Reading Comprehension and Strategy Use



This chapter focuses on reading comprehension and strategy use. The first part defines reading comprehension based on extant voluminous literature. Relevant reading models are then reviewed and discussed. Next, relevant empirical studies on reading comprehension and strategy use are introduced. Theory of metacognition and its application to reading comprehension are presented first, followed by studies on the relationship between strategy use and language performance, test-taking strategies, gender differences in strategy use and language performance, and Chinese college students’ strategy use and language performance. On this basis, hypothesized models are postulated for testing and investigation in the following parts of the study.


  1. Adam, M. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Adam, B., Bell, L., & Perfetti, C. (1995). A trading relationship between reading skill and domain knowledge in children’s text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 20, 307–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adolf, S. M., Catts, H. W., & Little, T. (2006). Should the simple view of reading include a fluency component? Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 19, 933–958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alderson, J. C. (1993). The relationship between grammar and reading in an English for Academic purposes test battery. In D. Douglas & C. Chapelle (Eds.), A new decade of language testing research: Selected papers from the 1990 language testing research colloquium (pp. 203–219). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.Google Scholar
  5. Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Allan, A. (1992). Development and validation of a scale to measure test-wiseness in EFL/ESL reading test takers. Language Testing, 9(2), 101–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Anderson, T. H. (1979). Study skills and learning strategies. In H. E. O’Neil Jr. & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Cognitive and affective learning strategies (pp. 78–99). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  8. Anderson, N. J. (1989). Reading comprehension tests versus academic reading: What are second language readers doing? Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
  9. Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing. Modern Language Journal, 75, 460–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Anderson, N. J. (2005). L2 learning strategies. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 757–771). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Anderson, N. J., Bachman, L., Perkins, K., & Cohen, A. (1991). An exploratory study into the construct validity of a reading comprehension test: Triangulation of data sources. Language Testing, 8(1), 41–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Anderson, P. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schematic-theoretic view of basic processes in reading. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 255–292). White Plains, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  13. Aryadoust, V., Goh, C., & Lee, O. K. (2011). An investigation of differential item functioning in the MELAB listening test. Language Assessment Quarterly, 8(4), 361–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental consideration in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Bachman, L. F., Crushing, S. T., & Purpura, J. E. (1993). Development of a questionnaire item bank to explore test-taker characteristics (Interim Report submitted to University of Cambridge Local Examination Syndicate). Cambridge: UCLES.Google Scholar
  16. Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (2010). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Baker, L. (1991). Metacognition, reading and science education. In C. M. Santa & D. E. Alvermann (Eds.), Science learning (pp. 2–13). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  19. Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of research in reading (pp. 353–394). White Plains, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  20. Barnett, M. A. (1989). More than meets the eye. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  21. Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Block, E. (1986). The comprehension strategies of second language readers. TESOL Quarterly, 20(3), 463–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Block, E. (1992). See how they read: Comprehension monitoring of L1 and L2 readers. TESOL Quarterly, 26(2), 319–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Brown, A. L. (1980). Metacognitive development and reading. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension: Perspectives from psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence and education (pp. 453–482). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Brown, A. L., Armbruster, B., & Baker, L. (1986). The role of metacognition in reading and studying. In J. Orasanu (Ed.), Reading comprehension: From research to practice (pp. 49–76). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. Brown, A. L., Bransford, J. D., Ferrara, R., & Campione, J. C. (1983). Learning, remembering, and understanding. In L. H. Flavell & E. M. Markman (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (pp. 77–106). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  27. Buck, G., Tatsuoka, K. K., & Kostin, I. (1997). The subskills of reading: Rule-space analysis of a multiple-choice test of second language reading comprehension. Language Learning, 47, 423–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Bügel, K., & Buunk, B.P. (1996). Sex differences in foreign language text comprehension: The role of interests and prior knowledge. Modern Language Journal, 80(1), 15–31.Google Scholar
  29. Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P. (2004). Children’s reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 31–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Carrell, P. L. (1989a). SLA and classroom instruction: Reading. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 9, 223–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Carrell, P. L. (1989b). Metacognitive awareness and second language reading. Modern Language Journal, 73(2), 121–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher’s course. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.Google Scholar
  33. Chapelle, C., Grabe, W., & Berns, M. (1997). Communicative language proficiency: Definitions and implications for TOEFL 2000. TOEFL Monograph Series No. 10. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  34. Chen, R. S., & Vellutino, F. R. (1997). Prediction of reading ability: A cross-validation study of the simple view of reading. Journal of Literacy Research, 29, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Chiu, M. M., & McBride-Chang, C. (2006). Gender, context, and reading: A comparison of students in 43 countries. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(4), 331–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Coady, J. (1979). A psycholinguistic model for the ESL reader. In R. MacKay, B. Barkman, & R. R. Jordan (Eds.), Reading in a second language: Hypothesis, organization and practice (pp. 5–12). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  37. Cohen, A. D. (1984). On taking language tests: What the students report. Language Testing, 1(1), 70–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Cohen, A. D. (1990). Language learning: Insights for learners, teachers, and researchers. New York: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  39. Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies and process in test taking and SLA. In L. F. Bachman & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Interface between second language acquisition and language testing research (pp. 90–111). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Cohen, A. D. (2006). The coming age of research on test-taking strategies. Language Assessment Quarterly, 3(4), 307–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Cohen, A. D. (2013). Using test-wiseness strategy research in task development. In A. J. Kunnan (Ed.), The companion to language assessment (pp. 893–905). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley/ Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Cohen, A. D., & Aphek, E. (1979). Easifying second language learning. Research report under the auspices of Brandeis University and submitted to the Jacob Hiatt Institute, Jerusalem. ERIC Document ED 163753.Google Scholar
  43. Cohen, A. D., & Upton, T. A. (2006). Strategies in responding to the new TOEFL reading tasks (Monograph No. 33). Princeton, NJ: ETS. Retrieved from
  44. Davis, A. (1968). Language testing symposium: A psycholinguistic approach. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Educational Testing Service. (2002). LanguEdge Courseware: Handbook for scoring speaking and writing. Princeton, NJ: Author.Google Scholar
  47. Enright, M., Bridgemann, B., Cline, M., Eignor, D., Lee, Y.-W., & Powers, D. (2002). Evaluating measures of communicative language abilities. Paper presented at the annual TESOL Convention. Salt Lake City, UT.Google Scholar
  48. Ericsson, K. A. (2002). Toward a procedure for eliciting verbal expression of nonverbal experience without reactivity: Interpreting the verbal overshadowing effect within the theoretical framework for protocol analysis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 981–987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Farr, R., Pritchard, R., & Smitten, B. (1990). A description of what happens when an examinee takes a multiple-choice reading comprehension test. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27(3), 209–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34,(10), 906–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Flavell, J. H., Miller, P. H., & Miller, S. A. (2002). Cognitive development (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  52. Fransson, A. (1984). Cramming or understanding? Effects of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on approach to learning and test performance. In J. C. Alderson & A. H. Urquhart (Eds.), Reading in a foreign language (pp. 86–121). London: Longman.Google Scholar
  53. Frederiksen, C. H. (1977). Structure and process in discourse production and comprehension. In P. A. Carpenter & M. A. Just (Eds.), Cognitive processes in comprehension (pp. 313–322). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  54. Gagnè, E. D., Yekovich, C. W., & Yekovich, F. R. (1993). The cognitive psychology of school learning. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  55. Gan, Z., Humphreys, G., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (2004). Understanding successful and unsuccessful EFL students in Chinese universities. Modern Language Journal, 88, 229–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  57. Goh, C. (1998). How learners with different listening abilities use comprehension strategies and tactics. Language Teaching Research, 2, 124–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Goh, C. (2008). Metacognitive instruction for second language listening development: Theory, practice and research implications. RELC Journal, 39(2), 188–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Goh, C. M. C., & Zhang, L. M. (2013). Metacognitive theory and research in second language listening and reading: A comparative critical review. Contemporary Foreign Language Studies, 396(12), 94–110.Google Scholar
  60. Goodman, K. S. (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the Reading Specialist, 6, 126–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Goodman, K. S. (1986). What’s whole in whole language. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books.Google Scholar
  62. Goodman, K. S. (1994). Reading, writing, and written texts: A transactional sociolinguistic view. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 1093–1130). Newark: The International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  63. Goodman, K. S. (1996). On reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  64. Gordon, C. (1987). The effect of testing method on achievement in reading comprehension tests in English as a foreign language. Unpublished Master’s thesis, School of Education, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.Google Scholar
  65. Gough, P. B. (1972). One second of reading. In J. F. Kavanagh & I. G. Mattingly (Eds.), Language by ear and by eye. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  66. Gough, P., Hoover, W., & Peterson, C. (1996). Some observations on a simple view of reading. In C. Cornoldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties (pp. 1–13). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  67. Gough, P., Juel, C., & Griffith, P. (1992). Reading, spelling, and the orthographic cipher. In P. Gough, L. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 35–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  68. Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Gough, P., & Wren, S. (1999). Constructing meaning: The role of decoding. In J. Oakhill & R. Beard (Eds.), Reading development and the teaching of reading (pp. 59–78). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  70. Grabe, W. (1991). Current development in second language reading research. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 375–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Grabe, W. (2000). Reading research and its implications for reading assessment. In A. J. Kunnan (Ed.), Fairness and validation in language assessment (pp. 226–262). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Green, J. M., & Oxford, R. (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 261–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Griffin, R., MacKewn, A., Moster, E., & Van Vuren, K. (2012). Do learning and study skills affect academic performance? An empirical investigation. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 5(2), 109–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Gu, Y., & Johnson, R. K. (1996). Vocabulary learning strategies and language learning outcomes. Language Learning, 46(4), 643–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  77. Hinofotis, F. B. (1980). Cloze as an alternative method of ESL placement and proficiency testing. In J. W. Oller & K. Perkins (Eds.), Research in language testing (pp. 121–128). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  78. Homberg, T. J., & Spaan, M. C. (1981). ESL Reading proficiency assessment: Testing strategies. In M. Hines & W. Rutherford (Eds.), On TESOL’81 (pp. 25–33). Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
  79. Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Hoover, W. A., & Tunmer, W. E. (1993). The components of reading. In G. G. Thompson, W. E. Tunmer, & T. Nicholson (Eds.), Reading acquisition processes (pp. 1–19). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  81. Hudson, T. (2007). Teaching second language reading. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  82. In’nami, Y., & Koizumi, R. (2011). Factor structure of the revised TOEIC® test: A multiple-sample analysis. Language Testing, 29(1), 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Jacobs, J. E., & Paris, S. G. (1987). Children’s metacognition about reading: Issues in definition, measurement, and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22, 255–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Johnson, P., & Afflerbach, P. (1985). The process of constructing main ideas from text. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 207–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Juel, C., Griffith, P. L., & Gough, P. B. (1986). Acquisition of literacy: A longitudinal study of children in first and second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 243–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Kern, R. G. (1989). Second language reading strategy instruction: Its effects on comprehension and word inference ability. Modern Language Journal, 73(2), 135–149.Google Scholar
  87. Kintsch, W. (1988). The use of knowledge in discourse processing: A construction–integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  89. Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Koda, K. (2005). Insights into second language reading. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Koda, K. (2007). Reading and language learning: Crosslinguistic constraints on second language reading development. In K. Koda (Ed.), Reading and language learning (pp. 1–44). Special issue of Language Learning Supplement, 57, 1–44.Google Scholar
  92. Kunnan, A. J. (1990). DIF in native language and gender groups in an ESL placement test. TESOL Quarterly, 24(4), 741–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Kunnan, A. J. (1998). An introduction to structural equation modeling for language assessment research. Language Testing, 15(3), 295–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing. Cognitive Psychology, 6(2), 293–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Logan, S., & Johnson, R. S. (2009). Gender differences in reading: Examining where these differences lie. Journal of Research in Reading, 32(2), 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Logan, S., & Johnson, R. S. (2010). Investigating gender differences in reading. Educational Review, 62(2), 175–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Logan, S., & Medford, E. (2011). Gender differences in the strength of association between motivation, competency beliefs, and reading skill. Educational Research, 53(1), 85–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Long, D. L., Johns, C. L., & Morris, P. E. (2006). Comprehension ability in mature readers. In M. J. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (2nd ed., pp. 801–834). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Lunzer, E., Waite, M., & Dolan, T. (1979). Comprehension and comprehension test. In E. Lunzer & K. Gardner (Eds.), The effective use of reading (pp. 37–71). London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.Google Scholar
  100. Lynch, B., & Hudson, T. (1991). EST reading. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (2nd ed., pp. 216–232). Boston: Heinle and Heinle.Google Scholar
  101. Macaro, E., & Erler, L. (2008). Raising the achievement of young-beginner readers of French through strategy instruction. Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 90–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. MacLean, M., & d’Anglejan, A. (1986). Rational cloze and retrospection: Insights into first and second language reading comprehension. Canadian Modern Language Review, 42(4), 814–826.Google Scholar
  103. Markham, P. L. (1985). The rational deletion cloze and global comprehension in German. Language Learning, 35, 423–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. McGeown, S., Goodwin, H., Henderson, N., & Wright, P. (2012). Gender differences in reading motivation: Does sex or gender identity provide a better account? Journal of Research in Reading, 35(3), 328–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 13–103). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  107. Moe, A. J., & Irwin, J. W. (1986). Cohesion, coherence, and comprehension. In J. W. Irwin (Ed.), Understanding and teaching cohesion comprehension. International Reading Assoc: Delaware.Google Scholar
  108. Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Mokhtari, K., & Sheorey, R. (2002). Measuring ESL students’ awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Development Education, 25, 2–10.Google Scholar
  110. Mokhtari, K., Sheorey, R., & Reichard, C. A. (2008). Measuring the reading strategies of first and second language readers. In K. Mokhtari & R. Sheorey (Eds.), Reading strategies of first- and second language learners. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers.Google Scholar
  111. Munby, J. (1978). Communicative syllabus design. Cambridge: Cambridge University.Google Scholar
  112. Myers, M., & Paris, S. (1978). Children’s metacognitive knowledge about reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 680–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Nagy, W. (2007). Metalinguistic awareness and the vocabulary-comprehension connection. In R. Wagner, A. Muse, & K. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Vocabulary acquisition: Implication for reading comprehension (pp. 52–77). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  114. National Assessment Governing Board. (2008). Reading framework for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: NAGB.Google Scholar
  115. National College English Testing Committee. (2006). CET-4 test syllabus and sample test paper (2006 revised version). Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.Google Scholar
  116. Nevo, N. (1989). Test-taking strategies on a multiple-choice test of reading comprehension. Language Testing, 6, 199–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Oller, J. (1979). Language tests at school: A pragmatic approach. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  119. Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New York: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  120. Oxford, R., & Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables affecting choice of language learning strategies by university students. Modern Language Journal, 73, 292–300.Google Scholar
  121. Oxford, R., Park-Oh, Y., Ito, I., & Sumrall, M. (1993). Learning a language by satellite: What influences achievement. System, 21, 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Paris, S. G., & Flukes, J. (2005). Assessing children’s metacognition about strategic reading. In S. E. Israel, C. C. Block, K. L. Bauserman, & K. Kinnucan Welsh (Eds.), Metacognition in literacy learning: Theory, assessment, instruction, and professional development (pp. 121–139). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  123. Paris, S. G., & Hamilton, E. E. (2009). The development of children’s reading comprehension. In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 32–53). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  124. Paris, S. G., & Jacobs, J. (1984). The benefits of informed instruction for children’s reading awareness and comprehension skills. Child Development, 55, 2083–2093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 239–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Paris, S. G., & Myers, M. (1981). Comprehension monitoring, memory and study strategies of good and poor readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 13, 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Paris, S. G., Wasik, B., & Turner, J. (1991). The development of strategic readers. In R. Barr et al. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 609–640). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  128. Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1990). How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 15–51). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  129. Pearson, P. D. (2009). The roots of reading comprehension instruction. In S. E. Israel & G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 3–31). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  130. Pearson, P. D., & Tierney, R. J. (1984). On becoming a thoughtful reader: Learning to read like a writer. In A. Purves & J. Niles (Eds.), Becoming readers in a complex society. Chicago, IL: National Society for the Study of Education.Google Scholar
  131. Perfetti, C. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  132. Perfetti, C. (1992). The representation problem in reading acquisition. In P. Gough, L. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  133. Perfetti, C. (1994). Psycholinguistic and reading ability. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 849–894). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  134. Perfetti, C. (1999). Comprehending written language: A blueprint for the teacher. In C. Brown & P. Hagoort (Eds.), Neurocognition of language (pp. 167–208). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  135. Perfetti, C. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8, 357–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Perfetti, C., & Hart, L. (2001). The lexical basis of comprehension skill. In D. Gorfien (Ed.), On the consequences of meaning selection (pp. 67–86). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  137. Perfetti, C., Marron, M., & Foltz, P. (1996). Sources of comprehension failure: Theoretical perspectives and case studies. In C. Cornoldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading comprehension difficulties (pp. 137–165). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  138. Phakiti, A. (2003). A closer look at gender differences in strategy use in L2 reading. Language Learning, 53(4), 649–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Phakiti, A. (2006). Theoretical and pedagogical issues in ESL/EFL teaching of strategic reading. University of Sidney Papers in TESOL, 1, 19–50.Google Scholar
  140. Phakiti, A. (2008a). Strategic competence as a fourth-order factor model: A structural equation modelling approach. Language Assessment Quarterly, 5(1), 20–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Phakiti, A. (2008b). Construct validation of Bachman and Palmer’s (1996) strategic competence model over time in EFL reading tests. Language Testing, 25(2), 237–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Politzer, R., & McGroarty, M. (1985). An exploratory study of learning behaviors and their relationship to gains in linguistic and communicative competence. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 103–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Pressley, M. (2006). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  144. Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  145. Purpura, J. E. (1997). An analysis of the relationships between test takers’ cognitive and metacognitive strategy use and second language test performance. Language Learning, 47, 289–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Purpura, J. E. (1998). Investigating the effects of strategy use and second language test performance with high- and low-ability test takers: A structural equation modeling approach. Language Testing, 15, 333–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. Purpura, J. E. (1999). Learner strategy use and performance on language tests: A structural equation modeling approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  148. Purpura, J. E. (2004). Assessing grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. Purpura, J. E. (2013). Cognition and language assessment. In A. J. Kunnan (Ed.), The companion to language assessment (pp. 100–124). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley/Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Towards an R&D program in reading comprehension. Report prepared for OERI.Google Scholar
  151. Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1989). The psychology of reading. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  152. Roeschl-Heils, A., Schneider, W., & van Kraayenoord, C. E. (2003). Reading, metacognition, and motivation: A follow-up study of German students 7 and 8. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 18, 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The reader: The text: The poem. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University.Google Scholar
  154. Rubin, J. (1975). What the “good” language learner can teach us? TESOL Quarterly, 9, 41–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. Rumelhart, D. E. (1977). Understanding the summarizing stories. In D. LaBerge & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), Basic processes in reading perception and comprehension (pp. 265–303). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  156. Rumelhart, D. (1994). Toward an interactive model of reading. In R.B. Rudell & N.J. Unrau (Eds), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1149–1179). Newark: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  157. Rumelhart, D. (2004). Toward an interactive model of reading. In R. B. Rudell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1149–1179). Newark: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  158. Rupp, A. A., Ferne, T., & Choi, H. (2006). How assessing reading comprehension with multiple-choice questions shapes the construct: A cognitive processing perspective. Language Testing, 23, 441–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. Saito, Y. (2003). Investigating the construct validity of the cloze section in the Examination for the Certificate of Proficiency in English. Spaan Fellow Working Papers in Second or Foreign Language Assessment, 1, 39–82.Google Scholar
  160. Samuels, S. J. (1977). Introduction to theoretical models of reading. In W. Otto (Ed.), Reading problems (pp. 1–14). Boston: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  161. Samuels, S. J., & LaBerge, D. (1983). A critique of ‘A theory of automaticity’ in reading: Looking back: A retrospective analysis of the LaBerge-Samuels reading model. In L. Gentile, M. L. Kamil, & J. Blanchard (Eds.), Reading research revisited (pp. 34–56). Columbus, OH: C. E. Merrill.Google Scholar
  162. Schmitt, M. C. (1990). A questionnaire to measure children’s awareness of strategic reading processes. The Reading Teacher, 43(7), 454–464.Google Scholar
  163. Shanahan, T., Kamil, M. L., & Tobin, A. W. (1982). Cloze as a measure of intersentential comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 229–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  164. Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Coping with academic materials: Differences in the reading strategies of native and non-native readers. System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics, 29, 431–449.Google Scholar
  165. Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2008). Differing perceptions of reading strategy use between native and non-native college students. In K. Mokhtari & R. Sheorey (Eds.), Reading strategies of first and second language learners (pp. 131–141). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers.Google Scholar
  166. Smith, F. (1971). Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis of reading and learning to read. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  167. Smith, F. (1983). Reading like a writer. Language Arts, 60(5), 558–567.Google Scholar
  168. Snow, C. E., Griffin, P., & Burns, M. S. (2005). Knowledge to support the teaching of reading: Preparing teachers for a changing world. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  169. Song, X. (2005). Language learner strategy use and English proficiency on the Michigan English Language Assessment Battery. Spaan Fellow Working Papers in Second or Foreign Language Assessment, 3, 1–23.Google Scholar
  170. Song, X., & Cheng, L. (2006). Language learner strategy use and test performance of Chinese learners of English. Language Assessment Quarterly, 3(3), 243–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  171. Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Towards an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 32–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  172. Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  173. Stanovich, K. E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and new frontiers. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  174. Thorndike, R. L. (1917). Reading as reasoning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 8(6), 323–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  175. Urquhart, S., & Weir, C. (1998). Reading in a second language: Process, product and practice. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  176. van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  177. Van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, R., de Glopper, K., Hulstjn, J., Simis, A., Snellings, P., et al. (2004). Linguistic knowledge, processing speed, and metacognitive knowledge in first- and second-language reading comprehension: A componential analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  178. Vandergrift, L. (1997). The comprehension strategies of second language (French) listeners: A descriptive study. Foreign Language Annals, 30, 387–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  179. Vandergrift, L., & Goh, C. C. M. (2012). Teaching and learning second language listening: Metacognition in action. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  180. Vandergrift, L., Goh, C. C. M., Mareschal, C. J., & Tafaghodtari, M. H. (2006). The Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire: Development and validation. Language Learning, 56(3), 431–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  181. Vann, R. J., & Abraham, R. G. (1990). Strategies of unsuccessful language learners. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 177–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  182. Wagner, D. A., Spratt, J. E., Gal, I., & Paris, S. G. (1989). Reading and believing: Beliefs, attributions, and reading achievement among Moroccan school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 283–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  183. Walstad, W. B., & Robson, D. (1997). Differential item functioning and male-female differences on multiple choice tests in economics. Journal of Economic Education, 28, 155–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  184. Wen, Q., & Johnson, R. (1997). L2 learner variables and English achievement: A study of tertiary-level English majors in China. Applied Linguistics, 18, 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  185. Wenden, A. L. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 515–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  186. Young, D.J., & Oxford, R. (1997). A gender-related analysis of strategies used to process written input in the native language and a foreign language. Applied Language Learning, 8, 43–73.Google Scholar
  187. Yuill, N., & Oakhill, J. (1991). Children’s problems in text comprehension. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  188. Zhang, L. J. (2002). Exploring EFL reading as a metacognitive experience: Reader awareness and reading performance. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 12, 65–90.Google Scholar
  189. Zhang, L. J. (2010). A dynamic metacognitive systems account of Chinese university students’ knowledge about EFL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 320–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  190. Zhang, L. M. (2014). A structural equation modeling approach to investigating test takers’ strategy use and reading test performance. Asian EFL Journal, 16(1), 153–188.Google Scholar
  191. Zhang, L. M., Aryadoust, V., & Zhang, L. J. (2013). Development and validation of the Test Takers’ Metacognitive Awareness Reading Questionnaire. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher. doi: 10.1007/s40299-013-0083-z.Google Scholar
  192. Zhang, L. M., Goh, C., & Kunnan, A. (2014). Analysis of test takers’ metacognitive and cognitive strategy use and EFL reading test performance: A multi-sample SEM approach. Language Assessment Quarterly, 11(1), 76–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  193. Zhang, L. M., & Zhang, L. J. (2013). Relationships between Chinese college test takers strategy use and EFL reading test performance: A structural equation modelling approach. RELC Journal, 44(1), 35–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  194. Zimmerman, B. J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self regulatory influences on writing course attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 845–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  195. Zwaan, R., & Rapp, D. (2006). Discourse comprehension. In M. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (2nd ed., pp. 725–764). Burlington, MA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations