Metacognitive Reading Strategy Use and Reading Comprehension
in English of First-Year Students at a Japanese University
Glenn Amon MAGEEEnglish Education Center, Institute for Education and Student Support, Ehime University

1. Introduction

Espinosa, 2014).
One consideration for university teachers in Japan is

Responding to diﬀering student needs in the English asthat the techniques students have used to learn English ina Foreign Language (EFL) classroom requires teachers tojunior and senior high school may no longer be eﬀective,

understand how students learn, construct knowledge, andor even desirable, when studying at university. With thisimprove their comprehension skills in order to eﬀectively

in mind, it is signiﬁcant that few studies have looked at

integrate this knowledge into curricula to support

the relationship between reported metacognitive strategy

eﬀective reading strategy use.

use and reading comprehension scores using surveys.

Eﬀective readers can be characterized as employing

As a contribution to this apparent gap in the literature,a range of strategies that help knowledge construction

the SORS was used with a view to further illuminate an

and recall of reading material (Klingner, Vaughan, &under-represented area of inquiry into student thinking.

Boardman, 2015). Interestingly, eﬀective readers are not

Two main research questions are the focus of thischaracterized by how much they know, or the range

current study.

of strategies they report knowing, but their ability to

1. To what extent to do non-English major first-year

strategically employ both knowledge and strategies

students use metacognitive strategies for reading into achieve optimal results (Newby & Ertmer, 1996).

Japan?

Therefore, if teachers are able to critically assess which

2. To what extent is there a relationship between

strategies eﬀective readers are using in classrooms it will

metacognitive strategy use and reading comprehension

help in creating beneﬁcial and innovative solutions forscores on the commercial item referenced test,

every student.

Global Test of English College Edition (GTEC) ?

One particular means of critical assessment is theSurvey of Reading Strategies (SORS) developed by
Mokhtari & Sheorey (2008). Through self-report, the

2. Methodology

survey helps highlight ways which students use self-

2.1 Participants

monitoring and employment of cognitive strategies, in

Non-English major ﬁrst-year students majoring inan eﬀort to better understand the actions students take

Science, Teacher Education, Agriculture, and Mechanicalwhen reading in a foreign language. One concern though

Engineering at Ehime University (n=109; male=69 andis that these reports may diverge from what students

female=40) were purposively selected. The rationale for

actually do when reading due to false beliefs (Frith, 2012).

selecting these students was to investigate the general

Nevertheless, whether reports are entirely accurate

level of strategy use in the authorʼs own classes toor not, they can still be an important source ofbetter understand the nature of metacognitive strategy

information for classroom teachers. An understanding

use employed by students. At the time of this study, allof which cognitive and psychological aspects of eﬀective

students had completed at least nine years of formalclassroom learning (Dunlosky, Rawson, Marsh, Nathan, &English education as part of their general courses ofWillingham, 2013) is essential for teachers to create better

study at junior and senior high school.

classroom conditions that facilitate learning (Tokuhama大学教育実践ジャーナル 第16号 2018

According to university data from the GTEC 2016 test1

Glenn Amon MAGEE

period, most students fall between a combined GTEC

2.3 Data collection procedures

Listening and Reading score of 205 to 236. These ﬁgures

Ehime University ethics protocols were followed fortranslate to an average TOEIC Listening and Reading

the collection and analysis of data (Ethics reference: 16-

Score between 445 and 530. In terms of the Common

003, accepted June 28th, 2016). During the ﬁrst class ofEuropean Framework of References for Language

the course, students were given a concise explanation(CEFR), this places students in an average range of A1

of the research in English with a bilingual translation

to A2, beginner or elementary respectively. Students

in Japanese on a handout. The teacher also explained

who score higher than the average, 280 on the GTEC

verbally to students the purpose for the survey as part of

Listening and Reading test fall within the CEFR category

informed consent. The teacher also stressed to students

B1 and have achieved a TOEIC score of 660 or over inthat their responses would in no way aﬀect their grades

Listening and Reading. In my own sample, the averagefor the course. All students completed the questionnaire,

GTEC score for students was 216.11 which equates towhich is a 5-point Likert scale measure for a 30-item

a TOEIC score of 475. The table below outlines thesurvey. Students that did not ﬁll in answers, or ﬁlled in

representativeness of the participant sample to the wider

more than one answer, or missed writing their student ID

student population of Ehime University.

numbers on the survey were excluded from the ﬁnal data
analysis. GTEC results were obtained toward the end of

Table 1. Ehime University GTEC Scores

Test
Type

Average of
Ehime
University

Listening

GTEC

218.62111.06TOEIC

480 (approx.)n=1643the 15-week course after students took the computerized
Readinglistening and reading comprehension test as part of theirregular course of study at the university.

107.56
2.4 Data analysis procedure
Data was compiled using EXCEL and the analyzed

Average ofsampleListening

Reading

GTEC

216.11109.2

106.91TOEIC

475 (approx.)
n=110(1) TOEIC scores are an approximation based on the conversion
chart produced by the Benesse Corporation (GTEC-LR SCORE, 2017)using the statistical package EXCEL toukei ( エクセル
統計 ) developed by Social Survey Research Information
Company, Ltd (SSRI). To begin with, descriptive statistics
were used to determine the extent to which students
using reading strategies.
As the survey and test include a large number ofvariables, further Exploratory Factor Analysis was used

2.2 Instruments
In order to explore students metacognitive strategy

to determine basic groupings of factors that can explain
several of the survey data variables. Finally, regressionuse, one survey and one test were used.

analysis was performed to see if there was a signiﬁcant

1. A bilingual version of the Survey of Reading Strategies

relationship between the survey questions and test score(SORS), created by Mokhtari and Sheorey (2008), wasvariables.

used to better understand students overall use of
metacognitive strategies. Adaptations were made toa translation of SORS that appears in Shikanoʼs (2015)

3. Results and discussion

paper because several questions were considered easier

3.1 Research question 1: To what extent to do non-to understand after adaptation. A Japanese translation

English major ﬁrst-year students use metacognitiveof the original English questions was given to students

strategies for reading in Japan?

due to the complexity of the original English questions

In order to better understand the ﬁrst researchand in consideration of the general proﬁciency level ofquestion student data were compiled into a spreadsheet,high-beginner to low-intermediate of most students.

and using the three survey components identiﬁed by

2. The Global Test of English Communication (GTEC),

Mokhtari and Sheorey (2002), the total ﬁgure of students

developed by the Benesse Corporation, was used toreported strategy use was calculated. According tocalculate individual participants reading comprehension

the subscales of the SORS survey, Global Strategiesscores. Test results provide results for both listening(GLO), Problem Solving Strategies (PRO), and Supportand reading separately and in a combined form.

Reading Strategies (SUP), the cumulative scores under2

大学教育実践ジャーナル 第16号 2018

Metacognitive Reading Strategy Use and Reading Comprehension in English of First-Year Students at a Japanese University

2.4 represent low use, 2.5 to 3.4 moderate use, and 3.5 or

Table 3. Most and least used strategies (n=109)

above high strategy use.

Most preferred strategies

MSD

based on self-reporting, as determining the level of ability

I use tables, ﬁgures, and pictures in text
I underline or circle information
I re-read, when text is diﬃcult
I guess meanings and phrases
I pay attention, when text is diﬃcult

4.08
4.07
3.96
3.95
3.94

(.94)
(1.02)
(.90)
(.75)
(.76)

in this way is problematic. Speciﬁcally, studentsʼ reporting

Least preferred strategies

MSDwill change depending on the text type provided andI try to picture or visualize information
I read aloud, when text is diﬃcult
I think about whether the reading ﬁts
my purpose
I critically analyze and evaluate
information
I ask myself questions I like to haveanswered

2.36
2.37
2.4
2.56
2.92

(.97)
(1.19)(.92)(.96)(1.03)

In contrast to other studies (Shikano, 2013; Sheorey,
Kamimura, & Freiermuth, 2008) students in this study
were not divided into high and low proficiency groups

their own perceptions of their ability may be skewed
positively or negatively depending on their personal selfconcept (Dweck, 2017).
Furthermore, in Shikanoʼs (2013) study, students weredivided into high and low proﬁciency based on a single
practice passage provided by the author. It is unlikelythat a single reading would be suﬃcient for students toWhereas Sheorey, et.al. (2008) claim that Japanesemake a reasoned self-report. Moreover, students maylearners are visually oriented, citing Reid (1987), the dataalso fall prey to negative self-evaluation (Iwamoto, 2007)

from this cohort of students shows that picturing or

which could skew the results obtained in that study, withvisualizing information is reported as the least preferred

students who scored lower over-estimating their ability

strategy. This echoes the lowest frequency reported byand placing themselves in the range of the higher group.

Shikano (2015), but diﬀers from the results reported inWith regard to the three subscales of SORS, students

Shikanoʼs (2013) paper. We can surmise that descriptivein this study reported a moderate use of all threestatistics are relational to individual student cohorts,

subcales. Global strategies (M=3.50), Problem-solving

and should not be generalizable to a claim of preferredstrategies (M=3.50), and Support strategies (M=3.33), withlearning styles. Over the last decade there has been

an overall reported use of (M=3.33). These results area growing body of research that has debunked thesimilar to other Japan-based studies shown in Table 2.

notion of learning styles, as a neuro-myth, see Pashler,
McDaniel, Rohrer, & Bjork (2008), and Coﬃeld, Moseley,

Table 2. Japan-based studies

Hall, Ecclestone (2004) for a fuller review and discussion.

Study
Sheorey, Kamimura,and Freiermuth. (2008)
Shikano (2013)
Shikano (2015)

Portraying students as a particular

Overall reported Use
2.91 (Moderate)
3.53 (Moderate)
3.38 (Moderate)

Studentsʼ preference for problem solving strategies

typeof learnerobfuscates individual diﬀerences and constrains thewide range of learning activities that could be used byteachers.
3.2 Principal Components

is also consistent with previous studies both within and

The next step was to reduce the amount of variables

outside of Japan. With regard to the most and least used

under consideration by grouping them into a smaller

strategies reported by students there is a noticeable

number of components through exploratory factor

diﬀerence from the study by Sheorey, Kamimura, andanalysis (EFA) using a Kaiser-Varimax rotation, as it

Freiermuth (2008).

is assumes there is no correlation between variables.
Three principal components were identiﬁed from thethirty SORS survey items. The factors contributing tothe ﬁrst component are self-monitoring strategies suchas re-reading, refocusing attention, and stopping to think
about what is being read. This factor contains eightsurvey items and is categorized as self-monitoring. The
second component consists of three factors that are
categorized as analysis strategies. The type of strategy
that students use to probe a text for information that

大学教育実践ジャーナル 第16号 20183

Glenn Amon MAGEE

aids a better understanding of what is being read. The

reﬂective check of background knowledge, a form of self-

third component consists of six factors, three positive andmonitoring.

three negative. The positive factors relate to strategic

The second component, analysis, consists of four items.

action at the time of reading. For example, taking a noteThree of these items belong to the support subscale.

of textual features or taking an overview of the text.

Strategy 26,

These are categorized as predictive actions taken by aanswered in the text, strategy 5,

student while reading. The three negative factors include

text is diﬃcult, and strategy 30, I think in English andtranslation from English to Japanese, and thinking inJapanese when reading. Strategies 5 and 26 both appear

Japanese, or reading slower to understand. These factors

in the least reported strategies used by students, andare categorized as relational as they suggest an attempt

relate to the way students analyze what they are reading

to relate reading material to student knowledge in their

cognitively and phonologically. Strategy 30,

mother tongue. These three components account for

English and Japanese is also close to the factor of self-

30.08% of the data.

monitoring, with a diﬀerence of (0.161). Global strategy

I ask myself questions I like to haveI read aloud when

thinking in

27, I check if my guesses are right or wrong refers toTable 4Extracted Factors from Principal Components Analysis

Strategy
PRO25
GLO23
PRO9
PRO14
GLO24
PRO16
SUP22
SUP26
GLO27
SUP30
GLO17
SUP5
GLO12
GLO4
GLO8
PRO7
SUP29
SUP13
Cumulative
contribution
ratio

Selfmonitoring

Analysis

Predictive/relational

.693
.601
.577
.529
.514
.484
.483
-.082
.137
.334
.472
.010
.162
-.002
.169
.365
.263
.279

.058
.368
.099
.334
-.020
.301
.012
.683
.548
.495
.485
.481
.368
.175
.186
.088
.167
.245

-.015
.152
-.063
.000
.361
-.145
-.095
.137
.084
.028
.135
.052
.594
.569
.526
-.400
-.465
-.512

12.39%

22.2%

30.08%

how Japanese students generally check all their answers
by writing in everything they either missed or did notunderstand correctly. This close-attention to detail is acommon feature of classrooms from junior high throughto university.
The third component of predictive and relational
strategies includes three positively correlated factors
and three negatively correlated factors. Strategies
12,

Deciding what to read or ignore ; 4,taking an

overview of a text before reading ; and 8,

Reviewing

the textual features are all positively correlated withpredictive actions taken before reading and can be thoughtof as actions taken to determine which other strategies
need to be employed when reading a particular text. The
three negatively correlated strategies are, 7,
slowly and carefully ; 29,

Reading

Translating from English to

Japanese ; and 13, Using reference materials. Strategy
7 is also closely related to self-monitoring, and is less

(1) Rotation method: Varimax(2) Rotation converged in 14 iterations.
(3) Values over 4.00 and under -4.00 (in bold) are noted forconsideration.

explanatory of relational acts than strategies 29 and 13,
both of which are used when students try to relate what
they are reading to meanings in their mother tongue, that
is, Japanese. We can understand that these are negatively
correlated with predictive activities, as generally students

Within the ﬁrst component of self-monitoring, problem-

are no longer trying to predict meanings in terms ofsolving strategies 25 and 9 (re-reading, and getting

English, but in terms of their mother tongue. The styleback on track when losing attention) are strongly

of instruction of grammar-translation in many junior andcorrelated. Strategy 14, paying attention when reading

senior high schools may result in a metacognitive deﬁcit

diﬃcult text is also correlated with self-monitoring, thefor students construal of socio-cultural components anddiﬀerence between the factors being (0.195). Within the

non-verbal components

global strategies, strategy 17, Using context clues , is ofp.54) in second language learning. It is unsurprising thenparticular interest as the factor loading for self-monitoringthat these items would appear alongside other items thatis less than the factor for analysis. To understand this,are predictive in nature.

(Murphy & Hoi-Yan Sin, 2013,

we can consider that making inferences from textual
passages requires observation, an analytical action, and a4

大学教育実践ジャーナル 第16号 2018

Metacognitive Reading Strategy Use and Reading Comprehension in English of First-Year Students at a Japanese University

3.3 Research Question 2: To what extent is there acore English words decreases (Coulson, 2014, cited inrelationship between metacognitive strategy use

Coulson, Ariiso, & Tanaka, 2013) from junior high schooland reading comprehension scores on commercial

through to the end of senior high school in this respect.

item referenced test, Global Test of English College

Strategy 29,

When reading, I translate from English

into my native language (p<0.001***) also had a negative

Edition (GTEC) based?
Multiple regression analysis was performed to ﬁnd thecorrelation with test scores for students who reported

goodness of ﬁt from the data. The variance was explainedusing this. It is common knowledge that translation is2

by the regression formula (R =.296), which indicates thatthe dominant method of English instruction in Japanesethe eﬀect size predicts approximately thirty percent ofjunior and senior high schools, focusing on understanding

the variance. The ANOVA shows that the formula isEnglish grammatical constructions at the sentence level.

signiﬁcant at (p<0.001) to predict the dependent variable

Based on their experiences in secondary education,(GTEC test score) from the independent variables (survey

students construe new information through this Japanese

items) I assumed.

cultural lens which impacts negatively on texts that are

Three strategies in particular revealed a signiﬁcantlonger than a sentence.

correlation with student test scores. Only one strategy

Translation forces students to take longer to answer

though indicates a positive correlation with test scores,

exam questions. In time-bound tests such as the GTEC

the other two reveal a negative correlation.

test, lengthy textual deconstruction using translation

When text becomes diﬃcult, I pay

is likely to cause students to be unable to answer all

closer attention to what I am reading. (p<0.0048**) has

questions, thereby impacting negatively on results. In

a positive correlation with the students test scores.

addition, students may misconstrue conceptual ideas byStrategy 14 is part of the SORS sub-scale of Problem-

attaching Japanese conventional meanings to language,

Solving strategies which are described as the deliberaterather than the conventional meanings attached to themthings students do when encountering diﬃculty in a text

in English. Although construal diﬀers even in native

Mokhtari, Sheorey, & Reichard (2008). We can conceive

speaker understanding of language meaning (Driven &that paying closer attention acts as a gateway to the use

Verspoor, 2004), it is greatly magniﬁed when meaningsof other strategies such as rereading (strategy 25), andare associated more with the mother tongue than withguessing the meaning of words (strategy 28).

the target language of English.

Strategy 14,

I go back and forth in the text to ﬁndThus, directing students away from translation as

relationships among ideas in it (p<0.0071**) while having

a sole strategy for reading comprehension is likely toa strong correlation with the self-monitoring component,

assist in helping students construe the target language

had an overall negative correlation with test scores forthrough the target culture. Indeed, as one recent study

students that reported using this strategy. The GTEC

from Japan reports, a reduced amount of translation

test is a time-based test taken on a computer. A negative

can also have positive eﬀects on not only reading speed,correlation for skipping back and forth in a text to ﬁnd

but reading comprehension as well (Sakurai, 2015).

relationships suggests that students could be taking too

Moreover, echoing Coulsonʼs (2014) research, there

long to read passages. As students read they are likely

is a substantial body of research that indicates thatto stop to think about what they are reading. They

phonological processing skill has a signiﬁcantly positive

may re-read parts of a text to see if they have missed

relationship with English literacy (Stephens, 2016) and isimportant information, or how previous information is

also associated with successful L2 word learning (Yang, J.,

connected to information later in the text. On one hand,Gates, K. M., Molenaar, P., & Li, P. (2015).

Strategy 22,

this is a technique used in constructively responsive

In addition to developing interventions to help students

reading (Pressley & Gaskins, 2006), however, on a timed

construe language through target language socio-

test this lessens the time available to complete all thecultural norms (Murphy & Hoi-Yan Sin, 2013) students

questions. Another potential cause for needing to jump

could also be explicitly directed toward listening toback and forth in a text stems from the generally weakreading passages as they read. Such materials are often

development of phonological processing skills by students

supplied with textbooks, but equally recordings could be

while studying at senior high schools in Japan. One

created by teachers for use in the classroom to aid theparticular study has noted that students ability to readdevelopment of phonological processing while reading

大学教育実践ジャーナル 第16号 2018

5

Glenn Amon MAGEE

negative eﬀect on test scores.

(Stephens, 2016).
In this present study, through observation of student

Statistical data from surveys and tests are clearly

textbooks, most students had not removed the textbook

useful for instructional design and decision making (seeCD from the sealed folder on the back of their textbooks

Klingner, 2004 for a comprehensive overview of diﬀerent

by the end of the 15 class course which indicates that

forms of assessment). Indeed, further research in thisstudents may not believe in listening while reading as anarea could combine quantitative survey reports witheﬀective strategy.

think-aloud protocols. One drawback though would be

Whilst the question of using audio materials as alarge class sizes, and the ability to eﬀectively monitor

strategy while reading is not explicitly on the current

thinking. Therefore, a more attractive alternative could

version of the SORS survey in this study, one of

be to combine survey data with checklists that students

the questions, number 5,

I read aloud when text

check whilst in the process of reading diﬀerent kinds ofdraws on relates to the necessity

text which could allow teachers to better understandbecomes diﬃcult

for phonological processing when reading to aid

individual diﬀerences between learners.

comprehension. As this was also one of the least reported
strategies students use, it suggests that students arelikely to beneﬁt from explicit instruction on how to use
audio materials while reading.

References
Coﬃeld, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., and Ecclestone, K. (2004).
Learning Styles and Pedagogy in Post 16 Learning: A Systematicand Critical Review. London: Learning and Skills Research

4. Limitations and direction for further
studies
Questionnaires provide insights into how students
make strategic decisions, and are an eﬀective way toquickly make assessments. However, they do not allow
us to access which strategies students use in the processof reading and therefore the results of this exploratory
study, whilst illuminating, would be better situatedalongside other measures. For example, interviews, would
help understand diﬀerent approaches to reading, andCentre.

Coulson, D., Ariiso, M., and Tanaka, M. (2013). Diﬃculties in
Reading English Words: How Do Japanese Learners Perform
on a Test of Phonological Deﬁcit?. Vocations and Learning. 2.
55-62. 10.7820/vli.v02.1.coulson.et.al.

Coulson, D. (2014). The development of word reading skill insecondary schools in East Asia. Focusing on EFL Reading:
Theory and Practice. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars
Publishing, 62.

observations would help to understand what students dowhen reading, as opposed to what they report doing.

Driven, R., & Verspoor, M. (2004). Cognitive Exploration of
Language and Linguistics. Amsterdam: The Netherlands. John

5. Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to better understandthe level of strategy use by students, and to explore

Benjamins Publishing Co.
Dweck. C. (2017). Mindset: changing the way you thinN to ful¿l yourpotential. Hachette UK.

possible connections between strategy use and reading
comprehension scores on the GTEC test. The SORS

Dunlosky, J, Rawson, K.A., Marsh, E.J., Nathan, M.J.,

survey provided a particular way of looking at the areas

Willingham, D.T. (2013). Improving students learning withstudents perform well in, and those areas which are ineﬀective learning techniques: promising directions fromneed of more support.

cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science inStudent comprehension utilizing this approach can

the Public Interest. 14(1) 4-58.

be assessed by teachers as a way to understand, planfor, and support student learning. Utilizing statistical
data from multiple regression analysis suggests that astronger focus on developing close reading skills might
help students achieve higher levels of achievement on theFrith, C.D. (2012). The role of metacognition in human social
interactions. Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society, B(2012) 367, 2213-2223.
GTEC-LR Score. (2017) Retrieved on August 8th, 2017 from:GTEC test, whereas overuse of translation will have a6

大学教育実践ジャーナル 第16号 2018

Metacognitive Reading Strategy Use and Reading Comprehension in English of First-Year Students at a Japanese University
www.benesse.co.jp/gtec/entry/group3/pdf/GTEC-LR̲

and Reading Strategy Use. アカデミア . 文学・語学編 :GTEC̲SCORE.pdf

Journal of the Nanzan Academic Society, (98), 41-59.

Iwamoto, Kyoko. (2007). Is self-assessment possible?: Japanese

Stephens, M. (2016). Response to Sakurai: the inﬂuence ofstudents self-assessment in their course work. 日本英語英translation on reading amount, proﬁciency and speed in

文学 ，(17), 65-79.

extensive reading. Reading in a foreign language, (28)1, 151-154.

Klingner, J. K. (2004). Assessing reading comprehension.
Assessment for eৼective intervention, 29(4), 59-70.

Tokuhama-Espinosa, T. (2014). Making classrooms better: 50
practical applications of mind, brain, and education science. New
York, NY: Norton.

Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., & Boardman, A. (2015). Teachingreading comprehension to students with learning di৽culties, 2E.
Guilford Publications.

Yang, J., Gates, K. M., Molenaar, P., Li, P. (2015). Neural changes
underlying successful second language word learning: an
fMRI study. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 33. 29-49.

Mokhtari, K., & Sheorey, R. (Eds.), (2008). Reading strategies
of ﬁrst-and second-language learners: See how they read.
Christopher-Gordon Pub.

Murphy, R. S., & Sin, H. H-Y. (2014). Neuroscientiﬁc beneﬁts
of including culture and emotion into the second language
learning classroom: Teaching for the DATC. 基盤教育セン
ター紀要，(20), 53-69.

Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., and Bjork, R. (2008).
Learning styles: concepts and evidence. Psychol. Sci. Public
Interest 9, 105‒119. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x

Pressley, M., Gaskins, I.W. (2006). Metacognitively competentreading comprehension is constructively responsive
reading: how can such reading be developed in students?
Metacognition Learning, 1:99-113.

Reid, J. M. (1987). The learning style preferences of ESL
students. TESOL quarterly, 21(1), 87-111.

Sakurai, N. (2015). The inﬂuence of translation on reading
amount, proﬁciency, and speed in extensive reading. Reading
in a Foreign Language, (27)1, 96-112.

Sheorey, R., Kamimura, Y., & Freiermuth, M. (2008). Reading
strategies of users of English as a library language: Thecase of Japanese ESP students. Reading strategies of ¿rst-andsecond-language learners, 175-184.

Shikano, M. (2013). A quantitative survey on metacognitiveawareness of reading strategy use in English by Japanese
university students. International Education Center Journal, 14,
11-24.

Shikano, M. (2015). Second Language Readers Gender, Major,

大学教育実践ジャーナル 第16号 20187