Instr Sci (2012) 40:1063–1081

DOI 10.1007/s11251-011-9202-5

Effects of explicit instruction in cognitive

and metacognitive reading strategies on Iranian EFL
students’ reading performance and strategy transfer

Reza Aghaie • Lawrence Jun Zhang

Received: 6 June 2011 / Accepted: 19 December 2011 / Published online: 6 January 2012
Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Abstract This study explored the impact of explicit teaching of reading strategies on
English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) students’ reading performance in Iran. The study
employed a questionnaire adapted from Chamot and O’Malley’s (1994) cognitive and
metacognitive strategies framework. To test the effects of explicit teaching of cognitive
and metacognitive reading strategies on reading performance and strategy transfer, the
study has a quasi-experimental design involving a contrast group and a treatment group,
with whom an intervention program was implemented. The treatment group achieved
significantly better results than the contrast group after four months of strategy-based
instruction. Results of paired-sample t-tests and independent t-tests and effect size showed
that reading comprehension and reading strategy use improved with strategy instruction.
Moreover, SPANOVA analyses showed that the participants in the treatment group per-
formed better than those in the contrast group in reading comprehension and reading
strategy transfer. Results also showed that strategy instruction contributed to autonomous
reading behaviors. Recommendations for further research are discussed.

Keywords Cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies
Explicit strategy instruction

Foreign language reading
Transfer of reading strategies
Iranian EFL learners

Introduction

In recent years, there has been a shift of emphasis from the identification and clas-
sification of learning strategies to their application in the language classroom (Anderson
2005; Cohen and Macaro 2007; Gong et al. 2011; Zhang and Zhang 2011). According to
Cohen (2003), explicit training in the use of a broad array of strategies for learning

R. Aghaie
School of Foreign Languages, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran

L. J. Zhang (&)
School of Arts, Languages & Literacies, Faculty of Education, The University of Auckland,
74 Epsom Avenue, Auckland 1023, New Zealand
e-mail: lj.zhang@auckland.ac.nz; larry.jzhang@gmail.com

123
1064 R. Aghaie, L. J. Zhang

English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) vocabulary and for grammar, reading, writing, lis-

tening and speaking skills has become a prominent issue in second language acquisition
(SLA) research (see also Cohen and Macaro 2007). However, what is still a moot point is
whether explicit strategy instruction enhances learners’ reading comprehension and strat-
egy transfer in an Iranian EFL context. There is a paucity of research with respect to this
domain of educational significance and thus, this study was conducted to produce some
evidence that is expected to lend further support to the effects of strategy-based instruction
on reading performance and strategy transfer in this particular learning context.

Review of the literature

Reading strategy training research

A number of studies have been carried out to scrutinize the positive effects of reading
strategy training on reading comprehension. In a study conducted by Dreyer and Nel
(2003) over a 13-week semester, a combination of cognitive and metacognitive strategies
were taught to and practised by 131 first-year Afrikaans and Setswanan L1 students
learning English for professional purposes at a South African university. The students were
divided into successful and at-risk groups based on standardized tests. Reading compre-
hension and reading strategy use were measured pre- and post-intervention. At the onset of
the project, at-risk students apparently lacked metacognitive strategies for monitoring and
evaluating their comprehension in order to deploy cognitive strategies to deal with reading
problems. By the end of the program, both successful and at-risk students in the treatment
group achieved significantly higher comprehension scores than the contrast group. There
were also changes in the choice and orchestration of strategies which the intervention
students used.
Oxford (1990), Anderson (1991), Chamot and O’Malley (1994), O’Malley and Chamot
(1990), Cohen (1998, 2003, 2011), Greenfell and Macaro (2007), Rubin et al. (2007), and
Zhang (2008), among many others, have extensively argued in favor of strategy training
and offered evidence of its success. However, Kellerman (1991) dismissed strategy
instruction as irrelevant on the basis that learners had already developed strategic com-
petence in their L1 and could therefore simply transfer it to their L2. Thus, there is a need
to explore whether strategic competence can be developed in their L2 as a result of explicit
strategy instruction and be transferred to new tasks in L2 and other languages.

Transfer of strategies to new tasks and other languages

There is limited research on the transfer of learning strategies in second language acqui-
sition, but recent work in this area promises to provide insights that can help teachers teach
students to transfer certain learning strategies from one language to another or across
learning tasks in learning a target language (Graham and Macaro 2008; Harris 2004;
Macaro and Erler 2008). As Pressley et al. (1989) noted, the learner can actively transfer a
given strategy to a new learning situation only when the strategy is in awareness, i.e., when
the learner has metacognitive knowledge of the strategy. Furthermore, Wenden’s (1999)
review of related studies indicates the key role played by metacognitive knowledge in
facilitating transfer (see also Zhang 2010a). In addition, Chamot (2001, 2005) asserted that
the transfer of learning strategies can happen. In her words, the process can be ‘‘from the
L1 to the L2—and from the L2 to additional languages and even back to the L1’’ (Chamot

123
Effects of explicit instruction in cognitive and metacognitive reading 1065

2005, p. 42). However, Rees-Miller (1993, p. 681) argued that strategies could not be
transferred from one person to another, nor could they easily be provided as exemplars by
the teacher, and she doubted whether teachers could actually observe a student performing
a strategy once it had been taught.

Strategy instruction and transfer of strategies

In the language learning strategies literature Cohen (2011) summarizes the significance of
strategy instruction in second language learning. Carrell et al. (1989) conclude that the
combined effect of cognitive and metacognitive strategy instruction in second language
reading is effective in enhancing reading comprehension. In a similar fashion, Zhang
(2008) has managed to bring to the fore, through examining the classroom processes, what
EFL learners were doing in strategy-based reading instruction lessons and found that
students were implicitly making the links between what they did as new reading tasks and
what they had completed earlier on. In this study we are interested in whether explicit
teaching of strategies facilitates transfer of strategies to other foreign languages and even to
L1 in relation to Iranian EFL students. We hope to fill up this research gap by the explicit
teaching of reading strategies to Iranian high school EFL students with the aim of raising
their awareness of strategies to see the effect of explicit teaching strategies on strategy
transfer.

Research questions

The aim of this study is to explore the impact of explicit teaching of cognitive and
metacognitive reading strategies on students’ reading performance and transfer of strate-
gies. More specifically, this study attempts to address the following research questions:
(1) Does explicit instruction in cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies have an
impact on Iranian EFL students’ reading performance and transfer of strategies to
other foreign languages and even to L1?
(2) If yes, how is this effect typically reflected in the way students’ reading
comprehension and transfer of strategies to other foreign languages and even to L1
are represented?

Methodology

Participants

To address the research, intermediate-level EFL students were chosen for strategy
instruction. Their general language proficiency was partially controlled by the Nelson
English Language Proficiency Test (1977), a 50-item multiple-choice test for assessing
students’ overall language proficiency (mainly vocabulary and reading comprehension),
which was administered to the students at the beginning of their English studies to classify
them into different proficiency levels. It was also partially controlled by the New Inter-
change (Richards et al. 2003) general proficiency final test which was given to the class at
the end of the term. Simple random sampling was used to select 80 students among 1,100
intermediate students who were novices. They were considered to be at an intermediate

123
1066 R. Aghaie, L. J. Zhang

level of English language proficiency and reading performance. Based on stratified random
sampling procedures, they were assigned either to a contrast or a treatment group.

Instruments

Selected reading strategies

Cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies were adapted from Chamot and O’Malley’s
(1994) framework for organizing cognitive and metacognitive strategies (pp. 61–62). This
included cognitive strategies such as ‘‘guessing unfamiliar words from contextual clues’’,
‘‘summarizing main ideas from a text’’, ‘‘looking for logical relationships between para-
graphs’’ and ‘‘trying to find out the organizational aspects of text’’ and metacognitive
strategies such as ‘‘determining in advance what my reading purpose is and then reading
the text with that goal in mind’’, ‘‘looking for specific aspects of information and focusing
on that information while reading the text’’, ‘‘checking the effectiveness in strategy use’’,
‘‘checking whether the goals for reading are accomplished’’. These strategies were taught
to the treatment group students for four months. In the classroom, the intervention program
typically combined several strategies in classroom procedures in each lesson.
Although O’Malley and Chamot (1990) summarized the traits of strategy use, the
constructs extracted from their study might be different from this study because ‘‘indicators
may have different meanings in different places, cultures, subcultures and the like’’ (Pe-
dhazur and Schmelkin 1991, p. 53). Therefore, we used exploratory factor analysis to
identify how strategy items clustered together in this study in the Iranian EFL context.

Factor analysis for cognitive strategy use

Exploratory factor analysis was performed with cognitive strategy items. Principal axis
factoring and a varimax solution were used. Three factors had eigenvalues greater than 1.0.
As a result, principal axis factoring with a varimax solution yielded three factors with
eigenvalues greater than 1.0, accounting for 51.25% of total variance. A display of the
inferential statistics of factor analysis is presented in Table 1.
As shown in Table 1, five items loaded on Factor 1 which accounted for 31.21% of the
variance. After reading the individual items carefully, we found that these items are related
to use what you know about strategies. Factor 2 was represented by items 10, 11, and 3.
These items especially dealt with use your senses and background knowledge strategies.
Factor 3, accounting for 9.64% of the total variance, dealt with use your organizational
strategies. The exploratory factor analysis results in this study were consistent with what
was originally hypothesized within O’Malley and Chamot (1990) framework. The items in
Use your organizational strategies, Use your senses and background knowledge strategies,
and Use what you know about strategies fit with the original framework with respect to
cognitive strategies. The Barlett test of sphericity is significant for cognitive reading
strategies (x2 = 575.25, P = 0.000) and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling
adequacy is significant (kmo = 0.83).

Factor analysis for metacognitive strategy use

Exploratory factor analysis was performed with metacognitive strategy use items. Principal
axis factoring and a varimax solution were used. Two factors had eigenvalues greater than

123
Effects of explicit instruction in cognitive and metacognitive reading 1067

Table 1 Inferential statistics of factor analysis for cognitive strategy items

Strategy items Factors

1 2 3

Cognitive reading strategy 8—I try to find out the organizational aspects of the text. 0.716
(cognitive)
Cognitive reading strategy 26—I read the text again to summarize its meaning. 0.697
(cognitive)
Cognitive reading strategy 25—I make critical/personal comments on the text. 0.667
(cognitive)
Cognitive reading strategy 21—I guess at unfamiliar vocabulary items through 0.575
contextual clues. (cognitive)
Cognitive reading strategy 5—I anticipate possible content of the text. (cognitive) 0.574
Cognitive reading strategy 10—While reading, I decide whether the information 0.791
makes sense based on what I already know about the topic. (cognitive)
Cognitive reading strategy 11—I imagine scenes or draw pictures of what I am 0.681
reading. (cognitive)
Cognitive reading strategy 3—Before I read, I think of what I already know about 0.575
the topic. (cognitive)
Cognitive reading strategy 17—I connect what is read with what is already known. 0.794
(cognitive)
Cognitive Reading strategy 19—I look for logical relationships between 0.631
paragraphs. (cognitive)
Cognitive reading strategy 18—I summarize main ideas either orally or in written 0.507
form. (cognitive)

Extraction method: principal component analysis

Rotation method: varimax with Kaiser normalization

1.0. As a result, principal axis factoring with a varimax solution yielded two factors with
eigenvalues greater then 1.0, accounting for 44.79% of total variance. A display of the
inferential statistics of factor analysis is presented in Table 2.
As shown in Table 2, nine items loaded on Factor 1, which accounted for 35.47% of the
variance. After reading the individual items scrupulously, we found that these items are
related to monitoring/planning strategies. Factor 2 was represented by items 28, 24, 27, 15,
9, 7 and 29. These items accounted for 9.32% of the total variance and dealt especially with
evaluation strategies. The exploratory factor analysis results in this study were partially
consistent with what was originally hypothesized within O’Malley and Chamot (1990)
framework with respect to metacognitive strategies. Monitoring or Planning strategies and
Evaluation strategies partially fit with the originally designed framework. Monitoring and
Planning are classified in terms of different categories in the framework, while Monitoring
and Planning are classified in terms of one category. One explanation of this difference
might be related to the context; this group of participants generally learn English in an EFL
rather than ESL context. As a result, their strategy use might be different from that of
O’Malley and Chamot’s (1990) study, which mainly comprised ESL learners. The Barlett
test of sphericity is significant for metacognitive reading strategies (x2 = 414.46, P = 000)
and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy is also significant
(kmo = 0.815).
To validate the questionnaire in terms of appropriateness, phrasing and classification of
items (i.e., face and content validity), two university professors whose expertise lies in

123
1068 R. Aghaie, L. J. Zhang

Table 2 Inferential statistics of factor analysis for metacognitive strategy use items
Strategy items Factors

1 2

Meta reading strategy after 28—I check to see if my predictions were correct. 0.701
(metacognitive)
Meta reading strategy while 22—I look for relationships between main ideas (topic 0.640
sentences) and details. (metacognitive)
Meta reading strategy after 24—I examine how well the text is understood. (metacognitive) 0.560
Meta reading strategy while 14—I ask questions about the text. (metacognitive) 0.478
Meta reading strategy before 2—I decide in advance specific aspects of information to look 0.477
for, and I focus on that information when I read. (metacognitive)
Meta reading strategy while 16—I pay attention to meaning rather than form. 0.415
(metacognitive)
Meta reading strategy while 15—I self check comprehension. (metacognitive) 0.750
Meta reading strategy while 9—While I read, I periodically check whether the material is 0.713
making sense to me. (metacognitive)
Meta reading strategy before 1—I decide in advance what my reading purpose is, and then I 0.582
read with that goal in mind. (metacognitive)

Extraction method: principal component analysis

Rotation method: varimax with Kaiser normalization

statistics were consulted. Reliability was calculated for the instruments using Cronbach’s
Alpha. The overall Cronbach’s Alpha reliability for the reading questionnaire was 0.85,
indicating it was a reliable instrument in investigating Iranians’ cognitive and metacog-
nitive reading strategies. The internal consistency reliability of each category is 0.73 and
0.77 for metacognitive and cognitive strategies, respectively. Since all Cronbach’s Alpha
values are larger than 0.70, this questionnaire is deemed as having good internal consis-
tency to evaluate students’ reading strategy use. Reliability was calculated for the
instruments using Cronbach’s Alpha. The overall Cronbach’s Alpha reliability for the
reading questionnaire given as a pre-measure was 0.85 and 0.94 on the post-test.
Item analysis was undertaken to evaluate the quality of the test to be used in the study.
There was a statistically significant difference between the two groups, thus showing good
discrimination. It was found that the person separation reliability (equivalent to KR-21) of
the total test was acceptable (0.78). The reliability estimate for the test using Cronbach’s
Alpha as a pre-measure was 0.74 and 0.83 on the post-test. Considering the other main
characteristics of the test, namely criterion validity of the test, the standardized Nelson
English Language Proficiency Test (1977) was used, which showed 0.81 of coefficient of
determination that is satisfactory for such a test.
Two college English lecturers of Persian origin, who were experienced researchers and
teachers, were asked to provide feedback on the content and face validity of the survey.
They were asked to comment on (a) the suitability of the items in the questionnaire,
appropriate representative sample of the set of all possible items in the questionnaire and
(b) whether the items were worded clearly and effectively in the Persian language to
measure the chosen strategies. Their suggestions and comments were taken into consid-
eration in improving the scales. Also, content validity is 0.88 using a classificatory
agreement between independent raters who blindly matched each of the strategy items with
strategies in the taxonomy of cognitive and metacognitive strategies.

123
Effects of explicit instruction in cognitive and metacognitive reading 1069

Data collection procedures

Pre-test and post-test measures

The reading comprehension part of the standard New Interchange 3 test was utilized as a
pre-test and post-test assessment. The reading scores of participants in both groups were
collected after both tests in order to explore the possible impact of strategy instruction on
their reading comprehension. A list of reading strategies in a questionnaire format was
prepared on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (extremely infrequently) to 5 (extremely
frequently). It was intended to elicit students’ reported frequency of employing these
reading strategies. The questionnaire was then distributed among the participants before
and after the strategy-based reading instruction.
The contrast and treatment groups were assigned the same reading materials. However,
the contrast group did not receive strategy training. Participants in the contrast group
received the teaching principles of the New Interchange Teacher’s Guide Book. The
principles underlying the book series is, as the authors state, are generally driven by a
communicative language teaching philosophy, where language learning is regarded as
‘‘more rewarding, meaningful, and effective when the language is used for authentic
communication’’ (Richards et al. 2003, p. vi). In light of what is intended in the book,
teachers in the contrast group did not teach reading strategies, placing their lesson focus on
meaningful oral communication. So much of the time was spent on practicing students’
spoken English. To avoid any disadvantage for the contrast group, the first author
implemented strategy-based instruction procedures with them after the experimental study
was completed.

Classroom procedures in strategy instruction

The first author, who was also the classroom teacher, asked the participants to join in the
interactive discussion and definitions of strategies, and to use them in the reading tasks in
small groups. The teacher-researcher gradually encouraged them to use strategies inde-
pendently. Thus, learner autonomy or self-regulation was regarded as a final goal for the
strategy-based instruction. This task was supposed to help the students to raise their
awareness of using strategies. It was also based on Vygotsky’s (1986) sociocultural view
which emphasizes that peer sharing and collaborative learning can lead to effective
learning (Cross 2010; Zhang, 2008, 2010b).
Strategy instruction normally begins by helping students become aware of what strat-
egies are and which ones they are already using (Chamot et al. 1999; Cohen 1998, 2011;
Macaro and Erler 2008). As can be understood, teacher expertise in this area is particularly
important (Goh et al. 2005; Goodwyn 2010; Limbrick and Parr 2010). For the purpose of
raising students’ consciousness of learning strategies, three simple questions were asked in
our study: (1) Have you ever heard of the term ‘‘reading strategies’’? (2) If you have heard
of the term ‘‘reading strategies’’, what specific strategies did you use in reading? (3) Do
you want to learn about how you can read more effectively? This consciousness-raising
helps students to begin thinking about their own learning strategies (cf. Zhang 2008).
The teacher-researcher, who had over 10 years of teaching experience, involved the
participants in the discussion of strategies and then asked them to apply them in the reading
tasks in small groups with reference to pre-, while-, or post-reading stages in reading. After
these preliminary interactive discussions, all the participants were referred to the reading
strategies. The whole class was then divided into small groups and asked to talk about what

123
1070 R. Aghaie, L. J. Zhang

Table 3 CALLA model (Chamot 2005; Chamot et al. 1999)

Preparation Presentation Practice Self- Expansion Assessment
evaluation

Teacher Teacher Students practice Students Students transfer Teacher

identifies models, new strategy; in evaluate strategies to new assesses
students’ names, subsequent their own tasks, combine students’
current explains if strategy practice, strategy use strategies into use of
learning and how a teacher fades immediately clusters, develop strategies
strategies new reminders to after practice repertoire of and impact
for familiar strategy is encourage preferred on
tasks used independent strategies performance
strategy use

each of the strategies meant to them by supplying definitions, what situations would be
appropriate for using such strategies so that reading comprehension would be enhanced and
why such strategies should be used. The teacher presented and modelled strategies so that
students became increasingly aware of their own thinking and learning strategies. Multiple
practice opportunities were created to help them move toward autonomous use of the
strategies through gradual withdrawal of the scaffolding. Self-evaluation of the effec-
tiveness of the strategies used and transfer of strategies to other texts were also employed.
With the passage of time, the teacher-scaffolding was slowly removed to ensure that the
students started using these strategies independently so that learner autonomy (autonomy
of language learning competence) or self-regulation could be regarded as an ultimate goal
for the strategy instruction. Chamot and O’Malley (1994) worked on a project called
Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA), which provided a useful
framework for direct language learning strategies instruction. Later, Chamot (2005) and
Chamot et al. (1993, 1999) developed the CALLA into six sequences of instruction as
shown in Table 3. The CALLA model is recursive rather than linear so that teachers and
students always have the option of revising prior instructional phases as needed (Chamot
2005). The treatment group in this study received explicit strategy instruction based on the
CALLA model of explicit strategy instruction. The strategy-based training program lasted
four months, amounting to 48 hours.

Data analysis

Creswell (2008, p. 203) argues that ‘‘it is important to know whether the statistical test was
significant (through P values) and the possible range of acceptable scores (confidence
interval), but also to quantify the strength of the differences between two means or two
intervals.’’ So, we report both descriptive and inferential statistics. Furthermore, in order to
adjust to different tests utilized in this section, we adopted Bonferroni correction to avoid
the Type I errors. Since there were 23 independent strategy variables and two dependent
variables, it meant that there were a total of 46 tests needed. After the Bonferroni
correction, the newly required significance level was P \ 0.001. This was extracted as
follows using Bonferroni correction: P \ 0.05 = the initial significance level; and 0.05/
46 = 0.001 = the initial significance level adjusted by 46 tests. We used SPANOVA to
confirm statistically significant differences between the pre- and post- reading scores. We
also report effect size to determine the size of the difference between the contrast and
treatment groups after strategy training.

123
Effects of explicit instruction in cognitive and metacognitive reading 1071

Think-aloud protocols for transfer of strategies

Think-aloud protocols of students’ individual use of cognitive and metacognitive reading

strategies after strategy training in the post-test phase from both the treatment and the
contrast groups generated from authentic reading tasks were used in this study. By using
think-aloud protocols, we wanted to work with texts that explicitly connected infor-
mation and provided adequate explanations. Readers were asked to stop and talk about
such texts in a way that gave them the chance to reflect on and think about the
information.
Among the 80 students in both the treatment and the contrast groups, only 20 volun-
teered to join the think-aloud component of the research. There were 10 students from the
treatment group and 10 students from the contrast group. The purpose of this part of the
research was to gain insight into students’ reading strategies while they were reading
English passages after the explicit strategy training program completed with the treatment
group.

Collecting think-aloud protocols

The participants were allowed to produce the think-aloud protocols in Persian, or a mixture
of two languages, English with Persian. Prior to this, informant training was provided to
familiarize them with the procedures, as research shows that it would be difficult for some
students to talk aloud while reading (e.g., Zhang et al. 2008). Subjects were asked to
verbalize whatever they were thinking and why they were thinking such during their
reading process. Before conducting the real protocols, five piloting sessions were con-
ducted with five students in order to detect potential problems that might occur during the
real protocols.
In addition to using training for participants and choice of their L1 in reporting their
thoughts, some techniques were used to minimize the teachers’ intrusiveness. One way was
to encourage participants to self-select the moments at which they wished to verbalize.
Another was to ask them to nod or raise a finger when they were aware of thinking about
what they had read, but not to describe until they had finished reading.
Coding the transcribed verbal protocols was accomplished by dividing the students’
responses into ideas as an occurrence, roughly equivalent to a statement or clause that
ended when a change in the idea or focus of attention occurred. Each idea unit was
transcribed and analyzed into one of the codes of coding categories suggested by
O’Malley and Chamot (1990) which is based on a priori categories and emergent
categories.

Transfer of strategies

The total number of individuals who used a strategy in both languages was counted;
the number was then converted into percentages and reported as percentages of individuals
within the group who transferred strategies from one language to the other languages and
even to L1 in order to examine whether there were any strategies that were commonly
transferred by the participants.
Miles and Huberman (1994) note that there are two kinds of coding. The first one, a
grounded approach, is used by an inductive researcher who may not want to pre-code any
data until the researcher has collected them. The second is to provide a ‘‘start list’’ (Miles
and Huberman 1994, p. 58) of codes prior to fieldwork. In this research, both kinds of

123
1072 R. Aghaie, L. J. Zhang

coding were used. For the first part of coding (start list), the protocols were coded using an
adapted version of the coding index developed by O’Malley and Chamot (1990). The
coding index in this study had two main categories: Metacognitive and cognitive reading
strategies. Each reading strategy consistent with the coding index of the present research
was accordingly adopted, and the codes were then given to appropriate strategies.
Following this, an individual strategy was listed under the main categories (cognitive and
metacognitive reading strategies). To increase the reliability and validity of the think-aloud
protocols, the first author, whose first language is Persian, (1) repeatedly listened to and
transcribed the recording of each student two times, and (2) equated the literal meanings of
transcripts through careful back-translation.
After the verbal reports sessions were completed, transcripts of the reports were coded.
Data collected from the think-aloud protocols were transcribed and translated from Persian
to English. Subsequently, the data were coded by two instructors other than the researchers.
Data analysis for reading strategies was based on the coding categories suggested by
O’Malley and Chamot (1990). The process of doing so created emergent categories rather
than just merely using a priori categories (Creswell 2008).
Two coders were asked to independently identify and code reading strategies based on
a priori and emergent categories which constitute 100% of all strategies. First, each
recorder coded the transcripts independently by writing the name of the strategy in the
spaces between the lines of the transcriptions and underlying the relevant parts of the
sheets. Then, the instructors came together to compare the codes, calculate the percentages
of agreements for reliability and resolve the discrepancies in their coding. Their codes were
compared to the ones identified by the researchers to identify inter-rater reliability. As
inter-rater reliability at the level of 0.85 or 0.87 was established, there was confidence to
claim that their coding was consistent with that proposed by other researchers.

Results

Effects of strategy instruction on learners’ perceived use of reading strategies

Statistics indicate that the treatment group performed better than the contrast group on both
cognitive and metacognitive strategies. However, within the treatment group, metacogni-
tive strategies (M = 4.16) were used more than cognitive strategies (M = 4.02). The most
significant differences are related to these strategies, ‘‘I decide in advance to look at the
text to see its layout, illustrations’’ (treatment group M = 4.60 versus contrast group
M = 3.00; t = -6.60, P \ 0.001), ‘‘I decide in advance what my reading purpose is, and
then I read with that goal in my mind’’ (treatment group M = 4.42 vs. contrast group
M = 2.82; t = -7.92, P \ 0.001), ‘‘I examine how well the text is understood’’ (treatment
group M = 4.37 vs. contrast group M = 2.77; t = -6.50, P \ 0.001), ‘‘While I read,
I periodically check whether the material is making sense to me’’ (treatment group
M = 4.35 vs. contrast group M = 3.20; t = -5.99, P \ 0.001), ‘‘I pay attention to
meaning rather than form’’ (treatment group M = 4.32 vs. contrast group M = 2.25;
t = -8.92, P \ 0.001), ‘‘I guess at unfamiliar vocabulary items through contextual clues’’
(treatment group M = 4.30 vs. contrast group M = 3.22; t = -5.25, P \ 0.001) and
‘‘I imagine scenes or draw pictures of what I am reading’’ (treatment group M = 4.30 vs.
contrast group M = 2.92; t = -7.44, P \ 0.001).
Statistics also show that there was an overall change in the treatment group’s use of all
reading strategies as seen in the post-test. The most remarkable changes were seen in their

123
Effects of explicit instruction in cognitive and metacognitive reading 1073

use of metacognitive strategies: ‘‘I decide in advance to look at the text to see its layout,
illustrations, etc.’’ (Pre-test M = 3.15 vs. post-test M = 4.60; t = -5.73, P \ 0.05) M=,
vs. M=; P \ 0.05), and ‘‘I decide in advance what my reading purpose is, and then I read
with that goal in mind’’, (pre-test M = 3.67 vs. post-test M = 4.42; t = -3.77, P \ 0.05).

Effects of strategy instruction on reading performance

An independent t-test to compare the mean reading scores of the contrast group
(M = 44.56) and the treatment group (M = 44.56) in the pre-test did not yield any sig-
nificant different (t = 0.929, P = 0.356). An independent t-test was also computed for the
post-test. It indicated that the treatment group had a mean of 48.32 on the pre-test reading
scale and a mean of 56.25 on the post-test reading scale. The two-tailed significance test
indicates a t = -4.417 with 78 degrees of freedom (P = 0.000). As Table 4 shows,
SPANOVA results confirm the statistically significant differences between the pre- and
post- test reading scores, which show that the main effect for treatment is significant
(F = 13.5, P = 0.000, g2 = 0.148, x = .953). It can be concluded that there is a differ-
ence in the treatment group between the pre-test to post-test reading scores. The treatment
group seems to have benefited from strategy instruction.
The result of the effect size shows that strategy instruction can account for about
80.80% of the variance, indicating a strong association between strategy training and
reading performance improvement for the treatment group. According to the effect size
formula (Glass et al. 1981, p. 29), the group’s effect size is 6.98. This means that the
average of treatment group would be over six standard deviations higher than that of the
contrast group in terms of reading performance.

Table 4 Tests of between-subjects effects for reading comprehension scores

Source of variance Type III sum df Mean F P Partial g2 Noncent. Observed
of squares square parameter power

Reading 1461.500 1 1461.500 13.53 0.000 0.148 13.537 0.953

comprehension
scores

Effects of strategy training on strategy transfer

As shown in Table 5, the group of strategies, the strategy group that was mainly transferred
in the treatment group was a list of metacognitive strategies, as compared with the contrast
group, whose dominant use of cognitive reading strategies was apparent. Therefore, it may
be suggested that explicit strategy instruction increased students’ metacognitive role of L2.
They were likely to transfer this monitoring role to their L1. Therefore, it is possible to
state that explicit strategy instruction can support a sociocultural view of language as a tool
for thought in that ‘‘the L1 would quite naturally serve as a tool to help students think about
and make sense of L2 texts’’ (de Guerrero 2005, p. 76).
In this respect, the role of the explicit strategy instruction was one of the variables
involved in increasing strategy awareness and metacognitive awareness accordingly.
Therefore, the analysis of the transcripts of the think-aloud protocols in this study suggests
that students in the treatment group used L1 for making observations about the text which

123
1074 R. Aghaie, L. J. Zhang

Table 5 Transfer of strategies in the treatment group

Categories Strategies Students in experimental group

F Sum Percentages Total

of F

Cognitive reading Before I read, I think of what I already know 6 63 5.30 55.67
strategies (CRS) about the topic
I anticipate possible content of the text 5 4.42
I try to find out the organizational aspects of the 6 5.30
text
While reading, I decide whether the information 5 4.42
makes sense based on what I already know
about the topic
I guess at unfamiliar vocabulary items through 7 6.19
contextual clues
I imagine scenes or draw pictures of what I am 4 3.53
reading
I look for logical relationships between 3 2.65
paragraphs
I connect what is read with what is already known 5 4.42
I read the text again to summarize its meaning 7 6.19
I summarize main ideas either orally or in written 6 5.30
form
I make critical comments on the text 4 3.53
I make personal comments on the text 5 4.42
Metacognitive I check whether I accomplished my goal for 8 7.07 44.19
reading reading
strategies (MRS)
I decide in advance specific aspects of information 12 50 8.83
to look for, and I focus on that information when
I read
I look for relationships between main ideas (topic 10 10.61
sentences) and details
I decide in advance what my reading purpose is, 11 9.73
and then I read with that goal in mind
I check to see if my predictions were correct 9 7.96
Total 113 100% 100%

is related to the metacognitive level. Students in the contrast group also used L1 for direct
translation but less effectively at the metacognitive level. This is due to the reason that they
have not received explicit strategy instruction and do not have metacognitive awareness
accordingly. For example, students in the treatment group typically reported that: ‘‘I use
and think in the Persian language to find out the text structure and text characteristics’’, and
students in the contrast group reported that ‘‘I use the Persian language to translate a word
directly from L2 to L1.’’
Interestingly, students in the contrast group transferred cognitive reading strategies in
their EFL reading (83.83%) more frequently than students in the treatment group. This
might be a reflection of the country’s educational system, which motivates learners to be
more concerned with the results of their learning rather than the ‘‘how’’. In other words, the
evaluation system is summative in Iran and this causes the students to focus their attention

123
Effects of explicit instruction in cognitive and metacognitive reading 1075

on the results of exams. Because of the washback effect, students’ reading processes tended
to be oriented towards text-bound strategies such as deciphering the text word by word, or
sentence by sentence while reading in order that they could be more prepared for taking the
examinations. Moreover, the effect of this system in the country may not promote self-
regulation on the part of the students in learning as a whole in terms of strategy use. This is
also supported by the results obtained by Goh (1998) that subjects strongly preferred to use
cognitive strategies that severely constrained their use of metacognitive strategies. Iranian
students are not sufficiently trained in the use of metacognitive strategies in reading L1 and
L2. Therefore, these skills are not transferred effectively.
Anderson (2002a, p. 1) defines metacognition as ‘‘thinking about thinking’’ (see also
seminal work by Flavell 1971, 1979, Flavell and Wellman 1977). As Anderson states, the
use of metacognitive strategies ignites one’s thinking and can lead to higher-order
learning and better performance (see also Zhang 2010a). Anderson (2002b) believes that
‘‘developing metacognitive awareness may lead to the development of stronger cognitive
skills’’ (p. 1). Also important is a fact that strategies may lead to the development of
reading skills, which are more automatic (Afflerbach et al. 2008; Zhang and Wu 2009).
Furthermore, understanding and controlling cognitive processes may be one of the most
essential skills that teachers can help second language learners develop. Therefore, the
findings of this study might help raise teachers’ awareness of the importance of famil-
iarizing students with metacognitive strategies, and application of their metacognitive
awareness or knowledge to reading tasks in their L2 and L1 classes. Additionally, a
metacognitive curriculum should form an essential part of reading comprehension courses
and materials. This is probably because of a lack of a strategy-based instruction com-
ponent in the national education system in general and a specific curriculum in particular
the participants reported using more cognitive reading strategies instead of metacognitive
reading strategies. Again, this might be a reflection of the country’s results-based edu-
cational system.

Transferability of reading strategies

Participants were asked to provide answers for the Likert scale ranging from always (5),
usually (4), often (3) and sometimes (2) to never (1). At least 88.8% of respondents
indicated that they either used ‘usually’ or ‘always’ with the statements about transfer-
ability of the metacognitive strategies learned during the strategy instruction to other
languages and even to L1. Participants were also asked to provide answers for the Likert
scale ranging from always (5), usually (4), often (3) and sometimes (2) to never (1). At
least 58.4% of respondents indicated that they either used ‘usually’ or ‘always’ with the
statements about transferability of the cognitive strategies learned during the strategy
instruction to other languages and even to L1. Thus, students in the treatment group
transferred metacognitive strategies more than cognitive strategies to other languages.
Thus, students in the treatment group transferred metacognitive strategies more than
cognitive strategies to other languages and even to L1 as it was found in the think-aloud
protocol analysis. This finding confirms Chamot’s (2001) study which shows that strategy-
based instruction enables students to transfer strategies from the L2 to additional languages
and even back to the L1.
SPANOVA was used to find the differences from the pre-test and the follow-up strategy
scores. Results show that the main effect for treatment is significant (P \ 0.001), sug-
gesting that those participants in the treatment group did better than those in the contrast
group in their use of reading strategies.

123
1076 R. Aghaie, L. J. Zhang

Discussion

Changes in students’ perceived use of reading strategies

The present study confirms research findings on language learning strategies that strategy
instruction improves students’ reading performance (e.g., Chamot 1994; Eilers and Pinkley
2006; Salataci and Akyel 2002; Ikeda and Takeuchi 2003; Schunk 2003; Tapinta 2006;
Zhang 2008). The participants’ combined use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies in
the treatment group of the study not only resulted in new metacognitive knowledge about
cognition to regulate and contrast it in an L2 learning activity. The strategy instruction
program started with awareness-raising activities followed by procedures through the
CALLA model including explaining, modeling, monitoring, and evaluating strategy use.
In this study, participants in the treatment group were exposed to numerous strategies.
The instructional procedures resulted in improvement of use and awareness of reading
strategies in the treatment group. For the contrast group, however, their use of reading
strategies did not change due to lack of exposure to strategy instruction. One explanation
for the change could be that a predominant part of the instruction was based on learners’
contributions in the reading activities. Byrd et al. (2001) suggested that students become
self-regulated learners as they develop self-awareness, strategy awareness and task
awareness. Byrd (1999) emphasized that a primary goal of developmental education is to
assist students in becoming more autonomous learners (see also Grabe 2004). Therefore, in
this study, students became self-regulated learners who take control of the ‘‘what, when,
and how’’ of strategies and used them independently of a teacher, and possibly outside the
classroom without any external influence because their awareness of strategies increased.
Since reading is one of the most complex cognitive activities, helping learners how to
read and further develop their reading skills will help them learn from texts by themselves.
Hence, L2 readers must continue practicing the strategies until they have acquired the
strategies necessary to be self-regulated or autonomous skillful learners. This is exactly
why we can be optimistic about strategic reading instruction for improving students’
reading comprehension and reading strategy use. The results of this study confirm the
findings of studies by Cohen (1998, 2003), Graham and Macaro (2008), Macaro and Erler
(2008), O’Malley and Chamot (1990), Chamot and O’Malley (1994), Oxford (1990),
Zhang (2008, 2010a), and Zhang et al. (2008). These scholars have argued in favor of
strategy instruction and offered evidence of its success. The findings of this study refute
Kellerman’s (1991) dismissal of strategy instruction as irrelevant. Kellerman thinks that
learners already develop strategic competence in their first language (L1) and can therefore
simply automatically transfer it to their L2, which in our observation does not happen in
most cases. The findings of this study help teachers understand how to better accomplish
the challenging task of teaching English in EFL contexts where learners have less exposure
to the target language compared to those in ESL contexts. Teachers can help learners
utilize different cognitive and metacognitive strategies to facilitate their reading compre-
hension. Often, textbook writers do not include an adequate amount of information on
learning strategies in the EFL context. A need for an inclusion of and emphasis on reading
strategies is obvious.
Both learners and teachers need to become aware of strategies through strategy
instruction. The main aim of such instruction is to allow students to become more aware of
reading strategies and to help them become more responsible in meeting their own
objectives. Such objectives can be only achieved when students are trained in strategy use
so that they will become more independent and effective learners.

123
Effects of explicit instruction in cognitive and metacognitive reading 1077

Improvement in reading performance

In this study, the participants in both groups were exposed to cognitive and metacognitive
reading strategies. However, the treatment group outperformed the contrast group in
reading performance. One explanation for this outcome could be that a predominant part of
the instruction was based on learners’ contributions to the reading activities. Thus, the
explicit strategy instruction seems to have contributed to the improvement of students’
reading performance. Moreover, it can be asserted that the CALLA model is practical and
useful for teaching reading and general learning strategies for EFL learners.
The results of this study are consistent with findings in Zhang’s (2008) study. Quasi-
experimental in design, Zhang (2008) found that strategic instruction using reading
questionnaires within a constructivist framework affected changes in ESL students’ use of
reading strategies and comprehension improvement. Unlike Zhang’s study where strategy
instruction based on general reading strategies was conducted in a constructivist frame-
work in an ESL context, in this study strategy instruction was in a CALLA framework
(Chamot and O’Malley 1994; Chamot et al. 1993, 1999) and explicitly in an EFL context.
Although the framework and the type of reading strategies did not follow exactly Zhang’s
(2008) categorization of reading strategies, the findings were the same: Strategy instruction
affected changes in EFL students’ use of reading strategies and improvement in reading
comprehension. We may conclude that strategy instruction is not only practical in an ESL
context, but is also likely useful in an EFL context, especially in Iran.
The findings of this study show a strong association between strategy training and
reading performance improvement for the treatment group. It can be suggested that the
strategy reading instruction program helped the treatment group’s perceived reading
behavior change as well as reading comprehension improvement. One implication of this
study is that learning strategies should be explicitly taught in a progressive fashion.
Learning strategies should also be integrated into the curriculum. Furthermore, teachers
should explicitly teach strategies and link them to specific language learning tasks. The
findings of this study imply that learners should not only be taught the language, but also
be directed toward strategies to promote more effective learning. As Nunan (1996, p. 41)
recommends, ‘‘language classrooms should have a dual focus, not only on teaching lan-
guage content but also on developing the learning process.’’

Transfer of reading strategies

There is limited research on transfer of reading strategies in second language literacy

education. The findings of this study show that strategy instruction and the development of
metacognitive awareness promote strategy transfer. Furthermore, they provide insights that
can help teachers with an interest in teaching transfer of strategies to new tasks in new
learning contexts when coping with new reading materials.
At least 87.5 and 85.9% of respondents in our study indicated that they used ‘‘usually’’
or ‘‘always’’ with statements about transferability of the strategies which they learned
during strategy instruction to other foreign languages or even to their L1, respectively. This
finding confirms Chamot’s (2001) study which shows that strategy-based instruction
enables students to transfer strategies from the L2 to additional languages and even back to
the L1. However, Kellerman (1991) dismissed strategy instruction as irrelevant on the basis
that learners had already developed strategic competence in their first language (L1) and
could therefore simply and automatically transfer it to their L2. Similarly, Rees-Miller
(1993, p. 681) also argued that strategies could not be transferred from one person to

123
1078 R. Aghaie, L. J. Zhang

another, nor could they easily be provided as exemplars by the teacher. She doubted
whether teachers could actually observe a student performing a strategy once it had been
taught. Our findings do not lend support to such claims. Instead, we tend to agree with
Wenden’s (1999) review of related studies that indicate the key role played by metacog-
nitive knowledge in facilitating strategy transfer. Pressley et al. (1989) note that the learner
can actively transfer a given strategy to a new learning situation only when the strategy is
in awareness, i.e., when the learner has metacognitive knowledge of the strategy (see
Zhang, 2010a for similar findings). Therefore, we think it vital to establish such links in the
reading process in teachers’ pedagogical interventions.

Conclusions and recommendations

Our findings show that explicit strategy instruction increased the treatment group’s’ per-
ceived strategy use, reading comprehension performance, and strategy transfer. Students in
the treatment group used metacognitive reading strategies more than cognitive reading
strategies. Thus, this might be the reason for the transfer of reading strategies to other
foreign languages and even to L1. After training, students used metacognitive strategies
more frequently than cognitive strategies. The findings also show that metacognitive
knowledge facilitated transfer. We may conclude that not only metacognitive knowledge
but also explicit strategy instruction facilitate transfer. It appears that within the specific
Iranian context strategy instruction contributed to independent reading behaviors.
Results from our study indicate that strategy instruction improved Iranian students’
reading comprehension and strategy use. We therefore think that strategy-based reading
instruction might have significant implications for curriculum designers. By designing a
learner-centred language curriculum which takes language learning strategies in general,
and reading strategies in particular, into account, learners may develop positive beliefs
about themselves and their ability and hence a stronger metacognitive knowledge that will
facilitate the transfer of reading strategies (see also Linnenbrink and Pintrich 2003). This
will be particularly the case for teacher-training programs. The aim of such programs
should be to familiarize teachers with the beneficial effects of using reading strategies on
learners’ reading comprehension, especially in countries such as Iran. In this way, teachers’
awareness of the role of strategies will encourage them to look for more efficient tech-
niques to familiarize students with reading strategies. After all, to use reading strategies
successfully, learners need to employ them in a contextualized manner based on their
knowledge about skills and background information to select strategies for problem-
solving. They also need to have well-developed procedures of planning, monitoring and
evaluating so that when students face difficulties, they can come up with alternative
solutions. A further recommendation for pedagogy is a need for teachers to be highly
creative in finding ways to promote the development of effective strategy use by putting
learners into smaller groups or using peer feedback in interactive classroom environments.
Teaching reading strategies through teachers’ explicit verbalization using the think-aloud
technique would be equally effective. Purely pedantic teaching may not lead to good
results.

Limitations and suggestions for further research

This research has some limitations that need to be pointed out. Due to financial constraints,
we are unable to report non-verbal communication features such as facial gestures in

123
Effects of explicit instruction in cognitive and metacognitive reading 1079

presenting our think-aloud data or the details on the time intervals in colleting the think-
aloud protocols. Nor did we use think-aloud protocols as an instrument in strategy
instruction. Because of the limited space, we are unable to provide detailed information on
the type of activities, the type of text, and response formats in implementing the strategy-
based instruction program. We believe that these aspect could affect transfer. Because of
these limitations, we think that there is a need for conducting more comprehensive research
studies focusing on a wide range of variables such as the effects of the tests, cultural
backgrounds, and beliefs and attitudes on strategy instruction and transfer of reading
strategies from one language to the other (see Kern 1994). Furthermore, factors such as
curriculum constraints, teachers’ teaching style and lack of knowledge and skills in pro-
moting strategies should also be addressed more carefully in strategy instruction if any
strategy-based intervention is carried out on a large scale. Interested researchers might also
want to explore the use of think-aloud protocols as a research tool in strategy instruction in
EFL contexts.

References

Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P. D., & Paris, S. (2008). Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading
strategies. Reading Teacher, 61, 364–373.
Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading. Modern Language
Journal, 75, 460–472.
Anderson, N. J. (2002a). The role of metacognition in second language teaching and learning. Washington:
ERIC Digest. Education Resources Information Center.
Anderson, N. J. (2002b). Using telescopes, microscopes, and kaleidoscopes to put metacognition into
perspective. TESOL Matters, 12, 1–3.
Anderson, N. J. (2005). L2 learning strategies. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language
teaching and learning (pp. 757–771). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Byrd, E. H. (1999). Paired college study-reading courses: An investigation of the effectiveness of a reduced
credit metacognitive model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young University, Utah.
Byrd, E. H., Carter, E. C., & Waddoups, S. D. (2001). Taking control of your college reading and learning.
Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Carrell, P., Pharis, B., & Liberto, J. (1989). Metacognitive strategy training for ESL reading. TESOL
Quarterly, 23, 647–678.
Chamot, A. U. (1994). A Model for Learning Strategies Instruction in the Foreign language Classroom. In J.
E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University roundtable on linguistics and applied linguistics (pp. 323–326).
Washington: Georgetown University Press.
Chamot, A. U. (2001). The role of learning strategies in second language acquisition. In M. P. Breen (Ed.),
Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp. 25–43). Harlow, UK:
Longman.
Chamot, A. U. (2005). Language learning strategy instruction: Current issues and research. Annual Review
of Applied Linguistics, 25, 112–130.
Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the cognitive academic
language learning approach. New York: Longman.
Chamot, A. U., Barnhardt, S., El-Dinary, P. B., Carbonaro, G., & Robbins, J. (1993). Methods of teaching
learning strategies in the foreign language classroom and assessment of language skills for instruction.
(ERIC Document Reproduction service No. D365157). Retrieved from October 20, 2009 from
http://nclrc.org.
Chamot, A. U., Barnhardt, S., El-Dinary, P. B., & Robbins, J. (1999). The learning strategies handbook.
New York: Longman.
Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. London: Longman.
Cohen, A. D. (2003). The learner’s side of foreign language learning: Where do style, strategies, and tasks
meet? International Review of Applied Linguistics, 41, 279–291.
Cohen, A. D. (2011). Second language learner strategies. In E. Hinkle (Ed.), Handbook of research in
second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 681–698). New York: Routledge.

123
1080 R. Aghaie, L. J. Zhang

Cohen, A. D., & Macaro, E. (Eds.). (2007). Language learner strategies: Thirty years of research and
practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and
qualitative research. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Cross, J. (2010). Raising metacognitive awareness of L2 listening: A sociocultural theory perspective.
Language Awareness, 19, 281–297.
de Guerrero, M. (2005). Inner speech: L2: Thinking words in a second language. New York: Springer.
Dreyer, C., & Nel, C. (2003). Teaching reading strategies and comprehension within a technology-enhanced
learning environment. System, 31, 349–365.
Eilers, L. H., & Pinkley, C. (2006). Metacognitive strategies help students to comprehend all text. Reading
Improvement, 43, 13–17.
Flavell, J. H. (1971). First discussant’s comments: What is memory development the development of?
Human Development, 14, 272–278.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of psychological inquiry.
American Psychologist, 34, 272–278.
Flavell, J. H., & Wellman, H. M. (1977). Metamemory. In R. V. Kail & J. W. Hagen (Eds.), Perspectives on
the development of memory and cognition (pp. 3–24). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Glass, G. V., McGaw, B., & Smith, M. L. (1981). Meta-analysis in social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Goh, C. C. M. (1998). How learners with different listening abilities use comprehension strategies and
tactics. Language Teaching Research, 2, 124–147.
Goh, C. C. M., Zhang, J. L., Ng, C. H., & Koh, G. H. (2005). Knowledge, beliefs and syllabus imple-
mentation: A study of English language teachers in Singapore. Singapore: National Institute of
Education.
Gong, W. G., Zhang, D. L., Zhang, L. J., Kiss, T., & Ang-Tay, M. Y. (2011). Socio-psychological factors
and strategy use in Singaporean schoolchildren’s English literacy learning. Reflections on English
Language Teaching, 10, 1–23.
Goodwyn, A. (2010). The expert teacher of English. London: Routledge.
Grabe, W. (2004). Research on teaching reading. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 44–69.
Graham, S., & Macaro, E. (2008). Strategy instruction in listening for lower-intermediate learners of French.
Language Learning, 58, 747–783.
Greenfell, M., & Macaro, E. (2007). Claims and critiques. In A. D. Cohen & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language
learner strategies: Thirty years of research and practice (pp. 9–28). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harris, V. (2004). Language learning strategies: A case for cross-curricular collaborations. Paper presented
at the American Educational Research Association (AERA) annual conference, San Diego, CA, April,
12–16.
Ikeda, M., & Takeuchi, O. (2003). Can strategy instruction help EFL learners to improve their reading
ability? An empirical study. JACET Bulletin, 37, 49–60.
Kellerman, E. (1991). Compensatory strategies in second language research: A critique, a revision and some
non-implications for the classroom. In R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood-Smith, &
M. Swain (Eds.), Foreign and second language pedagogy research. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
Kern, R. G. (1994). The role of mental translation in second language reading. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 18, 441–461.
Limbrick, L., & Parr, J. (2010). Contextualising practice: Hallmarks of effective teachers of writing.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 583–590.
Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student engagement and
learning in the classroom. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19, 119–137.
Macaro, E., & Erler, L. (2008). Raising the achievement of young-beginner readers of French through
strategy instruction. Applied Linguistics, 29, 90–119.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nelson, J. (1977). Nelson language proficiency test. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. (1996). Learner strategy training in the classroom: An action research study. TESOL Journal, 6,
34–41.
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. New York: Newbury
House.
Pedhazur, E., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

123
Effects of explicit instruction in cognitive and metacognitive reading 1081

Pressley, M., Goodchild, F., Fleet, J., Zajchowski, R., & Evans, E. D. (1989). The challenges of classroom
strategy instruction. Elementary School Journal, 89, 301–342.
Rees-Miller, J. (1993). A critical appraisal of learner training: Theoretical bases and teaching implications.
TESOL Quarterly, 27, 679–689.
Richards, J. C., Hull, J., & Proctor, S. (2003). New interchange, book 3: Teachers’ edition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Rubin, J., Chamot, A. U., Harris, V., & Anderson, N. J. (2007). Intervening in the use of strategies.
In A. D. Cohen & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learner strategies: Thirty years of research and practice
(pp. 141–160). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Salataci, R., & Akyel, A. (2002). Possible effects of strategy instruction on L1 and L2 reading. Reading in a
Foreign Language, 14, 1–23.
Schunk, D. H. (2003). Self-efficacy for reading and writing: Influence of modeling, goal setting and self-
evaluation. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19, 159–172.
Tapinta, P. (2006). Exploring Thai EFL university students’ awareness of their knowledge, use, and control
of strategies in reading and writing. ProQuest, 161, 1–473.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thoughts and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Wenden, A. L. (1999). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics, 19, 515–537.
Zhang, L. J. (2008). Constructivist pedagogy in strategic reading instruction: Exploring pathways to learner
development in the English as a second language (ESL) classroom. Instructional Science, 36, 89–116.
Zhang, L. J. (2010a). A dynamic metacognitive systems account of Chinese university students’ knowledge
about EFL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 320–353.
Zhang, L. J. (2010b). Negotiating language, literacy and identity: A sociocultural perspective on children’s
language learning strategies in a multilingual ESL classroom in Singapore. The Applied Linguistics
Review, 1, 247–270.
Zhang, Z. H., & Zhang, L. J. (2011). Developing and validating a listening comprehension problems scale
for enhancing Chinese university students’ metacognitive awareness of L2 listening. Journal of Asia
TEFL, 8, 318–335.
Zhang, L. J., Gu, P. Y., & Hu, G. (2008). A cognitive perspective on Singaporean bilingual children’s use of
reading strategies in learning to read in English. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78,
245–271.
Zhang, L. J., & Wu, A. (2009). Chinese senior high school EFL students’ metacognitive awareness and use
of reading strategies. Reading in a Foreign Language, 21, 37–59.

123