a quantitative survey on metacognitive awareness of

11

A Quantitative Survey on Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategy Use in English by Japanese University Students

Midori SHIKANO

Abstract

　 This article reports on an exploratory quantitative survey on the metacognitive

awareness of reading strategies use in English, reported by sixty Japanese university

students. It explored on the participants’ reported use of reading strategies and their

comprehension monitoring, by using the instrument of Metacognitive Awareness of

Reading Strategies Inventory (MARSI) (Mokhtari & Richard, 2002) having subscales of

global strategies, problem-solving strategies, and support strategies. The statistical

descriptions of the overall tendency revealed that the Japanese university students

tended to use problem-solving strategies more often than global and support strategies,

which supports the prior studies, whereas the overall use showed no significant

differences between the high-reading-proficiency group and low-reading-proficiency

group. The principal component analysis extracted the four components that affected

the strategy use: deliberate and analytical strategies, self-monitoring and repair, meaning

negotiation, and top-down processing.

Keywords: second language literacy, reading strategies, metacognitive awareness,

Japanese learners of English

1. Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies

　 The field of language learning strategies has gained a massive amount of interest in applied

linguistics in the last thirty years (Oxford, 2011). Particularly, a number of studies have been

conducted on literacy learning strategies used by both native speakers and non-native speakers

of the target language. Since “the ability to read fluently and efficiently remains the hallmark of

a literate person in a world where . . . reading an international language such as English, is

deeply embedded in today’s literate environment (Sheorey & Mokhtari, 2008; p. 1),” reading

strategies use in English have drawn much attention. The process of reading is often

considered as a ‘cognitive enterprise’ (ibid), which requires rather complex cognitive activities

12

国際教育センター紀要　第14号

in our mind, and which is actually an interaction of a number of elements such as the reader,

text, context, process, and other factors. Research has also emphasized the importance of

metacognitive dimensions of reading, the awareness and use of conscious and deliberate

strategies (Alhaqbani & Riazi, 2012; Carrell, 1985; 1991; Carrell & Eisterhold, 1983; Makhtari

& Reichard, 2008; Makhtari & Sheorey, 2002; Martinez, 2008; Pressley & Afflerback, 1995;

Sheorey, Kamimura, & Freimuth, 2008; among others).

　 The term strategies has often been interchangeably used with the term skills and, therefore,

they should be defined here. The present study adopts the following definitions of the terms

suggested by Paris, Wasik, and Turner (1991) in Shoerey & Mokhtari (2008):

“ . . . skills refer to information-processing techniques that are automatic . . . [and] are

applied to a text unconsciously . . . In contract, strategies are actions selected deliberately

to achieve particular goals. An emerging skill can become a strategy when it is used

intentionally. Likewise, a strategy can go underground . . . and become a skill (p. 5).”

Reading strategies are defined in Pritchard (1990, in Shoerey & Mokhtari, 2008) as “a deliberate

action that readers take voluntarily to develop an understanding of what they read (p. 5)”, which

includes reading speed adjustment, skimming, previewing the title and photos, and predicting,

among others (Grabe, 1991). Within this theoretical framework, Mokhtari & Richard (2002)

introduced the Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory (MARSI), which was

intended to measure students’ metacognitive awareness of the reading strategies they use

when they read in the academic contexts (Mokhtari, Sheorey, & Reichard, 2008). The MARSI

is a 3-subscale, 30-item inventory that measures comprehension processes and actions of the

readers.

2. Present Study

2.1 Purpose of the Study

　 This study is aimed at increasing our understanding of the second language (L2) readers’

metacognitive awareness and the perceived use of reading strategies. Within the framework

provided in the prior studies review, it examines the Japanese university students’ reported use

of reading strategies in English which they employ when they read in the academic contexts, in

order to find out their overall tendency and principal components affecting their strategy use.

The following research questions were addressed:

13


(1)　What is the overall tendency of metacognitive awareness of reading strategy use as

reported by learners of English as a L2 in an academic context?

(2)　Which reading strategy subscales and items of MARSI are most used and least used?

(3)　Are there differences between the readers who find L2 academic reading more

comfortable and the readers who find it more challenging?

(4)　What are the principal components that affect the L2 readers’ strategy use?

2.2 Participants

　 The participants in this study were sixty undergraduate students studying English as a

required L2 at a Japanese private university. All participants were non-English-major students

whose first language (L1) was Japanese. The participants’ gender, age, and learning experience

were not identified.

2.3 Data Collection Instruments

　 The reading strategy survey, Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory

(MARSI) (Mokhtari & Reichard, 2002), consisting of thirty question items was used to obtain

the required data. The MARSI was found to be suitable for the purpose of the present study,

because it measures L2 learners’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies use. The

MARSI questionnaire included three subscales of Global Strategies (14 items), Problem-Solving

Strategies (8 items), and Support Strategies (8 items). According to Martinez (2008), global

strategies can be defined as “generalized or global reading strategies aimed at setting the stage

for the reading act: for instance, setting a purpose for reading, previewing the text content,

predicting what the text is about (p. 170).” Problem-solving strategies are defined as “focused

problem-solving or repair strategies used when problems develop in understanding textual

information: for instance, checking one’s understanding upon encountering conflicting

information, re-reading for better understanding (ibid).” Support strategies use “the support

mechanisms or tools aimed at sustaining responsiveness to reading: for instance, use of

reference materials like dictionaries and other support systems (ibid).” The questionnaire was

presented to the participants in the original version of English, and, when needed, the

administrator gave Japanese translations or explanations of the question items.

2.4 Data Collection Procedures

　 The MARSI questionnaire was administered entirely by the author during the regular

English classes. The participants completed it anonymously, after being informed that it was to

14


obtain information about how Japanese university students cope with their English reading in

the academic contexts, and that it was to help design effective English literacy courses. They

filled it out upon their individual consent.

　 The participants were asked to answer the thirty question items (Q1～Q30) on the following

5-point Likert scale:

5＝‘I always or almost always do so.’

4＝‘I usually do so.’

3＝‘I sometimes do so, and sometimes I don’t.’

2＝‘I do so only occasionally.’

1＝‘I never or almost never do so.’

To measure their self-rated reading proficiency in English, the participants were then asked to

rate the perceived difficulty of a practice TOEFL reading passage (Gallagher, 2006), also on a

5-point scale with ‘5’ indicating ‘very easy’ and ‘1’ indicating ‘very difficult’. The readability of

the passage was calculated by using the WLC (Word Level Checker) readability scale (http://

someya-net.com/wlc/). The sixty participants were divided into two groups of a similar group

size, according to their self-rating: one consisting of twenty-eight participants who found it easy

or less difficult (5, 4, and 3) and the other consisting of thirty-two participants who found it

rather difficult (2 and 1). For the sake of distinction, they will be labeled as the ‘high reading

proficiency group’ and the ‘low reading proficiency group’, respectively, during the discussion.

2.5 Data Analysis Method

　 The responses to the thirty strategy items were first analyzed for examining the overall

tendency, the group differences, and the most used and the least used. Then the Principal

Components Analysis (Varimax rotation) was conducted in order to find the principal

components as the factors affecting the participants’ tendency in their perceived use of reading

strategies, as well as to elucidate the characteristics of the components. Statistical analysis was

performed by using SPSS Statistics ver. 19.

3. Results and Analysis

3.1 Overall Tendency

　 Before the analysis, the reliability of the instrument was examined by using Cronbach’s

Alpha reliability analysis (＝.783). This provides an acceptable coefficient. Because the

number of participants was small (n＝60), goodness-of-fit and independence between variables

15


Table 1　Descriptive Statistics of 30 Strategy Items

Type StrategyOverall(n＝60)

High(n＝28)

Low(n＝32)

M (SD) M MGLO 1. I have a purpose in mind when I read. 3.13 (1.11) 3.50 2.81 －△GLO 2. I think about what I know to help me understand what I

read.3.65 (1.04) 3.66 3.64

GLO 3. I preview the text to see what it’s about before reading it. 3.23 (0.98) 3.36 3.13 －△GLO 4. I think about whether the content of the text fits my

reading purpose.2.97 (1.03) －△ 3.14 2.81 －△

GLO 5. I skim the text first by noting characteristics like length/organization.

3.38 (1.38) 3.64 3.16

GLO 6. I decide what to read closely and what to ignore. 3.17 (1.06) －△ 3.46 2.91 －△GLO 7. I use tables, figures, and pictures in text to increase my

understanding.3.82 (1.14) 3.64 3.97 －⑤

GLO 8. I use context clues to help me better understand what I’m reading.

3.58 (1.15) 3.79 3.41

GLO 9. I use typographical aids like bold face and italics to identify key information.

3.43 (1.28) 3.64 3.25

GLO 10. I critically analyze and evaluate the information presented in the text.

3.25 (0.90) 3.28 3.21

GLO 11. I check my understanding when I come across conflicting information.

3.60 (1.05) 3.86 3.38

GLO 12. I try to guess what the material is about when I read. 3.77 (0.96) 3.78 3.75GLO 13. I check to see if my guesses about the text are right or

wrong.3.60 (1.06) 3.57 3.63

GLO 14. I check the difficulty of the text, before I read. 3.25 (1.20) 3.18 －△ 3.31PRO 15. I read slowly but carefully to be sure I understand what

I’m reading.4.03 (0.99) －④ 3.75 4.28 －①

PRO 16. I try to get back on track when I lose concentration. 3.82 (1.07) 3.96 3.69PRO 17. I adjust my reading speed according to what I’m reading. 3.78 (0.92) 4.04 －④ 3.56PRO 18. When text becomes difficult, I pay closer attention to

what I’m reading.3.82 (0.89) 3.93 3.72

PRO 19. I stop from time to time and think about what I’m reading. 3.23 (1.17) 3.00 －△ 3.44PRO 20. I try to picture or visualize information to help remember

what I read.3.45 (1.28) 3.57 3.34

PRO 21. When text becomes difficult, I re-read to increase my understanding.

4.32 (0.75) －① 4.39 －① 4.25 －③

PRO 22. I try to guess the meaning of unknown words or phrases. 3.98 (0.95) －⑤ 4.07 －⑤ 3.91SUP 23. I take notes while reading to help me understand what I

read.2.90 (1.31) －△ 3.00 －△ 2.81 －△

SUP 24. When text becomes difficult, I read aloud to help me understand what I read.

3.32 (1.07) 3.46 3.19

SUP 25. I summarize what I read to reflect on important information in the text.

3.12 (1.17) －△ 2.93 －△ 3.28

SUP 26. I discuss what I read with other classmates to check my understanding.

3.07 (1.07) －△ 2.82 －△ 3.28

SUP 27. I underline or circle information in the text to help me remember it.

4.30 (0.85) －② 4.32 －② 4.28 －①

SUP 28. I use reference materials such as dictionaries to help me understand what I read.

4.27 (0.94) －③ 4.32 －② 4.22 －④

SUP 29. I paraphrase to better understand what I read. 3.35 (0.99) 3.50 3.22SUP 30. I go back and forth in the text to find relationships among

ideas in it.3.45 (1.00) 3.57 3.34

note: ①～⑤ indicates the ranking of the most used items, and △ indicates the least used items.

16


were also measured by using a Chi-square test. The results showed significant differences on

twenty-seven items out of thirty, and it supports the validity of the survey. Levene’s test

results also showed the equality of variances for all the thirty items.

　 To show the overall tendency, statistical descriptions of the reported reading strategy use

are shown in Table 1. The mean score (M) and the standard deviation (SD) of the overall

responses, the mean score of the ‘high’ group (n＝28), and the mean score of the ‘low’ group

(n＝32) are shown below.

　 In Table 1, the question items are classified according to the three subscales of the MARSI

reading strategies: Global Strategies (GLO), Problem-Solving Strategies (PRO), and Support

Strategies (SUP) (Makhtari & Sheorey, 2002). Makhtari & Shoeorey has set a key for

interpreting the mean scores as follows: a mean≤ 2.4 as low usage, a mean between 2.5 and 3.4

as moderate usage, and a mean≥ 3.5 as high usage. The present study follows the same

benchmark. The means of individual items ranged from 4.32 (SD＝0.75) to 2.90 (SD＝1.31).

Among the thirty items examined in this study, fourteen strategies were considered as high-

usage strategies and sixteen were considered as moderate-usage strategies, while none

belonged to the range of low usage. The ‘high’ group results showed that nineteen strategies

were in high usage and eleven were in medium usage. On the contrary, in the ‘low’ group,

twelve strategies were in high usage and eighteen were in medium use. In both groups, no

low-use strategies were found. It could conclude that the participants of this study were high to

moderate users of the MARSI reading strategies. As the mark △ shows in the table, GLO

strategies were not used so often as the other two subscales, while PRO and SUP strategies

were more frequently used by both groups. This was particularly the case for the low group.

　 The next table (Table 2) presents the participants’ preferences of each subscale.

　 The prime preference for problem-solving strategies, followed by global and support

strategies, is consistent with some of the prior studies (Alhaqbani & Riazi, 2012; Martinez,

2008; and others). The participants were using the problem-solving reading strategies slightly

more often than the other two sets, although the other two types were not low at all. Table 3

presents the most used and least used strategies. Most used strategies’ ranking is marked with

Table 2　Subscale Means of Three Strategy Types

Subscale Item Means Rank

Global Reading Strategies 3.42 3Problem-Solving Reading Strategies 3.80 1Support Reading Strategies 3.47 2Overall 3.53 ―

17


①～⑤ and least used strategies are marked with △ in Table 1 above.

　 An examination of the correlations among the strategies revealed that approximately fifteen

percent of possible combinations of strategies showed either weak or moderate relationships,

with the coefficient ranging from .261 to .559 (p＜.05). The lack of strong correlations indicated

that the strategy items were distinct from one another.

3.2 Group Tendencies

　 Next, in order to investigate the differences between the ‘high’ group students and ‘low’

group students, the mean scores of the two groups were compared. An independent samples

t-test was performed, with the self-rated reading proficiency groups as independent variables,

and the perceived strategy use as the dependent variables. However, the results of the t-test

did not show statistical significances about most of the thirty items, except for the following

questions: GLO1 (I have a purpose in mind when I read.) (t＝2.493, df＝58, p＜.05); GLO6 (I

decide what to read and what to ignore.) (t＝2.091, df＝58, p＜.05); PRO15 (I read slowly but

carefully to be sure I understand what I’m reading.) (t＝－2.090, df＝48.902, p＜.05); PRO17 (I

adjust reading speed.) (t＝2.089, df＝54.246, p＜.05). The directionality of the difference in

PRO15 was the opposite to those in other items. The more comfortable ‘high’ group showed a

stronger tendency of having a clear purpose in mind when reading, being good at deciding

where to read and where to ignore, and also reading speed adjustment. On the other hand, the

less comfortable ‘low’ group was reading more carefully and slowly in order to make sure they

understand. As mentioned earlier, even though the raw data of these samples showed seeming

differences in many of the items, the t-test results indicated that the group differences on

twenty-six items were not generalizable to the bigger population of Japanese university

Table 3　The Most Used and Least Used Strategy Items

Five Most Used Strategies (Overall) M SD

PRO 21. When text becomes difficult, I re-read to increase my understanding. 4.32 (0.75)SUP 27. I underline or circle information in the text to help me remember it. 4.30 (0.85)SUP 28. I use reference materials such as dictionaries to help me understand what I read. 4.27 (0.94)PRO 15. I read slowly but carefully to be sure I understand what I’m reading. 4.03 (0.99)PRO 22. I try to guess the meaning of unknown words or phrases. 3.98 (0.95)

Five Least used Strategies (Overall) M SD

SUP 23. I take notes while reading to help me understand what I read. 2.90 (1.31)GLO 4. I think about whether the content of the text fits my reading purpose. 2.97 (1.03)SUP 26. I discuss what I read with other classmates to check my understanding. 3.07 (1.07)SUP 25. I summarize what I read to reflect on important information in the text. 3.12 (1.17)GLO 6. I decide what to read closely and what ignore. 3.17 (1.06)

18


students. This needs further investigation based on a bigger size of sampling.

3.3 Principal Components

　 Shifting our focus back to the overall tendency of the sample group, the writer next

attempted to explore the broader factors that affect the readers’ perceived use of strategies. In

order to contract the explanatory variables over the thirty items, the Principal Components

Analysis was conducted. The values of KMO (Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin) (.539) and Bartlett’s Test

(approximate Chi-square＝613.149, df＝435, p＝.000) showed that the data was appropriate for

this type of analysis. The principal components analysis (with Varimax rotation) was then

applied, so that the information could now be contracted and expressed as several independent

components. From that analysis, eleven components were extracted; the cumulative

contribution ratio was 71.51% of the data. Out of the eleven components, the most explanatory

four were selected according to the scree plot. See Table 4 for the after-rotation component

matrix of these four components. The variables that had scores .400 or over were considered

for discussion here.

　 Each component was then to be labeled according to the relating question items. See the

Table 4　Affecting Factors Extracted by Principal Components Analysis

Component 1 Component 2 Component 3 Component 4

SUP23 I take notes. .816 .046 .011 .041GLO1 I have a purpose in mind when reading. .660 .362 .304 .001SUP25 I summarize. .609 － .353 － .069 .249GLO10 I analyze and evaluate information. .452 － .425 .301 .007PRO16 I get back on trace when lost concentration. － .013 .750 － .208 .064PRO18 I pay close attention, when difficult. － .065 .739 .155 .186PRO21 I re-read, when difficult. .164 .684 .082 － .039GLO11 I check understanding when conflict

information..146 .420 .355 .217

GLO6 I decide what to read and what to ignore. .045 .109 .798 .072GLO8 I use context cues. － .098 .037 .649 .215SUP29 I paraphrase. .313 .097 .533 .264GLO12 I guess what the text is about. .027 .088 .032 .850GLO13 I check if my guess is correct. .029 .149 .250 .643SUP30 To find relationships among ideas, I go

back and forth..279 － .004 .278 .628

SUP27 I underline or circle to remember information.

.474 － .002 .243 － .015

Cumulative contribution ratio 15.50％ 25.50％ 33.24％ 39.94％(1) Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.(2) Rotation converged in 13 iterations.(3) The values of .400 or over (bolded) are considered.

19


values in Table 4. The factors contributing to the first component are the readers’ deliberate

and analytical strategies such as taking notes, having a clear purpose for reading, summarizing

the information, underlining or circling the important information, and analyzing/evaluating the

information. The factors contributing to the second component are their self-monitoring and

repair process, in which readers make sure they understand, or slow down to read carefully, or

re-read when their understanding conflicts. The factors contributing to the third component

can be considered as the process of negotiating the meaning in the context such as using

context cues, paraphrasing the meaning, and selecting what to read and what to ignore. Finally,

the factors contributing to the fourth component can be seen as their guessing strategies, which

could include top-down processing. Therefore, the Components 1～4 are named as ‘deliberate

and analytical reading’ (5 items), ‘self-monitoring and repair’ (4 items), ‘meaning negotiation’ (3

items), and ‘top-down guessing’ (3 items), respectively.

　 The relationships of components 1 and 2 are illustrated in the scatter plot Figure 1 and the

relationships of components 2 and 3 are in Figure 2. As mentioned in the prior paragraphs, the

primary component can be expressed as the readers’ ‘deliberate and analytical reading’

strategies, while the second component can be expressed as their ‘self-monitoring’ process.

The third component is ‘meaning negotiation’.

　 The earlier discussion mentioned that a significant difference in the group tendency about

each question item was not found between ‘high’ and ‘low’ groups. So, group differences were

Figure 1　Relations between Components 1 and 2

20


Figure 2　Relations between Components 2 and 3

Figure 3　Student Distribution in Component 2―3 Plot

21


sought here first among the eleven extracted components, and secondly in relation to the

primary four components. The relations between the eleven extracted components and the

high-low group differences were examined by using a t-test. The group differences were only

found in the third component (t=2.726, df=58, p＜.01) and the eighth component (t=－2.748,

df=58, p＜.01) with statistical significance. The second component also showed a large inter-

group difference, although statistical significance was not indicated.

　 Figure 3 shows the group differences in the students distribution in relation to the second

and third primary components: deliberate and self-monitoring and repair (component 2), and

meaning negotiation (component 3). The darker filled dots indicate the high group students and

unfilled diamonds indicate the low group students. This shows that the students who rated the

TOEFL practice reading passage easy or less difficult were the frequent users of both ‘self-

monitoring and repair’ and ‘meaning negotiation’ strategies. On the other hand, students who

rated it rather difficult tended to use only one of the two types of strategies, or none of them.

Other components were found to be randomly used by both types of readers, showing no strong

relationships, in this study.

4. Concluding Remarks

　 What researchers can do to help the readers become “constructively responsive readers”

(Pressley & Afflerback, 1995; Martinez, 2008) is an important professional question to keep in

mind. In this study, the writer attempted to explore the perceived use of reading strategies by

Japanese university students when reading in the academic contexts (Research question (1)).

The participants showed general preferences for using problem-solving (PRO) strategies over

global (GLO) and support (SUP) strategies (Research question (2)). It agrees with the findings

and implications of the prior studies on the matter of the overall tendency of metacognitive

awareness of reading strategies. The PRO strategies are, for example, 1) monitoring the

reading process by re-reading or going back and forth, 2) adjusting the reading speed to make

sure they understand, 3) using context clues to negotiate the vocabulary meaning, among

others. Using comprehension markers to remember what they read, such as underlining or

visualizing the information, was also found to be a frequently-used support strategy for the

participants. As for the third research question, this preliminary study did not find overall

group differences with statistical significance (Research question (3)), which should be

addressed to in the future research. However, there was a tendency that less skilled readers

tended to use less global strategies which help them use an effective and active schema. More

22


research needs to be done to explore on this matter, as well as on other detailed background of

the reader profile.

　 Having explored the broader factors that affect the readers’ strategies, this study also

revealed that there were four main principal components: ‘deliberate and analytical reading’

strategies as the primary component, followed by ‘self-monitoring and repair’, ‘meaning

negotiation’, and ‘top-down guessing’ strategies (Research question (4)). This may help one

understand the readers’ profile into deeper levels. Moreover, the findings of this study about

the contributing factors may also help us reconsider the pedagogical issues and re-design the

reading courses. Some of the issues found in this study can be addressed to in future research,

which includes a larger sample size with a wider range of proficiency levels, by using a more

customized instrument including the students’ L1 use, such as SORS (Survey of Reading

Strategies) (Mokhtari & Reichard, 2002).

References

Alhaqbani, A. & Riazi, M. (2012). Metacognitive awareness of reading strategy use in Arabic as a

second language. Reading in a Foreign Language. 24―2, 231―255.

Carrell, P. (1985). Facilitating ESL reading by teaching text structure: Classroom implications and

applications. TESOL Quarterly 19, 441―469.

Carrell, P. (1991). Second language reading: Reading abiity or language proficiency. Applied Liguistics, 12, 159―179.

Carrell, P. & Eisterhold, J. (1983). Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy, TESOL Quarterly, 23,

647―678.

Gallagher, N. (2006). Delta’s Key to the Next Generation TOEFL Test: Six Practice Tests for the iBT. Delta

Systems Co., Inc.

Grabe, W. (1991). Current developments in second language reading research. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 375―406.

Makhtari, K. & Reichard, C. A. (2008). The impact of reading purpose on the use of reading strategies.

In K. Mokhatari & R. Sheorey (Eds.), Reading strategies of first- and second-language learners: See how they read (pp. 85―98). Norwood, MA: Christpher-Gordon Publishers.

Makhtari, K. & Sheorey, R. (2002). Measuring ESL students’ awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Developmental Education, 25, 2―11.

Makhtari, K., Sheorey, R., & Reichard, C. (2008). Measuring the reading strategies of first and second

language readers. In K. Mokhatari & R. Sheorey (Eds.), Reading strategies of first- and second-language learners: See how they read (pp. 43―65). Norwood, MA: Christpher-Gordon Publishers.

Martinez, A. C. L. (2008). Analysis of ESP university students’ reading strategy awareness. IBERICA

15, 165―176.

Pressley, M. & Afflerback, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively

responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Sheorey, R., Kamimura Y., & Freimuth, M. R. (2008). Reading strategies of the users of English as a

23


library language: the case of Japanese ESP students. In K. Mokhatari & R. Sheorey (Eds.),

Reading strategies of first- and second-language learners: See how they read (pp. 175―184). Norwood,

MA: Christpher-Gordon Publishers.

Shoerey, R. & Mokhtari, K. (2008). Introduction. In K. Mokhatari & R. Sheorey (Eds.), Reading strategies of first- and second-language learners: See how they read (pp. 1―10). Norwood, MA:

Christpher-Gordon Publishers.

24


日本人大学生の英語読解方略の気づきに関する定量的研究

鹿野　　緑

要　　旨

　本研究は、日本人大学生の英語学習者がアカデミック・リーディングの際に使う読解方略を探る定量的研究である。目的は、アカデミックな文脈の内容を読む際に使われる方略について全体的な傾向を把握し、読解力自己判定による上位・下位グループの差を探り、また主成分分析による主成分の抽出を試みることした。3側面30項目からなる質問紙（MARSI）に60名の回答者が無記名回答した。結果からは、内容が理解できない場合にその解決策をさぐろうとするproblem-solving方略が最もよく使われる傾向が示され、先行研究を支持した。全体的な傾向の上位・下位グループ間優位差は示されなかった。また、主成分として抽出された主な4成分を「意図的かつ分析的な読み」、「セルフモニターとリペア」「意味交渉」「トップダウン」とした。結果からは、質問紙の改良、サンプルサイズなどに課題が残ることが示唆された。

キーワード：第二言語リテラシー、リーディング方略、メタ認知的気づき、日本人英語学習者

a quantitative survey on metacognitive awareness of

Documents