EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN METACOGNITION,
L1 READING ABILITY, L2 LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND L2
READING COMPREHENSION AMONG CHINESE UNIVERISTY
EFL LEARNERS
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By Lin Guo, M.A. Graduate Program in Education
The Ohio State University 2014
Dissertation Committee:
Dr. Alan Hirvela, Advisor Dr. Ian Wilkinson Dr. Richard Lomax
1
Copyright by Lin Guo 2014
2
Abstract
Reading is a multi-componential process comprising an array of knowledge and skills. Though numerous studies in the field of native language (L1) reading have identified factors that influence reading comprehension in a complex way, there has been little research which has explored the influence and interaction of these factors on second language (L2) reading comprehension. In an attempt to help fill that gap in the research literature, this study addressed the following questions: 1) What is the difference in metacognitive strategy use when Chinese university English as a foreign language (EFL) learners approach L1 (Chinese) and L2 (English) texts? 2) Are metacognition, L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency separate constructs? 3)
What is the relationship between metacognition, L1 reading ability, L2 language proficiency, and L2 reading comprehension among Chinese university English as a foreign language (EFL) learners?
The study employed a quantitative research approach that included an English proficiency test, reading comprehension tests, and metacognitive strategy questionnaires as its data gathering instruments. Participants were 268 sophomore university students learning English as a foreign language in China and the data was collected in classrooms during the normal English class sessions. The dependent ii
samples t-test disclosed similar and different patterns in which the Chinese university
EFL learners approached L1 texts and L2 texts. Confirmatory factor analysis suggested that metacognition, L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency were separate constructs. Structural equation modeling indicated that 1) metacognition, L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency were significantly correlated; 2) metacognition, L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency all directly contributed to L2 reading comprehension; 3) metacognition assumed a more dynamic relationship with L2 reading comprehension by exerting an indirect impact on L2 reading by means of L1 reading ability and L2 language knowledge; 4) L2 language proficiency also yielded a distal influence on L2 reading comprehension via L1 reading ability; 5) taking into consideration both the direct and indirect effects, metacognition accounted for more variance in L2 reading comprehension when compared with L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency.
In a nutshell, the findings of this study provide new insights into the scholarship on L2 reading by suggesting that metacognition was the common underlying proficiency across L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency and provided a platform for both cognitive and linguistic factors to work in tandem for L2 reading comprehension. Furthermore, the results revealed that L2 language proficiency and L1 reading ability establish the grounds for metacognition to function in an effective manner.
iii
Acknowledgements
Pursuing a doctoral study is journey full of challenges, efforts and wonders.
Writing a dissertation is a process of discovery, reflection and anticipation. I would like to take this opportunity to extend my gratitude to my advisor Dr. Alan Hirvela.
Thank you for taking the time and effort to review my drafts and offering thought- provoking comments. Needless to say, the discussions with you during the office hours always awakened me to new ideas. Without your supervision, I could not have put my feet on the right track or improved my multiple drafts. Also, I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Charles Hancock. Under his guidance, I shaped my research interest in metacognition; with his encouragement, I drafted the research proposal. In addition, I need to thank Dr. Richard Lomax for joining my dissertation committee and writing me the supportive email when I was receiving medial treatment in China. Also, I need to express my appreciation of Dr. Ian Wilkinson’s constructive comments during my proposal defense and the reading lists he suggested.
I have to say that had it not been for my committee members’ support, I could not have identified the weakness in my proposal and refined my drafts.
Apart from the academic support I have received, I have to express my deepest
iv
gratitude for the spiritual and financial support from my parents. Whenever I feel stressed, depressed or overwhelmed in the doctoral study, your phone calls immensely keep my chin up. I can feel your firm belief in my potential of being a researcher, which drives me to brush off and move on.
Lastly, I would like to extend my thankfulness to those people who offered me help in the process of writing my dissertation. Thanks to Uncle Shen for contacting universities in China and printing the test materials. Thanks to those teachers and students who participated in my research project. Thanks to Yingxue Zheng for always being on my side and sharing her experience through emails and phone calls.
In brief, writing a dissertation is a painstaking process; however, all of your affection toward me transforms it into a rewarding experience. The words I write down are not strong enough to convey my gratitude for the support I have received in the past five years. All of your faces and voices flash through my mind and move me to tears as I wrote the acknowledgements.
v
Vita
2002…………………………………..…B.A. English
Nanjing University, Nanjing, China
2005…………………………………..…M.A. English
Nankai University, Tianjin, China
Fields of study
Major Field: Education (Foreign, Second and Multilingual Education)
Minor Field: Educational Measurement and Evaluation
vi
Table of Contents
Abstract ...... ii
Acknowledgements ...... iv
Vita ...... vi
Table of Contents ...... vii
List of Tables ...... xi
List of Figures ...... xiii
Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1
1.1 Purpose of the study ...... 7
1.2 Statement of research gaps ...... 8
1.3 Research questions ...... 10
1.4 Significance of the study ...... 10
1.5 Methodology ...... 12
1.6 Basic assumptions ...... 13
1.7 Limitations ...... 14
vii
1.8 Definition of key terms ...... 14
1.9 Summary ...... 19
1.10 Overview of the dissertation ...... 20
Chapter 2: Literature Review ...... 22
2.1 Reading models ...... 24
2.2 The relationship between L1 reading ability and L2 reading comprehension
...... 28
2.3 The relationship between L2 language proficiency and L2 reading
comprehension ...... 32
2.4 Indicators of L2 (English) language proficiency ...... 36
2.5 Metacognition and L2 reading comprehension ...... 42
2.6 Reading strategies ...... 47
2.7 Summary ...... 55
Chapter 3: Methodology ...... 59
3.1 Participants and the research setting ...... 61
3.1.1 Participants ...... 61
3.1.2 Setting ...... 63
3.2 Data Gathering Instruments ...... 64
3.2.1 Metacognitive awareness of reading strategies inventory ...... 64
3.2.2 L2 (English) language proficiency test ...... 69 viii
3.2.3 L2 Reading Comprehension Test (English) ...... 73
3.2.4 L1 Reading Comprehension Test (Chinese) ...... 75
3.3 Data Collection Procedures ...... 75
3.4 Data Analysis ...... 78
3.4.1 Descriptive statistics and Data screening ...... 79
3.4.2 Dependent samples t-test ...... 80
3.4.3. Confirmatory factor analysis ...... 81
3.4.4 Structural equation modeling ...... 82
3.5 Summary ...... 87
Chapter 4: Results ...... 88
4.1 Data Issues and Descriptive Statistics ...... 89
4.2 Research Question 1 ...... 91
4.3 Research Question 2 ...... 99
4.3.1 Establishing the measurement model for metacognition ...... 101
4.3.2 Establishing the measurement model for L1 reading ability ...... 102
4.3.3 Establishing the measurement model for L2 language proficiency ...... 102
4.3.4 Establishing the measurement model for L2 reading comprehension ...... 103
4.3.5 Confirmatory factor analysis of the overall measurement model ...... 103
4.4 Research Question 3 ...... 107
4.4.1 Model 1.1 ...... 107
ix
4.4.2 The Re-specified Model 1.2 ...... 110
4.5 The Final Full-Latent Variable Model ...... 118
4.6 Summary ...... 119
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion ...... 122
5.1 Introduction ...... 122
5.2 Interpretations of Research Results ...... 124
5.2.1. Discussions of Research Question 1 ...... 124
5.1.2 Discussions of Research Question 2 ...... 138
5.1.3 Discussions of Research Question 3 ...... 143
5.3 Implications ...... 152
5.3.1 Theoretical Implications ...... 152
5.3.2 Methodological Implication ...... 155
5.4 Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research ...... 156
5.5 Concluding Comments ...... 160
References ...... 163
Appendix A: Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory . 178
x
List of Tables
Table 3.1. Summary of the Latent variables, Observed variables and Instruments ..... 60
Table 3.2. Strategy Category, Description and Item Numbers ...... 67
Table 3.3. Items in Global reading strategies, Problem-solving strategies and
Supporting strategies ...... 68
Table 3.4. 12 Basic Aspects of Sentence Structure ...... 72
Table 3.5 Summary of the tools in this study ...... 87
Table 4.1 Descriptive statistics and correlations among observed variables ...... 90
Table 4.2 Dependent samples t-test ...... 95
Table 4.3. The most frequently used strategies in Chinese and English reading ...... 97
Table 4.4. The least frequently used strategies in Chinese and English reading ...... 98
Table 4.5. Summary of the model fit indices used in this study ...... 100
Table 4.6. Comparison of the models ...... 106
xi
Table 4.7. The correlations between metacognition, L1 reading ability, ...... 114
L2 language proficiency and L2 reading comprehension in Model 1.2 ...... 114
Table 4.8. Sobel test statistics of the mediation effect of CREAD and ELP ...... 115
Table 4.9. The direct, indirect and total effects of metacognition, ...... 117
L1 reading ability, and L2 language proficiency on L2 reading comprehension ...... 117
Table 4.10. Comparison of model fit indices of Model 1.1 and Model 1.2 ...... 118
xii
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 The “dual-iceberg” representation of the Model of Common Underlying
Proficiency ...... 45
Figure 3.1. Observed variables of L2 reading comprehension ...... 74
Figure 3.2. Data Collection Procedure ...... 76
Figure 3.3 Data Analysis Procedure ...... 78
Figure 4.1. Overall strategy uses in Chinese and English reading ...... 93
Figure 4.2. The overall measurement model ...... 104
Figure 4.3. Model 1.1 ...... 108
Figure 4.4. Model 1.2 ...... 112
xiii
Chapter 1: Introduction
According to Cummins’ (1979) Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis, in the course of learning a first language, language learners acquire a set of knowledge and skills that could be retrieved when learning a second language. If a learner already has certain procedural, conceptual knowledge in the native language (L1), it is easier for him to understand the second language (L2) input involving similar procedural and conceptual knowledge. What the learner needs to do is to acquire the label for the concept. Otherwise, the learner would have a difficult time if he has to acquire both the concept and the label in the L2 (Cummins, 1991).
Closely connected with Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis, another hypothesis regarding the relationship between the L1 language and the L2 language is the Linguistic Threshold Hypothesis (Cummins, 1979). The main argument of
Linguistic Threshold Hypothesis is that L2 language learners have to attain a threshold L2 linguistic competence before they could positively apply their L1 language knowledge and skills in L2 language development.
Though Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis and Linguistic Threshold
Hypothesis differ in their discussion of the relative significance of the L1 language
1
proficiency and the L2 language proficiency, Cummins (1979) argues that the two languages do not function separately, but rather are fused by a common underlying cognitive/academic proficiency.
The assumption of a common underlying proficiency has been illustrated by the analogy of an iceberg. The peak of the iceberg symbolizes the distinct features of each language, and the common base connecting the two icebergs symbolizes the unified source of thought. That is to say, L1 and L2 skills are manifestations of a cognitive/academic proficiency underlying both languages. To be more specific, consider Chinese and English. Though Chinese and English are distinguished from each other in the surface features of their orthography, morphology, syntax and lexicon, they are linked beneath by a common base that functions as a central executive mechanism manipulating and monitoring language knowledge. As a result, the development of one language could expand the base and thereby exert a beneficial effect on the development of another language.
In the context of reading, which is the focus of this study, to reach the goal of comprehension requires of readers not only language knowledge, but also procedural knowledge that helps bring prior knowledge into full play. Procedural knowledge involves the effective use of strategies (i.e., how to orchestrate strategies to handle a difficult task). Compared with declarative knowledge, that is, the knowledge about
“what” the strategies are, procedural knowledge is related to “how”, “when” and
2
“why” to use strategies in accordance with the tasks (Schraw, 1998; Zohar, 2009).
Rather than an end unto itself, procedural knowledge is a means to improve the performance of cognitive activities (Kuhn, 2000; Zohar, 2009). Operating as a central executive mechanism, metacognition could activate procedural knowledge to deal with cognitively demanding tasks (Flavell, 1979).
The term metacognition was coined by Flavell (1979) to refer to “knowledge or beliefs about what factors or variables act and interact in what ways to affect the course and outcome of cognitive enterprises’’ (p. 907). As a dynamic system, metacognition consists of four dimensions: metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive experience, task/goal, and strategies/action. The metacognitive knowledge facilitates metacognitive experience by enabling learners to transfer their strategies and skills to similar situations. On the other hand, metacognitive experience strengthens and enriches metacognitive knowledge as well as affects one’s goal of a cognitive activity and one’s strategies to accomplish a desired goal. Therefore, the four dimensions of metacognition are intertwined. Simplifying the four dimensions, Schraw (2001) postulated that metacognition involves two interrelated aspects: knowledge of cognition and regulation of cognition. The regulation process is materialized through the learner’s application of strategies to solve problems. Both Flavell (1979) and
Schraw (2001) pinpointed that metacognition functions to regulate and monitor cognitive activities and is manifested through the use of strategies. Strategy is a term
3
commonly referred to as “the special thoughts or behaviors that individuals use to help them comprehend, learn, or retain new information” (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990, p.1). Cognitive strategies are necessary when dealing with a specific problem, while metacognitive strategies are necessary in order to understand how the problem was solved (Schraw, 1998). Mokhtari & Sheorey (2002) classified metacognitive reading strategies into three categories: global strategies, problem-solving strategies and supporting strategies. Moreover, it is reported that skilled readers “are aware not only of which strategies to use, but they also tend to be better at regulating the use of such strategies” because metacognitive strategies enable them to “reflect on and monitor their cognitive activities” (Mokhtari & Sheorey, 2002, p.445). Thus, it is felt that if learners can be taught the strategies necessary to plan, monitor, and evaluate their approach to reading, their reading comprehension can be optimized (Oxford, 1990).
The optimal benefit of metacognition on reading comprehension has been supported by the research on reading models. Kintsch’s (1988) Construction-
Integration Model suggests that the goal of comprehension is achieved through higher-level cognitive processing. The construction of text meaning consists of three levels: surface level, text base, and situation model. The surface level refers to the analysis of the text’s vocabulary and syntax. The text base is the reader’s mental representation of the semantic content of the text at the local and the global levels.
The situation model refers to the mental representation of the situation described in
4
the text, which requires the integration of a text’s meaning with readers' prior knowledge, such as content knowledge, inferences, and elaboration (Kintsch, 1988;
Kintsch et al., 1990). The reader's primary goal is comprehension, which is reflected in the situation model. Within the framework of the Construction-Integration Model, language knowledge corresponds mainly with lower-level processing (e.g., word decoding, sentence parsing and proposition forming), while metacognition corresponds mainly with higher-level processing (e.g., making hypothesis, drawing inferences and activating background knowledge). In this regard, metacognition plays a crucial role in achieving the primary goal of reading comprehension.
Likewise, it has been claimed by various scholars that reading comprehension does not occur automatically. Instead, it requires deliberate and conscious effort on the part of the reader. For English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners, reading has been seen not only as a language problem with respect to vocabulary and syntax, but also a reading problem where the quest for reading proficiency creates competition for cognitive resources (Alderson, 1984). For example, when reading a simple text in their L1, EFL learners should have sufficient cognitive resources to activate and drawn upon in order to construct a coherent meaning for the text. However, in L2 reading, word-level and sentence-level processing may entail the use of more cognitive resources than in L1 reading. When the demand for cognitive resources is larger than the available supply, EFL learners will have to resort to lower level
5
processing at the cost of higher order thinking, resulting in diminished capacity to construct an overall understanding of the text. That is to say, when lingering on the process of linguistic decoding, EFL learners direct their attention to analyze the
“small units of the text…to the extent that their L2 knowledge and proficiency allows them” (Wurr, 2003, p.159). In contrast, they could actively make meaning out of the text if they are able to “apply whatever strategies and resources (e.g., text, context, pragmatic cues, and schema) that they have available to them in the reading process”
(Wurr, 2003, p.159). Therefore, metacognition, as the executive control mechanism, could help EFL learners allocate cognitive resources in an efficient way, so as to maximize their performance when several processes are competing for the limited cognitive resources at hand. Moreover, in the face of text inconsistencies or confusion, metacognition is materialized in the form of strategies to work in tandem with language knowledge so as to detect the problem and craft a solution.
In the discussion of metacognition, one controversial issue has been the relative contribution of cognitive and linguistic factors to reading comprehension.
Though some researchers assert that reading strategies are teachable (Oxford, 1990), and recommend that strategy instruction should be integrated into L2 language instruction to foster students’ metacognitive awareness and automaticity of strategy use, other researchers contend that strategies do not guarantee good reading performance (Block, 1992). Even if metacognition can provide learners with
6
strategies to handle comprehension breakdowns, the general cognitive ability cannot override limitations in language knowledge. To be specific, in the context of L2 reading, the strategies acquired through L1 reading experience might compensate for the deficits in L2 language knowledge to facilitate the reading process, but the strategies cannot replace L2 language knowledge. In this sense, the controversial relationship between metacognition, L1 reading ability, L2 language proficiency, and
L2 reading comprehension merits empirical research. However, to date, such research has been limited, resulting in a gap in our understanding of L2 reading.
Therefore, to address this gap in the literature, this study examined the three factors that are considered to be predictors of L2 reading comprehension: 1) L1 reading ability, specified in this study as the learner's ability to understand expository texts in Chinese; 2) L2 language proficiency, specified as the knowledge of vocabulary, implicit grammar, and explicit grammar in English; 3) metacognition, specified as strategies in reading Chinese texts and in reading English texts.
1.1 Purpose of the study
Specifically, the purpose of this study was threefold:
1. The first purpose was to ascertain Chinese university EFL learners’ differences in strategy use when they approach texts in Chinese and English.
2. The second purpose was to examine whether metacognition, L1 reading
7
ability, and L2 language proficiency were distinct constructs.
3. The third purpose was to explore the relative contribution of metacognition,
L1 reading ability, and L2 language proficiency to L2 reading as well as the indirect influence of the three predictors on L2 reading.
1.2 Statement of research gaps
The seminal question in the L2 reading field as to whether deficient L2 reading is a language problem or a reading problem (Alderson, 1984) has not yet been answered definitively. Previous research examining the relative contribution of
L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency to L2 reading focused on ESL learners in primary school or secondary school settings. Few studies have focused on university students learning English as a foreign language. This study addressed that research gap by eliciting participants among university-level EFL learners in China.
In addition, previous research focused on comparing the strategies used by successful readers and unsuccessful readers, but few studies have presented a clear picture of the differences in the strategy use when EFL learners approach L1 texts and
L2 texts, not to mention studies on the L1 when it is not a cognate language of the L2, that is to say, when there is significant distance between the two languages. Therefore, this study addressed the research gap by exploring the different patterns of strategy use in reading L1 (Chinese) and L2 (English) texts, since Chinese and English are
8
distinguished from each other in terms of orthography, morphology, syntax, and lexicon.
Furthermore, previous research argued for the dominant role of L2 language proficiency in English reading comprehension. However, we still lack a clear vision of the relative contribution of Chinese (L1) reading ability and English (L2) language proficiency to English (L2) reading. Furthermore, though the Model of Common
Underlying Proficiency states that L1 language and L2 language are linked by a common underlying proficiency, little empirical research has focused on the influence of the common underlying proficiency on L2 reading comprehension. The current study thus addressed the research gap by combing through the influence and interaction of L1 reading ability, L2 language proficiency, and metacognition (as the common underlying proficiency) on L2 reading comprehension.
Last but not least, previous research mainly examined the variance in L2 reading comprehension accounted for by its predictors through regression analysis.
However, the method of regression analysis does not take measurement errors into consideration and thus raises questions about the validity and reliability of the results obtained. This study addressed the research gap by using a robust research method called Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to control for the measurement errors.
This study also addressed the research gap by using SEM to examine not only the direct relationship but also the indirect relationship between multiple variables.
9
1.3 Research questions
The current study sought to answer the following questions:
1. What are the differences in the strategy use when Chinese university
English as a foreign language (EFL) learners approach L1 (Chinese) and L2 (English) texts?
2. Are metacognition, L1 reading ability, and L2 language proficiency separate constructs of L2 reading comprehension?
3. What is the relationship between metacognition, L1 reading ability, L2 language proficiency and L2 reading comprehension?
1.4 Significance of the study
The exploration of the relationship between metacognitive strategy use, L1 reading ability, L2 language proficiency, and L2 reading comprehension yielded a number of findings that could make theoretical, methodological, and pedagogical contributions to the research field of L2 reading and language learning. These are discussed in detail in Chapter 5 but will be reviewed briefly here.
Firstly, from a theoretical perspective, the results of this study contribute to further theoretical understanding of the relationships at work in L2 reading. Previous attempts at such theorizing, such as the Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis,
Linguistic Threshold Hypothesis and the Model of Common Underlying Proficiency,
10
have played important roles in looking at the relationship between L1 language proficiency and L2 language proficiency as well as the relationship between general cognitive ability and specific language knowledge, but they have not provided full accounts of the interaction of those factors impacting on L2 reading comprehension.
In addition, this study specified the constructs of L2 language proficiency and metacognition in the context of reading. This careful operationalization of the constructs allowed for a more accurate estimation of the contribution of each construct and helped to account for more variances in L2 reading comprehension.
Therefore, the results of this study make it possible to extend such theories and perhaps entertain new possibilities.
Secondly, from a methodological perspective, this study used the previously seldom employed approach called Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to examine the relationship between metacognition, L1 reading ability, L2 language proficiency and L2 reading comprehension. Up to now, only a few studies (Phakiti, 2008; Pupura,
1997, 1998; van Gelderen et al., 2003) have investigated the relationship between the cognitive characteristics of ESL learners and L2 reading test performance. Similarly, few studies have examined the variables of metacognition, L1 reading ability, and L2 language proficiency in a single model, not to mention the effect of one variable on another. Thus, the use of Structural Equation Modeling in this study allows for a richer examination of the relationship among these variables.
11
Thirdly, from a pedagogical perspective, this study sheds light on the ways in which strategies, L1 reading ability, and L2 language knowledge influence L2 reading performance. The results could provide EFL teachers and learners with a repertoire of strategies to facilitate L2 reading comprehension. Also, the results enhance teachers’ understanding of integrating strategy instruction into language curriculum and test preparation. In addition, the results provide insights into the positive influence of L1 reading ability on L2 reading comprehension and thereby serving as a new index for incorporating L1 reading materials as background information and conceptual knowledge for L2 reading instruction.
1.5 Methodology
The study employed a quantitative research approach that included an English proficiency test, an English reading comprehension test, a Chinese reading comprehension test, and a metacognitive strategy questionnaire as its data gathering instruments. 266 college level sophomore students learning English as a foreign language at a university in China took part in the study, with the data collected in classrooms during the normal English class sessions. Data were gathered on-site in
China during the spring semester, 2013.
12
1.6 Basic assumptions
This research was conducted on the basis of the following assumptions:
1. The first assumption was that Chinese university EFL learners’ strategy use in reading L1 texts and L2 texts was different due to the different linguistic features of
Chinese and English.
2. The second assumption was that L1 reading ability was significantly related to L2 language proficiency based on the Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis.
3. The third assumption was that metacognition was significantly related to L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency based on the Model of Common
Underlying Proficiency.
4. The fourth assumption was that metacognition, L1 reading ability, and L2 language proficiency made significant contribution to L2 reading comprehension.
5. The fifth assumption was that the participants in this study understood the directions in the English proficiency test, the English reading test and the Chinese reading test and they completed the items as carefully and truthfully as in the authentic testing situation.
6. The last assumption was that the participants in the study understood the items in the metacognitive strategy questionnaires and reported their strategy use as carefully and truthfully as possible.
13
1.7 Limitations
The current study has some limitations as listed below.
Firstly, the participants in this study were solicited from the Sophomore students from a university in China. They shared similar experiences in learning
Chinese and English. Thus, the generalization of the research findings is limited.
Secondly, the research instrumentation was another limitation. Metacognition was measured through the Metacognitive Awareness of Strategy Inventory (MSAI).
However, there might be a discrepancy between the reported strategy use and the actual strategy use among the participants. Therefore, the inventory cannot give the complete representation of the participants’ strategy use.
1.8 Definition of key terms
Given the considerable amount of research on L2 reading and the subsequent use of a host of important terms that might have been defined differently across the studies conducted, it was necessary to operationalize a number of key terms used in this study. The following definitions of key terms in this study consist of both connotative and operational meanings.
EFL
It refers to English as foreign language learning. In this study, EFL is operationalized as the learning of English as a foreign language among Chinese
14
university-level students. EFL is commonly distinguished from English a second language (ESL), as it is the case in ESL settings that learners have wide and easy access to the target language, whereas EFL learners have little exposure to the target language outside the language classroom. Hence, their conditions for learning the language contrast significantly with those at hand for ESL learners. This was the case for the participants in this study, as China is considered an EFL setting.
L2 language proficiency
It refers to the ability of learners to use the English language to carry out a variety of reading, listening, speaking, and writing tasks. The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) divides proficiency into: "novice",
"intermediate", "advanced", and "superior". In this study, it focuses on learners’ knowledge of grammar and knowledge of vocabulary.
L1
It refers to the native language. In this research, L1 refers to Chinese.
L2
It refers to the target language that one tries to learn. L2 encompasses both second and foreign languages. In this research, L2 refers to English.
Less skilled reader
It refers to readers who “are quite limited in their metacognitive knowledge about reading” and “do relatively little monitoring of their own memory,
15
comprehension, and other cognitive tasks” and “focus on reading as a decoding process rather than as a meaning-getting process” (Mokhtari, Kouider, & Reichard,
2002, p.249). In this study, limited skilled reader refers to Chinese university-level
EFL learners who tend to use more bottom-up and decoding strategies most of the time during their reading process, and they are less metacognitively aware of how to regulate and evaluate their strategy use in the reading process.
Metacognition
It refers to ‘‘thinking about thinking’’ (Anderson, 2003). Metacognition, in this research, consists of two aspects: awareness of one’s cognitive reading process, and the regulation of the reading process including planning, monitoring, and evaluating reading comprehension.
Reading
Reading is the interplay among reader-based components (e.g., background knowledge), text-based components (e.g., words, syntax), and the context-based components (e.g., learning English as a foreign language) (Bernhardt, 1991). In this study, reading is a multi-componential process that requires both specific language knowledge and general cognitive ability.
Reading comprehension
It refers to the process of extracting meaning from the text or the process of constructing mental representations of the text. In this study, reading comprehension
16
is operationalized as the process of representing texts at three levels: the surface level, text base, and the situation model (Kintsch & van Dijk, 1978).
Reading strategies
It refers to the mental thoughts and actions consciously used by the readers to understand, store, and retrieve information from a text (Koda, 2005). In this study, reading strategies are operationalized as deliberate, intentional, and goal-oriented actions and thoughts employed by Chinese university-level EFL students to plan, monitor, and evaluate their reading process.
Skilled reader
It refers to readers who are able to apply “general world knowledge to comprehend text literally as well as to draw valid inferences from texts, in their comprehension of words, and in their use of comprehension monitoring and repair strategies” (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998, p. 62). In this study, skilled reader refers to
Chinese university-level students who are more aware of what strategies to use, when, where and how to use strategies to facilitate both L1 and L2 reading comprehension.
Skilled readers are found to be better at orchestrating a variety of strategies in a systematic way and reflect on and revise their strategy use.
Strategies
It is a term commonly referred to as “the special thoughts or behaviors that individuals use to help them comprehend, learn, or retain new information”
17
(O’Malley & Chamot, 1990, p.1). Cognitive strategies are necessary when dealing with a specific problem, while metacognitive strategies are necessary in order to understand how the problem is solved (Schraw, 1998). This study focused on the strategies used in reading academic texts and categorized the strategies into three groups: global reading strategies, problem-solving strategies and support strategies.
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)
It is a multivariate analytic procedure for representing and testing interrelationships between observed variables and constructing interrelationships among the constructs (Bentler, 1995). In this study, SEM was used as the primary analytic tool to depict the relationship among metacognition, L1 reading ability, L2 language proficiency, and L2 reading comprehension in a single model.
TOEFL iBT
It refers to the TOEFL Internet-based test (TOEFL iBT). The new TOEFL iBT consists of four sections: Reading, Listening, Speaking, and Writing. It measures how well students use English, not just their knowledge of the language. In this research, the reading subtest of TOEFL iBT was used to assess participants’ English reading comprehension.
18
1.9 Summary
Reading is a both a cognitive and a linguistic process that requires not only specific language knowledge but also general cognitive ability. That is to say, to achieve the goal of comprehension, the learners should not only have a certain level of linguistic knowledge, but also have the cognitive ability to manipulate the linguistic knowledge in an effective way.
As stated in Cummins' (1979) Linguistic Interdependent hypothesis, L2 competence is partly determined by the prior development of L1 competence. Due to the distinct linguistic features of Chinese and English regarding orthography, morphology, syntax and lexicon, it was reasonable to assume that Chinese EFL learners approach Chinese texts and English texts in different ways. Regardless of the language distance between them, Chinese and English overlap on a common cognitive proficiency that manages and monitors the knowledge of both languages. Though
EFL learners have two language systems at their disposal, the linguistic knowledge is not ready for use without an executive mechanism that manipulates the application of linguistic knowledge in an effective way (Block, 1986). Metacognition, in essence, is the common underlying proficiency that links the two languages together and functions as the executive mechanism that controls the language knowledge.
Therefore, to optimize reading performance, EFL learners need the L1 and the L2 language knowledge as well as the control system. Metacognition, as the executive
19
mechanism, works in conjunction with both L1 and L2 language knowledge to help
EFL learners detect reading problems and craft a solution.
In the context of reading, metacognition is materialized through the use of strategies to facilitate reading comprehension. When the reading is smooth, strategies occur automatically. However, when faced with comprehension breakdown, strategies are invoked consciously. The employment of strategies is a demonstration of EFL learners’ metacognitive control of their cognitive resources as well as linguistic resources. Thus, strategies offer a lens through which researchers could explore EFL learners’ cognitive activities when reading L1 and L2 texts.
However, the controversial issue of the relative contribution of metacognition and language knowledge to L2 reading comprehension has not been resolved. Thus, this study not only examined the differences in the strategy use when EFL learners approach L1 and L2 texts, but also made attempts to explore the dynamic relationship between metacognition, L1 reading ability, L2 language proficiency, and L2 reading comprehension.
1.10 Overview of the dissertation
This dissertation consists of five chapters.
Chapter One introduces the topic investigated and its related research gaps, the study’s research questions, the significance of this study, definitions of its key terms,
20
a review of the assumptions guiding the study, limitations of the study and a brief description of its methodology.
Chapter Two discusses the study’s theoretical framework and reviews the major theoretical and empirical research on the contribution of metacognition, L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency to L2 reading comprehension.
Chapter Three describes the study’s methodology in detail, including: 1) research design; 2) participants and setting; 3) research instruments, and 4) data collection procedure and data analysis approaches.
Chapter Four reports the quantitative data analysis results derived from the metacognitive strategy questionnaire, English proficiency test, and Chinese and
English reading comprehension tests. It relates the results to the three research questions, respectively.
Chapter Five briefly summarizes the study’s results and discusses its major research findings in relation to the research questions posed. It concludes by addressing the limitations of the study and recommendations for future research.
Finally, this chapter presents implications arising from this study in the domains of theory, methodology, and pedagogy.
21
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Whether in L1 or L2, reading is considered to be a multi-componential process that requires varying types of knowledge and skills (Alderson, 1984; Bernhardt, 2005; van Gelderen et al., 2007; Yamahata, 1999, 2002). Some researchers have divided the components into two clusters: the language dependent factors and the language independent factors. The former involve language-specific skills such as word decoding, sentence parsing, and proposition forming, etc.; the latter refers to cognitive and metacognitive skills such as strategic competency of predicting, summarizing, making inferences, and synthesizing, etc. Other researchers have categorized the components into lower-level processes and high-level processes based on the extent to which automaticity was acquired (Grabe, 2009; Nassaji, 2003; Yamashita, 2013). The lower-level processes serve as the base for the higher-level processing. Therefore, if the former take up much of the reader’s cognitive resources, the latter would be greatly impeded (Perfetti et al., 2005; Stanovich, 1980; Yamashita, 2013).
Compared with L1 reading, the L2 reading process has been assumed to be more complex due to the influence of two key factors: L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency (Alderson, 1984). While some studies have identified the
22
influence of L1 reading ability on L2 reading, other studies have demonstrated the strong influence of L2 language proficiency on L2 reading. Furthermore, research has gained momentum in examining the influence of the linguistic distance between L1 and L2 on L2 reading. Though numerous studies have attempted to test the assumption that L2 reading is a cognitive skill more than a linguistic skill (Flavell
1979), the results have been inconclusive. Moreover, little research has explored the interaction between cognitive factors and linguistic factors when accounting for the variances in L2 reading. If we could find out how the combination of the set of skills and knowledge lead to individual differences in L2 reading, we could provide insights into the theoretical conceptualization of the L2 reading process. For this reason, this study focuses on exploring the relationship between metacognition, L1 reading ability, L2 language proficiency, and L2 reading comprehension.
This chapter reviews the related theoretical and empirical studies so as to provide background information relative to the present study’s research questions.
Firstly, theoretical models of the L1 and L2 reading processes are highlighted.
Secondly, this chapter presents an overview of the empirical research that examines the contribution of L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency to L2 reading, followed by a review of the indictors of L2 language proficiency. Thirdly, this chapter reviews literature concerning the influence of metacognition, with a focus on
23
strategies, on L2 reading. Empirical studies that investigate the relative contribution of metacognition and L2 language proficiency to L2 reading are also discussed.
2.1 Reading models
Reading has been regarded as a cognitive process in the individual mind
(Grabe, 2004; Weir & Urquhart, 1998). However, reading is different from other general cognitive activities, such as reasoning, because it involves reader’s background knowledge, text information, and situational context of reading (Grabe &
Stoller, 2002; Mokhtari & Reichard, 2004; Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001). Though there are divergent views regarding whether the reading process is universal across languages, an overview of L1 reading models helps to identify the essential components of L2 reading.
Until the late 1960s, the dominant reading model was the “bottom-up” model
(LaBerge & Samuels, 1974), which regards reading as a linear process of sentence level word decoding and recognition. In the late 1960s and 1970s, researchers advocated a “top-down” processing model (McConkie & Rayner, 1975), which viewed reading as what has been called a “psycholinguistic guessing game” in which readers focus on developing an overall understanding of a text. They form and revise hypotheses about the meaning as they proceed through the text. Here they employ diverse sources of background knowledge as well as predictions of the text’s content.
24
Different from the top-down model which undervalued word decoding and also different from the bottom-up model which undervalued background knowledge, the interactive model (Rumelhart, 1977) stresses the interaction between bottom-up and top-down processing, thereby enabling deeper investigation into the complicated
L2 reading process (Eskey & Grabe, 1988; Goldman & Rakestraw, 2000; Pressley,
2002; Stanovich, 1980). Here there is also a place for “schema theory,” which highlights the role of previously acquired knowledge (Carrell & Eisterhold, 1988;
Rumelhart, 1980). The bottom-up processing maps the incoming new information with the existing background knowledge and combines it into a higher-level schema.
The top-down processing makes predictions and inferences based on the higher-level schemata (Carrell & Eisterhold, 1988).
Developing the interactive reading approach, Stanovich’s (1980) Interactive-
Compensatory model put forward a compensatory assumption which argued that “a process at any level can compensate for deficiencies at any other level” (p.36). In this perspective, the reading process consists not only of integrating information from diverse sources but also of activating one key source of background knowledge to make up for the deficiency of another source of knowledge.
Kintsch & van Dijk (1978) further develops our understanding of the L1 reading process by proposing three levels of text representation in his Construction-
Integration model: surface level, the text base, and the situation level. The surface
25
level representation refers to the lexical and syntactic analysis of the text. The text base refers to the mental representation of text meanings at a semantic level through a network of propositions. In this sense, it could be thought of as a paraphrase of the text. The situation model refers to the mental representation of text meanings in a given situation. This representation is elaborated from background knowledge and integrated with it. Since the reader’s primary goal is comprehension, the situation level is considered as the most important level of comprehension.
Drawing on the previous L1 reading models, researchers propose L2 reading models and consider nonlinguistic factors that might influence the L2 reading process.
For example, Bernhardt (2005) put forward a three-dimensional L2 reading model to account for differences between L1 and L2 reading. This model consists of three variables: 1) first language literacy, which contributes 20% to L2 reading, 2) second language knowledge, which contributes 30% to L2 reading, and 3) unexplained variance, which explains the remaining 50%. In this model, L1 literacy is referred to as both the lower-level skills, such as word decoding, and higher-level knowledge of text structure, genre, and background knowledge. L2 Knowledge consists of morpho- syntactic knowledge, cognate knowledge, and knowledge of the language distance
(Bernhardt, 2005). Unexplained variance includes strategies, interest, and motivation
(Bernhardt, 2005). Rather than depicting a linear relationship among the factors,
Bernhardt views them as operating within a “switching process” (Bernhardt, 2005, p.
26
140). From this point of view, reading difficulty in one language could be compensated for by activating strategies and knowledge from another language.
To sum up, the models of the reading process suggest that reading is a complicated process that requires the coordination of various kinds of knowledge and skills. It is implied in these models (the Interactive model, the Interactive-
Compensatory model and the Construction-Integration model) that language knowledge (e.g. word decoding) corresponds to the lower-level processing while cognitive skills (e.g. strategies) correspond to the higher-level processing. The higher- order cognitive skills enable readers to create the situation model and achieve the goal of comprehension. Though these models address the cognitive factors in the reading process, none of them clearly depict the relative contribution of cognitive factors and linguistic factors to reading comprehension. When it came to creating a model calibrated specifically to L2 reading, few researchers have included L1 reading ability as a necessary component. Bernhardt’s (2005) model, in this regard, may be seen as the most comprehensive, in that it accounted for L1 reading ability, L2 language proficiency, and unexplained variance in L2 reading. An implication from Bernhard’t
(2005) model and Stanovich’s (1980) model is that a good L1 reader might use cognitive skills and subject knowledge developed in L1 reading experience to construct meaning in L2 texts, thereby compensating for L2 language proficiency.
However, no reading models have presented a clear picture of the interaction among
27
metacognition, L1 reading ability, and L2 language proficiency in L2 reading process.
In the following section, I review a number of empirical studies that have partly examined the influence of L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency on
L2 reading, in an attempt to demonstrate that the research on the relationship between the three factors would broaden the scope of our understanding of L2 reading process.
2.2 The relationship between L1 reading ability and L2 reading comprehension
In recent discussions of the influence of L1 reading ability on L2 reading, a controversial issue has been whether EFL learners could transfer or access their L1 knowledge and skills when triggered by L2 input. On the one hand, some have argued that L1 literacy skills, once acquired, are ready to transfer to L2 reading (Cummins,
1979; Esling & Downing, 1986). On the other hand, others have argued that without reaching a certain level of L2 language proficiency, the transfer of L1 reading skills to
L2 texts is hampered (Clark, 1980). Differently, some researchers claim that learners fail to unlock their L1 literacy skills in L2 reading because they encounter difficulty in gaining access to L1 skills (Walter, 2004, 2007). However, whether it is an argument of transfer or access, both sides have acknowledged the correlation between L1 reading ability and L2 reading.
Cummins’ (1979) Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis makes a strong case that if the first language is fully developed, it could positively influence L2 learning.
28
However, if the L1 has not adequately developed at a particular stage, it would be hard for the L2 learners to achieve the desired competence level. Similarly, Esling &
Downing (1986) claimed that in language learning, learners acquire certain skills and seem to transfer the skills from the first language to the second language. They assumed a universal pattern of three stages for skill development. In the first, or cognitive, stage, learners identify what they should do. In the second, or mastering, stage, they practice performing the skills. In the third stage, automaticity, they become autonomous in applying the skills acquired. They proposed that literacy "is learned only once in an individual's lifetime though he or she may transfer those skills to other specific languages" (Esling & Downing, 1989, p.60). What was implied in their transfer hypothesis was that the literacy skill, once acquired, is ready to transfer from one language to another. The essence of the literacy skill is "knowing how" (Esling &
Downing, 1989, p. 57). Similar ideas were later proposed involving procedural knowledge, including the knowledge of why to do and how to do (O'Malley &
Chamot, 1990). From this point of view, it is inferred that literacy skills could be transferred from one language to another and thus, they are universal across languages.
Different from the metaphor of transfer, Walter (2004) proposes that the L2 reading process should be characterized as “access” to comprehension skills developed in L1 reading experience. Walter’s (2004) study claims that limited L2
29
working memory gives rise to lower-intermediate readers’ difficulty to access their comprehension skills. If the claim is true, it would support the hypothesis that reading is “a general cognitive skill developing at the same time as the L1” rather than a linguistic skill (Walter, 2004, p.16).
However, another line of reading research insists that the strength of the relationship between L1 reading ability and L2 reading ability depends on the closeness of the two languages (Jiang & Kuehn, 2001; Sparks et al., 2008; van
Gelderen et al., 2004, 2007). Studies on alphabetic languages found a significant correlation between L1 and L2 reading ability. For example, regression analysis showed that the correlation between Spanish reading ability and English reading ability was significant (Jiang & Kuehn, 2001). Structural equation modeling presented a high correlation between Dutch and English reading ability (R2= .71, p = .014) (van
Gelderen et al., 2007). From a developmental perspective, Schoonen et al. (2004) analyzed the components of L1 Dutch and L2 English reading comprehension.
Structural equation modeling results demonstrated that the contribution of L1 reading ability to L2 reading comprehension was significant and substantial.
In contrast, if the two languages differ greatly in orthography, the L1 language skills might adversely impact L2 learning (Akamatsu, 1999, 2003; Keung & Ho,
2009; Wang & Koda, 2005). The rationale for this argument is that different writing symbols activate different cognitive processes in reading. Alphabetic languages such
30
as English require readers to segment words into structural units such as phonemes, whereas logographic languages like Chinese require the readers to be sensitive to overall visual cues (Koda, 2005, 2007). In contrast, some studies disclosed a significant and positive influence of Chinese reading ability on English reading
(Bialystok, McBride-Chang, & Luk, 2005; Wang, Perfetti, & Liu, 2005).
Furthermore, Wang et al. (2006) found out that morphological awareness transferred across Chinese and English reading.
To sum up, the influence of L1 reading ability on L2 reading has not been set in stone. Taking into consideration the influence of L1 orthographic properties, research on the relationship between Chinese reading ability and English reading comprehension has not given us a clear picture in terms of the direction and magnitude of the correlation. By determining the correlation between L1 reading ability and L2 reading, especially in languages where there is greater linguistic distance, we could conceptualize the information processing involved. For example, if it is found that Chinese reading positively influences the cognitive functioning in L2 reading, it would suggest that L2 language proficiency does not play the dominant role in L2 text processing. In this regard, it challenges the prevalent “English only” teaching approach in the language classrooms in China. Moreover, it provokes thoughts about what factors stimulate learners to access L1 reading skills when triggered by L2 texts. Thus, it is necessary to gain a thorough understanding of the
31
relative contribution of L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency to L2 reading, which has great theoretical and pedagogical implications. The following section reviews the literature in this area.
2.3 The relationship between L2 language proficiency and L2 reading comprehension
Alderson (1984) posed the seminal question of whether deficient L2 reading is a language problem or a reading problem. It was proposed that L2 reading is a language problem for L2 learners of low language proficiency and a reading problem for L2 learners of high language proficiency. In response to Alderson’s (1984) question, research in L2 reading gains new momentum in examining the contribution of L1 reading ability to L2 reading among learners of different L2 proficiency levels.
Among the few L2 reading models that include L1 reading ability as a component, L2 language proficiency is still regarded as the most important predictor to L2 reading.
In discussions of the relative contribution of L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency to L2 reading, one controversial issue has been which factor is more beneficial to L2 reading. As discussed in the previous section 2.2, some researchers have argued that L1 literacy-related knowledge and skills facilitate L2 reading. Good L1 readers are more likely to become good L2 readers. On the other hand, based on Cummins’ (1979) Linguistic Threshold Hypothesis, other researchers contend that L2 language proficiency plays a dominant role and exerts direct
32
influence on L2 reading. L2 learners must obtain a threshold L2 linguistic competence before they could positively apply L1 knowledge and skills to benefit L2 language development. Similar to Linguistic Threshold Hypothesis, Clarke (1980) argues that learner’s lower L2 language proficiency creates a linguistic ceiling that “will short- circuit the good reader’s system, causing him/her to revert to poor reader strategies when confronted with a difficult or confusing task” (p. 206). That is to say, a linguistic threshold level does exist and “must be crossed before first language reading ability can transfer to second language context” (Alderson, 2000, p. 39).
Otherwise, for those learners of lower L2 language proficiency level, their L1 reading ability will make no much impact in their L2 reading performance.
Though there is room for speculation on the argument of the predominant role of L2 language proficiency, empirical studies shed light on it. It is reported that to a large degree, lower-level L2 learners have trouble in employing L1 reading skills (e.g. reading strategies, using prior knowledge) to extract meaning from L2 texts (Brisbois,
1995; Lee & Shallert, 1997; Taillefer, 1996; Yamashita, 1999, 2002). Thus, some researchers suggest that L2 proficiency makes more contribution to L2 reading as the learner's L2 proficiency level increases.
A study by Taillefer (1996) among 53 French university sophomore EFL students found that L2 language ability did not contribute to L2 reading for students of low L2 language proficiency but accounted for 19% of the variance in L2 reading
33
for students of high L2 language proficiency. It was surprising to find no significant relationship between L1 reading ability and L2 reading.
Similar results were shown in Yamashita (1999), in which Japanese EFL learners were divided into three groups (high, middle, low) based on their L2 proficiency. L2 language proficiency accounted for 22% of the variance in L2 reading in the High group, much higher than in the Low group and Middle group. Also, L1 reading ability did not contribute to L2 reading in the Low group and Middle group, but the contribution increased to 5% for the High group. In the same vein, Brisbois
(1995) examined the relative contribution of L1 reading ability, L2 language proficiency to L2 reading among English native speakers learning French as a second language at the beginning level and the advanced level. It was reported that L1 reading ability accounted for 20.5% of the variance in L2 reading for the learners at the advanced level and 11.1% for the learners at the beginning level. In comparison, the contribution of L2 language knowledge to L2 reading dropped from 10.4% for the learners at the advanced level to 9.0% for the learners at the beginning level.
To push the research a step further, Yamashita (2002) divided 241 Japanese university-level EFL learners into three levels (high, middle, low) based on both L1 reading ability and L2 proficiency. The multiple regression analysis revealed that high
L1 reading ability compensated for low L2 language proficiency, and high L2 language proficiency compensated for low L1 reading ability. The mutual
34
compensation between L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency worked to achieve the highest possible level of L2 reading. The research findings indicate that deficiency in one source of knowledge could be made up by another source of knowledge.
Overall, the above-mentioned studies lend empirical evidence to Linguistic
Threshold Hypothesis and suggest that the L2 language proficiency accounts for more variances in L2 reading for learners of higher-level L2 language proficiency.
However, the threshold level is flexible due to the influences of different task demands, different social-cultural contexts of learning, and different L1 reading ability. That is to say, there is no specific, absolute threshold level that is applicable to
L2 language learners of different proficiency levels (Cummins, 2000). Therefore, more empirical research is needed that “describes and explains the changing relationships among various facets of L2 proficiency and reading sub-skills development” (Grabe, 2009, p. 148).
Taken together, given the inconsistent amount of variance explained by L2 language proficiency and L1 reading ability to L2 reading, it is highly likely that a more careful operationalization of the independent variables is necessary to construct a reliable model of L2 reading. The rationale is that if the instruments to measure L2 language proficiency consist of the measurement of reading ability (e.g. semantic processing), the outcome is biased towards the correlation between L2 language
35
proficiency and reading comprehension. In this regard, when it comes to the constructs of L2 language proficiency, a set of indictors should be clearly defined and selected. Some studies that have claimed a greater influence of L2 language proficiency on L2 reading used inadequate instruments to measure proficiency level.
For example, Purpura (1998, 1999) included reading passages in the comprehensive test of L2 language knowledge. Carrell (1991) used TOEFL test scores to indicate L2 proficiency level. Bernhardt & Kamil (1995) used grade level to determine L2 proficiency level. In these cases, reading comprehension was a component of the L2 language proficiency test and thereby raised the issue of test validity. For this reason, it is crucial to conduct a careful analysis of the indicators of L2 language proficiency for their predictability of L2 reading. In that vein, the following section discusses the operationalization of the indicators of L2 language proficiency.
2.4 Indicators of L2 (English) language proficiency
Previous research measures L2 (English) language proficiency from a variety of aspects, such as word recognition, phonemic decoding, syntactic feature recognition, reading comprehension, vocabulary, and grammar (Bernhardt, 1991;
Bernhardt & Kamil, 1995; Purpura, 1997, 1998; Phakiti, 2003). As stated in section
2.3, the problem with the research instruments employed is that the reading ability is a component of language proficiency and thereby raises the issue of test validity. For
36
example, word recognition and phonemic decoding also represent reading ability.
Therefore, the outcome of the proficiency test is strongly influenced by the learners’ reading skills. To avoid such an influence, the current study referred to knowledge of vocabulary and grammar as components of English language proficiency, since they have been regarded as the representation of English language proficiency in many models (Bachman, 2002; Purpura, 1998) and as the predictors of L2 reading (e.g.,
Nation, 2006; Barnett, 1986; Kintsch, 1998). Moreover, this study used Nation’s
(1990) vocabulary test to measure participants’ knowledge of vocabulary size, grammaticality judgment task to measure knowledge implicit grammar and structure test to measure the knowledge of explicit grammar. In this way, the measurement of
English language proficiency is least intervened by the participants’ ability of semantic processing that is closely related to reading ability.
When focusing on the predictability of vocabulary and grammar to L2 reading, the body of literature has witnessed controversial research findings. A number of studies have suggested that vocabulary outweighs grammar in explaining the variances in L2 reading. The variances explained by vocabulary and grammar in
Brisbois (1995) were 9.3% (vocabulary) vs. 1.1% (grammar), and 7.6% (vocabulary) vs. 1.4% (grammar) for readers of low proficiency level and high proficiency level, respectively. A study among Japanese students by Yamashita (1999) presents 0.34 vs.
0.07 for the correlation of vocabulary and grammar to L2 reading, respectively.
37
Through structural equation modeling, van Gelderen et al.’s (2004) study of Dutch- speaking ESL adolescents found that vocabulary knowledge made a unique contribution to reading when controlling for metacognitive knowledge. Using hierarchical regression analysis, McCarty’s (2000) research on L2 Spanish learners at the university level showed that vocabulary knowledge accounted more for the variances in L2 reading comprehension than grammar knowledge. The above- mentioned research involved participants of different L2 proficiency levels, different
L1 backgrounds, and different analytical approaches, but they drew the same conclusion of a larger contribution of vocabulary knowledge than grammar knowledge to L2 reading.
On the contrary, some research results indicate “the importance of knowledge of particular syntactic structures, or the ability to process them, to some aspects of second language reading” (Alderson, 2000, p.37). In a written test of vocabulary and grammar among L2 German learners in an English-speaking university, Roehr (2007) found that learners’ German proficiency was more correlated with their grammar knowledge. Using simultaneous regression analysis, Shiotsu (2010) found that for both higher-level and low-level EFL readers, grammatical knowledge was more correlated to L2 reading. Using the structural equation modeling approach, Van
Gelderen et al.’s (2003, 2004) studies manifested a stronger correlation between grammar and reading than between vocabulary and reading among EFL learners at the
38
secondary level in the Netherlands. Later, Shiotsu & Weir (2007) conducted three studies to explore the relative contribution of vocabulary breadth and syntax to reading comprehension. The first two pilot studies were carried out on a sample of
EAP students with heterogeneous L1 backgrounds and L2 learning experience at the tertiary level in the UK and a homogenous sample of EFL undergraduates in Japan, respectively. The main study involved a larger sample of homogeneous Japanese undergraduate students. In the whole group analysis, syntax turned out to be a more significant predictor of L2 reading comprehension than vocabulary in terms of the regression weight (.64 vs .25) and the unique contribution to reading comprehension
(12% vs 2%). For the simultaneous group analysis for high achievers and low achievers, the relative significance of syntax over vocabulary was the same for both groups. Also, these studies involved participants of different proficiency levels, different L1 backgrounds, and different data analysis approaches; however, they proposed the same argument that grammar knowledge accounts for more variances in
L2 reading when compared with vocabulary knowledge.
Taken together, while the research just reviewed claims validity of their studies, there are some problems in their research design: 1) the sample size was small, such as 50 learners in Bossers (1992) and 84 students in Brisbois (1995); 2) the test to measure vocabulary and grammar knowledge was embedded in context and thereby influenced by the ability of semantic processing, such as context-based Cloze
39
test in Yamashita (1999); 3) analytical approaches such as multiple regression carried a potential threat of predictor reliability, such as multiple regression using raw scores as independent variables in Yamashita (1999). Therefore, it is worthwhile to examine if a more careful operationalization of English language proficiency could increase the amount of variance explained in L2 reading.
However, few studies have examined the subcomponents of vocabulary and grammar knowledge as predictors of English language proficiency. To fill this research gap, vocabulary in the current study was operationalized as vocabulary size, which referred to how much one knows about vocabulary.
The rationale for re-specifying the subcomponents of grammar was based on their different functions. Implicit grammar refers to the knowledge of language use, which involves automatic processing without effort. Explicit grammar comprises declarative knowledge of grammatical rules and formal language properties, which involve controlled processing (Ellis, 2008). Butler (2002) examined the explicit knowledge of the English article system among adult Japanese EFL learners. High proficiency learners outperformed low-proficiency learners in a fill-in-article test, which indicated the correlation between English language proficiency and explicit grammar. In the same vein, R. Ellis (2008) focused on adult ESL/EFL learners and found that explicit knowledge strongly correlated with the International English
Language Testing System (IELTS) exam scores. Furthermore, Han and Ellis (1998)
40
measured implicit and explicit knowledge of upper intermediate level adult EFL learners. The measurement of implicit knowledge consisted of an oral production test and a timed grammaticality judgment task; explicit knowledge was measured by an untimed grammaticality task and a metacomment task. Except for the metacomments, the other measures were significantly correlated with the Secondary Level English
Proficiency Test. In brief, it has been observed that explicit grammar and implicit grammar are closely related to English language proficiency and therefore could be used as indicators of English language proficiency.
As regards the measurement instrument of vocabulary size, implicit grammar and explicit grammar, this study was different from the previous studies. In order to be separated from the reading test, the vocabulary and grammar tests in the current study involved measurement instruments which required little of the context-bound meaning but much of the ability to parse sentences into syntactic structures or to combine words into propositions (Urquhart & Weir, 1998). For this purpose, the present study used decontextualized sentence structures to measure the knowledge of explicit grammar, and a grammaticality judgment task to measure the knowledge of implicit grammar. In the same line, knowledge of vocabulary size was measured by a vocabulary level test that required minimal text-focused or context-based processing.
The rationale for the selection of the research instruments was to limit the influence of text processing to the minimum. Otherwise, if the vocabulary and grammar test placed
41
weight on the semantic processing in the context, they were highly likely to overlap with a reading test.
Shifting the focus from the indicators of English language proficiency, the following section reviews another controversial issue regarding the relative contribution of cognitive factors (e.g. metacognition) and linguistic factors to L2 reading, which was closely related to this study’s research questions.
2.5 Metacognition and L2 reading comprehension
Flavell (1978) first coined the term metacognition as “one’s knowledge concerning one’s own cognitive processes and products or anything related to them”
(Flavell, 1978, p.232). Literally, metacognition is referred to as thinking about thinking (Anderson, 2003). Metacognition consists of two interrelated aspects: 1) metacognitive knowledge and 2) metacognitive regulation (Flavell, 1979, 1987;
Wenden, 2001). Metacognitive knowledge involves three types of knowledge: 1) knowledge about self, which refers to a general knowledge of human learning processes and the awareness of personal strengths and weakness; 2) knowledge about tasks, including the task nature, task difficulty, and task demands; and 3) knowledge about strategies (Flavell, 1979, 1987; Wenden, 2001). Metacognitive regulation refers to the monitoring and control of cognitive activities and to ensure that a cognitive goal has been met (Flavell, 1979). For instance, the readers might make a plan or set a goal
42
before reading, adjust reading speed during reading, and evaluate their performance after reading. Thus, metacognition was also recognized as the executive control mechanism on the monitoring and regulation of text comprehension (Mokhtari &
Reichard, 2002). Garner (1987) made a distinction between cognition and metacognition as follows: “If cognition involves perceiving, understanding, remembering, and so forth, then metacognition involves thinking about one’s own perceiving, understanding, and the rest” (p. 16). That is to say, metacognition regulates cognitive goals, tasks and activities.
The essence of Flavell’s argument was the executive role played by metacognition. Borkowski and Burke (1996) elaborated the impact of the executive function on learning in the broader sense. In their view, what distinguishes successful learners is their ability to apply their knowledge appropriately in alignment with task demands. Bialystok (1991) referred to the executive control mechanism as the higher- order mental functioning, and argued that knowledge is not available for use without it. Following this line of argument, it is inferred that language knowledge is sufficient to deal with a familiar task. However, when encountering cognitively demanding tasks such as reading in a second language, the learners need the executive control mechanism to manipulate their acquired knowledge in an efficient way. For example, if a comprehension breakdown occurs, the executive mechanism could work in tandem with the language specific knowledge to detect the problem and craft a
43
solution.
When it comes to the field of language learning, metacognition has been claimed to be universal across languages. Miller (1988) suggested that the reading comprehension process consists of word decoding and cognitive processes. The visual decoding is language specific. However, it operates at the lower lever. The cognitive processing, such as strategies of planning, monitoring, and evaluating, operates at a higher level and therefore is universal across languages.
In the same vein, Cummins’ (2000) Common Underlying Proficiency Model proposed “cognitive/academic knowledge and abilities that underlie academic performance in both languages” (p. 6). In this model, L1 and L2 are visualized as two icebergs (see Figure 2.1). Though the separate surfaces demonstrate different linguistic features, they share a common base of cross-lingual cognitive/conceptual proficiency. The language-specific features (e.g. orthography, vocabulary, syntax, and writing systems) are surface features, whereas cognitive and conceptual proficiency provide the common base at the deep level (e.g. summarizing, synthesizing, analyzing, and monitoring etc.). Cognitive ability is language independent and thus can be accessed by both languages. Development in L1 language proficiency can promote the development of the common underlying proficiency and thereby develop the L2 language proficiency and vice versa.
44
Figure 2.1 The “dual-iceberg” representation of the Model of Common Underlying Proficiency (Source: en.wikipedia.org)
Based on the transfer hypothesis, what enables the transfer of the literacy skills is "knowing how" (Esling & Downing, 1989, p. 57). Similar ideas are later proposed as "procedural knowledge" (O'Malley & Chamot, 1990), including the knowledge of when to do, why to do, and how to do. Divergent from the metaphor of transfer, Walter (2007) argued that it is not the transfer of well-established L1 competencies triggered by L2 input, but rather the access through L2 texts to L1 skills. From this point of view, the L1 skills are not available to some learners because they have difficulty in gaining access to L1 skills. With two sides arguing whether it was transfer from L1 skills to L2 or access to L1 skills via L2 texts, there was an understanding that a common proficiency is shared by both languages. In this sense, 45
metacognition, as the common underlying proficiency, functions to activate the procedural knowledge and therefore is accessible to both languages.
Putting these all together, this study focused on one subcomponent of metacognition: strategy. The rationale is that in the context of reading, metacognition is externalized through strategies. The strategies serve as a lens through which researches could explore the reading processes. Strategy is characterized by four attributes: 1) it involves a purposeful course of action to achieve a goal; 2) it involves procedural knowledge of knowing how; 3) it needs deliberate activation; 4) it requires effort to carry it out. A strategy could be applied for cognitive or metacognitive purposes. For example, the learner could ask herself questions after reading a text to deepen her knowledge of the subject or to evaluate her reading performance. Flavell
(1979) posited that “cognitive strategies are invoked to make cognitive progress, metacognitive strategies to monitor it” (p. 909). Metacognitive strategies are “higher order executive skills that may entail planning for, monitoring, or evaluating the success of a learning activity” (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990, p. 44). In order to apply the strategies in accordance with the task demands in diverse contexts, L2 readers need to develop such capacities as metacognition (Yang, 2002).
Readers possessing metacognitive awareness could figure out what needs to be done, and the activation of metacognitive strategies could provoke thinking and optimize performance (Anderson, 2005). In essence, metacognition is an executive
46
mechanism that enables readers to reflect on and regulate the cognitive processes in reading. If the language learners could apply strategies to approach texts, they would improve reading performance and therefore boost their motivation and increase their efforts. The next section provides an overview of the empirical research that found correlations between strategies and reading performance.
2.6 Reading strategies
Studies on the characteristics of skilled and less skilled readers have revealed that reading requires willful and intentional efforts (Baker, 2008; Hardin, 2001;
Pressley, 2000). In cognitive theory, the thoughts involved in the information processing activities are considered as mental processes (O’Malley, 1990).
Metacognition regulates the cognitive mental processes and is externalized through strategies. Strategy, in essence, is purposeful, goal-oriented, effortful and willful action. Reading strategies are a set of actions that the readers consciously undertake to accomplish desired goals, and to enhance comprehension and retention of information
(O’Malley, 1990). The ultimate goal of reading is comprehension; thus, the reader must consciously invoke reading strategies in an attempt to effectively allocate cognitive resources to regulate their reading process (Yang, 2002). This section reviews four major lines of research focusing on reading strategies.
The first line of research on L2 reading strategies has been to identify effective
47
reading strategies. Baker and Brown (1984) reported that readers who were aware of their reading process tended to read better. When reading was smooth, metacognitive awareness occurred automatically and subconsciously. In the case of text inconsistencies or confusion, skilled readers would consciously invoke their strategies. Convergent with this finding, Wade, Trathen, & Schraw (1990) conducted a recall test on 67 college students after reading a 15-page passage. Through the retrospective report of the strategy use at eight different times of reading, 14 strategies were identified and grouped into three types. One type was text-noting tactics, referring to the strategies of highlighting, underlining, outlining, circling, paraphrasing, and diagramming. The second type was mental learning tactics, referring to learning of specific information, mental integration, associating with prior knowledge, visualizing, and self-testing. The third type was reading tactics, referring to skimming, reading slowly, and re-reading. This research finding demonstrated that the employment of reading strategies served the purpose of enhancing comprehension as well as reading to learn and memorization. The research findings of Baker &
Brown (1984) and Wade, Trathen, & Schraw (1990) are in line with other studies which found that the readers activate metacognitive awareness to use strategies not only to extract meaning from texts but also to succeed academically.
Pushing the research on reading strategies a step further, Pressley &
Afflerbach (1995) examined 38 studies using think-aloud protocols among native
48
speakers of English and argued that a strategy is not good or bad per se. Instead, what distinguishes a skilled reader is his ability to orchestrate the strategies. Furthermore, they put forward the idea that efficient readers are constructively responsive readers who use strategies in an organized and flexible fashion. Building on this idea, Paris
(2002) stated that to reach the goal of comprehension, knowledge of reading process and strategies is not enough. Efficient readers should also be armed with the procedural knowledge necessary for manipulating the strategies. Similarly, Anderson
(2003) restated the idea that “strategic reading is not only a matter of knowing what strategy to use, but also the reader must know how to use a strategy successfully and orchestrate its use with other strategies” (p.468).
Besides the research on identifying good reading strategies, the second line of research focuses on the relationship between metacognition and language proficiency.
Previous studies among English native speakers and English language learners indicated a direct and positive relationship. The research of Sheorey & Mokhtari
(2001) compared the metacognitive awareness of strategies among 105 English native speakers (US) and English as Second Language (ESL) students in American universities. Both groups showed a high awareness of strategies in reading academic materials. However, students of high language proficiency in both groups reported a higher degree of metacognitive awareness than students of lower language proficiency. Another study by Mokhtari & Reichard (2004) reported a similar level of
49
metacognitive awareness between L1 and L2 readers. In that study, 350 participants, including 141 American and 209 Moroccan college students, completed a reading strategy questionnaire. In spite of their different socio-cultural backgrounds, they demonstrated similar moderate to high levels of strategy awareness. However, certain types of strategies were more often used by Moroccan students than by their
American counterparts. These research findings indicated that higher frequency of strategies was not equal to higher level of language proficiency.
Apart from examining the correlation between metacognition and L2 language proficiency, research has gained momentum in examining the relative contribution of metacognition and L2 language proficiency to L2 reading so as to determine if L2 reading is more influenced by language-specific knowledge or by language- independent general ability. The following empirical studies shed light on this point.
Schoonen, Hulstijn, & Bossers (1998) examined the relative contribution of metacognitive knowledge and vocabulary knowledge to L1 and L2 reading comprehension among 685 students in grade 6, 8 and 10 in The Netherlands. To ensure that the tests were age-appropriate and reliable, different tests were used for the three grades. Each reading test consisted of narrative and expository texts of different lengths. Dutch vocabulary knowledge was measured by a multiple-choice format, and English vocabulary knowledge was measured by a translation format.
Vocabulary turned out to be a more important predictor of L1 reading rather than in
50
L2 reading for the three grades, but metacognitive knowledge was more beneficial to both L1 and L2 reading for students in grades 8 and 10. However, for students in grade 6, the metacognitive knowledge of reading strategies, reading goals, and text characteristics could not compensate for their insufficient language knowledge. For grade-10 students who had reached a relatively high level of proficiency, the importance of vocabulary decreased, while the contribution of metacognition increased in L2 reading. It was concluded that for older students (grade 8 and grade
10), metacognitive knowledge assumed a more important role in both L1 and L2 reading. Those students who had spontaneously acquired knowledge of L1 reading strategies, reading goals, and text characteristics may have performed well in L1 reading tasks and even transferred the knowledge to L2 reading. The research findings also indicated that metacognitive knowledge is language independent.
Likewise, van Gelderen et al. (2003) explored the three components of reading comprehension: linguistic knowledge of vocabulary and grammar, processing efficiency (speed of word recognition and sentence comprehension), and metacognitive knowledge. It was found that both language knowledge and metacognitive knowledge made a unique contribution (regression weight: .33) to reading comprehension. Participants were 13-14 year-old secondary school bilingual students with different mother tongues learning English as a third language and monolingual Dutch students learning English as a second language.
51
Another study by van Gelderen et al. (2007) conducted a three-year longitudinal study of 389 Dutch adolescents studying English as a foreign language from grade 8 to grade 10, and it re-investigated the three components of reading comprehension. The main research finding is different from Schoonen et al. (2003).
Though linguistic knowledge made a significant contribution to L2 reading, L1 reading ability and metacognitive knowledge had a much stronger effect on L2 reading.
Taken together, the three studies were consistent in suggesting that metacognitive knowledge played an important role in predicting L2 reading comprehension. Nevertheless, these studies did not yield a clear picture of the relative contributions of general cognitive ability and language-specific knowledge to L2 reading comprehension, suggesting a need for further research in this area.
The third line of research on reading strategies has compared the similarities and differences in the patterns of strategy use in the context of L1 reading and L2 reading. Discovering similarities in the strategy use between L1 reading and L2 reading, some researchers argued that the L1 reading process was the same as the L2 reading process. Hardin (2001) found that metacognitive awareness was universal across languages and improved readers’ ability to regulate their reading strategies.
Pritchard’s (1990) study found that there was no difference in strategy use when reading in both languages concerning bilingual Latino students (with English as the
52
other language) in high school. The type and frequency of strategy use appeared to be stable in L1 and L2 reading. Though there were similarities in L1 and L2 reading strategies, the empirical investigation of different aspects of the reading process gave support to the idea that L1 and L2 reading involve different information processing mechanisms (Koda, 1999, 2007).
After examining the strategy use of 20 Chinese proficient college students in reading easy and difficult texts in English and Chinese, Feng & Mokhtari (1998) reported that a wide range of strategies were employed in reading both languages.
However, strategies were more frequently used when reading in English and when reading more difficult texts. In line with this research finding, Kong (2006) analyzed the reading strategies of Chinese adult readers and also found that readers used more strategies in reading English texts than in reading Chinese texts. The 4 participants varied in their frequency of strategy use of different types. Advanced learners transferred higher-level cognitive and metacognitive strategies from L1 reading to L2 reading. In addition to the differences in the strategy use, this study also identified common strategies used in both languages, including the text-initiated strategies such as using background knowledge and text structure as well as the reader-initiated strategy such as evaluating. However, the small sample size limited the generalization of the research results, and the qualitative approach focused on the researcher’s subjective interpretation of the participants’ strategy report.
53
Apart from the differences in the frequency and amount of strategy use in L1 and L2 reading, Yang’s (2002) study revealed the differences in the patterns of strategy use among 90 EFL college freshmen in Taiwan. When reading in Chinese, the students reported more strategies at the global level and the macrolinguistic level, such as making predictions and inferences. However, when reading in English, they reported more strategies at the local and the microlinguistic level, such as looking up unknown words and vocabulary. This research finding implied that EFL learners tended to resort to lower-level strategies when reading difficult texts.
To sum up, empirical research has suggested that strategies could enhance reading comprehension. However, there is no good or bad strategy per se, nor is higher language proficiency equal to more strategies. In addition, strategy use does not necessarily lead to better reading performance. Strategic readers do not always possess the most strategies, but rather make the most out of the strategies at their disposal. That is to say, strategic readers are characterized by their procedural knowledge of knowing how, when and why to use strategies systematically and flexibly in accordance with the task demands (Anderson, 2003).
It has been recognized that EFL learners have two language systems at their disposal and that the two languages do not operate in parallel with each other. While research has examined the differences in EFL learners’ approach to L1 texts and L2 texts, the studies have overlooked metacognition as the higher-order skill that links L1
54
and L2 languages. When it comes to the variables that influence L2 reading, few studies have explored the interaction between metacognition, L1 reading ability and
L2 language proficiency.
To fill in the research gap, the present study made the assumption that metacognition has an indirect influence on L2 reading via L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency. If it were the case, it would have important practical implications for curriculum design and classroom instruction. This raises the critical issue of how to integrate strategy instruction into language instruction based on learners’ L1 and L2 language knowledge and how to design curricula that could bring
L1 knowledge into full play to enhance L2 reading performance.
2.7 Summary
Reading is a multi-componential process that requires a set of knowledge and skills such as linguistic knowledge, background knowledge, conceptual knowledge, and cognitive ability (Bernhardt, 1991; Grabe, 2009; Koda, 2005, 2007). Numerous studies examining the effects of these variables on L2 reading have drawn different conclusions due to variations in terms of participants, first languages and proficiency level, research instruments, and analytical approaches as well as different operationalization of variables.
One research focus of particular note has compared the influence of L1
55
reading ability and L2 language proficiency on L2 reading comprehension (Alderson,
1884; Anderson, 1991; Bernhardt & Kamil, 1995; Lee & Schallert, 1997). Some researchers were proponents of the determinant role of L1 reading ability in L2 reading, while others argued for the threshold level of L2 language knowledge before
L1 knowledge and skills could positively influence L2 reading. Although waves of studies have examined the correlation between L1 reading ability, L2 language proficiency, and L2 reading comprehension, they did not provide a clear vision of the relative contribution of L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency to L2 reading comprehension among adult EFL learners whose L1 was distinctly different from L2.
In addition, previous studies had problems in their instruments used for measuring L2 language proficiency. By including reading skills in the language proficiency test, the test outcome was influenced by learners’ reading ability. To avoid such bias, the current study used a more careful operationalization of the indicators of L2 language proficiency to see if more variance in L2 reading could be explained.
Another notable line of research in L2 reading has been to compare the influence of strategy use and L2 language proficiency on L2 reading. Afflerbach et al.
(2008) argued that successful reading entails not only language skills such as phonological awareness to enable rapid decoding, but also strategic competence to know how to solve reading problems. Skilled readers are found to be better at orchestrating cognitive and metacognitive strategies to handle comprehension
56
breakdowns (Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001, 2002). Bernhardt (2005) questioned if the strategic knowledge could compensate for language knowledge and called for research on L2 reading to focus on variables against the backdrop of linguistic variables. However, not much attention has been given to the function of metacognition as a higher-order skill that is accessible to both languages. This study addressed that research gap by pairing metacognition with both L1 reading ability and
L2 language proficiency to examine their direct and indirect influence on L2 reading.
The third research focus worth noting has been to compare the similarities and differences in the ways in which EFL leaners approach L1 texts and L2 texts. The mainstream of the research on the correlation between strategies and L2 reading has revealed that EFL learners use more strategies when reading in L2 and fewer strategies when reading in L1. In addition, learners of higher L2 language proficiency level tend to use more strategies in L2 reading (Feng & Mokhtari, 1998; Kong, 2006).
However, of special note with reference to the current study, research among Chinese
EFL learners has presented a different picture. Chinese EFL learners have been shown to use higher-level strategies more frequently in Chinese reading compared with lower-level strategies in English reading (Yang, 2002). This difference among
Chinese EFL learners deserves further research, especially considering the very large numbers of Chinese EFL learners in the world. This study filled that research gap by exploring whether the strategies that characterize the reading process in L1 could also
57
characterize the reading process in L2.
In a nutshell, this study contributes to the L2 reading research by exploring whether metacognition, L1 reading ability, and L2 language proficiency are predictors of L2 reading comprehension as well as the interaction among the predictors. The next chapter presents a detailed description of the research methods employed, including the study’s participants, the measurement instruments selected, data collection procedures employed, and data analysis procedures used.
58
Chapter 3: Methodology
This chapter presents a detailed description of the study’s quantitative research methodology. As pointed out in Chapter One, the study sought answers to the following research questions:
1. What are the differences in the strategy use when Chinese university
English as a foreign language (EFL) learners approach L1 (Chinese) texts and L2
(English) texts?
2. Are metacognition, L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency separate constructs of L2 reading comprehension?
3. What is the relationship between metacognition, L1 reading ability, L2 language proficiency, and L2 reading comprehension?
The following table (see Table 3.1) identifies the latent variables, observed variables, and the instruments used to measure the observed variables in this study.
This summary table contextualizes the later information that follows in this chapter.
59
Table 3.1. Summary of the Latent variables, Observed variables and Instruments Latent variables Observed variables Instruments Chinese Global reading strategies Chinese version of Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Chinese Problem-solving strategies Inventory (MARSI) (Mokhtari & Reichard, 2002) Chinese Supporting strategies English Global reading strategies English version of Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies English Problem-solving strategies Inventory (MARSI) (Mokhtari & Reichard, 2002) Metacognition English Supporting strategies Topic comprehension Two expository texts from L1 reading Detail comprehension National Matriculation Exam ability Critical comprehension Vocabulary Level Test Vocabulary size (Nation, 1990) Structure section of Explicit grammar Paper-based TOEFL L2 language Grammaticality judgment task proficiency Implicit grammar (Johnson & Newport, 1989). Word comprehension Two expository texts from L2 reading Text comprehension Internet-based TOEFL comprehension Critical comprehension
The chapter is organized as follows. The first part describes the study’s participants and research setting. The second part introduces the study’s data gathering instruments. The third part describes the data collection procedures used, while the final part illustrates the data analysis approaches employed for each of the study’s research questions. This section also identifies and discusses key assumptions which guided the design and implementation of the study.
60
3.1 Participants and the research setting
Data for this study was collected from a public university in southern China during normal class sessions. The following sections provided detail descriptions about the participants and the setting.
3.1.1 Participants
For this study, participants were randomly recruited from the sophomore student population at a public university in an urban area of southern China. Chinese university Sophomore students were chosen as research participants because (a) not much research has been done on Chinese adult learners, an increasingly large group of students at overseas universities, (b) their L1 reading ability is well developed, and (c) normally, Chinese university students take the national English proficiency test or
TOEFL test in their third year or fourth year, so the Sophomore students are not familiar with the measurement instruments used in this study to assess their L2 language proficiency and L2 reading comprehension.
The participants were elicited through email. The characteristics of the participants who joined the study were as follows: 1) they came from the Han
Ethnicity (the largest ethnic group in China); 2) they were of similar age, ranging from 20-25; 3) they were in the second year of university study; 4) the length of exposure to English learning was at least 9 years; 5) they were learning English as a
61
foreign language; 6) they came from a variety of academic majors, and 7) they did not have overseas living or study experience.
As to determine the participants’ Chinese reading ability and English language proficiency, this study used their scores in the National Matriculation Exam as a reference. Including a Chinese proficiency test and an English proficiency test, the
National Matriculation exam is a national standardized test aiming at measuring students' proficiency level to be admitted to public universities in China. It has been used in China since 1949 and is the only accepted exam for entrance into public universities. Based on the participants’ performance in the National Matriculation
Exam, their Chinese reading ability is at intermediate to advanced level and their
English language proficiency is at intermediate level.
The sample size was determined by several factors: the desired power, alpha level for controlling Type I error, and the effect size. The conventional power of .80 and the significance level at .05 were chosen. The desired effect size could be determined by the research literature. However, since there was not much literature depicting the model of reading comprehension based on metacognition and L2 language proficiency for Chinese EFL students, a medium effect size of .50 was chosen because it represented an effect that a careful observer could see. Using the
G*Power by Faul, Bucher, Erdfelder, and Lang (2007), the minimum sample size for this study following the criteria was 128 students.
62
3.1.2 Setting
As noted earlier, the study was conducted at a public university in an urban area of southern China. This was deemed to be a representative setting for many tertiary level students in China. The public university is funded and administered by the National Ministry of Education and admits students from all over the country. The university has a large population, with most students coming from the Han majority
(the largest ethnicity group in China) and learning English as a foreign language. The students must pass the country’s National Matriculation Exam, which includes a
Chinese proficiency test and an English proficiency test, so as to be admitted into public universities.
The city in which the university located is prosperous and populous. With the city’s rapid economic development, employees skilled in English are in great demand in almost all walks of life. Therefore, English education is emphasized by the municipal government, and students are motivated to learn English well so as to be more competitive in the job market. The English curriculum begins in the 5th grade of primary school. It addresses the comprehensive ability of learners to read, write, speak and listen in English. Thus, the students were not new to reading in English when they participated in the study.
63
3.2 Data Gathering Instruments
On the basis of the previous research, measurement instruments for this study were selected to see if more careful operationalization of the instruments could yield more explanations of the variances in L2 reading. Hence, the study differed in some ways from prior research. Firstly, different from the previous research that used the knowledge of grammar and vocabulary as a single predictor of L2 language proficiency, this study examined the subcomponents of vocabulary size knowledge, implicit grammar knowledge, and explicit grammar knowledge as predictors of L2 language proficiency. Secondly, the questionnaires used to examine L2 reading strategies in the previous studies covered the abilities of reading, writing, speaking and listening without indicating the reading context or the reading purpose at hand. To adjust for this limitation, in this study efforts were made to specify the context as reading academically materials in a specific language by providing the reading texts before administering the questionnaire. In this way, the questionnaire was more likely to capture the actual strategies used by EFL learners in reading academic texts in a particular language.
3.2.1 Metacognitive awareness of reading strategies inventory
This study focused on the strategy use in a specific context of reading. The strategy questionnaire was adapted from the well-known Metacognitive Awareness of
64
Reading Strategies Inventory (MARSI) (Mokhtari & Reichard, 2002). It contains 30 items, and the Cronbach’s alpha for internal consistency is .93. Participants respond on a Likert scale: 1 (almost never used), 2 (rarely used), 3 (fairly used), 4 (often used), and 5 (always used). The score indicates the frequency of strategy use. One example of a strategy is, “I use tables, figures, and pictures in text to increase my understanding” (Mokhtari & Reichard, 2002, p.258).
Validity and reliability of the questionnaire
Validity and reliability have a great influence on the quality of the collected data. A fair measure should reach a certain level of validity and reliability. Therefore, it is necessary to address the issue of validity and reliability in developing the questionnaire. Validity refers to the degree that the instrument is able to measure what it intends to measure, and reliability involves the consistency of measurement results.
If a measure is reliable, it should assess the target accurately and consistently. The more reliable the measure is, the more likely a true assessment of the target would be achieved. This study used the Cronbach’s alpha to represent the reliability of the measurement instruments.
Though the questionnaire aims to examine L2 learners’ metacognitive awareness of strategies, it also taps into readers’ cognition by asking them the specific strategies they apply to deal with reading problems. For instance, it asks the learners how frequently they “skim”, “underline”, “use reference materials” and “use context
65
clues” etc. These are the cognitive strategies employed by readers in the reading process. As Veenman (2006) states: “If metacognition is conceived as (knowledge of) a set of self-instructions for regulating task performance, then cognition is the vehicle of those self-instructions. These cognitive activities in turn are subject to metacognition, for instance, to ongoing monitoring and evaluation processes” (p.6).
More specifically, metacognitive awareness of strategies draws on their cognitive specific knowledge of strategies. Depending on the context and task demands, the cognitive strategies could be used as a metacognitive strategy and vice versa. “This circular process of metacognitive and cognitive activities makes it hard to disentangle them in the assessment of metacognition” (Veenman, 2006, p.6). Therefore, despite the fact that this questionnaire aims to tap into readers’ metacognition, it also examines their cognition. From this perspective, more research is needed to design a questionnaire that allows for a more accurate estimation of the metacognitive awareness during reading.
Concerning the issue of validity of the questionnaire in Chinese version, one
English teacher and one Chinese teacher not included in the study were invited to review the items. They examined the wording of the Chinese version to ensure that the translation clearly conveyed the exact meaning of the English version and that the items could be easily understood by the participants.
66
Three categories of reading strategies in this questionnaire
The term strategy was defined in this study as conscious, deliberate, and goal- oriented mental behavior to manipulate cognitive processing for better performance.
In this study, strategies were operationalized as consisting of three strategy categories: global reading strategies, problem-solving strategies, and supporting strategies. The three categories are depicted in Table 3.2 below:
Table 3.2. Strategy Category, Description and Item Numbers Category Description Items Global reading The generalized, intentional techniques to set the stage for 1, 3, 4, 7, 10, 14, 17, 19, reading. It aims at a global analysis of the text. 22, 23, 25, 26, 29 strategies (GLOB) Problem-solving The localized, focused strategies enable readers to regulate, 8, 11, 13, 16, 18, manipulate their reading comprehension or even repair 21, 27, 30 strategies (PROB) their misunderstanding when faced with difficult texts. It aims at courses of action. Supporting The practical, functional techniques to use reference 2, 5, 6, 9, 12, materials, taking notes, and asking for help. It aims at 15, 20, 24, 28 strategies (SUP) maintaining responses to reading.
These three categories provided a catalogue of strategies for EFL learners to read academic materials such as articles, magazines, and textbooks (Mokhtari &
Reichard, 2002). The items in each strategy category are depicted in the following
Table 3.3.
67
Table 3.3. Items in Global reading strategies, Problem-solving strategies and Supporting strategies
Chinese version of Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory
The English version of MARSI was then translated into Chinese to measure
EFL learners’ strategy use when reading Chinese academic materials. Before filling out the questionnaire in Chinese, the participants were given a Chinese reading test with multiple-choice questions. The texts were taken from the National Matriculation exam, which was a national standardized test aiming at measuring students'
68
proficiency level to be admitted to public universities in China. It has been used in
China since 1949 and is the only accepted exam for entrance into public universities.
The questionnaire was arranged after the participants completed the Chinese reading test so as to elicit their actual strategy use when reading in Chinese.
3.2.2 L2 (English) language proficiency test
In this study, the L2 (English) language proficiency test consisted of three sections: 1）knowledge of vocabulary size measured by the Vocabulary Level Test
(Nation, 1990); 2) knowledge of explicit grammar measured by the structure section of the Paper-based TOEFL; and 3) knowledge of implicit grammar measured by a grammaticality judgment task (Johnson & Newport, 1989). Therefore, the latent variable of L2 language proficiency was indicated by three observed variables: vocabulary size, explicit grammar and implicit grammar.
Test of knowledge of vocabulary size
Vocabulary size refers to the number of words that have some meaning to an individual. The Vocabulary Level Test, or VLT (Nation, 1990), has been used to measure vocabulary size in previous studies and the internal consistency was reported to be .956 (Qian, 2002). The VLT includes five vocabulary levels: the 2,000 word level of high frequency words, the 3,000 word level, the 5,000 word level between high-frequency and low-frequency words, the 10,000 word level of low frequency
69
words, and the university word list level of academic words. In this study, there were a total of 10 test items, with 2 items taken from the 2000-level, and 3 items from the
3000-level and 5000-level, respectively. For each test item, there were 6 words and 3 definitions. Participants were required to match definitions with the correct corresponding words within 10 minutes.
The example given to the participants in the test was as follows:
“wall” is part of a house, “horse” is an animal with four legs and “pencil”
is something used for writing. Therefore, the answer for this item was 6, 3, 4.
1. business 2. clock 6 part of a house 3. horse 3 animal with four legs 4. pencil 4 something used for writing 5. shoe 6. wall
Test of explicit grammar knowledge
The test of the explicit grammar knowledge was taken from the first part of the
Paper-Based TOEFL, Section 2 (Structure and Written Expression). There were 15 incomplete sentences along with 4 multiple-choice items, and the time limit was 10 minutes.
The example given to the participants in the test was as follows:
Geysers have often been compared to volcanoes ______they both emit hot
liquids from below the Earth's surface. A. due to B. because C. in spite of D. regardless of
70
The sentence should read, "Geysers have often been compared to volcanoes because they both emit hot liquids from below the Earth's surface." Therefore, the answer for this sentence was B.
Test of implicit grammar knowledge
The test of the implicit grammar knowledge was adapted from the grammaticality judgment task (Johnson & Newport, 1989), which consists of 140 ungrammatical sentences and 136 grammatical counterparts. It was originally used to test the grammatical development of 46 native Chinese or Korean ESL learners whose mother tongue was typologically dissimilar to English. Subjects completed the task individually in the laboratory. A pilot study was conducted on 23 native speakers of
English so as to establish a baseline performance. The paired sentences only differed in one rule violation in the ungrammatical sentence. Altogether, 12 rule types that represented the most basic aspects of sentence structure in English were tested. Table
3.4 below is the summary of the 12 basic aspects of sentence structure covered in the grammaticality judgment test.
71
Table 3.4. 12 Basic Aspects of Sentence Structure
1. Past tense 7. Particle movement 2. Plural 8. Subcategorization 3. Third person singular 9. Auxiliaries 4. Present progressive 10. Yes/no questions 5. Determiners 11. Wh-questions 6. Pronomhlization 12. Word order
Among the 12 rules of interest, four rule types involved English morphology: past tense, plural, third person singular, and present progressive. The other eight types concerned English syntax. The sentences contained high frequency words to ensure that only the rules of interest were tested.
As to each rule type, the grammar error location (beginning, middle or end of the sentence), the sentence structure, and the sentence length were balanced. For morphology, the grammatical violation used one of four formats: “(1) by omitting the required morpheme; (2) by replacing the required morpheme with an inappropriate morpheme from a different class; (3) by making an irregular item regular; (4) by attaching a regular marking to an already irregularly marked item” (Johnson &
Newport, 1989, p.74).
In this study, participants took the test in the written form, and they were instructed to make a grammaticality judgment for 20 pairs of sentences within 10 minutes. It was made clear to them that if they regarded the sentence as incomplete or
72
wrong for any reason, they should mark the sentence as ungrammatical.
The example given to the participants in the test was as follows:
Yesterday the hunter shoot a deer.
Since the action happened yesterday, the verb “shoot” should use past tense
“shot”. Therefore, the answer was N.
3.2.3 L2 Reading Comprehension Test (English)
In this study, reading comprehension in English was measured by the reading section of the iBT (Internet-Based TOEFL), which has a test-retest reliability of 0.78 on the basis of the data from candidates repeating the test only once.
The reading section of iBT consists of five Basic Comprehension tasks (assess ability to comprehend lexical, syntactic, and semantic content), three Inferencing tasks (assess ability to connect information, to understand rhetorical functions, and recognize the text structure and purpose), and two Reading to Learn tasks (assess ability to conceptualize information into a mental framework and to distinguish main idea from minor idea). The text length was around 600-700 words, and the text types covered exposition, argumentation, and historical biographical/autobiographical narrative. The passages contained at least one major text structure, such as comparison/contrast, cause/effect, and problem/solution, from more than one point of view. These formats were expected to approximate academic readings in American
73
universities. Test-takers had 60 to 100 minutes for this section, and the score ranged from 0 to 30.
In this study, two expository texts were taken from the iBT. Participants were required to finish 13 multiple choices questions within 20 minutes for each text. The latent dependent variable of L2 reading comprehension was indicated by three observed variables: word comprehension, text comprehension, and critical comprehension, as depicted in the following figure 3.1.
Figure 3.1. Observed variables of L2 reading comprehension
74
3.2.4 L1 Reading Comprehension Test (Chinese)
To measure reading comprehension ability in Chinese, two expository texts were taken from Matriculation Chinese test (MCT), part of the National University
Matriculation (NUM) examinations in China which aims to assess students’ proficiency levels before they could be admitted by public universities. The NUM consisted of Chinese, English, Mathematics, Science and Social Science tests and functions similarly as the Scholastic Aptitude Test in the U.S. for the purpose of selecting students for entrance to colleges. The MCT is the national standardized exam that measures the students’ reading and writing skills in Chinese.
In this study, the selected expository texts were about 500 words in length and examined the students’ reading ability in identifying factual information, grasping main ideas, understanding writer’s purpose and tone, and making inferences. The latent variable of L1 reading ability was indicated by three observed variables: Topic
Comprehension, Detail comprehension and Critical Comprehension. Participants were given 40 minutes to finish the reading comprehension test and then the metacognitive strategy questionnaire was handed out.
3.3 Data Collection Procedures
Data collection was conducted in the spring semester 2013 in a public university in southern China. All the data were collected in classrooms during the
75
regular English class sessions with the assistance of their English teachers.
Before collecting the data, I scheduled a meeting with the participating teachers and explained the purpose of the study and the guidelines for them to administer the strategy questionnaire as well as the tests. The participants (students and teachers) signed the consent form to participate in the study, and they were informed that their performance in the study had nothing to do with their course scores at the university, and that their identifying information would be kept confidential. The figure 3.2 below depicts the sequence of steps in collecting data.
Figure 3.2. Data Collection Procedure
76
To be specific, the data collection procedures were as follows:
1. Firstly, the L2 language proficiency test was administered to the participants. It consisted of three sections: vocabulary size, explicit grammar knowledge, and implicit grammar knowledge. A short orientation was given by the
English teacher before the test so as to make sure the participants understood the task requirements. The teacher would wait a couple of minutes for the students to pose questions about the task demands. Also, the participants were reminded to choose answers as honestly and carefully as possible as when they took the authentic exam.
2. Secondly, in the following week, the participants took the English reading comprehension test and responded to the strategy questionnaire (English version).
3. Lastly, one day later, they took the Chinese reading comprehension test and then completed the Chinese version of the questionnaire.
For both the English and Chinese reading comprehension tests, the participants were given 40 minutes to independently finish the multiple-choice questions, as required by the authentic exams. In addition, participants were encouraged to try their best without leaving unanswered questions. The questionnaire was administered after the tests so that the participants would not be prompted to use strategies that were not normally used by them, which allowed the questionnaire to tap into students’ actual strategy use in the reading process.
For both the English and Chinese strategy questionnaires, participants were
77
given 10 minutes to complete the items. Before the participants began to fill out the questionnaire, the researcher read aloud the directions and explained the response items so that the participants understood the rating scale. Also, the teacher reminded the participants to recall the strategies that they normally applied to make sense of texts. It was assumed that the amount of time was sufficient, and participants were expected to recall their genuine strategy use.
3.4 Data Analysis
A flow chart of the data analysis procedure is depicted in figure 3.3 below.
Figure 3.3 Data Analysis Procedure
78
The current study used the software package of SPSS 19.0 and LISREL 8.80 for data analysis. The analytic approaches consisted of dependent samples t-test, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and structural equation modeling (SEM). A significance level of .05 (p<. 05) was set.
3.4.1 Descriptive statistics and Data screening
The data from the questionnaires, English proficiency test, and Chinese and English reading tests were inputted and formatted in separate Microsoft Excel 2011 files on the computer. The researcher double-checked the data entry twice and then matched the data sets. Descriptive statistics were described in terms of means, median, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis for the measures of strategies, L2 language proficiency test, and the L1 and the L2 reading comprehension tests. The Cronbach’s alpha of each measurement instrument was calculated to examine if it was above the accepted level (a>.60).
The Z-score of each variable was examined for outliers (the absolute value of z-score is above 3.0). The missing data and outliers were deleted. Because the maximum likelihood estimation was used to estimate path coefficients, the multivariate normality of distribution was checked, and items with extreme skewness
(an absolute value of more than 3) or kurtosis (an absolute value of more than 10) were considered for deletion. The final data sets were exported to SPSS Version 19.0
79
for descriptive statistics and reliability estimates and then to LISREL 8.8 for structural equation modeling.
3.4.2 Dependent samples t-test
Here the focus was on the first research question: What are the differences in the strategy use when Chinese university English as a foreign language (EFL) learners approach L1 (Chinese) texts and L2 (English) texts?
Null Hypothesis: The mean difference in the frequency of strategy use between Chinese reading and English reading was not different from zero.
Alternative Hypothesis: The mean difference in the frequency of strategy use between Chinese reading and English reading was different from zero.
This question aimed at identifying the similarities and differences in the use of overall strategies, in each strategy category (global strategies, problem-solving strategies, and supporting strategies), and in individual strategies when the EFL learners approached texts in Chinese and English. To answer this question, dependent samples t-test was used.
Dependent samples t-test is an example of a "within-subjects" or "repeated- measures" statistical test. The dependent variable was strategies that were measured on an interval level. The categorical variable of language of the text (Chinese and
English) was the independent variable. A significance level of .05 (p<. 05) was set.
80
The mean differences in the frequency of overall strategies, in each strategy category and in individual strategies between Chinese reading and English reading, were compared. If the mean difference was statistically significant, the null hypothesis was rejected. That is to say, Chinese university EFL learners approach Chinese and
English texts with different strategies. It could be inferred that L1 and L2 reading processes were different among Chinese university EFL learners.
3.4.3. Confirmatory factor analysis
The focus here was on the second research question: Are metacognition, L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency separate constructs of L2 reading comprehension?
Null Hypothesis: metacognition, L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency were not separate constructs of L2 reading comprehension.
Alternative Hypothesis: metacognition, L1 reading ability, and L2 language proficiency were separate constructs of L2 reading comprehension.
To answer the second question, confirmatory factor analysis was used to evaluate the measurement models of metacognition, L1 reading ability, and L2 language proficiency. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is a statistical technique used to verify if a relationship between observed variables and their underlying latent constructs exists. Several statistical tests were conducted to determine the adequacy of model fit to the data, including the chi-square test, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), 81
the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). To determine which model provided a better fit to the data, Chi-square difference tests were used to compare the proposed three-factor model of metacognition, L1 reading ability, and L2 language proficiency with alternative two-factor models and a one-factor model. If the Chi- square difference tests were significant, it suggested that the constraints imposed on the three-factor model to obtain the alternative models failed to improve the model fit and thereby the three-factor model demonstrated a better fit to the data. In this sense, the null hypothesis was rejected and metacognition, L1 reading ability, and L2 language proficiency were found to be separate constructs.
The chi-square test indicates the amount of difference between expected and observed covariance matrices. The Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is the discrepancy function adjusted for sample size, ranging from 0 to 1. CFI value of 0.90 or greater indicates an acceptable model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation (RMSEA) is correlated with residuals ranging from 0 to 1. RMSEA value of 0.06 or less indicates an acceptable model (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
3.4.4 Structural equation modeling
The focus here was on the third research question: What is the relationship between metacognition, L1 reading ability, L2 language proficiency and L2 reading comprehension?
82
Null Hypothesis: Metacognition, L1 reading ability, and L2 language proficiency have no influence on L2 reading comprehension.
Alternative Hypothesis: Metacognition, L1 reading ability, and L2 language proficiency have both a direct and an indirect influence on L2 reading comprehension.
To answer the third question, the multivariate analytical tool of Structural
Equation Modeling (SEM) was used. SEM is a multivariate analytic procedure involving the measurement models to depict the relationship between latent variables and observed variables and the structure model to describe the relationship among latent variables. Structural equation models have an advantage over ordinary regression models in that they include multiple independent and dependent variables as well as hypothetical latent constructs represented by observed variables. Generally speaking, the model testing consisted of model specification, identification, estimation, evaluation, and modification.
In this study, the data distribution was examined on the basis of Mardia’s
(1970) estimate to ensure that the assumption of multivariate normality was met.
Missing data and outliers were deleted. The statistical modeling was established by
LISREL 8.8 as follows:
1. Firstly, a hypothetical model specifying the correlation between metacognition, L1 reading ability, L2 language proficiency, and L2 reading comprehension was established based on the research literature. The correlation was
83
defined by a set of mathematical equations.
2. Secondly, the identification status (over-, under-, or just-identified) was checked based on the formula [p*(p+1)]/2 where p is the number of observed variables in the model. In this study, the model in which the number of variances and covariances was greater than the number of parameters was accepted.
3. In the hypothetical model, the latent variable L2 reading comprehension was predicted by three latent variables: metacognition, L1 reading ability, and L2 language proficiency. It was assumed that all three predictors made direct and significant contributions to L2 reading comprehension.
4. The alternative model tested the indirect effects of metacognition, L1 reading ability, and L2 language proficiency on L2 reading. In this model, three new paths were added. a) The first path was added from L2 language proficiency to L1 reading ability. It was assumed that L2 language proficiency has a dynamic relationship with L2 reading by exerting indirect influence via L1 reading ability. The rationale was that according to Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis, L2 language competence is partly a function of L1 language competence. Therefore, in L2 reading,
EFL learners could apply the conceptual knowledge and skills developed in the L1 to make the L2 input more comprehensible. The assumption is also supported by
Linguistic Threshold Hypothesis. The main argument of Linguistic Threshold
Hypothesis is that L2 learners have to attain a threshold proficiency level before they
84
could positively apply their L1 reading knowledge and skills to L2 reading. In this sense, it is reasonable to assume that L2 language proficiency had an indirect influence on L2 reading via L1 reading ability.
b) The second new path was added from metacognition to L1 reading ability and the third new path was added from metacognition to L2 language proficiency. It was assumed that metacognition has a dynamic relationship with L2 reading by exerting an indirect influence via L1 reading ability as well as L2 language proficiency. The rationale was that based on the Model of Common Underlying
Proficiency that states a cognitive proficiency is the common base that links the L1 and L2 languages. Therefore, the development of one language could expand common base and thereby promotes the development of another language. According to the literature of metacognition, it is a higher-order thinking skill that is universal across that languages and the salient feature of metacognition is executive mechanism.
That is to say, metacognition might be the common underlying cognitive proficiency that conscious control the L1 and the L2 languages and thereby enables the learners to manipulate their cognitive resources and linguistic resources in an effective way.
Reading is a cognitive and linguistic process that requires not only language knowledge, but also cognitive ability to control the knowledge in an effective manner
(Grabe, 2009). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that metacognition exerts an indirect influence on L2 reading by means of L1 reading ability as well as L2
85
language proficiency.
5. A number of model fit indices was used to evaluate the goodness-of-fit between the two hypothesized models and the observed data. In addition to the Chi- square test (χ2) and its associated probability (p), other model fit indices were used in this study: a) Absolute fit indices, which demonstrate how the proposed model fit the sample data and determined which model has the best fit. Absolute fit indices included the goodness-of-fit-index (GFI) and the adjusted goodness-of-fit-index
(AGFI) (Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1983), the root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) (Browne & Cudeck
1993); b) incremental fit indices, which compare the chi-square value to a baseline model which specified that all variables were uncorrelated. Included in this study were the comparative fit index (CFI) (Bentler, 1990), the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI)
(Hu and Bentler, 1999), Normed Fit Index (NFI) (Bentler and Bonett, 1980), and
Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). Based on the model fit indices, the model that fits the data best and has the best interpretability is determined as the final model.
86
3.5 Summary
This chapter explains in detail the research methodology of this study. The following table 3.5 summarizes the tools used in this study.
Table 3.5 Summary of the tools in this study Research questions Instruments Tools
1) What are the differences in Metacognitive Awareness of Dependent strategy use when Chinese Reading Strategies Inventory sample t-test university English as a foreign (English version and Chinese language (EFL) learners version) approach L1 (Chinese) and L2 (English) texts?
2) Are metacognition, L2 National Matriculation Exam; Confirmatory language proficiency, and L1 Vocabulary Level Test; factor reading ability separate TOEFL Structure Test; analysis constructs of L2 reading? Grammaticality judgment task
3) What is the relationship National Matriculation Exam; Structure between metacognition, L1 Vocabulary Level Test; Equation reading ability, L2 language TOEFL structure; Modeling proficiency and L2 reading Grammaticality judgment comprehension? task; TOEFL Reading
87
Chapter 4: Results
This chapter focuses on a presentation and analysis of the study’s results. To contextualize the chapter, it is important to note the following procedural information.
Firstly, a dependent samples t-test was conducted to evaluate the mean difference in the metacognitive strategy use between reading Chinese texts and English texts among Chinese EFL learners at the university level. Next, confirmatory factor analysis was used to establish the measurement models for metacognition, L1 reading ability, L2 language proficiency, and L2 reading comprehension, respectively. Then, in order to determine whether metacognition, L1 reading ability, and L2 language proficiency were distinct models, the three-factor model was compared with alternative two-factor models and a one-factor model. Finally, the hypothesized models depicting the relationship among metacognition, metacognition, L1 reading ability, L2 language proficiency, and L2 reading comprehension were compared and tested through the approach of structural equation modeling. This chapter presents the findings that emerged through those procedures. The primary focus is on a presentation and analysis of the results relative to each of the study’s research
88
questions. A discussion of the study’s answers to the research questions appears in
Chapter Five.
4.1 Data Issues and Descriptive Statistics
Firstly, the data was screened for missing data. The method of listwise deletion was employed to handle the missing data. Therefore, all cases with missing observations on any indicator were removed. Listwise deletion resulted in the dropping of 14 cases among the original 300 cases, leaving a sample size of 286.
Secondly, the univariate and multivariate outliers were examined. By looking at the standardized score (-3, +3), 11 univariate outliers were identified. To determine if there were multivariate outliers, Mahalanobis distance was used to sort all the cases.
Through the inspection of the probability estimate (p<. 001), 7 cases of multivariate outliers were identified and deleted. Thirdly, the univariate skewness and kurtosis values fell within the acceptable ranges. Mardia’s coefficient of 1.185 suggested multivariate normality. The final sample size was 268.
As table 4.1(below) shows, all correlations among the individual measures of
L2 language proficiency, L1 reading ability, metacognition and L2 reading comprehension were significant at the .05 level. In addition, reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha) of all the measures were good (>.66).
89
Table 4.1 Descriptive statistics and correlations among observed variables
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
EWORD 1 0.84 0.82 0.87 0.79 0.81 0.83 0.83 0.79 0.76 0.75 0.8 0.73 0.74 0.88
ETECT 0.84 1 0.78 0.82 0.81 0.76 0.8 0.78 0.75 0.71 0.71 0.73 0.71 0.71 0.74
ECRIT 0.82 0.78 1 0.83 0.77 0.86 0.81 0.81 0.83 0.72 0.72 0.69 0.68 0.69 0.76
CTOP 0.87 0.82 0.83 1 0.75 0.82 0.86 0.9 0.79 0.76 0.76 0.74 0.72 0.74 0.78
CDET 0.79 0.81 0.77 0.75 1 0.74 0.77 0.76 0.73 0.71 0.69 0.7 0.67 0.68 0.72
CREF 0.81 0.76 0.86 0.82 0.74 1 0.8 0.83 0.82 0.7 0.71 0.68 0.68 0.7 0.74
SIZE 0.83 0.8 0.81 0.86 0.77 0.8 1 0.82 0.77 0.66 0.65 0.66 0.61 0.64 0.74
EXPLICIT 0.83 0.78 0.81 0.9 0.76 0.83 0.82 1 0.77 0.69 0.7 0.67 0.63 0.66 0.76
IMPLICIT 0.79 0.75 0.83 0.79 0.73 0.82 0.77 0.77 1 0.7 0.7 0.68 0.69 0.67 0.74
EGLOB 0.76 0.71 0.72 0.76 0.71 0.7 0.66 0.69 0.7 1 0.91 0.79 0.91 0.88 0.72
EPRO 0.75 0.71 0.72 0.76 0.69 0.71 0.65 0.7 0.7 0.91 1 0.77 0.89 0.89 0.73
ESUP 0.8 0.73 0.69 0.74 0.7 0.68 0.66 0.67 0.68 0.79 0.77 1 0.78 0.77 0.76
CGLOB 0.73 0.71 0.68 0.72 0.67 0.68 0.61 0.63 0.69 0.91 0.89 0.78 1 0.88 0.69
CPRO 0.74 0.71 0.69 0.74 0.68 0.7 0.64 0.66 0.67 0.88 0.89 0.77 0.88 1 0.7
CSUP 0.88 0.74 0.76 0.78 0.72 0.74 0.74 0.76 0.74 0.72 0.73 0.76 0.69 0.7 1
Mean 26.19 27.62 29.02 16.07 19.12 9.3 16.43 21.02 23.93 3.63 3.71 2.86 3.71 3.86 3
Median 26 27 30 16 18 10 17 21 24 3.67 3.78 2.85 3.75 3.88 3.02
SD 2.03 4.99 4.57 2.68 5.81 2.38 4.7 8.99 7.11 0.14 0.13 0.09 0.12 0.08 0.03
Skewness -0.29 -0.13 -0.5 -0.19 0.1 -0.59 -0.19 -0.17 -0.66 -0.69 -1.13 -0.01 -0.58 -1.11 -0.42
Kurtosis -0.19 -0.12 -0.55 -0.52 -1.34 -0.37 -0.55 -0.93 0.61 -0.49 -0.13 -1.48 -0.55 0.19 -0.79
Range 9 24 18 11 20 12 19 33 36 0.64 0.42 0.29 0.5 0.27 0.13
Minimum 21 15 18 10 9 2 5 3 0 3.24 3.41 2.72 3.4 3.67 2.94
Maximum 30 39 36 21 29 14 24 36 36 3.88 3.83 3.01 3.9 3.94 3.07
Cronbach’s 0.76 0.69 0.83 0.79 0.71 0.76 0.84 0.83 0.8 0.74 0.72 0.77 0.66 0.75 0.73 alpha
Note. N= 268, p<. 05. L1=Chinese, L2=English, EWORD=L2 word comprehension, ETEXT=L2 text comprehension, ECRIT=L2 critical comprehension, CTOP=L1 Topic comprehension, CDET=L1 Detail comprehension, CREF=L1 Inference comprehension, SIZE = L2 vocabulary size, EXPLICIT = L2 explicit grammar, IMPLICIT= L2 implicit grammar, EGLOB = L2 global strategies, EPRO = L2 problem-solving strategies, ESUP = L2 supporting strategies, CGLOB = L1 global strategies, CPRO = L1 problem-solving strategies, CSUP = L1 supporting strategies.
To be specific, the correlations between the measures of metacognition in
Chinese reading and of metacognition in English reading were positive and strong, with a range from 0.69 to 0.91. In addition, the measures of L1 reading ability were
90
strongly correlated with those of L2 language proficiency, ranging from 0.73 to 0.90.
Furthermore, the measures of both L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency were strongly correlated with those of metacognition, ranging from 0.67 to 0.78 and from 0.61 to 0.76, respectively. The results suggested that L1 reading ability, L2 language proficiency, and metacognition were interrelated.
Having established these figures, the chapter now looks at the study’s results in greater depth through the lens of each of its research questions. This study aimed to examine the relationship between metacognition, L2 language proficiency, L1 reading ability, and L2 reading comprehension among Chinese EFL learners at the university level. It was assumed that metacognition, L2 language proficiency, and L1 reading ability were separate constructs of L2 reading comprehension and all made a unique contribution to the variances in L2 reading comprehension. Therefore, three research questions were posed.
4.2 Research Question 1
Research question 1 asked: What are the differences in the strategy use when
Chinese university English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners approach L1
(Chinese) and L2 (English) texts?
It was assumed that Chinese university EFL learners use different strategies when reading in Chinese and reading in English. To answer this research question, a
91
dependent t-test was used as the analytical tool. The dependent samples t-test examined whether there was a significant difference between the means of two variables.
The null hypothesis was that the mean difference in the frequency of strategy use between reading in Chinese and reading in English was zero. The alternative hypothesis was that the mean difference in the frequency of strategy use between reading in Chinese and reading in English was different from zero.
Regarding the first research question, the current study produced three major findings. Firstly, the mean of overall strategy use in English reading was 3.40, and in
Chinese reading it was 3.53. According to the criteria (Mokhtari & Sheorey, 2002) of
High= 3.5 or higher; Medium= 2.5 – 3.4; low= 2.4 or lower, the frequency of strategy use in English reading was medium, whereas the frequency was high in Chinese reading. Furthermore, it was found that in Chinese reading, 50.89% of the overall strategies were used at high frequency. In comparison, in English reading, only
14.37% of the overall strategies were used at high frequency. In Chinese reading,
49.11% of the overall strategies were used at medium frequency, while 85.63% of the overall strategies were used at medium frequency in English reading. None of the strategies was used at low frequency in both Chinese reading and English reading.
Therefore, overall, Chinese EFL learners used strategies more frequently in Chinese reading than in English reading (See Figure 4.1 below).
92
Figure 4.1. Overall strategy uses in Chinese and English reading Note. High= 3.5 or higher (of the average score of overall strategy use); Medium= 2.5 – 3.4; low= 2.4 or lower.
Secondly, in terms of the mean difference in the frequency of each strategy category (i.e., global, problem-solving, and supporting strategies), it was seen that in both Chinese reading and English reading, Chinese EFL learners employed problem- solving strategies most (36.5% and 36.38%, respectively), closely followed by the global strategies (35.1% and 35.58%, respectively), and the least favored category was supporting strategies (28.41% and 28.04%, respectively). However, using an alpha level of .05, a dependent-samples t test revealed that there were statistically significant differences between Chinese global strategies and English global strategies, between Chinese problem-solving strategies and English problem-solving strategies, and between Chinese supporting strategies and English supporting strategies (See Table 4.2 below). More specifically, Chinese EFL learners’ use of
93
global strategies in English reading (M = 3.63, SD = 0.14) was significantly lower than in Chinese reading (M = 3.71, SD = 0.12), with t (267) = 22.90, p <. 05, d = 1.40.
The 95% confidence interval for the mean difference between the global reading strategy use in English reading and in Chinese reading was 0.08 to 0.09. These results show that the EFL learners’ use of problem-solving strategies in English reading (M =
3.71, SD = 0.13) was significantly lower than in Chinese reading (M = 3.86, SD =
0.08), with t (267) = 33.34, p <. 05, d = 2.04. The 95% confidence interval for the mean difference between the problem-solving strategies in English reading and in
Chinese reading was 0.14 to 0.16. The results also indicate that the EFL learners’ use of supporting strategies in English reading (M = 2.86, SD = 0.09) was significantly lower than in Chinese reading (M = 3.00, SD = 0.03), with t (267) = 34.79, p <. 05, d
= 2.12. The 95% confidence interval for the mean difference between the supporting strategies in English reading and in Chinese reading was 0.14 to 0.15.
According to the criteria of small effect = .2-.5, medium effect = .5-.8 and large effect = .8+, the effect size of the mean differences in the frequency of global strategies, problem-solving strategies, and supporting strategies between Chinese reading and English reading was large.
In addition, it was found that the correlations between English global strategies and Chinese global strategies, English problem-solving strategies and
Chinese problem-solving strategies, and English supporting strategies and Chinese
94
supporting strategies were strong (r=0.91, p <. 05; r=0.89, p <. 05; r=0.76, p <. 05), but not high enough to suggest that they were measuring the same capability (See
Table 4.2 below). Therefore, the alternative hypothesis was supported that the mean difference in metacognitive strategies between reading in Chinese and reading in
English is different from zero. In other words, Chinese university EFL learners used different strategies when approaching texts in L1 (Chinese) and in L2 (English).
Table 4.2 Dependent samples t-test Std. 95% Confidence Sig.
Error Interval of the (2-
Mean SD Mean Difference t df tailed) Correlation
Lower Upper
CGLOB – EGLOB 0.08 0.06 0.00 0.08 0.09 22.90 267 0 0.91
CPRO - EPRO 0.15 0.07 0.00 0.14 0.16 33.34 267 0 0.89
CSUP - ESUP 0.14 0.07 0.00 0.14 0.15 34.79 267 0 0.76
Note. CGLOB = Chinese global reading strategies, CPRO = Chinese problem-solving strategies, CSUP = Chinese supporting strategies, EGLOB = English global strategies, EPRO = English problem-solving strategies, ESUP = English supporting strategies.
Thirdly, as to the differences in the frequency of individual strategies, it was found that the most frequently used strategies in Chinese reading differed from those used in English reading (See Table 4.3), whereas the least frequently used strategies in Chinese reading were similar to those in English reading (See Table 4.4). To be
95
specific, looking closely at the percentage of individual strategy use in the total strategies, this study found out that when reading in Chinese, the three most frequently used strategies were as follows: “use context clues” (3.92%), “get back on track” (3.75%), and “preview the text” (3.73%). In comparison, in English reading, the most frequently used strategies were as follows: “have a purpose” (3.65%,
Mean=3.60), “read slowly but carefully” (3.63%, M=3.58), and “underlie or circle information” (3.55%, Mean=3.50). It was interesting to see that in both Chinese reading and English reading, two out of the three least frequently used strategies were as follows: “read aloud” (2.78% and 3.1% respectively) and “ask myself questions”
(2.64% and 2.82 respectively). Table 4.3 below summarized the three most frequently used strategies in Chinese reading and English reading respectively. Table 4.4 below summarized the three least frequently used strategies in Chinese reading and English reading respectively.
96
Table 4.3. The most frequently used strategies in Chinese and English reading
Category Most frequently used strategies Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis
L1 CGLOB I use context clues to help me better 3.99 1.09 -1 0.32 reading understand what I’m reading.
CPRO I try to get back on track when I lose 3.82 0.91 -0.33 -0.46 concentration.
CGLOB I preview the text to see what it’s about 3.79 1.06 -0.58 -0.6 before reading it.
L2 EGLOB I have a purpose in mind when I read. 3.6 1.05 -0.25 -0.63 reading
EPRO I read slowly but carefully to be sure I 3.58 1.24 -0.52 -0.71 understand what I’m reading.
ESUP I underline or circle information in the 3.5 1.2 -0.34 -0.87 text to help me remember it.
Note. L1=Chinese, L2=English. CGLOB = L1 global strategies, CPRO = L1 problem-solving strategies, CSUP = L1 supporting strategies, EGLOB = L2 global strategies, EPRO = L2 problem-solving strategies, ESUP = L2 supporting strategies.
97
Table 4.4. The least frequently used strategies in Chinese and English reading
Category Most frequently used strategies Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis
L1 CPRO When text becomes difficult, I read 2.83 1.21 0.19 -0.91 reading aloud to help me understand what I read.
CPRO I ask myself questions I like to have 2.68 1.16 0.31 -0.57 answered in the text.
CGLOB I critically analyze and evaluate the 2.65 1.1 0.06 -0.71 information presented in the text.
L2 EPRO When text becomes difficult, I read 3.06 1.18 -0.01 -0.86 reading aloud to help me understand what I read.
EGLOB I skim the text first by noting 3.05 1.2 0.07 -0.9 characteristics like length and organization.
EPRO I ask myself questions I like to have 2.78 1.21 0.32 -0.7 answered in the text.
Note. L1=Chinese, L2=English. CGLOB = L1 global strategies, CPRO = L1 problem-solving strategies, CSUP = L1 supporting strategies, EGLOB = L2 global strategies, EPRO = L2 problem-solving strategies, ESUP = L2 supporting strategies.
In a nutshell, there was strong evidence that overall, these Chinese university
EFL learners employed different strategies when approaching texts in Chinese and in
English. However, it was also observed that problem-solving strategies were applied most in both Chinese reading and English reading, closely followed by the global strategies, and the least favored category was the supporting strategies. Furthermore, though the most frequently used strategies in Chinese reading and in English reading 98
were different, the least frequently used strategies in Chinese reading and in English reading were almost the same.
4.3 Research Question 2
Research question 2 asked: Are metacognition, L1 reading ability, and L2 language proficiency separate constructs of L2 reading?
It was assumed that metacognition, L1 reading ability, and L2 language proficiency were separate constructs of L2 reading comprehension. Based on the literature, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to establish the measurement models for metacognition, L1 reading ability, L2 language proficiency and L2 reading comprehension separately. The hypothesized three-factor model of metacognition, L1 reading ability, and L2 language proficiency was then compared with alternative two-factor and one-factor models. To determine the model that provided the best model fit to the data, several model fit indices were referred in this study (see Table 4.5 below).
99
Table 4.5. Summary of the model fit indices used in this study Model fit indices Levels of acceptable fit
Chi-Square Non-significant with p>. 050
GFI (the goodness-of-fit) ≥.900
AGFI (the adjusted goodness-of-fit) ≥.900
RMSEA (the root mean square error of approximation) ≤.060
SRMR (standardized root mean square residual) ≤ .080
CFI (the comparative fit) ≥.950
TLI (the Tucker-Lewis index) ≥.950
NFI (Normed Fit Index) ≥.950
AIC (Akaike Information Criterion) Lower values indicate a better fit
Table 4.5 above summarizes the model fit indices used in this study. The Chi- square value evaluated the fit between the hypothesized model and the sample data.
The model was acceptable if the value was small and nonsignificant. In addition to the chi-square test (χ2) and its associated probability (p), other indices employed were: a)
Absolute fit indices, which demonstrate how the proposed model fit the sample data and determined which model has the best fit. Absolute fit indices included the goodness-of-fit-index (GFI) and the adjusted goodness-of-fit-index (AGFI) (Jöreskog
100
and Sörbom, 1983), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) (Browne & Cudeck 1993); b) incremental fit indices, which compare the chi-square value to a baseline model which specified that all variables were uncorrelated. Included in this study were the comparative fit index (CFI) (Bentler, 1990), the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) (Hu and
Bentler, 1999), Normed Fit Index (NFI) (Bentler and Bonett, 1980), and Akaike
Information Criterion (AIC). In addition, the Chi-square difference test was conducted to compare the three-factor model with the other nested two-factor models and the one-factor model. In brief, Chi-square test statistics, model fit indices and Chi-square difference test were used to compare the hypothesized model with alternative models.
4.3.1 Establishing the measurement model for metacognition
Six components were assumed as the observed variables of metacognition
(META): global strategies in English reading (EGLOB), problem-solving strategies in
English reading (EPROB), supporting strategies in English reading (ESUP), global strategies in Chinese reading (CGLOB), problem-solving strategies in Chinese reading (CPROB), and supporting strategies in Chinese reading (CSUP) in the present study. Global strategies were generalized strategies aiming at the global analysis of the text. Problem-solving strategies were localized strategies regulating reading and repairing misunderstanding. Supporting strategies were practical strategies such as
101
using references or taking notes. It was assumed that L1 metacognition was correlated with L2 metacognition. The error terms associated with EGLOB and CGLOB, EPRO and CPRO, ESUP and CSUP were assumed to be correlated.
4.3.2 Establishing the measurement model for L1 reading ability
Initially, three observed variables of L1 Topic comprehension (CTOP), L1
Detail comprehension (CDET), and L1 Inference comprehension (CREF) were assumed to represent the factor of L1 reading ability (CREAD). CTOP examined the readers’ ability to grasp the main idea of the Chinese text. CDET examined the readers’ ability to locate details in the Chinese text. CREF examined the readers’ ability to make critical analysis and draw inferences from the Chinese text.
4.3.3 Establishing the measurement model for L2 language proficiency
Initially, three components of vocabulary size knowledge (SIZE), explicit grammar knowledge (EXPLICIT), and implicit grammar knowledge (IMPLICIT) were assumed as the observed variables of the factor of L2 language proficiency
(ELP). In the present study, SIZE examined the readers’ knowledge of vocabulary.
EXPLICIT examined the readers’ knowledge of formal grammatical structures that they had learned with effort. IMPLICIT measured the readers’ knowledge of grammar that they had acquired unconsciously.
102
4.3.4 Establishing the measurement model for L2 reading comprehension
Initially, three components of L2 word comprehension (EWORD), L2 text comprehension (ETEXT), and L2 critical comprehension (ECRIT) were assumed as observed variables of the factor of L2 reading comprehension (EREAD) in the present study. EWORD measured the readers’ ability to figure out the meaning of words and phrases in context when reading in English. ETEXT measured the readers’ ability to get the gist and make a summary of the English text. ECRIT measured the readers’ ability to insert sentences and infer the implications of the English text.
4.3.5 Confirmatory factor analysis of the overall measurement model
After validating the component structure of L1 reading ability, L2 language proficiency, metacognition, and L2 reading comprehension, confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to establish the overall measurement model.
The results of the confirmatory factor analysis of the three-factor measurement model showed that the test items of the observed variables well accounted for the variances in the latent variables of CREAD, ELP and META. Though the chi-square value was significant (X2=148.42, df= 49, p<. 05), other fit indices showed that the model is still acceptable. Goodness of fit index (GFI) was 0.92, Root Mean Square
Error of Approximation (RMSEA) was 0.087, and standardized RMR was 0.040. The
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) was 0.99, the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) was 0.98, and
103
the Normed Fit Index (NFI) was 0.98. To sum up, there was strong evidence that the items of the observed variables offered a reasonable representation of the underlying constructs respectively.
Figure 4.2. The overall measurement model Note. N= 268. P< .05. L1=Chinese, L2=English, CTOP=L1 Topic comprehension, CDET=L1 Detail comprehension, CREF=L1 Inference comprehension, SIZE = L2 vocabulary size, EXPLICIT = explicit grammar, IMPLICIT= implicit grammar, EGLOB = L2 global strategies, EPROB = L2 problem-solving strategies, ESUP = L2 supporting strategies, CGLOB = L1 global strategies, CPROB = L1 problem- solving strategies, CSUP = L1 supporting strategies.
104
The above figure (Figure 4.2) presents the overall measurement model (Model
1) with standardized regression weight and error variances. To answer the second research question as to whether metacognition, L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency were separate predictors of L2 reading comprehension, the three-factor model (Model 1) was compared with the two-factor models (Model 2, 3 and 4) and the one-factor model (Model 5) to determine which model provided the best model fit.
The results showed that Model 1 offered the best representation of the sample data
(See table 4.5). The RMSEA was 0.099, which was lower than the other models. CFI was 0.99, which was higher than the other models. The GFI was the highest, 0.87.
Furthermore, with the sample size of 268 and df equal to 82, power for this structural equation model was 1, which was high enough for the structure model to be accepted
(MacCallum et al., 1996).
Furthermore, the Chi-square difference test also indicated that the three-factor model best represented the data. The differences of the chi-square values between the three-factor model, the two-factor models, and the one-factor model were taken with the differences in the degree of freedom, respectively. If the χ2 was insignificant
(p>.05, p>.01), the model with smaller χ2 values indicated better data-fitting (Yuan &
Bentler, 2004). As shown in the χ2 table, the differences between the three-factor model and the other nested models were all significant (p< .01), which implies that the model with more paths accounted better for the data. The three-factor model had
105
more free parameters, lower chi-square value, and a lower degree of freedom
(χ2=297.09, df=82). The two-factor models (Model 2, 3, 4) and the one-factor model
(Model 5) had more restrictions, fewer free parameters, higher chi-square value, and higher degree of freedom. These results indicated that by imposing extra constraints, the model fit was significantly hindered.
Therefore, based on the model fit indices and the Chi-square difference test result, as shown in Table 4.5, the three-factor model (Model 1) was preferred as the overall measurement model, though the other models were more parsimonious.
Table 4.6. Comparison of the models Model X2 df p X2/df RMSEA SRMR CFI GFI AGFI X2difference
Three-factor model 1: 297.09 82 0 3.62 0.099 0.038 0.99 0.87 0.81 ELP, CREAD, META
Two-factor model 2: 598.98 85 0 7.05 0.15 0.04 0.97 0.77 0.67 301.89 ELP, CREAD/META
Two-factor model 3: 547.74 82 0 6.68 0.15 0.04 0.96 0.79 0.69 250.65 ELP/META, CREAD
Two-factor model 4: 354.29 85 0 4.17 0.109 0.033 0.98 0.85 0.79 57.2 ELP/CREAD, META,
One-factor model 5: 419.81 82 0 5.12 0.124 0.038 0.98 0.83 0.75 122.72 ELP/CREAD/META
Note. N= 268. P< .05. CREAD= L1 reading ability, ELP= L2 language proficiency, META= metacognition, EREAD= L2 reading comprehension.
106
In a nutshell, Model 1 provided strong evidence that the three-factor model could be accepted as a reasonable explanation of the correlations among the variables in this study. Therefore, the research hypothesis was supported that metacognition, L1 reading ability, and L2 language proficiency were separate predictors of L2 reading comprehension.
4.4 Research Question 3
Research question 3 asked: What is the relationship between metacognition,
L1 reading ability, L2 language proficiency, and L2 reading comprehension?
Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to examine the contribution of the three predictors (metacognition, L1 reading ability, and L2 language proficiency) of L2 reading comprehension among Chinese University EFL learners. Based on the previous research literature, several hypotheses were made regarding the relationship among the variables.
4.4.1 Model 1.1
Model 1 was based on the previous studies described in the earlier chapters. It was assumed that metacognition, L1 reading ability, and L2 language proficiency make direct contributions to L2 reading comprehension. Figure 4.3 below represented the results for Model 1.1.
107
Figure 4.3. Model 1.1 Note. N= 268. P< .05. L1=Chinese, L2=English, CTOP=L1 Topic comprehension, CDET=L1 Detail comprehension, CREF=L1 Inference comprehension, SIZE = L2 vocabulary size, EXPLICIT = explicit grammar, IMPLICIT= implicit grammar, EGLOB = L2 global strategies, EPROB = L2 problem-solving strategies, ESUP = L2 supporting strategies, CGLOB = L1 global strategies, CPROB = L1 problem- solving strategies, CSUP = L1 supporting strategies, EWORD= L2 word comprehension, ETEXT= L2 text comprehension, ECRIT= L2 critical comprehension, CREAD= L1 reading ability, ELP= L2 language proficiency, META= metacognition, EREAD= L2 reading comprehension. A circle represents the latent variable, and a rectangle represents the observed variable. è shows that the observed variables load on the latent variable.
Multiple measures of construct reliability and validity were applied in this study. To measure construct reliability, Cronbach’s alpha, composite/construct 108
reliability (CR), and Average Variance Extracted (AVE) were calculated. Cronbach’s alpha was within the acceptable range (See Table 3.1). According to the recommended thresholds of CR > 0.6 and AVE > 0.5 (Fornell & Larker, 1981), the
CR values ranged from 0.91 to 0.95, and the AVE values ranged from 0.76 to 0.82 in this study, suggesting satisfactory reliability of the constructs. Also, the confirmatory factor analysis yielded a good overall model fit (GFI=. 87, CFI=. 99, RMSEA=. 099, and χ2=297.09, df=82, p<. 05). All indicators loaded significantly (p<. 05) and substantively (standardized coefficient within the range of .81 to .93) on to their constructs. Therefore, the convergent validity was evidenced (Fornell & Larker,
1981).
From Figure 4.3, it can be seen that the path from L1 reading ability to L2 reading comprehension was significant, with the regression weight of .26 at the .05 level. Therefore, the hypothesis that L1 reading ability made a direct contribution to
L2 reading comprehension was supported. The factor loadings of CTOP (Topic comprehension), CDET (Detail comprehension) and CREF (Critical comprehension) were all statistically significant and high (.92, .84, .86, respectively).
Also, the results indicated that the hypothesis that L2 language proficiency made a direct contribution to L2 reading comprehension was accepted, with the regression weight of .51 at the .05 level. The factor loadings of vocabulary size
(SIZE), explicit grammar knowledge (EXPLICIT), and implicit grammar knowledge
109
(IMPLICIT) were all statistically significant (.90, .91, .84, respectively).
In the same vein, the hypothesis that metacognition made a direct contribution to L2 reading comprehension was also supported, and the regression weight of .26 was statistically significant at the .05 level. The factor loadings of EGLOB (English
Global strategies), EPRO (English Problem-solving strategies), and ESUP (English supporting strategies) were all statistically significant and high (.88, .92, .88, respectively). The factor loadings of CGLOB (Chinese Global strategies), CPRO
(Chinese Problem-solving strategies), and CSUP (Chinese supporting strategies) were all statistically significant and high (.86, .93, .81, respectively).
In a nutshell, these results suggested that though the Chi-square statistic was significant, other model fit indices such as GFI, AGFI, and CFI were close to the cut- off value. All paths from metacognition, L1 reading ability, and L2 language proficiency to L2 reading comprehension reached statistical significance at the .05 level, which suggested that each factor made a unique contribution to the variances in
L2 reading comprehension beyond its covariance with the other factors. Therefore,
Model 1.1 fit the data and could be accepted.
4.4.2 The Re-specified Model 1.2
Since all the direct paths from metacognition, L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency to L2 reading comprehension were statistically significant in
110
Model 1.1, this study proceeded to test the hypothesis that metacognition, L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency had indirect effects on L2 reading comprehension.
Firstly, a path was drawn from L2 language proficiency to L1 reading ability.
The rationale was that L2 language proficiency had been found to have a positive correlation with L1 reading ability (Esling and Downing, 1986; Jiang & Kuehn, 2001;
Wang et al. 2006). That is to say, an EFL learner with good L1 reading ability was more likely to become a good L2 learner (Yamashita, 2002; Brisbois, 1995; Lee &
Shalleart, 1997, Taillefer, 1996). In this sense, L2 language proficiency assumed an indirect effect on L2 reading via L1 reading ability.
In addition, paths were drawn from metacognition to L1 reading ability and to
L2 language proficiency. The rationale was that metacognition was found to positively influence language knowledge (van Gelderen et al. 2004; Sparks et al.
2008). Previous studies showed that learners of high English proficiency and learners of high L1 reading ability had higher-level metacognitive awareness of strategy use and better command of strategies in a flexible and systematic way. Thus, not only did metacognition exert a direct influence on L2 reading comprehension, but also an indirect effect on L2 reading comprehension by means of L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency. Figure 4.4 represents the re-specified model 1.2.
111
Figure 4.4. Model 1.2 Note. N= 268. P< .05. L1=Chinese, L2=English, CTOP=L1 Topic comprehension, CDET=L1 Detail comprehension, CREF=L1 Inference comprehension, SIZE = L2 vocabulary size, EXPLICIT = explicit grammar, IMPLICIT= implicit grammar, EGLOB = L2 global strategies, EPROB = L2 problem-solving strategies, ESUP = L2 supporting strategies, CGLOB = L1 global strategies, CPROB = L1 problem- solving strategies, CSUP = L1 supporting strategies, EWORD= L2 word comprehension, ETEXT= L2 text comprehension, ECRIT= L2 critical comprehension, CREAD= L1 reading ability, ELP= L2 language proficiency, META= metacognition, EREAD= L2 reading comprehension.
The results show that metacognition was significantly correlated with L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency (R2=0.86, p<. 05; R2=0.75, p<. 05). The correlation between L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency was significant and moderate (R2=0.3, p<. 05).
112
Moreover, all the paths from L1 reading comprehension, L2 language proficiency, and metacognition to L2 reading comprehension were statistically significant at the .05 level. The squared correlation indicated how much variance in the dependent variable was explained by the independent variable. L1 reading ability accounted for 78% of the variance in L2 reading comprehension, with L2 language proficiency and metacognition under control. Metacognition contributed to 87% of the variance, when controlling for L1 reading comprehension and L2 language proficiency. L2 language proficiency explained 32% of the variance with L1 reading comprehension and metacognition controlled. Taken together, L1 reading ability, metacognition, and L2 language proficiency accounted for 99% of the variance in L2 reading comprehension. The extent to which L1 reading ability, L2 language proficiency, and metacognition accounted for the variances in L2 reading comprehension was shown in table 4.7 below.
113
Table 4.7. The correlations between metacognition, L1 reading ability, L2 language proficiency and L2 reading comprehension in Model 1.2
CREAD ELP META
X X X
EREAD EREAD EREAD
Beta 0.37 0.4 0.24
Percent of the variances explained 0.78 0.32 0.87
Total Percent of the variances explained 0.99 Note. CREAD= Chinese reading ability, ELP= English language proficiency, META= metacognition, EREAD= English reading comprehension.
After determining the direct influence of metacognition, L1 reading ability, L2 language proficiency on L2 reading, the Sobel test was performed to examine whether the indirect paths were statistically significant. The Sobel test is basically a type of test to determine whether the relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable is an indirect effect due to the effect of a mediator and whether the mediation effect was significant.
It can be seen from the Sobel test result (See Table 4.8) that the indirect effect of metacognition on L2 reading comprehension by means of L1 reading ability was significant (Z=1.99, p<. 05). Also, the indirect effect of metacognition on L2 reading comprehension via L2 language proficiency was also significant (Z=4.91, p<. 05).
Therefore, the mediation effects were partial, with a significant proportion of the variance in L2 reading comprehension explained by metacognition due to the indirect
114
effects of L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency. In the same vein, the indirect effect of L2 language proficiency on L2 reading via L1 reading ability was significant (Z=3.92, p<. 05). Therefore, the relationship between L2 language proficiency and L2 reading comprehension was mediated by L1 reading ability. In brief, the hypothesis was supported that metacognition and L2 language proficiency had a dynamic relationship with L2 reading by exerting both direct and indirect effects. Table 4.8 showed the Sobel test statistics of the mediation effect of L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency.
Table 4.8. Sobel test statistics of the mediation effect of CREAD and ELP Unstandardized Standard Mediator Paths Z-value P-value coefficient error
CREAD a: METAèCREAD 2.22 0.97 1.99 0.046
b: CREADèEREAD 0.28 0.069
a: ELPèCREAD 0.55 0.036 3.92 0
b: CREADèEREAD 0.28 0.069
ELP a: METAèELP 29.78 1.79 4.91 0
b: ELPèEREAD 0.18 0.035
2 2 2 2 Note. z-value = a*b/SQRT(b *sa + a *sb ).
115
When taking into consideration the effect strength of metacognition, L1 reading ability, and L2 language proficiency, it was noted that metacognition had more effects on L2 reading comprehension and therefore was more beneficial to L2 reading comprehension than other variables. As shown in Table 4.8, metacognition had an indirect effect on L2 reading comprehension via L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency, with a value of 0.62 and 5.36, respectively. That is to say,
6.38% of the variances in L2 reading comprehension was explained by metacognition through L1 reading ability, and 55.14% of the variances in L2 reading comprehension was explained by metacognition through L2 language proficiency. Likewise, L2 language proficiency had an indirect effect on L2 reading comprehension by means of
L1 reading ability, with a value of 0.15. In other words, 45.45% of the variance in L2 reading comprehension was explained by L2 language proficiency through the mechanism of L1 reading ability, which was smaller than the variances indirectly explained by metacognition (61.52%) in L2 reading. In addition, combining the direct effects and the indirect effects, the total effects of metacognition on L2 reading comprehension had a value of 9.72. Though the total effects of L2 language proficiency and L1 reading ability on L2 reading comprehension were positive, with values of 0.33 and 0.28, respectively, they were weak when compared with the total effects of metacognition. To sum up, in model 1.2, metacognition made the greatest
116
contribution to L2 reading comprehension when both the direct and indirect effects were taken into account (See Table 4.9 below).
Table 4.9. The direct, indirect and total effects of metacognition, L1 reading ability, and L2 language proficiency on L2 reading comprehension Total Proportion of Direct effect Indirect effects effects mediation
META METAèEREAD 3.74 METAèCREADèEREAD 0.62 9.72 6.38%
METAèELPèEREAD 5.36 55.14%
ELP ELPèEREAD 0.18 ELPèCREADèEREAD 0.15 0.33 45.45%
CREAD CREADèEREAD 0.28 0.28
Note. CREAD= Chinese reading ability, ELP= English language proficiency, META= metacognition, EREAD= English reading comprehension.
To sum up, the results of Model 1.2 lend evidence to the hypothesis that both metacognition and L2 language proficiency exerted direct and indirect influence on
L2 reading comprehension, with metacognition accounting for more variances in L2 reading beyond L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency. Considering the indirect effects of metacognition on L2 reading comprehension via L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency, the results indicate that the higher the level of metacognitive awareness of strategies, the more likely the EFL learners would improve in Chinese reading ability and L2 language proficiency. In turn, EFL learners
117
with a higher level of Chinese reading ability and L2 language proficiency would be more capable of applying metacognitive strategies in L2 reading comprehension.
Furthermore, regarding the indirect effects of L2 language proficiency on L2 reading, the results indicate that these EFL learners with a high level of L1 reading ability were more likely to be proficient in English and therefore performed better in L2 reading comprehension.
4.5 The Final Full-Latent Variable Model
The hypothesized model 1.1 was compared with the alternative model 1.2 that tested the specifications of the direct and the indirect influence of metacognition, L1 reading ability, and L2 language proficiency on L2 reading comprehension. Taking into consideration the model fit indices (see Table 4.10 below) and interpretability, model 1.2 was determined as the final full-latent variable model.
Table 4.10. Comparison of model fit indices of Model 1.1 and Model 1.2 Models X2 df p X2/df RMSEA SRMR GFI AGFI CFI AIC NFI TLC
Model 1.1 297.09 82 0 3.62 0.099 0.038 0.87 0.81 0.99 373.09 0.98 0.98
Model 1.2 247.05 79 0 3.13 0.089 0.037 0.89 0.83 0.99 329.05 0.98 0.98
118
To sum up, metacognition, L1 reading ability, and L2 language proficiency were all multi-faceted constructs that influenced L2 reading comprehension. On the one hand, metacognition, L1 reading ability, and L2 language proficiency were interrelated and all exercised a direct, positive and moderate influence on L2 reading comprehension. On the other hand, metacognition had positive, indirect and moderate effects via L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency on L2 reading comprehension. Also, L2 language proficiency had an indirect, positive, and moderate influence on L2 reading through L1 reading ability. Putting the direct and indirect effects together, the total effects of metacognition on L2 reading comprehension overshadowed the other variables, which suggested that metacognition was more beneficial to L2 reading comprehension than other variables. The research finding lent support to the Model of Common Underlying Proficiency (Cummins, 2005).
4.6 Summary
This chapter presented the data analysis based on the three research questions.
This study yielded several research findings.
Firstly, it was found that Chinese university EFL learners used more strategies in reading Chinese texts than in reading English texts. However, the pattern of strategy use was the same in reading Chinese texts and English texts. The most frequently used strategy category was problem-solving strategies, and then global
119
strategies, followed by supporting strategies. Though the three most frequently used strategies in Chinese reading differ from those in English reading, the least frequently used strategies were the same in reading Chinese texts and English texts.
Secondly, using confirmatory factor analysis, this study found that metacognition, L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency were closely related to each other but they were separate constructs of L2 reading comprehension.
Thirdly, through the approach of structural equation modeling, this study established a hypothesized Model 1.1 and the alternative Model 1.2 to depict the direct and the indirect influence of metacognition, L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency on L2 reading comprehension. Based on model fit indices and interpretability, there was strong evidence that Model 1.2 offered a reasonable explanation of the relationship among the three predictors and L2 reading comprehension. In brief, it was found that metacognition assumed a more dynamic influence on L2 reading comprehension by exerting both a direct influence and an indirect influence via L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency. This research finding implies that in order to apply metacognitive strategies in an efficient way,
Chinese EFL learners have to increase their specific language knowledge, which corresponds with the previous research findings that L2 reading entails both specific language elements and cognitive factors (Cohen, 2007; Geva, 2000; van Gelderen et al., 2003, 2007). The higher the L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency, the
120
better the EFL learners could effectively employ metacognitive strategies to facilitate
L2 reading comprehension. In addition, it was noted that L2 language proficiency also exerted a direct and an indirect influence on L2 reading comprehension via L1 reading ability. This research finding implies that Chinese EFL learners with higher
L1 reading ability were more likely to perform well in L2 reading. Furthermore, taking into consideration the direct and indirect effects, it was found that metacognition outperformed other variables in contributing to L2 reading comprehension. This finding echoes the previous research that metacognition is an essential element for EFL learners to perform well in L2 reading comprehension
(Feng & Mokhtari, 1998; Kong, 2006). Taken together, metacognition, as the executive control mechanism, was based on L1 reading ability and L2 language knowledge to function in the most effective manner. That is to say, general cognitive ability worked in tandem with specific L1 and L2 language knowledge, which enabled the EFL learners to perform well in the L2 reading process.
In the next chapter, the major research findings are discussed in detail in connection with the study’s research questions, and the study’s contributions to the research literature are explored. In addition, the limitations of the study and the recommendations for future research are discussed.
121
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion
5.1 Introduction
Over the past few decades, debates over how much, in which direction, and with what strength language-specific factors (e.g., L2 language proficiency, L1 reading ability) and general cognitive factors (e.g., metacognition) contribute to L2 reading comprehension have been on the agenda of second language (L2) researchers. However, none of the studies has attempted to connect cognitive ability with both the L1 and the L2 language knowledge and investigate their influence on
L2 reading comprehension. This study has contributed to field of L2 reading by probing both the direct and indirect influence of the metacognition, L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency on L2 reading comprehension. Drawing from several domains of scholarly literature, particularly educational research in L2 reading and in metacognition, this study attempted to enrich our understanding of the interplay between cognitive ability and the L1 and the L2 linguistic knowledge in L2 reading, with a focus on a previously under-examined population, Chinese learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) at the university level. Given the increased interest in
122
and emphasis on English in China, the large numbers of Chinese students studying abroad, and the importance of reading in achieving academic success, it was deemed important to investigate this population through the lens of reading in English as well as in their native language, Chinese.
The primary goal of this study was to examine the relationship between metacognition, L1 reading ability, L2 language proficiency and L2 reading comprehension. To achieve this goal, three research questions were put forward:
1. What are the differences in the strategy use when Chinese university
English as a foreign language (EFL) learners approached L1 (Chinese) and L2
(English) texts?
2. Are metacognition, L1 reading ability, L2 language proficiency separate constructs of L2 reading comprehension?
3. What is the relationship between metacognition, L1 reading ability, L2 language proficiency and L2 reading comprehension?
Chapter Four presented and analyzed the study’s data; in this chapter, I will place those findings into a broader context by interpreting them according to the study’s research questions, exploring the study’s implications for research and teaching related to L2 reading, discussing the study’s limitations, and offering recommendation for future research in this area. The chapter also examines the study’s contributions to the L2 reading field.
123
5.2 Interpretations of Research Results
This section of the chapter summarizes and interprets the study’s findings relative to the research questions posed.
5.2.1. Discussions of Research Question 1
As noted earlier, the first research question asked: What are the differences in the strategy use when Chinese university EFL learners approached texts in L1
(Chinese) and L2 (English)? By means of the dependent samples t-test, this study produced two major findings arising from the Metacognitive Awareness of Strategy
Inventory. Firstly, regarding the frequency of overall strategy use, Chinese university
EFL (English as a foreign, not a second, language) learners employed strategies differently when they read in Chinese and in English. According to the criteria put forth by Mokhtari and Sheorey (2002), (High= 3.5 or higher; Medium= 2.5 – 3.4; low= 2.4 or lower), the frequency of overall strategy use in English reading (M=3.4) was medium compared with the high frequency (M=3.54) in Chinese reading.
Though the mean difference of the frequency in overall strategy use was only .14 between Chinese reading and English reading, the mean difference was statistically significant, which indicates that Chinese EFL learners are more prone to invoke strategies to facilitate Chinese reading comprehension. That the results were consistent with the previous research findings (Zhang, 2002, 2009, 2010) is not
124
surprising if we take the social and cultural backgrounds, linguistic differences and cognitive processing ability into account. I elaborate on these points in the next few paragraphs.
Firstly, looking closely at the social and cultural backgrounds of Chinese EFL learners, one possible explanation for this different frequency of overall strategy use between Chinese reading and English reading might relate to the amount of language exposure under ordinary circumstances. Learning English as a foreign language, i.e., in an environment where the language has little out of class presence compared to
ESL (English as a second language) settings, the Chinese EFL learners did not have much of a chance to read English texts as a routine part of daily living. Therefore, they had limited practice in using strategies in English reading compared with their high exposure to Chinese reading, where opportunities for such reading were constant. The lack of sufficient English reading input might be the primary stumbling block on their way to becoming strategic L2 readers.
Furthermore, the instructional practice in the language classroom influenced
Chinese EFL learners’ access to L1 reading ability and skills when triggered by L2 texts. for instance, the English only approach in class fosters the learners’ belief that
L2 learning should be separated from the L1 language knowledge and thereby hinders learners’ attempts to try on L1 reading strategies in L2 reading. In addition, the traditional instructional practices for English lessons in China involve drills
125
regarding linguistic knowledge, with little attention devoted to strategy practice. The lack of systematic strategy instruction could have resulted in the EFL learners’ limited practice of L2 reading strategies as well as a weak belief in L2 strategies and subsequent doubt about the effectiveness of strategies in fulfilling the the tasks in
English reading. In brief, the teaching approach in the language classroom might account for the inconsistent use of strategies between Chinese and English.
The second possible reason for this different frequency of overall strategy use between Chinese reading and English reading might lie in the fundamental differences between written English and Chinese with respect to orthography, phonetics, and grammar. Firstly, English uses an alphabetic system in which words are made up of letters, whereas Chinese uses a logographic system in which characters represent the words themselves. The second difference is that Chinese characters correspond to syllables and each character represents a morpheme.
However, English letter corresponds to sound and individual letters are combined to represent a morpheme. Another major difference is that the meaning of an English word depends on the phonemes that make up the word’s pronunciation, whereas the meaning of a Chinese word depends also on the tones when pronouncing the word.
Furthermore, English grammar depends mainly on the use of auxiliaries, tense, verb inflections and modifiers. Chinese, on the other hand, conveys meaning through aspect and word order. Chinese verbs cannot be inverted, and the nouns cannot be
126
post-modified as in English. Last but not least, numerous studies have pointed out the significant syntactic difference in relative clauses between Chinese and English. In
English, the relative pronoun (that, which, who, whose, when, where, why) introduces the relative clause and immediately follows the modified noun phrase. In contrast, in Chinese, the particle connects the main clause with the relative clause and precedes the modified noun phrase. This syntactic difference accounts for Chinese
EFL learners’ difficulties in sentence parsing.
As previous research has shown, to a large degree, the extent to which L1 reading skills could facilitate L2 reading might depend on the issue of typological closeness (Murphy, 2005). In this case, the significant differences between Chinese and English may explain EFL learners’ difficulty in applying their Chinese reading strategies in English reading. That would create a heavy reliance on their cognitive ability to manipulate knowledge and build connections between the two languages.
The third plausible explanation for this mean frequency difference in strategy use between Chinese reading and English reading derived from the perspective of cognitive information processing. It might be argued that the Chinese EFL learners developed their repertoire of strategies based on L1 reading experience; however, they might not access the strategies unless they felt at ease in using them. Compared with Chinese texts, English texts were relatively harder for the Chinese EFL learners to process on account of the difficulty of decoding at the lexical and syntactic level.
127
Given that a considerable amount of cognitive resources had been allocated to linguistic problems (e.g., word decoding, sentence parsing, etc.), they might not invoke their knowledge of strategies in English reading because it required extra effort to do so. In addition, the effort they put into invoking strategies might give rise to anxiety and stress, which ran counter to their expectation of facilitating comprehension. As a consequence, the EFL learners were less prone to unlock their access to strategies when grappling with difficult L2 texts. Fen & Mokhtari (1998) indicated that low L2 language proficiency appears to be the primary stumbling block to the consistent use of strategies across languages. Therefore, despite the fact that they had the cognitive competency, the participants had a hard time to access and orchestrate strategies in L2 reading because of their linguistic deficiencies in the L2.
Last but not least, apart from the just-discussed possible effects of the socially and culturally mediated educational contexts the participants operated in, one might argue for the influence of reading ability on the frequency of strategy use. In the study, the participants were native Chinese speakers, and their reading proficiency in
Chinese was intermediate to advanced. It was possible that well-developed Chinese reading ability motivated them to try on strategies more frequently in reading
Chinese texts, as they possessed a certain confidence level in Chinese reading that was difficult to achieve in English. Even though a strategy might not work in one context, they might make another attempt at a different time since they had acquired
128
enough reading ability. In comparison, it was likely that their limited English reading ability stumped their efforts to try a strategy if it failed at a certain time. They might think that the strategy working in L1 reading might not be effective in L2 reading, and their limited amount of exposure to L2 texts in daily life compounded their attempts to try on the strategies in different contexts. Therefore, the participants’ reading ability might account for their difficulty to internalize the strategies in reading English texts.
The second important finding derived from the analysis of the metacognitive strategy questionnaire was that in addition to the differences in the frequency of overall strategy use, this study found a pattern of strategy use in reading Chinese texts and English texts. The Chinese EFL learners favored problem-solving strategies most, closely followed by global strategies; on the other end of the scale, the least favored category was supporting strategies. The second finding supports Cummins’
(1979) Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis, which asserts that cognitive aspects of language learning, such as reading strategies, are universal across languages. In the same vein, the research findings of Fen & Mokhtari (1998) regarding Chinese university-level EFL learners also imply that reading comprehension strategies in one language could be applied to the other language. To be specific, meaning-making strategies such as visualizing, hypothesizing, and using genre knowledge were applied across languages. To some extent, then, the second research finding echoed
129
what previous research has found (Macaro & Erler, 2008; Sheorey & Mokhtari,
2001; Zhang, 2002, 2009, 2010). Two plausible reasons could account for Chinese
EFL learners’ pattern of strategy use in both Chinese reading and English reading.
One likely reason for the finding of pattern of strategy use in Chinese and
English reading in the current study may be ascribed to the Chinese EFL learners’ habit of mind. Generally speaking, traditional reading instruction for English in the classroom puts stress on the accuracy of word decoding and exact understanding of sentences. That was the likely reason why the Chinese EFL learners paid more attention to the word, phrases, and sentences than the organization, structure, and gist of the text, which prevented them from critically analyzing the text as a whole.
Support for this idea can be found in the fact that the global strategy of “noting characteristics like length and organization” was the second least favored strategy in
English reading (Item 10, M = 3.05, SD = 1.20), but the strategy “I read slowly but carefully to be sure I understand what I’m reading” (Item 8, M = 3.58, SD = 1.24) was the second most frequently used strategy in English reading. Furthermore, the fourth most frequently used strategy in English reading also indicated that Chinese EFL learners regard reading comprehension as understanding every word such as “I use reference materials such as dictionaries to help me understand what I read” (Item 15,
M = 3.50, SD = 1.10). Therefore, they put more efforts in word decoding and
130
sentence parsing than the text structure: “I underline or circle information in the text to help me remember it” (Item 12, M = 3.50, SD = 1.20).
The second possible reason for the finding of the pattern of strategy use in
Chinese and English reading could be ascribed to the reading purpose of Chinese
EFL learners. Being frequently exposed to high-stake tests as a major part of the
Chinese educational system, the Chinese EFL learners were performance-oriented rather than mastery-oriented with respect to reading comprehension. That is to say, their primary purpose of reading was to identify the correct answers to test questions instead of gaining new knowledge from the texts. As a consequence, they did not form the habit of reflect on or checking their comprehension. It was demonstrated that the strategies “I paraphrase (restate ideas in my own words) to better understand what I read” (Item 26, M = 2.85, SD = 1.13) was the fifth least used strategy in
Chinese reading and “I stop from time to time and think about what I’m reading”
(Item 18, M = 3.24, SD = 1.01) was the ninth least used strategy in English reading.
Their notion of reading as the mechanical completion of tasks shaped their reading behavior. For instance, they might look at the questions first and then go back to the text for a semantic mapping without understanding the main idea of the text or feeling a need to do so. Evidence for this explanation could be found in the fact that the strategy “I summarize what I read to reflect on important information in the text”
(Item 29, M = 3.06, SD = 1.07) was the sixth least used strategy in Chinese reading
131
and “I preview the text to see what it’s about before reading it” (Item 4, M = 3.2, SD
= 1.16) was the eighth least used strategy in English reading.
The third plausible reason for the finding of similar patterns of strategy use in
L1 and L2 reading might lie in the context of reading. It was observed that two out of the three least frequently used strategies were the same in Chinese reading and
English reading: a) “When text becomes difficult, I read aloud to help me understand what I read” (Item 24, M = 2.83, SD =1.21; Item 5, M = 3.06, SD = 1.18), and b) “I ask myself questions I like to have answered in the text” (Item 28, M =2.68, SD =
1.16; Item 28, M = 2.78, SD = 1.21). It was surprising to find that EFL learners were not in favor of “read aloud,” which was contrary to the previous research findings that “read aloud” was the most frequently used one (Zhang &Wu, 2009). However, it should be noted that in this study, reading comprehension was examined in the context of an exam rather than the context of reading in class. Reading aloud was not allowed in the exam, since it would disturb other test-takers. In addition, given the time constraints of the exam setting, foreign language anxiety, and exam pressure,
“read aloud” was considered as slowing down the reading speed, whereas “silent reading” was preferred to construct the mental representation of texts during exams.
Here it was interesting to find that the least used strategy was “asking myself questions” in both Chinese reading and English reading. This indicates that the
Chinese EFL learners did not form the habit of reflecting on their reading process.
132
They tended to read on and on without “asking self questions”, which required effort to pause and introspect. It might be thought that the effort for reflection interrupted the flow of reading and added to their cognitive load, thus making it an undesirable practice in their eyes.
It was surprising to find that “supporting strategy” was the least favored category in both Chinese reading and English reading, which was inconsistent with the previously reported finding that “ESL students attribute high value to support reading strategies” (Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2002, p. 445). One possible explanation for the inconsistency between the two studies might be rooted in the influence of Chinese reading experience. In this study, the supporting strategy of “I discuss what I read with others to check my understanding” was the fourth least used strategy in Chinese reading and the sixth least used strategy in English reading. This corresponds to
Chinese EFL learners’ experience of reading independently rather than reading collaboratively. In addition, this finding suggests that the strategies not frequently used in Chinese reading were less likely to be in a priority position in English reading. However, Sheorey & Mokhatari (2002) did not compare the strategies in the contexts of L1 reading and L2 reading. Therefore, the influence of L1 reading experience might have been overlooked.
Looking closely at the frequency of supporting strategies, a significant difference was observed between Chinese reading and English reading. The
133
moderately used supporting strategy in Chinese reading, “I use typographical aids like bold face and italics to identify key information” (Item 9, M = 3.58, SD = 1.31) was the seventh least used strategy in English reading (Item 22, M = 3.58, SD =
1.31). It provided further evidence that Chinese EFL learners did not apply the same
Chinese reading strategies in English reading.
Apart from the differences in the EFL learners’ approach to Chinese texts and
English texts, the findings of this study indicate that the Chinese EFL learners at the university level had developed an awareness of reading strategies. In terms of the most frequently used strategies, 1 of the total 3 strategies (33.3%) employed in
English reading was in the subcategory of global reading strategy. In the same vein, 6 out of the total 14 most frequently used strategies (42.86%) in Chinese reading were in the subcategory of global reading strategy. This suggests that the EFL learners were generally capable of setting the stage for reading, planning priorities beforehand, and activating their background knowledge. For example, in English reading, they “have a purpose in mind” (Item 1, M = 3.6, SD = 1.05). Also, in
Chinese reading, they “preview the text to see what it’s about” (Item 2, M = 3.79, SD
= 1.06). Furthermore, they showed their ability of decision-making concerning “what to read closely and what to ignore” (item 5, M=3.53, SD=1.22) in Chinese reading and in English reading (item 14, M=3.34, SD=1.09) as well as made use of existing knowledge for the task by “think about what I know to help me understand what I
134
read” in Chinese reading (item 16, M=3.62, SD=1.09) and English reading (item 3,
M=3.38, SD=1.13).
In addition to the capability of planning for reading as evidenced by the global strategies, the Chinese EFL learners in this study were shown to be capable of monitoring their reading process, as evidenced by their frequent use of problem- solving strategies. They demonstrated their ability to detect reading problems, such as
“get back on track when lose concentration” (Item 20, M = 3.82, SD = 0.91). In addition, they made efforts to repair comprehension breakdown, such as “When text becomes difficult, I re-read to increase my understanding” (Item 18, M= 3.75, SD =
1.07) and “When text becomes difficult, I pay closer attention to what I’m reading”
(Item 8, M = 3.58, SD = 1.24). Though “supporting strategies” were reported to be the least favored category, it cannot be denied that the Chinese EFL learners were capable of using external aids to facilitating reading comprehension. The strategy of
“underline or circle information in the text” was used at a high frequency in both
Chinese reading and English reading (Item 23, M = 3.75, SD = 1.27; Item 12, M =
3.53, SD = 1.20).
Taken together, with respect the first research question, the analysis of the
Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory captured the different patterns in approaching Chinese and English texts among Chinese EFL learners at the university level. From the present data, it seems reasonable to assume that these EFL
135
learners had the metacognitive awareness of strategies in reading both Chinese and
English texts. They made plans before reading, monitored their reading process, detected reading problems, repaired comprehension breakdown and sought external help, which, in general, characterized them as strategic readers (Sheorey & Mokhtari,
2001; Zhang, 2009, 2010).
Congruent with the findings of previous studies, this study found a similar pattern of strategy use when the EFL learners read Chinese texts and English texts.
Overall, the Chinese EFL learners reported a preference for problem-solving strategies most, and then global reading strategies, with support strategies least favored in both Chinese reading and English reading. Since the participants in this study all learned English after they had acquired Chinese, how they approached
Chinese texts might have influenced the way in which they approached English texts.
In addition, metacognition was universal across languages, and thus it was natural for apply strategies in a similar pattern in Chinese and English reading. The research finding of the similar patterns of strategy use in Chinese reading and English reading lends empirical evidence to the claim that a common underlying proficiency links L1 and L2 and sets up a platform for both languages to develop (Cummins, 2000).
However, in addition to the similarity, this study found that the Chinese EFL learners employed strategies in English reading at a moderate frequency compared with the high frequency in Chinese reading. In terms of the mean difference in the
136
frequency of overall strategy use, the results of this study indicate that it was not a simple mapping process between Chinese reading and English reading in which the
EFL learners employed strategies in the same manner. How the Chinese EFL learners approached Chinese texts and English texts might be influenced by several factors: the instructional practice in language classroom, the amount of language exposure, linguistic differences, the level of L2 language proficiency and reading ability, and cognitive processing load. Due to the lack of systematic instruction in strategy and limited exposure to L2 input in daily life, the Chinese EFL learners did not have much opportunity to practice strategies in English reading. On account of their level of L2 language proficiency, they might not attempt to employ strategies that failed in one situation to another. In addition, they might allocate more cognitive resources to linguistic processing (e.g., word decoding, parsing, and proposition setting) than strategy employment.
In brief, results from research question one indicate that Chinese EFL learners have the metacognitive control over their reading process. The metacognitive control is manifested in their application of strategies, selection of strategies and inhibition of certain strategies. In addition, the differences in the strategy use between Chinese reading and English reading suggest that metacognition is closely related to linguistic factors, which challenges the previous contention that metacognition is a higher-level cognitive process that is independent of linguistic factors (Cummins, 2000; Shiotsu,
137
2003, 2010). The contrary finding is one of this study’s contributions to the literature in this area. 5.1.2 Discussions of Research Question 2
The second research question addressed in this study was: Are metacognition,
L1 reading ability, and L2 language proficiency separate constructs of L2 reading comprehension? The results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis showed that all the factor loadings were significant (p<. 05), and the composite reliability and the average variance extract were beyond the cut-off value, which provided validity and reliability evidence in favor of the indicators for the operationalization of their respective constructs. Looking at the results broadly, it was found that metacognition,
L2 language proficiency, and L1 reading ability were multi-dimensional constructs.
Looking at the results in more specific terms, this study generated several findings related to the second research question and unveiled multi-dimensional constructs different from the previous studies.
Firstly, metacognition was represented by six manifest indicators: 1) English global reading strategies; 2) English problem-solving strategies; 3) English support strategies; 4) Chinese global reading strategies; 5) Chinese problem-solving strategies; 6) Chinese support strategies. Apart from examining the categories of strategy use, this study was different from the previous research in terms of
138
specifying both the context of task (reading) and the context of language (Chinese and English) in which the strategies were employed.
Previous research examining the strategies in the reading process by ESL or
EFL learners focused on reading English texts (Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001, 2002;
Zhang, 2009, 2010). Therefore, the weakness of those studies was that the influence of the first language was overlooked. Differently, this study operationalized strategies in the specific context of EFL reading and in the specific language contexts of
Chinese and English. The rationale was that, due to the similarities and differences in the EFL learners’ approaches to reading Chinese and English texts, it was necessary to specify the language contexts in which the strategies were applied (Zhang & Wu,
2009). As discussed with respect to research question 1, though Chinese reading and
English reading showed a similar pattern in strategy use, they were not parallel processes (Bernhardt & Kamil, 1995; Bossers, 1992; Clarke, 1980; Taillefer, 1996).
Admittedly, it was highly possible that the Chinese reading strategies could be accessed in the process of English reading. Thus, the mental operation in reading
English texts cannot be separated from the influence of Chinese reading. However, on account of the differences between the two languages, amount of exposure, and language proficiency, the preferences of strategies in Chinese reading were distinguished from those used in processing English texts, as evidenced in the analysis of the different frequency of individual strategy use in research question one.
139
Taking into consideration both similarities and differences between Chinese and
English reading strategies, it was reasonable to operationalize metacognition in terms of Chinese reading strategies and English reading strategies, so as to present a more comprehensive picture of Chinese EFL learners’ information processing in reading.
Secondly, three indicators represented L2 language proficiency: 1) knowledge of vocabulary size; 2) knowledge of implicit grammar; and 3) knowledge of explicit grammar. The mainstream model of L2 language proficiency consists of vocabulary and grammar, in which vocabulary is more closely correlated with L2 language proficiency and outperforms grammar in predicting reading comprehension
(Anderson & Freebody, 1981; Barnett, 1986; Bossers, 1992; Brisbois, 1995; Nation
& Coady, 1988; Yamashita, 1999). Differently, this study suggested a model of L2 language proficiency that consisted of vocabulary, implicit grammar, and explicit grammar. The difference between explicit grammar and implicit grammar rested in the fact that the former refers to the knowledge of language use involving automatic processing without effort, whereas the latter is declarative knowledge of grammatical rules and formal language properties involving controlled processing (N. Ellis, 2008).
By examining the subcomponents of grammar, this study unveiled the close relationship between explicit grammar and L2 language proficiency, which indicates that the Chinese EFL learners took deliberate, conscious efforts to obtain language
140
knowledge. In addition, the result suggests that more careful operationalization of L2 language proficiency could account for more variances in L2 reading.
For the Chinese EFL learners in this study, knowledge of explicit grammar outweighed knowledge of vocabulary and implicit grammar in the relation to L2 language proficiency, a finding that contradicts previous research findings that vocabulary was the predominant predictor of L2 reading (Butler, 2002; R. Ellis,
2006; Roehr, 2007).
Thirdly, empirical studies examining the contribution of L1 reading ability to
L2 reading comprehension referred to L1 reading ability as a general cognitive ability
(Bernhardt and Kamil, 1995; Bossers, 1992; Clarke, 1980;Taillefer, 1996). Different from the previous research, this study used a reading comprehension test to tap both the language-specific knowledge of reading and the general reading ability so as to extend our understanding of the possible components of L1 reading ability. In this study, L1 reading ability was represented by three indicators: 1) topic comprehension, 2) detail comprehension, and 3) making inferences. Schoonen (1998) claimed that L1 reading ability is underpinned by language-specific knowledge on one hand and general reading skills on the other hand. Therefore, Schoonen (1998) measured the former by a vocabulary test and the latter by a metacognitive knowledge test. Because the point of interest in Schoonen (1998) was the correlation between L1 reading comprehension and L2 reading comprehension, metacognitive
141
knowledge of reading was considered as a general ability and included as a component of L1 reading ability. The general ability was assumed to transfer from
L1 to L2 and therefore resulted in a positive correlation between the two languages.
However, in this study, metacognition was operationalized as a separate predictor of
L2 reading comprehension, representing a common proficiency linking L1 and L2 languages. On the other hand, this study operationalized L1 reading ability as both language-specific knowledge and general ability.
Drawing on this operationalization of metacognition and L1 reading ability, the second hypothesis of this study was that metacognition, L1 reading ability, and
L2 language proficiency were separate predictors of L2 reading comprehension. That hypothesis was supported by the study’s findings. Based on the model fit indices, the three-factor model outperformed the alternative two-factor models and one-factor model to provide a better fit to the data. The confirmatory factor analysis showed that the three factors were closely interrelated, but were not highly correlated to indicate singularity. This suggests that the three factors were indeed separate predictors. In addition, the structural equation model showed that the three factors all made a unique and significant contribution to explaining the variances in L2 reading comprehension. To be specific, L1 reading ability exerted a direct, positive, and moderate effect on reading comprehension (regression weight=. 026, p<. 05).
Metacognition also directly and positively impacted on L2 reading comprehension,
142
with a moderate effect (regression weight=. 026, p<. 05). Also, L2 language proficiency was positively, directly and moderately linked to L2 reading comprehension (regression weight=. 050, p<. 05).
After identifying metacognition, L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency as separate predictors of L2 reading comprehension, this study attempted to explore the relative contribution of the three predictors to L2 reading comprehension as well as the interaction among the three predictors. It was assumed that apart from the direct influences on L2 reading comprehension, metacognition, L1 reading ability, and L2 language proficiency also exerted indirect influences on L2 reading, which was examined in research question three.
5.1.3 Discussions of Research Question 3
Research question 3 asked: What is the relationship between metacognition,
L1 reading ability, L2 language proficiency and L2 reading comprehension?
Regarding this question, the results of this study were convergent with previous studies in several regards, while some divergent findings also came to light.
Several findings related to the third research question confirmed previous research findings. First, based on model fit indices and interpretability, model 1.2 was determined as the final full-latent variable model. In Model 1.2, L2 language proficiency was positively, directly linked to L2 reading comprehension, which was
143
convergent with the previous research findings (Bernhardt & Kamil, 1995; Phakiti,
2003; Shiotu & Weir, 2007; Upton & Lee-Thompson, 2001; Yamashita, 2002). Also,
L1 reading ability positively, directly influenced L2 reading comprehension, which was in line with the literature (Bernhardt and Kamil, 1995; Bossers, 1992; Clarke,
1980; Taillefer, 1996). In addition, metacognitive knowledge exerted direct and positive impacts on L2 reading comprehension, which was also congruent with the previous research (Cohen & Upton, 2006; Mokhatari & Reichard, 2004; Phakiti,
2003; Purpura, 1999; Rupp, Ferne & Choi, 2006; Yang 2006).
Furthermore, there was alignment with the previous finding that metacognition is positively correlated with L2 language proficiency (Block, 1992;
Mokhtari & Reichard; 2002; Upton & Lee-Thompson, 2001; Yamashita, 2002) and
L1 reading ability (Chamot & O’Malley, 1994a; Hardin, 2001; Oxford, 1990;
Pressley, 2002). Previous research argues that L1 reading ability is closely related to
L2 reading performance.
Consistently, L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency were found in this study to be closely related (R2= .3, p<. 05). Previous research showed a correlation between English and non-alphabetic L1 ranging from .01 to .53
(Bialystok, Luk, et al., 2005; Bialystok, McBride-Chang, et al., 2005; Keung & Ho,
2009; Wang et al., 2005; Wang et al., 2006), and a correlation between English and
144
alphabetic L1 language ranging from .15 to .71 (Jiang & Kuehn, 2001; Sparks et al.,
2008; van Gelderen et al., 2007).
On the other hand, some new findings also emerged in this study, thus extending our understanding of the inter-relationship between metacognition, L1 reading ability, L2 language proficiency, and L2 reading comprehension. Firstly, by carefully choosing the indicators to represent the three predictors, this study explained more variances in L2 reading. Previous research demonstrated that metacognition, L2 language proficiency, and L1 reading ability contributed from
10%-30% of the variances in L2 reading comprehension. However, in this study, metacognition, L2 language proficiency, and L1 reading ability accounted for 87%,
32% and 78%, respectively, of the variances in L2 reading comprehension. This result suggests the idea that more careful operationalization of the constructs could help to explain more variances in L2 reading comprehension.
Building on previous research concerning the relative contribution of different predictors to L2 reading comprehension, this study proceeded to investigate the interactions among the predictors and yielded new research finings. Metacognition turned out to be closely related to both L2 language proficiency and L1 reading ability, a finding that provides support for the Model of Common Underlying
Proficiency (Cummins, 2000). In addition, it was found metacognition and L2 language proficiency exerted indirect influences on L2 reading.
145
Looking closely at the role of metacognition, this study revealed a dynamic relation between metacognition and L2 reading. To be specific, metacognition not only directly and positively contributed to L2 reading, but also exerted an indirect influence on L2 reading via L2 language proficiency and L1 reading ability. The results for research question one suggested that the Chinese EFL learners had the metacognitive awareness of using strategies in reading. The findings for research question three indicate that L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency mediated the influence of metacognition on L2 reading. Connecting the results of research question one and three, this study argues that the reading strategies could not be brought into full play without the support of specific language knowledge. Supposing that semantic and syntactic processing took up a large share of the available cognitive resources, the access to strategies would be hindered and thus resulted in the ineffective function of metacognitive monitoring and control in the reading process.
The deficiency in English language knowledge and L1 reading ability might explain why some Chinese EFL learners had developed a repertoire of strategies but failed to activate them in an organized fashion. In a nutshell, this study proposed that English language knowledge and L1 reading ability provide grounds and premises from which strategies can be invoked and employed in an effective manner to facilitate L2 reading comprehension. It was not the quantity of strategies so much as the quality of strategy use that distinguished skilled readers from less skilled readers.
146
In addition to the dynamic relationship between metacognition and L2 reading, L2 language proficiency was dynamically linked to L2 reading comprehension by exerting a direct and indirect influence via L1 reading ability. This research finding lends empirical evidence to the Linguistic Interdependence
Hypothesis that L2 language competency is partly a function of well-developed L1 language competency (Cummins, 1979). Building on the previous research that suggested a correlation between L2 language proficiency and L2 reading, this study found that L1 reading ability mediated the impact of L2 language proficiency on L2 reading comprehension. This research finding indicates that to optimize L2 reading performance, Chinese EFL learners should not only be equipped with English language knowledge but also Chinese reading ability. If Chinese reading ability was well developed when the English language learning began, the Chinese EFL learners could apply general reading strategies and skills in the process of reading English texts. On the other hand, this research finding also suggests that the relationship between L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency was reciprocal. If the knowledge and skills developed in Chinese established the grounds for English language learning, it was likely that the acquired knowledge and skills in English language learning could also be used to enhance Chinese language development. To sum up, this study built on the previous research by showing the mediating effects of
L1 reading ability on the correlation between L2 language proficiency and L2 reading
147
and suggesting that the relationship between L1 language and L2 language development was a two-way interaction.
As to the relative contribution of L2 language proficiency and L1 reading ability to L2 reading comprehension, the results of this study are in contrast to the previous research findings. It was noteworthy that in this study, L1 reading ability turned out to outperform L2 language proficiency in explaining the variances in L2 reading and L2 language proficiency had the smallest degree of magnitude concerning its contribution to L2 reading comprehension. This research finding refutes the previous research argument that L2 language proficiency is the predominant predictor of L2 reading and reinforces the importance of L1 reading ability in facilitating L2 reading comprehension. As Cummins (1979) stated in the
Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis conceptual knowledge acquired in the native language makes the input in the second language easier to understand. Suppose a language learner has developed the ability to use strategies in Chinese (L1) reading, it would be easier for him to adapt, modify and apply the strategies in English (L2) reading. Therefore, this research finding is significant because of its classroom implications. The assumption of English instruction in China is to expose learners to maximum input at school. However, the weakness of this assumption is that it overlooks the importance of the learners’ understanding of the input. To make the
148
input more comprehensible, the instruction should take into consideration the conceptual knowledge developed in the learners’ first language learning experience.
The above-mentioned findings, which differed from those produced in the previous research, might be attributed to the following factors. One possible explanation might relate to the linguistic differences between L1 and L2. The L1 backgrounds of the participants in the previous studies were cognate languages such as German or languages that use an alphabet, such as French and Spanish. The EFL learners in this study were native speakers of Chinese, a language that uses visual symbols to represent words instead of using phonemes to make up the word. Thus, shifting word decoding from characters to alphabetical letters gave an extra cognitive load to the language processing. In addition, the EFL learners in this study were sophomore students, and they had high exposure to Chinese reading in and out of school. Therefore, they were more likely to employ the knowledge and skills they developed in L1 reading experience to solve the problems they encountered in L2 reading. This partly explains why L1 reading ability played an active role in mediating the impacts of metacognitive knowledge and L2 language proficiency on
L2 reading comprehension. From this point of view, this study has expanded our understanding of the interaction between L1 reading ability and L2 reading comprehension.
149
Secondly, the social-cultural context of learning should be taken into consideration when examining the mediating effect of L1 reading ability between metacognition and L2 reading comprehension. The traditional instructional practice in Chinese reading courses from primary school to high school involves extensive drills in using strategies to make sense of the written texts. Strategies such as using context are repeatedly practiced in class, thereby entailing less conscious efforts to be invoked in Chinese reading. As a result, the Chinese EFL learners had formed the habit of consciously undertaking a course of actions for accomplishing desired goals in reading Chinese texts. The practice of strategies in Chinese reading instruction promoted the development of their L1 reading ability. In turn, the improved L1 reading ability reinforced their metacognitive awareness of strategy use. Therefore, in cases when their English language knowledge was not adequate to overcome the reading difficulties they encountered in English reading, the participants might access their metacognitive awareness of Chinese reading strategies to identify possible approaches to construct L2 text meanings.
To sum up the study’s findings with respect to the second and third research questions, the results of this study highlight the role of L1 reading ability a strong predictor of L2 reading, as well as the common cognitive ability associating L1 reading ability with L2 language proficiency. Chinese reading ability not only directly contributed to English reading comprehension, but also mediated the effects
150
of L2 language proficiency and metacognition on English reading comprehension.
Metacognition turned out to be the dominant predictor of English reading comprehension and also indirectly influenced English reading comprehension by means of Chinese reading ability and L2 language proficiency. Compared with the other two variables, L2 language proficiency was found to exert the weakest influence on English reading comprehension.
In this sense, this study challenges the previous research that the transfer of strategies depended on the closeness of the two languages. Disregarding the linguistic differences in Chinese and English, the cognitive proficiency of strategy use was universal across languages. In short, this study enriches our understanding of the interaction between L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency as a two-way, reciprocal interaction. Secondly, this study reinforces the importance of L1 reading ability in facilitating L2 reading. Thirdly, this study contributes a different approach to account for this puzzling concept of metacognition by specifying the tasks and the language context in which the strategies are employed. Last but not least, this study sheds light on the dynamic relationship between metacognition, L1 reading ability,
L2 language proficiency and L2 reading, which expands our understanding of the interaction between cognitive factors and linguistic factors in the reading process.
Metacognition plays a dominant role in L2 reading; however, L2 language proficiency and L1 reading ability provide the grounds for metacognition to function
151
in an effective manner. The findings of this study thus have some valuable implications that are discussed in the next section of the chapter.
5.3 Implications
The findings of this study have theoretical and methodological implications for the scholarship on L2 reading. Firstly, this study has theoretical implications regarding the components of L2 reading and the dimensions of metacognition in L2 reading. Secondly, this study has methodological implications about the application of SEM to examine the relationships among a group of variables.
5.3.1 Theoretical Implications
This study generates some important theoretical implications to account for the components of L2 reading and the dimensions of metacognition. Firstly, through structural equation modeling, this study presents a new model of L2 reading comprehension consisting of metacognition, L1 reading ability, and L2 language proficiency. The model constructed in this study implies that Chinese EFL learners have the metacognitive awareness of using strategies in both Chinese reading and
English reading. In this model, metacognition is closely related to L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency, which lends empirical evidence to the Model of
Common Underlying Proficiency. Moreover, metacognition outperforms the other two variables to be the dominant predictor of L2 reading, which highlights the role of
152
cognitive factors in the L2 reading process. This model not only suggests that metacognition is the common underlying proficiency that links L1 and L2 language proficiency, but also expands our understanding of the impacts of metacognition in
L2 reading.
In addition, this model also enriches our understanding of the role of L1 reading ability in L2 reading. L1 reading ability overweighs L2 language proficiency to be a predictor of L2 reading and mediates the influence of L2 language proficiency on L2 reading, which lends empirical evidence to the Linguistic Interdependence
Hypothesis. Previous L2 reading models do not include L1 reading ability as a necessary component (Bernhardt, 1991) or an important component (Bernhardt &
Kamil, 1995). Bernhardt (1991) proposed L2 reading models consisting of conceptual knowledge, background knowledge, strategy knowledge, linguistic knowledge, and literacy knowledge. In Bernhardt & Kamil’s (1995) model of L2 reading, the variance explained by L1 reading ability was less than 20%. Building on previous models, this study posited a L2 reading model, including L1 reading ability as a component, and the results of the study demonstrated L1 reading ability as a strong predictor of L2 reading. In this sense, this model implies that to optimize EFL learners’ L2 reading performance, the exposure to L2 language input is not enough.
In order to make L2 language input comprehensible and enhance learners’ understanding of the input, it is necessary to incorporate the reading strategies and
153
skills developed in L1 reading experience. To sum up, through depicting the interrelationships between metacognition, L1 reading ability, L2 language proficiency, and L2 reading comprehension, this study expands our knowledge regarding the components in a L2 reading model as well as the relationship among the components.
Another theoretical implication arising from this study concerns the dimensions of metacognition in the context of reading. This study specifies the dimensions of metacognition of EFL learners to include both L1 metacognitive knowledge of strategies and L2 metacognitive knowledge of strategies. Previous research on metacognition do not go beyond representing metacognition by strategic knowledge (declarative strategies, procedural strategies, conditional strategies) or characteristics of the strategies (task-based strategies, reader-based strategies)
(Purpura, 1997, 1998; Phakiti, 2003). The weakness of those studies is that they fail to take into consideration EFL learners’ language systems. EFL learners have two language systems at their disposal, and the two language systems are not parallel structures, or a simple mapping process in reading. Therefore, EFL learners have the choice to access their conceptual knowledge, strategies and skills developed in L1 reading experience to help them solve the problems encountered in L2 reading, or they can choose to rely strictly on their L2. However, through structure equation modeling, the model in this study demonstrates that Chinese global strategies are
154
closely correlated with English global strategies and Chinese supporting strategies are also closely related to English supporting strategies. This model implies that EFL learners’ metacognitive knowledge in L1 reading is not independent from that in L2 reading, but rather is correlated with it. With a view to this, this study builds on the previous operationalization of metacognition and sheds light on the correlation between L1 and L2 metacognitive knowledge of strategies in the reading process.
Taken together, the model in this study enriches our understanding of the interaction among metacognition, L1 reading ability, L2 language proficiency and L2 reading. In addition, by specifying the dimensions of metacognition in the context of both the L1 reading and the L2 reading, the model in this study expands our understanding of metacognitive knowledge of strategies.
5.3.2 Methodological Implication
This study has methodological implications involving using Structural
Equation Modeling (SEM) to examine the interaction among a group of variables. In the scholarship of L2 reading, few studies have used SEM. Among the few studies that used SEM, none of them has explored the interaction among the predictors. For example, using SEM, Purpura (1997, 1999) examined the direct influence of cognitive and metacognitive strategies on L2 reading test performance. Schoonen et al. (1998) explored the contribution of metacognitive knowledge and language-specific
155
knowledge to L1 and L2 reading comprehension. van Gelderen et al. (2004) did the componential analysis of linguistic knowledge, metacognitive knowledge, and processing speed in L1 and L2 reading. Shiotsu and Weir (2007) compared the relative contribution of vocabulary and grammar to L2 reading comprehension.
However, none of the studies mentioned above examined the indirect influence of the predictors on L2 reading. With the substantive research findings produced by the current study, it is clear that SEM functions well to capture the direct and indirect influence of one variable on another. Moreover, SEM is a useful tool to generate models through the procedure of model specification, testing, and modification until a model that best fits the data is found. Therefore, SEM stands out from other statistical methods to examine the relationship among multiple variables.
5.4 Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research
Although this study has produced a number of valuable findings, some limitations have to be pointed out, especially to provide directions for future research.
Firstly, this study examined the role of metacognition in L2 reading through the lens of reading strategies, without examining the other dimensions of metacognition, such as metacognitive knowledge of person and task. The metacognitive knowledge of person includes the learner’s interest, attitude, motivation, the goal of reading, the learner’s degree of self-efficacy, and language
156
learning anxiety, etc. Reading comprehension could be influenced by these individual characteristics, such as whether readers regard L2 reading as an enjoyable experience, whether they have a clear goal of reading to learn new information or to obtain the correct answer, whether they hold a positive self-image of their strengths and weaknesses as readers, and whether they are burdened with anxiety in language learning, to cite a few examples. In addition, learners’ knowledge of task types and demands, such as multiple-choice questions, open-ended questions, schematic tables, summaries, and inferences could also impact on their reading comprehension performance. Future research could incorporate metacognitive knowledge of person, metacognitive knowledge of the task, and metacognitive knowledge of the strategies into the structural equation model so as to generate a more comprehensive picture of the impact of metacognition on L2 reading comprehension.
Secondly, this study used a metacognitive awareness of reading strategies questionnaire to elicit learners’ reading strategies. However, there might be a discrepancy between the reported strategy use and the actual strategy use among the participants. In some cases, the participants might mistake the strategies they believed they should use for the strategies they actually used. Therefore, some might report a high frequency of strategy use on the basis of their knowledge of strategies.
However, due to time limits, task demands, and test anxiety, they might not have been able to fully access the strategies and employ them frequently in the L2 reading
157
tests. It is also possible that some participants thought they should report more strategy use to meet the researcher’s expectations. Therefore, further research could combine a strategy questionnaire with other instruments, such as think-aloud protocols, checklists, and semi-structured interviews. If the participants could orally present their thinking process while reading, researchers could gain more reliable insights into their higher-order cognitive processing of the written texts.
Thirdly, in this study, L2 language proficiency was indicated by participants’ knowledge of vocabulary size, implicit grammar and explicit grammar in the form of multiple-choice questions, which could only capture a part of the learners’ English language knowledge. Other forms of language knowledge, such as phonological awareness and syntactic knowledge, could also be included to operationalize language proficiency. In addition, L1 reading ability and L2 reading comprehension were measured by multiple-choice reading comprehension tests. Future research could include other test formats, such as open-ended questions, cloze exercises, and fill-in-the-gap tasks to produce a more comprehensive picture of the learners’ reading ability.
Fourthly, this study only investigated university sophomore EFL learners in
China, which limited the generalization of the research findings to other contexts, such as EFL learners of other grade levels or in other countries. Future research could use a cross-sectional design to examine participants from diverse L1 backgrounds
158
and divide the participants into groups based on their L1 reading ability, L2 language proficiency, age, or gender. In this way, the interaction between the predictors and their main effects on L2 reading comprehension could be presented in a more precise and comprehensive manner.
Fifthly, this study investigated the relationship between metacognition, L2 language proficiency, L1 reading ability, and L2 reading comprehension only through a quantitative analysis. Given the limitations of SEM, the accepted model was only an approximation of the true model. It is possible that other alternative models also fit the data well. Future research could combine the quantitative approach with the qualitative approach. The use of think-aloud protocols and interviews could cross- validate the findings in the quantitative analysis.
Finally, this study is a correlational study that suggests metacognition is the greatest contributor to L2 reading comprehension. Therefore, it is recommended that researchers could carry out an instructional study to examine if the strategy instruction could greatly improve L2 reading performance. In addition, the current study implies that L1 reading ability is a strong predictor of L2 reading comprehension. L1 reading materials could offer learners with background information and conceptual knowledge that make L2 input more comprehensible. Thus, future instructional study is needed to examine if the cross-linguistic input could benefit L2 reading.
159
5.5 Concluding Comments
The participants in this study were 268 university sophomore EFL learners in
China. Different from the previous studies that focus on the relative contribution of
L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency to L2 reading and the relative contribution of metacognition and L2 language proficiency to L2 reading, this study attempts to explore the relationship among metacognition, L1 reading ability, L2 language proficiency, and L2 reading comprehension, using a different statistical approach of Structural Equation Modeling. Drawing on the discussions in this chapter, the following conclusions are drawn.
Firstly, the findings show that overall, Chinese EFL learners use strategies at high frequency in Chinese reading, whereas they use strategies at moderate frequency in English reading. As to the pattern of strategy use, they favor problem-solving strategies most, closely followed by global strategies, and least favor supporting strategies in both Chinese reading and English reading. However, their preferences for individual strategies significantly differ between Chinese and English reading.
The results reveal that L1 reading and L2 reading are closely related and L2 reading cannot be independent from the influence of L1 reading. However, L1 reading and
L2 reading processes are significantly different due to linguistic differences, social and cultural contexts and information processing ability. L1 reading and L2 reading are not parallel processes or a simple mapping process.
160
Secondly, this study found that metacognition, L2 language proficiency, and
L1 reading ability are separate and multidimensional constructs. Moreover, this study discloses that not only do metacognition, L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency make direct contributions to L2 reading comprehension, they also exert indirect influences on L2 reading. More specifically, 1) This study finds that metacognition exerts indirect influence on L2 reading comprehension by means of L2 language proficiency and L1 reading ability. This finding provides new insights into the Model of Common Underlying Proficiency (Cummins, 2000). Metacognition is found to be the common cognitive proficiency that links L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency and functions as a common base for the development of both languages. On the other hand, L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency provide grounds for metacognition to function in an effective manner. Taken together, this study reveals that L2 reading is a cognitive and linguistic process that requires not only language knowledge, but also cognitive ability to manipulate the knowledge in an effective way. This research finding broadens our understanding that cognitive ability works in conjunction with language proficiency to facilitate L2 reading.
2) Also different from previous research, this study finds that L2 language proficiency indirectly impacts L2 reading comprehension via L1 reading ability. On the one hand, L1 reading ability makes a substantial and direct contribution to L2 reading comprehension. On the other hand, the development of L2 language
161
proficiency could also promote the development of L1 reading ability, which lends empirical evidence to the Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis (Cummings, 1979).
This research finding highlights the role of L1 reading ability as a strong predictor of
L2 reading and also expands our understanding of the two-way interaction between the L1 and the L2 language development.
The research findings in this study bring up theoretical and methodological implications. Regarding the theoretical implications, the results of this study suggest a different L2 reading model consisting of metacognition, L1 reading ability, and L2 language proficiency. In this model, metacognition makes the greatest contribution to
L2 reading. In addition, the results of this study suggest that for EFL learners, the dimensions of metacognition encompass both the L1 and the L2 metacognitive knowledge of strategies. As to the methodological implication, this study suggests that structural equation modeling is a robust multivariate analytical procedure to investigate the direct and indirect influence among a group of variables within a single framework.
In a nutshell, despite its limitations, this study sheds light on the differences between the L1 and the L2 reading process, enriches our understanding of the separate constructs of metacognition, L1 reading ability, and L2 language proficiency, and provides insights into the dynamic relationship between metacognition, L1 reading ability, L2 language proficiency and L2 reading.
162
References Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P.D., Paris, S., (2008). Skills and strategies: their differences, their relationships and why it matters. In: Mokhtari, K., Sheorey, R. (Eds.), Reading strategies of First- and Second-language learners: see how they read (pp. 11–24). Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc., Norwood, MA.
Alderson, J. C. (1984). Reading in a foreign language: A reading problem or a language problem? In J. C. Alderson & A. H. Urquhart (Eds.), Reading in a foreign language (pp. 1–27). London: Longman.
Alderson, J.C. (2000). Assessing Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Anderson, N. J. (2003). Scrolling, clicking, and reading English: Online reading strategies in a second/ foreign language. The Reading Matrix, 3(3), 1-33.
Anderson, N. J. (2005). L2 learning strategies. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp.757–71). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bachman, L. (2002). Some reflections on task-based language performance assessment. Language Testing, 19, 453-476.
Baddeley, A. (2000) The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(11), 417–23.
Baddeley, A. D. (2006). Working memory: an overview. In S. Pickering (Ed.),
163
Working Memory and Education (pp. 1-31). Burlington, MA: Academic Press.
Baker, L. & Brown, A.L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P.D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp.353-394). New York: Longman.
Barnett, M. A. (1988). Reading through context: How real and perceived strategy use affects L2 comprehension. Modern Language Journal, 72, 150-160.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.
Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness-of-fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-600.
Bernhardt, E. B. (1991). Reading development in a second language: Theoretical, empirical, and classroom perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Bernhardt, E., Kamil, M., (1995). Interpreting relationships between L1 and L2 reading: consolidating the linguistic threshold and the linguistic interdependence hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 12, 206–218.
Bernhardt, E. (2005). Progress and procrastination in second language reading. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 133–150.
Bialystok, E. (1981). The role of conscious strategies in second language proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 28, 69-83.
164
Bialystok, E. (1991). Language processing in bilingual children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bialystok, E., McBride-Chang, C., & Luk, G. (2005). Bilingualism, language proficiency, and learning to read in two writing systems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 580-590.
Block, E. (1986). The comprehension strategies of second language readers. TESOL Quarterly, 20(3), 463–494.
Block, E. (1992). See how they read: Comprehension monitoring of L1 and L2 readers. TESOL Quarterly, 26(2), 319–343.
Borkowski, J. G., & Burke, J. E. (1996). Theories, models, and measurements of executive functioning: An information processing perspective. In G. R. Lyon & N. A. Krasnegor (Eds.), Attention, memory, and executive function (pp. 235–261). Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.
Bossers, B. (1992). Reading in two languages: A study of reading comprehension in Dutch as a second language and in Turkish as a first language. Drukkerij Van Driel: Rotterdam.
Brisbois, J. E. (1995). Connections between first- and second-language reading. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27(4), 565-584.
Brown, A. (1980). Metacognitive development and reading. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence, and education (pp. 453-481). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models
165
(pp. 445–455). Newbury Park: Sage.
Butler, Y. G. (2002). Second language learners’ theories on the use of English articles: An analysis of the metalinguistic knowledge used by Japanese students in acquiring the English article system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 451-480.
Carrell, P. L. (1991). Second language reading: Reading ability or language proficiency? Applied Linguistics, 12(2), 159-179.
Carrell, P.L. (1998). Can reading strategies be successfully taught? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 1-20.
Carrell, P., & Eisterhold, J. C. (1988). Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy. In P. Carrell, J. Devine, & D. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp. 73-92). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Chamot, A. U. & O’Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Chern, C. L. (1994). Chinese readers’ metacognitive awareness in reading Chinese and English. In B. Norman (Ed.), Language and instruction (pp. 402-421). Hong Kong: International Language in Education Conference.
Clarke, M. A. (1980). The short circuit hypothesis of ESL reading: Or when language competence interferes with reading performance. Modern Language Journal, 64, 203-209.
Cohen, A. D. (2003). The learner’s side of foreign language learning: Where do styles, strategies, and tasks meet? International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 41, 279-291.
166
Cohen, A. D. (2007). Coming to terms with language learner strategies: Surveying the experts. In A. D. Cohen & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learner strategies: Thirty years of research and practice (pp. 29-46). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Cohen, A. D. & Upton, T. A. (2006). “I want to go back to text”: Response strategies on the reading subtest of the New TOEFL. Language Testing, 24(2), 209-250.
Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49, 222-251.
Cummins, J. (1991). Interdependence of first- and second language proficiency in bilingual children. In E. Bialystok (Ed.) Language processing in bilingual children (pp.70-89). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Ellis, R. (2005). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 141-172.
Ellis, R. (2008). Explicit knowledge and second language learning and pedagogy. In J. Cenoz & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education Volume 6: Knowledge about language (2nd ed., pp. 143–153). New York: Springer.
Esling, J. & Downing, J. (1986). What do ESL students need to learn about reading? TESL Canada Journal, Special Issue, 1, 55-68.
Eskey, D. E., & Grabe, W. (1988). Interactive models for second language reading: perspectives on instruction. In P. Carrell, J. Devine, & D. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp.93-100). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible
167
statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191.
Feng, X., & Mokhtari, K. (1998). Reading easy and difficult texts in English and Chinese: Strategy use by native speakers of Chinese. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 8, 19-40.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911.
Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition. In Weinert, F. E. and Kluwe, R. H. (eds.), Metacognition, Motivation, and Understanding (pp. 21-29). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fornell, Claes & David G. Larcker. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, N.J., Ablex.
Goldman, S. R., & Rakestraw, J. (2000). Structural aspects of constructing meaning from text. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Vol. M (pp. 311-355). Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.
Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. (2002). Teaching and Researching Reading. Harlow: Longman.
Han, Y., & Ellis, R. (1998). Implicit knowledge, explicit knowledge and general language proficiency. Language Teaching Research, 2, 1-23.
168
Hardin, V. (2001). Transfer and variation in cognitive reading strategies of Latino fourth-grade students in a late-exit program. Bilingual Research Journal, 25(4), 1-21.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-55.
Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60-99.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1983). LISREL-6 User’s Reference Guide. Mooresville: Scientific Software.
Kern, R.L., (1989). Second language reading strategy instruction: its effects on comprehension and word inference ability. The Modern Language Journal, 73, 135-149.
Keung, Y.-C., & Ho, C. S.-H. (2009). Transfer of reading-related cognitive skills in learning to read Chinese (L1) and English (L2) among Chinese elementary school children. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 103-112.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T.A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological review, 85, 363-394.
Koda, K. (1999). Development of L2 intraword orthographic sensitivity and decoding skills. The Modern Language Journal, 83, 51–64.
Koda, K. (2005). Insights into second language reading: A cross-linguistic approach.
169
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Koda, K. (2007). Reading and language learning: Crosslinguistic constraints on second language reading development. Language Learning, 57, 1-44.
Kong, A. (2006). Connections between L1 and L2 readings: Reading strategies used by four Chinese adult readers. The Reading Matrix, 6(2), 19-45.
Kuhn, Deanna. (2000). Metacognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(5), 178-181.
LaBerge, D. & Samuels, S. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive psychology, 6, 293-323.
Lee, J.-W. & Schallert, D.L. 1997: The relative contribution of L2 language proficiency and L1 reading ability to L2 reading performance: a test of the threshold hypothesis in an EFL context. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 713-39.
Macaro, E. (2001). Learning strategies in foreign and second language classrooms. London: Continuum.
Macaro, E, and Erler, L (2008) Raising the achievement of young-beginner readers of French through strategy instruction. Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 90-119.
McCarty, Teresa L. & Dick, Galena Sells. (2000). Mother tongue literacy and language renewal: The case of the Navajo." Proceedings of the 1996 World Conference on Literacy. Tucson: University of Arizona.
McConkie GW & Rayner K. (1975). The span of the effective stimulus during a fixation in reading. Perception & Psychophysics, 17, 578–586.
Miller, G.A. (1988). The challenge of universal literary. Science, 241, 1293-1299.
170
Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. (2002). Assessing students‘ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249-259.
Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. (2004). Investigating the strategic reading processes of first and second language readers in two different cultural contexts. System, 32, 379-394.
Murphy, S. (2005). Second language transfer during third language acquisition. Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 3(1), 1-18.
Nassaji, H. (2003). Higher-level and lower-level text processing skills in advanced ESL reading comprehension. Modern Language Journal, 87, 261-276.
Nation, I.S.P. (1990). Teaching and Learning Vocabulary. New York: Heinle & Heinle.
Nunnally JC & Berstein IH. (1994). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Paris, S. G. (2002). When is metacognition helpful, debilitating, or benign? In P. Chambers, M. Izaute & P. Marescaux (Eds.), Metacognition: Process, function and use (pp. 105-121). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
Perfetti, C. A., Landi, N., & Oakhill, J. (2005). The acquisition of reading comprehension skills. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 227-247). London: Blackwell.
171
Phakiti, A. (2003). A closer look at the relationship of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use to EFL reading comprehension test performance. Language Testing, 20, 26-56.
Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M. L.Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp.545-561). Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum.
Pressley, M. (2002). Comprehension strategy instruction: A turn-of-the-century status report. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension Instruction (pp.77- 95). New York: The Guildford Press.
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal Protocols of Reading: The Nature of Constructively Responsive Reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pressley, M., Beard El-Dinary, P., & Brown, R. (1992). Skilled and not-so-skilled reading: Good information processing of not-so-good processing. In M. Pressley, K. Harris, & J. Guthrie (Eds.), Promoting academic competence and literacy in school (pp. 91-127). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Pritchard, R. (1990). The effects of cultural schemata on reading processing strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 25(4), 273–295.
Purpura, J. E. (1997). An analysis of the relationships between test takers’ cognitive and metacognitive strategy use and second language test performance. Language Learning, 47, 289-325.
Purpura, J. E. (1998). Investigating the effects of strategy use and second language test performance with high- and low ability test takers: a structural equation modeling approach. Language Testing, 15, 333-379.
Purpura, J.E. (1999). Learner strategy use and performance on language tests: A
172
structural equation modeling approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Qian, D. D. (1999). Assessing the roles of depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge in reading comprehension. Canadian Modern Language Review, 56, 282-307.
Qian, D. D. (2002). Investigating the relationship between vocabulary knowledge and academic reading performance: An assessment perspective. Language Learning, 52, 513-536.
Roehr, K. (2007). Metalinguistic knowledge and language ability in university-level L2 learners. Applied Linguistics, 29, 173-199.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1977). Toward an interactive model of reading. In R. B. Rudell & M. R. Rudell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 864-894). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Rupp, A. A., Ferne, T., & Choi, H. (2006). How assessing reading comprehension with multiple-choice questions shapes the construct: a cognitive processing perspective. Language Testing, 23(4), 441-474.
Schoonen, R., Hulstijn, J., & Bossers, B. (1998). Metacognitive and language-specific knowledge in native and foreign language reading comprehension: An empirical study among Dutch students in grades 6, 8 and 10. Language Learning, 48, 71- 106.
Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26, 113-125.
Schraw, G. (2001). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. In H. J. Hartman (Ed.), Metacognition in and instruction: theory, research and practice (pp. 3–16). Boston: Kluwer.
173
Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among native and non-native readers. System, 29, 431-449.
Shiotsu, T. (2003). Linguistic knowledge and processing efficiency as predictors of L2 reading ability: a component skills analysis. Unpublished PhD thesis, The University of Reading.
Shiotsu, T. (2010). Components of L2 reading: Linguistic and processing factors in the reading test performances of Japanese EFL learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shiotsu, T., & Weir, C. J. (2007). The relative significance of syntactic knowledge and vocabulary breadth in the prediction of reading comprehension test performance. Language Testing, 24, 99-128.
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Sobel, Michael E. (1982). “Asymptotic Confidence Intervals for Indirect Effects in Structural Equation Models” in Samuel Leinhardt (ed.) Sociological Methodology (pp. 290-312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Song, X. (2005). Language learner strategy use and English proficiency on the Michigan English Language Assessment Battery. Spaan Fellow Working Papers in Second or Foreign Language Assessment, 3, 1-26.
Sparks, R., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., Humbach, N., & Javorsky, J. (2008). Early first- language reading and spelling skills predict later second-language reading and spelling skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 162-174.
Stanovich, K. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 32-71.
174
Taillefer, G. E. (1996). L2 reading ability: Further insight into the short-circuit hypothesis. The Modern Language Journal, 80, 461–477.
Urquhart, S. & C. Weir. (1998). Reading in a Second Language: Process, Product and Practice. London: Addison Wesley Longman Ltd.
Upton, Thomas A., and Li-chun Lee-Thompson. (2001). The Role of the First Language in Second Language Reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23(4), 469-495. van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, R., de Glopper, K., Hulstijn, J., Simis, A. Snellings, P., & Stevenson, M. (2003). Roles of linguistic knowledge, metacognitive knowledge and processing speed in L3, L2 and L1 reading comprehension; a structural equation modeling approach. International Journal of Bilingualism, 7(1), 7-25. van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, R., de Glopper, K., Hulstijn, J., Simis, A. Snellings, P., & Stevenson, M. (2004). Linguistic knowledge, processing speed and metacognitive knowledge in first and second language reading comprehension: A componential analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 19-30. van Gelderen, Rob Schoonen, Reinoud D. Stoel, Kees de Glopper, Jan Hulstijn (2007). Development of Adolescent Reading Comprehension in Language 1 and Language 2: A Longitudinal Analysis of Constituent Components. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 477-491.
Veenman, M.V. J. & Van Hout-Wolters, B.H.A.M. & Afflerbach, P. (2006) Metacognition and learning: conceptual and methodological consideration. Metacognition & Learning, 1, 3–14.
Wade, S. E., Trathen, W., & Schraw, G. (1990). An analysis of spontaneous study strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 147–166.
175
Wang, M., Cheng, C., & Chen, S. W. (2006). Contribution of morphological awareness to Chinese–English biliteracy acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 542-553.
Wang, M., Perfetti, C. A., & Liu, Y. (2005). Chinese–English biliteracy acquisition: Cross-language and writing system transfer. Cognition, 97, 67-88.
Walter, Catherine. (2004). Transfer of reading comprehension skills to L2 is linked to mental representations of text and to L2 working memory. Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 315-339.
Walter, Catherine. (2007). First- to second- language reading comprehension: not transfer, but access. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 14-37.
Wang, M., & Koda, K. (2005). Commonalities and differences in word identification skills among English second language learners. Language Learning, 55(1), 73-100.
Wenden, A.L. (2001) Metacognitive knowledge. In Breen, M.P. (ed.), Learner Contributions to Language Learning: New Directions in Research (pp.44-64). London: Longman.
Wurr, A. J. (2003). Reading in a second language: A reading problem or a language problem? Journal of College Reading and Learning, 33(2), 157-169.
Yamashita, J. (1999). Reading in a first and a foreign language: a study of reading comprehension in Japanese (the L1) and English (the L2) (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Lancaster University, UK.
Yamashita, J. (2002). Mutual compensation between L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency in L2 reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 25(1), 81-95.
Yamashita, J. (2013). Word recognition subcomponents and passage level reading in a foreign language. Reading in a foreign language, 25(1), 52-71.
176
Yang, Y. F. (2002). Reassessing readers’ comprehension monitoring. Reading in a Foreign Language, 14(1), 18-42.
Yang, Y. F. (2006). Reading strategies or comprehension monitoring strategies? Reading Psychology, 27(4), 313-343.
Yuan, K.-H., & Bentler, P.M. (2004). On chi-square difference and z-tests in mean and covariance structure analysis when the base model is misspecified. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 737-757.
Zhang, L. J. (2002). Exploring EFL reading as a metacognitive experience: Reader awareness and reading performance. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 12, 69-94.
Zhang, L. J. (2010). A dynamic metacognitive systems account of Chinese university students’ knowledge about EFL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 44(2), 320-353.
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.
Zohar, A. (1999). Teachers' metacognitive knowledge and the instruction of higher order thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 413–429.
Zohar, A. (2006). Paving a clear path in a thick forest: a conceptual analysis of a metacognitive component. Metacognition Learning, 4, 177-195.
177
Appendix A: Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies
Inventory
Kouider Mokhtari and Carla Reichard © 2002
Directions:
Listed below are statements about what people do when they read academic or school-related materials in English such as textbooks, library books, articles etc.
Five numbers follow each statement (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and each number means the following:
· 1 means “I never or almost never do this.”
· 2 means “I do this only occasionally.”
· 3 means “I sometimes do this.” (About 50% of the time.)
· 4 means “I usually do this.”
· 5 means “I always or almost always do this.”
After reading each statement, circle the number (1, 2, 3, 4, or 5) that applies to you when you read in English. Please note that there are no right or wrong answers to the statements in this inventory.
178
Strategy in reading English texts Frequency
1 I have a purpose in mind when I read. 1 2 3 4 5
2 I take notes while reading to help me understand what I read. 1 2 3 4 5
3 I think about what I know to help me understand what I read. 1 2 3 4 5
4 I preview the text to see what it’s about before reading it. 1 2 3 4 5
5 When text becomes difficult, I read aloud to help me understand what I read. 1 2 3 4 5
6 I summarize what I read to reflect on important information in the text. 1 2 3 4 5
7 I think about whether the content of the text fits my reading purpose. 1 2 3 4 5
8 I read slowly but carefully to be sure I understand what I’m reading. 1 2 3 4 5
9 I discuss what I read with others to check my understanding. 1 2 3 4 5
10 I skim the text first by noting characteristics like length and organization. 1 2 3 4 5
11 I try to get back on track when I lose concentration. 1 2 3 4 5
12 I underline or circle information in the text to help me remember it. 1 2 3 4 5
13 I adjust my reading speed according to what I’m reading. 1 2 3 4 5
14 I decide what to read closely and what to ignore. 1 2 3 4 5
I use reference materials such as dictionaries to help me understand what I
15 read. 1 2 3 4 5
16 When text becomes difficult, I pay closer attention to what I’m reading. 1 2 3 4 5
17 I use tables, figures, and pictures in text to increase my understanding. 1 2 3 4 5
18 I stop from time to time and think about what I’m reading. 1 2 3 4 5
19 I use context clues to help me better understand what I’m reading. 1 2 3 4 5
I paraphrase (restate ideas in my own words) to better understand what I
20 read. 1 2 3 4 5
179
21 I try to picture or visualize information to help remember what I read. 1 2 3 4 5
22 I use typographical aids like bold face and italics to identify key information. 1 2 3 4 5
23 I critically analyze and evaluate the information presented in the text. 1 2 3 4 5
24 I go back and forth in the text to find relationships among ideas in it. 1 2 3 4 5
25 I check my understanding when I come across conflicting information. 1 2 3 4 5
26 I try to guess what the material is about when I read. 1 2 3 4 5
27 When text becomes difficult, I re-read to increase my understanding. 1 2 3 4 5
28 I ask myself questions I like to have answered in the text. 1 2 3 4 5
29 I check to see if my guesses about the text are right or wrong. 1 2 3 4 5
30 I try to guess the meaning of unknown words or phrases. 1 2 3 4 5
180