Original Research

SAGE Open
January-March 2023: 1–11
Ó The Author(s) 2023
Exploring the Perceived and Real DOI: 10.1177/21582440231164567
journals.sagepub.com/home/sgo
Metacognitive Reading Strategies of
Iranian EFL Learners: Different Text
Types in Focus

Somayeh Nilforoushan1, Mojgan Rashtchi1 ,

and Gholam-Reza Abbasian2

Abstract
This mixed methods study examined whether perceived metacognitive reading strategies differed in Iranian EFL learners with
different reading abilities. It also compared their actual (real) utilization of metacognitive reading strategies in different English
text types (narrative and expository). Four hundred Iranian university students studying TEFL were selected according to
their performance on the Oxford Placement Test. A Persian Reading Comprehension Placement Test, Reading Section of
PET, and English and Persian Perceived Reading Strategy Questionnaires were administered. One hundred thirty-three stu-
dents were selected and divided into two groups based on the Persian Reading Comprehension Placement Test scores.
Those who achieved above the mean score were classified as high readers and others as low readers. After administering the
questionnaires and conducting think-aloud, the data were analyzed through chi-square, MANOVA, and theme-based analysis.
The findings revealed that the realizations of global reading strategies regarding frequency and type were not different in
Iranian EFL learners’ perceived metacognitive reading strategies. The findings also indicated a significant difference between
the frequency and type of problem-solving reading strategies. The results confirmed that learners used the same global and
problem-solving strategies in reading narrative and expository text types, while the pattern of using support-reading strate-
gies was different. The most frequent support reading strategies used in expository text were paraphrasing, circling the infor-
mation, and reading aloud while summarizing and asking questions were the most frequent support reading strategies used in
narrative text. The theoretical and pedagogical implications of the study were finally pointed out.

Keywords
EFL learners, perceived reading strategies, real used reading strategies, reading comprehension

Reading is a vital skill in learning a second language since
it is a way to access a wealth of knowledge exclusively
(Kung, 2019). For EFL/ESL learners, mastery of the
reading skill can contribute to creating knowledge and
becoming successful in academic settings. However, such
competence needs students to possess several learning
strategies to assist them in comprehending a text without
much challenge. Learners use Reading Strategies (RS)
when comprehension problems occur (Feller et al., 2020).
Learners need metacognitive strategies to understand and
interpret texts. As Mokhtari and Sheorey (2013) argue,
Metacognitive Reading Strategies (MRS) fall under
Global (GLOB), Problem-solving (PROB), and Support
strategies (SUP). GLOB strategies are intentionally used
to prepare the ground for practicing reading. For
instance, one may decide on the content of the text, make
guesses, and find out its characteristics. PROB includes
problem-solving-oriented strategies employed when prob-
lems appear in comprehending textual knowledge.
Support reading strategies (SUP) are the support system
used to maintain reading responses. L2 learners do not
have adequate MRS to set up and monitor their reading
skills effectively. Most learners are not cognizant of the
1
English Department, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad
University, Tehran, Iran
2
Imam Ali University, Tehran, Iran
Corresponding Author:
Mojgan Rashtchi, TEFL Department, Faculty of Foreign Languages, North
Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Vafadar Blvd., Sadooqi St. Hakimiye,
Tehran 1651153311, Iran.
Email: mojgan.rashtchi@gmail.com

Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of
the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages
(https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2 SAGE Open
nature of MRS. Notably, poor readers do not recognize
which approaches are suitable for reading in academic
contexts, nor do they understand how they can enhance
their reading ability. When learners neglect MRS to com-
prehend academic materials, they feel confused about fol-
lowing proper reading techniques and methods
(Yoshikawa & Leung, 2020). Accordingly, they cannot
evaluate and monitor their reading practice appropri-
ately. Thus, studying MRS in L2 reading is essential.
A review of previous studies indicates a link between
first language (L1) and second language (L2) MRS. Such
investigations confirm the possibility of transference of
L1 and L2 MRS (L. Lin & Yu, 2015; Maarof & Yaacob,
2011). For instance, Tsai et al. (2010) examined Chinese
learners’ L1 and L2 reading strategies (RS) and con-
cluded that professional readers employed the same L1
and L2 MRS. In contrast, less skilled readers did not
notice that they could use the same strategies when read-
ing in L1 and L2. In other words, they could not transfer
first-language RS to second-language reading, an issue
emphasized by L. Lin and Yu (2015), who argued that
the identical pattern of using MRS in L1 and L2 reading
indicates the transferability of MRS. Along the same line,
Maarof and Yaacob (2011), who investigated Malaysian
students’ L1 strategy transfer, found that English profi-
ciency levels were significantly affected by utilizing some
common types of L1 and L2 strategies.
Research findings show that most Iranian university
students have inadequate command of reading academic
texts (Jamalipour & Khomeijani Farahani, 2015). Several
reasons can explain their inabilities, such as a lack of L2
language proficiency and lexicon (Sidek & Rahim, 2015),
lack of comprehension of the material, lack of formal
schemata of the texts (El Kouti & Goui, 2018), and inef-
fective RS (Al-Mekhlafi, 2018). Therefore, as Alsheikh
and Mokhtari (2011) stated, RS research offers a practi-
cal explanation and insight into the essence of interpret-
ing reading comprehension.
Additionally, several studies have pointed to Iranian
EFL learners’ unacceptable performance on the reading
sections of proficiency tests (e.g., TOEFL, IELTS)
(Amiri et al., 2018; Rezvani & Tavakoli, 2013;
Taghizadeh & Khalili, 2019). The reading sections of
these proficiency tests evaluate test-takers’ reading com-
prehension and RA. For example, TOEFL iBT has vari-
ous question types that consist of high cognitive and
metacognitive strategies for the learners to answer.
Inferential questions necessitate thinking about the
nature of words and the logical consequence of what the
writer intends to convey to make inferences about the
outcomes. However, it seems to the current study’s
researchers that learners’ reading comprehension ability
has rarely been the cannon of inquiry. In other words,
the researchers assume that L2 readers’ degree of success
in reading might be partially due to their L1 back-
ground. Therefore, this study examined the difference
between Iranian EFL learners’ perceived MRS with vari-
ous reading abilities. The study also investigated whether
their perceived MRS differed while reading English and
Persian.
Literature Review
Learning Strategies
Dörnyei and Ryan (2015) argue that the intentional use
of learning strategies is more significant than the specific
features of every strategy. They suggest an association
between language learning strategies and self-regulation
elements in languages. Learning strategies are dynamic
constructs that link self-regulating learners’ strategic
ability, purpose, and learning behavior. Oxford’s (2017)
thorough definition of learning strategies distinguishes
the main issues related to strategy use. Nonetheless,
according to Oxford (2017), assuming that only self-
regulated and autonomous students employ language
learning strategies is not acceptable. Some students may
still be other-regulated and dependent on others for
selecting, learning, scaffolding, or monitoring strategic
utilization. However, such learners can be regarded as
strategic readers if they can apply RS.
Since previous research studies endeavored to put all
students and situations under one broad umbrella term,
new related topics, known as learning strategies, have
emerged. Research into language learning strategy can be
enhanced by separating self-directness from strategy utili-
zation, creating an alternative stance, and focusing on
diverse learning environments and students. Similarly, as
Thomas and Rose (2018) state, the continuum shows that
turning into a strategic language learner is a dynamic
procedure in which others’ role is significant.
Reading Strategies
The categorization of RS is controversial, with different
scholars presenting various definitions (Bećirović et al.,
2017). Few classifications primarily focus on cognition
and metacognition as essential dimensions of using stra-
tegies, including planning, making decisions, and self-
monitoring (Anderson, 2003). According to Kasemsap
and Lee (2015), cognitive and metacognitive strategies
can group RS. Research findings hold that adequate
interpretations of the reading materials occur not auto-
matically but through various cognitive procedures
(Thomas & Rose, 2018). Wallace (2007) maintains that
efficient reading incorporates dynamic and critical rules
where the reader poses inquiries to move toward the con-
tent by executing different reading skills, such as fore-
casting and knowing the text’s structure.
Nilforoushan et al.
MRS are strategies constructed and developed to enhance
readers’ reading skills, improve their comprehension and
control, and monitor their comprehension progress (Zhang
& Seepho, 2013). Many studies (Huang & Newbern 2012;
Nash-Ditzel 2010; Shamsi Nejad & Shahrebabaki, 2015, to
name a few) confirmed the positive impacts of MRS on stu-
dent-readers’ reading comprehension. As stated by Hudson
(2007), MRS are higher-order executive skills that involve
planning, monitoring, and evaluating, which may assist L2
readers in organizing their learning process.
As Sheorey and Mokhtari (2001) put forth, support,
cognitive, and metacognitive strategies can also be added
to the ESL reading context. MRS are global and cogni-
tive strategies equal to problem-solving reading strate-
gies. The depictions of every class are clarified as follows:
1. Global Reading Strategies (GLOB) are deliberate,
painstakingly arranged methods by which stu-
dents screen their reading. Employed in the pre-
reading phase, they include previewing the text
for content and length or having a presumption.
2. Problem-solving Strategies (PROB) are activities
and methods that readers employ when reading
intentionally for the content. When breakdowns
happen in finding and recognizing printed materi-
als, readers use them to guess the meaning of writ-
ten letters.
3. Support Strategies (SUP) are essential instru-
ments planned to assist readers in understanding
the content (e.g., taking notes and using
dictionaries).
Examining Norwegian students’ metacognitive aware-
ness, Busby (2018) investigated L1 and L2 reading of
academic texts. The study showed a significantly mean-
ingful correlation between RS in L1 and L2. In the same
vein, Al-Mekhlafi (2018) found no significant difference
between learners with different proficiency levels and
their use of MRS. Similarly, Rezaei (2015) researched
the association between MRS and reading comprehen-
sion. The study showed a close nexus between learners’
reading ability scores and strategy use. It also revealed a
substantial difference between the more and the less suc-
cessful readers’ use of strategies, verifying that the more
successful readers utilized more strategies than other lan-
guage readers. Jeevaratnam and Stapa (2022) found a
significant difference in the frequency of MRS used by
high and low-proficient students. In another study, Fırat
and Koyuncu (2023) evaluated the MRS used by devel-
oping and skilled EFL learners in Turkey. Results indi-
cated that skilled readers used the advantage of MRS,
such as summarizing and remembering, compared to the
less skilled readers. However, the current researchers did
3
not come across previous studies on the MRS used by
Iranian EFL learners with different reading abilities.
Systematically reviewing the factors that contributed
to the use of RS among academic EFL students, J. Lin
(2019) explored the studies conducted from 2000 to 2017.
She found out that learners’ English proficiency, gender,
motivation, and L1 background were the influential fac-
tors resulting in the frequent use of RS among academic
EFL students, adding that higher proficient readers uti-
lized more RS compared to lower proficient readers and
possessed more metacognitive knowledge of RS use than
low-proficiency. In a recent study, Yapp et al. (2021) also
investigated strategy-instruction intervention. They indi-
cated that participants’ reading comprehension signifi-
cantly increased, suggesting the effectiveness of strategies
instruction for learners when they read in L2.
Recently, some studies have focused on the role of
text type in learners’ use of metacognitive reading strate-
gies. For instance, Maniati et al. (2022) investigated
MRS used in two different text types, namely, English
for General purposes and English for Medical purposes,
by medical students. They found a significant difference
in MRS in the two different text types. Pammu et al.
(2022) also explored how using narrative texts could
induce EFL students’ MRS and observed a significant
improvement in their use of MRS and reading narrative
texts after a period of 6 months. However, these studies
have focused on perceived reading strategies and ignored
the real use of MRS in different text types. Thus, to fill
the gap in the previous studies, the researchers proposed
the following research questions:
1. Do perceived metacognitive reading strategies dif-
fer in Iranian EFL learners with different reading
abilities?
2. How do Iranian EFL learners’ actual (real) use of
metacognitive reading strategies in different
English text types (expository and narrative)
compare?
Method
Participants
The participants were selected in three varying stages
based on convenience sampling. First, 400 male and
female students, chosen from different reading classes at
Islamic Azad University, North Tehran and Parand
Branches, as well as Farhangyan University, took a pla-
cement test. Second, 133 (85 female and 48 male) learners
with scores between one standard deviation above and
below the mean score were selected out of 400 students
and took a reading test, which enabled the researcher to
divide them into high (n = 65) and low (n = 67) readers.
4 SAGE Open
Figure 1. Distribution of the participants regarding their gender and reading ability.
The learners were graduate students whose ages ranged
from 19 to 24. The participants had taken Reading I,
Reading II, or Reading III courses. They attended the
reading classes once a week for a 4-hour session during
the whole semester. Figure 1 shows the distribution of
the participants in terms of their gender and reading
proficiency.
Instruments and Materials
Oxford Placement Test (OPT). The OPT (Allen, 2004)
was used to select the participants with an intermediate
English language proficiency level in the first selection
process. The OPT is a standard test for placement pur-
poses; however, it is used frequently for language-
related research worldwide because it is a highly eco-
nomical and easy-to-administer objectively scorable
test. Listening and grammar comprise the two main sec-
tions, with 100 items each. The first section addresses
reading, listening, and vocabulary knowledge—the sec-
ond section tests grammar, vocabulary, and reading
skills in the context. The total score is 200 (one point
for each item). Considering the test guideline, the
researchers selected students who scored 51 to 59 as
intermediate students.
Reading Test. The results of the reading section of the
Preliminary English Test (PET), designed for
intermediate-level English learners, divided the partici-
pants into high and low readers. The test has five subsec-
tions with 25 questions. In this study, students who
scored above 12 (the mean score obtained in the pilot
study) were identified as high-ability, and those below 12
were low-ability English readers. The test was piloted
among 60 TEFL students whose characteristics were
similar to the main study participants. The respondents
were supposed to answer the questions in 30 minutes.
The test’s internal consistency was calculated through
Cronbach’s alpha to ensure that each item on a multi-
item scale correlates with other items in the subscales
and the total test score. The reliability of the test was
.71, indicating its appropriateness for the study.
English and Persian Perceived Reading Strategy
Questionnaire. Mokhtari and Reichard’s (2002) Survey of
Reading Strategies (SORS) was used to evaluate English,
and Persian perceived MRS. The questionnaire consists
of 30 items examining the participants’ perceived reading
strategies in three categories: GLOB, PROB, and SUP.
Most items either inquire about some information or
require the participants to take different options. SORS
Nilforoushan et al.
is on a 5-point Likert scale, and its validity has been
reported in previous studies (e.g., Chen & Chen, 2015).
The Persian version of the questionnaire (translated
by one of the researchers and a translator from English)
was content validated and piloted among 100 native
Iranian Persian speakers with characteristics similar to
the study participants. Cronbach’s alpha showed a high-
reliability index (.89) of the piloted questionnaire. The
translated SORS was employed to determine the partici-
pants’ perceived MRS when they read in Persian.
Think Aloud. The participants undertook the think-
aloud task and the English and Persian reading compre-
hension texts. The think-aloud protocols examined the
way participants utilized strategies during the actual
reading process. The think-aloud protocol process was
piloted among five students to discover and remove prac-
tical obstacles in administering the think-aloud protocol.
As Polio (2012) asserts, a think-aloud must be done rela-
tively near the event for maximum accuracy. Therefore,
the researchers conducted the think-aloud procedure
3 days after the original event.
Narrative and Expository Texts. Two reading texts,
including one narrative and one expository, were selected
to examine the participants’ real use of RS in English.
Two different types of Persian reading texts, one narra-
tive and one expository (Soozanchi Kashani, 2021), were
selected to assess the actual utilization of RS during the
learners’ L1 (Persian) reading.
Two English text types (expository and narrative)
were selected from Mosaic I (Wegmann & Knezevic,
2013) reading textbook appropriate for the intermediate
language proficiency level. The book has exciting topics
and has been designed explicitly for RS. The expository
text was on ‘‘Hybrid Cars,’’ and the narrative story was
‘‘Future Journey.’’ The length of the texts for English
expository and narrative text types were 950 and 1050
words, respectively. Their readability indices obtained
through Flesch-Kincaid readability scales (available at:
http://www.readabilityformulas.com/) were 70.4 for nar-
rative and 80 for expository text, indicating their appro-
priateness for intermediate English language proficiency.
Data Collection
Primarily, 400 students took the Persian Reading
Comprehension Placement Test. They took the OPT and
the Reading Section of the PET in the second session.
English and Persian Perceived RS Questionnaires were
administered in the following session. After scoring the
OPT and Reading tests and the strategy questionnaires,
133 students whose scores were between 120 and 149
( 6 1 standard deviation) were recognized to be at the
5
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics, Three Types of Perceived
Metacognitive Reading Strategies.
N M SD Min. Max.
Global 132 2.583 1.272 1.00 5.00
Problem-solving 132 2.416 1.223 1.00 5.00
Support 132 2.560 1.337 1.00 5.00
intermediate English language proficiency level; the data
of other students were removed. In the second stage of
participant selection, 67 students who achieved 12 (the
mean score) on the Persian Reading Comprehension
Placement Test were excluded from the study as low
readers of Persian reading comprehension.
Finally, 133 students were selected as the main groups,
including high and low English readers, based on their
scores in the Reading Section of the PET. Those who
achieved above the mean score (M = 12) were considered
high readers, and others low readers. Then, two groups
filled in the strategy questionnaires. The data gathered
from the strategy questionnaires were coded, ranked, and
analyzed via the SPSS database.
The think-aloud protocols were conducted at the end
to enable the researchers to determine the RS the partici-
pants utilized while reading different Persian texts. The
participants did the think-aloud protocols for two vari-
ous reading texts. Before performing the think-aloud
tasks, the participants received training on thinking
aloud. If a student paused for more than 15 seconds
(piloting had verified the appropriateness of this time),
the researcher, who was present at the event, asked the
student what they were thinking. Students had sufficient
time to read the texts and process them while not giving
them too much time to distract them from their immedi-
ate thoughts. The data obtained from think-aloud tasks
were audio-recorded. The think-aloud tasks were per-
formed for both Persian and English reading texts. The
students expressed their thoughts about the passage, its
level of difficulty, and why it was easy or difficult.
According to Creswell (2013), a fifteen-second interval
was the best time for the think-aloud protocol.
Data Analysis
After calculating descriptive statistics of three categories
of perceived MRS, chi-square tests were performed to
recognize the difference between the type and frequency
of MRS. Besides, the difference between the MRS in
each text type was examined separately through
Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA). Table 1
shows the descriptive statistics of three categories of per-
ceived MRS. As evident, the means and standard
6 SAGE Open

Table 2. Chi-Square Test, Global Reading Strategies. After calculating the descriptive statistics, to deter-
mine the difference between types and number of Iranian
Chi-square value df p Value EFL learners’ perceived MRS, separate one-way chi-
Pearson chi-square 14.298a 2 .622 squares were run, respectively. Table 2 presents the
Likelihood ratio 14.304 2 .001 results for GLOB.
Linear-by-linear association 11.239 1 .001 A significant difference between the type and fre-
N of valid cases 132 quency of GLOB (x2 = 14.298, df = 2, *p . .05) is
a
observed (Table 3). The realizations of GLOB regarding
0 cells (0.0%) have expected counts less than 5. The minimum expected frequency and type are not different in learners’ per-
count is 62.02.
ceived MRS. Another chi-square was run to examine the
difference between the frequency and strategy type for
Table 3. Chi-Square, Problem-Solving Reading Strategies. the PROB. As illustrated in Table 3, there was a signifi-
cant difference between the frequency and type of PROB
Chi-square value df p Value
(x2 = 16.40, df = 2, *p \ .05).
Pearson chi-square 16.405a 2 .001* The second research question compared Iranian EFL
Likelihood ratio 16.585 2 .001 learners’ actual (real) utilization of MRS in different
Linear-by-linear association 13.506 1 .000 English text types (narrative and expository). MANOVA
N of valid cases 132
was performed to determine the difference between the
a perceived MRS of the participants with varying reading
0 cells (0.0%) have expected counts less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 69.01. Additionally, for the SUP, chi-square was calculated, and no
abilities. Table 5 presents the difference between the per-
significant difference between the frequency and type of SUP (x2 = 15.005, ceived MRS of high and low readers, F(4, 65) = 1.732,
df = 2, *p . .05) was found (Table 4). p = .14; Wilks’ Lambda = .75; Partial eta squared = .24.
However, Wilks’ Lambda does not tell which variables
differed between the groups. Therefore, tests of between-
subjects effects were run.
Table 4. Chi-Square Test on the Support Reading Strategies.
Table 6 shows between-subjects effects, which investi-
Chi-square value df p Value gated the mean score change between the low and high
reader groups. The difference between PROB and SUP
Pearson chi-square 15.114a 2 .622 was not statistically significant between the low and high
Likelihood ratio 15.005 2 .622
reader groups (p = .20 and p = .30). In contrast, there
Linear-by-linear association 14.677 1 .000
N of valid cases 132 was a significant difference between the groups regarding
GLOB (p = .007), with an effect size (h2) of .21.
a
0 cells (0.0%) have expected counts less than 5. The minimum expected Furthermore, based on think-aloud protocol results,
count is 71.91. the learners used the same GLOB and PROB in reading
narrative and expository text types; however, the pattern
deviations for GLOB, PROB, and SUP are (M = 2.583, of using SUP was different. For example, for GLOB, one
SD = 1.272), (M = 2.416, SD = 1.223), and (M = 2.560, of the learners, in facing a narrative text, first skimmed it
SD = 1.337), respectively. The highest mean score is for to examine the length and organization and stated, ‘‘it’s a
GLOB (M = 2.583, SD = 1.272), and the lowest mean long text, and it doesn’t have many paragraphs. It seems a
score is for SUP (M = 2.560, SD = 1.337). bit complex to me.’’ She did the same for the expository

Table 5. MANOVA (Tests of Within-Subjects Effects).

Effect strategies Value F Hypothesis df. Error df Sig. Partial eta Sq.

Intercept
Pillai’s trace .993 718.584 5.000 65.00 .000 .993
Wilks’ Lambda .596 718.584 5.000 65.00 .000 .993
Hotelling’s trace .679 718.584 5.000 65.00 .000 .993
Roy’s largest root .679 718.584 5.000 65.00 .000 .993
Group
Pillai’s trace .40 1.732 5.000 65.00 .000 .249
Wilks’ Lambda .596 1.732 5.000 65.00 .000 .249
Hotelling’s trace .679 1.732 5.000 65.00 .000 .249
Roy’s largest root .679 1.732 5.000 65.00 .000 .249
Nilforoushan et al. 7

Table 6. Tests of Between-Subjects Effects.

Source strategies Type III sum of squares df Mean square F Sig. Partial eta squared (h2)

Group global 1.213 2 1.213 8.265 .007 .216

Support 0.254 2 0.254 1.672 .206 .053
Problem- 0.201 2 0.201 1.703 .302 .054
Error global 4.404 2 0.147
Support 4.551 2 0.152
Problem- 3.541 2 0.118

text and said, ‘‘this text seems to be more organized. It has
sub-titles and is divided into paragraphs.’’ Regarding SUP,
while reading narrative texts, one of the learners stopped
to think about what she had read about the text and did
the same in facing expository text.
Considering the difference in SUP, such as paraphras-
ing expository text, one of the participants paraphrased
the following statement:
‘‘Electric engines tend to use the motion of the car to help
recharge their batteries, in the same way that a gasoline car
battery is recharged’’ as:
(a)
‘‘The gasoline car battery should be recharged the battery of
electric engine is also be recharged, and this is done when
the car is moved.’’
For reading expository text aloud, another learner para-
phrased it as:
(b)
‘‘At the same time, it utilizes electric batteries to reduce emis-
sions and improve fuel consumption greatly. The result is a
vehicle that is better for the environment but still offers a
vehicle means of transport for the owner.’’
To summarize the narrative text:
‘‘It was twenty years ago, and I was living in Paris. I had a
tiny apartment in the Latin Quarter overlooking a cemetery,
and I was earning barely enough money to keep body and
soul together. She had read a book of mine and had written
to me about it. I answered, thanked her, and presently I
received from her another letter saying that she was passing
through Paris and would like to have a chat with me, but
her time was limited, and the only free moment she had was
on the following Thursday.’’
One learner stated:
(c)
As I got, he was in Paris. He wasn’t a rich person. He was a
writer and a girl read his book and wrote him about the
book, and then she went to Paris and wanted to meet him.
The findings also indicated that learners used more
MRS in expository texts than narrative texts. Therefore,
the researchers inferred that text types affect readers’ per-
formance. The results showed that learners used the same
GLOB and PROB in reading both text types, while the
pattern of using SUP was different. The most frequent
SUP used in expository text was paraphrasing, circling
the information, and reading aloud while summarizing
and asking questions were the most frequent SUP used
in narrative text.
Discussion
The present study examined whether perceived MRS dif-
fers among Iranian EFL learners with varying reading
abilities. The results verified no significant differences
between the low and high reader groups using the two
perceived MRS (PROB and SUP). However, the groups
showed significant differences in GLOB. One justifica-
tion for the finding is language proficiency level. Low
readers are usually less proficient in English than high
readers. Therefore, low readers require some RS to com-
pensate for the deficit. In addition, low readers are typi-
cally supposed to use RS more than high readers to solve
reading failures and breakdowns due to their L1 and L2
differences. Students’ background knowledge may also
result in differences in the use of RS. The findings do not
align with Sheorey and Mokhtari (2008), who found a
significant difference between the more and less skilled
EFL readers using RS.
The results obtained from the qualitative data also
indicated no differences between the categories of MRS.
The participants believed they knew many strategies and
could use them in authentic contexts. However, what
they used in practice was different from what they sup-
posed. Concerning the difference between Iranian lear-
ners’ really used MRS, the results revealed that the
pattern of reported strategies was the same in L1 and L2.
In other words, the most frequent strategies were PROB,
SUP, and GLOB, respectively. Out of SUP, summarizing
was significantly higher in learners’ L1, whereas the use
of underlying strategy was seen higher in L2. In GLOB,
text features and contextual clues were more frequent in
8 SAGE Open
L2. Rereading for better understanding and guessing
strategies were dominant strategies in L2 PROB.
The findings are consistent with Taylor et al. (2006),
who indicated that not all learners in all contexts use a
set of effective strategies. High readers seemed to use
more than one strategy in one context to enhance read-
ing interpretation. In contrast, low readers were sup-
posed to use one RS at a time. Additionally, one should
not attribute all the reasons to a set of specific RS. Other
reasons that do not necessarily require using any of the
RS may result in successful reading comprehension. For
instance, learners’ actual literacy level can improve read-
ing comprehension (Yapp et al., 2021).
The present study also compared learners’ actual
(real) utilization of MRS in different English text types
(narrative and expository). The results showed that they
employed more MRS in expository than narrative texts.
That is, text types affected readers’ performance. The
results showed that learners used the same GLOB and
PLOB in reading both text types, while the pattern for
the SUP was different. As the findings indicated, the
most frequent SUP used in the expository text included
paraphrasing, circling the information, and reading
aloud. However, summarizing and asking questions were
the most frequent SUP in reading narrative texts. One
justification for such results is that learners’ perceptions
of their reading skills might be decisive in their reading
ability. Learners with positive perceptions are likely to
read more than readers whose perception is negative,
enriching their repertoire of words and structures that
facilitate reading. Learners with negative perceptions do
not generally improve their reading competence due to a
lack of reading practice.
Reading rate was a differentiating factor between high
and low-level readers. Notably, low readers read slowly
and hesitated during the reading process. They also
seemed to be confused since they focused on singular
words. However, high readers were more likely to read
with a significant speed rate. Most high readers required
very few minutes to skim the texts. In addition, they read
at a faster rate since they read for larger chunks of mean-
ing rather than for singular items.
Further, this research partly lends support to the
results obtained from L2 readers. For example,
Anderson (2003) showed a noticeable impact of learners’
L2 proficiency on the RS. The present study also accords
with Grabe (2009), who showed that good readers are
more skillful in strategy utilization than poor readers
because good readers use a more comprehensive range of
strategies and can adapt strategy utilization to text diffi-
culty. Moreover, the findings align with the studies by
Hong-Nam and Leavell (2011) and Sheorey and
Mokhtari (2001), which showed a meaningfully direct
association between learners’ reading proficiency and
strategy use, verifying that high readers were more stra-
tegic and more cognizant of metacognitive knowledge.
Likewise, advanced EFL students monitor the cognitive
information process and utilize the RS more frequently
than low readers.
Furthermore, the results correspond with Alhaqani
and Riazi (2012) and Hansen (2010), who reported a
positive relationship between learners’ MRS and reading
performance. The current study also indicated that
PROB and GLOB predicted the amount of reading com-
prehension among learners. Skillful readers utilize more
PROB and GLOB.
The overall findings can be justified by the theories
underlying automaticity and restructuring. Based on
these theories, language teachers can assist learners in
automatizing RS use by recreating knowledge in the
reading process (Aryanjam et al., 2021; Feller et al.,
2020). According to McLeod and McLaughlin (2006),
high readers possess more autonomous decoding skills
than low readers, which helps them comprehend texts
easily. They also argue that high readers do not achieve
their complete reading performance where restructuring
occurs. McLeod and McLaughlin (2006) believe that
although high readers had not yet restructured their L2,
they might approach L1 reading in the same way. They
did not utilize strategic utilization of semantic and syn-
tactic information.
Another possible interpretation is that the reading
tasks required L2 learners to utilize controlled processing
for appropriate articulation. However, since reading skill
is an individual practice and the latent section of it may
not be seen, MRS may help readers create meaning since
this knowledge requires to be contextualized.
Accordingly, learners’ metacognitive awareness of RS
shows that their failures in EFL reading are both matters
of reading problems and language (Kasim & Raisha,
2017). The active role of readers is also essential for suc-
cessful reading (Bahardoust & Ahmadi, 2017).
Conclusion
The researchers argue that when low readers realize their
strengths and weaknesses as language learners, they
recognize the effectiveness of metacognitive strategies for
meaning-making, taking control of their learning, and
using remedial calculations to enhance their processing
skills. The MRS would also assist them in recognizing
that besides linguistic competence in the target language,
other types of knowledge are necessary for efficient read-
ing. Another conclusion is that RS instructions should be
integrated into the reading curriculum to enhance lear-
ners’ attitudes toward reading. The current study shows
metacognitive strategy instruction can improve L2 read-
ers’ comprehension of English texts. The study also
Nilforoushan et al.
indicates that strategy instruction can help learners detect
their reading errors and adopt practical ways to correct
them. The study reveals that L2 reading practice involves
restructuring and automaticity of knowledge-creating in
a new language, mainly when learners are unfamiliar
with some strategies. The study may allow L2 teachers to
understand the reading problems L2 learners encounter
in their reading skills. However, L2 teachers need train-
ing courses for manipulating the RS involved in L2 read-
ing in their classes.
For further studies, the researchers propose that since
expository texts are more difficult for learners, they
should receive more attention than narrative texts. In
dealing with English expository texts, explicit teaching of
some strategies seems necessary. Reading expository
texts in the first language is influential in comprehending
them in the second language. The role of personality fac-
tors in learning MRS can be the focus of future studies.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iDs
Mojgan Rashtchi https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5701-3748
Gholam-Reza Abbasian https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1507-
1736
References
Alhaqani, A., & Riazi, M. (2012). Metacognitive awareness of
reading strategy use in Arabic as a second language. Read-
ing in a Foreign Language, 24(2), 231–255. https://doi.org/
10.1787/5f07c754-en
Allen, D. (2004). Oxford placement test. Longman.
Al-Mekhlafi, A. M. (2018). EFL learners’ metacognitive aware-
ness of reading strategies. International Journal of Instruc-
tion, 11(2), 297–308. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.11220a
Alsheikh, N., & Mokhtari, K. (2011). An examination of the
metacognitive reading strategies used by native speakers of
Arabic when reading in English and Arabic. English Lan-
guage Teaching, 4(2), 151–160. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.
v4n2p151
Amiri, M., Ghonsooli, B., & Ghabanchi, Z. (2018). Iranian
EFL learners’ performance in the reading section of
TOEFL: The role of two strategies. Journal of Language and
Translation Studies, 51(2), 51–74.
Anderson, N. J. (2003). Scrolling, clicking, and reading Eng-
lish: Online reading strategies in a second/foreign language.
9
The Reading Matrix, 3(3), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1037//
00220663.94.2.249
Aryanjam, L., Rashtchi, M., & Maftoon, P. (2021). Boosting
reading achievement by employing learner autonomy curri-
culum: Effects of strategy instruction. Iranian Journal of
English for Academic Purposes, 10(3), 51–70. https://doi.org/
10.5539/ies.v5n2p24
Bahardoust, M., & Ahmadi, A. (2017). A comparison of highly
successful, moderate successful, and unsuccessful test-takers’
performance on EFL reading comprehension test regarding
test taking strategies use. Journal of Instruction and Evalua-
tion, 10(38), 135–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.
11.016
Bećirović, S., Brdarević-Čeljo, A., & Sinanović, J. (2017). The
use of metacognitive reading strategies among students at
international Burch University. European Journal of Con-
temporary Education, 6(4), 645–655. https://doi.org/10.
13187/ejced.2017.4.645
Busby, N. L. (2018). Comparing first and second language
reading: The use of metacognitive strategies among Norwe-
gian students. Acta Didactica Norge, 12(2), 4–27.
Chen, K. T. C., & Chen, S. C. L. (2015). The use of EFL read-
ing strategies among high school students in Taiwan. The
Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 15(2),
156–166.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantita-
tive, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE.
Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language
learner revisited. Routledge.
El Kouti, M., & Goui, D. (2018). Text structure awareness
impact on ESP learners’ reading comprehension. Lambert
Academic Publishing.
Feller, E., Kopatich, R., Lech, E. F., & Higgs, Y. (2020). Clari-
fying differences between reading skills and reading strate-
gies. The Reading Teacher, 61(5), 364–373. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0022219420932139
Fırat, T., & Koyuncu, I. _ (2023). Examining metacognitive strat-
egy preferences of students at different reading proficiency
levels. International Journal of Psychology and Educational
Studies, 10(1), 224–240. https://doi.org/10.52380/ijpes.2023.
10.1.997
Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from
theory to practice. Cambridge University Press.
Hansen, G. F. (2010). Word recognition in Arabic as a foreign
language. The Modern Language Journal, 94, 567–581.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01094.x
Hong-Nam, K., & Leavell, A. G. (2011). Reading strategy
instruction, metacognitive awareness, and self-attitude of
striving college developmental readers. Journal of College
Literacy and Learning, 37, 3–17. https://doi.org/10.29329/
mjer.2019.218.12
Huang, J., & Newbern, C. (2012). The effects of metacognitive
reading strategy instruction on reading performance of adult
ESL learners with limited English and literacy skills. Journal
of Research and Practice for Adult Literacy, Secondary, and
Basic Education, 1(2), 66–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00220973.2018.1527279
Hudson, T. (2007). Teaching second language reading. Oxford
University Press.
10
Jamalipour, S., & Khomeijani Farahani, A. (2015). The effect
of vocabulary knowledge and background knowledge on
Iranian EFL learners’ L2 reading comprehension. Journal of
Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2(2), 107–121.
https://doi.org/10.17244/eku.319267
Jeevaratnam, J. A., & Stapa, M. (2022). Exploring metacogni-
tive reading strategies used by low and high proficiency
from three ESL students. Journal of Nusantara Studies, 7(1),
335–365. https://doi.org/10.24200/jonus.vol7iss1pp335-365
Kasemsap, B., & Lee, H. Y. H. (2015). L2 reading in Thailand:
Vocational college students’ application of reading strategies
to their reading of English texts. The Reading Matrix: An
International Online Journal, 15(2), 101–117. https://doi.org/
10.1080/2331186X.2017.1411036
Kasim, U., & Raisha, S. (2017). EFL students’ reading compre-
hension problems: Linguistic and non-linguistic complex-
ities. English Education Journal, 8(3), 308–321. https://doi.
org/10.1080/2331186X.2018.1475589
Kung, F.-W. (2019). Teaching second language reading com-
prehension: The effect of classroom materials and reading
strategy use. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching,
13(1), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2017.
1364252
Lin, J. (2019). Factors related to EFL/ESL learners’ reading
strategy use: A literature review. Chinese Journal of Applied
Linguistics,1(42), 91–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0033688205052143
Lin, L., & Yu, W. (2015). A think-aloud study of strategy use
by EFL college readers reading Chinese and English texts.
Journal of Research in Reading, 38(3), 286–306. https://doi.
org/10.1111/1467-9817.12012
Maarof, N., & Yaacob, R. (2011). Meaning making in the first
and second language: Reading strategies of Malaysian stu-
dents. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 12, 211–223.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.02.029
Maniati, M., Haydari, F., & Tazik, I. K. (2022). The effect of
ESP text type on Iranian first-year medical students’ lan-
guage use strategies and test-taking strategies. MEXTESOL
Journal, 46(4), 1–12.
McLeod, B., & McLaughlin, B. (2006). Restructuring or auto-
maticity? Reading in a second language. Language Learning,
36(2), 110–123. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190505000061
Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. (2002). Assessing students’ meta-
cognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 94(2), 249–259. https://doi.org/10.1037//
0022-0663.94.2.249
Mokhtari, K., & Sheorey, R. (2013). Measuring ESL students’
awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Developmental
Education, 25(3), 2–10. https://doi.org/10.29997/35000358
Nash-Ditzel, S. (2010). Metacognitive reading strategies can
improve self-regulation. Journal of College Reading and
Learning, 40(2), 45–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.
2013.819356
Oxford, R. L. (2017). Teaching and researching language learn-
ing strategies. Self-regulation in context. Routledge.
Pammu, A., Sahraeny, S., Nasmilah, N., & Rosmiaty, R.
(2022, April). Applying cultural–based narrative text to
induce metacognitive reading strategies of proficient EFL
learners at English department, Hasanuddin University
SAGE Open
Makassar [Conference session]. 9th Asbam international
conference (archeology, history, & culture in the nature of
Malay) (ASBAM 2021), ASBAM, Malaysia (pp. 447–452).
Atlantis Press.
Polio, C. (2012). How to research second language writing. In
A. Mackey & S. M. Gass (Eds.), Research methods in second
language acquisition: A practical guide (pp. 139–157). Wiley-
Blackwell.
Rezaei, R. (2015). Examining and dealing with the issue of
reading strategy use by Iranian EFL learners. The Reading
Matrix: An International Online Journal, 15(2), 34–66.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jrir.12003
Rezvani, E., & Tavakoli, M. (2013). Investigating Iranian test-
takers’ cognitive and metacognitive strategy use: IELTS
reading section in focus. Middle-East Journal of Scientific
Research, 13(7), 956–962. https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.
mejsr.2013.13.7.3174
Shamsi Nejad, B., & Shahrebabaki, M.M. (2015). Effects of
metacognitive strategy instruction on the reading compre-
hension of English language learners through cognitive aca-
demic language learning approach (CALLA). International
Journal of Languages Education and Teaching, 35(2),
133–164. https://doi.org/10.18298/ijlet.463
Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the meta-
cognitive awareness of reading strategies among native and
non-native readers. System, 29, 431–449. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0346-251X(01)00039-2
Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2008). Introduction. In K. Mokh-
tari & R. Sheorey (Eds.), Reading strategies of first-and-
second language learners: See how they read (pp. 1–10). Row-
man & Littlefield Publishers.
Sidek, R., & Rahim, T. E. (2015), EFL reading instruction:
Communicative task-based approach. International Journal
of Instruction, 5(2), 109–128. https://doi.org/10.2307/
3586670
Soozanchi Kashani, E. (2021). Scientific life. Rasa Publication.
Taghizadeh, D., & Khalili, T. (2019). The relationship between
reading self-efficacy beliefs, reading strategy use and reading
comprehension level of Iranian EFL learners. World Journal
of Education, 2(2), 64–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.
2011.640097
Taylor, A., Stevens, J. R., & Asher, J. W. (2006). The effects of
explicit reading strategy training on L2 reading comprehen-
sion: A meta-analysis. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.),
Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching
(pp. 213–244). John Benjamins.
Thomas, N., & Rose, H. L. (2018). Do language learning stra-
tegies need to be self-directed? Disentangling strategies from
self-regulated learning. TESOL Quarterly,53(1), 248–257.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.473
Tsai, Y.-R., Ernst, C., & Talley, P. (2010). L1 and L2 strategy
use in reading comprehension of Chinese EFL readers.
Reading Psychology, 31, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02702710802412081.
Wallace, C. (2007). Vocabulary: The key to teaching English
language learners to read. Reading Improvement, 44(A),
189–193. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587625
Wegmann, B., & Knezevic, M. (2013). Mosaic 1 reading (6th
ed.). McGraw-Hill Contemporary.
Nilforoushan et al.
Yapp, D., de Graaff, R., & van den Bergh, H. (2021). Effects
of reading strategy instruction in English as a second lan-
guage on students’ academic reading comprehension. Lan-
guage Teaching Research, 3(5), 47–69. https://doi.org/10.
1080/03004279.2013.783875
Yoshikawa, L., & Leung, C. Y. (2020). Transitional shift of
metacognitive awareness of reading strategy along with L2-
English reading proficiency. The Reading Matrix: An
11
International Online Journal, 20(1), 36–44. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0033688205052143
Zhang, L., & Seepho, S. (2013). Metacognitive strategy use
and academic reading achievement: Insights from a Chi-
nese context. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language
Teaching, 10(1), 54–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.
2018.1475589