Secondary Students Depth of Vocabulary Knowledge

Reading Strategies and Comprehension

Velma S. Labad

Abstract

The threshold for successful reading is primarily related to

vocabulary knowledge (Harkio, & Pietil, 2016). However, most of the
studies conducted relied primarily with native English speaking
populations. By contrast, fewer studies have documented the role of
vocabulary in the reading comprehension of English language learners
(ELLs) (Guo, 2008); thus this study. It aimed to find out whether
relationships exist among depth of vocabulary knowledge, reading
strategies and comprehension. It involved 3035 secondary English
language learners. It made use of descriptive correlation. Findings
revealed significant relationships between reading comprehension and
depth of vocabulary knowledge. Analysis of variance revealed
significant difference on students reading comprehension when
grouped according to the depth of their vocabulary knowledge. Post hoc
test showed that those students whose depth of vocabulary knowledge is
high performed better in the reading comprehension test. The study
likewise revealed positive relationships among reading comprehension,
metacognitive and cognitive strategies. However two metacognitive
strategies, selective and self-evaluation, and two cognitive strategies,
summarizing and note taking exceeded the alphas level of significance.
When the students were grouped according to their most preferred
metacognitive and cognitive strategies; it manifested significant
difference. Post hoc test proved that those students whose reading
comprehension is average used advanced, directive, self-management
and monitoring metacognitive strategies. These students, similarly,
utilized skimming, predicting, analyzing, inferring, translating,
elaborating, repeating, and guessing cognitive strategies. Future
researchers should replicate this study to uncover other reasons why
selective and self-evaluation (metacognitive); summarizing and note
taking (cognitive) are not contributory to students reading
comprehension.

Keywords/phrases: metacognitive, cognitive, reading strategies, comprehension,

vocabulary knowledge
Introduction

Reading is of utmost necessity for learning because it is the basis for all
knowledge. It is a kind of interaction between the reader and the text which implies a
degree of knowledge of the world, topics and target language (Jahromi, 2014). Indeed,
 144 | P a g e

L2 reading research indicates that reading is an interactive meaning-making process

(Alderson, 2005; Zhang, Gu, & Hu, 2008) in which readers capitalize on various
available sources and utilize a multitude of strategies to achieve the goal of
comprehension. However, the problem of how to develop reading comprehension
proficiency is one of the main concerns for learners of English as a foreign language.

An element emphasized in learning to read is that vocabulary should be rich for

comprehension and that it should be included in reading as a vital factor.
Vocabulary knowledge has received a lot of attention in the field of reading research
(Nation, 1990; Qian, 1999; Read, 2000). As Alderson (2000, p. 99) noted,
reading research has consistently found a word knowledge factor on which vocabulary
knowledge loads highly. In the light of the importance of vocabulary knowledge,
numerous second language vocabulary researchers (Nurweni, & Read; 1999; Qian,
1999; Qian, 2002; Nation, 2001; Chapelle, 1998; Meara, 1996) have proposed various,
but complementary vocabulary knowledge frameworks. For instance, Meara (1996)
contended that vocabulary knowledge could be viewed as possessing two primary
dimensions: breadth and depth. Breadth of vocabulary knowledge refers to the number
of words that a learner has at least some superficial knowledge about, whereas depth of
vocabulary knowledge refers to how well a learner knows a word (Qian, 2002).

The recent attention of researchers to vocabulary development and instruction

has been devoted less to depth of vocabulary and more to breadth of vocabulary. The
goal of the current study was to explore how depth of vocabulary (i.e., the richness of
word understandings) contributes to reading comprehension among secondary students.
Far less attention has been paid to the investigation of this type of vocabulary depth, its
contribution to reading comprehension, and how that relationship is relevant for
instruction. Arguably, depth of word knowledge is a form of metalinguistic awareness,
the effects of which have been established within and across languages for both reading
and cognition (Kuo & Anderson, 2010; Bialystok, 2006).

On the other hand, research studies in second language contexts have

demonstrated that reading strategies help readers. Booth and Swartz (2004) found that
using reading strategies facilitates reading comprehension and helps learners become
more proficient and autonomous readers. Reading strategies include a broad variety of
specific behaviors, which can be classified based on the readers goals, like activating
prior knowledge, inferring information not explicitly stated, identifying the main idea,
processing a text additionally after reading. Moreover, several research sudies have
validated other strategies summarization, question generation and answer explanation,
student-generated elaborations, and organising strategies. These strategies promote
active processing of text information and comprehension monitoring (Jahromi, 2014).

It is on this premise that this study was conducted. It aimed to find out whether
depth of vocabulary knowledge could predict secondary students reading performance.
The students involved in this study are second English language learners. Furthermore,
 145 | P a g e

this study also aimed to determine if matacognitive and cognitive reading strategies
could likewise predict secondary students reading comprehension performance.

Research Problem

This study was conducted to find out whether relationships exist among depth
of vocabulary knowledge, reading strategies and comprehension. Specifically, the study
aimed to answer the following questions:

1) What is the level of the secondary students (a) depth of vocabulary knowledge and
(b) reading comprehension?
2) What reading strategies (metacognitive and cognitive) are often used by secondary
students?
3) Are there significant relationships among secondary students depth of vocabulary
knowledge, the use of metacognitive and cognitive reading strategies and
comprehension?

4) What model could be developed to predict students reading comprehension

performance?

Null Hypotheses

The following null hypotheses were formulated and tested using =0.5 (2-
tailed) level of significance:

Ho1 No relationship exists between students reading comprehension and depth of

vocabulary knowledge.

Ho2 No relationship exists between reading comprehension and their use of

metacognitive and cognitive reading strategies.

Ho3 No model could be developed to predict students reading comprehension

performance.

Method

Research Design

The study made use of descriptive-correlation research design. Descriptive

research attempts to describe, explain and interpret conditions of the present. Its
purpose is to examine a phenomenon that is occurring at a specific place(s) and time. It
is concerned with conditions, practices, structures, differences or relationships that
exist, opinions held processes that are going on or trends that are evident. While
correlational research describes what exists at the moment (conditions, practices,
processes, structures, etc.). It aimed to determine the nature, degree and direction of
 146 | P a g e

relationships between variables or using these relationships to make predictions

(Creswell, 2002).

The present study aimed to describe the secondary students depth of

vocabulary knowledge their reading comprehension and the level of use of the reading
strategies (metacognitive and cognitive). It also described the relationships among
secondary students depth of vocabulary knowledge, reading comprehension and the
reading strategies (metacognitive and cognitive) It explored whether a model could be
developed that would best explain the secondary students reading comprehension
performance.

Respondents

The respondents of the study were the secondary students of one of the public
high school of Davao City. Universal and convenience sampling was employed. The
use of convenience sampling technique is discouraged due to its inability to generalise
research findings, the relevance of bias and high sampling error. Nevertheless
convenience sampling is the only option available in the study at hand. The seconday
school is convenient because access to the respondents is easily negotiated through
existing contacts (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2012).

There were over 7000 student populace, however only 3035 students have
completed all the 4 questionnaires and have returned signed informed consents from
their parents as well as their own informed assents.

Ethical Considerations

Considering that the respondents are secondary students, proper permissions

were sought. Request and explanation letters about the study were written addressed to
all parents. They were informed that their childrens participation of the study is
voluntary. The tests shall be conducted inside the school premises particularly in the
classrooms of their children on three successive noon breaks (between 12:00-12:30).
They were assured that prior to the conduct of the examination, their children will be
provided light snacks. Should by any reason, they decide to withdraw the participation
of their children, they are free to do so. They were further informed that the tests has no
bearing on the scholastic performance of their children. The only benefits that will
redound to the students is on their knowledge of the metacognitive and cognitive
reading strategies, word associate and reading comprehension tests. Moreover, they
were assured that the result of the tests as well as the information obtained in the
socioeconomic questionnaire shall be kept strictly confidential and the data will only be
used to answer the questions posed in the study. They were requested further to return
the informed consent duly signed should they decide to allow their children to
participate in the study.

Equally, the students were informed that even if their parents have given their
informed consent for them to participate in the study; they are free to leave the room
should they desire not to participate in the study. They were duly informed that they
 147 | P a g e

will take three tests- metacognitive and cognitive reading strategies, word associate and
reading comprehension tests. This will be done on three consecutive noon breaks
(between 12:00-12:30). They will be given light snacks prior to the administration of
the tests. However, even if they have taken the first test and decide later not to continue
the test, they are free to do so and nothing could be considered against their standing in
school.

Research Instruments

Three sets of instruments were used in the study. The first questionnaire is the
metacognitive and cognitive reading strategies. This was adopted from OMalley and
Chamot (1990) and was later reorganized by Ling (2011). The reorganization advanced
by Ling (2011) is adopted en toto in this study. The metacognitive reading strategies
has the following constructs: (a) advanced, (b) self-management, (c) self-evaluation, (d)
directive, and (e) monitoring. Similarly, the cognitive reading strategies has the
following constructs: (a) repeating, (b) elaborating, (c) guessing, (d) predicting, (e)
summarizing, (f) note-taking, (g) skimming, (h) inferring, (i) predicting, and (j)
translating. It followed the Likert type format where 1=never; 2=seldom;
3=sometimes; 4=often; and 5=always.

The second questionnaire is the depth of vocabulary knowledge. The test

developed by Read (1998) was used. Access to the test is open and available at
http://www.lextutor.ca/tests/associates/. This test was adapted by Qian (1999), and its
reliability was found to be 0.88 by Qian (2002). In his own reliability check of the
primitive form of the test, Read (1993) found that its reliability level was at least .90.
More recently Sen and Kulelia (2015) used this test in their study entitled, The effect of
vocabulary size and vocabulary depth on reading in EFL context. There are 40
stimulus words in this test, all of which are adjectives and free from context. Under the
stimulus words, there are 8 options, among which test-takers are asked to choose 4
considering which ones are close in meaning to the stimulus word or which noun can
come after those stimulus words, thereby forming collocations. A sample test is shown:

The third and final questionnaire was the reading comprehension test. The test
was comprised of 4 reading passages. It is followed by a question with four choices to
choose from. The students were instucted to circle the letter of the best answer. It was a
20 item test. A sample question is shown:
 148 | P a g e

The reading comprehension test was presented to 3 experts in the field of

teaching reading among secondary students. The experts returned the questionnaire with
their comments and suggestions. These were incorporated in the revised reading
comprehension test. To get the reliability of the test, this was piloted to 30 secondary
students in one of the public secondary schools of Davao City. Using KR20, it yielded a
KR20=.70 which is enough measure to ascertain the reliability of the tool.

Data Gathering Procedure

Asking letter permissions. Letter permissions were written; first letter was
addressed to the Dean of the College of Education with subsequent request for a letter
endorsement for the Schools Division Superintendent (SDS) of DepEd, Davao City.
Second letter was addressed to the SDS with ensuing request for an endorsement letter
to the school principal. Third letter was addressed to the school principal with
succeding request for an endorsement letter addressed to the teacher advisers. Fourth
letter was addressed to the teacher advisers with further request for an endorsement
letter addressed to the respondents parents. Fifth letter was addressed to the parents to
allow their children to participate in the study.

Drafting of the schedule. Schedules were draft to accommodate the various

activities of the school and to observe the restriction of the SDS that no interruptions of
classes should be allowed in the conduct of the study. The schedules were finalized
alloting 3 successive noon breaks (between 12:00-12:35).

Administration of the questionnaires. Only those who returned the parents

informed consent duly signed as well as their informed assent duly signed were initially
considered as respondents of the study. They were informed of the time and room
schedule of the test.

On the first day of the test, the students were given light snacks prior to the
administration of the metacognitive and cognitive reading strategies. It took the students
20 minutes to finish the test. On the second day, light snacks were distributed first and
then the word associate tests were administered. It took the students 30 minutes to
finish the test. And on the third and final day, the same procedure was followed, light
snacks preceded before the administration of the reading comprehension test. The test
was done in 35 minutes.

Checking, tallying, collating and recording of the data. The word associate and
reading comprehension tests were checked and scored. Data were encoded in excel for
easy encoding in the SPSS. The recording observed rigid matching of the respondents
scores in the word associate and reading comprehension tests. Moreover, it also
thoroughly observed the matching of the results of the metacognitive and cognitive
reading strategies. Finally, it strictly observed that the socioeconomic status of the
students perfectly matched with that of the students scores in the three other
questionnaires.
 149 | P a g e

Statistical Design

The following statistical design were used to treat the data:

Frequency, mean and standard deviation were used to get the profile of the
secondary students in terms of: (a) socioeconomic status, (b) metacognitive and
cognitive reading strategies, (c) word associates and reading comprehension tests.

Pearson product moment correlation (pearson r) was used to determine

whether relationships exist among depth of vocabulary knowledge, reading strategies
and comprehension.

Multiple linear regression analysis was used to determine whether a model

could be developed to best predict students reading comprehension.

Results and Discussion

Profile of the secondary students depth

of vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension

Table 1 shows that the secondary students depth of vocabulary knowledge is

average (M=2.01, SD=.540). However their reading comprehension is low (M=1.41,
SD=513). This finding affirms the NAT results of elementary and high school students
from 2005-2010 which showed a declining achievement level. The Mean Percentage
Score (MPS) of students dropped from school year 2007-2008, which posted an MPS of
49.26 percent to 47.40 percent in 2008-2009, and down to 46.30 percent in 2009-10
(Bustamante, & Dequito, 2015).

Table 1. Profile of secondary students depth of vocabulary knowledge and reading

comprehension (n=3035).
Mean Standard deviation
Depth of vocabulary knowledge 2.01 .540
Reading comprehension 1.41 .513
0-.1.49=Low; 1.50-2.49=Average; 2.50-3.00=High

Students level of use of the metacognitive reading strategies

Table 2 presents the secondary students level of use of the metacognitive

reading strategies. It can be gleaned in table 2 that the most preferred strategy is
advanced (M=3.51, SD=.769), followed by self-management (M=3.42, SD=.849) and
the least preferred is monitoring (M=3.24, SD=.675). Table 2 likewise revealed that
students are medium users of these strategies. This means that the students are aware
of these strategies and they sometimes employ these strategies while reading. This
 150 | P a g e

result is consistent with the findings of Ling (2011) where she found out that Chinese
English majors were medium users of the metacognitive strategies. Correspondingly,
Alsamadani (2009) conducted a study on the frequency and type of metacognitive
reading strategies used by the Saudi EFL college-level students and he found out that
Saudis more frequently use planning strategies than attending and evaluating strategies.
In the study at hand, the secondary students prefer to employ advanced and self
management strategies than the rest of the metacognitive strategies.

It can be inferred that the different metacognitive reading strategies are

sometimes used by the respondents when reading academic texts. The medium use can
be attributed to non-familiarity of the students with the existence of some metacognitive
reading strategies that could help them comprehend texts. It could also be that teachers
are not aware of these strategies, hence, not using them in their reading instruction. This
result supports the general findings of Tavakoli (2014), Alsamadani (2009), Yuksel and
Yuksel (2012) on Iranian, Saudi, and Turkish EFL students (respectively) moderate
awareness and use of metacognitive reading strategies. It also supports the findings of
Hong-Nam and Page (2014) on the moderate use of metacognitive reading strategies of
ELLs in America. However, this particular result of the study does not coincide with the
general findings of previous researches showing active (high) overall use of
metacognitive reading strategies by EFL students in Yemen (Al-Sobhani, 2013) and by
those ESL students in Malaysia (Pammu, Amir, & Maasum, 2014; Maasum & Maarof,
2012) and in Botswana (Magogwe, 2013). This finding suggests that use of
metacognitive strategies vary depending on language learners settings and orientations.
The respondents of Al-Sobhani (2013), Pammu, Amir, and Maasum (2014), Maasum
and Maarof (2012), and Mogogwe (2013) are from intermediate level university
students with more exposure to the English language. The respondens in the current
study are secondary students; although it cant be denied that they have been using
English as the medium of the instruction since they entered school.

Table 2. Level of use of metacognitive reading strategies (n=3034).

Metacognitive Standard
Mean
reading strategies deviation
Advanced 3.51 .769
Self-management 3.42 .849
Self-evaluation 3.39 .752
Selective 3.32 .736
Directive 3.26 1.105
Monitoring 3.24 .675
1.0-1.4 Low Never or almost never used
1.5-2.4 Generally not used
2.5-3.4 Medium Sometimes used
3.5-4.4 High Usually used
4.5-5.0 Always or almost always used
Oxford (1990)
 151 | P a g e

Students level of use of the cognitive reading strategies

As presented in table 3, secondary students are high users of repeating

(M=3.63, SD=1.153) strategy, followed by elaborating (M=3.51, SD=.843); whilst, they
are medium users of translating (M=3.15, SD=1.141). It can also be noted that the
students employment of these strategies border within the high and medium level.
This means that the students are aware of these strategies and they sometimes employ
these strategies while reading. This result has similarities with the findings of Ling
(2011) where she found out that Chinese English majors were medium users of the
following cognitive strategies: prediction, analyzing, summarizing, elaborating,
repeating, and note-taking; and they were high users of skimming ang guessing
strategies; furthermore, they were low users of translating and note-taking.

Graesser (2007) argued that cognitive reading strategies are particularly

important when there is a breakdown at any level of comprehension. A successful
reader implements deliberate, conscious, effortful, time-consuming strategies to repair
or circumvent a reading component that is not intact. Reading teachers and programs
explicitly teach such reading strategies to handle the challenges of reading obstacles.

Table 3. Level of use of reading strategies (cognitive) (n=3034).

Reading Standard
Mean
strategies deviation
Repeating 3.63 1.153
Elaborating 3.51 .843
Guessing 3.44 .914
Predicting 3.34 .824
Summarizing 3.33 1.056
Note-taking 3.28 1.119
Skimming 3.25 1.053
Inferring 3.26 .775
Predicting 3.23 1.034
Translating 3.15 1.141
1.0-1.4 Low Never or almost never used
1.5-2.4 Generally not used
2.5-3.4 Medium Sometimes used
3.5-4.4 High Usually used
4.5-5.0 Always or almost always used
Oxford (1990)

Relationships between reading comprehension and depth of vocabulary knowledge

The result (table 3) indicates a relationship between reading comprehension and

depth of vocabulary knowledge (r=.221, <.01). The correlation test indicates positive
and significant relationship and the strength of the correlation is marked. Based on the
result, Ho1 can be accepted. This implies that deeper knowledge of words help learners
comprehend the text better. This finding is consistent with the results of the studies
 152 | P a g e

conducted out by Gou (2008), Golkar (2007), Maher Salah (2008), Kaivanpanah, and
Zandi (2009), Mehrpoor, Razmjoo, and Kian (2011), Abbutt (2006), and Anjomshoa,
and Zamanian (2014) who found that significant correlation between depth of
vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension among EFL and ESL readers.

Moreover, Alsamadanis study (2009) also revealed that vocabulary size was
found to have a substantial perceived relationship with students comprehension. She
further argued that lack of vocabulary size also affects students eagerness about
completing the task. This study is consistent with Al-Nujaidis (2003) finding that there
is a strong and significant relationship between vocabulary size and comprehension
level.

Vocabulary knowledge and its role in reading comprehension has been one of
the main areas of focus in second language research for the last twenty years (Mehrpoor
et al., 2011). Both vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension are closely
related, and this relationship is not one directional, since vocabulary knowledge can
help the learner to comprehend written texts and reading can contribute to vocabulary
growth (Maher Salah, 2008; Nation, 2001). The results of the present study may
provide EFL teachers with some invaluable information. Understanding students
average vocabulary knowledge and low reading comprehension enables teachers to
consider finding more innovative and appropriate ways to teach vocabulary to students
that can actually assess their reading comprehension.

Table 3. Significant relationship between reading comprehension and depth of

vocabulary knowledge (n=3034).
Reading comprehension
depth of vocabulary Pearson r .221**
knowledge Sig. (2-tailed) .000
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Reading comprehension and metacognitive reading strategies

As presented in table 4, advanced (r=.054, <.01), directive (r=.057, <.01),

self-management (r=.055, <.01) and monitoring (r=.080, <.01) reading strategies
have less relationships with reading comprehension. This means that when students
utilize these reading strategies; there is a fair chance that their reading comprehension
performance will improve. This result is consistent with the pronouncements of Yuksel
and Yuksel (2012); Ahmadi, Ismail, and Abdullah (2013); Al-Sobhani (2013); Tavakoli
(2014); Magogwe (2013); Hong-Nam, and Page (2014); Zhang and Seepho (2013);
Memis, and Bozkurt (2013); Phakiti (2006); Kummin and Rahman (2010), that
awareness and use of metacognitive reading strategies have positive and direct
relationship with reading comprehension performance. Their studies revealed that thus
students who use reading strategies perform better in reading proficiency tests. They
further concluded that reading metacognitive reading strategy skills can be one solution
to the problem of poor reading comprehension, hence, the need for it to be developed
 153 | P a g e

and emphasized in the EFL teaching and learning processes. The metacognition reading
strategies identified were (1) planning; (2) monitoring; and (3) evaluation. The study at
hand identified the following metacognitive reading strategies: (a) advanced, directive,
self-management and monitoring. The study of Oakhill and Cain (2007 in Moore, n.d.)
found that students ability to monitor their comprehension at age eight significantly
predicted their reading comprehension skill at age 11.

On the other hand, selective (r=-.012, .05) and self-evaluation (r=.011,

.05) registers no relationships with reading comprehension. This means that whether
the students utilize these strategies or not, their reading comprehension performance is
not affected at all. This is consistent with the finding of Alsamadanis (2009) study
where he found out that the students use of metacognitive reading strategies does not
influence their comprehension level. Also the study of Pei (2014) revealed that
metacognitive reading instruction did not result in better reading comprehension
performance of Chinese students. Moreoever, Mehrdad, Ahghar, and Ahghar (2012)
also found out that use of cognitive and metacognitive instruction does not always have
a positive effect on the EFL students reading comprehension performance. Finally, in
Indonesia, Pammu, Amir and Maasum (2014) found out that Indonesian EFL learners
use different metacognitive reading strategies but their use of metacognitive reading
strategies did not bring corresponding improvements in the observed reading
performances.

Table 4. Significant relationships among reading comprehension and reading strategies

(metacognitive) (n=3034).
Vocabulary learning
Reading comprehension
strategies (metacognitive)
Advanced Pearson r .054**
Sig. (2-tailed) .003
Selective Pearson r -.012
Sig. (2-tailed) .509
Directive Pearson r .057**
Sig. (2-tailed) .002
Self-management Pearson r .055**
Sig. (2-tailed) .003
Monitoring Pearson r .080**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
Self-evaluation Pearson r .011
Sig. (2-tailed) .537
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

However, Sheorey and Mokhtari (2001) believe that an awareness of reading

strategies and comprehension monitoring is an important characteristic of good readers.
They claim that to comprehend a text, readers need to use their metacognitive
knowledge about reading and invoke conscious and deliberate strategies (p. 433).
 154 | P a g e

This may mean that if readers are not aware of certain strategies, they will not use them
in the reading task. Thus, good readers both know and utilize appropriate reading
strategies.

The implication of the result of the present study could be attributed to the fact
that some teachers failed to introduce the importance of these two strategies, selective
and self-evaluation, in comprehending texts. Although the students are medium users
of these strategies does not necessarily denote that they know how these should be
utilized in given reading passages. Even those metacognitive reading strategies
advanced, directive, self-management and monitoring, found to have relationships with
reading comprehension performance showed only less relationships. The students are
likewise medium users of the strategies mentioned and high users in advanced
strategy.

Reading comprehension and cognitive reading strategies

Table 5 shows the significant relationships among reading comprehension and

cognitive reading strategies. As presented, skimming (r=.049, <.01), predicting
(r=.047, <.01), analyzing (r=.068, <.01), inferring (r=.075, <.01), translating
(r=.046, <.05), elaborating (r=.043, <.05), repeating (r=.082, <.01) and guessing
(r=.071, <.01) cognitive reading strategies registered less relationships with reading
comprehension. This means that if the students utilize these strategies while reading,
there is a little improvement in their reading comprehension. On the other hand,
summarizing (r=.032, .05) and note-taking (r=-.011, .05) cognitive reading
strategies did not manifest relationships with reading comprehension. This means that
even if the students would utilize these strategies their reading comprehension will not
be helped.

Table 5. Significant relationships among reading comprehension and cognitive reading

strategies (n=3034).
Vocabulary learning
Reading comprehension
strategies (cognitive)
Skimming Pearson r .049**
Sig. (2-tailed) .007
Predicting Pearson r .047**
Sig. (2-tailed) .010
Analyzing Pearson r .068**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
Inferring Pearson r .075**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
 155 | P a g e

Table 5. (contd.)

Vocabulary learning
Reading comprehension
strategies (cognitive)
Translating Pearson r .046*
Sig. (2-tailed) .011
Summarizing Pearson r .032
Sig. (2-tailed) .079
Elaborating Pearson r .043*
Sig. (2-tailed) .019
Repeating Pearson r .082**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
Guessing Pearson r .071**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
Note-taking Pearson r -.011
Sig. (2-tailed) .561
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

The National Reading Panel (2000) identified several cognitive reading

strategies that contribute to successful reading comprehension: prediction, activating
prior knowledge, questioning, visualizing, monitoring and clarifying, and drawing
inferences. The study of Dermitzaki, Andreou, and Paraskeva (2008) found statistically
significant differences in cognitive strategy used between high achieving and low
achieving students. They likewise identified a lack of planning, comprehension
monitoring, analyzing, and prioritizing important text as key deficits among third
graders with low reading comprehension achievement. Horner, and Shwery, (2002)
opined that while many poor comprehenders lack metacognitive strategies, others are
simply unable to select or use strategies effectively. They concluded that reading
comprehension requires knowledge of cognitive strategies as well as effective use and
control over them.

The Institute of Education Sciences (2010 in Moore, n.d.) found a

preponderance of evidence that explicit strategy instruction is associated with improved
reading comprehension outcomes. This finding aligns with the recommendations from
the National Reading Panel (2000) review of reading comprehension strategies.
Recently Wang (2007) reported that, explicit instruction in comprehension strategies to
third and fourth graders enhanced their comprehension for both narrative and expository
text. Likewise, Dube, Dorval, and Bessette (2013) also reported statistically significant
improvements in reading comprehension following explicit strategy instruction to third
and fourth grade students with learning difficulties. Indeed, the evidence for explicit
instruction in reading comprehension strategies continues to mount.
 156 | P a g e

Significant difference on students reading comprehension

when grouped according to the level of the depth of their vocabulary knowledge

As presented in table 6, a significant difference existed on students reading

comprehension (F=94.237, <.01) when grouped according to the level of the depth of
their vocabulary knowledge. Pos hoc test revealed that those students who have
average and high reading comprehension performance have better depth of
vocabulary knowledge. Indeed, vocabulary knowledge has a central role in reading
comprehension. The results of this study strongly suggest that vocabulary depth and
reading comprehension are connected with each other, as has, indeed, been suggested
by many previous research findings (Harkio, & Pietil, 2016; Proctor, Silverman,
Harring, J.R., & Montecillo, 2011; Zhang, & Yang, 2016; Wang, 2014; Ma, & Lin,
2015).

Table 6. Test of difference of students reading comprehension when grouped

according to the level of depth of their vocabulary knowledge (n=3035).
Depth Std.
N Mean F Sig.
of vocabulary deviation
Reading Low 419 1.28 .453 94.237 .000
comprehension Average 2149 1.38 .501
High 467 1.70 .520

Significant difference on students reading comprehension when grouped

according to their level of use of the metacognitive and cognitive reading strategies

Table 8 presents the test of difference of students reading comprehension

performance when grouped according to their use of the metacognitive reading
strategies. As can be gleaned in table 8, advanced (F=4.418, <.05), directive (F=5.008,
<.05), self-management (F=4.678, <.05), and monitoring (F=10.623, <.05)
metacognitive reading strategies registered significant difference. Post hoc test revealed
that those students whose reading comprehension performances are average and
high employ these strategies while reading. This result coincides with akrolus
(2007) argument who emphasized that students, who learn and use metacognitive
strategies are more successful than others in reading all kinds of materials; their
problem-solving skills developed, they learned to organize knowledge; therefore, their
academic success was affected positively.

However, selective (F=1.073, .05) and self-evaluation (F=.786, .05)

strategies did not manifest significant difference. This result is similar to Saras (2010)
results which showed that metacognitive knowledge did not contribute to students
reading comprehension. Al-Nujaidi (2003) argued that the awareness of reading
strategies may not necessarily mean that learners know how and when to use these
strategies. In the present study, this could mean that the students may be aware of these
strategies but on how these can be used while they are reading is worth finding out.
 157 | P a g e

This could mean that the students lacked practice on how these strategies can be utilized
in reading texts.

Table 8. Test of difference of students use of the metacognitive reading strategies

when grouped according to the level of their reading comprehension
performance (n=3035).
Metacognitive Reading Std.
N Mean F Sig.
reading strategies comprehension devn
Advanced Low 1793 3.47 .765 4.418 .012
Average 1212 3.56 .776
High 30 3.60 .621
Selective Low 1793 3.33 .727 1.073 .342
Average 1212 3.32 .747
High 30 3.13 .819
Directive Low 1793 3.21 1.114 5.008 .007
Average 1212 3.33 1.088
High 30 3.40 1.069
Self-management Low 1793 3.38 .855 4.678 .009
Average 1212 3.47 .838
High 30 3.50 .861
Monitoring Low 1793 3.20 .668 10.623 .000
Average 1212 3.29 .677
High 30 3.56 .727
Self-evaluation Low 1793 3.39 .744 .786 .456
Average 1212 3.40 .763
High 30 3.56 .727

Table 9 presents the test of difference of students use of the cognitive reading
strategies when grouped according to the level of their reading comprehension
performance. Skimming (F=4.103, .05), predicting (F=3.862, .05), analyzing
(F=7.145, .05), inferring (F=8.490, .05), translating (F=3.245, .05), repeating
(F=10.166, .05), guessing (F=7.776, .05) strategies registered significant
difference. Post hoc test revealed that those students whose reading comprehension
performances are average used these strategies. This result is consistent with Al-
Sheikhs (2002) study who found that Saudi learners use more support reading
strategies such as asking questions and translation. The study of May (2010) delved into
the effects of explicit reading strategies instruction applied to 3rd year EFL pupils. It
attempted to indicate if these students truly comprehend some
effective reading strategies, they would be able to employ them more effectively and
implement them properly for their meaningful reading comprehension. The study
reported that explicit reading strategies instruction enables EFL learners to achieve
reading comprehension (p. iii). In the present study, there is a need to delve into the
 158 | P a g e

matter of how much effort is exerted by the teachers for the students to learn these
strategies so they can employ these effectively into the reading texts assigned to them.

Table 9. Test of difference of students reading comprehension when grouped

according to their level of use of the cognitive reading strategies (n=3035).
Cognitive
Reading Std.
reading N Mean F Sig.
comprehension devn
strategies
Skimming Low 1793 3.21 1.051 4.103 .017
Average 1212 3.32 1.056
High 30 3.23 .971
Predicting Low 1793 3.20 1.031 3.862 .021
Average 1212 3.28 1.034
High 30 3.56 1.104
Analyzing Low 1793 3.30 .819 7.145 .001
Average 1212 3.40 .830
High 30 3.60 .723
Inferring Low 1793 3.21 .774 8.490 .000
Average 1212 3.32 .769
High 30 3.43 .858
Translating Low 1793 3.11 1.128 3.245 .039
Average 1212 3.21 1.156
High 30 3.33 1.212
Summarizing Low 1793 3.30 1.068 1.554 .212
Average 1212 3.36 1.039
High 30 3.46 1.008
Elaborating Low 1793 3.48 .829 2.891 .056
Average 1212 3.54 .858
High 30 3.70 .952
Repeating Low 1793 3.55 1.148 10.166 .000
Average 1212 3.74 1.155
High 30 3.90 1.028
Guessing Low 1793 3.39 .910 7.776 .000
Average 1212 3.51 .918
High 30 3.63 .808
Note taking Low 1793 3.29 1.124 .359 .699
Average 1212 3.28 1.115
High 30 3.13 1.041

However, summarizing (F=1.554, <.05), elaborating (F=2.891, <.05), note-

taking (F=.359, <.05) did not register relationships with students reading
comprehension performance. Shaikahs (2005) study has likewise found that even
 159 | P a g e

training students on the use of reading strategies does not significantly improve their
reading comprehension. These findings indicate that the use of reading strategies does
not always result in successful reading comprehension.

Structural equation model that best predict secondary students reading

comprehension

In order to identify variables that could best predict students performance in

reading comprehension test, a stepwise regression analysis was performed. Presented in
table 9 is the stepwise regression analysis of depth of vocabulary knowledge,
metacognitive and cognitive reading strategies and students performance in reading
comprehension. As presented (table 9) the R square is .05.5 suggesting that the depth of
vocabulary knowledge, monitoring, repeating and self evaluation vocabulary reading
strategies could predict 05.5 percent of students reading comprehension performance.
The remaining 94.5 percent is outside of the model developed.

Table 9. Model predicting students reading comprehension.

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
d
4 .234 .055 .054 .49917
d. Predictors: (Constant), Depth of vocabulary knowledge, monitoring, repeating, self-evaluation

ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression 43.893 4 10.973 44.040 .000e
4 Residual 754.485 3028 .249
Total 798.379 3032
e. Predictors: (Constant), depth of vocabulary knowledge, monitoring, repeating, self-evaluation

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model t Sig.
Std.
B Beta
Error
(Constant) .902 .058 15.644 .000
Depth of vocabulary knowledge .200 .017 .210 11.743 .000
4 Monitoring .048 .016 .064 3.039 .002
Repeating .022 .009 .049 2.540 .011
Self of evaluation -.036 .014 -.052 -2.515 .012
a. Dependent Variable: Reading comprehension

The goodness of fit test was found significant (f=44.040, p=.000), at =.01
level. The unstandardized coefficients were .200 (depth of vocabulary knowledge), .048
(monitoring), .022 (repeating) and -.036 (self-evaluation). Thus, the model could be
explained through the equation:
 160 | P a g e

(reading comprehension) = .902 +.200 (depth of vocabulary knowledge [DVK]),

+.048 (monitoring [M]), +.022 (repeating [R]) and -.036 (self-evaluation [SE]).

This shows that secondary students reading comprehension increases by .200 if

they have the depth of vocabulary knowledge. Qians 2002 study lends further support
to the importance of vocabulary depth as a predictor of reading comprehension, in his
study vocabulary depth scores explained about 59% of the variance of the results.
Moreover, if they employ monitoring strategy it will further increase to .048; similarly,
if they will use repeating strategy their reading comprehension performance will
increase by .022. However, when they employ self-evaluation while reading, their
performance decreases by .036.

Figure 1 displays the illustrated model predicting secondary students reading

comprehension.

DVK

=.200
M

=.048

R RC
=.022

SE
=-.036

Figure 1. Structural equation model predicting students reading comprehension.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The study concluded that secondary students are medium users of advanced
metacognitive reading strategy and low users of the following: self-management, self-
evaluation, selective, directive, and monitoring. On the other hand, they are high users
of repeating and elaborating cognitive reading strategies and medium of users of
guessing, predicting, summarizing, note-taking, skimming, inferring, predicting and
translating. There is a marked relationship between depth of vocabulary knowledge
and reading comprehension. The study likewise found less relationships among
advanced, directive, self-management and monitoring metacognitive reading strategies
and reading comprehension. Moreover, the study found less significant relationships
among reading comprehension, skimming, predicting, analyzing, inferring, translating,
elaborating, repeating and guessing cognitive reading strategies.
 161 | P a g e

When the secondary students were grouped according to the depth of their
vocabulary knowledge, the study found that those students who have average and
high reading comprehension performances have better depth of vocabulary
knowledge. Similarly when grouped according to their reading comprehension
performances, those students who have average and high performances employed
advanced, directive, self-management, and monitoring metacognitive reading strategies.
Finally, the revealed that those students who have average reading comprehension
performances used skimming, predicting, analyzing, inferring), translating, repeating,
guessing strategies cognitive reading strategies. The model developed disclosed that
depth of vocabulary knowledge, monitoring, and self-evaluation metcognitive and
repeating cognitive reading strategies could predict secondary students reading
comprehension performance.

The study recommends that secondary teachers should teach students the
metacognitive and cognitive reading strategies. These strategies should be incorporated
in their daily reading activities so that students will be used to employ them in their
reading tasks. Moreover, teachers should likewise incorporate more activities in their
daily lessons on how to deepen students knowledge of vocabulary. Finally, future
researchers should replicate this study using other research design to validate the
existing results.

References

Abbutt, M. (2006). ESL reading strategies: Differences in Arabic and Mandarin speaker
test performance. Language Learning, 56(4), 633-670.

Ahmadi, R.A., Ismail, H.N., & Abdullah, M.K. (2013). The importance of
metacognitive reading strategy awareness in reading comprehension. English
Language Teaching, 6(10), 235-249. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n10p235

Ahmadi, R.A., Ismail, H.N., & Abdullah, M.K. (2013). The relationship between
students reading motivation and reading comprehension. Journal of Education
and Practice, 4(18), 8-17.

Al-Sheikh, N. (2002). An examination of the metacognitive reading strategies used by

native speakers of Arabic when reading academic texts in Arabic and English.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State UniversityStillwater.

Alderson, J.C. (2005). Assessing reading. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University

Press.

Alderson, J.C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,

UK.

Alsamadani, H.A. (2009). The relationship between Saudi EFL college-level students
use of reading strategies and their EFL reading comprehension. Retrieved from
https://etd.ohiolink.edu/rws_etd/document/get/ohiou12 24685570/inline
 162 | P a g e

Al-Nujaidi, A. (2003). The relationship between vocabulary size, reading strategies,

and reading comprehension of EFL learners in Saudi Arabia. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State UniversityStillwater.

Al-Sobhani, Y. A. (2013). Metacognitive reading strategies use by Yemeni EFL

undergraduate university students. Frontiers of Language and Teaching, 4, 121-
130.

Anjomshoa, L., & Zamanian, M. (2014). The Effect of Vocabulary Knowledge on

Reading Comprehension of Iranian EFL Learners in Kerman Azad University.
International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature (IJSELL)
Volume 2, Issue 5, PP 90-95 ISSN 2347-3126 (Print) & ISSN 2347-3134
(Online) www.arcjournals.org

Baker, L., & Brown, A.L. (1984). Metacognitive Skills and Reading. In P.D. Person
(Ed.), Handbook of Reading Research. New York: Longman.

Barnett, M. (1988). More than Meets the Eyes. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice Hall
Regents.

Bialystok, E. (2006). Effect of bilingualism and computer video game experience on the
Simon task. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 6879.

Blkba, F. (2013). The effect of reading strategies on reading comprehension in

teaching Turkish as a foreign language. Vol. 8(21), pp. 2147-2154, 10. DOI:
10.5897/ERR2013.1614 ISSN 1990-3839. Academic Journals
http://www.academicjournals.org/ERR

Booth, D., & Swartz, L. (2004). Literacy techniques: Building successful readers and
writers (2nd ed.). Ontario, Canada: Pembroke Publishers Limited.

Bustamante, A.G.E., & Dequito, J.P. (2015). Reading comprehension, academic

optimism and motivational differences of students in engineering and science
education program. CED Journal.

Carrell, P., Gajdusek, L., & Wise, T. (1998). Metacognition and EFL/ESL reading.
Instructional Science, 26, 97- 1 12.

akrolu, A. (2007). stbilisel Strateji Kullanmnn Okuduunu Anlama Dzeyi

Dk rencilerde Erii Artrmna Etkisi. Doctoral Thesis, Gazi niversitesi
Eitim Bilimleri Enstits, Ankara.

Chapelle, C. (1998). Construct definition and validity inquiry in SLA research, in

Interfaces between Second Language Acquisition and Language Testing
Research, L. F. Bachman andA. D. Cohen, Eds., pp. 3270, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK.
 163 | P a g e

Christie, J., Enz, B., & Vukelich, C. (2003). Teaching Language and Literacy, Pearson
Edu, Inc, Boston.

Creswell, J.W. (2002). Educational Research, Planning, Conducting and Evaluating

Quantitative and Qualitative Research, University of Nebraska: Merrill Prentice
Hall.

Dermitzaki, I., Andreou, G., & Paraskeva, V. (2008). High and low reading
comprehension achievers strategic behaviors and their relation to performance
in a reading comprehension situation. Reading Psychology, 29(6), 471-492. doi:
10.1080/02702710802168519

Dube, F., Dorval, C., & Bessette, L. (2013). Flexible grouping, explicit reading
instruction in elementary school. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 10, 1-12.
Retrieved from ProQuest

Flavell, J.H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new era of cognitive-
developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.34.10.906

Guo, Y. (2008). The role of vocabulary knowledge, syntactic awareness and

metacognitive awareness in reading comprehension of adult English language
learners. A dissertation of Florida State University.

Golkar, M., & Yamini, M. (2007).Vocabulary and reading comprehension (Grabe,W.,

&Stoller, F.L. (2002): Teaching and Researching Reading ed. Vol. 7). Harlow:
Longman. Goodman, K.

Grabe, W., & Stoller, F.L. (2005). Teaching and Researching Reading. Beijing: Foreign
Language Teaching and Research Press.

Graesser, A.C. (2007). An introduction to strategic reading comprehension. Daniel S.

McNamara (Ed.) Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 10 Industrial Avenue,
Mahwah, New Jersey 0743. ISBN 978-1-41066-1666-1 ISBN 1-4106-1666-5
(e-book)

Graesser, A.C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1995). Constructing inferences during
narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371-395.

Gunning, T.G. (1996). Creating Reading Instruction for All Children Second Edition,
Allyn and Bacon Publishing Co. Inc, New York.

Harkio, N., & Pietil, P. (2015). The role of vocabulary breadth and depth in reading
comprehension: A quantitative study of Finnish EFL learners. ISSN 1798-4769
Journal of Language Teaching and Research, Vol. 7, No. 6, pp. 1079-1088,
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0706.03
 164 | P a g e

Hong-Nam, K. & Page, L. (2014). ELL high school students metacognitive awareness
of reading strategy use and reading proficiency. Teaching English as a Second
or Foreign Language: The Electronic Journal for English as a Second
Language, 18(1). Retrieved from http://www.tesl-
ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume18/ej69/ej69a4/

Horner, S.L., & Shwery, C.S. (2002). Becoming an engaged, self-regulated reader.
Theory into Practice, 41(2), 102109.

Hunt, A., & Beglar, S. (2005). A framework for developing EFL reading vocabulary.
Reading in a Foreign Language 17(1). 2359.

Iwai, Y. (2011). The effects of metacognitive reading strategies: Pedagogical

implications for EFL/ESL teachers. The Reading Matrix, 11(2), 150-157.

Jahromi, M.K. (2014). EMP students use of reading strategies and the impact of
strategy instruction on medical text comprehension. Modern Journal of
Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM). Vol. 4 Issue 1.

Kaivanpanah, S., & Zandi, H. (2009). The role of depth of vocabulary knowledge in
reading comprehension in EFL context. Journal of Applied Sciences, 9(4), 698-
706

Keshavarz, M.H., & Mobarra, M.K. (2003). The effects of simplification and
elaboration on reading comprehension of Iranian EFL students. JAL, Vol.6, No.
1.

Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, England:

Cambridge University Press.

Kummin, S., & Rahman, S. (2010). The relationship between the use of metacognitive
strategies and achievement in English. Procedia Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 7, 145-150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.10.021

Kuo, L., & Andreson, R.C. (2010). Beyond cross-language transfer: Reconceptualizing
the impact of early bilingualism on phonological awareness. Scientific Studies
of Reading, 14(4), 365385.

Lee, B., & Cai, W. (2010). The effects of language proficiency on unfamiliar word
processing in listening comprehension. Hong Kong Journal of Applied
Linguistics 12(2). 6182.

Ling, S. (2011). A study on the relationship between reading strategies and reading
achievements. Theses, Kristianstad University, Sweden.
 165 | P a g e

Maasum, T., & Maarof, N. (2012). Empowering ESL readers with metacognitive
reading strategies. Procedia Social and Behavioral Science, 69, 1250-1258.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.12.058

Ma, Y., & Lin, W. (2015). A study on the relationship between English reading
comprehension and English vocabulary knowledge. Hindawi Publishing
Corporation Education Research International. Volume 2015, Article ID
209154, http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/209154

Maher Salah, S. (2008). The relationship between vocabulary knowledge and reading
comprehension of authentic Arabic texts. Brigham Young University.

Magogwe, J. M. (2013). Metacognitive awareness of reading strategies of University of

Botswana English as a second language students of different academic reading
proficiencies. Reading and Writing, 4(1), 1-8. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/rw.v4i1.29

Malvern, D., Richards, B., Meara, P., & Milton, J. (2008). Introduction: Special issue
on knowledge and use of the lexicon in French as a second language. French
Language Studies 18. 269276.

Milton, J. (2009). Measuring second language vocabulary acquisition. Bristol, UK:

Multilingual Matters.

May, Ch. (2010). Explicit instruction of reading strategies that enable EFL learners to
achieve comprehension in reading: The case of third year Lyce learners.
Unpublished MA Thesis, Mentouri University-Constantine.

Meara, P. (1996). The dimensions of lexical competence, in Performance and

Competence in Second Language Acquisition, G. Brown, K. Malmkjaer, and J.
Williams, Eds., pp. 3553, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Mehrdad, A.G., Ahghar, M.R., & Ahghar, M. (2012). The effect of teaching cognitive
and metacognitive strategies on EFL students reading comprehension across
proficiency levels. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 3757-3763.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.142

Mehrpour, S., Razmjoo, S., & Kian, P. (2011). The Relationship between depth and
breadth of vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension among Iranian
EFL learners. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 222(53).

Memis, A., & Bozkurt, M. (2013). The relationship of reading comprehension success
with metacognitive awareness, motivation, and reading levels of fifth grade
students. Global Journal of Educational Foundation, 1(1), 034-038.
 166 | P a g e

Moore, A.L. (n.d.). A research review of cognitive skills, strategies, and interventions
for reading comprehension. Retrieved http://download.learningrx.com/reading-
comprehension-research-paper.pdf on March 01, 2017.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching
children to read. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services. Available:
www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrppubskey.cfm

Nation, I.S.P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary , Newbury House, New York,
NY, USA.

Nation, I.S.P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Nurweni, A., & Read, J. (1999). The English vocabulary knowledge of Indonesian
university students. English for Specific Purposes, vol. 18, pp. 161175, 1999.

OMalley, J.M., & Chamot, A.V. (1990). Learning strategy in second language
strategy acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Oxford, R.L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know.
New York: Newberry House Publishers.

Pammu, A., Amir, Z., & Maasum, T. (2014). Metacognitive reading strategies of less
proficient tertiary learners: A case study of EFL learners at a public university
in Makassar, Indonesia. Procedi Social and behavioral Sciences, 118, 357-
364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.02.049

Phakiti, A. (2006). Modeling cognitive and metacognitive strategies and their

relationships to EFL reading test performance. Melbourne Papers in Language
Testing, 1, 53-95.

Pintrich, R.R., Wolters, C. A., & Baxter, G.P. (2000). Assessing metacognition and
self-regulated learning. In G. Shraw, & J. C. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the
measurement of metacognition (pp. 43-97). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of
Mental Measurements

Proctor, C.P., Silverman, R.D., Harring, J.R., & Montecillo, C. (2011). The role of
vocabulary depth in predicting reading comprehension among English
monolingual and SpanishEnglish bilingual children in elementary school.
Springer Science+Business Media B.V. DOI 10.1007/s11145-011-9336-5

Qian, D.D. (1999). Assessing the roles of depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge
in reading comprehension. Canadian Modern Language Review, 56, 282-307.
 167 | P a g e

Qian, D.D. (2002). Investigating the relationship between vocabulary knowledge and
academic reading performance: an assessment perspective. Language Learning,
vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 513536.

Ratna, A.S. (2014). The use of cognitive reading strategies to enhance EFL students
reading comprehension. International Journal of Education (IJE), Vol. 2, No. 1.

Read, J. (1993). The development of a new measure of L2 vocabulary knowledge.

Language Testing, 10, 355-371.

Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Read, J. (2004). Plumbing the depths: How should the construct of vocabulary
knowledge be defined? In B. Laufer & P. Bogaards (Eds.), Vocabulary in a
second language: Selection, acquisition and testing (pp. 209227). Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.

Richards, J.C. (1976). The role of vocabulary teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 10, 77-89.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2012). Research Methods for Business
Students. 6th edition, Pearson Education Limited.

Sarac, S. (2010). lkretim beinci snf rencilerinin stbili dzeyleri, genel zek ve
okuduunu anlama dzeyleri arasndaki ilikinin incelenmesi. Doctoral Thesis,
Marmara niversitesi Eitim Bilimleri Enstits, stanbul.
Sen, Y., & Kulelia, M. (2015). The effect of vocabulary size and vocabulary depth on
reading in EFL context. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 199 555-
562

Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of

reading strategies among native and non-native readers. System, 29,431-449.

Silberstein, S. (1994). Techniques and Resources in Teaching Reading. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Schmitt, N. (2014). Size and depth of vocabulary knowledge: What the research shows.
Language Learning, 64, 913951.

Tavakoli, H. (2014). The effectiveness of metacognitive strategy awareness in reading

comprehension: The case of Iranian university EFL students. The Reading
Matrix, 14(2), 314-336.

Wang, Z. (2014). A correlation analysis on the depth and breadth of ESL learners
vocabulary knowledge and their overall linguistic competence. ISSN 1799-
2591. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol. 4, No. 12, pp. 2460-2465,
doi:10.4304/tpls.4.12.2460-2465
 168 | P a g e

Yuksel, I., & Yuksel, I. (2012). Metacognitive awareness of academic reading

strategies. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 894-898.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.164

Zhang, D., & Yang, X. (2016). Chinese L2 learners depth of vocabulary knowledge
and its role in reading comprehension. Foreign Language Annals, Vol. 49, Iss.
4, pp. 699715. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. DOI:
10.1111/flan.12225

Zhang, L., & Seepho, S. (2013). Metacognitive strategy use and academic reading
achievement: insights from a Chinese context. Electronic Journal of Foreign
Language Teaching, 10(1), 54-69.

Zhang, L.J., Gu, Y.P., & Hu, G. (2008). A cognitive perspective on Singaporean
bilingual childrens use of reading strategies in learning to read in English.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 245271.