1. 1University of Aizu, Graduation Thesis. March, 2013 s1170044
Abstract
Efficient use of cognitive and metacognitive
reading strategies is important indicators of active
learning outcomes. These strategies suggest the
efficacy with which content is construed and
outcomes are reached. Efficient use of these
strategies are extremely important in an EFL context
where the language proficiency is low, and ability for
content comprehension in the target language is
minimal to moderate at best. This article discussed a
specific case study in this Japanese computer science
context where readers were asked to comprehend the
content in an English tourism website. This article
documents the self-reported use of reading strategies
used by participants while making an attempt to
understand the content of the English website.
Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies
Inventory Questionnaire (MARSI) was used for the
purpose of understanding readers’ preferential use of
reading strategies and what it means for content
accuracy. The self-reported use of strategies was
classified into three groups: Global Reading
Strategies, Problem-solving Strategies and Support
Reading Strategies. Results for mean values on an
average show that most strategies in GLOB and
PROB categories have been used consistently at a
higher level when compared to strategies in SUP
section. The findings are consistent with the literature
suggesting that readers with low reading ability (e.g.,
as in this EFL context as reported in the experiment)
attached lower importance to support reading
strategies when compared to L1 readers [1].
1 Introduction
The literature is rich in suggesting how EFL
readers strategize towards reading, conceiving,
selecting, comprehending, and recalling online
information for target language learning or other
similar purposes. Reading strategies are an indicator of
how a task is conceived, the textual cues attended
during reading, how a text is perceived and sensed,
and how a non-comprehensible piece of text is
understood [2]. Research on second language reading
and comprehension might be a little different from
foreign language comprehension context, but the
overall use of reading strategies and its relation to
successful and unsuccessful second language reading
have wider implications and results in our
understanding of reading approaches in an EFL
context [3][4].
Research in a native context with much higher English
reading and comprehension ability, when compared
with ESL students displayed conscious awareness of
all metacognitive reading strategies commonly used.
Further, readers in both contexts attribute similar
levels of importance to the reading strategies used.
These strategies are cognitive strategies (the deliberate
actions readers take when comprehension problems
develop), followed by metacognitive strategies
(advanced planning and comprehension monitoring
techniques), and support strategies (the tools readers
seek out to aid comprehension). Further, both L1 and
ESL readers demonstrated similar used of cognitive
and metacognitive reading strategies when compared
to EFL readers. Besides, readers with low reading
ability (close to being called EFL students) attached
lower importance to support reading strategies when
compared to L1 readers [1].
The major purpose of this study is to briefly report on
how EFL readers comprehend website information in
the target language, reporting on the design of the
website in their own words, and then answering a
questionnaire wherein they identify diverse
information that is available in the website but could
be accessed through proper navigation.
So, the major research question for this study that one
needs to ask is as follows.
 What kind of cognitive, metacognitive and support
reading strategies have been used, as self-reported
by the reader in an EFL context when accessing a
webpage in English for information comprehension,
navigation and understanding how the website is
designed?
 To what extent have these strategies been used?
 Is there any significant correlation between scores
on website information comprehension and use of
self-reported strategies or there is no pattern to
suggest how a strategy influenced performance on
website information comprehension?
Metacognitive Reading Strategies for Website Analysis
in an EFL Context
Masaya Watanabe s1170044 Supervised by Prof. Debopriyo Roy

2. 2University of Aizu, Graduation Thesis. March, 2013 s1170044
 Is there any pattern (or significant correlation) to
suggest that a person who used a specific strategy
also used other strategies to a similar extent?
 Is there any significant difference in the self-
reported scores within global, problem solving and
support reading strategies?
This study reports results from an experimental
analysis, wherein different cognitive, metacognitive
and support reading strategies have been used
towards web analysis and web information
comprehension from an English travel website.
2. A Review of the Literature
Recent research on L2 learning strategies has
largely focused on language learners' metacognitive
knowledge or awareness of strategies. The study found
that in China, EFL readers’ metacognitive knowledge
of reading strategies had close links to their EFL
proficiency [5]. However, some studies have de-
emphasized the importance of metacognitive reading
strategies. The results of the investigation on reading
strategies and extensive reading of EFL students
indicate that reading a lot in both L1 and L2/EFL
becomes basically the most important factor for
improving reading skills rather than just teaching
reading strategies. Extensive reading gives learners
rich background knowledge, vocabulary recognition, a
high motivation for more reading, and becomes the
basic skill of rapid reading, discovery of reading
strategies by learners themselves, and increases
guessing ability in context [6].
Understanding cognitive and metacognitive reading
strategies in a web-based EFL reading context is
important for judging how readers might have
approached the task of website reading and analysis.
Brown (1994) defines cognitive strategies (e.g.,
bottom-up and top-down) as specific learning tasks
and is used to help an individual achieve a particular
goal (for example, understanding a text) [7].
Goodman, K (1998), refers to the bottom up model as
the 'common sense' notion [8]. In this approach,
reading is meant to be a process of decoding;
identifying letter, words, phrases and then sentences in
order to get the meaning. On the other hand, Carrell
(1998) stated that, reading process as “an active
psychological guessing game [9]. Top down rejects the
notion that identification of letters to form words, and
the derivation of meaning from these words is efficient
reading. On the contrary, it is assumed that efficient
reading requires the readers to make predictions and
hypotheses about the text content by relating the new
information to their prior knowledge and by using as
few language clues as possible. Both bottom-up and
top-down theories formed the models of reading, and
are important for web-based language learning in an
EFL context.
Metacognitive reading strategies in an EFL context
clearly have shown that strategies like skimming and
scanning often are practiced for extracting the required
information [10], without a deeper-level analysis.
Further, research projects observed learner-task-
dictionary interactions and suggested the importance
of learners’ interactions while carrying out specific
language learning tasks [11]. A different research on
the use of metacognitive reading strategy shows those
participants who received training and/or read the text
with headings remembered text topics and their
organization better than participants who received no
training and read the text without headings [12].
Analysis of time data showed that participants with
headings spent more time per word reading the pages
with headings than participants who did not have
headings [13].
3. Method
Sample and Context: Participants (N=59) are
junior level students (age group: 18-20 years) in their
third year undergraduate program specializing in
computer science in a Japanese technical university.
For the purpose of closely observing the participants
over a prolonged period of time and reporting on their
activities, we felt that this sample size represented
sizes commonly used in usability tests. Students at this
university are required to take 15 credits of
undergraduate English in order to graduate with a
computer science major. At the time when students
took this course, they already had passing grades or
better in several English courses offered during the
first two years of their program. With this specific
elective course named Writing and Design for World
Wide Web, students mostly focused on the process of
online writing, designing and analyzing websites based
on design principles, besides designing concept maps
on websites they analyzed.
Japanese Context: Detailed class observations at this
university over a period of time and across student
bodies have shown extensive use of metacognitive
reading strategies like skimming, scanning, reading
headlines, using dictionaries, translation etc in

3. 3University of Aizu, Graduation Thesis. March, 2013 s1170044
analyzing technical texts in an EFL context and results
have shown superficial and often surface level ability
to comprehend, analyze and write about a technical
text [14] and similar results were observed in other
EFL situations [15].
Stages of the experiment:
1st Week: During the 1st week of the actual
experiment, students (N = 59) analyzed the Belize
tourism website based on the 8 open-ended questions
asked during the same assignment that happened over
the previous weeks (but with different websites each
week) as reported above.
Second Week:
1st
Stage: During the 2nd week, readers (N = 59) were
given a set of questionnaires to answer on the same
Belize tourism website. The websites focused on three
different aspects related to information comprehension
and online reading strategies for an EFL context. The
questionnaires focused on three different aspects.
 Their ability to navigate through and look for
information from the website.
 Their ability to meaningfully self-report on the
usability of the website in terms of navigation,
content, and organization.
 Their ability to meaningfully self-report on their
reading strategies when analyzing the Belize
tourism website.
The website information comprehension with the
above-mentioned focus was completed in class.
Results on the website information comprehension
questionnaire are beyond the scope of this study.
2nd
Stage: During this stage, participants completed
three usability questionnaires of their impression about
the website, how it helps with navigation, information
search, learning, etc.
Self-Reporting of Reading Strategies (Final Stage):
This article will specifically focus on the self-reported
use of cognitive, metacognitive and support reading
strategies, and a summary report explaining the extent
to which readers were able to complete the website
design and comprehend the website information.
3.1 Instruments
The purpose during the final stage was to ascertain to
what extent these EFL readers are aware of their
metacognitive reading strategies on the web, while
analyzing a website in the target language. This study
is exploratory to some extent because this MARSI 1.0
questionnaire has never before being used for
understanding metacognitive use of reading strategies
for a web analysis context in an EFL setting. Students
self-reported on the degree and extent to which various
reading strategies were used. Questions related to the
different strategies as mentioned in the questionnaire
were in three different groups:
· Global Reading Strategies (GLOB)
· Problem Solving Strategies (PROB)
· Support Reading Strategies (SUP)
This questionnaire session went on as in-class activity
and three undergraduate students closely watched
readers as they completed the assigned activities. As
part of an earlier pilot study (not reported in this
article) with the same questionnaire, three graduate
students took part in actively translating the
questionnaires in Japanese, explained the class about
the activity in Japanese, and also completed an
observation checklist explaining how readers
approached the task of completing the questionnaires.
Three coders were used for recording the participant
choices from the Likert scale in a range of 1 – 5, as
used in the Metacognitive Awareness of Reading
Strategies Inventory (MARSI. Version 1.0)
questionnaire; 1 suggesting a minimal use of the given
strategy and 5 indicating the highest and probably
according to the reader the most successful use of the
reading strategy.
4. Results
The following section provides an in-depth summary
of how the different metacognitive reading strategies
were used when analyzing websites in the target
language. Table 1 shows the mean and standard
deviation of the self-reported scores suggesting the
extent to which each of the 13 approaches under
“global reading strategies” was adopted. Results
indicate that the mean varied between 2.5 and 3.8 on
an average across all global reading strategies, with
most scores in the range of 2.5 and 3.5. The “GLOB”
reading strategy mean score for 13 questions is 3.024.
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics on Self-Reported
Use of Global Reading Strategies
Question Mean Std.Deviation
1 3.83 1.101
3 3.54 1.039
4 2.14 1.137
7 3.42 1.276
10 2.76 1.278
14 2.95 1.265

4. 4University of Aizu, Graduation Thesis. March, 2013 s1170044
17 3.31 1.221
19 3.71 1.018
22 2.36 1.399
23 2.36 1.228
25 3.39 1.099
26 2.95 1.181
29 2.56 1.249
Table 2 provides the self-reported scores on the use of
7 problem-solving strategies during website analysis in
the target language. For question # 13, we see a high
self-reported mean score of 4.08 suggesting it to be a
popular strategy (I adjust my reading speed according
to what I am reading). The “PROB” reading strategy
mean score for 8 questions is 3.574.
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics on Self-Reported
Use of Problem Solving Strategies
Question Mean Std.Deviation
8 3.71 1.099
11 3.2 1.27
13 4.08 .915
16 3.64 1.095
18 3.54 1.056
21 3.14 1.358
27 3.83 1.101
30 3.44 1.134
Table 3 provides the self-reported score on the use of 5
support reading strategies during English website
analysis as reported in the experiment undertaken. In
most cases we see a self-reported score of less than or
around 2.5. The “SUP” reading strategy mean score
for 9 questions is 2.762.
Table 3: Descriptive Statistics on Self-Reported
Use of Support Reading Strategies
Question Mean Std.Deviation
2 2.39 1.287
5 2.31 1.329
6 3.05 1.292
9 2.69 1.368
12 2.66 1.527
15 3.14 1.332
20 3.24 1.278
24 3.34 1.124
28 2.05 1.09
Figure 1 shows a line diagram showing comparative
mean scores on all the 3 subscales. This data shows a
relatively wider use and acceptability of the PROB
metacognitive reading strategy with an overall mean
value of more than 3.5.
Figure 1: Line Diagram Showing Comparative
Mean Scores on all 3 Subscales
Data in Figure 2 shows a relatively wide variability
among the self-reported use and acceptability of the
GLOB reading strategies, with question 1 (I have a
purpose in mind when I read) and 19 (I use context
cues to help me better understand what I am reading)
showing relatively higher values.
Data in Figure 3 for problem-solving strategies show a
relatively lesser variability in self-reported scores with
all scores above 3.0, showing relatively more
acceptability and use of problem-solving strategies on
an average.
Figure 2: Line Diagram Showing Comparative
Mean Scores on Global Reading Strategies
Figure 3: Line Diagram Showing Comparative
Mean Scores on Problem Solving Strategies
0
1
2
3
4
GLOB PLOB SUP
MeanValueineach
subscale
Subscale Type
0
2
4
6
1 3 4 7 101417192223252629
MeanValue
Question in GLOB Subscale
0
2
4
6
8 11 13 16 18 21 27 30
MeanValue
Question in PROB Subscale

5. 5University of Aizu, Graduation Thesis. March, 2013 s1170044
Figure 4 shows that all the mean scores on support
reading strategies are around 3.0 with one strategy
showing as little as 2.05 (I ask myself questions I liked
to have answered in the text) and is the minimum for
all strategies combined.
Figure 4: Line Diagram Showing Comparative
Mean Scores on Support Reading Strategies
Pearson correlation results show a strong pattern
between the reported use of different strategies in
GLOB, PROB and SUP categories. More importantly,
a significant correlation is visible across GLOB,
PROB and SUP categories suggesting similar use of
different strategies across the spectrum.
Data also shows a large number of significant
correlations involving each approach (question). This
data will give us an indication of the extent to which
each strategy usage as reported, were found to be
similar in usage to another strategy, across GLOB,
PROB, and SUP approaches.
Another important research question that needed to be
explored in this context is whether there is any
statistically significant correlation between website
Information Comprehension Scores and self-Reported
scores on Different Reading Strategies.
Table 4: Significant Correlation between Website
Information Comprehension Accuracy Score and
Metacognitive Reading Strategies
Correlation
Between
Pearson Correlation
Value
Sig. (2 –
tailed)
Q 16 ~ Q 9 .279 * .032
Q19 ~ Q5 -.271 * .038
Q20 ~ Q8 .345 ** .007
Data suggested that in most cases, there is not
much of a pattern when it comes to inferring a direct
relation between accuracy scores and metacognitive
reading strategy, suggesting the use of reading
strategies might be generally contextual and something
that readers prefers to use/practice. However, some
statistically significant results were obtained. These are
as shown in Table 4.
The Friedman non-parametric statistical analysis
was performed to find out if there is an overall
statistically significant difference between the mean
ranks of the related reading strategies. This test tells us
whether there are overall differences between related
reading strategies but does not pinpoint which
strategies in particular differ from each other. To do
this we need to run post-hoc tests, but post-hoc
analysis was not considered as part of this study. Data
shows us a Friedman analysis for all 3 sub-scales
(GLOB, PROB, and SUP) combined.
Null Hypothesis: Mean Ranks for all the reading
strategies are equal;
Alternative Hypothesis: Not all the mean ranks are
equal.
Results suggest that there was a statistically
significant difference in perceived use of reading
strategies for all the three sub-scales combined,
depending on which type of strategy was used while
analyzing the English website, χ2
(2) = 382.491, P =
0.000. Since p-value = 0.00 ≤ 0.01 = α, we reject the
null hypothesis.
Friedman Test values for the GLOB subscale
suggest that there was a statistically significant
difference in perceived use of reading strategies within
the GLOB subscale, depending on which type of
strategy was used while analyzing the English
website, χ2
(2) = 165.016, P = 0.000. Since p-value =
0.00 ≤ 0.01 = α, we reject the null hypothesis. Data
shows the Friedman Test values for exclusively the
PROB subscale. Results suggest that there was a
statistically significant difference in perceived use of
reading strategies within the PROB subscale,
depending on which type of strategy was used while
analyzing the English website, χ2
(2) = 38.308, P =
0.000. Since p-value = 0.00 ≤ 0.01 = α, we reject the
null hypothesis. Finally, data shows the Friedman Test
values for exclusively the SUP subscale. Results
suggest that there was a statistically significant
difference in perceived use of reading strategies within
the SUP subscale, depending on which type of strategy
was used while analyzing the English website, χ2
(2) =
67.819, P = 0.000. Since p-value = 0.00 ≤ 0.01 = α, we
reject the null hypothesis.
0
1
2
3
4
2 5 6 9 12 15 20 24 28
MeanValue
Question in SUP Subscale

6. 6University of Aizu, Graduation Thesis. March, 2013 s1170044
5. Discussion
Overall results suggest relatively higher levels of
agreement with the statement that the strategies have
been used in more cases than not. However, mean
values on an average show that most strategies in
GLOB and PROB categories have been used
consistently at a higher level when compared to
strategies in SUP section. These findings are consistent
with the literature suggesting that readers with low
reading ability (e.g., as in this EFL context as reported
in the experiment) attached lower importance to
support reading strategies when compared to L1
readers [1].
6. Conclusion
Future studies could be designed to map metacognitive
awareness of reading strategies with actual use of
reading strategies using screen capture software, eye-
tracking data and formal usability testing methods
which forwards direct evidence of how each reading
strategy might have been used. However, some of it
will still be an inference because mental information
processing might not always have direct action
evidence in terms of interaction with the software or
website. However, it might still be a worthwhile study
to conclude.
This study helped in forwarding direct evidence of
how far readers are aware of their use of
metacognitive reading strategies. The fact that this
MARSI questionnaire was filled out right after their
working with the website provided more reliability
because chances are higher that students remembered
what they exactly did when interacting with the
website. Further, separate findings related to GLOB,
PROB and SUP subscales helped us understand how
these reading strategies differ from each other and
how important they are for the reader in a
comparative scale.
7. References
[1] Sheorey and Mokhtari, “Differences in the
metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among
native and non-native readers”, System, Vol. 29, Issue
4, Dec. 2001, pp. 431–449
[2] Ellen Block, “The Comprehension Strategies of
Second Language Readers”, TESOL Quarterly, Vol.
20, Issue 3, Sep. 1986, pp. 463–494
[3] Hosenfeld, Carol, “A Preliminary Investigation of
the Reading Strategies of Successful and
Nonsuccessful Second Language Learners”, System,
Vol. 5, No. 2, May 1977, p110-123
[4] Jimenez, Garcia, & Pearson, “Three Children, Two
Languages, and Strategic Reading: Case Studies in
Bilingual/Monolingual Reading”, American
Educational Research Journal, Vol. 32, No. 1, Mar.
1995, pp. 67-97
[5] Lawrence Jun Zhang, “Effects of task complexity
on the fluency and lexical complexity in EFL students’
argumentative writing”, Journal of Second Language
Writing, Vol. 19, Issue 4, Dec. 2010, pp. 218–233
[6] Chiyo Hayashi, “Extensive Reading and Intrinsic
Motivation to Read”. [Online]
http://ci.nii.ac.jp/els/110009458392.pdf?id=ART00099
29130&type=pdf&lang=jp&host=cinii&order_no=&p
pv_type=0&lang_sw=&no=1357625555&cp=
[7] John Seely Brown, “Situated Cognition”,
Perspectives on Situated Learning, Educational
Technology; spring 1994.
[8] Kenneth S. Goodman,Yetta M. Goodman, “To Err
Is Human: Learning about Language Processes by
Analyzing Miscues,”Reconsidering a Balanced
Approach to Reading, Constance Weaver (ed.), Urbana,
IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1998, pp.
101-123.
[9] Patricia L. Carrell, "Metacognition and EFL/ESL
reading", Instructional Science March 1998, Volume
26, Issue 1-2, pp 97-112
[10] Nebila Dhieb-Henia, “Evaluating the
effectiveness of metacognitive strategy training for
reading research articles in an ESP context”, English
for Specific Purposes, Vol. 22, Issue 4, 2003, pp. 387-
417
[11] Marie-Josée Hamel & Catherine Caws, “Usability
Tests in CALL Development: Pilot Studies in the
Context of the Dire autrement and Francotoile
Projects”, CALIC Journal, Vol 27, No. 3, May 2010,
pp. 491-504
[12] Sanchez and colleagues. (2001). Effects of
headings on text processing strategies. Contemporary
Educational Psychology. v26. 418-428.
[13] John R. Surber & Mark Schroeder, “Effect of
prior domain knowledge and headings on processing
of informative text”, Contemporary Educational
Psychology, Vol. 32, Issue 3, Jul. 2007, pp. 485-498
[14] Debopriyo Roy, “Reading strategies for
procedural information in EFL business writing
environment: An exploratory analysis”, Professional
Communication Conference (IPCC), 2010 IEEE
International, Jul. 2010, pp. 143- 151
[15] Maghsudi, M., and Talebi, S. H. “The Impact of
Lingualuity on the Cognitive and Metacognitive
Reading Strategies Awareness and Reading
Comprehension Ability”, Journal of Social Sciences,
18 (2), 2009, pp. 119-126