, high metacognitive user is able toplan for effective learning, organize when touse specific strategies, know how to check theuse of strategies, learn how to integrate vari-ous strategies, and evaluate the effectivenessof strategy use Anderson, 2015), also they

72

Dilek Çakıcı

ses (Dirkes, 1985: 96).Among learning strategies, metacog-

nitive strategies have recently drawn the at-tention of educators and researchers as theyare believed to enhance reading comprehen-sion. In conjuction with the increasing popu-larity of metacognitive strategies, studies wereconducted with the view of determining theeffects of strategy use in comprehension. Thestrategies in reading process have been revea-led to be of paramount importance in learningof a second or foreign language. Reading stra-tegies are defined as mental operations orcomprehension processes (Abbott, 2006), themental activities (Aebersold & Field, 1997),mental processes (Cohen, 1990), consciousmental action or series of actions (Gardner,1987), intentional actions (Erler & Finkbeiner,2007) that readers choose and use in order toconstruct meaning (Gardner, 1987), to makesense out of what they read (Bamett, 1989), toovercome comprehension failures (Singhal,2001), to facilitate reading at any level of pro-cessing (Erler & Finkbeiner, 2007). Although,reading strategies are mainly categorized asmetacognitive and cognitive reading strate-gies, recent research in reading strategies hasfocused on metacognitive strategies. Me-tacognitive strategies are stated as being awa-re of individual’s his/her learning processesand knowing to control, monitor and evaluate

tion is the key factor required for readingcomprehension.

Flavell defined metacognition as‚one’s knowledge concerning one’s own cog-nitive processes and products or anythingrelated to them‛ (1976: 232). Metacognition is aconcept that refers to ‚cognition about cog-nition or thinking about thinking‛ (Carrell,1998: 1). Metacognition or metacognitiveknowledge includes monitoring actively andregulation and orchestration of cognitive pro-cesses to attain cognitive goals. Metacognitionis a concious, a deliberate, a planned and anintentional mental processing used to achievecognitive learning tasks (Flavell, 1971). Inreading skill, metacognition entails consciousawareness, monitoring and controlling ofone’s own learning progress or checking thecomprehension process.

Metacognition or metacognitiveawareness refers to be aware of one's ownthinking process. Metacognitive awarenessentails managing and regulating reading pro-cess by planning to use necessary strategieswith a learning task, then monitoring the per-son's own performance on an ongoing rea-ding process by checking the effectiveness ofreading strategies employed, and finally byevaluating the strategy use upon task comple-tion (Chamot, 1998). Metacognition is multi-dimensional, and domain-general in nature, it

these processes in learning2000).

Metacognition and

process (Heo, differs from cognition. Metacognitiveknowledge is the knowledge of cognitionsuch as knowledge of skills and reading stra-tegies that work best for learner, and how andwhen to employ a variety of strategies(Schraw, 1998). As for metacognitive regula-tion, it refers to controlling the reader’s ownthinking through planning, monitoring comp-rehension, evaluation the process (Schraw &Dennison, 1994).

In reading, metacognitive processingcan be expressed through strategies, whichare ‚procedural, purposeful, effortful, willful,essential, and facilitative in nature‛ (Alexan-der & Jetton, 2000: 295). Strategies are proce-dural, purposeful, willful, effortful, facilitative

MetacognitiveStrategies in Reading Comprehension

Reading comprehension as a cogniti-ve process requires the metacognitive aware-ness and regulation of one’s thinking duringthe reading process by means of planning,monitoring, and evaluating. In other words,metacognitive strategies in reading involvesthinking about their thinking while they do-ing a reading task and managing his/her ownlearning. A good reader firstly plans and or-ganize, then observes, controls his readingprocess using metacognition (Pintrich, Wol-ters & Baxter, 2000). In essence, metacogni-

An Overview Of Metacognitive Strategies In Reading Comprehension Skill 73

and essential (Alexander, Graham & Harris,1998). Hence, skilled readers are more able toreflect on and monitor their cognitive proces-ses while reading. They are aware not only ofwhich strategies to use, but they also tend to bebetter at regulating the use of such strate- gieswhile reading‛ (Sheorey & Mokhtari,2001: 445). Moreover, ‚strategic reading is notonly a matter of knowing what strategy touse, but also the reader must know how touse a strategy successfully and orchestrate itsuse with other strategies. It is not sufficient toknow about strategies; a reader must also beable to apply them strategically‛ (Anderson,1991: 468-469). Nonetheless, traditional met-hod of teaching reading—where the studentsactivate their background knowledge about atext topic, review relevant vocabulary, readthe text, and answer comprehension ques-tions—will not elicit the kinds of behaviorsthat distinguish effective readers. Increasedself-awareness of one’s process of reading isneeded for students to make more efficientuse of a wider range of strategic behaviors(Janzen, 2001: 372). The ways of increasingmetacognition in classroom context as fol-lows: promoting general awareness of theimportance of metacognition, improvingknowledge of cognition, improving regulationof cognition, and fostering environments thatpromote metacognitive awareness (Schraw,1998). Metacognitive knowledge or metacog-nitive awareness comprises knowledge of theperson, task, and strategy components thataffect cognition. Knowledge of strategy vari-ables comprises the individuals’ knowledgeabout different strategies for cognition inclu-ding memorizing, thinking, reasoning, prob-lem solving, planning, studying, reading,writing. Metacognitive knowledge includesboth knowledge of strategies and conditionalknowledge of when and why to use thesestrategies. (Pintrich, Wolters & Baxter, 2000).Metacognitive knowledge is an outstandingcomponent skill in reading. In that, metacog-

nitive knowledge is an awareness of one’smental process and the ability to reflect onwhat one is doing and the strategies one isemploying while reading (Grabe, 1991: 379).The extensive body of research indicating theimpacts of metacognitive strategies on rea-ding appears to have initiated an ongoingdebate in foreign language process. There iswidespread consensus among the researchersthat the deployment of metacognitive strate-gies in reading process promote readingcomprehension. A large body of research inboth foreign language and second languagereading has focused on metacognitive stra-tegy use in reading comprehension as follows:Hosenfeld, 1977; Haupman, 1979; Grellet,1981; Langer, 1984; Devine, 1984; O’Malley,Russo, Chamot & Stewner-Manzanares, 1985;Padrón, 1985; Carrell, 1985, 1989a, 1989b;O'Malley, 1987; Pressley, Borkowski & Schne-ider, 1987; Sarig & Folman, 1987; Sarig, 1987;Harris, Graham & Freeman, 1988; Barnett,1988; Pressley & Afflerback, 1995; Upton,1997; Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001; Mokhtari &Reichard, 2002; Zhang, 2001; Mokhtari & Re-ichard, 2004; Phakiti, 2006; Çubukçu,Martinez, 2008; Alsamadani, 2009; Razı,Alsheikh & Mokhtari, 2011; Takallou,

2008;2010;2011;

Karami1 & Hashemian, 2012; Alhaqbani &Riazi, 2012; Yaman & Çakıcı, 2013; Zhang &Seepho, 2013; Korotaeva, 2014; Nejad &Mahmoodi-Shahrebabaki, 2015.

Certain contributive means such asmetacognitive strategies are offered as boos-ting and supporting factors in reading comp-rehension process. Erler & Finkbeiner (2007)posited the effect of metacognitive strategieson comprehension as they are inflenced byinteractive conceptualizations of reading in L1and L2. They further maintained that success-ful comprehension was associated with theemployment of metacognitive strategies. Be-cause, metacognitive reading strategies inclu-de ‚having a purpose or plan in mind, pre-viewing the text as to its length and organiza-

74

Dilek Çakıcı

tion, or using typographical aids and tablesand figures‛ (Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001: 6).

Metacognitive reading strategies aredivided into five essential components asfollows : (a) preparing and planning for effec-tive reading; (b) deciding when to use particu-lar reading strategies; (c) knowing how tomonitor reading strategy use; (d) learninghow to orchestrate various reading strategies;and (e) evaluating reading-strategy use. Thesefive strategies are related to each other as aprocess to accomplish a reading task (Ander-son, 2004). Based on these assumptions pre-sented above, it is suggested that a readerdetermines and chooses the most appropriateand efficient metacognitive reading strategiesthat work best, knows when to need to emp-loy or apply these strategies while reading, isconciously aware of how to monitor strategiesduring reading process interactively, alsoknows how to incorporate a variety of readingstrategies when necessary, and evaluates theeffectiveness of strategies after fulfilling thereading task.

Metacognitive reading strategies areemployed to monitor or regulate the cognitivestrategies (Devine, 1993) . Skimming a text forkey information require "the use of cognitivestrategy, whereas assessing the effectivenessof skimming for gathering textual informationwould be a metacognitive strategy" (Devine,1993: 108). Metacognitive reading strategiesentails thinking about the learning process,planning for learning, monitoring or checkingof comprehension, and self-evaluation of le-arning after the language task is completed(Skehan, 1993). Moreover, metacognitive stra-tegies help students to focus their attention tounderstand the content, to connect priorknowledge with new information and to codethem in their minds (Paris & Jacobs, 1984).

Metacognitive reading strategy use isclassified in three broad categories as "GlobalReading Strategies (GLOB), Problem SolvingStrategies (PROB) and Support Strategies(SUP)", and they are defined in detail as fol-lows: Global Reading Strategies (GLOB) help

learners to control or deal with their readingthrough deliberate, cautiously arranged tech-niques (e.g. having a target, previewing thereading text with regard to its design andarrangement, or utilizing graphs, tables, andfigures. Problem Solving Strategies (PROB)are the activities and processes performed bythe readers while they are dealing with thetext directly. Readers use these strategies asconfined, attentive techniques when theyhave problems in comprehending texts. Forinstance, adapting to reading speed when thetextual information becomes easy or difficultto understand, predicting the meanings ofunknown vocabulary, and reading the textagain to understand the text better. SupportStrategies (SUP) are essential assistance sys-tem aimed to support the reader in termsof understanding the text. (e.g. using adictio- nary, note-taking, underlining, orhighlighting textual information) (Mokhtari& Sheorey,2002: 436). Besides, metacognitive readingstrategies are divided into three main groups:planning (pre-reading), monitoring (duringreading), and evaluating (post-reading) stra-tegies (Alsheikh & Mokhtari, 2011; Anderson,2003; Baker, 2008; Devine, 1993).

How To Teach MetacognitionIt is previously claimed that an effici-

ent reader engaged his background knowled-ge to make sense out of the text by planning,monitoring and evaluating the necessary me-tacognitive reading strategies. Indeed, a goodreader employs a full range of strategies incombination conciously and purposefully.Hence, language learners should receive me-tacognitive reading strategy training in class-room settings. Strategy awareness instructionprograms should be made available to thelearners. Strategy instruction should be anessential part of language learning process,since it helps students gain greater profici-ency, confidence and self-awareness (Oxford,1990, Griffiths, 2003). Strategy training canpromote students’ metacognitive knowledgeand result in autonomous strategy use(O’Malley & Chamot, 1990), also strategy

An Overview Of Metacognitive Strategies In Reading Comprehension Skill 75

instruction empowers students to promotetheir autonomy (Cohen, 1998). Therefore, it isnecessary to address a number of methodolo-gical issues such as the explicitness of trai-ning, its integration in the language curricu-lum, the design and evaluation of the StrategyBased Instruction (SBI) programme beforeimplementing SBI. Foreign language teachersshould primarily model for their learners byintegrating higher order thinking strategiesinto reading practices, and also raise theirlearners’ conciousness of what metacognitivestrategies are, how and why they should dep-loy them. It is needed to increase the lear-

process properly and efficiently. In that, thestudents with higher metacognitive aware-ness are more skilled at planning, monitoring,and evaluating the metacognitive and cogni-tive strategies in comprehension process moreefficiently. Thus, the vast increase in me-tacognitive knowledge leads to better readingcomprehension performance.

Janzen & Stoller (1998) offer a strategytraining program involving choosing a textappropriate for students’ level, selecting stra-tegies for training, planning lessons for thepresentation of strategies, and adapting theinstruction of strategies according to students’needs. In addition, according to Livingston(1996), the most effective metacognitive inst-ruction should involve both metacognitiveknowledge and metacognitive regulation.Namely, the instruction should provide thelearner with both knowledge of cognitiveprocesses and strategies, and experience orpractice in using both cognitive and metacog-nitive strategies and evaluating the outcomes oftheir efforts.

The research on the issue ofstra-

tegy training suggests the following implica-tions:

1. Strategy training should be formedas an integral part of regular classroomevents.

2. Strategy instruction should be em-bedded in meaningful communicative con-text.

3. Students should be taught how toidentify and analyze their preferred learningstrategies by means of diaries, learning jour-nals, interviews, and surveys.

4. Teachers should provide explicitexplanation and modeling of strategy use, andprovide necessary opportunities for practice(Oxford, 2002: 122).

Through learning strategy trai-ning, Larsen-Freeman & Anderson (2011: 185)posit that learners develop the ability to:

ners’understanding of metacognitiveknowledge about reading and reading strate-gies to make them active and constructivelyresponsive readers (Sheorey & Mokhtari,2001). However, it is not enough to knowsuitable reading strategies. Language studentsmust be able to regulate or monitor the emp-loyment of such strategies to ensure success inreading comprehension (Baker & Brown,1984).

Based on the aforementioned reviewof past research, it is declared that the conceptof metacognition has been a prominent focus ofattention in reading comprehension. Inparticular, metacognition provides readers tomanage and control over the reading process.The students as efficient readers monitor theirunderstanding by planning and choosingnecessary strategies, then evaluate the inteac-tive process of reading comprehension bychecking the effectiveness of the strategiesemployed. Metacognitive knowledge enablesreaders to make use of effective metacognitivestrategies consciously to compensate for pos-sible weaknesses. Therefore, foreign languagelearners need to receive metacognitive stra-tegy training explicitly and gradually in rea-ding courses. Foreign language teachers sho-uld raise students’ awareness as to metacogni-tive strategies and train them how to use di-verse strategies in reading comprehension

76

Dilek Çakıcı

1. determine theirweakness in language learning,

strength and based on sociocultural learning theory, hasbeen widely utilized (Chamot et al., 1999). TheCALLA model is in favour of explicit strategyinstruction and integration of strategy trai-ning into the meaningful language contextsand supports the idea of learner autonomyand self-direction in strategy based instruc-tion. The Cohen model represents a differentbut related version of strategy-based instruc-tion. That model proposes the appropriate-ness of selected strategies with the learners’their own learning styles. The Grenfell & Har-ris model entails the presentation of the newstrategies employed, then helping students todesign their personal plans to enhance theirown learning, whilst the CALLA model pro-poses a remarkable step called as self-evaluation phase for students to provide achance to practice strategies and relate themwith new language contexts (Chamot, 2004).

As it is seen, a principled and comp-rehensive model of reading strategies is stillmissing (Rubin et.al.,2007). There is an urgentneed for a great deal of further research in SBIat all levels of L2 reading with many differentL2 languages, readers, and settings. Virtually,all studies involve instruction in metacogniti-ve strategies either directly or indirectly, if forno other reason than that the metacognitivestrategy of evaluating the use of a new stra-tegy is an integral part of strategy interven-tion models.

2. study and decide certain languagestrategies contributing them to learn easilyand effectively,

3. know how to implement and mo-dify the strategy,

4.strategy,

5.ge activity,

practice the new language learning

decide how to complete a langua-

6. self-assess his or her performance,7. being able to transfer the new stra-

tegy to different language situations. Strategy-based instruction

sequence of four steps generally:1. raising awareness of the strategeis

learners are already using,2. teacher presentation and modeling

of strategeis so that students become increa-singly aware of their own thinking and lear-ning process,

3. multiple practice opportunnities tohelp students move towards autonomous useof the strategies through gradual withdrawalof scaffolding; and

4. self-evaluation of the effectivenessof the strategeis used and transfer of strategiesto new tasks (Rubin, Chamot, Harris & An-derson, 2007).

Three models for language learningstrategy instruction are presented by Chamot,Barnhardt, El-Dinary & Rubbins, 1999; Cohen,1998; and Grenfell & Harris, 1999. These inst-ructional models point out that the teachershould represent the new strategy to make theinstruction explicit, and students should as-sess how well a strategy has worked, selectcertain strategies for a language task, andactively practice new strategies into the newlanguage situations. All of the models in lite-rature underline the importance of providingabundant practice opportunities to languagelearners to employ them independenly andefficiently (Chamot, 2004). As a model of SBIthe CALLA (Cognitive Academic LanguageLearning Approach) instructional design,

is a

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTI-ONS

This review article is intended to pro-voke discussion and leads to reconsiderationof metacognitive strategies in reading comp-rehension process. Furthermore, it is conside-rably noted that this study provides furtherevidence for the necessities of metacognitivestrategy training in EFL contexts.

In the light of the considerations in re-lated literature review, it is suggested thatreading comprehension can be enhancedthrough systematic instruction in metacogni-tive language learning strategies. Explicit

An Overview Of Metacognitive Strategies In Reading Comprehension Skill 77

teaching of metacognitive strategies enableslearners to practise different strategies requi-red for specific reading tasks and activitiesunder the control of teacher’s modelling, the-

Aebersold, J. A. & Field, M. L. (1997). FromReader To Reading Teacher: IssuesAndStrategies For Second LanguageClassrooms. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing Reading.Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Alexander, P. A. & Jetton, T. L. (2000).Lear-

ning From Text: AMultidimensionalAnd Developmental Perspective.InM. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D.

reby develop self-direction and self-evaluation. Hence, EFL teachers should beencouraged to embed a strategy-based inst-ructional program into the regular flow of thereading courses in a natural way. Integratingstrategy-based instruction into the readingcourse is the most feasible and effective wayto promote students’ reading comprehension(Çakıcı, 2016).

In that sense, language learningstra-

tegies should be integrated into regular met-hodology employed in language classes, espe-cially in EFL classes. It is not a smooth andeasy process to integrate and employ strate-gies in EFL classes. Through organizing thevariables like time, strategy selection, studentbackground, and so on efficiently, teachingELT students to deploy LLSs bring better per-formancesin reading comprehension (Yaman& Çakıcı, 2013).

All in all, language teachers,teacher

educators and curriculum designers in therealm of language learning should know thatreading comprehension can be developedthrough systematic instruction in metacogni-tive language learning strategies. Explicitteaching, raising awareness, and providingnecessary experience with these strategies canbe suggested for better comprehension. Inthat respect, EFL teachers should teach thestudents regularly a wide repertoire of me-tacognitive reading strategies explicitly withreading practices and tasks so as to help themto get the meaning from the text and becomegood readers.

Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Hand-book Of Reading Research. Volume 3.(pp.285–310). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Alexander, P. A., Graham, S. & Harris, K.R.

(1998). A Perspective On Strategy Re-search: Progress And Prospects. Edu-cational Psychology Review, 10(2), 129-153.

Alhaqbani, A. & Riazi, M. (2012). Metacogni-tive Awareness Of Reading StrategyUse In Arabic As A Second Language.Reading in a Foreign Language, 24(2),231-255.

Al-Rubaye, N. (2012). Reported Reading Strate-gies Of Iraqi Graduate Students StudyingIn USUniversities. Oklahoma: Okla-homa State University.

Alsamadani, H. A. (2009). TheRelationship

Between Saudi EFL College-Level Stu-dents’ Use Of Reading Strategies AndTheir EFL Reading Comprehension. Un-published doctoral dissertation, Uni-versity of Ohio, College of Education.

Alsheikh, N. O. & Mokhtari, K. (2011). AnExamination Of The MetacognitiveReading Strategies Used By NativeSpeakers Of Arabic When Reading InEnglish And Arabic. English Lan-

REFERENCESAbbott, M. L. (2006). ESL Reading Strategies:

Differences in Arabic and MandarinSpeaker TestPerformance. LanguageLearning, 56, 633–670.

guage Teaching, 4(2), 151-160.Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual Differences

In Strategy Use In Second LanguageReading And Testing. Modern Langua-ge Journal, 75, 460-472.

78

Dilek Çakıcı

Anderson, N. J. (2002). The Role Of Metacogni-tion In Second/Foreign Language Teac-hing And Learning. ERIC Digest. Was-hington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse onLanguages and Linguistics.

Anderson, N. J. (2003). Teaching Reading. InD. Nunan (Eds.), Practical English Lan-guageTeaching (pp. 67-86). New York:McGraw Hill Publishers.

Anderson, N. J. (2004). Metacognitive ReadingStrategy Awareness Of ESL And EFLLearners. The CATESOL Journal, 16(1),11-27.

Anderson, N. J. (2005). L2 Learning Strategies.In E. Hinkel. (Eds.), Handbook Of Rese-

Implications For ESL/Second Langua-ge Reading Classrooms. In P. L. Car-rell, J. Devine, D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Inte-ractive Approaches to Second LanguageReading. (pp. 239-259) NewYork:Cambridge University Press.P. (1989a). Metacognitive AwarenessAnd Second Language Reading. Mo-dern Language Journal, 73, 121-134.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1989.tb02534.xP.L., Pharis, B. & GaudLiberto, J.C.

(1989b). Metacognitive Strategy Trai-ning For ESL Reading. TESOL Quar-terly 23 (4), 647 – 678.

Carrell,

Carrell,

arch In Second Language Teaching Carrell, P.L. (1998). Introduction. In P.L. Car-rell, J. Devine & D.E. Heskey (Eds.),Interactive Approaches To Second Langu-age Reading (pp. 1-5). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Chamot, A. U. & O’Malley, J. M. (1994).The

CALLA handbook: Implementing the

And Learning (pp. 757-771). Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Anderson, N. J. (2015). AcademicReading

Expectations and Challenges. In N. W.Evans, N.J.,Anderson & W. G. Eg-gington (Eds.), ESL Readers and WritersIn Higher Education:Understanding cognitive academic language le-Challenges, Providing Support. NewYork: Taylor & Francis.

Baker, L. (2008). MetacognitiveDevelopment

In Reading: Contributors And Con-sequences. In KMokhtari & R. Sheo-rey (Eds.), Reading Strategies Of First-And Second-Language Learners:See HowThey Read (pp. 25–42). Norwood, MA:Christopher-Gordon

Baker, L. & Brown, A. L. (1984). MetacognitiveSkills And Reading. In P. D. Pearson(Eds.), Handbook Of Reading Research(pp. 353-394). New York: Longman.

Bamett, M.A. (1989). More Than Meets The Eye,Foreign Language Reading Theory AndPractice. NewJersey: Prentice – Hall.

Barnett, M. (1988). Reading Through Context:How Real And Perceived StrategyUse Affects L2Comprehension. Mo-dern Language Journal, 72, 150-162.

Carrell, P. L. (1985). Facilitating ESL ReadingBy Teaching Text Structure. TESOLQuarterly, 19,727-752.

Carrell, P. (1988). Interactive Text Processing:

arning approach. White Plains, NY:Addison Wesley Longman.

Chamot, A. U. (1995). Learning Strategies AndListening Comprehension. In D.Mendelesohn and J. Rubin (Eds.), AGuide For The Teaching Of Second Lan-guage Listening (pp. 13-30). San Diago,CA: Domonie.

Chamot, A. U. (1998). Teaching Learning Stra-tegies To Language Students. Centerfor Applied Linguistics, 12, 1-28.

Chamot, A. U., Barnhardt, S., El-Dinary, P. B.& Robbins, J. (1999). The Learning Stra-tegies. NewYork: Longman.

Chamot, A. U. (2004). Issues In LanguageLearning Strategy Research And Te-aching. Electronic Journal of ForeignLanguage Teaching, 1(1) , 14-26.

Cohen, A. D. (1990). Language Learning: In-sights For Learners, Teachers, And Rese-archers. New York: Newbury Hou-se/Harper and Row.

Cohen, A.D. (1998). Strategies In Learning AndUsing A Second Language. London:

An Overview Of Metacognitive Strategies In Reading Comprehension Skill 79

Longman.Çakıcı, D. (2016). Strategopedia - Strategy-

Based Language Learning. In İ. Ya-man, E. Ekmekçi & M. Şenel (Eds.),Current Trends In ELT (pp. 58-71). An-kara: Nuans Publishing.

Çubukçu, F. (2008). EnhancingVocabulary

Development And Reading Compre-hension Through Metacognitive Stra-tegies. Issues In Educational Research,18 (1), 1-11.

Publishing Co.Genç, H. N. (2004). Okuma Biçimleri. Süley-

man Demirel Üniversitesi Burdur EğitimFakültesiDergisi, 8, 83-89.

Genç, H. N. (2007). Betik Türleri VeOkuma.

Dicle Üniversitesi Ziya Gökalp EğitimFakültesi Dergisi, 8, 45-51.Goodman, K. S. (1970). PsycholinguisticUni-

versals In The Reading Process. VisibleLanguage, 4(2), 103-110.

Goodman, K. S. (1986). What's Whole In WholeLanguage. Portsmouth, NH: Heine-mann Educational Books.

Devine, J. (1993). The Role Of Metacognitionİn Second Language Reading AndWriting. In J. Carson & I. Leki (Eds.),Reading In The Composition Classroom:Second Language Perspectives (pp. 105-127). Boston: Heinle and Heinle.J. (1984). ESL Readers' Internalized

Models Of The Reading Process. In J.Handscombe, R. Orem & B. Taylor(Eds.), On TESOL '83: The Question OfControl (pp. 95-108). Washington,D.C.:TESOL.

Grabe, W. (1991). Current Development InSecond Language Reading Research.TESOL Quarterly. 25(3), 375-406.W. & Stoller, F. (2001). Reading ForAcademic Purposes: Guidelines ForThe ESL/EFL Teacher. In M. Celce-Murcia (Eds.), Teaching English As ASecond Or Foreign Language (3rd ed.,pp. 187-203). Boston: Heinle &Heinle.

Grabe,Devine,

Grellett, F. (1981). Developing Reading Skills: APractical Guide To ReadingComprehen- sion Exercises.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.

Grenfell, M. & Harris, V. (1999). Modern Lan-guages And Learning Strategies: In The-ory And Practice. London: Routledge

Griffiths, C. (2003). Language Learning StrategyUse And Proficiency. (PhD dissertation,

Dirkes, M. A. (1985). Metacognition: StudentsIn Charge Of Their Thinking. RoeperReview, 8(2), 96-100.

Ellis, R. (1994). The Study Of Second LanguageAcquisition. Oxford: Oxford Univer-sity Press.

Erler, L. & Finkbeiner, C. (2007). A Review OfReading Strategies: Focus On The ImpactOf First Language. In A. D. Cohen & E.Macaro (Eds.), Language Learner Stra-tegies. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Flavell, J. H. (1971). First Discussant's Com-ments. What Is Memory DevelopmentThe Development Of? Human Deve-lopment 14, 272-278.

Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive Aspects OfProblem Solving. In L. B. Resnick(Eds.), The Nature Of Intelligence(pp.231-236). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition And ReadingComprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex

University of Auckland).ProQuest Dissertation services.Retri-eved fromhttp://wwwlib.umi.com/dissertations/fullcit/3094436

Griffith, C. (2007). Language Learning Strate-gies: Students’ And Teachers’ Percep-tions. English Language Teaching Jour-nal, 61(2), 91-99.

Harris, K., Graham, S. & Freeman, S.(1988).

Effects Of Strategy Training On Me-tamemory Among Learning Di-sabled Students. Exceptional Children,54, 332-338.

80

Dilek Çakıcı

Haupman, P.C. 1979. A Comparison OfFirst

And Second Language Reading Stra-tegies Among English-Speaking Uni-versity Students. Interlanguage StudiesBulletin, 4, 173-201.

Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching And Learning In TheLanguage Classroom. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Heo, H. (2000). Theoretical Underpinnings ForStructuring The Classroom As Self-

(2011). Techniques and Principles inLanguage Teaching (3rd ed.). OxfordUniversity Press, USA.

Livingston, J. A. (1996). Effects Of Metacogniti-ve Instruction On Strategy Use Of Colle-ge Students. Unpublished manuscript,State University of New York at Buf-falo.

Martínez, A. C. L. (2008). Analysis Of ESPUniversity Students' Reading StrategyAwareness. Ibérica: Revista de la Asoci-ación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Es-pecíficos (AELFE), (15), 165-176.

Mokhtari, K. & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Asses-sing Students’ Metacognitive Aware-ness Of Reading Strategies. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 94(2), 249–259.

Mokhtari, K. & Reichard, C. A. (2004). Inves-tigating The Strategic Reading Proces-ses Of First And Second LanguageReaders In Two Different Contexts.System, 32, 379-394.

Mokhtari, K. & Sheorey, R. (2002). MeasuringESL Students’ Awareness Of ReadingStrategies. Journal of DevelopmentalEducation, 25(3), 2-10

Nejad, B. S. & Shahrebabaki-Mahmoodi. M.(2015).

Effects Of Metacognitive StrategyInstruction On The Reading Compre-hension Of English Language Lear-ners Through Cognitive AcademicLanguage Learning Approach (CAL-LA). International Journal of Languages’Education and Teaching. 3(2), 133-164.

Nunan, D. (1999). Second Language Teaching &Learning. Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Nuttall, C. (1982). Teaching Reading Skills In AForeign Language. London: HeinemannEducational.

Regulated Learning Environment.Educational Technology Intentional, 2(1),31–51.

Hosenfeld, C. (1977). A Preliminary Investiga-tion Of The Reading Strategies OfSuccessful And Not Successful Lear-ners. System 5, 110-123.

Janzen, J. (2001). Strategic Reading On A Sus-tained Content Theme. In J. Murphy& P. Byrd (Eds.), Understanding TheCourses We Teach: Local Per-SpectivesOn English Language Teaching (pp. 369-389). Ann Arbor: The University ofMichigan Press.

Janzen, J. & Stoller, F. (1998). Integrating Stra-tegic Reading In L2 Instruction. Rea-ding in a Foreign Language, 12(2), 251–269.

Karami, S. & Hashemian, M. (2012). The Rela-tionship Between Metacognitive Stra-tegies And Reading ComprehensionIn Iranian Female L2 Learners. Inter-national Journal of English, 2(4), 58-64.

Karbalaei, A. (2010). A Comparison Of TheMetacognitive Reading StrategiesUsed By EFL And ESL Readers. TheReading Matrix, 10(2).

Korotaeva, I. V. (2014). Metacognitive Strate-gies In Reading Comprehension OfMajors In Education And Psychology.Psychology in Russia: State of the Art.7(2), 39-47.

Langer, J. (1984). Examining BackgroundKnowledge And Text Comprehen-

O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U.,Stewner-Manzanares, G., Kupper, L.& Russo, R. (1985). Learning Strate-gies Used By Beginning And Inter-mediate ESL Students. Language Lear-ning, 35 (1), 21-46.

O’Malley, J. M. (1987). The Effects Of TrainingOn The Use Of Learning Strategies On

sion. Reading19, 468-481.

Research Quarterly,

Larsen-Freeman, D. & M. Anderson.

An Overview Of Metacognitive Strategies In Reading Comprehension Skill 81

Learning English As A Second Lan-guage. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin(Eds.), Learning Strategies In LanguageLearning (pp. 133- 144). Cambridge:Prentice Hall International.

O’Malley, C. & Chamot, A. U. (1990). LearningStrategies In Second Language Acquisi-tion. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

Oxford, R. (1990). Language Learning Strategies:What Every Teacher Should Know. NewYork: Newbury House/Harper Col-lins.

Oxford, R. L. (2001). Language Learning Stra-tegies. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.),The Cambridge Guide To Teaching Eng-lish To Speakers Of Other Languages(pp. 166-172). Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Oxford, R. L. (2002). Methodology In Lan-guage Teaching. In J. C. Richards &W. A. Renandya (Eds.), LanguageLearning Strategies In A Nutshell. (pp.124-131). Cambridge University Press.

Oxford, R. (2003). Towards A More Systema-tic Model Of L2 Learner Autonomy.In Palfreyman, D. & Smith, R. C.(Eds.), Learner Autonomy Across Cultu-res: Language Education Perspectives.Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke (pp.75–92).

Performance. Melbourne Papers In Lan-guage Testing, 1, 53-95.

Pintrich, P. R., Wolters, C. A. & Baxter, G. P.(2000). Assessing Metacognition AndSelf- Regulated Learning. In G.Schraw & J. C. Impara (Eds.), Issues InThe Measurement Of Metacognition(pp. 43-97). Lincoln NE: Buros Institu-te of Mental Measurements.

Pressley, M., Borkowski, J. G. & Schneider, W.(1987). Cognitive Strategies:GoodStrategy Users Coordinate Me-tacognition And Knowledge. In R.Vasta & G. Whilehurst (Eds.), AnnalsOf Child Development (pp. 80-129).Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Pressley, M. & Afflerbach, P. (1995). VerbalProtocols Of Reading: The Nature OfConstructively Responsive Reading.Hillsdale, NJ: The Erlbaum Group.

Purpura, J. (1999). Learner CharacteristicsAnd L2 Test Performance. In R. L.Oxford (Eds.), Language Learning Stra-tegies In The Context Of Autonomy,Synthesis of Findings from the Inter-national Invitational Conference onLearning Strategy Research (pp. 61-63), Teachers College, Columbia Uni-versity, New York, NY.

Razı, S. (2010). Effects Of A Metacognitive Rea-ding Program On The Reading Achieve-ment And Metacognitive Strategies. Un-published PhD dissertation. İzmir:Dokuz Eylül University.

Richards, J. C. & Renandya, W.A.

(2002). Methodology In Language Teac-hing: An Anthology Of Current Practice.Cambridge University Press.

Rubin, J., Chamot, A.U., Harris, V. & Ander-son, N. (2007). Intervening In The UseOf Strategies. In A.D. Cohen & E.Macaro (Eds.), Language Learner Strat-egies (pp. 141-160). Oxford, UK: Ox-ford University Press.

Rumelhart, D. E. (1977). Toward An Interacti-

Padron, Y.N. (1985). Utilizing Cognitive Rea-ding Strategies To Improve English Rea-ding Comprehension of Spanish-SpeakingBilingual Students. Unpublished doc-toral dissertation, University of Hous-ton.

Paris, S. G. & Jacobs, J. E. (1984). The Benefits OfInformed İnstruction For Child-ren's Reading Awareness And Comp-rehension Skills. Child Development,2083-2093.

Phakiti, A. (2006). Modeling Cognitive AndMetacognitive Strategies AndTheirRelationships To EFL Reading Test

82

Dilek Çakıcı

ve Model Of Reading. In S. Domic(Ed.), Attention And Performance. VI.Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

Sarig, G. (1987). High-Level Reading In TheFirst And In The Foreign Language:Some Comparative Process Data. In J.Devine; P. L. Carrell & D. E. Eskey(Eds.), Research In Reading In EnglishAs A Second Language (pp. 105-120).Washington, DC: TESOL.

Sarig, G. & Folman, S. (1987).Metacognitive

Awareness And L2 Readers. The Rea-ding Matrix, 1(1), 1-8.

Takallou, F. (2011). The Effect Of Metacogniti-ve Strategy Instruction On EFL Lear-ners’ Reading Comprehension Per-formance And Metacognitive Aware-ness. Asian EFL Journal, 35, 272-300.

Upton, A. (1997). First And Second LanguageUse In Reading Comprehension Strate-gies Of Japanese ESL Students. Retrie-ved from http://www-

AwarenessKnowledge In

And Theoretical writing.berkeley.edu/TESL-EJ/ej09/a3.html

Vandergrift, L. (2002). It Was Nice To See ThatOur Predictions Were Right: Develo-ping Metacognition In L2 ListeningComprehension. The Canadian Modern

Coherence Produc-tion. Paper presented at the 20th An-niversary Communication and Cog-nition International Congress, Ghent.[Forthcoming in M. Spoelders (Ed.),Communication and Cognition, spe-cial issue.]

Schraw, G. & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Asses-sing Metacognitive Awareness. Con-temporary Educational Psychology, 19,460-475.

Language Review, 58, 555-575.Yaman, İ. & Çakıcı, D. (2013). The Effect Of

Cognitive And Compensation StrategyInstruction On Reading Comprehen-sion Skill. Ondokuz Mayıs ÜniversitesiEğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 32(2), 369-384.J. L. (2001). Awareness In Reading:EFL Students' MetacognitiveKnowledge Of Reading Strategies In

Schraw, G. (1998).tacognitive

Promoting General Me-Awareness. Instructional Zhang,

Science, 26(1-2), 113-125.Sheorey, R. & Mokhtary, K. (2001). Differen-

ces In The Metacognitive AwarenessOf Reading Strategies Among Native

An Acquisition-Poor Environ-ment. Language Awareness, 10(4), 268-288.

Zhang, L. & Seepho, S. (2013). MetacognitiveStrategy Use And Academic ReadingAchievement: Insights From A Chi-nese Context. Electronic Journal of Fore-ign Language Teaching, 10(1), 54-69.

And Nonnative Readers. System,431-449.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00039-2

29,

Singhal, M. (2001). Reading Proficiency,Rea- ding Strategies, Metacognitive