Thai Adult EFL Learners’ Metacognitive Awareness of

Reading Strategies
Tipamas Chumworatayee, Thammasat University, Thailand

Abstract: This paper reports findings from a study that assessed Thai adult EFL learners’ metacognitive
awareness of reading strategies while reading academic texts, with respect to their English proficiency
levels: low, intermediate, and high. A total of 93 postgraduate EFL learners responded to the Mokhtari
and Sheorey’s 30-item survey of reading strategies (SORS) classified into 3 categories: global, problem-
solving, and support. The results indicated that Thai adult EFL learners reported a high use of the
overall reading strategies. Although there was no significant difference among the three groups in
their overall mean scores of the three categories and in their mean scores of support strategy category,
the high-proficiency group outperformed the low-proficiency group in the categories of global and
problem-solving strategies. Moreover, the intermediate-proficiency group outperformed the low-pro-
ficiency group in the category of problem-solving strategies. Pedagogical implications were made for
EFL teachers teaching a reading strategy instruction course to find out their learners’ metacognitive
awareness of reading strategies, and to use the information obtained from the SORS to train the
learners to develop the strategies they lack and become more strategic readers.

Keywords: Reading Strategy Awareness, Metacognitive Awareness, Reading Strategies, Reading

Strategy Use, Thai Adult EFL Learners

Introduction

I
N AN INCREASINGLY globalized world, reading in English is considered a significant
skill for “English as a Foreign Language” (EFL) learners all over the world. In order to
gather information written in English for their academic studies and their careers, EFL
learners need to have efficient reading skills in order to fully comprehend the materials.
To help adult EFL learners improve their reading skills and become strategic readers (Chamot,
2004), there is a need to investigate whether the EFL learners attend a reading strategy in-
struction course with any prior awareness of reading strategies. Hopefully, the results of this
study will shed light on some practical implications for EFL reading strategy instruction.

Literature Review

Reading as a Strategic Process

Based on different theories concerning reading comprehension, there are different ways to
define “reading.” The most comprehensive definition is given by Grabe (2009). He states
that the reader reads differently depending on the context, goals, and motivation. With dif-
ferent purposes for reading and the varying processes that are called into play, it can be said
that there is no single statement that captures the complexity of reading. Grabe further posits
a more comprehensive definition as a complex combination of ten processes: a rapid process,

The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences

Volume 6, Issue 9, 2012, http://www.SocialSciences-Journal.com, ISSN 1833-1882
© Common Ground, Tipamas Chumworatayee, All Rights Reserved, Permissions:
cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY SOCIAL SCIENCES

an efficient process, a comprehending process, an interactive process, a strategic process, a

flexible process, a purposeful process, an evaluation process, a learning process, and a lin-
guistic process.
In regard to reading as a strategic process, EFL reading researchers began to focus on
reading strategies in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Carrell, 1998). Moreover, reading
strategies have been revealed as having a direct relationship to EFL students’ level of English
proficiency (Mokhtari & Sheorey, 2002; Poole, 2005).
Just like second language reading, EFL reading involves a variety of skills and strategies.
Aebersold and Field (2000) have compiled a list of factors that influence reading in an L2/FL,
and one of the factors is types of reading skills and strategies used or appropriate in L2/FL.
Reading skills and strategies are seen as comprehension processes that enable L2/FL readers
to construct meaning from the printed page most efficiently and effectively. That is to say,
when encountering comprehension problems, L2/FL readers use a prescribed set of strategies
to overcome difficulties.
Because the use of reading strategies varies depending on task requirements, different
readers approach texts differently using different strategies. According to Chamot (2004),
strategic learners are those who have metacognitive knowledge about their own thinking
and learning approaches, a good understanding of what a task entails, and the ability to or-
chestrate the strategies that best meet both the task demands and their own learning strengths.

ESL/EFL Readers’ Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies

During the past decade, researchers have placed an emphasis on the role of metacognitive
awareness in reading comprehension. Readers’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies
refers to their perceived unobservable mental reading strategies. Carrell (as cited in Sighal,
2001) and Nunan (1999) state that if a reader is aware of what is needed to perform effectively,
then it is possible to take steps to meet the demands of a reading situation more effectively.
If, however, the reader is not aware of his or her own limitations as a reader or the complexity
of the task at hand, then the reader cannot be expected to take actions to anticipate or recover
from difficulties.
Studies concerning readers’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies have played a
crucial role in understanding readers’ unobservable reading strategies. Several studies per-
taining to the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among both native and proficient
non-native readers used the Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS) developed by Mokhtari
(as cited in Tercanlioglu, 2004, p. 565) and Mokhtari and Sheorey (2002) as instruments
(Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001, Tercanliogiu, 2004; Poole, 2005). These studies have demon-
strated that proficient non-native readers, like native readers, have awareness and a reasonable
control of reading strategies while reading academic texts in English, although strategies
were used at varying frequencies of among categories. Moreover, these studies stress the
importance of reading strategy instruction in the overall reading curriculum.
Certain research studies in EFL contexts have also used the Survey of Reading Strategies
(SORS) developed by Mokhtari and Sheorey (2002) in an attempt to investigate reading
strategies among proficient EFL readers (Mohamed, et al., 2006; Monos, n.d.; Xianming,
2007; Zhang & Wu, 2009). Similarly, these studies have demonstrated that proficient EFL
readers have awareness and a reasonable control of strategies while reading academic texts.

84
 TIPAMAS CHUMWORATAYEE

As EFL readers’ use of reading strategies can be informed by their metacognitive aware-
ness, EFL teachers need to assess their students’ awareness of reading strategies. Knowing
their students’ strengths and weaknesses in term of strategy use, EFL teachers can develop
effective and appropriate reading strategy instruction to help their students become strategic
readers. However, there has not been, to my knowledge, research specifically undertaken to
investigate the reading practices of adult Thai EFL learners at different levels of English
proficiency regarding their metacognitive awareness of reading strategies while reading
academic materials in English using the SORS as a self-report instrument. Therefore, the
present study attempts to investigate:

1. Thai adult EFL learners’ metacognitive awareness of their reading strategies while
reading academic materials in English.
2. Differences, if any, among Thai adult EFL learners at different levels of English profi-
ciency regarding their metacognitive awareness of reading strategies while reading
academic materials in English.

Methodology

Subjects
The study involved 92 Thai postgraduate EFL learners taking one or more courses during
the second semester (June-September) of the 2010 academic year at the Language Institute
at Thammasat University. The subjects were chosen from learners of three different teaching
programs offered at the Language Institute: 28 from the EFL Training Program for Thai
adult learners, 33 from the Graduate Diploma Program in English for Careers (English Pro-
gram), and 31 from the Master of Arts Program in Teaching English as a Foreign Language
(English Program).
As the MA Program and the Diploma Program are taught in English, the subjects from
these two groups were considered EFL-proficient readers. However, the applicants for the
Diploma Program who did not meet the minimum English language entry requirements were
required to take a remedial course before attending the program. As such, the MA learners
were considered to be in a higher-proficiency English level than the Diploma learners, so
they were placed in the high-proficiency group, and the Diploma learners were placed in the
intermediate-proficiency group. The last group, which was the low-proficiency group, con-
sisted of learners from the EFL Training Program. They were considered to have the lowest
English proficiency as they were in the EFL Training Program either to improve their gen-
eral English skills for their future academic studies or their careers.

Instrumentation
The instrument used in this study was the Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS) developed
by Mokhtari and Sheorey (2002). The SORS was designed to be used as a quantitative in-
strument to measure the students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies while
reading academic materials such as textbooks, journal articles, class notes, and other mater-
ials.

85
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY SOCIAL SCIENCES

SORS was chosen to be used in this study due to its reasonably dependable measure of
metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. It was adapted from the Metacognitive
Awareness of Reading Strategy Inventory (MARSI), which was validated with using a large
native speaker population (N = 825) representing students with reading abilities ranging
from middle school to college with Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients of .93. The ad-
apted SORS was field-tested on a population of ESL students studying at two universities
in the United States with an overall reliability of .89 (Mokhtari & Sheorey, 2002, Sheorey
& Mokhtari, 2001).
The instrument consists of 30 items measuring three broad categories of reading strategies:

• Global or Metacognitive Reading Strategies (GLOB) are intentional, carefully planned

techniques by which learners monitor or manage their reading (13 items).
• Problem-Solving or Cognitive Reading Strategies (PROB) are the actions and procedures
that readers use while working directly with the text. These are localized, focused tech-
niques used when problems develop in understanding textual information (8 items).
• Support Reading Strategies (SUP) are basic support mechanisms intended to aid the
reader in comprehending the text (9 items).

Each item in the SORS is accompanied with a 5-point Likert scale ranging from1 (“I never
or almost never do this.”) to 5 (“I always or almost always do this.”). This study identified
three levels of Thai adult EFL learners’ reading strategy use based on the average scores on
the 5-point Likert scale as suggested by Mokhtari and Sheorey (2002): high (an average
score of 3.5 or higher), moderate (an average score of 2.5 to 3.4) and low (an average score
of 2.4 or lower).

Data Collection
All participants were given the SORS on the first day they had classes with the researcher.
The participants were asked to read each statement and circle the number that applied to
them, indicating the frequency with which they used the reading strategy implied in the
statement.

Data Analysis
The data collected were analyzed using quantitative analysis. Based on the research questions,
the data collected were analyzed as follows:
Research Question 1: What types of reading strategies do Thai adult EFL learners use
while reading academic materials in English?
To investigate the types of reading strategies Thai adult EFL learners use while reading
academic materials in English, the statistical software SPSS for WINDOWS was used to
compute the collected data. The overall average scores, overall average scores for each of
the three SORS categories, and average scores for individual strategies under each of the
three SORS categories were analyzed by descriptive statistics.
Research Question 2: Is there any difference among high-, intermediate-, and low-profi-
ciency Thai adult EFL learners in their use of reading strategies while reading academic
materials in English?

86
 TIPAMAS CHUMWORATAYEE

To investigate whether there is any difference among high-, intermediate-, and low-profi-
ciency Thai adult EFL learners in their use of reading strategies while reading academic
materials in English, the one-way ANOVA was conducted. Moreover, the sequential Bon-
ferroni test was adopted to follow up the significant interactions.

Results and Discussion

The Cronbach’s alpha for the overall SORS was .83. The reported reliabilities for each cat-
egory are: GLOB = .73; PROB = .76; and SUP = .82. These data help establish that the
SORS is a reliable instrument for assessing Thai adult EFL learners’ metacognitive awareness
of reading strategies while reading academic materials in English.

Answer Research Question 1

The first research question was directed toward identifying the reading strategies used by
Thai adult EFL learners while reading academic materials in English. Table 1 shows the
descriptive statistics for the participants’ overall score average, averages for the three reading
strategy categories, and individual reading strategy preferences under the three categories
in descending order (that is the most-often-used to the least-often-used strategies).

Table 1: Means and Standard Deviations for Thai Adult EFL Learners’ Overall Score
Average, Averages for the Three Reading Strategy Categories, and Individual Reading
Strategies under the Three Categories in Descending Order (that is the most-often-used
to the least-often-used strategies) (N = 92)
Category Item Mean Std. Deviation Level
GLOB 17 4.00 0.90 High
24 3.99 0.99
15 3.90 0.91
3 3.74 1.03
20 3.70 0.78
4 3.65 1.11
23 3.62 1.05
1 3.57 1.17
12 3.56 1.10
6 3.20 0.96 Moderate
8 3.14 1.07
27 3.07 0.93
21 3.06 1.17
GLOB Overall 3.57 0.56 High

87
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY SOCIAL SCIENCES

Category Item Mean Std. Deviation Level

PROB 25 4.29 1.19 High
9 4.07 0.89
14 3.98 0.93
28 3.87 1.23
11 3.64 1.19
7 3.63 0.99
19 3.47 1.01 Moderate
16 3.28 1.39
PROB Overall 3.78 0.57 High
SUP 10 4.35 1.08 High
13 3.66 1.04
22 3.56 1.04
18 3.17 1.09 Moderate
29 3.14 1.04
26 2.94 0.81
30 2.87 0.97
2 2.86 1.06
5 2.66 1.09
SUP Overall 3.28 0.57 Moderate
Overall Score Average 3.54 0.49 High

As evident in the table, most participants reported using overall reading strategies (M = 3.54,
SD = 0.49). The means of individual strategy items ranged from 4.35 (SD = 1.08: item 10:
I skim the text first by noting characteristics like length and organization.) to 2.66 (SD =
1.09: item 5: When text becomes difficult, I read aloud to help me understand what I read.),
indicating the high-use to moderate-use levels of reading strategies. Both the highest and
the lowest means fell into the support category. Overall, eighteen out of the thirty strategies
(60%) fell within the high-use level while twelve strategies (40%) fell within the moderate-
use level.
Table 1 also shows the participants’ responses in terms of averages for the three reading
strategy categories (GLOB, PROB, SUP) and of individual strategies under the same strategy
category. It can be seen that the category of problem-solving strategies at the high level was
the most-favored choice (M = 3.78, SD = 0.57), followed by those of global (M = 3.57. SD
= 0.56) and support categories (M = 3.28, SD = 0.57) at the high- and moderate-use levels
respectively. Note that six out of the eight problem-solving strategies (75%), nine out of the
thirteen global strategies (69.23%), and only three out of the nine support strategies (33.33%)
fell within the high-use level.

88
 TIPAMAS CHUMWORATAYEE

Answer Research Question 2

The second research question focused on identifying whether there is any difference among
high-, intermediate-, and low-proficiency Thai adult EFL learners in their use of reading
strategies while reading academic materials in English.
Table 2 illustrates the means and standard deviations of the participants’ overall reading
strategy use of each of the three categories across the three proficiency groups (low-, inter-
mediate-, and high-).

Table 2: Means and Standard Deviations for the High-, Intermediate-, and Low-
proficiency Thai Adult EFL Learners’ Reading Strategy Use under the Three SORS
Categories (N = 92)
Strategy Proficiency Levels
Low Intermediate High
GLOB 3.40 (0.52) Moderate 3.53 (0.50) High 3.78 (0.60) High
PROB 3.47 (0.55) Moderate 3.86 (0.51) High 3.98 (0.53) High
SUP 3.22 (0.57) Moderate 3.37 (0.53) High 3.22 (0.62) Moderate
Overall 3.36 (0.49) Moderate 3.57 (0.46) High 3.67 (0.50) High

Generally, the high-proficiency group (M = 3.67, SD = 0.50) outperformed the intermediate-

proficiency group (M = 3.57, SD = 0.46), and the intermediate-proficiency group (M = 3.57,
SD = 0.46) outperformed the low-proficiency group (M = 3.36, SD = 0.49) in their overall
reading strategy use. Moreover, the high-proficiency group (GLOB: M = 3.78, SD = 0.60;
PROB: M = 3.98, SD = 0.53) outperformed both the intermediate- (GLOB: M = 3.53, SD
= 0.50; PROB: M = 3.86, SD = 0.51) and low-proficiency groups (GLOB: M = 3.40, SD =
0.52; PROB: M = 3.47, SD = 0.55) in their overall reading strategy use of the categories of
global and problem-solving strategies. However, in the category of support strategies, the
intermediate-proficiency group at the high level (M = 3.37, SD = 0.53) outperformed both
the high- and low-proficiency groups, which had equal overall reading strategy use at the
moderate level (high-proficiency group: M = 3.22, SD = 0.62 and low-proficiency group:
M = 3.22, SD = 0.57).
It can also be seen that all three proficiency groups favored problem-solving strategies
the most (high-proficiency group: M = 3.98, SD = .053; intermediate-proficiency group: M
= 3.86, SD = 0.52; low-proficiency group: M = 3.47, SD = 0.55), followed by global (high-
proficiency group: M = 3.78, SD = .060; intermediate-proficiency group: M = 3.53, SD =
0.50; low-proficiency group: M = 3.40, SD = 0.52) and support strategies (high-proficiency
group: M = 3.22, SD = .053; intermediate-proficiency group: M = 3.37, SD = 0.53; low-
proficiency group: M = 3.22, SD = 0.57).
With regard to the high-level use of reading strategies under each of the three reading
strategy categories, it was found that for the high-proficiency group, seven out of the eight
problem-solving strategies (87.5%), ten out of the thirteen global strategies (76.92%), and
two out of the nine support startegies (22.22%) fell within the high-use level. For the inter-
mediate-proficiency group, seven out of the eight problem-solving strategies (87.5%), seven
out of the thirteen global strategies (53.85%), and three out of the nine support startegies

89
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY SOCIAL SCIENCES

(33.33%) fell within the high-use level. For the low-proficiency group, three out of the eight
problem-solving strategies (37.5%), five out of the thirteen global strategies (38.46%), and
four out of the nine support startegies (44.44%) fell within the high-use level.
However, it was also evident that the three profieiency groups shared preferences among
the top three most-favored strategies (the high-use level) across the three reading strategy
categories. One global strategy (item 24: I try to guess what the content of the text is about
when I read.), one problem-solving strategy (item 25: When text becomes difficult, I re-read
it to increase my understanding.), and two support strategies (item10: I underline or circle
information in the text to help me remember it.; and item 22: I go back and forth in the text
to find relationships among ideas in it.) were shared preferences. The high- and low-profi-
ciency groups also shared one global strategy (item 17: I use context clues to help better
understand what I am reading.) and one problem-solving strategy (item 28: When I read, I
guess the meaning of unknow words or phrases.). Moreover, the intermediate- and low-
proficiency groups shared one global strategy (item 15: I use tables, figures, and pictures in
text to increase my understanding.), and the high- and intermediate-proficiency groups shared
one problem-solving strategies (item 14: When text becomes difficult, I pay closer attention
to what I am reading.).
Further analysis indicated that the three proficiency groups also shared preferences among
the least-favored strategies (the moderate- and low-use levels) across the three reading
strategy categories. Three global strategies (item 8: I review the text first by noting its char-
acteristics like length and organization.; item 21: I critically analyze and evaluate the inform-
ation presented in the text.; and item 27: I check to see if my guesses about the text are right
or wrong.), one problem-solving strategy (item 16: I stop from time to time and think about
what I am reading.), and six support strategies (item 2: I take note while reading to help me
understand what I read.; item 5: When text becomes difficult, I read aloud to help me under-
stand what I read.; item 18: I paraphrase (restate ideas in my own words) to better understand
what I read.; item 26: I ask myself questions I like to have answered in the text.; item 29:
When reading, I translate from English into my native language.; and item 30: When reading,
I think about information in both English and my mother tongue.) were their shared perfer-
ences.
To see whether there is a significant difference among the high-, intermediate-, and low-
proficiency groups in their use of reading strategies, a one-way ANOVA was conducted.
The results indicated that there was no significant difference among the three proficiency
groups in the overall mean scores of the three categories (F = 2.997, df = 2, 89; p>0.05) and
in their mean scores of support strategy category (F = .758, df = 2, 89; p>0.05). However,
there were significant differences in the categories of global (F = 3.763, df = 2, 89; p<0.05)
and problem-solving strategies (F = 7.437, df = 2, 89; p<0.05).
The results of the sequential Bonferroni test also showed that there were significant differ-
ences between specific groups. There was a significant difference between the high-and low-
proficiency groups in their use of global strategies (t = .381, p <0.05). However, there was
no significant difference between the intermediate-proficiency group and both the high- (t
= .245, p >0.05) and low-proficiency groups (t = .139, p >0.05) in this category. In problem-
solving category, the results showed significant differences between both the high- and low-
proficiency groups (t = .514, p <0.05) and the intermediate- and low-proficiency groups (t
= .389, p <0.05). However, there was no significant difference between the high- and inter-
mediate-proficiency groups (t = .125, p >0.05) in this category. The results for the category

90
 TIPAMAS CHUMWORATAYEE

of support strategies, however, showed no significant difference among the three proficiency
groups (high- and intermediate-proficiency groups (t = .115, p>0.05); high- and low-profi-
ciency groups (t = .002, p>0.05); and intermediate- and low-proficiency groups (t = .153,
p>0.05)).

Conclusion
The aim of this study was to investigate metacognitive awareness of reading strategies of
Thai adult EFL learners while reading academic materials in English. Specifically, an ana-
lysis of Thai adult EFL learners’ self-reported strategy use and an analysis of possible differ-
ences among the learners in different English proficiency levels were carried out.
The results revealed that to achieve the goal of reading comprehension, Thai adult EFL
learners in this study used a wide array of reading strategies. The learners demonstrated a
high metacognitive awareness of reading strategies while reading academic texts in English.
The findings support the studies conducted by Sheorey and Mokhtari (2001) and Tercanlioglu
(2004). They reported that like native readers, proficient ESL/EFL readers had awareness
and a reasonable control of reading strategies while reading academic texts, although at dif-
ferent frequency of strategy use among different categories.
One possible explanation for the learners’ high awareness of reading strategies might be
that in their undergraduate studies, Thai undergraduates are required to take two to three
fundamental English courses and one English for Specific Purposes (ESP) course which
emphasizes improving their English academic reading skills; thus, they might have acquired
these reading strategies explicitly or implicitly through their previous studies. The transfer
of some of the reading strategies used in comprehending Thai academic texts, such as under-
lining and circling information in the text (item 10), re-reading the text to increase their un-
derstanding (item 25), and trying to get back on track when they lost concentration (item 9),
can also help explain the high use of such reading strategies. The finding that the learners
used problem-solving strategies the most, followed by global and support strategies respect-
ively also supports the findings of previous studies (Monose, n.d.; Sheorey & Mokhtari,
2001; Tercanlionglu, 2004).
The most-favored strategy that the learners used as a mechanism to support them in
comprehending and remembering the text was the underlining and circling strategy (item
10). This was an expected outcome, since this is a common practice among Thai learners
when studying Thai texts for exams. As stated by Grabe and Stoller (2002), it is natural for
EFL readers to transfer their first language reading strategies to EFL reading. Similarly, the
least-favored strategy of reading the text aloud when text becomes difficult (item 5), was
also expected. Unlike native English speakers, Thai learners do not possess the cultural
context of using English in everyday oral communication.
The study also finds differences in reading strategy awareness among the learners in dif-
ferent proficiency levels. This finding also agrees with the findings of previous research
conducted with Thai adult EFL learners (Aegpongpaow, 2008; Chomphuchart, 2006;
Pookcharoen, 2009; Pratin, 2006; Thampradit, 2006). It was found in this study that both
the high- and intermediate-proficiency groups outperformed the low-proficiency group in
their use of problem-solving strategies, and the high-proficiency group outperformed the
low-proficiency group in their use of global strategies. This means that Thai adult EFL
learners in the higher-proficiency groups (high and intermediate levels) are more aware of

91
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY SOCIAL SCIENCES

using localized, focused techniques (PROB) while working with the text than those in the
low-proficiency group, and those in the high-proficiency group are more aware of using
those intentional, carefully planned techniques to help them monitor and manage their
reading (GLOB) than those in the low-proficiency group.
The insignificant difference between the high- and intermediate-proficiency groups in
their use of problem-solving strategies might come from the fact that they both actually
might have had similar English proficiency. Because the learners in the intermediate-profi-
ciency group who did not meet the minimum English language entry requirements had
already taken the remedial course, they might have remembered their use of problem-solving
strategies from what they had learned from the remedial course. Since metacognitive strategies
(GLOB) are found to be less favored strategies than cognitive strategies (PROB) in many
studies (Monose, n.d.; Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2001; Tercanlionglu, 2004), it is not surprising
to see the significant difference only between the high- and low-proficiency groups.
The result that signaled no significant difference among the three proficiency groups in
the category of support strategies indicated that all three proficiency groups were equally
aware of using basic support mechanisms (SUP) to aid them in comprehending the text, al-
though the learners favored these strategies the least among the three categories.
The analysis above shows that Thai adult EFL learners, as a whole, are aware of what is
needed to perform the reading task effectively. Their reading process is seen as an interactive-
meaning-making process (Anderson, 1999; Carrell, 1998). Moreover, more proficient readers
in this study knew more how to regulate and monitor their comprehension effectively and
efficiently. This echoes Anderson (1999), who believes, “readers must monitor their compre-
hension processes and be able to discuss with the teacher and/or fellow readers what strategies
are being implemented to comprehend” (p. 38).
The findings of the study have a number of implications for classroom pedagogy. First,
EFL learners should be encouraged to learn and use a broad range of reading strategies
during the reading process. If teachers can describe and identify the reading strategies their
adult EFL learners use, the information obtained can be used to train the learners to develop
the strategies they lack.
The teaching of metacognitive skills (GLOB) in addition to cognitive skills (PROB) is
suggested by Anderson (2002) as a valuable use of instructional time for an ESL/EFL
teacher. His viewpoint is supported by Beckman (2002), who states that many students’
ability to learn has been increased through the deliberate teaching of these strategies, espe-
cially students with significant learning problems. Chamot (2002) emphasizes that students
do not need to learn the name of every strategy, but they need to be taught how to use those
they find effective for the kinds of tasks they need to accomplish.
If higher-proficiency learners tend to have more metacognitive awareness of both problem-
solving and global reading strategies than lower-proficiency learners, then it is important
for EFL reading teachers to consider how to encourage lower-proficiency learners to use
such reading strategies.
The fact that the three proficiency groups shared preferences among the least-favored
strategies across the three reading strategy categories offers insight into the strategies that
should be focused on reading strategy instruction to strengthen adult EFL learners to utilize
the strategies they lack more appropriately.
Second, the SORS can be used as a teaching tool to bring learners’ attention to different
reading strategies proficient reading require. In other words, adult EFL learners can improve

92
 TIPAMAS CHUMWORATAYEE

their reading comprehension skills if they realize strengths and weaknesses in their use of
reading strategies. The information in the SORS helps raise learners awareness of the available
wide array of reading strategies, which has been shown to help improve their reading com-
prehension skills and to become thoughtful, constructively responsive, and strategic readers
while reading academic materials in English (Mokhtari & Sheorey, 2002). Only when Thai
adult EFL learners are aware of the reading strategies that unravel the difficulties of the text,
can they become independent readers. EFL teachers can enhance their important role in
raising their learners’ awareness of reading strategies by administering the SORS to their
learners at the beginning of a reading strategy instruction course. By being exposed to
reading strategies early, it is much easier for adult EFL learners to interact more actively
with academic materials in English, which will in turn enhance their academic and career
achievements.
As the study used only the SORS as an instrument to measure learners’ metacognitive
awareness of reading strategies, further research needs to include data triangulation using
other instruments such as interviews, journals, and think-aloud protocols to have more valid
and reliable results.

93
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY SOCIAL SCIENCES

References
Aegpongpaow, O. (2008). A qualitative investigation of metacognitive strategies in Thai students’
English academic reading. Unpublished master’s thesis, Srinakharinwirot University,
Graduate School.
Aebersold, J. A., & Field, M. L. (2000). From reader to reading teacher: Issues and strategies for
second language classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Anderson, N. J. (1999). Exploring second language reading: Issues and strategies. Boston, MA: Heinle
& Heinle.
Anderson, N. J. (2002, April). The role of metacognition in second language teaching and learning.
Retrieved May 8, 2010, from www.cal.org/resources/digest/0110anderson.html
Beckman, P. (2002). Strategy Instruction. The ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education
(ERIC EC). Retrieved May 8, 2010, from http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/eric/e638.html
Carrell, P. L. (1998, July 4). The language teacher: Can reading strategies be successfully taught? The
Language Teacher Online, 22(2). Retrieved August 25, 2010, from http://www.jalt-publica-
tions.org/tlt/files/98/mar/carrell.html
Chamot, A. U. (2004). Issues in language learning strategy research and teaching. Journal of Foreign
Language Teaching, 1(1), 14–26.
Chomphuchart, N. (2006). Cognitive-based study of Thai EFL graduate students’ reading strategy
use. Retrieved August 25, 2010, from department.utcc.ac.th/...03.../380-research4904001.html
Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (2002). Teaching and researching reading. Harlow: Longman.
Koda, K. (2005). Insights into second language reading: A cross-linguistic approach. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Livingston, J. A. (1997). Metacognition: An overview. Retrieved March 12, 2009, from
http://www.gse.buffalo.edu/fas/shuell/CEP564/Metacog.html
Mohamed, A. R., Chew, J., & Kabilan, M. K. (2006). Metacognitive Reading Strategies of Good
Malaysian Chinese Learners. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, 2, 21–41.
Mokhtari, K., & Sheory, R. (2002). Measuring ESL students’ awareness of reading strategies. Journal
of Developmental Education, 25(3), 2–10.
Monos, K. (n.d.). A study of the English reading strategies of Hungarian University students with im-
plications for reading instruction in an academic context. Retrieved August 25, 2010, from
www.melta.org.my/Doc/MonosK_ Eng_reading_strategies.pdf
Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.
Oxford, R. (1994, October). Language learning strategies: An update. Retrieved June 8, 2010, from
http://www.cak.org/resources/digest/oxford01.html
Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing:
Theory into practice. Retrieved December 8, 2008, from http://findarticle.com/p/articles/
mi_mONQM/is_4_41/ai_94872708
Pookcharoen, S. (2009). Metacognitive online reading strategies among Thai EFL University students.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 71(02), 3390322.
Poole, A. (2005, September, 22). Gender differences in reading strategy use among ESL college students.
Journal of College Reading and Learning, 36(1), 7–20.
Pratin, P. (2006). A comparative study of reading strategies between good and poor ESL readers at
the graduate level. Language Institute Journal, 3, 77–95.
Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies
among native and non-native readers. System, 29(4), 431–449.
Sighal, M. (2001). Reading proficiency, reading strategies, metacognitive awareness and L2 readers.
The Reading Matrix, 3(1), Retrieved August 25, 2010, from http://www.readingmatrix.com/
articles/singhal/

94
 TIPAMAS CHUMWORATAYEE

Tercanlionglu, L. (2004). Postgraduate students’ use of reading strategies in L1 and ESL contexts:
Links to success. International Education Journal, 5(4), 562–570.
Thampradit, P (2006). A study of reading strategies used by Thai university engineering students at
King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang. Dissertation Abstracts International,
67(04), 3215042.
Xianming, X. (2007). A study of first-year college students’ metacognitive awareness of reading
strategies. Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 1(1), 93–107.
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.

About the Author

Dr. Tipamas Chumworatayee
Tipamas Chumworatayee, Ph.D, is an assistant professor at the Language Institute, Thammasat
University, Thailand. Her professional interests include EFL reading strategy awareness-
raising, EFL student-teacher learning, reading and writing connection, and teaching EFL
academic reading and writing. She currently teaches EFL courses both at undergraduate and
graduate levels. She also trains pre-service and in-service EFL teachers in EFL reading
methodology.

95
Copyright of International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences is the property of
Common Ground Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.