Incorporating explicit metacognitive strategy intruction in reading comprehension lessons at the university of peoples security

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY – HO CHI MINH CITY UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES FACULTY OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS AND LITERATURE INCORPORATING EXPLICIT METACOGNITIVE STRATEGY INSTRUCTION IN READING COMPREHENSION LESSONS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF PEOPLE’S SECURITY A thesis submitted to the Faculty of English Linguistics and Literature in partial fulfillment of the Master’s degree in TESOL by HUYNH THI HAU Supervised by NGUYEN THI KIEU THU, Ph.D HO CHI MINH CITY, DECEMBER 2020 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My deepest gratitude is to my supervisor, Dr Nguyễn Thị Kiều Thu for her dedication and continuous support for my M.A thesis as well as my maternity Her timely advice and encouragement supported me to get rid of my postpartum depression and completed this work My sincere thanks also go to Dr Phó Phương Dung, Dr Lê Hoàng Dũng, Dr Nguyễn Thu Hương, Dr Nguyễn Đăng Nguyên and Dr Nguyễn Thị Hồng Thắm for numerous and valuable discussions and lectures on related topics that help me sharpen my research skills I would like to acknowledge my colleagues at the Department of Foreign Languages and Informatics as well as my all students at the University of People’s Security for their support and inspiration by different ways during my thesis completion It is never enough to say “Thank you” to them Last but not least, I would like to dedicate this thesis to my whole family and, most specially, my little daughter - An Di and my husband Thanks to being her mom and his wife, my thesis completion is meaningfully associated with my emotional maturity i STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP I certify that this thesis, entitled “Incorporating explicit metacognitive strategy instruction in reading comprehension lessons at the University of People’s Security” is my own work This thesis has not been submitted for the award of any degree of diploma in at other institution Ho Chi Minh, December 2020 Huynh Thi Hau ii RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS I hereby state that I, Huynh Thi Hau, being the candidate for the degree of Master of TESOL, accept the requirements of the University relating to the retention and use of Master’s Theses deposited in the Library In terms of these conditions, I agree that the original of my thesis deposited in the Library should be assessable for the purposes of study and research, in accordance with the normal conditions established by the Library for the care, loan or reproduction of these Ho Chi Minh, iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP ii RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS iii TABLE OF CONTENTS .iv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS viii LIST OF TABLES ix LIST OF FIGURES xi ABSTRACT xii CHAPTER INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background to the study .1 1.2 Aims of the study 1.3 Research questions 1.4 Significance of the study .4 1.5 Scope of the study 1.6 The organization of the thesis .5 CHAPTER LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Terms and related theories 2.1.1 Reading comprehension 2.1.2 Metacognitive strategies .10 2.1.3 Correlation between metacognitive strategies and reading comprehension 15 2.1.4 Assessment of metacognitive strategies in reading 17 2.1.5 Strategy instruction .19 2.1.6 Attitudes 21 2.2 Review of previous studies 23 iv 2.3 Conceptual framework 28 2.4 Summary of the chapter 32 CHAPTER METHODOLOGY 33 3.1 Research design 33 3.2 Research site 35 3.3 Pilot study 36 3.4 Participants 38 3.5 Teaching and learning materials 40 3.5.1 Text book 40 3.5.2 The experimental teaching 40 3.6 Research instruments 42 3.6.1 Reading tests 42 3.6.2 Surveys of leaners’ awareness of metacognitive strategies 44 3.6.3 Attitudinal questionnaires .49 3.7 Data collection procedure 52 3.8 Data analysis procedure 53 3.8.1 Statistical Analysis 53 3.8.3 Research questions and data analysis 54 3.9 Chapter summary 55 CHAPTER FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 56 4.1 Findings .56 4.1.1 Findings on the students’ metacognitive awareness .56 4.1.2 Findings on the reading comprehension tests .64 4.1.3 Findings on the relationship of metacognitive awareness raising and reading performance improvement 70 v 4.1.4 Findings on the students’ attitudes towards metacognitive strategy training 71 4.2 Discussion 77 4.2.1 The increase of UPS students’ metacognitive awareness via explicit instruction of metacognitive strategy 77 4.2.2 The improvement of UPS students’ reading performance via explicit instruction of metacognitive strategy 79 4.2.3 The relationship between metacognitive awareness raising and reading performance improvement 80 4.2.4 The students’ attitudes towards the metacognitive strategy training 81 CHAPTER CONCLUSION 83 5.1 Conclusion 83 5.2 Pedagogical implications 85 5.2.1 Implications for English learners 85 5.2.2 Implications for English teachers and textbook writers .85 5.3 Limitations of the study 86 5.4 Recommendation for further study .86 5.5 Summary of the chapter 86 Preferences 88 Appendices 95 Appendix A1 Sample lesson plan for Control Group 95 Appendix A2 Sample lesson plan for Experimental Group 98 Appendix B CALLA Model Instruction (Chamot, 2005) 102 Appendix C Reading text for Sample Lesson plan 105 Appendix D Handout of planning strategies 107 Appendix E1Survey of Awareness of Metacognitive Strategies in Reading Comprehension (SAMSRC)- English version 108 vi Appendix E2 Survey of Awareness of Metacognitive Strategies in Reading Comprehension (SAMSRC)- Vietnamese Translation version .111 Appendix F Answer sheet for Reading test 116 Appendix G Reading Test .117 Appendix H Reading Test .122 Appendix I1 Attitudinal Questionnaire_ English version 131 Appendix I2 Attitudinal Questionnaire_ Vietnamese translation version .137 Appendix J SPSS Output of Normality test of SAMSRC 145 Appendix K SPSS Output of Paired Sample T-test of SAMSRC 149 Appendix L SPSS Output of Independent Sample T-test of SAMSRC 154 Appendix M SPSS Output of Normality test of The Reading Test 157 Appendix N SPSS Output of the Paired Sample T-test of reading tests 159 Appendix O SPSS Output of the Independent Sample T-test of reading tests 160 Appendix P SPSS Output of the Pearson product-moment correlation test 161 Appendix Q SPSS Output of the attitudinal questionnaire .162 vii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AY Academic Year CALLA Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach CG Control Group EFL English as a Foreign Language EG Experimental Group M Mean SAMSRC Survey of Awareness of Metacognitive Strategies in Reading Comprehension SD Standard Deviation SPSS Statistical Product and Services Solutions SSBI Styles and Strategies-Based Instruction UPS University of People ‘s Security viii LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 Types of Comprehension Table 2.2 Offline Self-reports 17 Table 2.3 Online Assessments 18 Table 2.4 Summary of the Previous Studies 26 Table 2.5 Selection of Strategies 30 Table 3.1 Procedures of Piloting 37 Table 3.2 Demographic Description of the Participants 39 Table 3.4 Format Description of PET 44 Table 3.6 Reliability of Survey of Awareness of Metacognitive Strategies in Reading Comprehension .48 Table 3.7 Distribution of The Items in The Attitudinal Questionnaire 51 Table 3.8 Reliability of the Main Themes in the Attitudinal Questionnaire 52 Table 3.9 Research Questions and the Corresponding Research Instruments and Statistical Test 54 Table 4.1 The Shapiro-Wilk Test for Normal Distribution of the Pre-Questionnaire 56 Table 4.2 Statistics of Normality Test 57 Table 4.3 The results of the Paired Samples T-test of the CG .58 Table 4.4 The Results of the Paired Samples T-Test of the EG 59 Table 4.5 List of Strategies with the Most Significant Difference .60 Table 4.6 The Results of Independent Sample T-Test of the Pre-Questionnaire 61 Table 4.7 The Results of Independent Sample T-Test of the Post-Questionnaire .63 Table 4.8 The Shapiro-Wilk Test of Distribution of the Pre-test 65 Table 4.9 Statistics of Normality Test 65 Table 4.10 The Results of Independent Samples T-Test of the Pre-test 67 Table 4.11 The Results of Paired Samples T-Test of Reading Performance Tests .68 ix Appendix K SPSS Output of Paired Sample T-test of SAMSRC Control Group Paired Samples Statistics Mean N Std Deviation Std Error Mean Pre-questionnaire 2.60 25 2754 055 Post-questionnaire 2.61 25 2361 047 Pre-questionnaire 2.62 25 4243 085 Post-questionnaire 2.64 25 4398 088 Pre-questionnaire 2.70 25 5637 113 Post-questionnaire 2.63 25 4794 096 Pre-questionnaire 2.64 25 2497 045 Post-questionnaire 2.63 25 2645 053 Planning Monitoring Evaluating Overall Paired Samples Test Paired Differences Mean Std Deviation Std Error Mean t df 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Sig (2tailed) Upper Planning Pre-test – Post-test -.01 147 029 -.069 053 -.272 24 788 Monitoring Pre-test – Post-test -.02 286 058 -.142 094 -.419 24 679 Evaluating Pre-test – Post-test 07 405 081 -.097 237 864 24 396 Overall Pre-test – Post-test 01 158 032 -.053 077 380 24 707 Experimental Paired Samples Statistics Mean N Std Deviation Std Error Mean Pre-questionnaire 2.58 22 249 053 Post-questionnaire 2.99 22 340 072 Pre-questionnaire 2.71 22 393 084 Post-questionnaire 3.38 22 424 090 Pre-questionnaire 2.67 22 542 116 Post-questionnaire 3.55 22 521 111 Pre-questionnaire 2.65 22 274 058 Post-questionnaire 3.30 22 299 064 Planning Monitoring Evaluating Overall Paired Samples Test 149 Paired Differences Mean Std Deviation Std Error Mean t df 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Sig (2tailed) Upper Planning Pre-test – Post-test -.41 514 110 -.6368 -.1814 -3.736 21 001 Monitoring Pre-test – Post-test -.67 337 072 -.8177 -.5187 -9.294 21 000 Evaluating Pre-test – Post-test -.88 723 154 -1.19544 -.55456 -5.679 21 000 Overall Pre-test – Post-test -.65 326 070 -.79562 -.50620 -9.354 21 000 Paired Samples Statistics Mean N Std Deviation Std Error Mean B.1_Pre 2.27 22 456 097 B.1_Post 2.727 22 7025 1498 B.2_Pre 2.82 22 501 107 B.2_Post 3.000 22 5345 1140 B.3_Pre 2.68 22 477 102 B.3_Post 3.14 22 468 100 B.4_Pre 2.41 22 503 107 B.4_Post 2.818 22 5885 1255 B.5_Pre 2.73 22 703 150 B.5_Post 3.136 22 4676 0997 B.6_Pre 2.55 22 510 109 B.6_Post 3.00 22 535 114 B.7_Pre 2.55 22 510 109 B.7_Post 3.05 22 575 123 B.8_Pre 2.23 22 429 091 B.8_Post 2.909 22 6102 1301 B.9_Pre 2.68 22 477 102 B.9_Post 3.000 22 4364 0930 B.10_Pre 2.86 22 640 136 B.10_Post 3.091 22 6102 1301 C.1_Pre 2.82 22 795 169 C.1_Post 3.500 22 1.0579 2255 C.2_Pre 2.86 22 774 165 C.2_Post 3.273 22 9847 2099 C.3_Pre 2.64 22 581 124 C.3_Post 3.364 22 7267 1549 C.4_Pre 2.86 22 774 165 C.4_Post 3.227 22 7516 1602 C.5_Pre 2.77 22 685 146 Pair Pair Pair Pair Pair Pair Pair Pair Pair Pair 10 Pair 11 Pair 12 Pair 13 Pair 14 Pair 15 150 C.5_Post 3.409 22 7964 1698 C.6_Pre 2.36 22 581 124 C.6_Post 3.773 22 8125 1732 C.7_Pre 2.68 22 716 153 C.7_Post 3.545 22 8579 1829 C.8_Pre 2.73 22 631 135 C.8_Post 2.909 22 6838 1458 C.9_Pre 2.55 22 596 127 C.9_Post 3.000 22 8729 1861 C.10_Pre 2.82 22 795 169 C.10_Post 3.773 22 7516 1602 D.1_Pre 2.82 22 907 193 D.1_Post 3.818 22 1.0065 2146 D.2_Pre 2.68 22 646 138 D.2_Post 3.409 22 8541 1821 D.3_Pre 2.23 22 429 091 D.3_Post 3.364 22 9021 1923 D.4_Pre 2.95 22 844 180 D.4_Post 3.591 22 7964 1698 Pair 16 Pair 17 Pair 18 Pair 19 Pair 20 Pair 21 Pair 22 Pair 23 Pair 24 Paired Samples Test Paired Differences Mean Std Deviation Std Error Mean t 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Pair B.1_Pre B.1_Post - Pair B.2_Pre B.2_Post - Pair B.3_Pre B.3_Post - Pair B.4_Pre B.4_Post - Pair B.5_Pre B.5_Post - Pair B.6_Pre B.6_Post - Pair B.7_Pre B.7_Post - Pair B.8_Pre B.8_Post - Pair B.9_Pre B.9_Post - df Sig (2tailed) Upper -.4545 7385 1575 -.7820 -.1271 -2.887 21 009 -.1818 5885 1255 -.4427 0791 -1.449 21 162 -.455 800 171 -.809 -.100 -2.664 21 015 -.4091 6661 1420 -.7044 -.1137 -2.881 21 009 -.4091 7341 1565 -.7346 -.0836 -2.614 21 016 -.455 671 143 -.752 -.157 -3.177 21 005 -.500 802 171 -.855 -.145 -2.925 21 008 -.6818 7162 1527 -.9994 -.3643 -4.465 21 000 -.3182 5679 1211 -.5700 -.0664 -2.628 21 016 151 Pair 10 B.10_Pre B.10_Post - Pair 11 C.1_Pre C.1_Post - Pair 12 C.2_Pre C.2_Post - Pair 13 C.3_Pre C.3_Post - Pair 14 C.4_Pre C.4_Post - Pair 15 C.5_Pre C.5_Post - Pair 16 C.6_Pre C.6_Post - Pair 17 C.7_Pre C.7_Post - Pair 18 C.8_Pre C.8_Post - Pair 19 C.9_Pre C.9_Post - Pair 20 C.10_Pre C.10_Post - Pair 21 D.1_Pre D.1_Post - Pair 22 D.2_Pre D.2_Post - Pair 23 D.3_Pre D.3_Post - Pair 24 D.4_Pre D.4_Post - -.2273 7516 1602 -.5605 1060 -1.418 21 171 -.6818 1.0414 2220 -1.1435 -.2201 -3.071 21 006 -.4091 6661 1420 -.7044 -.1137 -2.881 21 009 -.7273 7673 1636 -1.0675 -.3871 -4.446 21 000 -.3636 7267 1549 -.6859 -.0414 -2.347 21 029 -.6364 1.0022 2137 -1.0807 -.1920 -2.978 21 007 1.4091 7964 1698 -1.7622 -1.0560 -8.299 21 000 -.8636 8888 1895 -1.2577 -.4695 -4.557 21 000 -.1818 3948 0842 -.3568 -.0068 -2.160 21 042 -.4545 6710 1431 -.7520 -.1570 -3.177 21 005 -.9545 9989 2130 -1.3974 -.5117 -4.482 21 000 1.0000 1.1127 2372 -1.4933 -.5067 -4.215 21 000 -.7273 9351 1994 -1.1419 -.3127 -3.648 21 002 1.1364 1.0821 2307 -1.6162 -.6566 -4.926 21 000 -.6364 9535 2033 -1.0591 -.2136 -3.130 21 005 Paired Differences Mean Std Deviation Std Error Mean t df 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Sig (2tailed) Upper Pair B.8_Pre - B.8_Post -.6818 7162 1527 -.9994 -.3643 -4.465 21 000 Pair 13 C.3_Pre - C.3_Post -.7273 7673 1636 -1.0675 -.3871 -4.446 21 000 Pair 16 C.6_Pre - C.6_Post -1.4091 7964 1698 -1.7622 -1.0560 -8.299 21 000 Pair 17 C.7_Pre - C.7_Post -.8636 8888 1895 -1.2577 -.4695 -4.557 21 000 Pair 20 C.10_Pre C.10_Post -.9545 9989 2130 -1.3974 -.5117 -4.482 21 000 Pair 21 D.1_Pre - D.1_Post -1.0000 1.1127 2372 -1.4933 -.5067 -4.215 21 000 Pair 23 D.3_Pre - D.3_Post -1.1364 1.0821 2307 -1.6162 -.6566 -4.926 21 000 Item - Paired Differences 152 t df Mean Std Deviation Std Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Sig (2tailed) Upper I determined what the test tasks/questions required me to -.6818 7162 1527 -.9994 -.3643 -4.465 21 000 Pair 13 I was aware of which strategy to use and (C.3) how and when to use it -.7273 7673 1636 -1.0675 -.3871 -4.446 21 000 Pair 16 I decide what to read closely and what to (C.6) ignore -1.4091 7964 1698 -1.7622 -1.0560 -8.299 21 000 Pair 17 I corrected mistakes immediately when (C.7) found -.8636 8888 1895 -1.2577 -.4695 -4.557 21 000 I thought through the Pair 20 meaning of the test (C.10) tasks/questions before answering them -.9545 9989 2130 -1.3974 -.5117 -4.482 21 000 Pair 21 I tried to identify easy and difficult test (D.1) -1.0000 1.1127 2372 -1.4933 -.5067 -4.215 21 000 I checked my own Pair 23 performance and while (D.2) progress completing the test -1.1364 1.0821 2307 -1.6162 -.6566 -4.926 21 000 Pair (B.8) 153 Appendix L SPSS Output of Independent Sample T-test of SAMSRC Pre_Questionnaire Group Statistics group N Mean Std Deviation Std Error Mean Control 25 2.6000 27538 05508 Experimental 22 2.5773 24868 05302 Control 25 2.6200 42426 08485 Experimental 22 2.7091 39268 08372 Control 25 2.7000 56366 11273 Experimental 22 2.6705 54219 11559 Control 25 2.6396 24961 04992 Experimental 22 2.6523 27431 05848 Planning Monitoring Evaluating Overall Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances F Sig t-test for Equality of Means t df Sig (2tailed) Mean Std Error Difference Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Equal assumed variances 318 576 295 Upper 45 769 02273 07696 -.13227 17773 297 44.963 768 02273 07645 -.13125 17670 Planning Equal variances assumed Monitoring Evaluating not Equal assumed variances Equal assumed variances Equal variances assumed not Equal variances assumed not Equal assumed variances 067 797 183 45 856 02955 16187 -.29648 35557 331 568 -.744 45 461 -.08909 11980 -.33039 15221 -.747 44.872 459 -.08909 11920 -.32919 15101 183 44.623 856 02955 16146 -.29573 35483 45 869 -.01267 07642 -.16659 14125 -.165 42.847 870 -.01267 07689 -.16776 14241 525 473 -.166 Overall Equal variances assumed not 154 Post_questionnaire Group Statistics Group N Mean Std Deviation Std Error Mean 25 2.6080 23615 04723 22 2.9864 33988 07246 25 2.6440 43977 08795 22 3.3773 42419 09044 25 2.6300 47937 09587 22 3.5455 52120 11112 25 2.6276 26449 05290 22 3.3032 29849 06364 Planning Monitoring Evaluating Overall Independent Samples Test Levene's t-test for Equality of Means Test for Equality of Variances F Sig t df Sig (2- Mean Std Error Difference Difference tailed) 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Equal variances assumed 3.278 077 -4.475 Upper 45 000 -.37836 08455 -.54865 -.20807 -4.374 36.818 000 -.37836 08650 -.55365 -.20308 45 000 -.73327 12645 -.98796 -.47859 -5.813 44.600 000 -.73327 12615 -.98742 -.47912 45 000 -.91545 14597 -1.20944 -.62147 -6.238 43.035 000 -.91545 14676 -1.21142 -.61949 000 -.67558 08211 -.84095 -.51021 Planning Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed 021 886 -5.799 Monitoring Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed 395 533 -6.272 Evaluating Equal variances not assumed Overall Equal variances assumed 408 526 -8.228 45 155 Equal variances not assumed p>= 0.05 -8.164 42.352 no significant different 156 000 -.67558 08275 -.84254 -.50862 Appendix M SPSS Output of Normality test of The Reading Test Case Processing Summary Cases Group Valid N Pre-test Missing Percent N Total Percent N Percent Control Group 25 100.0% 0.0% 25 100.0% Experimental Group 22 100.0% 0.0% 22 100.0% Descriptives Statistic Std Error Group Mean 27.28 Lower Bound 26.44 Upper Bound 28.12 406 95% Confidence Interval for Mean CG 5% Trimmed Mean 27.26 Median 27.00 Variance 4.127 Std Deviation 2.031 Minimum 24 Maximum 31 Range Interquartile Range Skewness 104 464 Kurtosis -.521 902 Mean 26.59 473 Pre-test Lower Bound 25.61 Upper Bound 27.57 95% Confidence Interval for Mean EG 5% Trimmed Mean 26.60 Median 27.00 Variance 4.920 Std Deviation 2.218 Minimum 22 Maximum 31 Range Interquartile Range 157 Skewness -.119 491 Kurtosis -.060 953 Tests of Normality Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk Group Statistic Pre-test df Sig Statistic Control Group 125 25 200* Experimental Group 122 22 200* * This is a lower bound of the true significance a Lilliefors Significance Correction 158 df Sig .953 25 290 982 22 940 Appendix N SPSS Output of the Paired Sample T-test of reading tests Mean Pair Pair Pair Pair Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test Paired Samples Correlations N 25 22 Pre-test & Post-test Pre-test & Post-test Mean Pair Pair Paired Samples Statistics N Std Deviation 27.28 25 2.031 27.76 25 2.223 26.59 22 2.218 30.73 22 2.313 Pre-test - Posttest Pre-test - Posttest Std Deviation 1.194 239 -.973 -4.136 1.457 311 -4.782 159 406 445 473 493 Correlation Sig .846 794 Paired Samples Test Paired Differences Std Error 95% Confidence Interval Mean of the Difference Lower Upper -.480 Std Error Mean 013 t 000 000 df Sig (2tailed) -2.009 24 056 -3.490 -13.314 21 000 Appendix O SPSS Output of the Independent Sample T-test of reading tests Pre-Test Group Statistics N Mean 25 27.28 22 26.59 Group Control Group Experimental Group Pre-test Std Deviation 2.031 2.218 Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for t-test for Equality of Means Equality of Variances F Sig t df Sig (2Mean Std Error tailed) Difference Difference Pretest Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed 112 739 1.112 Std Error Mean 406 473 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper 45 272 689 620 -.559 1.938 1.105 42.962 275 689 623 -.568 1.946 Post-Tesr Post-test Group Statistics N Mean 25 27.76 22 30.73 Group Control Group Experimental Group Levene's Test for Equality of Variances F Sig Posttest Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed 030 Std Deviation 2.223 2.313 Std Error Mean 445 493 Independent Samples Test t-test for Equality of Means 864 t df 45 4.481 43.729 4.469 160 Sig (2tailed) Mean Std Error Difference Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper 000 -2.967 662 -4.301 -1.634 000 -2.967 664 -4.306 -1.629 Appendix P SPSS Output of the Pearson product-moment correlation test Descriptive Statistics Mean 27.7600 30.7273 2.6276 3.3032 CtrlPostCompre ExptPostCompre CtrlPostMeta ExptPostmeta CtrlPostCompre ExptPostCompre CtrlPostMeta ExptPostmeta Pearson Correlation Sig (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig (2-tailed) N Correlations CtrlPostCompre 25 629** 002 22 -.043 060 25 366 094 22 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) 161 Std Deviation N 2.22261 2.31315 26449 29849 ExptPostCompre 629** 002 22 22 -.069 759 22 472* 026 22 25 22 25 22 CtrlPostMeta -.043 060 25 -.069 759 22 25 133 555 22 ExptPostmeta 366 094 22 472* 026 22 133 555 22 22 Appendix Q SPSS Output of the attitudinal questionnaire N Importance Necessity Overall feeling Valid N (listwise) 22 22 22 22 N I find the metacognitive strategy instruction interesting I feel confident in my ability to understand reading texts with the help of metacognitive strategies I feel confident in using metacognitive strategies to understand reading texts I feel satisfied when learning reading comprehension with the explicit incorporation of metacognitive strategies Valid N (listwise) Mean Std Deviation 4.23 3.77 3.73 Descriptive Statistics Minimum Maximum Mean 612 685 935 Std Deviation 22 3.59 959 22 3.82 795 22 3.59 908 22 3.41 1.008 Descriptive Statistics Minimum Maximum 22 Mean 3.82 Std Deviation 795 22 N I can set reading goals I can identify reading task expectations I can plan steps to complete the reading tasks I can activate my prior knowledge related to the content of the texts I can overview the texts or reading tasks I can check if my comprehension occurs I can check my comprehension when coming across new information I can control my concentration or attention I can double-check my comprehension when encountering ambiguous information I can assess the difficulty level of the texts and reading demands I can self-evaluate my task completion performance Valid N (listwise) Descriptive Statistics Minimum Maximum 5 22 3.77 685 22 3.86 710 22 4.32 716 22 3.45 800 22 3.41 734 22 3.55 800 22 3.82 664 22 3.59 908 22 3.45 1.011 22 3.77 813 22 162 N I think metacognitive strategy instruction was so new, causing difficulty at the beginning I think metacognitive strategy was complicated I think metacognitive strategy instruction was time-consuming I think metacognitive strategy instruction increased memory load Valid N (listwise) Mean Std Deviation 22 3.23 973 22 2.82 795 22 2.45 739 22 2.73 827 22 N I pay close attention to metacognitive strategies instruction I actively engage in class activities related to reading comprehension with the help of metacognitive strategies I try to apply the metacognitive strategies instructed to understand the reading texts required I try to apply the metacognitive strategies instructed to understand new reading texts I want to learn more metacognitive strategies in the future Valid N (listwise) Descriptive Statistics Minimum Maximum Descriptive Statistics Minimum Maximum Mean Std Deviation 22 3.82 501 22 3.64 658 22 3.77 685 22 3.68 945 22 3.77 612 22 163 ... improvement of students’ performance in reading comprehension under the short-term impacts of incorporation of explicit metacognitive strategy in reading lessons at UPS 1.6 The organization of the thesis... emotional maturity i STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP I certify that this thesis, entitled ? ?Incorporating explicit metacognitive strategy instruction in reading comprehension lessons at the University of People’s... Classification of metacognitive strategies in reading For such a long history of application in reading comprehension, the theory and practice of the deployment of metacognitive strategies in reading