motivation in reading comprehension

Vol. 3, 2010 METACOGNITIVE STRATEGIES 141performance (Anmarkrud & Braten 2009).This means that motivation is one of keyfactors for students to succeed incomprehending reading.Research reveals that motivation,especially self efficacy and intrinsicmotivation is also positively associated withmetacognitive strategies. This means thatmetacognitive strategies are found to havepositive reinforcements on students’motivation aspects, particularly students’ selfefficacy (Wang et al. 2009). Schraw (1998)defined metacognition as awareness andmonitoring of one’s thoughts and taskperformance. In other words, metacognitionis identified as thinking about your thinking(Schraw 1998). It is related to high capacityof mental processes, which is involved inlearning processes, such as making plans forlearning, using appropriate skills andstrategies to solve a problem in learningprocesses, estimating performance inlearning, and also calibrating the extent oflearning (Coutinho 2007).Schraw (1998) has stated thatmetacognition is consisted of two majorcomponents: metacognitive knowledge andmetacognitive regulation. Metacognitiveknowledge refers to knowledge of cognition,which means that what individuals knowabout their own cognition or about cognitionin general, such as knowledge of skills andstrategies that work best for the learners, andknowledge about how and when to use suchskills and strategies. In one hand,metacognitive regulation is defined as a setof activities that control learners’ thoughtsand learning activities, including planning,monitoring comprehension, and evaluation(Schraw 1998).According to Wang et al. (2009), strongmetacognitive strategies and beliefs canempower second language learners. Anotherresearch also reveals that students with agreater use of metacognitive strategies arereported to be more motivational intensitywith some evidence of a self determinationcontinuum evident in the respond patterns(Vandergrift 2005).In addition, metacognitive strategies arenot only believed as factors that canstrengthen one’s motivation in learning, butalso one’s performance in comprehendingreading. This is because reading as a multicomponential and multi layered activityrequires not only cognition, but also numberof motivation and metacognitive strategies toinvestigate and to perform the reading textscomprehensively (Sporer et al. 2007).Moreover, it is also stated that when studentsare more metacognitively aware duringreading, their comprehension in reading willenhance (Israel et al. 2005). Accordingly, thisstudy was observing and exploring theeffectiveness of implementing metacognitivestrategies on students’ motivation andreading comprehension performance. Thisstudy was also observing the associationbetween motivation changes and readingcomprehension performance.In order to identify the effectivenessteaching, modeling and implementingmetacognitive strategies on student’smotivation and reading comprehensionperformance, there are research questionsaddressed. This practical project willaddress the following research questions:1. How students can implementmetacognitive strategies within theirreading strategies?2. What is the impact of implementingmetacognitive strategies within students’reading comprehension strategies ontheir reading comprehensionperformance?3. What is the impact of implementingmetacognitive strategies within students’reading comprehension strategies ontheir motivation?4. What is association between motivationchange and students’ readingcomprehension peformance?Generally, this study aims to determinethe effectiveness teaching and implementingone strategy of metacognitive strategies,which was generating questions, on student’smotivation and performance in readingcomprehension. This research was looking athow the metacognitive strategies wereimplemented in reading strategies and alsohow they could change student’s motivationin reading, including student’s self efficacy,interest, and also attribution.METHODSParticipant DetailsIn this study, a case study was appliedby observing and conducting the interventionon one participant. A convenience samplingwas applied by selecting participantsbecause they are willing and available toparticipate in the study (Creswell 2008). Onepostgraduate female student with age 30

142 RIANY Jur. Ilm. Kel. & Kons.years old attending university in Adelaide,South Australia was recruited in this study.DesignA mix method observational studydesign was conducted in this study. Theobservational study design has been chosenas a method in this study because thisresearch engaged in intensive datacollection, spending a great deal of time atthe site where participants engaged inreading processes, so detailed informationwas able to be gathered by observation ofeach participant (Silverman 2005). Thisobservational study engaged in the intensivedata collection of participants’ readingcomprehension strategy (includingconcurrent and retrospective think-aloud anddata from questionnaire).In addition, mixed method study designhas been defined as procedure for collecting,analysing, and mixing both qualitative andquantitative data in a single study or in amultiphase series of studies (Creswell &Clark 2005). Accordingly, this study gatheredboth qualitative data (think-aloud data) andquantitative data (scale scores from themotivational questionnaire).InstrumentationThere were two instrumentations usedin this study, a motivational questionnaireand IELTS reading comprehension texts (pretest and post test) (Appendix 1). Amotivational questionnaire was given in pretest and post test to identify participant’smotivation changes.In addition, IELTS readingcomprehension texts were used in this studyas materials for reading and the questionsprovided were used to assess participant’sreading comprehension performance. Thereason why these topics were chosen fromthe IELTS test was because IELTS test hadbeen used as an International Englishacademic comprehension test. Therefore, thetopic would be familiar to all secondlanguage (L2) students, so it was expected tobe easily performed by participant, who hasEnglish as their second (L2) or foreignlanguage. It was found that topic familiaritywould enhance students’ degree ofinvolvement in the task (Roca de Larios et al.2008). It was expected that the tasks wouldalso be of similar difficulty.Furthermore, this study was using twodata collecting methods. First, participantwas asked to do think aloud, which wasrecording her voice while she was readingand comprehending the reading texts. Thinkaloud instruction was asking participant tosay everything that come to her mind whilereading a text. This method is important toobserve participant’s working memory whiledoing reading comprehension. After she didthink-aloud, she was also asked forretrospective interview. In this interview,participant was asked some questionsrelated to her strategy in reading (before andafter the metacognitive training). Participant’srespond was also recorded to know theinformation about her strategy in reading.The other method was giving participanta motivational questionnaire to fill. Thisquestionnaire was used in order to identifyher motivation in reading. The questionnairewas given in pre and post tests.Think-aloud method. Think-aloud hasbeen defined as a method, which involvesrecording everything that participants say(Creswell 2008). This study has applied aconcurrent report of cognitive processes bygenerating the participants’ planning activitythrough use of a think-aloud procedure.According to Lawson and Hogben (1996),even though the think-aloud procedure hadseveral limitations like other data gatheringprocedures, the products of cognitive activitythat were in the current focus of attention canbe expected to be well reported (Ericsson &Simon 1993).In a concurrent think-aloud procedureparticipants are not asked to describe orexplain what was being done. Rather theyreported on the thoughts that were in thefocus of their attention (Lawson & Hogben1996). Think-aloud procedures have nowbeen applied in several language learningstudies, such as for vocabulary acquisitions,self-regulated learning strategy, and so fortheven though none of these studies hadengaged students in the type of task appliedhere (Lawson & Hogben 1996).In this study, the concurrent think aloudmethod was applied to gather think-alouddata since it was believed that it wouldpresent a more accurate picture ofparticipants’ on-line processing in theirworking memories while comprehendingreading texts. Moreover, this concurrentstrategy of think aloud process was importantsince this study also entailed counting theactual time spent on different readingstrategies in reading activities.Think-aloud instruction in the presentstudy was explained by asking all of

Vol. 3, 2010 METACOGNITIVE STRATEGIES 141participant to say everything that come totheir mind while comprehending the readingtasks. In this method, participant was allowedto use either English or her first language asthe language of reporting. The reason for thiswas to make her feel more comfortable inperforming the reading task. Participant wasgiven the opportunity to practice the thinkaloudmethod by explaining aloud how to getfrom the current site to a building she wasfamiliar with. Feedback on this practice wasprovided to emphasize the importance ofgiving a full report of what she was thinking.No modeling was provided to avoidinfluencing the participants’ behaviour.Data Analysis TechniquesData that were collected byquestionnaire and reading questions wereanalysed by Microsoft Excel. Moreover,qualitative data from participants think-aloudwere analysed by coding, categorization, andalso interpretation. The coding process foranalysis of think-aloud data was also carriedout using Microsoft Excel software. The datawere coded using a set of codes based oncognitive theories of metacognition in doingreading comprehension. The qualitative datafrom participants think-aloud were identifiedwhether it indicated the metacognitivestrategies in reading comprehension or not.Also, from think-aloud data, it was identifiedwhether there was improvements in doingmetacognitive strategies while reading or not.After that, the association between themetacognitive strategies while reading andthe motivation of reading comprehension wasalso identified.ProcedurePretest. Observing participant’s readingstrategies was done by implementing thinkaloud method. This method was done inorder to identify whether participant hasalready applied metacognitive strategies inher reading strategies or not. Think aloudmethod was used also to explore sort ofstrategies that participant has already appliedin comprehending reading text. Moreover,this method was used to supportidentification in participant’s motivation(particularly attribution).In this think aloud method, participantwas asked to do two methods in think aloudprocedure, there were concurrent strategyand retrospective procedures.1. In concurrent procedure, participant wasasked to read aloud reading passagewithout stopping. This strategy wasidentifying what strategies thatparticipant had used in readingcomprehension.2. In retrospective procedure, participantwas asked to review her readingstrategies by answering some questions,such as :a. What sort of strategy that you haveused to understand the readingpassage?b. How can you grasp the main idea inreading passage?c. What do you do well as a reader incomprehending reading passage?d. Do you have sort of specific strategyin comprehending reading?e. What do you do before start reading?f. What do you do while you arereading to get more idea ofunderstanding reading?g. What do you do when you come to aword you don’t understand?h. When you come to a part of the textthat is confusing, what do you do?i. After you finish reading, what do youdo?After finish reading, participant wasasked to answer some questions related tothe reading passage in order to measure herreading comprehension performance. Thequestions were already provided in IELTStexts.Then, indentifying participant’smotivation, including measuring participant’sself efficacy, interests, and attribution indoing reading comprehension was done byasking participant to fill a motivationalquestionnaire. In this questionnaire,participant was asked to generate herconfidence in performing reading texts withscale 1 to 7 (strongly disagree – stronglyagree).The results of pretest were used toidentify whether participant had alreadyapplied metacognitive strategies in reading ornot. Also, this pretest was identifyingparticipant’s skills in comprehending readingand her motivation.Intervention. The intervention wasdone by focusing on implementation ofmetacognitive strategies in student’s readingstrategies. The intervention strategy wasteaching participant in generating somequestions before, while, and after reading.This strategy aims to guide participant doingmetacognitive planning, monitoring, andevaluating strategies.

142 RIANY Jur. Ilm. Kel. & Kons.1. Planning strategyIn this part of intervention, participant wasguided to: set the goals of reading passage predict what the reading will tellabout create a connection between readingtexts and prior knowledge2. Monitoring strategyIn this part of intervention, participant wasguided to:monitor comprehension by alwayscontrolling his/her understandingwhen she was reading text bygenerating some questions related toreading passage. pause her self whether she could notgrasp the idea of the texts. comprehend the text by integratingmeaning relations words by words orsentences by sentences.3. Evaluating strategyIn this intervention, participant was guidedto: generate several questions in orderto ask his/ her understanding ofreading passage. review the understanding of readingtexts.The intervention guideline is presented asbelow,In implementing intervention procedure,participant was taught how to implementmetacognitive strategies in readingcomprehension by giving explanation howimportant applying metacognitive strategiesin reading comprehension strategy.Moreover, modeling was presented to guideparticipant more understand in applyingstrategy in reading comprehension.There were three steps in teachingmetacognitive strategies:1. Participant was guided to implementplanning metacognitive strategies bysetting some goals, predicting thereading about, and activating priorknowledge related to the texts before shestarted reading passage by generatingsome questions to herself, such as :a. Do I read the title and headings?b. Do I look at the pictures?c. Do I predict what the passage mightbe about?d. Do I ask myself what I already knowabout the topic?e. Do I need to read this readingpassage?f. Do I need to use organizationalstructure of text to help meunderstand this reading passage?2. After that, participant was guided toimplement monitoring metacognitivestrategies by generating some questionsto monitor her understanding whilereading by asking herself somequestions, such as :a. Do I think about what I am reading?b. Do I pause or stop sometimes andask myself whether I understand thereading or not what I have readabout so far?c. Do I picture in my mind the people,places, and events I am readingabout?d. Do I imagine that I am talking withthe author while I am reading?e. Do I consider some options when Iam trying to answer the questionsthat I have asked before reading?f. Do I need to review what I have readin order to understand the reading?g. Do I analyse the content of readingalready?h. Do I translate the information that Ihave read in my own words?i. Do I still keep myself on the track thereading?j. Do I look for clues and try to figure itout?k. Do I use a glossary or dictionary if Ido not know the words, sentence, orpassage?3. Lastly, participant was taught to generatesome questions in order to do evaluatingand reviewing reading comprehension,such as :a. Do I read the text again?b. Do I just keep reading?c. Do I try to get help from pictures ordrawings?d. Do I think about what I have read?e. Do I do something with theinformation that I have learned?f. Do I compare what I have just readwith what I already knew?Participant was taught the strategies inimplementing metacognitive strategies atleast 3 times before finally she was asked todo post test. This strategy was done in orderto make participant more familiar inimplementing the metacognitive strategy inhis reading comprehension.Post test/Measurement. In post test,participant was asked to do the same

Vol. 3, 2010 METACOGNITIVE STRATEGIES 141activities as in pre test. She was asked to dothink aloud while she was reading a differenttext with the same level of difficulty takenfrom IELTS reading test. Then, she wasasked to answer some questions related tothe reading passage in order to measure hercomprehending in reading. Lastly, she wasasked to fill the same motivationalquestionnaire to identify motivation changesafter the interventions.The post test of this study aims toassess:1. The implementation of metacognitivestrategies in participant’s readingstrategies. The result of this part wasused to identify how participant couldapply metacognitive strategies in herreading comprehension.2. Participant’s reading comprehensionimprovement. The result of this part wasused to know the impact of implementingmetacognitive strategies on participant’sreading comprehension performance.3. Participant’s motivation changes inreading comprehension. The result ofthis part was used to compareparticipant’s motivation, including selfefficacy, interests, and attribution beforeand after intervention, whether therewere changes in participant’s motivationor not after implementing metacognitivestrategies in reading strategies.In order to check whether participantunderstood about metacognitive strategies,which were taught, or not, she was asked toexplain her understanding about thestrategies and was also asked to teachanother person the same reading strategiesas she was received. This strategy wasapplied in order to evaluate the effectivenessof the intervention method, which was taughtto participant.RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONReading Comprehension Strategies1. How student can apply metacognitivestrategies within their reading strategies?It was found that participant did notknow the concept about metacognition inreading before the intervention. Thiscondition was revealed from her think aloudreading and the interview results, which didnot indicate her knowledge aboutmetacognition and her implementation ofmetacognitive strategies in reading.Moreover, data revealed that she neverapplied metacognitive strategies incomprehending her reading before, during,and after reading before the interventionprocesses. She said that she did not havespecific strategy in reading and she just didskim and scan strategies in reading. Thereason for this was because she thought thatshe could already grasp the whole idea of thetexts only by looking at the main idea andkeywords. Moreover, she said that applyingspecific strategy might take long time. (I haveno specific strategy in reading because Idon’t need to understand the whole readingpassages….. I just need to look at the mainpoints and keywords on the texts to get thewhole idea because I have no enough time).Therefore, she only did reading through thepassage without checking her deepunderstanding about the whole idea of thetexts or in other words, she never tried tocomprehend the readings properly.According to Paris and Winograd (1990)cited in Pierce (2003), less skilled readerstended to be limited in their ability to applymetacognitive strategies. Therefore, it couldbe identified that participant might be lessskilled readers since she never implementedsort of metacognitive strategies in checkingher comprehending in reading before theintervention.Nevertheless, according to data fromthink aloud, participant has shown changesin applying metacognitive strategies inreading, which is generating questionsbefore, during, and after reading, after threetimes has been taught the metacognitivestrategies in reading. Data showed that therewere some changes in participant’s planning,monitoring, and evaluating strategies incomprehending reading, particularly inchecking understanding. Participantpresented generating some questions before,while, and after reading to her self related tothe texts. This means that after the trainingprocesses, participant showed changes interms of applying one of metacognitivestrategies in reading. Data results of eachstep in metacognitive strategies are going toanalyse and discuss in the followingsubheadings.Planning Strategy. Data before theintervention revealed that participant did notdo planning before started reading. Thismeans that she just did reading through thepassage and she never did setting goals,generating questions, or other planningstrategies to acknowledge the reading text

142 RIANY Jur. Ilm. Kel. & Kons.with her prior knowledge (I just do readingstraight away… I don’t have anything elsebefore reading). In fact, comprehendingreading text requires both bottom-up wordsrecognition processes and top-downcomprehension processes (Verhoeven &Perfetti 2008) and it also requires integrationmemory-based and constructivist aspects(Verhoeven & Perfetti 2008). This means thatintegrating reading text with prior knowledgetends to be one of important factor to helpreaders comprehending reading (Jetton2000). Analysing data results are beingpresented in Table 1.Data above present that participant haschanged in implementing planning strategy ofreading. Participant never did generatingquestions and setting goals (metacognitivestrategies) before the intervention. Rather,she was doing translating words per wordsand sentences per sentences to grasp themain idea and to comprehend the readingtexts. However, after the intervention,participant revealed changes in readingstrategies. This was presented by herstrategy in interpreting the picture on the textbefore reading texts, asking herself whethershe has prior knowledge about readingpassage after reading the title, lookingcarefully at title, pictures, and questionsprovided before started reading, askingherself about the content of reading will be,elaborating between her prior knowledge andreading text. This means that theimplementing metacognitive strategies havebeen applied in her reading strategies,particularly in planning strategy.Monitoring Strategy. According to thinkaloud data, participant revealed changes interms of implementing metacognitivestrategies in reading, particularly inmonitoring strategy. Before the intervention,she only did “pause her self” and “reread”when she found difficulty in grasping the ideaof texts. Also, she did paraphrasing the textsinto her words to check her understandingwhile she was reading the texts.Table 1. Data planning strategies in readingCriteria Pre test Post testa. Planning Never does planning by setting the goals or setting times Never generates questions beforestart readingShe was trying to interpret the picture onthe text (this picture contains men andwomen.. so, I bet this text will be aboutcomparison between men and womenachievement) She only reads directly the text anddoes not really keep attentionabout the meaning of title or thegoal of reading Just keep reading the text withoutkeeping attention to her priorknowledge related to the readingtext Asking herself whether she has priorknowledge about reading passage afterreading the title (so do I know what themeaning of higher success rate amongwomen?)Looking carefully at title and pictureLooking at the questions provided beforestarted readingAsking herself about the content ofreading will be (is it about men’s andwomen’s achievement at works?)Elaborating between her prior knowledgeand reading text (well, I think men will bebetter in performing management systemrather than women though…)

Vol. 3, 2010 METACOGNITIVE STRATEGIES 147Table 2. Data monitoring strategies in readingCriteria Pre test Post testb. Monitoring She comprehended reading bytranslating words to words andper sentence Pausing herself when she found something not clearenough.of sentences.Reread when she does notreally grasp the ideaParaphrasing the sentence intoher own words (so,researchers are trying to findthe clue by identifying brainstuctures..) She comprehended reading bytranslating words to words and persentence to grasp the idea of text.She was pausing herself while she wasconfused about the sentences/ meaningReread when she does not really graspthe ideaParaphrasing the sentence into her ownwords (so, researchers are trying to findthe clue by identifying brain stuctures..) Elaborating her understanding about thereading text by making connection to herprior knowledge and telling herself tomake more understand the idea(Ehmmm… I see, that’s why nowadays anumber of women, who stay inmanagement system has increasedsteadily….)She was generating some questionsrelated to the sentences to understandmore (so why women can get the sameposition with men at works???.. do I reallyknow the reason?? ow.. I see….) She was asking herself about the idea ofthe reading passage (ehmm… so what’sthe meaning? Can I grasp the meaninghere? Ow… maybe… women havealready shown off that they can be peoplewho are needed in management)Nevertheless, she showed changesafter the metacognitive training inimplementing metacognitive strategies,particularly in monitoring processes whilereading. Besides doing “pausing her self”,rereading, and paraphrasing the idea of thetexts, she also applied some metacognitivestrategies in reading, such as elaborating herunderstanding about the reading text bymaking connection to her prior knowledgeand telling herself to make more understandthe idea, generating some questions relatedto the sentences to understand deeply, andasking herself about the idea of the readingpassage (generating some questions inchecking understanding).Related to this, participant seems to bea good comprehend reader since she hasimplemented sort of strategies that havebeen taught in the intervention, particularly inmonitoring strategies successfully. Therefore,according to, Pressley and Gaskins (2006),readers, who were knowledgeable and alsostrategic readers in reading were beingdefined as good comprehended readers.Also, good readers were defined asindividuals who comprehend text byconnecting reading text with pastexperiences, interpret, evaluate, synthesis,and consider alternative interpretations(Klingner 2004). Data of implementingmonitoring strategies in readingcomprehension are presented on thefollowing table.Evaluating Strategy. Data on Table 3present that participant improved her readingstrategies after received the metacognitivetraining, particularly in evaluating strategies.She seems to implement metacognitivestrategies; including telling herself about thereading passage and asking herself somequestions related to the reading passage inorder to check her understanding afterreading. These strategies presented togetherwith generating general conclusion andhighlighting strategies, which have alreadybeen used before the intervention strategies.Therefore, it can be concluded thatparticipant already implementedmetacognitive strategies in her readingprocesses, which she never did before thetraining. Meanwhile, the intervention aboutteaching how to implement metacognitivestrategies in reading strategies has been

148 RIANY Jur. Ilm. Kel. & Kons.successful to be understood and beimplemented in her reading comprehension.Also, the metacognitive strategies thathave been taught in the interventionprocesses seem to be understood well sinceshe could explain properly the metacognitivestrategy concept, including what sort ofstrategies that she should apply in herreading and what the goals of the strategiesin reading comprehension. Moreover, herunderstanding about the strategies has beenshown by her ability to teach the samestrategy in reading with similar steps as ininterventions to another student. This findingshowed that she understood well about thestrategy concepts and the strategy goals.Reading Comprehension Skills2. What is the impact of implementingmetacognitive strategies within student’sreading comprehension strategies on theirreading comprehension performance?Data on the following table presentedthat there was no difference on participant’sperformance in reading comprehension. Thiscondition was presented by readingcomprehension score pre test and post test,which were 5/7 and 5/7 respectively. Theseresults showed that participant did not showperformance change before intervention andafter intervention. This means that her abilityin reading comprehension is still staying onthe same level.This condition might be caused by pooreligibility of questions since the questionswere already provided on the IELTS readingtext. IELTS reading comprehensionquestions only guide participant to knowabout the contents even with just limitedunderstanding since they were askingparticipant to identify the answer directly fromthe reading text. Meanwhile, participant wasnot guided to answer open questions aboutthe reading. Further, she was only asked toanswer close questions and the answerswere already provided exactly on the readingtexts. Accordingly, it is identified that thisfinding does not approve the theory, whichstates that the use of metacognitivestrategies positively improves the subjectreading achievement (Marsha & Camahalan2006) since participant’s readingcomprehension performance is still the sameas before the intervention has beenimplemented.Table 3. Data evaluating strategies in readingCriteria Pre test Post testc. Evaluating Generating generalconclusion based on herunderstanding of reading(So, the conclusion isthat majority of right handpeople have the centre of understand the readinglanguage in left side; however, 30% of themhave the centre oflanguage in right side..) successful rate at work) She does highlighting to help her moreunderstand the reading Generating/reviewing the reading content toherself (so… do I really know the reason why menand women have similar rate at works?? Well Ithink this is because….) She does highlighting to help her moreTelling herself about the reading passage (So, thisparagraph is figuring out about the difficulty todistinguish between men’s and women’sAsking herself whether she has already graspedthe idea or not (hang on… do I really grasp theidea of this sentence? I don’t think I reallyunderstand it.. ) so, what’s the maning of equalityhere??? What equality the author means?Table 4. Data reading comprehension performancePre testPost test5/75/7She tended to do repetition explanation about the She generated and paraphrased the paragraph byreading text rather than short explanation based telling the content of the text rather than doingon her understanding by paraphrasing. (“majority repetition when she was asked to do retelling aboutof right hand people have the centre of language the reading passage. (“So, we can generate thein left side; however, 30% of them have the centre conclusion from this text that higher education isof language in right side…” is mentioned three one of key factors to support gender equity attimes in her explanation )works”)

Vol. 3, 2010 METACOGNITIVE STRATEGIES 149On the other hand, qualitative data fromthe interview revealed that participant’sperformance in explaining the main idea ofreading texts has changed after the training.It was revealed that before the intervention,participant was only doing repetition orcopying from the reading text in explainingthe main idea, but then after the intervention,she tended to do more paraphrasing ortelling the main idea of the text by using herown words while she was explaining thewhole idea of the texts. It was identified fromthis evidence that her ability incomprehending reading was better after sheimplemented metacognitive strategies inreading. Therefore, this evidence supportedthe research finding that instruction inmetacognitive strategies improved thestudents’ reading comprehension (Eilers &Pinkley 2006) and explicit instruction ofreading tended to positively affect onstudents’ reading comprehension (Eilers &Pinkley 2006).Moreover, the evidence of thequalitative data also approved theory thatimplementing metacognitive strategies inreading would enhance comprehending skillsin reading (Israel et al. 2005). Also, thefinding supported the theory that enhancingmetacognitive strategies in readingcomprehension would help students tocomprehend their understanding of readingpassage (Cotterall & Murray 2009).The impact of Metacognitive Strategies onMotivation3. What is the impact of implementingmetacognitive strategies within student’sreading comprehension strategies on theirmotivation?Data revealed that participant’smotivation scores before the interventionwere pretty high. This means that participantwas already high in self efficacy, interest, andpositive attribution for reading before thetraining processes. Also, it could be identifiedthat participant was a motivated reader inperforming reading passages. According toMaxwell (1997) cited in Molden and Dweck(1999), students who lack motivation inreading will be single out, feel unintelligent,and also resist public attempts to help them.Furthermore, data before theintervention showed that participant was highmotivated in reading, but she was identifiedto less engage with reading text due tolimited time (Im confident and fast learner, soI don’t have to spend more time in eitherreading or learning). This condition did notapprove Pierce’s theory (2003) that statedmotivation affected the intensity and theduration of the learning activities in whichstudents tended to spend more time inlearning activities when they have highmotivation.Also, it is stated that struggling readers,who are not motivated, tend to only focus ondecoding and pronunciation rather thancomprehension, rarely activate backgroundknowledge, never monitor theircomprehension, and rarely raise questionsabout meaning while reading (Paris &Winograd 1990 cited in Spo¨rer et al. 2009).Nevertheless, in this case, even thoughparticipant was a motivated reader, she wasfound to less generating questions whilereading; less monitoring her comprehension,and still focusing only on pronunciation thancomprehension before the interventionprocesses. Therefore, the finding aboutparticipant’s motivation score does notsupport the theory above.However, data after the interventionreveal that implementing metacognitivestrategies in reading has changed motivation.Data on the following table (Table 5) presentthat participant’s self efficacy score hasimproved from 29/35 to 30/35 after theintervention processes. This finding hasapproved theory by Kleitman and Stankov(2007), which states that metacognitivestrategies are found to lead students to havehigh self efficacy in performing tasks and thiscase is in performing readingcomprehension.Furthermore, it can be seen thatparticipant’s interest score has changed afterthe intervention processes from 10/21 to17/21. This finding has approved theresearch finding, which states metacognitivestrategies will engages students’involvements and interests in reading since itgives students opportunity to monitor, plan,and evaluate progress of their work, organiseand transform information to improve theirreading comprehension and sets goals andplan for activities (Marsha & Camahalan2006). Therefore, implementingmetacognitive strategies in reading strategiescan improve participant’s interest score sinceshe can engage more in reading passagewhile reading.In addition, it was found thatimplementing metacognitive strategies inreading engaged more positive attribution. It

150 RIANY Jur. Ilm. Kel. & Kons.was identified from participant’s attributionbefore and after the intervention. She tendedto give positive attribution to herself whilereading when she understood andimplemented the metacognitive strategies inreading. This finding supported the researchfinding, which states that metacognition hassignificant correlation with motivation since itaffects students’ attribution and self-efficacyin reading directly (Pierce 2003).Table 5. Motivation data in readingcomprehensionMotivation Pre test Post testSelf efficacy 29/35 30/35scoreInterest10/21 17/21scoreAttributionIm good inlearningcoz Im afast learner.I cannotread thatlong textI can read betterI can get moreidea about thereadingI can understanddeeply by askingmyself about myunderstanding ofreading.Nevertheless, it was found thatmotivation changes after the interventionprocesses were not too significant different.This was because participant’s motivationbefore the intervention processes wasalready high. And the possibility a ”ceilingeffect” might happen that was indicated byonly a little space available for participant tochange or to improve during the interventionprocesses. Therefore, she changes in limitedconditions by the training effects.In general, it was identified that theimplementing metacognitive strategies inreading changed participant’s motivation,including self-efficacy, interest, andattribution in reading comprehension. Thesefindings support the theory, which states thatmetacognition leaded students to have highself efficacy in performing tasks (Kleitman &Stankov 2007) and it also related tomotivation (Hammann & Steven 1998;Zimmerman 2002).Also, the findings approved Aksan &Kisac theory (2009), which stated thatmetacognitive skills would change level ofmotivation and cognitive awareness skills.Moreover, another research has also beenapproved by the evidence, that metacognitivestrategies would enhance motivationalintensity (Vandergrift 2005). This wasbecause metacognitive strategies werepositively associated with a motivationalconstructs, particularly self efficacy andintrinsic motivation (Bruning et al. 2004).The Association between MotivationChange and Reading ComprehensionSkills.4. What is association between motivationchange and student’s readingcomprehension skills?Finding data revealed that motivationchanges do not have association withparticipant’ reading comprehension skills. Itcan be identified that participant’s selfefficacy,interest improvement, and positiveattribution changes did not associate withreading comprehension performanceimprovements. These findings werepresented on the following picture (Picture 1),which motivation changes were not followedby reading performance changes. Therefore,the findings did not approve the theory thatmotivation was required in readingcomprehension in which students with highmotivation were also predicted tocomprehend reading easily since motivationwas identified as the prominent predictor offrequent reading (Morgan et al. 2008 cited inAnmarkrud & Bråten 2009). Also, the findingsdid not support another research finding thatrevealed motivation could improve predictionof text comprehension (Anmarkrud & Bråten2009).The reason why this condition happenedmight be because of unreliable questionsprovided to assess participant’s readingcomprehension changes. Therefore,participant’s comprehending skills in readingwas not really being assessed properly dueto the eligibility and quality of questions.

Vol. 3, 2010 METACOGNITIVE STRATEGIES 151Score (%)Comparison Pre test and Post test9080706050403020100Pre testPost testReading Comprehension Self Efficacy InterestPicture 1. Graphic comparison between pre test and post test in reading comprehensionperformance, self efficacy, and interest scoresCONCLUSIONIt was found that participant did notknow the concept about metacognition inreading before the intervention, so she neverapplied metacognitive strategies incomprehending her reading before, during,and after reading before interventionprocesses. However, participant showedchanges in applying metacognitive strategiesin reading, which is generating questionsbefore, during, and after reading, after threetimes has been taught the interventionstrategies in reading.Data showed that there are changes inparticipant’s planning, monitoring, andevaluating strategies in comprehendingreading, particularly in checking understanddingthe texts by generating some questionsbefore, while, and after reading. This meansthat after the metacognitive trainingprocesses, participant showed changes inapplying metacognitive strategies in readingcomprehension.Moreover, it was found that there wasno difference in participant’s readingperformance since her reading scores pretest and post test were staying on the samelevel. However, data revealed thatparticipant’s performance in explaining themain idea of reading texts has changed afterthe intervention In addition, implementingmetacognitive strategies in reading changedparticipant’s motivation, including selfefficacy,interest, and attribution in readingcomprehension. Nevertheless, there is nosignificant different before and after theintervention processes due to ‘ceiling effect’in this study. It is suggested to enhance thenumber of participants in order to increasethe scale of the research.Furthermore, Data revealed thatmotivation changes did not have associationwith participant’ reading comprehension skillssince participant’s self-efficacy, interestimprovement, and positive attributionchanges were not followed by performanceimprovements. The reason of this conditionmight be because of unreliability and poorquality of questions provided to assessparticipant’s reading comprehensionchanges. Therefore, a further study toanalyse how metacognitive strategies canalso change the reading comprehensionshould be developed in a wider scale.REFERENCESAksan N, Kisac B. 2009. A descriptive study:Reading comprehension and cognitiveawareness skills. Procedia Social andBehavioral Sciences 1, pp. 834–837.Artino AR, Stephens JM. 2009. Academicmotivation and self-regulation: acomparative analysis of undergraduateand graduate students learning online.The Internet and Higher Education, doi :10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.02.001.

152 RIANY Jur. Ilm. Kel. & Kons.Anmarkrud O, Bråten I. 2009. Motivation forreading comprehension. Learning andIndividual Differences 19, pp. 252–256Bruning RH, Schraw GJ, Norby MM, RonningRR. 2004. Cognitive Psychology andInstruction. New Jersey: Pearson.Cotterall S, Murray G. 2009. Enhancingmetacognitive knowledge: Structure,affordances and self. System, pp. 34–45.Creswell JW. 2008. Educational research:planning, conducting, and evaluatingquantitative and qualitative research(3rd). New Jersey: Pearson Education.Creswell JW, Clark VLP. 2005. Designingand Conducting Mixed MethodsResearch. Sage Publications, London,New Delhi: Thousand Oaks.Delors J. 1996. Learning: the treasure within,report to UNESCO of the internationalcommission on education for twenty-firstcentury. UNESCO Publishing, Paris.Eilers L, Pinkley C. 2006. Metacognitivestrategies help students to comprehendall text. Reading Improvement, Spring,43, 1, pp. 13 – 28.Hammann LA, Steven RJ. 1998.Metacognitive awareness assessment inself regulated learning and performancemeasures in an introductory educationalpsychology course. Paper presented inAnnual Meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, SanDiego, CA, 13 – 17 April.Israel SE, Bauserman KL, Block CC. 2005.Metacognitive assessment strategies.Thinking Classroom, 6, 2, pp. 21 – 28.Kleitman S, Stankov L. 2007. Self-confidenceand metacognitive processes. Learningand Individual Differences 17, pp.161–173. www.elsevier.com.Klingner JK. 2004. Assessing readingcomprehension. Assessment forEffective Intervention, 29, pp. 59 -72.Lawson MJ, Hogben D. 1996. Thevocabulary-learning strategies offoreign-language students. LanguageLearning, 46 (1), 101-135.Marsha F, Camahalan G. 2006. Effects of ametacognitive reading program on thereading achievement. ReadingImprovement, 43, 2; ProQuestEducation Journals, pp. 77- 94.Michael P. 1995. Cognition, teaching, andassessment. New York: Harper CollinsCollege Publishers.Molden DC, Dweck CS. 2000. Meaning andmotivation. In C. Sansone & J. M.Harackiewicz (Eds), Intrinsic andextrinsic motivation. The search foroptimal motivation and performance (pp.131 – 159). San Diego, CA :AcademicPress.Morgan PL, Fuchs D, Compton DL, CordrayDS, Fuchs LS. 2008. Does early readingfailure decrease children's readingmotivation?. J Learn Disabil, 41, pp. 387– 396.Pierce W. 2003. Metacognition: studystrategies, monitoring, and motivation. Agreatly expanded text version of aworkshop presented November 17,2004, at Prince George's CommunityCollege.http://academic.pgcc.edu/~wpeirce/MCCCTR/metacognition.htm.Pressley M, Gaskins IW. 2006.Metacognitively competent readingcomprehension is constructivelyresponsive reading: how can suchreading be developed in students.Metacognive Learning, 1, pp. 99 – 113.Schraw G. 1998. Promoting generalmetacognitive awareness. InstructionalScience 26: 113–125.Silverman D. 2005. Doing QualitativeResearch (2 nd Eds). London, New Delhi:Sage Publications.Spo¨rer N, Brunstein JC, Kieschke U. 2009.Improving students’ readingcomprehension skills: effects of strategyinstruction and reciprocal teaching.Learning and Instruction, 19, pp. 272 –286.Vandergrift L. 2005. Relationships amongmotivation orientations, metacognitiveawareness and proficiency in l2listening. Applied Linguistics, 26, 1,pp.70 – 90.Verhoeven L, Perfetti C. 2008. Introductionadvances in text comprehension: model,process and development. AppliedCognitive Psychology, 22, pp. 293 –301.Zimmerman BJ. 2002. Becoming a selfregulated learner: an overview. TheoryInto Practice, Vol. 41, No. 2, Spring.IX.AppendicesAppendic 1. Motivation Questionnaires* Self-efficacy and Interest QuestionnaireLet’s begin by asking you to evaluatesome statements about your life as astudent. Below is a list of statementsconcerning your beliefs, feelings, and

Vol. 3, 2010 METACOGNITIVE STRATEGIES 153expectations about your courses. Eachstatement is accompanied by the numbers 1through 7- with 1 indicating that thestatement definitely is not true of you, 7indicating that the statement definitely is trueof you, and the other numbers representingshades in between. For each statement,please circle a number that best correspondsto your level of agreement (with 1 meaningthat you strongly disagree and 7 meaningthat you strongly agree).I know that I will be able to learn all the materialsfor my class.I’m certain I can understand the ideas taught inmy classI’m sure I can do an excellent job on the problemsand tasks assigned for my classI work hard to get a good grade even when I don’tlike my classEven when study materials are dull anduninteresting, I keep working until I am finishedI work on practice exercises and answer end ofchapter questions even when I don’t have toIf I perform poorly on a test in my class, it isbecause I did not try hard enough to learn thematerialDoing well in the class depends on how mucheffort I giveLuck does not have much effect on my grade inmy course1 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 71 2 3 4 5 6 7* Korespondensi :Email : eva_gmsk39@yahoo.com