Decision-Making Skills in Independent Reading: Malaysian TESL Pre-University Students’ Perceptions through Herbert Simon’s Decision-Making Framework

Independent academic reading within academic context requires learners to make continual decisions about which strategies to apply, how to allocate time, and when to adjust approaches. For TESL pre-university students in Malaysia, these decisions are critical as they engage with complex academic texts in preparation for higher education. Drawing on Herbert A. Simon’s decision-making framework, which emphasizes bounded rationality and satisficing under constraints, this concept paper attempts to explore how these advanced language learners perceive decision-making during independent academic reading. Prior research highlights that while ESL learners report strong awareness of reading strategies, performance gaps remain, often due to difficulties in monitoring comprehension and adapting strategies effectively. By situating reading within Simon’s bounded rationality, this study conceptualizes decision-making skills as problem-solving under cognitive and contextual limitations. Findings are expected to shed light on the decision points learners identify (e.g., slowing down, rereading, or seeking external support) and the cues that shape those choices. The study contributes theoretically by reframing decision-making process in academic reading practically by offering insights for TESL instructors to scaffold adaptive choices, thereby enhancing reading literacy and supporting Malaysia’s broader educational agenda.

Simon’s Decision-making Framework, Academic Reading

1. Abd Halim, N., Satimin, O., Obaid, A., & Ghazali, A. S. (2022). Relationship between metacognitive awareness of reading strategies and reading comprehension. AJELP: Asian Journal of English Language and Pedagogy, 10(1), 56–67. https://doi.org/10.37134/ajelp.vol10.1.5.2022 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P. D., & Paris, S. G. (2008). Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61(5), 364–373. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.61.5.1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing. The Modern Language Journal, 75(4), 460–472. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1991.tb05384.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Anggia, H., Fitriani, H. S., Ningsih, A. P., & Atmowardoyo, H. (2024). University students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies and English reading comprehension. PLOS ONE, 19(10), e0313254. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313254 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Azmuddin, R. A., Mohd Nor, N. F., & Hamat, A. (2017). Metacognitive online reading and navigational strategies by science and technology university students. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 17(3), 18–36. https://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2017-1703-02 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 417–444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143823 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Callender, A. A., & McDaniel, M. A. (2009). The limited benefits of rereading educational texts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1), 30 - 41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.07.001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Carrell, P. L. (1989). Metacognitive awareness and second language reading. The Modern Language Journal, 73(2), 121–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1989.tb02534.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Good, T. L., Wiley, C. R. H., & Florez, I. R. (2009). Effective teaching: An emergingsynthesis. In L. Saha, & A. G. Dworkin (Eds.). International handbook of research on teachers and teaching. 21, 803–816 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73317-3_51 Springer US [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Hunutlu, S. (2023). Self-regulation strategies in online EFL/ESL learning: A systematic review. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 14(2), 136–166.https://doi.org/10.37237/140203 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Jeevaratnam, J. A., & Stapa, M. (2022). Exploring metacognitive reading strategies used by low and high proficiency form three ESL students. Journal of Nusantara Studies, 7(1), 335-365. http://dx.doi.org/10.24200/jonus.vol7iss1pp335-365 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99(1), 122–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.122 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Karimi, H. & Ferreira, F. (2016) Good-enough linguistic representations and online cognitive equilibrium in language processing, The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(5), 1013-1040, DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2015.1053951 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Li, X., Ahmad, N. K., & Jamil, H. B. (2024). Factors influencing EFL/ESL students’ use of reading strategies: A systematic review. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 23(11), 89–112. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.23.11.5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Metcalfe, J., & Kornell, N. (2005). A region of proximal learning model of study-time allocation. Journal of Memory and Language, 52(4), 463–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.12.001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.249 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Mokhtari, K., Dimitrov, D. M., & Reichard, C. A. (2018). Revising the Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory (MARSI) and testing for factorial invariance. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8(2), 219–246. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.2.3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. National Library of Malaysia. (2023). READING PROFILE OF MALAYSIANS 2022/2023. National Library of Malaysia. www.pnm.gov.my/pnm/resources/pdf%20file/ PROBACA_ENGLISH.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 26, 125–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60053-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Noushad B, Van Gerven P.W.M., de Bruin A.B.H. (2024)Exploring the use of metacognitive monitoring cues following a diagram completion intervention. Adv Health Sciience Education Theory Practice.. doi: 10.1007/s10459-023-10309-9. Epub 2024 Jan 29. PMID: 38285312; PMCID: PMC11368990. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and development. (2023). PISA 2022 results (Volume I): The state of learning and equity in education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/79913c69-en [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Pleskac, T. J., & Hertwig, R. (2014). Ecologically rational choice and the structure of the environment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(5), 2000–2019. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000013 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Prabha, C., Connaway L. S., Olszewski, L., &. Jenkins, L. R. (2007) “What is enough? Satisficing information needs.” Journal of Documentation, 63 (1), 74-89. Pre-print available online at: http://www.oclc.org/research/publications/archive/2007/prabha-satisficing.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Rajab, A., Abdul Rahman, H., Abdul Wahab, S. R., Mohd Nor, F., Wan Zakaria, W. Z., & Rajim, W. Z. (2017). Metacognitive reading strategies among undergraduates. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 7(7), 548–553. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2017.7.7.928 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Sharma, A., Van Hoof, H. B., & Ramsay, C. (2019). The influence of time on the decisions that students make about their academic reading. Active Learning in Higher Education, 20(1), 79-92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417731200 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among native and non-native readers. System, 29(4), 431–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00039-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioural model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118. https://doi.org/10.2307/1884852 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Simon, H. A. (1979). Rational decision making in business organizations. The American Economic Review, 69(4), 493–513. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of grounded theory methods. Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Tamin, I. B. & Büyükahıska, D. (2020). Reading Strategy Instruction on Metacognitive Awareness: The Case of Turkish High School Students. The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 20(2), 82 – 97, [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Teng, F. (2020). The Benefits of Metacognitive Reading Strategy Awareness Instruction for Young Learners of English as a Second Language. Literacy, 54, 29-39.https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12181 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Thiede, K. W., Anderson, M. C. M., & Therriault, D. (2003). Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 66–73. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.66 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Yan, V. X., Thai, K.-P., & Bjork, R. A. (2014). Habits and beliefs that guide self-regulatedlearning: Do they vary with mindset? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3(3), 140–152. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0101799 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Zimmerman, B. J., & Moylan, A. R. (2009). Self-regulation: Where metacognition and motivation intersects. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 299–315). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Zhang, R., & Zou, D. (2022). Types, features, and effectiveness of technologies in collaborative Writing for second language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(9), 2391-2422. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1880441 [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