1

EXTENT OF USE OF METACOGNITION AND LEVEL

OF READING COMPREHENSION OF GRADE 11

STUDENTS OF SIGABOY AGRICULTURAL

VOCATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL

PREPARED BY:

WELDON D. SULLANO
MAED-ENGLISH STUDENT

SUBMITTED TO:

DR. JO-ANN Y. SOLOMON

 2

Chapter 1

THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING

Background of the Study

Reading comprehension has always been a problem linked with academic

struggles of students, young and old alike. It is perceived that students know how

to read but have this certain difficulty in understanding what they are reading

(Canda, 2003). According to Carlisle and Rice (2003), reading and

comprehension grow more similar by about fifth grade compared to earlier

grades for both good and poor readers. Good word readers are able to read a lot.

The consequences of reading well include maximal exposure to new words and

phrases, opportunities to read different types of texts, and practice monitoring

one’s understanding (Stanovich, 1986; Cunningham & Stanovich 1998). In

contrast, however, poor word readers remain at the mercy of their word reading

difficulties. As a result of not reading, they fail to learn many new words, do not

develop proficiency in understanding texts, and often learn to dislike reading

(Baker & Wigfield, 1999). This problem faced by students exists globally,

nationally and locally.

In the global arena, as emphasized in the dissertation of Cromley (2005),

a significant proportion of American high school students struggle with reading

comprehension. Further articulation basing on the report of Joftus and Maddox-

Dolan (2003), nearly showed that 6 million secondary students in the United

States had been reported to read far below grade level. And recently in an
 3

international study of fourth-grade reading achievement, researchers reported

that U.S. fourth graders outperformed many other countries on measures of

narrative comprehension, but did relatively poorly on measures of expository text

comprehension (Mullis, Martin, Gonzalez, & Kennedy, 2003).

Nationally, the Philippines’ results on the National Achievement Test

(NAT) administered to public schools last 2006-2009 resulted to “below mastery

levels” (The Philippine Star). In a 2007 interview, Dr. Yolandda Quijano, head of

the DepEd’s Bureau of Elementary Education, attributed “reading problems as

the main culprit for the poor performance of some students in the NAT.”

Therefore, the problem might be related at some point on the comprehension

part of the students.

In the local context, as pointed out on the study conducted by Malig-on

(2009) on the reading comprehension level of the Grade VI pupils of Ramon

Magsaysay Central Elementary School in Davao City, it was found that the

respondents’ level on reading comprehension was only moderate.

It is in this light that the extent of use of metacognition is highlighted in

relation to the student’s level of reading comprehension. Apparently, this would

explain the relative components underlying the variables under the study.

Statement of the Problem

The study aimed to determine the relationship between the use of

metacognition and reading comprehension of Sigaboy Agricultural Vocational

High School Grade 11 Students. Specifically, it sought to answer the particular

problems:
 4

1. What is the extent of use of metacognition of Grade 11 Students of

Sigaboy Agricultural Vocational High School in terms of:

1.1 metacognitive knowledge

1.2 metacognitive experience

1.3 metacognitive goals and task

1.4 metacognitive strategies

2. What is the level of reading comprehension of Grade 11 Students of

Sigaboy Agricultural Vocational High School in terms of:

2.1 literal comprehension

2.3 interpretive comprehension

2.3 applied/critical comprehension

3. Is there a significant relationship between the extent of use of

metacognition and reading comprehension of Grade 11 Students of

Sigaboy Agricultural Vocational High School?

Hypothesis of the Study

There is no significant relationship between the use of metacognition and

reading comprehension of Grade 11 Students of Sigaboy Agricultural Vocational

High School at 0.05 level of confidence.

 5

Review of Related Literature

This section presented the factual concepts of authorities on significantly

related topics. This established a clear framework of the concepts and principles

of the variables under study.

Metacognition

Originally, John Flavell proposed the word “metacognition” in the late

1970s as cognition about cognitive phenomena. Further study narrowed down

metacognition into a more general definition, simply put as “thinking about

thinking”. Many researchers also offered another definition of the term, such as

the awareness and management of one’s own thought (Kuhn & Dean, 2004) and,

the monitoring and control of thought (Martinez, 2006). It is also theorized by

Kuhn and Dean (2004) that metacognition is the ability in which the student can

recall and recreate a certain strategy which has been taught in a particular

context in a new but similar context. In addition, Kuhn (2000) also stated that

metacognition refers to two facets, that is the students’ self-awareness of a

knowledge base in which information is stored about how, when, and where to

use various cognitive strategies and their self-awareness of and access to

strategies that direct learning. It was acknowledged by Koutsouraki (2009) that

metacognition is important in reading comprehension. It was revealed in a study

she conducted that, the ways through which readers organize, control and

restore deficiencies in reading comprehension can be determined through

metacognition. At the same time, it provides the ground for the successful
 6

teaching of relevant strategies and teaching interventions which aim at strategic

reading relevant in readers of all levels. It was also expressed by Cotton (2001,

as cited in Parker, 2011) as" the process of planning, assessing and monitoring

one’s own thinking; the pinnacle of mental functioning”. That is to say, being able

to understand how our brain works and how we are able to accomplish tasks

through knowing the processes it requires, as well as realizing what strategies

should be employed for a certain tasks. Vosniadou (2008) correspondingly

believed that metacognition will make students responsible for their learning,

therefore making them actively involved in the learning process confirming that

there is a growing literature advocating positive impact of metacognitive activity

on student thinking skills and conceptual understanding.

Beamon (2001) further articulated metacognition as, “a powerful

phenomenon that enables students to set goals, plan, solve problems, monitor

progress, and evaluate their own thinking effectiveness. It provides the means for

adolescents to oversee thinking as it happens, to determine what should be done

in a learning situation”. Besides, metacognitive skills are sometimes referred to

as “self-direction skills” (Burke, 2007). It was mentioned by Kerka (2002), as cited

by Thamraksa (2005), metacognition is cognitively interwoven with reflection, the

“active process of exploring events or issues and accompanying thoughts and

emotions”.

When applied to the field of reading, the concept of metacognition

contributes to a constructivist understanding of how reading comprehension

 7

occurs, as well as to a body of knowledge regarding instructional strategies that

facilitate reading comprehension (Tracey & Morrow, 2006).

Metacognitive Knowledge. Metacognitive knowledge, an aspect of

metacognition, is also important for successful reading comprehension. An

articulation by Anderson (2001), as cited by Murphy (2008) states that,

metacognitive knowledge refers to knowledge of cognition in general as well as

awareness and knowledge of one’s own cognition. Additionally, it was discussed

that metacognition consists of the general strategies that might be used for

different tasks, knowledge of the conditions under which these strategies might

be used, knowledge of the extent to which the strategies are effective, and

knowledge of self (Pintrich, Wolters& Baxter, 2000). It was also cited by Efklides

(2008) that metacognitive knowledge is a declarative knowledge stored in the

memory and comprises models of cognitive processes.

A study conducted by Kragler and Martin (2009), pertaining to students’

metacognitive knowledge, strategy use and comprehension basing on students’

talk, interviews, oral readings and retellings, resulted to the conclusion that

readers all used a large variety of strategies in understanding the text and that

strategy use does not affect the reading level regardless of the reading ability.

On the other hand, Grabe and Stoller(2002) stated that metacognitive

knowledge allows readers to reflect on their planning, goal – setting, processing

of understanding, monitoring of progress, recognition of problems and repair

problems as they read the text. Thus, metacognitive knowledge plays a crucial

role to understand readers’ explicit and conscious use of reading strategies. In

 8

the same manner metacognitive knowledge involves knowing one’s own

cognitive characteristics (knowledge of person), the nature of different cognitive

tasks (knowledge of task) and the possible strategies that enable the fulfillment of

different cognitive tasks (knowledge of strategy). Because metacognitive

knowledge is stored in the long-term memory, characteristically, it is relatively

static and declarative knowledge (Flavell, 1979; 2000). Lawrence (2007) also

elucidated that metacognitive knowledge consists of understanding the following:

(a) strategies that can be used for different tasks, called declarative knowledge

(b) the conditions under which strategies can be used, or procedural knowledge;

and (c) the extent to which the strategies are effective, conditional knowledge.

It was also expounded by Pressley (2002), as cited by Van Kraayenoord,

Beinicke, Schlagmuller, & Schneider (2012) that metacognitive knowledge refers

to the declarative, procedural and conditional knowledge associated with

learning, for example learning to read.

Metacognition Experience. Papaleontiou-Louca (2008) pointed out that

metacognitive experiences can be fully or less fully conscious and conveyable, in

any length, simple or complex in context. Also, it was explicated that

metacognitive experiences have to do with cognitive endeavor. In addition,

metacognitive experiences comprise of ideas, feelings, judgments and

metacognitive knowledge evoked during problem solving. In essence,

metacognitive experiences are metacognition available in working memory

(Efklides, 2001 as cited by Chambres, Izaute&Marescaux, 2002).

 9

Furthermore, Oppenheimer (2008) and Schwarzd (2004) asserted that

metacognitive experience is part and parcel of the thinking process and will go

along with just about all forms of thinking. Moreover, Briñol and De Meree (2012)

pointed out in their book, Social Metacognition, that metacognitive experience,

along with their interpretation in particular contexts, stimulates the conclusions

that people draw from what they are thinking about beyond thought content.

In addition, Efklides (2006), as cited by Mayer (2011), discussed that

“metacognitive experiences are non-analytic, non-conscious inferential

processes that are driven by affective experiences, such as liking interest,

curiosity, disappointment, and being startled”. Thus, the statement proves that

metacognitive experiences are actually subjective by nature. She also attested it

in a certain instance in stating that, when a certain task may have a defined level

of difficulty or what we call, cognitive load, the feeling of difficulty determined by

subjective estimates of task difficulty will depend on the characteristics of a

person (cognitive ability) and certain affective factors (mood and fear of failure).

However, Schwarzd and Clore (2007) further stated that the changes in

metacognitive experience, such as moods or emotions, may also occur over time

and influence conclusions that people draw from thinking.

On the other hand, Zabrucky, Agler and Moore (2009) pointed out that

metacognitive experiences involve, in some way, students' awareness of

progress on cognitive tasks. Such consciousness is critical to learning, for

students may fail to spend additional time reviewing or studying the material if

they believe they have understood the material adequately. In other words,
 10

learners tend to spend less time in reading more the material especially if they

believe that they had already comprehended the material.

Metacognitive Strategy. Research performed in the past few decades

has demonstrated that we can improve reading skills by teaching students

“metacognitive strategies.” By this, we can teach students to become “expert

learners” as coined by Lovett (2008).According to a related study, it was believed

that students who used metacognitive strategies will be effective learners,

demonstrating greater motivation in learning, and will attain better academic

performance than the control group (Lovett, 2008).

Additionally, metacognitive strategies are methodologies that guide people

in attempting to monitor and control their learning. These strategies implicate

students’ knowledge in how they comprehend a certain feature or generalization.

Metacognitive strategies also guide people with reference to which procedures

and tasks are appropriate and most advantageous for solving problems and

adding information that improves their experimental backgrounds (Ronzano,

2013).

Moreover, when referring to the metacognitive strategies used during the

reading process for the purpose of understanding the content of a text, readers

have to perform construction in terms of awareness and control (Kuhn, 2000).

Furthermore, Alexander and Jetton (2000) states also that during reading,

metacognitive processing is enunciated through strategies, which are procedural,

purposeful, effortful, willful, essential, and facilitative in nature. In addition,

readers must deliberately invoke strategies to regulate and enhance learning

 11

from the text. That is to say, the more that we facilitate the use of strategies in

grasping meaning towards the text, the more that we gain knowledge from the

text.

As articulated by Wooley (2010), a better command of the strategies used

is often related with the capability of the students in using any strategies that are

believed to be appropriate. Moreover, if they feel the need to use certain

strategies, the need will encourage them to do so. Similarly, Othman (2009)

suggested that readers are able to increase their quality of understanding by

using strategy which fits their abilities. It was assumed that choosing a suitable

strategy will help readers plan and assess their progress in reading. Thus, it was

believed that learning and teaching metacognitive strategies should be a

standard feature in the curriculum in the school environment (Bransford, Brown,

and Cocking, 2000). In addition, Israel (2007) noted that the use of metacognitive

strategies fosters readers’ meaning construction, monitoring of text and their

ability to evaluate the text and reading comprehension.

An investigation conducted by Chumpavan (2000) referring to

metacognitive strategies used by Thai students in learning English as a foreign

language at Coat Illinois State University found out that the respondents applied

their metacognitive strategies to assist their reading comprehension. Accordingly,

it has been proven that in order to comprehend a text effectively, one must really

apply metacognitive strategies that will help or guide them in monitoring and

controlling their learning.

 12

Metacognitive Tasks/ Goals. Another variable of metacognition in

reading to learn pertains to the task that the reader is required to perform. Task

knowledge, according to Flavell (1979; 2000), knows how to deal with the nature

of information or reading tasks encountered. For example, the learners know why

they are engaged in a particular task and how it will improve their reading skills.

Additionally, he believed that learners need to be acquainted with the purpose

and the reason why they are performing that specific task and how it will affect

their reading performance.

Before starting to process a cognitive task, an individual should be aware

of three things. First, one should consider the requirements of the task. Second,

one should think about one’s own resources. An example is knowledge and skills

in applying various strategies. Third and last is the potential connections made

between the first two things. For an instance, when starting a lesson, the student

should set a clear goal of studying the textbook to meet the requirements for an

essay test. On the basis of the student’s knowledge of the requirements of the

task and personal resources, the student carefully developed a plan for fitting the

requirements of the task with his/her skills. The student’s anticipatory plan served

three functions. It was intended to make it easier for the student to tackle the

task, to enhance the chances of mastering the task, and to lead to a first-rate

result. The activities concerned in the plan revolved around three key tasks:

setting a goal, selecting and organizing a series of strategies and procedures to

fulfil this goal, and identifying potential obstacles to the fulfilment of the certain

goal.
 13

Reading Comprehension

Reading comprehension is the understanding of whole texts through the

active extraction and construction of meaning (RAND Reading Study Group,

2002). It is recognized that comprehension is a complex skill that demands the

simultaneous execution of multiple cognitive processes and considered as “the

very heart and soul of reading” (Reutzel & Cooter, 2004, p. 155). Undoubtedly, it

is the central purpose of reading. It has been defined as “the active process of

constructing meaning from text; it involves accessing previous knowledge,

understanding vocabulary and concepts, making inferences, and linking key

ideas” (Vaughn & Linan-Thompson, 2004, pp. 98–99). Reading comprehension

requires readers to use a posteriori knowledge to navigate the text and create

new knowledge, and that the more knowledge a person brings to his or her

reading, the more he or she will understand the text (Brandao & Oakhill, 2005).

On the other hand, Lau & Chan (2003) stated that good reading comprehension

requires the reader to be active, can evaluate the text, preview the text, make

predictions, make decisions during reading, can review for deeper meaning, can

find inconsistencies, evaluates his or her own understanding while reading, uses

prior knowledge, and monitors understanding.

According to Houtveen and Van de Grift (2007), good comprehenders do

many things before even starting to read, including thinking about why they are

reading the text, drawing upon previous knowledge, scanning the structural

elements of the text, and making predictions about what the text will be like.
 14

During reading, they say, good comprehenders continually check for

understanding of what they are reading, are flexible in dealing with changes in

the material, can identify important ideas, and much more. After reading, these

good comprehenders can reflect on their knowledge to successfully produce

information when teachers check for understanding, and can use the knowledge

gained from their reading for other activities. These are, as indicated by Singhal

(2001), strategies that improve comprehension, which “indicate how learners

conceive of a task, how they make sense of what they read, and what they do

when they don’t understand…(This) is to enhance reading comprehension and

overcome comprehension failures” (p. 1-2).

Skilled readers are active and purposeful. In order to comprehend what

they read, first they set goals for reading, and then followed by applying their

knowledge and experiences to the text, read words and phrases fluently, use

strategies and skills to construct meaning during and after reading, adapt

strategies that match the text and their goals, maintain task persistence,

recognize the author’s purpose, distinguish between facts and opinions and

lastly, draw logical conclusions (Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, & Baker, 2001;

Vaughn & Linan-Thompson, 2004).Reading comprehension is ineffective when

the reader is incapable to define the meaning that the author was attempting to

communicate, as demonstrated by the text. Increasing the number of words

students know can have a positive effect on reading comprehension (Beck et

al.,1982; Nash & Snowling, 2006; Nelson & Stage, 2007).

 15

“Reading is a thinking process, is part of everything that happens to you

as a person and comprehending a text is intimately related to your life” (Fountas

& Pinnell, 2006, p. 7). This definition reinforces Rosenblatt’s theory that reading

comprehension requires the reader to interact with the text.

Based on the foregoing, reading and comprehension are inseparable as

students can never be interested in reading what they cannot understand. In this

regard, reading and comprehension have come to operate as one concept due to

their synonymous relationship. Therefore, comprehension as a by- product of

reading does not occur in the absence of reading neither is reading meaningful

without understanding (Ngwoke, 2004).

To improve reading comprehension, students must learn to apply a variety

of reading strategies. Cunningham and Allington (2007) summarized six

strategies, based on Duke and Pearson’s (2002) research. The following

subsections describe each of Duke and Pearson’s six strategies—prediction,

think-alouds, using text structure, using visual cues, summarization, and

answering and questioning. There is evidence to suggest that these skills are

important and necessary in reading comprehension skills (Duke & Pearson,

2002).One of the best ways of increasing reading comprehension and provide

learning is to ask questions. But all questions are not created alike. Different

types of questions focus on the different levels of reading comprehension.

Namely, we have literal, inferential, and applied or critical comprehension.

Literal Comprehension. Fitzgerald (2012) refers to literal comprehension

as the ability to understand and recall information that has been explicitly stated
 16

in a text. The text may be written or spoken. By implication, literal comprehension

is technically a basic form of reading comprehension involving understanding

those facts and descriptions that are explicitly stated, not alluded to or inferred in

the text. Students need to develop this comprehension skill because it creates a

grasp of literal information and establishes a foundation for the assimilation of

more complex reading skills. To support this view, Goff (2010) asserts that literal

comprehension is a process that involves reading to understand the surface

meaning or identifying information explicitly stated within a passage. It could also

be referred to as thinking within the text. Nevertheless, at this level of reading

comprehension, students’ ability to identify exact meaning of vocabulary used in

the passage (reading for exact meaning at the word and sentence level), read for

information (understanding the central point the author is trying to get across) as

well as their ability to give a paraphrase or summary of what they understand

from the text, among other factors that come to play.

Literal comprehension deals with and does not go beyond facts and

details. Tests items used to assess literal comprehension include the ‘wh’

questions like ‘what’, ‘when’, and ‘where’ (Huggins 2009). Thus mastering this

component of reading development means being able to understand literally

what the author said. In a research, it was cited that the hierarchical theory,

postulates that the literal reading comprehension process can be divided into

separate skills that are distinguishably different from each other and which are

hierarchically related with the application of the simpler skills providing

 17

knowledge which serves as input for the application of the more complex.(Jude &

Ajayi, 2012 as cited by Chapman, 1974).

On the other hand, operational focus shall be on reading for exact

meaning of words, for information and for gist. In agreement, Goff (2010)

stipulated that the components of literal comprehension are context, facts and

sequence. To comprehend a text literally, the reader has to integrate these three

components: understanding context as the whole picture created by the relation

between facts, facts as key information provided in the text and sequence as a

process over time. These components combine in the reader’s mind to create

comprehension. This is based on the reason that, reading for exact meaning of

vocabulary in context is an aspect of literal comprehension which deals with

readers’ knowledge of vocabulary in context (Tizon, 2009). Here the reader can

understand meaning of words or phrases through the use of context clues like

synonyms, antonyms, examples, prior knowledge, substitution and inference.

Literal comprehension refers to accounts that closely match the written

text (McMahon, 2008). Pre-reading supports the reader to have literal level of

comprehension. Literal level is the lowermost level of meaning in text. Here, the

reader is concerned with understanding the primary, direct or literal meaning of

words, ideas or sentences contained in the passage. He or she just understands

proofs and accounts as they are printed in the passage. Literal comprehension

discusses to the acquisition of meaning of ideas or information that are explicitly

stated in the text. Identifying Specific Information, a kind of skill, requires one to

focus his attention only on one or some particular information or detail which he
 18

needs from a text; the rest of the text may not be read anymore. Sequencing

Events or Ideas, on the other hand, is the ability to grasp the sequence of ideas

as presented by the writer enables him to summarize, outline and infer correctly.

Interpretive Comprehension. The second level or strand is interpretive

comprehension. At the interpretive level the reader or student can attempt to

answer the question. At this level, the readers are attempting to understand what

the author meant by what s/he said in the story, paragraph or textbook (Cuesta

College 2004). At this level, the reader is attempting to understand what the

author meant by what he or she said in the story, paragraph or textbook (James

2005). It is supposed that reader has already memorized certain facts at the

literal level and how the reader is attempting to see the implications of the

author’s words. At this level, the reader is attempting to “read between the lines.”

as they say. At this level, the reader is attempting to understand that which

reader memorized at the literal level of comprehension.

Research as mentioned by Burns, Roe and Ross (1984), as cited in

Education Department Center (2012), mentioned interpretive comprehension as

involving reading between the lines or making inferences. Readers are deriving

ideas that are implied rather than directly stated. Interpretative reading requires

skills in: (1) inferring main ideas of a passage in which the main ideas are not

directly stated, (2) inferring cause and effect relationship when they are not

directly stated, (3) inferring referents of pronouns, (4) inferring referents of

adverbs, (5) inferring omitted words, (6) detecting the author’s purpose in writing,

and (8) drawing conclusions. Stead (2006) stated that interpretive

 19

comprehension requires the student to make inferences from the information

stated. It demands upon the reader to use not only the material presented in the

text but personal knowledge, connections and experiences to make meaning.

Stead added some specific strategies in interpretive understandings (a) inferring,

which includes cause and effect, problem/solution, main ideas,

sequences/events, comparisons, and information from visual sources (b) making

connections which comprises text to self, text to text, and text to world (Burns,

Roe and Ross, 1984).

Depdiknas (2006) explained that interpretive reading involves reading

between the lines or making inferences. It is the process of deriving ideas that

are implied rather than directly stated. This level demands higher level of thinking

ability because the question in the category of interpretation is concerned with

answer that are not directly stated in the text but are suggested or implied.

Depdiknas’ (2006) research quoted that of Smith (1980) that states that in

interpretation the readers read between the lines, make connections among

individuals stated ideas, make inferences, draw conclusions, read between the

lines to get inferences, or implied meaning from the text.

Likewise, Naplan (2008) stated that interpretive understanding needs

students to replicate on literal information, make links between information,

identify relationships or draw inferences from information given in texts. The

reader is reading between the lines. It is also sometimes known as hidden

comprehension. When reading, students may prompt to: (a) sequence events

from a text (b) extract information from a visual cue e.g. map, key for a map,
 20

diagram, photo, illustration (c) connect information in a text and a visual image

e.g. a diagram or illustration, titles, captions and headings to complete the

answer completely (d) make connections between information in consecutive

sentences (e) make connections in a text by using pronoun referencing (f)

connect and link information from several sentences that can be directly located

in the text (g) connect information using different vocabulary to explain concepts

and ideas.

According to Costa (2009), interpretive level of comprehension is

sometimes, information or concept is not explicitly stated in the text so that the

reader has to go through the process of inferring beyond the literal meaning.

Understanding is reading or getting meaning between lines which needs the

reader’s sensitivity to clues and skill to connect these clues to his own

experience. It comprises (a) identifying the main idea, (b) forming conclusion, (c)

drawing implications, (d) drawing inferences and (e) predicting outcomes. Davis

(2006) further explained that interpretive level of comprehension requires

students to read between the lines. At this level, students must explain figurative

language, define terms, and answer interpretive or inferential questions.

Inferential questions require the students to figure out the author’s purpose; the

main idea or essential message, the point of view, and the conclusion are

examples of inferential questions. Inferential questions may require students to

draw conclusions, generalize, derive meaning from the language, speculate,

anticipate, predict, and summarize. All such questions are from the interpretive
 21

level. Some examples of interpretive questions are (a) contrast, (b) deriving

meaning, (c) purpose and (d) cause and effect (Davis 2006).

Applied/Critical Comprehension. Critical comprehension deals with a

comprehensive evaluation of the reaching passage (Norris, 2006). It includes

both the literal and interpretative levels and goes more than passing personal

judgment on the acceptability of the information contained in the passage. In

other words, the reader, judging from his anticipations, tries to ascertain the

quality, values, accuracy or truthfulness of what is read. Readers at the level

achieve total comprehension and thus possess full understanding and

appreciation of the author’s style particularly when they are in line with his

speculations in the pre-reading activities.

Critical comprehension is a complex process, requiring both the

combination of new information with existing knowledge and the reconstruction of

it to create something new (McMahon 2008). McMahon further articulated that

critical comprehension, like interpretive, requires the reader to work with both

existing knowledge and new information to construct meaning. However, this

facet demands that readers include more of their existing knowledge, drawing on

their dispositions or values to weave: 1) an opinion after reading, 2) an evaluation

of positions, either within the book or held by the reader, 3) an assessment of the

relevance or reliability of information provided within a text, and/or 4) the

formulation of inferences beyond the text to other contexts. Critical

comprehension is a multifaceted process, demanding mutual combination of new

information with present knowledge and the rebuilding of it to create something

 22

new an opinion, an evaluation, or a larger inference. Critical comprehension

means to take what was said (literal) and then what was meant by what was said

(interpretive) and then deliver (apply) the ideas the concepts or ideas to other

situation. In this level the readers analyze, make synthesis and apply the

information that has gotten to other information (Cuesta College, 2004).

According to Takallou (2011), critical comprehension level attempts to

raise the reader’s thinking one more “notch” or level to a more critical, analyzing

level. This presumes that the reader have already reached the previous two

levels. Critical Comprehension (evaluation) entails that the reader make findings

about the content of a reading selection by comparing it with external criteria

(Roe, Stoodt-Hill &Burns, 2010). The reader may have developed these criteria

through experience, through reference to resource materials, or through access

to information provided by authorities on the subject. Creative understanding

(reading beyond the lines) has to do with the reader’s emotional responses to

printed material (appreciation) and his or her ability to produce new ideas based

on the reading experience. Creative understanding is built on literal inferential

and critical understanding. A reader’s intellectual understanding provides a

foundation for his or her emotional reaction.

Education Department Center (2012) in the research of Smith and

Robinson (1980) lists twelve aspects of critical thinking: (1) grasping the

meaning of a statement, (2) judging whether there is an ambiguity in a line of

reasoning, (3) judging whether certain statements contradict each other, (4)

judging whether a conclusion follows necessity, (5) judging whether a statement

 23

is specific enough, (6) judging whether a statement is actually the reaction of a

certain principle, (7) judging whether a statement is reliable, (8) judging whether

an inductive conclusion is warranted, (9) judging whether the problem has been

identified, (10) judging whether a definition is adequate, and (12) judging whether

a statement made by an alleged authority is acceptable.

Davis (2006) likewise stated that the critical level of comprehension

requires a high level of understanding. The learners must critic the passage they

have read. The critical level is one of the two uppermost levels of understanding;

it requires students to read between the lines. Having students define whether a

passage is true or false, determining whether a statement is a fact and opinion,

perceiving propaganda, or judging the qualifications of the author for writing the

passage are examples of using the critical level of comprehension. The creative

level of comprehension is at the highest level of understanding. As with the

critical level of comprehension, the student must read beyond the lines. The

student must often make judgments about other actions to take. McMahon

(2008), as cited in the study of Schatberg-Smith (1989) stated that one way of

promoting critical comprehension is to encourage students to use a Double Entry

Journal. This simple format obviously connects to learners that their opinions

related to the text are important.

Roe, Stoodt-Hill and Burns (2010) suggested that critical comprehension

(evaluation) requires that the reader make judgments about the content of a

reading selection by comparing it with external criteria. The reader may have

developed these criteria through experience, through reference to resource

 24

materials, or through access to information provided by authorities on the

subject. A creative understanding (reading beyond the lines) has to do with the

reader’s emotional responses to printed material (appreciation) and his or her

ability to produce new ideas based on the reading experiences. Depdiknas

(2006) stated that critical reading is evaluating written material, comparing the

ideas discovered in the material with known standards and drawing conclusion

about their accuracy, appropriateness, and timeliness. Critical reading compares

previous experience to elements in the new material such as content style,

expression, information, and ideas, or values of the author. In this level of

reading skill, the reader must be an active reader, questioning, searching for

facts, and suspending judgment until he or she has considered all of the material.

Naplan (2008) stated that applied comprehension is evaluative,

requirereaders to apply and evaluate knowledge from multiple texts, within

different areas of one text, or use their background knowledge about topics.

Students are necessary to read beyond the lines. It is also known as head

comprehension. When reading, the students may ask to: (a) connect information

across sentences, paragraphs, chapters (b) infer the meaning of information in

texts (c) deduce main ideas, themes and concepts in texts (d) use a range of

strategies e.g. context cues to identify the meaning of unknown words (e) identify

the purpose and meaning of metaphorical language devices e.g. similes, and (f)

identify similar vocabulary meanings to link and connect ideas. Critical

comprehension can be introduced in very early reading to understand the

messages, themes and underlying plot of stories. Also, Naplan (2008), as cited
 25

byCarnine, Silbert & Kameenui (1997) discussed that critical analysis assists

students to deduce, create hypotheses and identify relationships that are not

openly stated. This level of understanding texts increases in intensity, complexity

and frequency in higher stages. It also requires students to move from one

register to another across different subjects, learning areas and within different

text types in one subject. Students need to use background knowledge and

personal opinion to analyze the whole text — its structure, the meaning and

purpose, connecting ideas and opinions — in order to critically analyze texts. The

students may do the following: (a) identify the intended purpose of a specific part

of a text, (b) identify the author's point of view or the reader response expected

by the author, (c) identify their point of view and either defend or debate it against

the author's, (d) infer reasons for the author's use of persuasive language, (e)

demonstrate an understanding of themes in texts and make critical analysis of

them, (f) connect and make value judgments between the themes and plots of

various texts, (g) select alternative titles or manipulate plots for different contexts,

(h) demonstrate an understanding of the characters' motives, (i) analyse the use

and purpose of layout features and text conventions, (j) analyse imagery to assist

in deducting meaning, (k) identify the authoritative source of information, ideas,

points of view and purpose, and how these can affect the validity of the content

and/or position of the writer, and (l) identify the facts that are chosen, left out and

changed to form texts for example a scientific argument supporting an idea or

belief systems (Naplan, 2008).

 26

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

This study is anchored on the viewpoint of Brown, Armbruster and Baker

(1986) which states that metacognition has been found to be significantly related

to reading comprehension. Similarly, it has been further emphasized that

“whether it is in the native language or the second language,

metacognition plays a significant role in improving reading comprehension”

(Pressley, 2002;Alhaqbani & Riazi, 2011).

Figure 1 shows the conceptual framework of the study. The independent

variable in this study is metacognition with its indicators based on the study of

Flavell (1979): metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive experience,

metacognitive strategy, and metacognitive goals or tasks. Whereas, the

dependent variable is reading comprehension which is further quantified based

on the indicators posed by Durkin (1979): literal comprehension, interpretive

comprehension and applied or critical comprehension.

Significance of the Study

The study may be beneficial to the following:

Administrators. This study hopefully serves as the basis of pinpointing

the underlying relative components of the use of metacognition and reading

comprehension among students. This may help in formulating future plans and

programs intended to upgrade their respective school.

Teachers. The findings of the study could provide awareness in

identifying students’ weaknesses and strengths in comprehending the content of

 27

the texts or any other reading materials thus; giving them an insight on how to

handle the class appropriately.

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE DEPENDENT VARIABLE

Reading
Use of Metacognition Comprehension

 Metacognitive  Literal
Knowledge Comprehension

 Metacognitive  Integrative
Experience Comprehension

 Metacognitive  Applied/ Critical

Strategy Comprehension

 Metacognitive
Goals and Task

Fig. 1. Conceptual Framework Showing the Variables of the Study

 28

Students. Through the study, students possibly are able to know how to

use their metacognitive ability to the fullest and be knowledgeable enough in

improving their skill in reading comprehension hence cultivating awareness to the

importance of its connection.

Parents. This study could provide better feedback to parents so that they

can help their children in the comprehension process. In essence, they can also

monitor the development of their children in school activities.

Definition of Terms

To establish a common frame of reference, the following terminologies are

defined operationally:

Metacognition. In this study, this term refers to the extent of use of

metacognition of Grade 11 Students of Sigaboy Agricultural Vocational High

School in terms of metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive experience,

metacognitive goals and task, and metacognitive strategies.

Reading Comprehension. In this study, this term refers to the level of

reading comprehension of Grade 11 Students of Sigaboy Agricultural Vocational

High School in terms of literal comprehension, interpretative comprehension and

applied/critical comprehension.
 29

Chapter 2

Method

This chapter focuses on the presentation of the research steps and

procedures used by the researchers in this study. This encompasses the

research design, research subjects, research instruments, data gathering

procedure used in conducting the study and the statistical instrument of the data

gathered.

Research Design

The descriptive correlation method was employed in the conduct of the

study. Descriptive research design is a scientific method which engages

observing and describing the actions of a subject without manipulating it in any

way (Shuttleworth, 2008). Herein, this method includes the collection of data in

order to check the hypothesis or to answer the questions with reference to the

status of the subject of the study. Correlational research, according to Price and

Oswald (2006), tested statistical relationships between two or more variables.

Both variables for each of a large number of cases are measured and tested out

to see if they are in fact related.

In this study, the use of metacognition with metacognitive knowledge,

metacognitive experience, metacognitive strategy and metacognitive goals and

task as indicators will be correlated with reading comprehension with the

following as indicators: literal comprehension, interpretive comprehension and

applied or critical comprehension.

 30

Research Subjects

The study focused on the extent of use of metacognition and reading

comprehension of Grade 11 Students of Sigaboy Agricultural Vocational High

School, School Year 2017-2018.The respondents of this study were 30 Grade 11

Senior High School Students.

The researcher used simple random sampling as the sampling method in

this research study. Simple random sampling is a subset of a statistical

population in which each member of the subset has an equal probability of being

chosen. Technically, a simple random sample is a set of n objects where all

possible samples are equally likely to happen. A simple random sampling is

chosen in such a way that every set of individuals has an equal chance to be in

the selected sample. In addition, it’s very easy for bias to creep into samples

obtained with simple random sampling.

Research Instruments

The major tools in the data gathering process of this study were adapted

survey questionnaires patterned from the works of Yanyan (2010), Mitchell

(2005) and Read Theory (2009). For this purpose, a group of experts validated

the data that was gathered to establish the index of reliability.

The said adapted questionnaires were divided into two parts. Part 1 deals

with the use of metacognition with metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive

experience, metacognitive strategy and metacognitive goals and task as

indicators. There were 10 questions for each indicator. Part 2 deals with reading
 31

comprehension with the following as indicators: literal comprehension,

interpretive comprehension and applied or critical comprehension. Each indicator

has a test with ten questions.

In quantifying the responses, each item of the indicator was interpreted

accordingly using the Likert scale below:

Range of Means Verbal Description Interpretation

2.34 – 3.00 Extensive This indicates that the use of

metacognition is observed all
the time.

1.67 – 2.33 Moderately extensive This indicates that the use of

metacognition is observed
sometimes.

1.00 – 1.66 Fairly Extensive This indicates that the use of

metacognition is never
observed.
 32

The following adapted rating scale was used in interpreting the student

engagement of the respondents.

Range of Means Verbal Description Interpretation

2.34 – 3.00 High The level of reading

comprehension is good as
shown in the respondents’
scores that range from68 -
100%.

1.67 – 2.33 Moderate The level of reading

comprehension is fair as
shown in the respondents’
scores that range from 34 –
67%.

1.00 – 1.66 Low The level of reading

comprehension is poor as
shown in the respondents’
scores that range from 0–
33%.

Data Gathering Procedure

In gathering the data, the following steps were followed:

Seeking permission to conduct the study. The researcher wrote a letter

to the principal of Sigaboy Agricultural Vocational High School requesting for the

approval of the conduct of the study in the said school.

Administration and distribution of the questionnaires. After securing

the necessary approval, the researcher personally met the respondents and
 33

distributed copies of the questionnaires to the target respondents. The

researcher assisted the respondents in answering the questionnaires.

Retrieval of the questionnaire. Retrieval of the questionnaire was done

on the same day of the administration of the questionnaire to ascertain high

percentage of retrieval. After retrieving all the administered questionnaires, the

responses were organized and processed for the appropriate statistical

treatment.

Statistical Treatment of Data

For the purpose of analysis and interpretation, the responses to the terms

on the questionnaires were tallied and recorded accordingly. The appropriate

assessment tools used in the study are the following:

Mean. This statistical tool was used to determine the extent of use of

metacognition and level of reading comprehension to answer sub-problems 1

and 2.

Pearson Product – Moment Coefficient Correlation. This measure was

used to determine the level of significant relationship existing between the extent

of use of metacognition and level of reading comprehension.

 34

Chapter 3

Presentation and Analysis of Findings

Presented in this chapter are the discussion on the presentation and

analysis of the findings. The following headings center the discussions: extent of

use of metacognition, level of reading comprehension and significance of the

relationship between the use of metacognition and reading comprehension of

Grade 11 Students of Sigaboy Agricultural Vocational High School.

Use of Metacognition

Shown in Table 1 is the statistical result on the extent of use of

metacognition of Grade 11 students as measured through the following

indicators: metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive experience, metacognitive

strategies, and metacognitive goals and tasks. The overall mean rating for the

extent of use of metacognition is 2.44 or extensive which indicates that student’s

metacognition is manifested all the time. This means that the respondents are

always thinking beyond thinking while doing their tasks at school and even at

home. This implies that the respondents are very much aware of what they are

doing and employ metacognition at all times in doing their daily tasks.

Metacognitive Knowledge. In terms of metacognitive knowledge, the

mean rating posted at 2.40 or extensive which indicates that the student’s

metacognition is observed all the time. This means that student’s pay close
 35

Table 1

Use of Metacognition of Grade 11 Students of Sigaboy Agricultural

Vocational High School

Indicators Mean Descriptive Equivalent

Metacognitive Knowledge 2.40 Extensive

Metacognitive Experience 2.42 Extensive

Metacognitive Strategies 2.50 Extensive

Metacognitive Goals and

2.45 Extensive
Tasks

Over all 2.44 Extensive

 36

attention to grammar, organization, structure, feature and key points of the text

they are reading, and also find it easy to express ideas pertaining to the text. This

implies that the extent of use of metacognition is significant with the level of

reading comprehension of Grade 11 Students of Sigaboy Agricultural Vocational

High School. This result of the study supports the study of Brown, Armbruster

and Baker (1986) which states that metacognition has been found to be

significantly related to reading comprehension.

Metacognitive Experience. In terms of metacognitive experience, the

mean rating posted at 2.42 or extensive which indicates that student’s

metacognition is observed all the time. This means that students feel motivated

and satisfied when they read and think that every task is not an enjoyable

activity. This implies that the extent of use of metacognition is significant with the

level of reading comprehension of Grade 11 Students of Sigaboy Agricultural

Vocational High School. This result of the study supports the study of Brown,

Armbruster and Baker (1986) which states that metacognition has been found to

be significantly related to reading comprehension.

Metacogntive Strategies. In terms of metacognitive strategies, the mean

rating posted at 2.50 or extensive which indicates that student’s metacognition is

observed all the time. This means that students always apply specific strategies

and methods to help them better understand a certain text. This implies that the

extent of use of metacognition is significant with that of the level of reading

comprehension of Grade 11 Students of Sigaboy Agricultural Vocational High

School.
 37

Metacognitive Goals and Tasks. In terms of metacognitive goals and

tasks, the mean rating posted at 2.45 or extensive which indicates that the

student’s metacognition is observed all the time. This means that students

always set specific goals before beginning a task, study the materials and

develop ways in order to obtain goals needed in the completion of the task. This

implies that the extent of use of metacognition is significant with the level of

reading comprehension of Grade 11 Students of Sigaboy Agricultural Vocational

High School.

Level of Reading Comprehension

Shown in Table 2 is the statistical result on the level of reading

comprehension of Grade 11 Students of Sigaboy Agricultural Vocational High

School as measured through the following indicators: literal comprehension,

interpretive comprehension and applied / critical comprehension. The overall

mean rating is 2.33 or moderate which indicates that reading comprehension is

fair as shown in the respondents’ score that ranges from 34-67%. This implies

that students have fair abilities in understanding literal meaning of text read.

Further, they also have fair ability to interpret the text and evaluate it using

different criteria and evidences.

Literal Comprehension. In terms of literal comprehension, the mean

rating posted at 2.43 or high which indicates that student’s reading

comprehension is good as shown in the respondents’ score that ranges from 68-

100%. This means that students fairly able to understand and recall information
 38

that has been explicitly stated in a text, and those students grasp the literal

information and establishes a foundation for the assimilation of more

Table 2

Level of Reading Comprehension of Grade 11 Students of Sigaboy

Agricultural Vocational High School

Indicators Mean Descriptive Equivalent

Literal Comprehension 2.43 High

Interpretive Comprehension 1.90 Moderate

Applied/Critical Comprehension 2.67 High

Over all 2.33 Moderate

 39

This implies that the extent of use of metacognition is not significant with the level

of reading comprehension of Grade 11 Students of Sigaboy Agricultural

Vocational High School. This result of the study opposes the study of Brown,

Armbruster and Baker (1986) which states that metacognition has been found to

be significantly related to reading comprehension.

Interpretive Comprehension. In terms of interpretive comprehension, the

mean rating posted at 1.90 or moderate which indicates that the student’s

reading comprehension is fair as shown in the respondents’ scores that range

from 34-67%. This means that the students are fairly able to understand what the

author meant in the text or read between the lines, and derive ideas that are

implied rather than what is directly stated. Students also moderately use

materials presented in the text as well as their personal knowledge, connections

and experiences to make meaning. Further, this implies that the respondents’

knowledge in interpreting written text is fair.

Applied/Critical Comprehension. In terms of applied/critical

comprehension, the mean rating posted at 2.67 or high which indicates that

student’s reading comprehension is good as shown in the respondents’ scores

that range from 68-100%. This means that students are good in combining new

information with their existing knowledge and constructing or creating something

new about it. This implies that the respondents are quite good in applying in real

life setting the things that they learn from what they read. Further, they also are

good in judging the text based on their experiences and prior knowledge.
 40

Significance of the Relationship between the Use of Metacognition and

Reading Comprehension of Sigaboy Agricultural Vocational High School
Grade 11 Students
The chief focus of this research is to find out whether the use of

metacognition was significantly an influencing factor in determining the level of

reading comprehension among the Grade 11 Students of Sigaboy Agricultural

Vocational High School. The result of the statistical tests on the significant

relationship between the variables understudy is shown in Table 3.

The overall result obtained from the preceding tabulations shows that

there is no significant relationship between the two variables of this study. As

shown in Table 3, the result entails that the degree of relationship between the

two variables is low positive; hence the null hypothesis is accepted. This means

that there is no significant relationship between the extent of metacognition and

reading comprehension of Grade 11 Students of Sigaboy Agricultural Vocational

High School. This implies that even if students’ extent of use of metacognitive

knowledge is high, it does not necessarily increase or improve students’ reading

comprehension.

The result of the study contradicts the viewpoint of Vadhana and Standera

(2010) which states that higher metacognitive ability correlates with higher exam

marks and that lower metacognitive ability would correlate with lower exam

marks.
 41

Table 3

Significant Relationship between the Use of Metacognition and Reading

Comprehension of Sigaboy Agricultural Vocational High School Grade 11
Students.

Independent Dependent r- Degree of p-

Decision
Variable Variable value relationship value

Not
Overall .154 .515 Accept
Significant

P = .05 Significant
 42

Chapter 4

Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations

Presented in this chapter are the summary, conclusions, and

recommendations that serves as the foundation on the analysis and

interpretation of the data acquired.

Summary

This study meant to determine the relationship between the use of

metacognition and reading comprehension of Grade 11 Students of Sigaboy

Agricultural Vocational High School.

Specifically, it sought to answer the following questions:

1. What is the extent of use of metacognition of Sigaboy Agricultural

Vocational High School Grade 11 Students in terms of:

1.1 metacognitive knowledge

1.2 metacognitive experience

1.3 metacognitive goals and task

1.4 metacognitive strategies

2. What is the level of reading comprehension of Grade 11 Students of

Sigaboy Agricultural Vocational High School in terms of:

2.1 literal comprehension

2.4 interpretive comprehension

2.3 applied/critical comprehension

 43

3. Is there a significant relationship between the use of metacognition and

reading comprehension?

The study tested the null hypotheses at 0.05 level of significance:

HO1: There is no significant relationship between the use of metacognition

and reading comprehension of Sigaboy Agricultural Vocational High School

Grade 11 Students at 0.05 level of significance.

This study made use of the descriptive correlation method of research and

employed simple stratified random sampling technique involving thirty (30) Grade

11 Students of Sigaboy Agricultural Vocational High School officially enrolled

during 2nd semester, SY 2017-2018 in the Sigaboy Agricultural Vocational High

School.

The following were the findings of the study:

1. The extent of use of metacognition of the Grade 11 Students of Sigaboy

Agricultural Vocational High School yielded the following results: metacognitive

knowledge, 2.40; metacognitive experience, 2.42; metacognitive strategies, 2.50;

and metacognitive goals and task, 2.45; with an overall mean of 2.44.

2. The level reading comprehension of the Grade 11 Students of Sigaboy

Agricultural Vocational High School yielded the following results: literal

comprehension, 2.43; interpretive comprehension, 1.90; and applied/ critical,

2.67; with an overall mean of 2.33.

 44

3. The statistical test on the significance of the relationship between the

extent of use of metacognition and reading comprehension yielded a p-value of

0.0062 which is less than the tabular value of 0.05 level of significance.

Conclusions

On the basis of the foregoing findings, it can be concluded that:

1. The extent of use of metacognition of Grade 11 Students of Sigaboy

Agricultural Vocational High School in terms of metacognitive knowledge,

metacognitive experience, metacognitive strategies and metacognitive goals and

task is extensive.

2. The level of reading comprehension of Grade 11 Students of Sigaboy

Agricultural Vocational High School in terms of literal comprehension as well as

applied/critical comprehension is moderate. On the other hand, the level of

interpretive comprehension is moderate. Likewise, the over-all level of reading

comprehension is moderate.

3. There is no significant relationship between the extent of use of

metacognition and level of reading comprehension of Grade 11 Students of

Sigaboy Agricultural Vocational High School.

Recommendations

On the basis of the abovementioned conclusions, the researchers

therefore recommend the:

1. School administrators should implement appropriate programs that

focus on developing students’ reading comprehension skills.

 45

2. Teachers should continuously attend to different seminars and trainings

that focus on different reading strategies that would help them better address the

varying needs of students inside the class.

3. Parents should encourage their children to read and develop it as a

habit in order to improve their children’s reading comprehension skills.

4. Another research should be conducted to determine other factors that

significantly affect students’ reading comprehension skills.

 46

References

Alexander, P.A. & Jetton, T.L. (2000). Learning from text: A multi-dimensional
and developmental perspective. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D.
Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, 285-
310). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Retrieved: December 19,2012

Alhaqbani, A. &Riazi, M. (2011).Metacognitive awareness of reading strategy use

in Arabic as a second language. Retrieved: December, 2014 from:
http://ecpublishing.com.au/media/gallery/pdf/Building_Comprehension_Str
ategies_Sample_Chapter.pdf

Anderson, L. W., &Krathwohl, D. R., eds. (2001).A Taxonomy for learning,

teaching, and assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational
Objectives. New York: Longman.

Beamon,G.W. (2001). Teaching with adolescent learning in mind. Glenview, Ill:

Skylight Professional Development.
from:http://www.edugains.ca/resourcesLIT/CoreResources/MetaGuide-
June4%202009.pdf. Retrieved: December 18,2012

Beck, I.L., Perfetti, C.A., &McKeown, M.G. (1982).Effects of long-term vocabulary

instructionon lexical access and reading comprehension.Journal of
Education Psychology, 74, 506-521

Brandao, A. C. P., & Oakhill, J. (2005). How do you know this answer? Children’s
use of text data and general knowledge in story comprehension. Reading
and Writing, 18, 687-713.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How People Learn:
Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press

Briñol, P. & De Meree, K. (2012).Social Metacognition.

from:http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=1CKiir2c85QC&pg=PA180&lpg
=PA180&dq=metacognitive+experiences&source=bl&ots=eQLpicbe5-
&sig=X22A0w_QHn-
aQAUInlAUD1uYYLk&hl=fil&sa=X&ei=R0fTUIaeGKqOiAfV_YGYDQ&ved
=0CCoQ6AEwADg8#v=onepage&q=metacognitive%20experiences&f=fal
se. Retrieved: December 18, 2012.

Brown A.L., Armbruster B.B., Baker L.(1986). The role ofmetacognition in reading
and studying. In: J Orasanu(Ed.): Reading Comprehension: From
Research toPractice. Hillsdale N J: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 49-75.
 47

Burke,J.(2007). Metacognitive strategy « a home of knowledge.Retrieved

from:://hafismuaddab.wordpress.com/tag/metacognitive-
strategy/.Retrived: December 18,2012

Chambres,P, Izaute M., Marescaux P.J. (2002). Metacognition: Process,

Function, and Use.Published 2002.Published by: Kluwer Academic
Publisher,Norwell,Massachusettes 02061 USA. December 19,2012

Chapman, C.A. (1974). A test of a hierarchical theory of reading

comprehension.Reading Research Quarterly.IX(2)232-239.

Chumpavan, S. (2000).A qualitative investigation of metacognitive strategies

used by Thai students in second language academic reading.SLLT, 9, 62-
77

Costa, L. (2009).Levels of Comprehension.Retrieved: January 08, 2013.from:

http://lilyacosta.blogspot.com/2009/06/levels-of-comprehension.html.

Cromley, J.G. (2005). Reading Comprehension Component Processes in Early

Adolescence.Retrieved: December 17,2012

Cuesta College.2004.Levels of comprehension. Retrieved: January 08, 2012

from: http://academic.cuesta.edu/acasupp/as/303.htm.

Cunningham, P., &Allington, R. (2007).Classrooms that work: They can all read
and write. (4th ed.)Columbus, OH: Allyn& Bacon.

Davis, A.J. (2006). Explorations Strategies for Comprehension for informational

texts.Retrieved: December 2013 from: http://www.strategies-for-
comprehension.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/ESC-Comprehension-
Kit-Research-Paper.pdf

Depdiknas. 2006. Kurikulum Tingkat SatuanPendidikan. Jakarta: Depdiknas.

Duke, N. K., & Pearson P. D. (2002).Effective practices for developingreading

comprehension. In A. E.Farstrup& S. J. Samuels (Eds.),What research
has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed.).(pp. 205–242). Newark, DE:
International ReadingAssociation.

Efiklides,A. (2008). Introduction: Metacognition, more than the lognes monster?

Retrieved: December
17,2012fromhttp://www.iejee.com/2_1_2009/desoete.pdf.

Efklides, A. (2006). Metacognition and affect: What can metacognitive

experiences tell us about the learning process? Educational Research
Review, 1, 3-14.
 48

Fitzgerald, H. (2012). About Literal Comprehension in

Reading.http://www.ehow.com/info_8758491_literal-comprehension-
reading.html

Flavell, J. H. (1979) Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of

cognitive-development inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.

Fountas, I. C., &Pinnell, G. S. (2006).Teaching for comprehending and fluency:

Thinking, talking, and writing about reading, K-8.Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.

Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading
comprehension strategies to studentswithlearning disabilities: A review of
research. Review of Educational Research, 71(2), 279-320.

Grabe, W., &Stoller, F. L. (2002). Teaching and researching reading. New York:
Longman.

Grabe,W&Stoller F.L.,(2002). Calibration of comprehension and performance in

L2 reading. Retrieved: December 17,2012 from:
http://www.iejee.com/2_1_2009/sarac.pdf.

Goff, S. (2010). What are the causes and effects of literal

comprehension?Retrieved from http//:www.ehow.com/info_12044849

Houtveen, A. A. M., & van de Grift, W. J. C. M. (2007). Effects of metacognitive

strategy instruction and instruction time on reading comprehension.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 18(2), 173-190.

Huggins, D. (2009). PRAXIS I exams Cram: Reading (2nd Edition). Retrieved

fromhttp://www.informit.comarticles/aspx?p=

Israel, S., E. 2007. Using metacognitive assessments to create individualized

reading instruction. International reading association. Newark, DE:
International Reading Instruction.

James. (2005). Levels of reading comprehension. Retrieved: January 08,

2012.from: www.sc4.edu/documents/studyskills/h7levelsreadingcomp.doc.

Joftus, S., & Maddox-Dolan, B. (2003, April). Left out and left behind: NCLB and
the American high school. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent
Education.
 49

Jude, W. I. &Alayi, O.B. (2012).Literal Level of Student's Comprehension in

Nigeria: A Means forGrowing a New Generation African Scholars. Journal
of Education and Practice.Vol 3, No 7, 2012.

Koutsouraki, S. (2009). Metacognition and reading comprehension: Recent

Trends in Theory, Research and Practice. The Journal of the Hellenic
Psychological Society, Vol. 16(3), September 2009, 205-225.

Kragler, S. & Martin, L. (2009).“I tried to make it not confusing by fixing it”;
describing six first graders’ use of strategies to understand text.Reading
Psychology,30, 512-538. Retrieved: December 20,2012

Kuhn, D. & Dean, D. (2004).A bridge between cognitive psychology and

educational practice.Theory into Practice, 43(4), 268-273. Retrived:
December 20,2012

Kuhn, D. (2000). Metacognitive Development.Current Directions in Psychological

Science, 9, 178-181. Retrieved: December 20,2012

Lau, K. I. (2006). Implementing strategy instruction in Chinese language classes:

A school-based Chinese reading strategy instruction program.Educational
Research, 48(2), 195-209.

Lau, K. I., & Chan, D. W. (2003). Reading strategy use and motivation among
Chinese good and poor readers in Hong Kong.Journal of Research in
Readings, 26(3), 177-190.

Lawrence (2007).Beliefs about Reading, Metacognitive Reading Strategies and

TextComprehension among College Students in a Private University.
Retrieved: December
18,2012from:http://www.academia.edu/1839835/Beliefs_about_Reading_
Metacognitive_Reading_Strategies_and_TextComprehension_among_Col
lege_Students_in_a_Private_University. Date Retrieved: December
18,2012

Lovett, 2008. Teaching Metacognition: Presentation to the Educause Learning

Initiative Annual Meeting, 29 January 2008.

Malig-on, R. A. C. (2009).Exposure to printed materials in english reading

comprehension of grade VI pupils of Ramon Magsaysay Elementary
School. (Unpublished dissertation).University of Mindanao, Matina, Davao
City.

Martinez, M. E. (2006). What is metacognition? Phi Delta Kappan, 696-699.

Retrieved: December 21,2012
 50

MartynShuttleworth (2008).Descriptive Research Design. Retrieved 13 Jan. 2013

from: http://explorable.com/descriptive-research-design.html

Mayer,R.E.(2011). Handbook of Research on Learning and Instruction.

Published 2011.270 Madison Avenue, New York,NY,10016. Retrieved:
December 21,2012

McKay, D. (2009). Effective Practices in Reading: Specialty Supplies. Retrieved:

January 07,
2013.from:http://www.cccbsi.org/websites/basicskills/images/chapter_10_r
eading.pdf.

McMahon, S.I. (2008). Matching instructional strategies to Facets of

Comprehension. Retrieved: January 08, 2013.from:
http://search.proquest.com/docview/213930556/13B7F43F448507E7930/
10?accountid=31259#.

Mitchell, L. (2005). Answering literal comprehension Questions. Retrieved:

January 15, 2013 from: http://teachers.net/lessons/posts/3379.html

Naplan.(2008). Introduction to Reading Literacy Strategies. Retrieved: December

20,2012. from: http://www.schools.nsw.edu.au/learning/7-
12assessments/naplan/teachstrategies/yr2008/literacy/reading/LR_Re_O.
htm.

Nash, H., &Snowling, M. (2006).Teaching new words to children with poor

existing vocabulary knowledge: a controlled evaluation of the definition
and context methods.International Journal of Language & Communication
Disorders, 41, 335-354.

Nelson, J.R., & Stage, S.A. (2007).Fostering the development of vocabulary

knowledge andreading comprehension though contextually-based multiple
meaning vocabularyinstruction.Education and Treatment of Children, 30,
1-22

Ngowoke, R.I. (2004). Reading comprehension: A toolfor functional

literacy.Journal of Applied Literacy andReading.3(special edition), 45-46.

Norris, D. (2006). How to Appreciate the Beauty of a Literary Work. Retrieved:

January 07, 2013 from: http://bookstove.com/book-talk/how-to-appreciate-
the-beauty-of-a-literary-work/#ixzz2HShn4aqe.

Oppenheimer, D. M. (2008).The secret life of fluency.Trends in Cognitive

Sciences, 12, 237-241.
 51

Othman, Y. (2009). The application of metacognition strategies in reading

process, The International Journal of the Humanities, 7(9), 145-153.

Papaleontiou-Louca.E. (2008).Metacognition and Theory of Mind. Retrieved:

December 16,2012from: http://www.c-s-p.org/flyers/9781847185785-
sample.pdf.

Parker, J.N. (2011).The Role of Metacognition in the Classroom. Retrieved:

December 19, 2012 from:
http://faculty.mwsu.edu/west/maryann.coe/coe/Projects/epaper/meta.htm.

Pintrich, P. R., Wolters, C.A., & Baxter, G.P. (2000).Assessing metacognition and
self-regulated learning. In: G. Schraw& J.C. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the
measurement of metacognition (43-97). Lincoln NE: Buros Institute of
Mental Measurements. Retrieved: December 20,2012

Pressley, M. (2000).What should comprehension instruction be the instruction

of? In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson,& R. Barr (Eds.),
Handbook of Reading Research Volume III .Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum. 545-
561. Retrieved: December 20,2012

Pressley, M.(2002).Reading Instruction that Works.NewYork: The Guilford Press.

Price, P. & Oswald, K. (2008).Research Method for Dummies.

RAND Reading Study Group (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D
program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND
Corporation.

Read Theory (2009). Online Reading Comprehension. Retrieved: January 14,

2013 from: http://www.readtheory.org/intermediate/Bullied.htm

Reutzel, D., &Cooter Jr., R. B. (2004).Teaching children to read: Putting the

pieces together (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Roe, B., Stoodt-Hill., Burns, P. (2010).Secondary School Literacy Instruction: The

Content Areas. Retrieved: January 08,2013 from:
http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=U8_1tLx2GT0C&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8
&dq=literal,+interpretive+and+critical+comprehension&sosurce=bl&ots=uB
kvvt3c6R&sig=9YHFHxS--
cVJM_Ul7o8qr9MFJZc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=inrrUPPAKoqpkQWAsYGADg&v
ed=0CDEQ6AEwATge#v=onepage&q=literal%2C%20interpretive%20and
%20critical%20comprehension&f=false.

Ronzano, S. (2013).Effectiveness of metacognitive strategies for improving

reading comprehension in secondary students.Retrieved: November 16,
 52

2013 from: http://udini.proquest.com/view/effectiveness-of-metacognitive-

goid:808572618/

Singhal, M. (2001). Reading Proficiency, Reading Strategies, Metacognitive

Awareness And L2 Learners. The Reading Matrix, 1(1): 1-23.

Schwarz, N. (2004). Metacognitive experiences in consumer judgment and

decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology. 14, 332-348.

Schwarz, N., &Clore, G. L. (2007).Feelings and phenomenal experiences. In A.

W. Kruglanski& E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of
basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 385-407). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Stead, T. (2005). Bridges to Independence: Guided Reading With Nonfiction K5.

Retrieved: January 08, 2013.from:
http://readingrecovery.org/images/pdfs/Conferences/NC09/Handouts/Stea
d_Bridges_To_Independence.pdf.

Takallou, K. (2011).The Effect of Metacognitive Strategy Instruction on EFL

Learners’ Reading Comprehension Performance and Metacognitive
Awareness. Retrieved: November, 2013 from: http://www.asian-efl-
journal.com/PDF/March-2011-ft.pdf

Thamraksa, C. (2005). Metacognition: A Key to Success for EFL Learners.

Retrieved: December 17, 2012 from:
http://www.bu.ac.th/knowledgecenter/epaper/jan_june2005/chutima.pdf

The Philippine Star. (2010). Low proficiency in reading comprehension may

threaten global competitiveness. Retrieved: December, 2014 from:
http://www.philstar.com/business-life/551404/low-proficiency-reading-
comprehension-may-threaten-global-competitiveness

Tizon, J. (2009) Reading competencies of second year high school students of

Diplog City, Philippines.Retrieved from:
http://.www.josti369@rocketmail.com retrieved February 11th 2011.

Tracey, D., & Morrow, L. M. (2006). Lenses on reading: An introduction to

theories and models. New York: Guilford Press.

Vadhana, V &Standera, P. (1994).The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary

and Applied. Volume 128, Issue 3.

Vaughn, S., &Linan-Thompson, S. (2004).Research-based methods of reading

instruction, grades K–3. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
CurriculumDevelopment.
 53

Vosniadou, S., Vamvakoussi, X., &Skopeliti, I. (2008).The framework theory

approach to the problem of conceptual change.In S. Vosniadou
(Eds.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 3-
34).Routledge: New York.

Winters, K.L. (2004).Developing an Arts-Integrated Narrative Reading

ComprehensionProgram for Less Proficient Grade 3 and 4 Students.
Retrieved: January 08, 2013.from:
http://kariwinters.com/thesis/thesis/thesis_web.html.

Wooley, G. (2010). Developing reading comprehension: combining visual and

verbal cognitive processes, Australian Journal of Language and Literacy,
33(2), 108-12.

Yanyan, Z. (2010). Investigating the Role of Metacognitive Knowledge in English

Writing.HKBU Papers in Applied Language Studies Vol. 14, 2010.
Retrieved: January 14, 2013 from:
http://lc.hkbu.edu.hk/book/pdf/v14_02.pdf

Zabrucky, K.M., Agler, L.M., & Moore, D. (2009).Metacognition in Taiwan:

Students' calibration of comprehension and performance. Retrieved:
December 17, 2012.from:
http://peds.unboundmedicine.com/pedscentral/ub/citation/22029559/Meta
cognition_in_Taiwan:_Students'_calibration_of_comprehension_and_perf
ormance_