Determining the Influence of Metacognitive Strategies on ESL Learners’ Use of Comprehending Strategies: A Study in A Malaysian Public University

Reading comprehension involves more than understanding words—it requires readers to actively monitor and regulate their thinking while constructing meaning from text. This study explores how metacognitive strategies influence ESL learners’ use of comprehending strategies at a Malaysian public university. Drawing on the idea that effective readers plan, monitor, and evaluate their reading, the study focuses on the extent to which these metacognitive processes support the use of cognitive strategies during comprehension. The findings reveal that learners who are more aware of their reading processes tend to apply a broader range of strategies to make sense of texts. Among the various metacognitive behaviours, planning and monitoring appear to play the most critical role in regulating comprehending strategy. These insights highlight the importance of nurturing learners’ metacognitive awareness to develop more independent, self-regulated readers. The study ultimately emphasizes that teaching students how to think about their own reading is just as vital as teaching them how to read.

cognitive, metacognitive, reading strategies

1. Ahmadi, M. R., Ismail, H. N., & Abdullah, M. K. K. (2013). The importance of metacognitive reading strategy awareness in reading comprehension. English Language Teaching, 6(10), 235–244. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Ali, A. M., & Razali, A. B. (2019). A Review of Studies on Cognitive and Metacognitive Reading Strategies in Teaching Reading Comprehension for ESL/EFL Learners. English Language Teaching, 12(6), 94-111. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing. The Modern Language Journal, 75(4), 460–472. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Anderson, N. J. (2002). The role of metacognition in second language teaching and learning. ERIC Digest. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Carrell, P. L. (1998). Can reading strategies be successfully taught? The Modern Language Journal, 72(4), 340–354. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. González-Betancor, S. M., Fernández-Monroy, M., Galván-Sánchez, I., & López-Puig, A. J.(2022). Academic performance of first-year university students: modelling the role of reading competence. Higher Education Research & Development, 42(6), 1422–1437. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (2011). Teaching and researching reading (2nd ed.). Pearson Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Khellab, F., Demirel, Ö., & Mohammadzadeh, B. (2022). Effect of teaching metacognitive reading strategies on reading comprehension of engineering students. SAGE Open, 12(4), 21582440221138069. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Kline, P. (1999). The handbook of psychological testing (2nd ed.). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Koda, K. (2005). Insights into second language reading: A cross-linguistic approach. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Lukes, M. (2021). Metacognitive strategies used for reading comprehension among adult postsecondary learners (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Muhid, A., Amalia, E. R., Hilaliyah, H., Budiana, N., & Wajdi, M. B. N. (2020). The effect of metacognitive strategies implementation on students’ reading comprehension achievement. International Journal of Instruction, 13(2), 847–862. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Pallant, J. (2011). SPSS survival manual: A step-by-step guide to data analysis using the SPSS program (4th ed.). Open University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Phakiti, A. (2006). Modeling cognitive and metacognitive strategies and their relationships to EFLreading test performance. Melbourne Papers in Language Testing, 11(1), 53–96. The University of Melbourne, Language Testing Research Centre. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Purpura, J. E. (1999). Learner strategy use and performance on language tests: A structural equation modeling approach. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Raosoft, Inc. (2004). Sample size calculator. http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Romly, R., Badusah, J., & Maarof, N. (2017). Metacognitive online reading strategies in reading academic texts among ESL university students. In Proceedings of the Seminar on Transdisciplinary Education (pp. 113–121). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Salkind, N. J. (2012). Exploring research. Pearson. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Takallou, F. (2011). The effect of metacognitive strategy instruction on EFL learners’ reading comprehension performance and metacognitive awareness. Asian EFL Journal, 13(1), 272–300. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Zhang, L. J., & Seepho, S. (2013). Metacognitive strategy use and academic reading achievement: Insights from a structural equation modeling approach. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 10(1), 54–69. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Zhang, L. J., & Wu, A. (2009). Chinese senior high school EFL students’ metacognitive awareness and reading strategy use. Reading in a Foreign Language, 21(1), 37–59. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Nasab, E., & Ghafournia, N. (2016). Relationship between multiple intelligence, reading proficiency, and implementing motivational strategies: A study of Iranian secondary students. International Journal of Education & Literacy Studies, 4(3), 34-40. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Shinta, Q. (2024). The Influence of Students’ Reading Strategies on Comprehending Reading Texts. ARMADA: Jurnal Penelitian Multidisiplin, 2(7), 478-483. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Zhang, D., & Zhang, L. J. (2019). Metacognition and self-regulated learning (SRL) in second/foreign language teaching. In Second handbook of English language teaching (pp. 883-897). Cham: Springer International Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study