INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 3698 www.rsisinternational.org
Determining the Influence of Metacognitive Strategies on ESL
Learners’ Use of Comprehending Strategies: A Study in A Malaysian
Public University
*1Nur Amalina binti Awang, 2Wan Nuur Fazliza binti Wan Zakaria, 3Mohd Faiez bin Suhaimin
1,2Academy of Language Studies, Universiti Teknologi MARA Kelantan Branch, Malaysia,
3Faculty of Computer and Mathematical Sciences, Universiti Teknologi MARA Kelantan Branch,
Malaysia
*Corresponding Author
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.910000304
Received: 10 October 2025; Accepted: 20 October 2025; Published: 11 November 2025
ABSTRACT
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.
Keywords: cognitive, metacognitive, reading strategies, L2 reading
INTRODUCTION
Reading is an essential skill that supports learning across all academic disciplines. Since reading competence is
closely linked to academic success (González-Betancor et al., 2022), it remains a fundamental aspect of second
language learning, especially for ESL learners. According to Mihret and Joshi (2025), proficient readers possess
strong cognitive and linguistic skills, including vocabulary knowledge and executive control. Thus, reading
success depends not only on the level of word recognition (decoding) and text comprehension but also on how
effectively learners process and respond to it.
In second language (L2) contexts, however, reading comprehension poses greater challenges due to limited
linguistic proficiency, smaller vocabulary size, and slower processing speed. Malaysian ESL learners, for
instance, often experience difficulty constructing meaning beyond the sentence level, particularly when dealing
with unfamiliar or complex texts (Romly, Badusah, & Maarof, 2017). These challenges call forth the importance
of using effective reading strategies that can enhance comprehension and overall reading performance.
Among the strategies frequently linked to reading success are cognitive and metacognitive strategies. Cognitive
strategies involve the mental actions used to comprehend, remember, and retrieve information, whereas
metacognitive strategies refer to the self-regulatory processes that guide and control these cognitive actions
through planning, monitoring, and evaluating (Ali & Razali, 2019; Zhang & Zhang, 2019). Research has shown
that readers who are aware of and able to manage these strategies perform better in comprehension tasks (Phakiti,
2006; Muhid et al., 2020). However, many ESL learners remain unaware of how to use these strategies
effectively or how the two interact to support comprehension (Nasab & Ghafournia, 2016; Shinta, 2024).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 3699 www.rsisinternational.org
Recognising this gap, the present study aims to examine the relationship between metacognitive strategies and
the cognitive strategy of comprehending among ESL learners in Malaysia. The present study was therefore set
to address the following objectives:
1. To determine the relationship between metacognitive strategies (planning, monitoring, evaluating) and
the cognitive strategy (comprehending).
2. To identify which metacognitive strategy (planning, monitoring, evaluating) most strongly influences
the cognitive strategy (comprehending).
LITERATURE REVIEW
L2 Reading Comprehension
Alderson (2000) posited that reading is commonly viewed as two-fold across the research literature. The first is
decoding, in which readers recognise words, and the second is comprehension. He further elaborated that
comprehension, as often described by Gough et al. (1992), involves multiple components of cognitive
processing. These include syntactic parsing, discourse-level interpretation, discourse construction, and
integration with prior knowledge. Reading comprehension, in general, is often described as a complex mental
process where readers build meaning from written text by drawing on their background knowledge, vocabulary,
and understanding of language structures (Grabe, 2009). In the L2 reading contexts, this process tends to be
more demanding since ESL learners are still developing their linguistic competence, hence may struggle with
unfamiliar words or sentence patterns (Carrell, 1998), on top of needing to be aware of necessary reading
mechanics (e.g, contextual clues) to aid their comprehension (Pakhiti, 2006). Therefore, in the words of Koda
(2005), comprehension is not just about decoding words, but it is an active process that requires both thinking
and reflection.
Cognitive Strategies in L2 Reading
When reading in a second language, the use of cognitive strategies represents a form of strategic processing, as
learners consciously employ mental operations to construct meaning from text. Purpura (1999) described it as a
multidimensional construct made up of strategies such as comprehending, memorising, and retrieving
information. These strategies interact dynamically to support understanding and contribute significantly to
learners’ language performance. Grabe and Stoller (2011) elucidated that cognitive strategies are the mental
operations that are evident in routine reading activities, such as identifying main ideas, making inferences,
summarising content, and recalling key details to attain comprehension (Anderson, 1991). These strategies
operate at multiple levels of processing. At the lower level, readers engage in word recognition and syntactic
parsing to construct sentence meaning. At the higher level, they connect ideas across clauses, form a coherent
mental representation of the text, and integrate new information with prior knowledge. In essence, reading
involves a continuum of processing that ranges from basic decoding to complex inferential and integrative
activities (Alderson, 2000; Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995).
Metacognitive Strategies and Their Role in L2 Reading
According to Flavell (1979), metacognitive strategies refer to the awareness and control of one’s own cognitive
processes during reading. These strategies enable learners to plan, monitor, and evaluate their approach to a
reading task, helping them regulate the use of appropriate cognitive strategies to achieve better comprehension
outcomes. Building on the role of cognitive processing, Purpura (1999) further conceptualised metacognitive
strategy use as a “unidimensional” construct, encompassing a coordinated set of self-regulatory processes such
as goal setting, planning, monitoring, self-evaluating, and self-testing. Within this framework, planning involves
previewing the text, setting reading goals, and activating prior knowledge. Meanwhile, monitoring refers to
checking comprehension, identifying difficulties, and adjusting reading speed or strategies when necessary. On
the other hand, evaluating occurs after reading, when learners assess how effectively their comprehension goals
have been met. Empirical evidence supports this view, with studies showing that learners who apply these
metacognitive strategies tend to achieve higher levels of reading comprehension (Ahmadi, Ismail, & Abdullah,
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 3700 www.rsisinternational.org
2013; Zhang & Seepho, 2013). Collectively, these findings highlight that metacognitive awareness strengthens
the use and effectiveness of cognitive strategies, thereby facilitating deeper comprehension and overall reading
performance.
Relationship between Metacognitive and Cognitive Strategies in L2 Reading
The relationship between metacognitive and cognitive strategies in reading is widely recognised as reciprocal
and interdependent (Anderson, 2002; Purpura, 1999; Zhang & Wu, 2009). Cognitive strategies are the mental
operations used to construct meaning from text, whereas metacognitive strategies regulate how and when these
cognitive processes are applied (Flavell, 1979; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990). Through metacognitive control,
learners plan, monitor, and evaluate their use of cognitive strategies, which in turn enhances comprehension
performance (Phakiti, 2006; Zhang & Seepho, 2013). Purpura’s (1999) findings reported that metacognitive
processing exerts a direct and positive influence on cognitive processing. This indicates that readers who regulate
their comprehension activities perform better on language tasks. Similarly, the study by Ahmadi, Ismail, and
Abdullah (2013) found that learners with greater metacognitive awareness are capable of employing cognitive
strategies more effectively during reading. In line with these findings, Zhang and Wu (2009) observed that
proficient readers demonstrate stronger coordination between the two, while less skilled readers often apply
cognitive strategies without sufficient monitoring or evaluation.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this research is to determine the extent to which metacognitive strategies (planning, monitoring,
evaluating) are associated with the cognitive strategy (comprehending) and to identify whether the correlation is
positive, negative, or none. Thus, this research is categorised as a correlational research design. It is a non-
experimental approach used to examine the relationship between variables, indicating how two or more variables
are related to another (Salkind, 2012).
Population and Method of Data Collection
The population for this research consisted of 5883 students from UiTM Cawangan Kelantan who were enrolled
in English courses offered throughout their academic programs. Using the Raosoft sample size calculator with a
5% margin of error, 95% confidence level, and 50% response distribution, the required sample size for this
research was determined to be 361 students (Raosoft, 2004).
Primary data were collected through questionnaires adapted from Phakiti (2006). The set of questionnaires
containing 35 questions was divided into five sections. The sections were demographic profile (7 items),
comprehending (5 items), planning (6 items), monitoring (6 items), and lastly, evaluating (5 items). The
questionnaire employed a 5-point Likert scale with the following response options: Never (1), Sometimes (2),
Often (3), Usually (4), and Always (5).
RESEARCH FINDINGS
Normality Test
A normality test is used to see if a set of data is normally distributed in every research. In this research, skewness
is used to quantify how asymmetrical a random variable’s probability distribution is with respect to its mean.
The skewness value may be undefined, positive, or negative. Pallant (2011) claimed that for the data to be
properly distributed, a range of -1 to 1 is acceptable. Table 1 indicates that the data distribution was normally
distributed, as the skewness measure was -0.534.
Table 1: Skewness Result
Skewness value
Skewness -0.534
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 3701 www.rsisinternational.org
Reliability Test
Cronbach’s Alpha was calculated for each item tested in order to perform the reliability analysis. According to
Kline (1999), a value of value greater than 0.7 is the acceptable alpha value in the reliability analysis for the
ability test case. Table 2 below shows that the Cronbach’s Alpha values for all variables are greater than 0.734.
This indicates that the questions for variables in the questionnaires were all valid.
Table 2: Cronbach’s Alpha Values
Variables Cronbach’s Alpha No. of question
Comprehending 0.734 5
Planning 0.883 6
Monitoring 0.910 6
Evaluating 0.879 5
Descriptive Statistics
The descriptive analysis of this research includes the gender of the respondents. The frequency distribution
percentages for gender are displayed in Table 3 below. There were a total of 361 participants, of whom 75.3%
(n=272) were women and 24.7% (n=89) were men.
Table 3: Gender
Gender Frequency Percentage (%)
Male 89 24.7
Female 272 75.3
Total 361 100
Inferential Statistics
To respond to the first objective, a correlation test is performed to determine the relationship between
metacognitive strategies (planning, monitoring, evaluating) towards the cognitive strategy (comprehending). As
shown in Table 4 below, all variables demonstrated significant positive relationships towards the cognitive
strategy (comprehending) (p<0.05). The r-value for planning, monitoring, and evaluating was 0.524, 0.549, and
0.503, respectively. These results indicate moderate, positive relationships between the metacognitive strategies
and the cognitive strategy (comprehending). They align with Lukes’s (2021) and Khellab et al.’s (2022) findings,
which revealed that metacognitive reading strategies led to significant improvements in both learners’
metacognitive awareness and reading comprehension performance, thereby confirming their positive
correlations. Therefore, it can be concluded that the learners who are more aware and frequently apply
metacognitive strategies tend to comprehend reading texts better.
Table 4: Pearson Correlation Result
Variable Comprehending Level
Pearson Correlation Significant
Planning 0.524 0.000 Moderate
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 3702 www.rsisinternational.org
Monitoring 0.549 0.000 Moderate
Evaluating 0.503 0.000 Moderate
Table 5 shows the model summary for the regression model. The value of R Square was 0.326, indicating that
32.6 of % variation in the cognitive strategy (comprehending) was explained by the independent variables,
namely planning and monitoring.
Table 5: Model Summary
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
2 0.571b 0.326 0.322 0.52998
b. Predictors: (Constant), Planning and Monitoring
F-statistics were carried out to find the overall strength of the regression model. As shown in Table 6, the F-
Statistic value was 86.523, and the p-value was less than 0.05, indicating that the model provides a good fit for
the data.
Table 6: ANOVA Result
ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
2 Regression 48.606 2 24.303 86.523 0.000b
Residual 100.556 358 0.281
Total 149.162 360
a. Dependent Variable: Comprehending
b. Predictors: (Constant), Planning and Monitoring
Table 7 presents the results of the regression model. It shows that only two independent variables—planning and
monitoring—significantly influenced the cognitive strategy (comprehending) (p<0.05). This result echoes
Takallou’s (2011) findings, where experimental groups receiving five sessions of metacognitive instruction,
particularly on planning and monitoring, outperformed the control group in the reading comprehension test.
According to Romly et al. (2017), this outcome is attributed to the application of early metacognitive strategies,
which help learners to set clear goals and simultaneously monitor their comprehension, hence positively
impacting their cognitive processes. Muhid et al. (2020) further added that these learners can evaluate and adjust
their approach during reading, which promotes the effective use of cognitive strategies in reading. In addition,
this research also revealed that evaluating strategy is less influential compared to planning and monitoring, which
may be attributed to its nature as a higher-order critical thinking process conducted after reading. Besides,
evaluating involves reflecting and making judgments about the texts, which might not directly affect immediate
comprehension and effective use of cognitive strategies during the reading process (Romly et al., 2017).
Table 7: Regression Model Result
Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 3703 www.rsisinternational.org
B Std. Error Beta
2 (Constant) 1.457 0.171 8.524 0.00
Planning 0.236 0.066 0.247 3.596 0.00
Monitoring 0.314 0.060 0.357 5.195 0.00
a. Dependent Variable: Comprehending
Only one variable, which was “evaluating,” had been removed from the model using the stepwise selection
method since the p-value was greater than 0.05. Therefore, the final regression model is shown below.
Y = B0 + 0.236 X1 + 0.314 X2
Comprehending = 1.457 + 0.236 (Planning) +0.314 (Monitoring)
CONCLUSION
The results of this research found that there is a significant positive moderate relationship between metacognitive
strategies (planning, monitoring, evaluating) towards the cognitive strategy (comprehending), with r-values of
0.608, 0.524, 0.549, and 0.503, respectively (all the p-values are less than 0.05). The strength of these
relationships suggests that students who employ higher levels of metacognitive strategies also tend to perform
better in English comprehension learning. This relationship corresponds with Alderson’s (2000) summary that
the complexity of text is directly proportional to the readers’ processing demand, which makes the process more
automated. Concludingly, this leads to more efficient reading.
In addition, among these three metacognitive factors, planning and monitoring are perceived as the most
influential in affecting the cognitive strategy (comprehending). This means that setting clear reading goals
(planning) and continuously checking understanding (monitoring) during the reading process are particularly
critical for enhancing comprehension outcomes. This scenario reinforces theoretical perspectives that position
planning and monitoring as central mechanisms of metacognitive control, providing learners with the strategic
guidance and ongoing adjustments necessary for effective meaning construction in reading. Future research
could be conducted by using other dimensions of cognitive strategies.
Limitations Of The Study
Absence of reading test performance as a measure of validation. This study only adopted the cognitive and
metacognitive strategy questionnaire developed by Phakiti (2006) but did not include the administration of a
reading test component. Without the performance data, it is difficult to determine how far learners’ reported use
of strategies actually reflects their reading comprehension ability. The findings, therefore, rely solely on self-
reported perceptions, which may not always align with students’ actual reading behaviour or performance
outcomes.
Variation in participants’ proficiency and academic background. The participants in this study consisted of
both diploma and degree students across multiple study programmes, whose English proficiency levels and
learning experiences differed. As their compulsory English language courses were mainly designed to improve
language proficiency (focusing on general language skills) or workplace readiness, their exposure to strategic
reading instruction in the classroom may have varied. Such mix of learners could influence how each group
interprets and reports their use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies. Hence, the results should be viewed
with caution, as differences in proficiency or year of study might have shaped the overall pattern of responses.
Reliance on a single instrument for data collection. This study relied on a single self-report questionnaire to
explore learners’ use of cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies. While such questionnaires provide useful
insights into the participants perceived reading behaviour, they may not fully capture the dynamic processes that
occur during the actual reading tasks i.e. strategic processing. Therefore, the inclusion of multiple sources of
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 3704 www.rsisinternational.org
evidence, such as classroom observations, think-aloud protocols, or semi-structured interviews, could offer a
more balanced and in-depth understanding of how learners apply these reading strategies in practice.
REFERENCES
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.
2. Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge University Press.
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.
4. Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing.
The Modern Language Journal, 75(4), 460–472.
5. Anderson, N. J. (2002). The role of metacognition in second language teaching and learning. ERIC
Digest.
6. Carrell, P. L. (1998). Can reading strategies be successfully taught? The Modern Language Journal,
72(4), 340–354.
7. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental
inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.
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.
9. Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. Cambridge
University Press.
10. Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (2011). Teaching and researching reading (2nd ed.). Pearson Education.
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.
12. Kline, P. (1999). The handbook of psychological testing (2nd ed.). Routledge.
13. Koda, K. (2005). Insights into second language reading: A cross-linguistic approach. Cambridge
University Press.
14. Lukes, M. (2021). Metacognitive strategies used for reading comprehension among adult postsecondary
learners (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University).
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.
16. O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition.
Cambridge University Press.
17. Pallant, J. (2011). SPSS survival manual: A step-by-step guide to data analysis using the SPSS program
(4th ed.). Open University Press.
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.
19. Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively
responsive reading. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20. Purpura, J. E. (1999). Learner strategy use and performance on language tests: A structural equation
modeling approach. Cambridge University Press.
21. Raosoft, Inc. (2004). Sample size calculator. http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html
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).
23. Salkind, N. J. (2012). Exploring research. Pearson.
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.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 3705 www.rsisinternational.org
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.
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.
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.
28. Shinta, Q. (2024). The Influence of Students’ Reading Strategies on Comprehending Reading Texts.
ARMADA: Jurnal Penelitian Multidisiplin, 2(7), 478-483.
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.