Metacognitive Reading Strategies, Motivation, and Reading Comprehension Performance of Saudi EFL Students

2.1 Participants and Setting

The sample consisted of 60 randomly selected Saudi male EFL students from a government-owned industrial college in Yanbu, Saudi Arabia. The participants were at the college level, representing a specific demographic within the Saudi education system.

2.2 Instruments and Data Collection

Data were collected using standardized instruments:

• Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory (MARSI): To measure awareness and use of strategies (Global, Problem-Solving, Support).
• Motivation for Reading Questionnaire (MRQ): To assess reading motivation and interest areas.
• Reading Comprehension Test: A standardized test to evaluate reading performance on academic texts.

2.3 Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics (means, frequencies) were used to summarize the levels of strategy use, motivation, and comprehension. Inferential statistics, specifically Pearson correlation coefficients and t-tests, were employed to examine the relationships between the variables.

3.1 Level of Metacognitive Strategy Use

Students reported a moderate level of awareness and use of metacognitive reading strategies. Among the three categories—Global Reading Strategies (GLOB), Problem-Solving Strategies (PROB), and Support Reading Strategies (SUP)—the Problem-Solving Strategies (PROB) were the most frequently employed. This suggests students are more reactive, applying strategies like re-reading and adjusting reading speed when they encounter difficulties, rather than proactively planning or using external aids.

3.2 Level of Reading Motivation

Overall, students demonstrated a high level of motivationhumor and comic books. This indicates a potential disconnect between motivation for leisure reading and motivation for academic reading.

3.3 Reading Comprehension Performance

Despite moderate strategy use and high motivation, the students' reading comprehension performance on academic texts was below average. This counterintuitive result forms the core puzzle of the study.

3.4 Correlation Analysis

The correlation analysis yielded surprising results:

• No significant correlation was found between metacognitive reading strategy use and reading comprehension performance.
• No significant correlation was found between reading motivation/interests and reading comprehension performance.
• A positive correlation was found between metacognitive reading strategy use and reading motivation.

4.1 Interpretation of Contradictory Findings

The lack of correlation between strategy use/motivation and comprehension performance suggests that in this specific context, simply being aware of strategies or being motivated is insufficient for achieving comprehension. This may be due to:

• Strategy-Text Mismatch: The strategies used (primarily Problem-Solving) may not be appropriate or effective for the specific demands of academic English texts.
• Threshold of Linguistic Proficiency: As suggested by the Linguistic Threshold Hypothesis, students' English proficiency might be below the level required for metacognitive strategies to transfer into effective comprehension. Basic decoding and vocabulary gaps could nullify strategic efforts.
• Quality vs. Quantity of Strategy Use: Moderate *awareness* or *frequency* of use does not equate to *effective* or *appropriate* application. The execution of strategies may be flawed.
• Motivation Type: High motivation for leisure reading (comics) does not translate to engagement with academic texts, highlighting the difference between intrinsic motivation for enjoyment and the more extrinsic motivation often needed for academic tasks.

4.2 Pedagogical Implications

The study implies that EFL instruction in similar contexts must move beyond merely teaching strategies or trying to boost general motivation. Instruction should be more integrated:

• Explicitly link specific strategies to specific text types and tasks.
• Ensure a strong foundation in basic language skills (vocabulary, grammar) to enable strategy efficacy.
• Focus on fostering academic reading motivation by making academic texts more accessible, relevant, and engaging.
• Provide scaffolded practice where teachers model not just *what* strategy to use, but *how* and *when* to apply it effectively.

5.1 Statistical Framework

The core analysis relied on Pearson's correlation coefficient ($r$) to measure linear relationships. The formula is: $$r_{xy} = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n}(x_i - \bar{x})(y_i - \bar{y})}{\sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^{n}(x_i - \bar{x})^2}\sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^{n}(y_i - \bar{y})^2}}$$ Where $x_i$ and $y_i$ are the individual sample points (e.g., strategy score and comprehension score), and $\bar{x}$ and $\bar{y}$ are the sample means. The t-test was used to determine the significance of the correlation: $$t = r\sqrt{\frac{n-2}{1-r^2}}$$ with $df = n-2$. The null hypothesis ($H_0: r = 0$) was tested against the alternative ($H_1: r \neq 0$). The failure to reject $H_0$ for strategy-comprehension and motivation-comprehension pairs is the study's key statistical outcome.

5.2 Analytical Framework Example

Case Analysis: The "Motivated but Underperforming" Student
Consider a hypothetical student, Ahmed, from the cohort.

• Profile: Reports high enjoyment of reading comics (MRQ score: 4.5/5). Reports moderate use of re-reading when confused (PROB strategy score: 3.8/5).
• Academic Task: Reads a 500-word expository text on renewable energy.
• Process: Ahmed encounters unfamiliar vocabulary ("photovoltaic," "grid integration"). He employs his go-to strategy: re-reads the sentence multiple times. However, due to limited vocabulary, re-reading does not clarify meaning. His motivation for the topic is low, so he does not persist or seek other strategies (e.g., using context clues, looking up words).
• Outcome: Comprehension test score is low. The framework shows: Motivation (leisure) + Ineffective Strategy Application + Low Linguistic Proficiency → Poor Comprehension. This micro-case illustrates why the macro-level correlations were non-significant.