Page 249
www.rsisinternational.org
ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
A Conceptual Paper on Cognitive and Metacognitive Strategies in L2
Reading among Tertiary ESL Learners
*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.2025.924ILEIID0028
Received: 23 September 2025; Accepted: 30 September 2025; Published: 29 October 2025
ABSTRACT
Reading is central to academic success, yet many ESL learners approach texts passively, focusing on content
rather than adopting strategic reading practices. Consequently, this often results in surface-level processing,
which limits both comprehension and meaningful understanding. Past research has highlighted that reading in
a second language is more complex than reading in one's first language, requiring not only linguistic
knowledge but also the systematic use of effective strategies. The literature distinguishes between cognitive
strategies, which help readers decode and construct meaning, and metacognitive strategies, which enable them
to plan, monitor, and evaluate their comprehension. Across diverse ESL contexts, findings have shown uneven
development of strategic awareness among learners. At the tertiary level, integrating both cognitive and
metacognitive strategies is crucial. Cognitive strategies strengthen understanding and retention, while
metacognitive strategies foster self-regulation and autonomy. Effective instruction, therefore, requires explicit
modelling of strategy use, enabling learners to internalise and apply it during academic reading. This paper
concludes that the dynamic interplay between cognitive and metacognitive strategies is vital for fostering deep
comprehension and enhancing the academic performance of ESL learners.
Keywords: cognitive, metacognitive, reading strategies, L2 reading
INTRODUCTION
Reading is a fundamental skill for academic success in tertiary education. However, English as a Second
Language (ESL) learners often approach texts passively, focusing on what to read (content, information,
vocabulary) rather than how to read strategically. Research has shown that many rely heavily on surface-level
processing—such as memorising or translating—without employing systematic strategies that promote deeper
comprehension (Anderson, 2012; Zhang & Seepho, 2013). Consequently, learners may complete reading tasks
but still struggle to construct meaning, integrate ideas, or monitor their understanding.
Building on this concern, studies consistently indicate that reading proficiency in a second language (L2) is
considerably more demanding than in one’s first language (L1), given the inherent complexity of the process
(Grabe & Stoller, 2002; Zhang & Seepho, 2013). Snow (2002) further noted that many learners face persistent
difficulties in comprehending academic texts, while Eskey (2005) observed that even students with adequate
linguistic competence often encounter obstacles in fully understanding such materials.
The importance of strategy use in addressing these challenges is underscored in Jaiswal’s (2025) 20-year
review of cognitive, metacognitive, and digital reading strategies in English education. Although her review
primarily focused on foundation-level instruction, she emphasised that metacognitive and digital strategies
remain highly relevant in secondary and tertiary contexts. The said relevance is due to the increasing
complexity of academic reading tasks, which are embedded within discipline-specific domains and require
Page 250
www.rsisinternational.org
ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
higher levels of cognitive engagement. Shih (1992) similarly highlighted that thorough comprehension is
indispensable in academic settings, as it underpins students’ ability to perform explicit cognitive and
procedural tasks such as examinations, academic writing, and oral presentations.
A central concern, therefore, lies in the underdevelopment of cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies
among ESL learners. For example, Wen (2003) found that many Chinese students often attribute their
academic reading difficulties to a lack of knowledge in grammar and vocabulary. However, the deeper
challenge lies in their lack of awareness and the ineffective use of metacognitive strategies to regulate their
reading. Likewise, in many tertiary ESL contexts, learners receive little explicit instruction on how to employ
such strategies. As a result, they may engage in extensive reading but lack the necessary awareness of when,
why, and how to apply strategies that enhance comprehension and foster autonomy (Ahmadi et al., 2013).
LITERATURE REVIEW
The distinction between cognitive and metacognitive strategies was first introduced by Flavell (1979), who
defined metacognition as the awareness and regulation of one’s own cognitive processes. This distinction was
soon applied to reading research. Paris et al. (1983), for instance, differentiated between cognitive strategies—
techniques readers use to construct meaning, such as summarising and inferencing—and metacognitive
strategies, which involve planning, monitoring, and evaluating comprehension. Baker and Brown (1984)
further underscored the role of comprehension monitoring, while Kintsch (1988) advanced a cognitive model
explaining how readers integrate textual information.
In the 1990s, researchers broadened these ideas into systematic taxonomies of language learning strategies.
O’Malley and Chamot (1990) and Oxford (1990) distinguished between cognitive and metacognitive
dimensions, whereas Pressley and Afflerbach (1995), using think-aloud protocols, demonstrated how both sets
of strategies operate in real-time during reading. Building on this foundation, Mokhtari and Reichard (2002)
developed the Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory (MARSI) to assess readers’ strategic
awareness. Mokhtari and Sheorey (2002) later adapted this instrument for ESL contexts in the widely used
Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS).
From the 2000s onwards, research moved beyond definitions to highlight applications across diverse
educational settings, particularly among ESL and EFL learners. Studies explored how strategic awareness
contributes to comprehension, academic achievement, and learner autonomy. For example, Zhang and Wu
(2009) examined metacognitive awareness among Chinese EFL learners, while Mokhtari and Sheorey’s (2002)
SORS continued to be employed and adapted across cultural contexts. By the 2010s, scholars such as
Anderson (2012) drew attention to the emerging digital reading environment, where navigating hypertexts and
multimodal texts demands both cognitive and metacognitive strategies.
Within Malaysia, research has similarly examined learners’ awareness and use of reading strategies. Rajab et
al. (2017) found that undergraduates tended to prioritise problem-solving strategies over global or support
strategies. At the secondary level, Razak et al. (2018) reported variations in the use of global, problem-solving,
and support strategies depending on proficiency level. These findings indicate that Malaysian learners employ
strategies in distinct ways across educational contexts, but also suggest uneven development of strategic
awareness. Such insights position local research within the broader global discourse, underscoring the need for
more focused attention on how ESL learners can be supported in developing effective cognitive and
metacognitive strategies.
Importance of Cognitive and Metacognitive Strategies in Tertiary ESL Reading
Reading at the tertiary level poses significant linguistic and cognitive challenges for ESL learners. The
transition from general language learning to advanced and discipline-specific literacy requires learners to equip
themselves with a strategic approach to reading. Linguistically, these learners are challenged by the complexity
of texts, the need to use appropriate reading strategies, and the requirement for advanced vocabulary (Urrutia
et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2023). Meanwhile, from a cognitive facet, reading requires learners to possess
working memory, critical reading skills, motivation, and a positive attitude towards reading (Le et al., 2024;
Page 251
www.rsisinternational.org
ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
Urrutia et al., 2024). As tertiary ESL reading focuses on comprehending academic discourse, integrating
cognitive and metacognitive strategies in reading instruction is deemed crucial for producing proficient readers
who can comprehend texts and effectively self-regulate their learning process, as supported by Yayli (2010)
and Takallou (2011).
Becoming competent readers has long been the primary goal in language learning, spanning from elementary
education to the demands of tertiary level. In fact, as González-Betancor et al. (2022) contend, reading
competence directly affects students’ academic performance. To become competent readers, readers need to
employ both cognitive and metacognitive strategies during the reading process. While cognitive strategies
prepare ESL learners with skills to decode and construct meaning from complex texts, metacognitive strategies
allow them to plan, monitor, and evaluate their comprehension processes; both share the same goal, i.e.,
helping learners to understand and comprehend complex texts. However, their roles differ slightly; the former
strategies function in improving understanding and retention of texts (Babaii et al., 2021), while the latter
enhance comprehension by managing cognitive resources (Kaskosh & Khateb, 2021). It is evident, based on
the findings by Mohammadi et al. (2023), that cognitive and metacognitive strategies have a significant and
direct influence on learners’ critical thinking and reading comprehension, with motivation showing the most
substantial total effect on students’ self-regulated learning. Interestingly, Christhilf et al. (2022) revealed that
different comprehension strategies — paraphrasing, bridging, and elaborating — were consistently applied by
more skilled and successful readers compared to less successful ones while reading the text, demonstrating
their engagement with the text’s core ideas.
Beyond comprehension, metacognition is the engine of learner autonomy. The “thinking about thinking”
processes, which operate in three phases —planning, monitoring, and evaluating —according to Flavell
(1979), enable ESL learners to control and be aware of the comprehension process. These learners have the
capabilities to independently address comprehension issues and search for corrective measures, which reflects
their success in comprehending reading texts. Zhang (2001) asserted that those with strong metacognitive
awareness were more proficient in effectively applying cognitive strategies, and this finding aligns with
Suharto (2025), who observed that the tertiary students possessing higher metacognitive awareness
demonstrated greater confidence and motivation to regulate their reading comprehension journey.
Implications of ESL Instruction and Future Directions
The incorporation of cognitive and metacognitive strategies into instruction is significant for improving
students’ language skills, particularly in reading comprehension. Providing explicit strategy instruction in
classrooms enables ESL instructors to address the diverse needs of readers, which can be effectively
implemented through a structured and systematic approach. For one, modelling or thinking aloud benefits
learners by making cognitive and metacognitive strategies visible; this approach shows how to analyse,
interpret, and reflect on one's understanding in real time. In addition, it is imperative for ESL instructors at the
tertiary level to model effective reading strategies and guide learners on how to apply these strategies
appropriately when dealing with reading tasks. According to Awang et al. (2024), such instructional practices
facilitate learners’ reflection on their reading comprehension processes through structured activities, which
subsequently enhance their reading proficiency.
Furthermore, ESL instructors must equip themselves with a deep understanding of cognitive and metacognitive
reading strategies, as they will be the ones helping learners to process and control reading comprehension.
Such need relates to the concern raised by Ali and Razali (2019), who found that the teachers’ preference for
using certain strategies rather than a diverse range of reading strategies negatively affects students’
achievement in learning. The need to prepare teachers with adequate knowledge of various reading strategies
to address different comprehension questions is also highlighted by Javed et al. (2016), alongside the adoption
of teaching methods specifically tailored to the needs of their students. Expectantly, these strategies will have a
positive impact on both teachers and students in advancing reading comprehension processes and overall
academic performance.
A clear call for future research involves investigating how ESL learners exploit cognitive and metacognitive
reading strategies in real ESL reading classrooms, particularly when engaging with diverse types and
Page 252
www.rsisinternational.org
ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
complexities of reading texts. More insightful findings can emerge by focusing on the relationships between
these two different types of reading strategies throughout the reading process, rather than examining them in
isolation. Moreover, to gain richer insights into the strategies used during actual reading tasks, it is suggested
to move beyond reliance on self-reported questionnaires and instead incorporate other data collection methods
such as observation, interviews, and video analysis.
CONCLUSION
This article highlights the roles of cognitive and metacognitive strategies in L2 reading, as well as their
implications for ESL teaching and learning. Acknowledging the issue that L2 learners often know what to read
but struggle with how to read strategically, the study emphasises the importance of using reading strategies
effectively and appropriately when engaging with texts. The findings revealed that both cognitive and
metacognitive strategies are essential in reading comprehension: cognitive strategies aid in comprehending
texts and utilising the language, while metacognitive strategies empower learners to plan, monitor and evaluate
their comprehension processes. Since high-achieving readers consistently outperform their low-achieving
counterparts, it is essential to emphasise that innovations in ESL reading pedagogy are crucial for bridging this
gap. Therefore, strategic and effective reading will arise from the dynamic interplay between cognitive and
metacognitive domains, i.e., engaging in text comprehension while simultaneously regulating understanding,
to achieve deep comprehension.
REFERENCES
1. 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.
2. Anderson, N. J. (2012). Reading instruction. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to
pedagogy and practice in second language teaching (pp. 218–226). Cambridge University Press.
3. Awang, N. A., Pauzi, N. M., Ismail, W. S. A. W., Ab Ghani, M. A., & Hassanuzin, S. (2024). Assessing
metacognitive strategies for L2 reading: Insights from tertiary ESL classrooms in Kelantan. Quantum
Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 5(6), 442–452.
4. Babaii, E., Permyakova, T. M., & Pozdeeva, E. V. (2021). Strategies in performing a multi-level C-test:
Applying think-aloud protocols. Journal of Language and Education, 7(3), 1–12.
5. Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil,
& P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 353–394). Longman.
6. Christhilf, K., Newton, N., Butterfuss, R., McCarthy, K. S., Allen, L. K., Magliano, J. P., & McNamara, D.
S. (2022). Using Markov models and random walks to examine strategy use of more or less successful
comprehenders. Proceedings of the International Educational Data Mining Society Conference.
7. Eskey, D. E. (2005). Reading in a second language. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second
language teaching and learning (pp. 563–580). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental
inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.
9. 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.
10. Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. (2002). Teaching and researching reading. Pearson Education.
11. Jaiswal, P. (2025). Cognitive, metacognitive, and digital reading strategies in English education: A 20-year
review. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature & Translation, 8(9), 10–18.
12. Javed, M., Eng, L. S., Mohamed, A. R., & Ismail, S. A. M. M. (2016). Identifying reading strategies to
teach literal, reorganisation and inferential comprehension questions to ESL students. Journal of Asia
TEFL, 13(3), 204–210.
13. Kaskosh, E., & Khateb, A. (2021). Implementing meta-cognitive learning strategies to improve intertextual
Arabic comprehension competences: An intervention study among Arabic-speaking tenth graders. Theory
and Practice in Language Studies, 11(7), 757–767.
14. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model.
Psychological Review, 95(2), 163–182.
Page 253
www.rsisinternational.org
ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)
ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS
Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025
15. Le, H. V., Nguyen, T. A. D., Le, D. H. N., Nguyen, P. U., & Nguyen, T. T. A. (2024). Unveiling critical
reading strategies and challenges: A mixed-methods study among English major students in a Vietnamese
higher education institution. Cogent Education, 11(1), 2326732.
16. Mohammadi, R. R., Saeidi, M., & Abdollahi, A. (2023). Modelling the interrelationships among self-
regulated learning components, critical thinking and reading comprehension by PLS-SEM: A mixed
methods study. System, 117, 103120.
17. Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students' metacognitive awareness of reading strategies.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249–259.
18. Mokhtari, K., & Sheorey, R. (2002). Measuring ESL students' awareness of reading strategies. Journal of
Developmental Education, 25(3), 2–11.
19. O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge
University Press.
20. Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning styles and strategies. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University
Round Table on Languages and Linguistics (GURT) 1990: Linguistics, language teaching and language
acquisition (pp. 438–456). Georgetown University Press.
21. Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 8(3), 293–316.
22. Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive
reading. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
23. Rajab, A., Rahman, H. A., Wahab, S. R. A., Nor, F. M., Zakaria, W. Z. W., & Rajim, W. Z. (2017).
Metacognitive reading strategies among undergraduates. International Journal of Information and Education
Technology, 7(7), 548–551.
24. Razak, N. Z. A., Gani, N. A. A., & Ithnin, N. H. C. (2018). Reading metacognitive strategies employed by
ESL learners. IRA International Journal of Education and Multidisciplinary Studies, 12(3), 61–73.
25. Shih, M. (1992). Beyond comprehension exercises in the ESL academic reading class. TESOL Quarterly,
26(2), 289–318.
26. Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. RAND
Education.
27. Suharto, P. P., Damayanti, I. L., & Lengkanawati, N. S. (2025). Exploring metacognitive strategies to
support young learners in developing their learner autonomy. International Journal of Language Education,
9(2), 331–355.
28. 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.
29. Urrutia, M., Mariángel, S., Pino, E. J., Guevara, P., Torres-Ocampo, K., Troncoso-Seguel, M., Bustos, C.,
& Marrero, H. (2024). Impact of affective and cognitive variables on university student reading
comprehension. Education Sciences, 14(6), 554.
30. Wang, C., You, X., & Lu, J. (2023). Reading ability and challenges in a project-based academic report
writing course: A test of the threshold hypothesis. Language Teaching Research, 27(4), 568–585.
31. Wen, Q. F. (2003). The successful way of learning English. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
32. Yayli, D. (2010). A think-aloud study: Cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies of ELT department
students. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 38(3), 234–251.
33. Zhang, L., & Seepho, S. (2013). Metacognitive strategy uses and academic reading achievement: Insights
from a Chinese context. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 10(1), 70–85.
34. Zhang, L. J. (2001). Awareness in reading: EFL students’ metacognitive knowledge of reading strategies in
an acquisition-poor environment. Language Awareness, 10(4), 268–288.
35. Zhang, L. J., & Wu, A. (2009). Chinese senior high school EFL students’ metacognitive awareness and
reading-strategy use. Regional Language Centre Journal, 40(1), 97–111.