Influence of L1 Metacognitive Reading Strategies on L2 Academic Reading of Chinese College Students

Open access

Abstract

With the fast increasing number of second language (L2) learners in universities, the ability to read L2 academic texts has become one of the most important skills that L2 college students need to acquire. However, L2 learners still face various problems and difficulties in their L2 reading and past literature suggests that reading strategies have proven to be effective in enhancing L2 reading. Therefore, it is of great significance to examine the factors influencing L2 reading strategies use. Among factors influencing L2 reading strategy use, L1 reading strategies have been identified as a significant influence. However, few studies in this regard have looked into college students in mainland China which has a large number of L2 learners. This study aimed to seek the connection between first language (L1) and L2 metacognitive reading strategies by comparing and contrasting mainland China college students’ metacognitive strategy patterns in their L1 and L2 academic reading. The study also explored factors influencing Chinese college students’ L2 reading strategy use. The study conducted a survey on reading strategies (SORS), think aloud protocol (TAP) and stimulated recall interviews (SRI) to explore the research issues. The study found that Chinese college students employed strategies on a more frequent basis in their L2 academic reading as compared to their L1 academic reading. Two factors, namely, limited L2 proficiency (LLP) and test-oriented reading approach (TORA) were identified as the major factors influencing the L2 metacognitive strategy patterns of Chinese college students. The present study adds to the existing knowledge on the relationship between L1 and L2 reading strategy patterns for Chinese college students and examines factors shaping their L2 reading strategy use. This study assists English language teachers to identify factors influencing Chinese college students’ reading strategies patterns while taking into consideration of the factors influencing their L2 strategy use.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Aghaie R. and Zhang L.J. 2012. Effects of explicit instruction in cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies on Iranian EFL students’ reading performance and strategy transfer. Instructional Science 40(6) pp.1063-1081.

  • Alexander P.A. Jetton T.L. 2000. Learning from text: a multidimensional and developmental perspective.In: Kamil M. Mosenthal P. Pearson P.D. Barr R. (Eds.) Handbook of Reading Research Vol. III. Lawrence Erlbaum Mahwah NJ pp. 285–310.

  • Anderson N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing. The modern language journal 75(4) 460-472.

  • Baker L. Brown X. 1984. Metacognitive skills and reading. In: Barr R. Kamil M. Mosenthal P. Pearson P. (Eds.) Handbook of Reading Research Vol. II. Longman White Plains NY pp. 353–394.

  • Berkowitz E. & Cicchelli T. (2004). Metacognitive strategy use in reading of gifted high achieving and gifted underachieving middle school students in New York City. Education and Urban Society 37(1) 37-57.

  • Carrell P. L. Pharis B. G. & Liberto J. C. (1989). Metacognitive strategy training for ESL reading. Tesol Quarterly 23(4) 647-678.

  • Caverly D. C. Nicholson S. A. & Radcliffe R. (2004). The Effectiveness of Strategic Reading Instruction for College Developmental Readers. Journal of College Reading and Learning 35(1) 25-49.

  • Chamot A. U. & Kupper L. (1989). Learning strategies in foreign language instruction. Foreign language annals 22(1) 13-22.

  • Davis J.N. and Bistodeau L. 1993. How do L1 and L2 reading differ? Evidence from think aloud protocols. The Modern Language Journal 77(4) pp.459-472.

  • Dole J. A. Duffy G. G. Roehler L. R. & Pearson P. D. (1991). Moving from the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research 61(2) 239-264.

  • Dörnyei Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative qualitative and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Dreyer C. & Nel C. (2003). Teaching reading strategies and reading comprehension within a technology-enhanced learning environment. System 31(3) 349-365.

  • Drucker M. J. (2003). What reading teachers should know about ESL learners. The Reading Teacher 22-29.

  • Durwin C. C. & Sherman W. M. (2008). Does choice of college textbook make a difference in students' comprehension?. College teaching 56(1) 28-34.

  • Ericsson K. A. & Simon H. A. (1984). Protocol analysis. MIT-press.

  • Goodman K. S. (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Literacy Research and Instruction 6(4) 126-135.

  • Grabe W.P. and Stoller F.L. 2011. Teaching and researching: Reading. Routledge.

  • Harris V. & Grenfell M. (2004). Language-learning strategies: a case for cross-curricular collaboration. Language Awareness 13(2) 116-130.

  • Iwai Y. (2011). The effects of metacognitive reading strategies: pedagogical implications for EFL/ESL teachers. The Reading Matrix 11 (2) 150 159.

  • Kim S. (1995). Types and sources of problems in L2 reading: A qualitative analysis of the recall protocols by

  • Korean high school EFL students. Foreign Language Annals 28(1) 49-70.

  • Kucan L. & Beck I. L. (1997). Thinking aloud and reading comprehension research: Inquiry instruction and social interaction. Review of educational research 67(3) 271-299.

  • Levine A. Ferenz O. & Reves T. (2000). EFL academic reading and modern technology: How can we turn our students into independent critical readers. TESL-EJ 4(4) 1-9.

  • Lin L. C. & Yu W. Y. (2013). A think-aloud study of strategy use by EFL college readers reading Chinese and English texts. Journal of Research in Reading.38(3)286-306.

  • Maaka M. J. & Ward S. M. (2000). Content area reading in community college classrooms. Community College Journal of Research & Practice 24(2) 107-125.

  • Mackey A. & Gass S. M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Routledge.

  • Mastropieri M. A. Leinart A. & Scruggs T. E. (1999). Strategies to increase reading fluency. Intervention in school and clinic 34(5) 278-283.

  • Meyer B. J. & Freedle R. O. (1984). Effects of discourse type on recall. American Educational Research Journal21(1) 121-143.

  • Mokhtari K. & Reichard C. A. (2002). Assessing students' metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of educational psychology 94(2) 249.

  • Moss B. & Bordelon S. (2007). Preparing students for college-level reading and writing: Implementing a rhetoric and writing class in the senior year. Literacy Research and Instruction 46(3) 197-221.

  • Poole A. (2005). Gender Differences in Reading Strategy Use among ESL College Students. Journal of college Reading and Learning 36(1) 7-20.

  • Pressley M. (2002). Metacognition and self-regulated comprehension. What research has to say about reading instruction 3 291-309.

  • Pressley M. Afflerbach P. 1995. Verbal Protocols of Reading: The Nature of Constructively Responsive Reading. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Hillsdale NJ.

  • Pressley M. Yokoi L. van Meter P. Van Etten S. & Freebern G. (1997). Some of the reasons why preparing for exams is so hard: What can be done to make it easier?. Educational Psychology Review 9(1) 1-38.

  • Pritchard R. (1990). The effects of cultural schemata on reading processing strategies. Reading Research Quarterly 273-295.

  • Pugh S. L. Pawan F. & Antommarchi C. (2000). Academic literacy and the new college learner.

  • Rankin J. M. (1988). Designing Thinking-Aloud Studies in ESL Meadlng. Reading in a Foreign Language4(2) 119.

  • Ruzic R. (2001). Lessons for Everyone: How Students with Reading-Related Learning Disabilities Survive and Excel in College Courses with Heavy Reading Requirements.

  • Sheorey R. A. & Mokhtari K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among native and non-native readers. System 29(4) 431-449.

  • Taillefer G. & Pugh T. (1998). Strategies for professional reading in L1 and L2. Journal of Research in Reading 21(2) 96-108.

  • Tang H. (1997). The relationship between reading comprehension processes in L1 and L2. Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly 18(3) 249-301.

  • Taraban R. Rynearson K. & Kerr M. (2000). College students' academic performance and self-reports of comprehension strategy use. Reading Psychology 21(4) 283-308.

  • Taylor N. E. Wade M. R. & Yekovich F. R. (1985). The effects of text manipulation and multiple reading strategies on the reading performance of good and poor readers. Reading Research Quarterly 566-574.

  • Yau J. L. C. (2009). Reading characteristics of Chinese-English adolescents: knowledge and application of strategic reading. Metacognition and Learning 4(3) 217-235.

  • Zhang L. J. (2001). Awareness in reading: EFL students' metacognitive knowledge of reading strategies in an acquisition-poor environment. Language Awareness 10(4) 268-288.

  • Zheng Y. & Cheng L. (2008). Test review: College English Test (CET) in China. Language Testing 25(3) 408-417.