11
A Quantitative Survey on Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategy Use in English by Japanese University Students
Midori SHIKANO
Abstract
This article reports on an exploratory quantitative survey on the metacognitive
awareness of reading strategies use in English, reported by sixty Japanese university
students. It explored on the participants’ reported use of reading strategies and their
comprehension monitoring, by using the instrument of Metacognitive Awareness of
Reading Strategies Inventory (MARSI) (Mokhtari & Richard, 2002) having subscales of
global strategies, problem-solving strategies, and support strategies. The statistical
descriptions of the overall tendency revealed that the Japanese university students
tended to use problem-solving strategies more often than global and support strategies,
which supports the prior studies, whereas the overall use showed no significant
differences between the high-reading-proficiency group and low-reading-proficiency
group. The principal component analysis extracted the four components that affected
the strategy use: deliberate and analytical strategies, self-monitoring and repair, meaning
negotiation, and top-down processing.
Keywords: second language literacy, reading strategies, metacognitive awareness,
Japanese learners of English
1. Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies
The field of language learning strategies has gained a massive amount of interest in applied
linguistics in the last thirty years (Oxford, 2011). Particularly, a number of studies have been
conducted on literacy learning strategies used by both native speakers and non-native speakers
of the target language. Since “the ability to read fluently and efficiently remains the hallmark of
a literate person in a world where . . . reading an international language such as English, is
deeply embedded in today’s literate environment (Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2008; p. 1),” reading
strategies use in English have drawn much attention. The process of reading is often
considered as a ‘cognitive enterprise’ (ibid), which requires rather complex cognitive activities
12
国際教育センター紀要 第14号
in our mind, and which is actually an interaction of a number of elements such as the reader,
text, context, process, and other factors. Research has also emphasized the importance of
metacognitive dimensions of reading, the awareness and use of conscious and deliberate
strategies (Alhaqbani & Riazi, 2012; Carrell, 1985; 1991; Carrell & Eisterhold, 1983; Makhtari
& Reichard, 2008; Makhtari & Sheorey, 2002; Martinez, 2008; Pressley & Afflerback, 1995;
Sheorey, Kamimura, & Freimuth, 2008; among others).
The term strategies has often been interchangeably used with the term skills and, therefore,
they should be defined here. The present study adopts the following definitions of the terms
suggested by Paris, Wasik, and Turner (1991) in Shoerey & Mokhtari (2008):
“ . . . skills refer to information-processing techniques that are automatic . . . [and] are
applied to a text unconsciously . . . In contract, strategies are actions selected deliberately
to achieve particular goals. An emerging skill can become a strategy when it is used
intentionally. Likewise, a strategy can go underground . . . and become a skill (p. 5).”
Reading strategies are defined in Pritchard (1990, in Shoerey & Mokhtari, 2008) as “a deliberate
action that readers take voluntarily to develop an understanding of what they read (p. 5)”, which
includes reading speed adjustment, skimming, previewing the title and photos, and predicting,
among others (Grabe, 1991). Within this theoretical framework, Mokhtari & Richard (2002)
introduced the Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory (MARSI), which was
intended to measure students’ metacognitive awareness of the reading strategies they use
when they read in the academic contexts (Mokhtari, Sheorey, & Reichard, 2008). The MARSI
is a 3-subscale, 30-item inventory that measures comprehension processes and actions of the
readers.
2. Present Study
2.1 Purpose of the Study
This study is aimed at increasing our understanding of the second language (L2) readers’
metacognitive awareness and the perceived use of reading strategies. Within the framework
provided in the prior studies review, it examines the Japanese university students’ reported use
of reading strategies in English which they employ when they read in the academic contexts, in
order to find out their overall tendency and principal components affecting their strategy use.
The following research questions were addressed:
13
A Quantitative Survey on Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategy Use in English by Japanese University Students
(1) What is the overall tendency of metacognitive awareness of reading strategy use as
reported by learners of English as a L2 in an academic context?
(2) Which reading strategy subscales and items of MARSI are most used and least used?
(3) Are there differences between the readers who find L2 academic reading more
comfortable and the readers who find it more challenging?
(4) What are the principal components that affect the L2 readers’ strategy use?
2.2 Participants
The participants in this study were sixty undergraduate students studying English as a
required L2 at a Japanese private university. All participants were non-English-major students
whose first language (L1) was Japanese. The participants’ gender, age, and learning experience
were not identified.
2.3 Data Collection Instruments
The reading strategy survey, Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory
(MARSI) (Mokhtari & Reichard, 2002), consisting of thirty question items was used to obtain
the required data. The MARSI was found to be suitable for the purpose of the present study,
because it measures L2 learners’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies use. The
MARSI questionnaire included three subscales of Global Strategies (14 items), Problem-Solving
Strategies (8 items), and Support Strategies (8 items). According to Martinez (2008), global
strategies can be defined as “generalized or global reading strategies aimed at setting the stage
for the reading act: for instance, setting a purpose for reading, previewing the text content,
predicting what the text is about (p. 170).” Problem-solving strategies are defined as “focused
problem-solving or repair strategies used when problems develop in understanding textual
information: for instance, checking one’s understanding upon encountering conflicting
information, re-reading for better understanding (ibid).” Support strategies use “the support
mechanisms or tools aimed at sustaining responsiveness to reading: for instance, use of
reference materials like dictionaries and other support systems (ibid).” The questionnaire was
presented to the participants in the original version of English, and, when needed, the
administrator gave Japanese translations or explanations of the question items.
2.4 Data Collection Procedures
The MARSI questionnaire was administered entirely by the author during the regular
English classes. The participants completed it anonymously, after being informed that it was to
14
国際教育センター紀要 第14号
obtain information about how Japanese university students cope with their English reading in
the academic contexts, and that it was to help design effective English literacy courses. They
filled it out upon their individual consent.
The participants were asked to answer the thirty question items (Q1~Q30) on the following
5-point Likert scale:
5=‘I always or almost always do so.’
4=‘I usually do so.’
3=‘I sometimes do so, and sometimes I don’t.’
2=‘I do so only occasionally.’
1=‘I never or almost never do so.’
To measure their self-rated reading proficiency in English, the participants were then asked to
rate the perceived difficulty of a practice TOEFL reading passage (Gallagher, 2006), also on a
5-point scale with ‘5’ indicating ‘very easy’ and ‘1’ indicating ‘very difficult’. The readability of
the passage was calculated by using the WLC (Word Level Checker) readability scale (http://
someya-net.com/wlc/). The sixty participants were divided into two groups of a similar group
size, according to their self-rating: one consisting of twenty-eight participants who found it easy
or less difficult (5, 4, and 3) and the other consisting of thirty-two participants who found it
rather difficult (2 and 1). For the sake of distinction, they will be labeled as the ‘high reading
proficiency group’ and the ‘low reading proficiency group’, respectively, during the discussion.
2.5 Data Analysis Method
The responses to the thirty strategy items were first analyzed for examining the overall
tendency, the group differences, and the most used and the least used. Then the Principal
Components Analysis (Varimax rotation) was conducted in order to find the principal
components as the factors affecting the participants’ tendency in their perceived use of reading
strategies, as well as to elucidate the characteristics of the components. Statistical analysis was
performed by using SPSS Statistics ver. 19.
3. Results and Analysis
3.1 Overall Tendency
Before the analysis, the reliability of the instrument was examined by using Cronbach’s
Alpha reliability analysis (=.783). This provides an acceptable coefficient. Because the
number of participants was small (n=60), goodness-of-fit and independence between variables
15
A Quantitative Survey on Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategy Use in English by Japanese University Students
Table 1 Descriptive Statistics of 30 Strategy Items
Type StrategyOverall(n=60)
High(n=28)
Low(n=32)
M (SD) M MGLO 1. I have a purpose in mind when I read. 3.13 (1.11) 3.50 2.81 -△GLO 2. I think about what I know to help me understand what I
read.3.65 (1.04) 3.66 3.64
GLO 3. I preview the text to see what it’s about before reading it. 3.23 (0.98) 3.36 3.13 -△GLO 4. I think about whether the content of the text fits my
reading purpose.2.97 (1.03) -△ 3.14 2.81 -△
GLO 5. I skim the text first by noting characteristics like length/organization.
3.38 (1.38) 3.64 3.16
GLO 6. I decide what to read closely and what to ignore. 3.17 (1.06) -△ 3.46 2.91 -△GLO 7. I use tables, figures, and pictures in text to increase my
understanding.3.82 (1.14) 3.64 3.97 -⑤
GLO 8. I use context clues to help me better understand what I’m reading.
3.58 (1.15) 3.79 3.41
GLO 9. I use typographical aids like bold face and italics to identify key information.
3.43 (1.28) 3.64 3.25
GLO 10. I critically analyze and evaluate the information presented in the text.
3.25 (0.90) 3.28 3.21
GLO 11. I check my understanding when I come across conflicting information.
3.60 (1.05) 3.86 3.38
GLO 12. I try to guess what the material is about when I read. 3.77 (0.96) 3.78 3.75GLO 13. I check to see if my guesses about the text are right or
wrong.3.60 (1.06) 3.57 3.63
GLO 14. I check the difficulty of the text, before I read. 3.25 (1.20) 3.18 -△ 3.31PRO 15. I read slowly but carefully to be sure I understand what
I’m reading.4.03 (0.99) -④ 3.75 4.28 -①
PRO 16. I try to get back on track when I lose concentration. 3.82 (1.07) 3.96 3.69PRO 17. I adjust my reading speed according to what I’m reading. 3.78 (0.92) 4.04 -④ 3.56PRO 18. When text becomes difficult, I pay closer attention to
what I’m reading.3.82 (0.89) 3.93 3.72
PRO 19. I stop from time to time and think about what I’m reading. 3.23 (1.17) 3.00 -△ 3.44PRO 20. I try to picture or visualize information to help remember
what I read.3.45 (1.28) 3.57 3.34
PRO 21. When text becomes difficult, I re-read to increase my understanding.
4.32 (0.75) -① 4.39 -① 4.25 -③
PRO 22. I try to guess the meaning of unknown words or phrases. 3.98 (0.95) -⑤ 4.07 -⑤ 3.91SUP 23. I take notes while reading to help me understand what I
read.2.90 (1.31) -△ 3.00 -△ 2.81 -△
SUP 24. When text becomes difficult, I read aloud to help me understand what I read.
3.32 (1.07) 3.46 3.19
SUP 25. I summarize what I read to reflect on important information in the text.
3.12 (1.17) -△ 2.93 -△ 3.28
SUP 26. I discuss what I read with other classmates to check my understanding.
3.07 (1.07) -△ 2.82 -△ 3.28
SUP 27. I underline or circle information in the text to help me remember it.
4.30 (0.85) -② 4.32 -② 4.28 -①
SUP 28. I use reference materials such as dictionaries to help me understand what I read.
4.27 (0.94) -③ 4.32 -② 4.22 -④
SUP 29. I paraphrase to better understand what I read. 3.35 (0.99) 3.50 3.22SUP 30. I go back and forth in the text to find relationships among
ideas in it.3.45 (1.00) 3.57 3.34
note: ①~⑤ indicates the ranking of the most used items, and △ indicates the least used items.
16
国際教育センター紀要 第14号
were also measured by using a Chi-square test. The results showed significant differences on
twenty-seven items out of thirty, and it supports the validity of the survey. Levene’s test
results also showed the equality of variances for all the thirty items.
To show the overall tendency, statistical descriptions of the reported reading strategy use
are shown in Table 1. The mean score (M) and the standard deviation (SD) of the overall
responses, the mean score of the ‘high’ group (n=28), and the mean score of the ‘low’ group
(n=32) are shown below.
In Table 1, the question items are classified according to the three subscales of the MARSI
reading strategies: Global Strategies (GLO), Problem-Solving Strategies (PRO), and Support
Strategies (SUP) (Makhtari & Sheorey, 2002). Makhtari & Shoeorey has set a key for
interpreting the mean scores as follows: a mean≤ 2.4 as low usage, a mean between 2.5 and 3.4
as moderate usage, and a mean≥ 3.5 as high usage. The present study follows the same
benchmark. The means of individual items ranged from 4.32 (SD=0.75) to 2.90 (SD=1.31).
Among the thirty items examined in this study, fourteen strategies were considered as high-
usage strategies and sixteen were considered as moderate-usage strategies, while none
belonged to the range of low usage. The ‘high’ group results showed that nineteen strategies
were in high usage and eleven were in medium usage. On the contrary, in the ‘low’ group,
twelve strategies were in high usage and eighteen were in medium use. In both groups, no
low-use strategies were found. It could conclude that the participants of this study were high to
moderate users of the MARSI reading strategies. As the mark △ shows in the table, GLO
strategies were not used so often as the other two subscales, while PRO and SUP strategies
were more frequently used by both groups. This was particularly the case for the low group.
The next table (Table 2) presents the participants’ preferences of each subscale.
The prime preference for problem-solving strategies, followed by global and support
strategies, is consistent with some of the prior studies (Alhaqbani & Riazi, 2012; Martinez,
2008; and others). The participants were using the problem-solving reading strategies slightly
more often than the other two sets, although the other two types were not low at all. Table 3
presents the most used and least used strategies. Most used strategies’ ranking is marked with
Table 2 Subscale Means of Three Strategy Types
Subscale Item Means Rank
Global Reading Strategies 3.42 3Problem-Solving Reading Strategies 3.80 1Support Reading Strategies 3.47 2Overall 3.53 ―
17
A Quantitative Survey on Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategy Use in English by Japanese University Students
①~⑤ and least used strategies are marked with △ in Table 1 above.
An examination of the correlations among the strategies revealed that approximately fifteen
percent of possible combinations of strategies showed either weak or moderate relationships,
with the coefficient ranging from .261 to .559 (p<.05). The lack of strong correlations indicated
that the strategy items were distinct from one another.
3.2 Group Tendencies
Next, in order to investigate the differences between the ‘high’ group students and ‘low’
group students, the mean scores of the two groups were compared. An independent samples
t-test was performed, with the self-rated reading proficiency groups as independent variables,
and the perceived strategy use as the dependent variables. However, the results of the t-test
did not show statistical significances about most of the thirty items, except for the following
questions: GLO1 (I have a purpose in mind when I read.) (t=2.493, df=58, p<.05); GLO6 (I
decide what to read and what to ignore.) (t=2.091, df=58, p<.05); PRO15 (I read slowly but
carefully to be sure I understand what I’m reading.) (t=-2.090, df=48.902, p<.05); PRO17 (I
adjust reading speed.) (t=2.089, df=54.246, p<.05). The directionality of the difference in
PRO15 was the opposite to those in other items. The more comfortable ‘high’ group showed a
stronger tendency of having a clear purpose in mind when reading, being good at deciding
where to read and where to ignore, and also reading speed adjustment. On the other hand, the
less comfortable ‘low’ group was reading more carefully and slowly in order to make sure they
understand. As mentioned earlier, even though the raw data of these samples showed seeming
differences in many of the items, the t-test results indicated that the group differences on
twenty-six items were not generalizable to the bigger population of Japanese university
Table 3 The Most Used and Least Used Strategy Items
Five Most Used Strategies (Overall) M SD
PRO 21. When text becomes difficult, I re-read to increase my understanding. 4.32 (0.75)SUP 27. I underline or circle information in the text to help me remember it. 4.30 (0.85)SUP 28. I use reference materials such as dictionaries to help me understand what I read. 4.27 (0.94)PRO 15. I read slowly but carefully to be sure I understand what I’m reading. 4.03 (0.99)PRO 22. I try to guess the meaning of unknown words or phrases. 3.98 (0.95)
Five Least used Strategies (Overall) M SD
SUP 23. I take notes while reading to help me understand what I read. 2.90 (1.31)GLO 4. I think about whether the content of the text fits my reading purpose. 2.97 (1.03)SUP 26. I discuss what I read with other classmates to check my understanding. 3.07 (1.07)SUP 25. I summarize what I read to reflect on important information in the text. 3.12 (1.17)GLO 6. I decide what to read closely and what ignore. 3.17 (1.06)
18
国際教育センター紀要 第14号
students. This needs further investigation based on a bigger size of sampling.
3.3 Principal Components
Shifting our focus back to the overall tendency of the sample group, the writer next
attempted to explore the broader factors that affect the readers’ perceived use of strategies. In
order to contract the explanatory variables over the thirty items, the Principal Components
Analysis was conducted. The values of KMO (Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin) (.539) and Bartlett’s Test
(approximate Chi-square=613.149, df=435, p=.000) showed that the data was appropriate for
this type of analysis. The principal components analysis (with Varimax rotation) was then
applied, so that the information could now be contracted and expressed as several independent
components. From that analysis, eleven components were extracted; the cumulative
contribution ratio was 71.51% of the data. Out of the eleven components, the most explanatory
four were selected according to the scree plot. See Table 4 for the after-rotation component
matrix of these four components. The variables that had scores .400 or over were considered
for discussion here.
Each component was then to be labeled according to the relating question items. See the
Table 4 Affecting Factors Extracted by Principal Components Analysis
Component 1 Component 2 Component 3 Component 4
SUP23 I take notes. .816 .046 .011 .041GLO1 I have a purpose in mind when reading. .660 .362 .304 .001SUP25 I summarize. .609 - .353 - .069 .249GLO10 I analyze and evaluate information. .452 - .425 .301 .007PRO16 I get back on trace when lost concentration. - .013 .750 - .208 .064PRO18 I pay close attention, when difficult. - .065 .739 .155 .186PRO21 I re-read, when difficult. .164 .684 .082 - .039GLO11 I check understanding when conflict
information..146 .420 .355 .217
GLO6 I decide what to read and what to ignore. .045 .109 .798 .072GLO8 I use context cues. - .098 .037 .649 .215SUP29 I paraphrase. .313 .097 .533 .264GLO12 I guess what the text is about. .027 .088 .032 .850GLO13 I check if my guess is correct. .029 .149 .250 .643SUP30 To find relationships among ideas, I go
back and forth..279 - .004 .278 .628
SUP27 I underline or circle to remember information.
.474 - .002 .243 - .015
Cumulative contribution ratio 15.50% 25.50% 33.24% 39.94%(1) Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.(2) Rotation converged in 13 iterations.(3) The values of .400 or over (bolded) are considered.
19
A Quantitative Survey on Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategy Use in English by Japanese University Students
values in Table 4. The factors contributing to the first component are the readers’ deliberate
and analytical strategies such as taking notes, having a clear purpose for reading, summarizing
the information, underlining or circling the important information, and analyzing/evaluating the
information. The factors contributing to the second component are their self-monitoring and
repair process, in which readers make sure they understand, or slow down to read carefully, or
re-read when their understanding conflicts. The factors contributing to the third component
can be considered as the process of negotiating the meaning in the context such as using
context cues, paraphrasing the meaning, and selecting what to read and what to ignore. Finally,
the factors contributing to the fourth component can be seen as their guessing strategies, which
could include top-down processing. Therefore, the Components 1~4 are named as ‘deliberate
and analytical reading’ (5 items), ‘self-monitoring and repair’ (4 items), ‘meaning negotiation’ (3
items), and ‘top-down guessing’ (3 items), respectively.
The relationships of components 1 and 2 are illustrated in the scatter plot Figure 1 and the
relationships of components 2 and 3 are in Figure 2. As mentioned in the prior paragraphs, the
primary component can be expressed as the readers’ ‘deliberate and analytical reading’
strategies, while the second component can be expressed as their ‘self-monitoring’ process.
The third component is ‘meaning negotiation’.
The earlier discussion mentioned that a significant difference in the group tendency about
each question item was not found between ‘high’ and ‘low’ groups. So, group differences were
Figure 1 Relations between Components 1 and 2
20
国際教育センター紀要 第14号
Figure 2 Relations between Components 2 and 3
Figure 3 Student Distribution in Component 2―3 Plot
21
A Quantitative Survey on Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategy Use in English by Japanese University Students
sought here first among the eleven extracted components, and secondly in relation to the
primary four components. The relations between the eleven extracted components and the
high-low group differences were examined by using a t-test. The group differences were only
found in the third component (t=2.726, df=58, p<.01) and the eighth component (t=-2.748,
df=58, p<.01) with statistical significance. The second component also showed a large inter-
group difference, although statistical significance was not indicated.
Figure 3 shows the group differences in the students distribution in relation to the second
and third primary components: deliberate and self-monitoring and repair (component 2), and
meaning negotiation (component 3). The darker filled dots indicate the high group students and
unfilled diamonds indicate the low group students. This shows that the students who rated the
TOEFL practice reading passage easy or less difficult were the frequent users of both ‘self-
monitoring and repair’ and ‘meaning negotiation’ strategies. On the other hand, students who
rated it rather difficult tended to use only one of the two types of strategies, or none of them.
Other components were found to be randomly used by both types of readers, showing no strong
relationships, in this study.
4. Concluding Remarks
What researchers can do to help the readers become “constructively responsive readers”
(Pressley & Afflerback, 1995; Martinez, 2008) is an important professional question to keep in
mind. In this study, the writer attempted to explore the perceived use of reading strategies by
Japanese university students when reading in the academic contexts (Research question (1)).
The participants showed general preferences for using problem-solving (PRO) strategies over
global (GLO) and support (SUP) strategies (Research question (2)). It agrees with the findings
and implications of the prior studies on the matter of the overall tendency of metacognitive
awareness of reading strategies. The PRO strategies are, for example, 1) monitoring the
reading process by re-reading or going back and forth, 2) adjusting the reading speed to make
sure they understand, 3) using context clues to negotiate the vocabulary meaning, among
others. Using comprehension markers to remember what they read, such as underlining or
visualizing the information, was also found to be a frequently-used support strategy for the
participants. As for the third research question, this preliminary study did not find overall
group differences with statistical significance (Research question (3)), which should be
addressed to in the future research. However, there was a tendency that less skilled readers
tended to use less global strategies which help them use an effective and active schema. More
22
国際教育センター紀要 第14号
research needs to be done to explore on this matter, as well as on other detailed background of
the reader profile.
Having explored the broader factors that affect the readers’ strategies, this study also
revealed that there were four main principal components: ‘deliberate and analytical reading’
strategies as the primary component, followed by ‘self-monitoring and repair’, ‘meaning
negotiation’, and ‘top-down guessing’ strategies (Research question (4)). This may help one
understand the readers’ profile into deeper levels. Moreover, the findings of this study about
the contributing factors may also help us reconsider the pedagogical issues and re-design the
reading courses. Some of the issues found in this study can be addressed to in future research,
which includes a larger sample size with a wider range of proficiency levels, by using a more
customized instrument including the students’ L1 use, such as SORS (Survey of Reading
Strategies) (Mokhtari & Reichard, 2002).
References
Alhaqbani, A. & Riazi, M. (2012). Metacognitive awareness of reading strategy use in Arabic as a
second language. Reading in a Foreign Language. 24―2, 231―255.
Carrell, P. (1985). Facilitating ESL reading by teaching text structure: Classroom implications and
applications. TESOL Quarterly 19, 441―469.
Carrell, P. (1991). Second language reading: Reading abiity or language proficiency. Applied Liguistics, 12, 159―179.
Carrell, P. & Eisterhold, J. (1983). Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy, TESOL Quarterly, 23,
647―678.
Gallagher, N. (2006). Delta’s Key to the Next Generation TOEFL Test: Six Practice Tests for the iBT. Delta
Systems Co., Inc.
Grabe, W. (1991). Current developments in second language reading research. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 375―406.
Makhtari, K. & Reichard, C. A. (2008). The impact of reading purpose on the use of reading strategies.
In K. Mokhatari & R. Sheorey (Eds.), Reading strategies of first- and second-language learners: See how they read (pp. 85―98). Norwood, MA: Christpher-Gordon Publishers.
Makhtari, K. & Sheorey, R. (2002). Measuring ESL students’ awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Developmental Education, 25, 2―11.
Makhtari, K., Sheorey, R., & Reichard, C. (2008). Measuring the reading strategies of first and second
language readers. In K. Mokhatari & R. Sheorey (Eds.), Reading strategies of first- and second-language learners: See how they read (pp. 43―65). Norwood, MA: Christpher-Gordon Publishers.
Martinez, A. C. L. (2008). Analysis of ESP university students’ reading strategy awareness. IBERICA
15, 165―176.
Pressley, M. & Afflerback, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively
responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sheorey, R., Kamimura Y., & Freimuth, M. R. (2008). Reading strategies of the users of English as a
23
A Quantitative Survey on Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategy Use in English by Japanese University Students
library language: the case of Japanese ESP students. In K. Mokhatari & R. Sheorey (Eds.),
Reading strategies of first- and second-language learners: See how they read (pp. 175―184). Norwood,
MA: Christpher-Gordon Publishers.
Shoerey, R. & Mokhtari, K. (2008). Introduction. In K. Mokhatari & R. Sheorey (Eds.), Reading strategies of first- and second-language learners: See how they read (pp. 1―10). Norwood, MA:
Christpher-Gordon Publishers.
24
国際教育センター紀要 第14号
日本人大学生の英語読解方略の気づきに関する定量的研究
鹿野 緑
要 旨
本研究は、日本人大学生の英語学習者がアカデミック・リーディングの際に使う読解方略を探る定量的研究である。目的は、アカデミックな文脈の内容を読む際に使われる方略について全体的な傾向を把握し、読解力自己判定による上位・下位グループの差を探り、また主成分分析による主成分の抽出を試みることした。3側面30項目からなる質問紙(MARSI)に60名の回答者が無記名回答した。結果からは、内容が理解できない場合にその解決策をさぐろうとするproblem-solving方略が最もよく使われる傾向が示され、先行研究を支持した。全体的な傾向の上位・下位グループ間優位差は示されなかった。また、主成分として抽出された主な4成分を「意図的かつ分析的な読み」、「セルフモニターとリペア」「意味交渉」「トップダウン」とした。結果からは、質問紙の改良、サンプルサイズなどに課題が残ることが示唆された。
キーワード:第二言語リテラシー、リーディング方略、メタ認知的気づき、日本人英語学習者