watanabe thesis

1

University of Aizu, Graduation Thesis. March, 2013 s1170044

Abstract

Efficient use of cognitive and metacognitive

reading strategies is important indicators of active

learning outcomes. These strategies suggest the

efficacy with which content is construed and

outcomes are reached. Efficient use of these

strategies are extremely important in an EFL context

where the language proficiency is low, and ability for

content comprehension in the target language is

minimal to moderate at best. This article discussed a

specific case study in this Japanese computer science

context where readers were asked to comprehend the

content in an English tourism website. This article

documents the self-reported use of reading strategies

used by participants while making an attempt to

understand the content of the English website.

Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies

Inventory Questionnaire (MARSI) was used for the

purpose of understanding readers’ preferential use of

reading strategies and what it means for content

accuracy. The self-reported use of strategies was

classified into three groups: Global Reading

Strategies, Problem-solving Strategies and Support

Reading Strategies. Results for mean values on an

average show that most strategies in GLOB and

PROB categories have been used consistently at a

higher level when compared to strategies in SUP

section. The findings are consistent with the literature

suggesting that readers with low reading ability (e.g.,

as in this EFL context as reported in the experiment)

attached lower importance to support reading

strategies when compared to L1 readers [1].

1 Introduction

The literature is rich in suggesting how EFL

readers strategize towards reading, conceiving,

selecting, comprehending, and recalling online

information for target language learning or other

similar purposes. Reading strategies are an indicator of

how a task is conceived, the textual cues attended

during reading, how a text is perceived and sensed,

and how a non-comprehensible piece of text is

understood [2]. Research on second language reading

and comprehension might be a little different from

foreign language comprehension context, but the

overall use of reading strategies and its relation to

successful and unsuccessful second language reading

have wider implications and results in our

understanding of reading approaches in an EFL

context [3][4].

Research in a native context with much higher English

reading and comprehension ability, when compared

with ESL students displayed conscious awareness of

all metacognitive reading strategies commonly used.

Further, readers in both contexts attribute similar

levels of importance to the reading strategies used.

These strategies are cognitive strategies (the deliberate

actions readers take when comprehension problems

develop), followed by metacognitive strategies

(advanced planning and comprehension monitoring

techniques), and support strategies (the tools readers

seek out to aid comprehension). Further, both L1 and

ESL readers demonstrated similar used of cognitive

and metacognitive reading strategies when compared

to EFL readers. Besides, readers with low reading

ability (close to being called EFL students) attached

lower importance to support reading strategies when

compared to L1 readers [1].

The major purpose of this study is to briefly report on

how EFL readers comprehend website information in

the target language, reporting on the design of the

website in their own words, and then answering a

questionnaire wherein they identify diverse

information that is available in the website but could

be accessed through proper navigation.

So, the major research question for this study that one

needs to ask is as follows.

What kind of cognitive, metacognitive and support

reading strategies have been used, as self-reported

by the reader in an EFL context when accessing a

webpage in English for information comprehension,

navigation and understanding how the website is

designed?

To what extent have these strategies been used?

Is there any significant correlation between scores

on website information comprehension and use of

self-reported strategies or there is no pattern to

suggest how a strategy influenced performance on

website information comprehension?

Metacognitive Reading Strategies for Website Analysis

in an EFL Context Masaya Watanabe s1170044 Supervised by Prof. Debopriyo Roy

2


Is there any pattern (or significant correlation) to

suggest that a person who used a specific strategy

also used other strategies to a similar extent?

Is there any significant difference in the self-

reported scores within global, problem solving and

support reading strategies?

This study reports results from an experimental

analysis, wherein different cognitive, metacognitive

and support reading strategies have been used

towards web analysis and web information

comprehension from an English travel website.

2. A Review of the Literature

Recent research on L2 learning strategies has

largely focused on language learners' metacognitive

knowledge or awareness of strategies. The study found

that in China, EFL readers’ metacognitive knowledge

of reading strategies had close links to their EFL

proficiency [5]. However, some studies have de-

emphasized the importance of metacognitive reading

strategies. The results of the investigation on reading

strategies and extensive reading of EFL students

indicate that reading a lot in both L1 and L2/EFL

becomes basically the most important factor for

improving reading skills rather than just teaching

reading strategies. Extensive reading gives learners

rich background knowledge, vocabulary recognition, a

high motivation for more reading, and becomes the

basic skill of rapid reading, discovery of reading

strategies by learners themselves, and increases

guessing ability in context [6].

Understanding cognitive and metacognitive reading

strategies in a web-based EFL reading context is

important for judging how readers might have

approached the task of website reading and analysis.

Brown (1994) defines cognitive strategies (e.g.,

bottom-up and top-down) as specific learning tasks

and is used to help an individual achieve a particular

goal (for example, understanding a text) [7].

Goodman, K (1998), refers to the bottom up model as

the 'common sense' notion [8]. In this approach,

reading is meant to be a process of decoding;

identifying letter, words, phrases and then sentences in

order to get the meaning. On the other hand, Carrell

(1998) stated that, reading process as “an active

psychological guessing game [9]. Top down rejects the

notion that identification of letters to form words, and

the derivation of meaning from these words is efficient

reading. On the contrary, it is assumed that efficient

reading requires the readers to make predictions and

hypotheses about the text content by relating the new

information to their prior knowledge and by using as

few language clues as possible. Both bottom-up and

top-down theories formed the models of reading, and

are important for web-based language learning in an

EFL context.

Metacognitive reading strategies in an EFL context

clearly have shown that strategies like skimming and

scanning often are practiced for extracting the required

information [10], without a deeper-level analysis.

Further, research projects observed learner-task-

dictionary interactions and suggested the importance

of learners’ interactions while carrying out specific

language learning tasks [11]. A different research on

the use of metacognitive reading strategy shows those

participants who received training and/or read the text

with headings remembered text topics and their

organization better than participants who received no

training and read the text without headings [12].

Analysis of time data showed that participants with

headings spent more time per word reading the pages

with headings than participants who did not have

headings [13].

3. Method

Sample and Context: Participants (N=59) are

junior level students (age group: 18-20 years) in their

third year undergraduate program specializing in

computer science in a Japanese technical university.

For the purpose of closely observing the participants

over a prolonged period of time and reporting on their

activities, we felt that this sample size represented

sizes commonly used in usability tests. Students at this

university are required to take 15 credits of

undergraduate English in order to graduate with a

computer science major. At the time when students

took this course, they already had passing grades or

better in several English courses offered during the

first two years of their program. With this specific

elective course named Writing and Design for World

Wide Web, students mostly focused on the process of

online writing, designing and analyzing websites based

on design principles, besides designing concept maps

on websites they analyzed.

Japanese Context: Detailed class observations at this

university over a period of time and across student

bodies have shown extensive use of metacognitive

reading strategies like skimming, scanning, reading

headlines, using dictionaries, translation etc in

3


analyzing technical texts in an EFL context and results

have shown superficial and often surface level ability

to comprehend, analyze and write about a technical

text [14] and similar results were observed in other

EFL situations [15].

Stages of the experiment:

1st Week: During the 1st week of the actual

experiment, students (N = 59) analyzed the Belize

tourism website based on the 8 open-ended questions

asked during the same assignment that happened over

the previous weeks (but with different websites each

week) as reported above.

Second Week:

1st Stage: During the 2nd week, readers (N = 59) were

given a set of questionnaires to answer on the same

Belize tourism website. The websites focused on three

different aspects related to information comprehension

and online reading strategies for an EFL context. The

questionnaires focused on three different aspects.

Their ability to navigate through and look for

information from the website.

Their ability to meaningfully self-report on the

usability of the website in terms of navigation,

content, and organization.

Their ability to meaningfully self-report on their

reading strategies when analyzing the Belize

tourism website.

The website information comprehension with the

above-mentioned focus was completed in class.

Results on the website information comprehension

questionnaire are beyond the scope of this study.

2nd

Stage: During this stage, participants completed

three usability questionnaires of their impression about

the website, how it helps with navigation, information

search, learning, etc.

Self-Reporting of Reading Strategies (Final Stage):

This article will specifically focus on the self-reported

use of cognitive, metacognitive and support reading

strategies, and a summary report explaining the extent

to which readers were able to complete the website

design and comprehend the website information.

3.1 Instruments

The purpose during the final stage was to ascertain to

what extent these EFL readers are aware of their

metacognitive reading strategies on the web, while

analyzing a website in the target language. This study

is exploratory to some extent because this MARSI 1.0

questionnaire has never before being used for

understanding metacognitive use of reading strategies

for a web analysis context in an EFL setting. Students

self-reported on the degree and extent to which various

reading strategies were used. Questions related to the

different strategies as mentioned in the questionnaire

were in three different groups:

· Global Reading Strategies (GLOB)

· Problem Solving Strategies (PROB)

· Support Reading Strategies (SUP)

This questionnaire session went on as in-class activity

and three undergraduate students closely watched

readers as they completed the assigned activities. As

part of an earlier pilot study (not reported in this

article) with the same questionnaire, three graduate

students took part in actively translating the

questionnaires in Japanese, explained the class about

the activity in Japanese, and also completed an

observation checklist explaining how readers

approached the task of completing the questionnaires.

Three coders were used for recording the participant

choices from the Likert scale in a range of 1 – 5, as

used in the Metacognitive Awareness of Reading

Strategies Inventory (MARSI. Version 1.0)

questionnaire; 1 suggesting a minimal use of the given

strategy and 5 indicating the highest and probably

according to the reader the most successful use of the

reading strategy.

4. Results

The following section provides an in-depth summary

of how the different metacognitive reading strategies

were used when analyzing websites in the target

language. Table 1 shows the mean and standard

deviation of the self-reported scores suggesting the

extent to which each of the 13 approaches under

“global reading strategies” was adopted. Results

indicate that the mean varied between 2.5 and 3.8 on

an average across all global reading strategies, with

most scores in the range of 2.5 and 3.5. The “GLOB”

reading strategy mean score for 13 questions is 3.024.

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics on Self-Reported

Use of Global Reading Strategies

Question Mean Std.Deviation

1 3.83 1.101

3 3.54 1.039

4 2.14 1.137

7 3.42 1.276

10 2.76 1.278

14 2.95 1.265

4


17 3.31 1.221

19 3.71 1.018

22 2.36 1.399

23 2.36 1.228

25 3.39 1.099

26 2.95 1.181

29 2.56 1.249

Table 2 provides the self-reported scores on the use of

7 problem-solving strategies during website analysis in

the target language. For question # 13, we see a high

self-reported mean score of 4.08 suggesting it to be a

popular strategy (I adjust my reading speed according

to what I am reading). The “PROB” reading strategy

mean score for 8 questions is 3.574.


Use of Problem Solving Strategies


8 3.71 1.099

11 3.2 1.27

13 4.08 .915

16 3.64 1.095

18 3.54 1.056

21 3.14 1.358

27 3.83 1.101

30 3.44 1.134

Table 3 provides the self-reported score on the use of 5

support reading strategies during English website

analysis as reported in the experiment undertaken. In

most cases we see a self-reported score of less than or

around 2.5. The “SUP” reading strategy mean score

for 9 questions is 2.762.


Use of Support Reading Strategies


2 2.39 1.287

5 2.31 1.329

6 3.05 1.292

9 2.69 1.368

12 2.66 1.527

15 3.14 1.332

20 3.24 1.278

24 3.34 1.124

28 2.05 1.09

Figure 1 shows a line diagram showing comparative

mean scores on all the 3 subscales. This data shows a

relatively wider use and acceptability of the PROB

metacognitive reading strategy with an overall mean

value of more than 3.5.

Figure 1: Line Diagram Showing Comparative

Mean Scores on all 3 Subscales

Data in Figure 2 shows a relatively wide variability

among the self-reported use and acceptability of the

GLOB reading strategies, with question 1 (I have a

purpose in mind when I read) and 19 (I use context

cues to help me better understand what I am reading)

showing relatively higher values. Data in Figure 3 for problem-solving strategies show a

relatively lesser variability in self-reported scores with

all scores above 3.0, showing relatively more

acceptability and use of problem-solving strategies on an average.


Mean Scores on Global Reading Strategies


Mean Scores on Problem Solving Strategies

0

1

2

3

4

GLOB PLOB SUP Mea

n V

alue

in e

ach

subsc

ale

Subscale Type

0

2

4

6

1 3 4 7 10 14 17 19 22 23 25 26 29

Mea

n V

alu

e

Question in GLOB Subscale

0

2

4

6

8 11 13 16 18 21 27 30

Mea

n V

alue

Question in PROB Subscale

5


Figure 4 shows that all the mean scores on support

reading strategies are around 3.0 with one strategy

showing as little as 2.05 (I ask myself questions I liked

to have answered in the text) and is the minimum for

all strategies combined.


Mean Scores on Support Reading Strategies

Pearson correlation results show a strong pattern

between the reported use of different strategies in

GLOB, PROB and SUP categories. More importantly,

a significant correlation is visible across GLOB,

PROB and SUP categories suggesting similar use of

different strategies across the spectrum.

Data also shows a large number of significant

correlations involving each approach (question). This

data will give us an indication of the extent to which

each strategy usage as reported, were found to be

similar in usage to another strategy, across GLOB,

PROB, and SUP approaches.

Another important research question that needed to be

explored in this context is whether there is any

statistically significant correlation between website

Information Comprehension Scores and self-Reported

scores on Different Reading Strategies.

Table 4: Significant Correlation between Website

Information Comprehension Accuracy Score and

Metacognitive Reading Strategies

Correlation

Between

Pearson Correlation

Value

Sig. (2 –

tailed)

Q 16 ~ Q 9

.279 * .032

Q19 ~ Q5 -.271 * .038

Q20 ~ Q8 .345 ** .007

Data suggested that in most cases, there is not

much of a pattern when it comes to inferring a direct

relation between accuracy scores and metacognitive

reading strategy, suggesting the use of reading

strategies might be generally contextual and something

that readers prefers to use/practice. However, some

statistically significant results were obtained. These are

as shown in Table 4.

The Friedman non-parametric statistical analysis

was performed to find out if there is an overall

statistically significant difference between the mean

ranks of the related reading strategies. This test tells us

whether there are overall differences between related

reading strategies but does not pinpoint which

strategies in particular differ from each other. To do

this we need to run post-hoc tests, but post-hoc

analysis was not considered as part of this study. Data

shows us a Friedman analysis for all 3 sub-scales

(GLOB, PROB, and SUP) combined.

Null Hypothesis: Mean Ranks for all the reading

strategies are equal;

Alternative Hypothesis: Not all the mean ranks are

equal.

Results suggest that there was a statistically

significant difference in perceived use of reading

strategies for all the three sub-scales combined,

depending on which type of strategy was used while

analyzing the English website, χ2 (2) = 382.491, P =

0.000. Since p-value = 0.00 ≤ 0.01 = α, we reject the

null hypothesis.

Friedman Test values for the GLOB subscale

suggest that there was a statistically significant

difference in perceived use of reading strategies within

the GLOB subscale, depending on which type of

strategy was used while analyzing the English

website, χ2 (2) = 165.016, P = 0.000. Since p-value =

0.00 ≤ 0.01 = α, we reject the null hypothesis. Data

shows the Friedman Test values for exclusively the

PROB subscale. Results suggest that there was a

statistically significant difference in perceived use of

reading strategies within the PROB subscale,

depending on which type of strategy was used while

analyzing the English website, χ2 (2) = 38.308, P =

0.000. Since p-value = 0.00 ≤ 0.01 = α, we reject the

null hypothesis. Finally, data shows the Friedman Test

values for exclusively the SUP subscale. Results

suggest that there was a statistically significant

difference in perceived use of reading strategies within

the SUP subscale, depending on which type of strategy

was used while analyzing the English website, χ2 (2) =

67.819, P = 0.000. Since p-value = 0.00 ≤ 0.01 = α, we

reject the null hypothesis.

0

1

2

3

4

2 5 6 9 12 15 20 24 28

Mea

n V

alue

Question in SUP Subscale

6


5. Discussion

Overall results suggest relatively higher levels of

agreement with the statement that the strategies have

been used in more cases than not. However, mean

values on an average show that most strategies in

GLOB and PROB categories have been used

consistently at a higher level when compared to

strategies in SUP section. These findings are consistent

with the literature suggesting that readers with low

reading ability (e.g., as in this EFL context as reported

in the experiment) attached lower importance to

support reading strategies when compared to L1

readers [1].

6. Conclusion

Future studies could be designed to map metacognitive

awareness of reading strategies with actual use of

reading strategies using screen capture software, eye-

tracking data and formal usability testing methods

which forwards direct evidence of how each reading

strategy might have been used. However, some of it

will still be an inference because mental information

processing might not always have direct action

evidence in terms of interaction with the software or

website. However, it might still be a worthwhile study

to conclude.

This study helped in forwarding direct evidence of

how far readers are aware of their use of

metacognitive reading strategies. The fact that this

MARSI questionnaire was filled out right after their

working with the website provided more reliability

because chances are higher that students remembered

what they exactly did when interacting with the

website. Further, separate findings related to GLOB,

PROB and SUP subscales helped us understand how

these reading strategies differ from each other and

how important they are for the reader in a

comparative scale.

7. References [1] Sheorey and Mokhtari, “Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among native and non-native readers”, System, Vol. 29, Issue 4, Dec. 2001, pp. 431–449 [2] Ellen Block, “The Comprehension Strategies of Second Language Readers”, TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 20, Issue 3, Sep. 1986, pp. 463–494 [3] Hosenfeld, Carol, “A Preliminary Investigation of the Reading Strategies of Successful and

Nonsuccessful Second Language Learners”, System, Vol. 5, No. 2, May 1977, p110-123

[4] Jimenez, Garcia, & Pearson, “Three Children, Two Languages, and Strategic Reading: Case Studies in Bilingual/Monolingual Reading”, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 32, No. 1, Mar. 1995, pp. 67-97 [5] Lawrence Jun Zhang, “Effects of task complexity on the fluency and lexical complexity in EFL students’ argumentative writing”, Journal of Second Language Writing, Vol. 19, Issue 4, Dec. 2010, pp. 218–233 [6] Chiyo Hayashi, “Extensive Reading and Intrinsic Motivation to Read”. [Online] http://ci.nii.ac.jp/els/110009458392.pdf?id=ART0009929130&type=pdf&lang=jp&host=cinii&order_no=&ppv_type=0&lang_sw=&no=1357625555&cp= [7] John Seely Brown, “Situated Cognition”, Perspectives on Situated Learning, Educational Technology; spring 1994. [8] Kenneth S. Goodman,Yetta M. Goodman, “To Err Is Human: Learning about Language Processes by Analyzing Miscues,”Reconsidering a Balanced Approach to Reading, Constance Weaver (ed.), Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1998, pp. 101-123. [9] Patricia L. Carrell, "Metacognition and EFL/ESL reading", Instructional Science March 1998, Volume 26, Issue 1-2, pp 97-112 [10] Nebila Dhieb-Henia, “Evaluating the effectiveness of metacognitive strategy training for reading research articles in an ESP context”, English for Specific Purposes, Vol. 22, Issue 4, 2003, pp. 387-417 [11] Marie-Josée Hamel & Catherine Caws, “Usability Tests in CALL Development: Pilot Studies in the Context of the Dire autrement and Francotoile Projects”, CALIC Journal, Vol 27, No. 3, May 2010, pp. 491-504 [12] Sanchez and colleagues. (2001). Effects of headings on text processing strategies. Contemporary Educational Psychology. v26. 418-428. [13] John R. Surber & Mark Schroeder, “Effect of prior domain knowledge and headings on processing of informative text”, Contemporary Educational Psychology, Vol. 32, Issue 3, Jul. 2007, pp. 485-498 [14] Debopriyo Roy, “Reading strategies for procedural information in EFL business writing environment: An exploratory analysis”, Professional Communication Conference (IPCC), 2010 IEEE International, Jul. 2010, pp. 143- 151 [15] Maghsudi, M., and Talebi, S. H. “The Impact of Lingualuity on the Cognitive and Metacognitive Reading Strategies Awareness and Reading Comprehension Ability”, Journal of Social Sciences, 18 (2), 2009, pp. 119-126

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0346251X

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0346251X/29/4

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0346251X/29/4

http://ci.nii.ac.jp/els/110009458392.pdf?id=ART0009929130&type=pdf&lang=jp&host=cinii&order_no=&ppv_type=0&lang_sw=&no=1357625555&cp=

