此次研究旨在探討台灣大學生使用線上閱讀策略的運用,藉以提昇閱讀理解。為達此目的,兩項研究分別進行。第一項研究以一班34人的大一新生為主 (20人為高成就者以及14人為低成就者),第二項研究以兩班16人二年級以上的大學生為主其中8人為控制組(4人為高成就者,4人為低成就者),8人為實驗組(4人為高成就者,4人為低成就者)。收集研究資料依序為量化為先,質化為後。完成8週和6週的資料蒐集後,量化與質化分析分別完成。研究結果顯示: 其一、在第一項研究中,高成就與低成就學生增進了閱讀策略的了解與使用;相反地, 第二項研究中,實驗組高成就與低成就的學生在閱讀策略了解與使用上並未有顯著的增加。除此之外,第一項研究顯示,諸多閱讀策略與閱讀成績有相關;然而,此項結果並未在第二項研究中發現。此外,第一項與第二項研究中的高成就與低成就的參與者對此項閱讀策略皆保持正面的觀感。

This research intends to investigate reading strategies used by EFL readers of a Taiwanese university in the enhancement of comprehension within academic contexts when reading online texts. To meet this goal, two empirical studies (Study 1 and Study 2) were conducted separately. A class of 34 freshmen (20 higher-achievers and 14 lower-achievers) joined the first study and two classes of 16 including 8 students (4 higher-achievers and 4 lower-achievers) in the control group and 8 students (4 higher-achievers and 4 lower-achievers) in the experimental group participated in the second study. Data collection were undertaken in two sequential ways that were designed with an initial quantitative survey, followed by a qualitative way during 8 weeks for the first study and 6 weeks for the second study. Completing the data collection, the data were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. Following that, the research results revealed that: First, in the first study, both higher- and lower-achievers improved their awareness and application of online reading strategies. In contrast, both higher- and lower-achievers in the experimental group had no significant increase in their awareness of and application of reading strategies. In addition, in the first study higher- and lower-achievers had correlations between multiple reading-strategies and reading performance; however, this was not the case in the experimental group of the second study. Besides that, both higher- and lower-achievers in the first and second studies held positive perceptions towards these online reading strategies.

Contents	
	Table of Contents	iii
	List of Tables	vii
	List of Figures	ix
Chapter I: Introduction	1
	Research Purposes	10
	Significance of the Study	11
	Organization of the Dissertation	12
Chapter II: Literature Review	14
	Theories of Reading, Strategies and Reading Strategies	14
		Definition of reading	14
		Purposeful reading	15
		  Meaning-constructing reading	16
		  Successful reading	21
		Definition of online reading	22
		Definition of strategies	23
		  Historical theoretical views about strategies	23
		  Current theoretical views about strategies	24
		Definition of reading strategies	25
		  Metacognition, cognition and reading strategies for comprehension	27
		  Awareness, action of reading strategies for comprehension	28
	Online Reading Comprehension Strategies	31
		Inferencing strategies	31
		  Three components of inferences	32
		  Regression of inferences	33
		Self-regulated strategies	34
		  Metacognition and self-regulated strategies	34
		  Monitoring and control	35
	  	  Regression of self-regulation	36
		Support strategies	37
		  Metalinguistic level	37
		  Text level	38
		  Online text level	39
		  Online context level	39
		  Online dictionary level	40
	Research on Reading Comprehension Strategies	41
		Research within L1 and L2 contexts	41
		Research within L2 contexts	44
		Research within Taiwanese contexts	47
Chapter III: Research Methods	52
	Study 1	53
		Participants	53
		Procedures	54
		Reading material	56
		Treatment	56
		Instruments  	58
		Data analysis	62
		Quantitative analysis	62
		Qualitative analysis	66
	Study 2	68
		Participants	68
		Procedures	69
		Reading material	72
		Treatment	72
		Instruments  	73
		Data analysis	76
		Quantitative analysis	76
		Qualitative analysis	80
Chapter IV: Results	82
	Results for Reliability	82
	Study 1	83
		Demographics	83
		Results from quantitative analysis	85
		 Question 1	85
		 Question 2	91
		 Question 3	97
		 Question 4	108
	 Results from qualitative analysis	109
		 Advantages of using online reading comprehension strategies	110
		 Disadvantages of using online reading comprehension strategies	113
	Study 2	115
		Demographics	115
		Results from quantitative analysis	117
		Question 1	117
		  Question 2	124
		Question 3	130
		Question 4	139
	 Results from qualitative analysis	140
	 Advantages of using (online) reading comprehension strategies in the control 
 and experimental groups	141
	 Disadvantages of using (online) reading comprehension strategies in the 
 control and experimental groups	144
Chapter V: Discussion	147
	Study 1	147
		Question 1	147
		 Imbalance of awareness	147
		 Gained awareness	148
		 The role of L1	149
		Question 2	150
		 Flexible use of online reading comprehension strategies	150
		 Monitoring and control	151
		 Active and multiple-strategic users	151
		 Problem solvers	152
		Question 3	153
		 Strategies and reading comprehension	153
		 Significances between pre- and post-tests	154
		 Interactive reading	155
		Question 4	156
		 Diversities of awareness strategies and positive perceptions	156
		 Adjusting the trend of reading and positive perceptions	157
		 Strategic interventions	158
	Study 2	160
		Question 1	160
		 Imbalance of awareness	160
		 Gained awareness	161
		 The role of L1	161
		Question 2	162
		 Flexible use of online reading comprehension strategies	162
		 Monitoring and control	163
		 Active and multiple-strategic users	163
		 Problem solvers	164
		Question 3	164
		 Strategies and reading comprehension	164
		 Significances between pre- and post-tests	165
		 Interactive reading	166
		Question 4	167
		 Satisfaction with the strategies	167
		 Strategic interventions	168
		 Reading scores		168
Chapter VI: Conclusion	170
Summary 170
		Use of online reading strategies	171
		Strategic interventions	173
	Pedagogical Implications	174
	Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research	176
References	179
Appendices	196
Appendix A	 
Appendix B	
Appendix C	
Appendix D	
Appendix E	
Appendix F
Appendix G	
List of Tables
Table 1	Divergences between Higher- and Lower-achieving Students’ Performance of Reading Comprehension Strategies	4
Table 2	Reliability for Questionnaires	83
Table 3	Age of Participants	83
Table 4	Majors of Participants	84
Table 5	Students’ Awareness of Online Reading Comprehension Strategies at Pre- and Post-stages	86
Table 6	Higher- and Lower-achieving Students’ Awareness of Online Reading Comprehension Strategies at Pre- and Post-phases	90
Table 7	Students’ Application of Online Reading Comprehension Strategies at Pre- and Post-stages	92
Table 8	Comparisons of Higher- and Lower-achieving Students’ Applying Online Reading Comprehension Strategies at Pre- and Post-stages	96
Table 9	Average Scores of Final Post-test between Higher-level and Lower-level Achievers	98
Table 10	Average Scores of Reading at Pre- and Post-tests	99
Table 11	Average Scores of the Readings between Higher- and Lower-achievers at Pre- and Post-tests	102
Table 12	Comparison between Higher- and Lower-achieving Students’ Awareness and Application of Online Reading Comprehension Strategies and Final Post-test	106
Table 13	Comparison between Three Predictors and Final Post-test	107
Table 14	Comparisons between Higher- and Lower- achieving Students’ 
Perceptions of Online Reading Comprehension Strategies	109
Table 15	Age of Participants	115
Table 16	Majors of Participants	116
Table 17	Students’ Awareness of (Online) Reading Comprehension Strategies at Pre- and Post-stages in the Control and Experimental Groups 118
Table 18	Higher- and Lower-achieving Students’ Awareness of (Online) Reading Comprehension Strategies at Pre- and Post-phases in the Control and Experimental Groups	122
Table 19	Students’ Application of (Online) Reading Comprehension Strategies at Pre- and Post-stages in the Control and Experimental Groups	125
Table 20	Comparisons of Higher- and Lower-achieving Students’ Applying (Online) Reading Comprehension Strategies at Pre- and Post-stages in the Control and Experimental Groups	128
Table 21	Average Scores of Final Post-test between the Control and Experimental Groups	131
Table 22	Average Scores of the Readings at Pre- and Post-tests	132
Table 23	Average Scores of the Readings between Higher- and Lower-level Participants in the Control and Experimental Groups	135
Table 24	Comparisons between Higher- and Lower-achieving Students’ Awareness and Application of (Online) Reading Comprehension Strategies and Final Post-test in the Control and Experimental Groups	137
Table 25	Comparisons between Higher- and Lower-achieving Students’ Perceptions of (Online) Reading Comprehension Strategies in the Control and Experimental Groups	140
List of Figures
Figure 1	Flowchart of Measuring Procedures for Study 1	56
Figure 2	A Sample of Screen-shot for Part of a Reading Material 	57
Figure 3	Procedures for Qualitative Analysis	68
Figure 4	Flowchart of Measuring Procedures for Study 2	72

References
Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P. D., & Paris, S. G. (2008). Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61(5), 364-373. 
Ahmadian, M., & Gholami, P. P. (2017). EFL learners’ use of online metacognitive reading strategies and its relation to their self-efficacy in reading. Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 17(2), 117-132.
Alexander, S., & Robinson, L. (2015). Core 3: Nonfiction Reading. Korea: Compass.
Ali, A. M., & Razali, A. B. (2019). A review of studies on cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies in teaching reading comprehension for ESL/EFL learners. English Language Teaching, 12(6), 94-111.
Alrabah, S., & Wu, S. (2019). A descriptive analysis of the metacognitive reading strategies employed by EFL college students in Kuwait. International Journal of English Linguistics, 9(1), 25 – 35.
Altay, İ. F., & Altay, A. (2017). The impact of online reading tasks and reading strategies on EFL learners’ reading test scores. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 13(2), 136-152.
Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing. The Modern Language Journal, 75(4), 460 – 472. 
Anderson, N. J. (2003). Scrolling, clicking, and reading English: Online reading strategies in a second/foreign language. The Reading Matrix, 3(3), 1-33.
Anderson, N. J. (2009). ACTIVE reading: The research base for a pedagogical approach in the reading classroom. In Z. Han & N. J. Anderson (Eds.), Second language reading research and instruction: crossing the boundaries (pp.117-143). MI: University of Michigan Press.
Annury, M. N., Mujiyanto, J., Saleh, M., & Sutopo, D. (2019). The use of metacognitive strategies in EFL reading comprehension. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 343, 62 – 66. 
Armbrecht, J. (2018). An investigation of the reading strategies employed by college students in their online classes (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://Armbrecht_unr_0139D_12522.pdf
Baker, L. (2008). Metacognition in comprehension instruction: what we’ve learned since NRP. In C.C. Block & S. R. Parris (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: research-based practices (2nd ed., pp. 65-79). New York: Guilford Press.
Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1980). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P.D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of Reading Research (pp. 1-74). NY: Longman Press.
Berg, B. L., & Lune, H. (2012). Qualitative research methods for the social science (8th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education. 
Block, E. (1986). The comprehension strategies of second language readers. TESOL Quarterly, 20(3), 463-494. 
Boekaerts, M. (1999). Self-regulated learning: Where we are today. International Journal of Educational Research, 31(6), 445-457.
Brandl, K. (2002). Integrating Internet-based reading materials into the foreign language curriculum: From teacher- to student-centered approaches. Language Learning & Technology, 6(3), 87-107. 
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: an interactive approach to language pedagogy. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.
Brown, H. D., & Abeywickrama, P. (2010). Language assessment: principles and classroom practices (2nd ed.). NY: Pearson Education.
Byien, C. (2019). What is PISA? Retrieved from http://m.parenting.com.tw/article/article.action?id=5033385
Cambridge Dictionary. (2018). Retrieved from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/English
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Retrieved from http://campbell&Stanley-1959-Exptl&QuasiExpt1DesignsF
orResearch.pdf
Chamot, A. U. (2005). Language learning strategy instruction: current issues and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 112-130. 
Cheng, G., Poon, L. K. M., Lau, W.W. F., & Zou, R. C. (2019). Exploring the relationship between self-regulated learning strategies and computer programming achievement in higher education. Proceeding of the 5th International Conference on Education, 5, 67-74.
Chiou, H. (2010). Quantitative research and statistical analysis in social & behavioral sciences (5th ed.). Taipei: Wunan.
Chou, M. (2013). Strategy use for reading English for general and specific academic purposes in testing and non-testing contexts. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(2), 175-197. 
Cohen, A. D. (1990). Language learning: Insights for learners, teachers, and researchers. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies for learning and using a second language. New York: Cambridge UP. 
Coiro, J. (2005). Making sense of online text. Educational Leadership, 63(2), 30-35.
Coiro, J. (2011). Predicting reading comprehension on the Internet: Contributions of offline reading skills, online reading skills, and prior knowledge. Journal of Literacy Research, 43(4), 352-392. 
Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the Internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2), 214-257. 
Creswell, J. w. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach (4th ed.). CA: Sage.
Daeli, N. H., Hutapea, Y. J. N., Gea, F. D. N., Lestari, I., & Saragih, E. (2020). Identifying reading comprehension questions of national examination for senior high school students. JOLT, 8(1), 83-90.
Dörnyei, Z., & Taguchi, T. (2010). Questionnaires in Second Language Research:  Construction, Administration, and Processing (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Duffy, G. G. (2003). Explaining reading: A resource for teaching concepts, skills, and strategies. New York: Guilford.
Ebrahimi, S. S. (2012). Reading strategies of Iranian postgraduate English students living at ESL context in the first and second language. IACSIT, 195-199
Elleman, A. M., & Compton, D. L. (2017). Beyond comprehension strategy instruction: What’s next ? Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1044/2017LSHESS-16-0036
Estacio, M. J. M. (2013). Bilingual Readers’ metacognitive strategies as predictors of reading comprehension. Philippine ESL Journal, 10, 179-199. 
Fadlelmula, F. K., & Özgeldi, M. (2010). How a learner self-regulates reading comprehension: a case study for graduate level reading. US-China Education Review, 7(10), 22-28. 
Fan, H. (2009). The effectiveness of metacognitive strategies in facilitating Taiwanese university learners in EFL reading comprehension (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest dissertation and theses database. (Document ID3354803)
Fesel, S. S., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2018). Individual variation in children’s reading comprehension across digital text types. Journal of Research in Reading, 41(1), 106-121. 
Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognition. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metacognition                                                                                  
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34 (10), 906-911.                                      
Foltz, P.W. (1996). Comprehension, coherence and strategies in hypertext and linear text. In J. Rouet, J. J. Levonen, A. P. Dillon, & R. J. Spiro (Eds.), Hypertext and Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fotovatian, S., & Shokrpour, N. (2007). Comparison of the efficiency of reading comprehension strategies on Iranian University students’ comprehension. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 37(2), 47-63.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. PNAS, 111(23), 8410–8415. 
Fung, I. Y. Y., Wilkinson, I. A. G., & Moore, D. W. (2003). L1-assisted reciprocal teaching to improve ESL students’ comprehension of English expository text. Learning and Instruction, 13, 1-31.
Gilakjani, A. P., & Sabouri, N. B. (2016). A study of factors affecting EFL learners’ reading comprehension skill and the strategies for improvement. International Journal of English Linguistics, 6(5), 180 – 187. 
Goldman, S. R. (2015). Reading and the web: broadening the need for complex comprehension. In R. J. Spiro, M. DeSchryver, P. Morsink, M. S. Hagerman, & P. Thompson (Eds.), Reading at a crossroads? Disjuncture and continuities in current conceptions and practices. New York: Routledge.
Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: moving from theory to practice. NY: Cambridge UP.
Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (2011). Teaching and research reading (2nd ed.). Edinburg: Pearson Education. 
Habibian, M. (2015). The impact of training metacognitive strategies on reading comprehension among ESL learner’s. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(28), 61- 69. 
Hacker, D. J. (1998). Self-regulated comprehension during normal reading. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 165-191). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. 
Hartman, D. K. (1995). Eight readers reading: The intertextual links of proficient readers reading multiple passages. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), 520-561.
Healey, J. F. (2016). The essentials of statistics: a tool for social research (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Nelson Education. 
Horner, S. L., & Shwery, C. S. (2002). Becoming an engaged, self-regulated reader. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 102-109.
Huang, H., Chern, C., & Lin, C. (2006). EFL learners’ online reading strategies: A comparison between high and low EFL proficient readers. English Teaching and Learning, 30(4S), 1-22. 
Huang, H., Chern, C., & Lin, C. (2009). EFL learners’ use of online reading strategies and comprehension of texts: An exploratory study. Computers & Education, 52, 13-26. 
Hudson, T. (2007). Teaching second language reading. Oxford: Oxford UP.
Hudson, T. (2011). Teaching second language reading. Oxford: Oxford UP.
Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University. 
İlter, İ. (2019). The efficacy of context clue strategy instruction on middle grades students’ vocabulary development. RMLE Online, 42(1), 1-15.
Intrator, S. M. (2000). Click, click, click …what do we known about reading hypertext? Knowledge Quest, 28(4), 31-34. 
Irgatoğlu, A. (2018). Avoiding the use of L1 in foreign language reading comprehension activities. Language Teaching and Educational Research, 1(1), 52-65.
Ismail, N. M., & Tawalbeh, T. I. (2015). Effectiveness of a metacognitive reading strategies program for improving low achieving EFL readers. International Education Studies, 8(1), 71-87. 
Iwai, Y. (2011). The effects of metacognitive reading strategies: pedagogical implications for EFL/ESL teachers. The Reading Matrix, 11(2), 150-159.
Jou, Y. (2015). Investigation of technological university students’ use of metacognitive reading strategies in first and second languages. English Language Teaching, 8(1), 180-188.
Kanniainen, L., Kiili, C., Tolvanen, A., Aro, M., & Leppänen, P. H. T. (2019). Literacy skills and online research and comprehension: struggling readers face difficulties online. Reading and Writing, 32(2), 2201-2222.
Khusniyah, N. L. (2019). Implementation online reading strategies on English reading comprehension skills. ELITE Journal, 1(1), 87-94.
Kosakiewicz, L. (2017). The impact of reading digital text on comprehension scores. Retrieved from http://
summplementary%20materials/scores%10and%20reading%20comprehension%202017.pdf
Kung, L. Y., & Aziz, A. A. (2020). An action research on metacognitive reading strategies instruction to improve reading comprehension. International Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 9(2), 86-94.
Kymes, A. D. (2007). Investigation and analysis of online reading strategies (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://digital.library.okstate.edu/etd/umi-okstate-2231.pdf
Lau, K. (2006). Reading strategy use between Chinese good and poor readers: a think-aloud study. Journal of Research in Reading, 29(4), 383-399.
Lau, K., & Chan, D.W. (2003). Reading strategy use and motivation among Chinese good and poor readers in Hong Kong. Journal of Research in Reading, 26(2), 177- 190.
Lee, J. Y. (2018). The Use of Test-taking Strategies and Students’ Performances in Answering TOEIC Reading Comprehension Questions. Taiwan Journal of TESOL, 15(2), 33-64.
Lee, J. Y. (2019). Teaching test-taking strategies to EFL student readers with different language proficiencies: An empirical reassessment. ESP Today, 7(2), 165-181. 
Leu, D. J., Kiili, C., & Forzani, E. (2016). Individual differences in the new literacies of online research and comprehension. In P. Afflerbach (Ed.), Handbook of Individual Differences in Reading: Reader, Text, and Context (pp. 259-272). New York: Routledge.
Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., Castek, J., & Henry, L. A. (2017). New literacies: A dual-level theory of the changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment. Journal of Education, 197(2), 1- 18. 
Livingston, J. A. (2003). Metacognition: An overview. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov
Martin, F., & Tutty, J. (2008). Effects of practice in a linear and non-linear web-based learning environment. Educational Technology & Society, 11(4), 81-93.
McNamara, D. S., & Shapiro, A. M. (2005). Multimedia and hypermedia solutions for promoting metacognitive engagement, coherence, and learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33(1), 1-29.
Mekala, S., & Geetha, R. (2019). Promoting self-regulated learning through metacognitive strategies. Retrieved from https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1P4-2258090849/
promoting-self-regulated-learning-through-metacognitive
Meurer, J. L. (1991). Schemata and reading comprehension. Retrieved from http://schemata_and_readingcomprehension_
Schemata_and_rea.pdf  
Minguela, M., Solé, I., & Pieschl, S. (2015). Flexible self-regulated reading as a cue for deep comprehension: evidence from online and offline measures. Read Writ,28, 721-744.
Mistar, J., Zuhairi, A., & Yanti, N. (2016). Strategies training in the teaching of reading comprehension for EFL learners in Indonesia. English Language Teaching, 9(2), 49-56.
Mokhtar, A. A., Rawian, R. M., Hussain, M. N. M., & Mohamed, A. R. (2011).  Metacognitive regulation of Malaysian adult ESL learners in vocabulary acquisition. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(7), 174-180.
Mosenthal, P. B., & Kirsch, I.S. (1991). Toward an explanatory model of document literacy. Discourse Processes, 14 (2), 147-180. 
Namaziandost, E., Esfahani, F. R., Ahmadi, S., & Yates, G. (2019). Varying levels of difficult in L2 reading materials in the EFL classroom: impact on comprehension and motivation. Cogent Education, 6(1), 1-9. 
Nelson, T.O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. The Psychology of 
Learning and Motivation, 26, 125-173. 
Nguyen T. M. T., & Trinh, L. Q. (2011). Learners’ metacognitive strategy use and reading comprehension:
insights from a Vietnamese context. i-manager’s Journal on English Language Teaching, 1(1), 9-19.
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Ojala, M. (2000). Online reading as a nonlinear activity. Econtent, 23(5), 6.
Oxford Dictionary. (2018). Retrieved from https://en.
oxforddictionaries.com/definition
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: what every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Pani, S. (2004). Reading strategy instruction through mental modeling. ELT Journal, 58(4), 355-362.
Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader.  Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 293-316. 
Park, H., & Kim, D. (2011). Reading-strategy use by English as a second language learner in online reading tasks. Computers & Education, 57, 2156-2166. 
Park, J., Yang, J., & Hsieh, Y. C. (2014). University level second language readers’ online reading and comprehension strategies. Language Learning & Technology, 18(3), 148-172. 
Peterson, R. A. (2009). Constructing effective questionnaires. CA: SAGE.
Phakiti, A. (2003). A closer look at the relationship of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use to EFL reading achievement test performance. Language Testing, 20(1), 26-56. 
Pinninti, L. R. (2016). Metacognitive awareness of reading strategies: An Indian context. The Reading Matrix, 16(1), 179-193.
Pressley, M. (2002). Metacognition and self-regulated comprehension. Retrieved from http://www.oelp.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/03/Metacognition-and-self-regulated-comprehension-pressley.pdf
Pulido, D. (2007). The effects of topic familiarity and passage sight vocabulary on L2 lexical inferencing and retention through reading. Applied Linguistics, 28(1), 66-86.
Rastegar, M., Kermani, E. M., & Khabir, M. (2017). The relationship between metacognitive reading strategies use and reading comprehension achievement of EFL learner. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 7, 65-74.
Roehling, J. V., Hebert, M., Nelson, J. R., & Bohaty, J. J. (2017). Text structure strategies for improving expository reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 71(1),71-82. 
Romly, R., Badusah, J., & Maarof, N. (2017). Metacognitive online reading strategies in reading academic texts among ESL university students. Retrieved from http://www.
researchgate.net/publication/316273424_Metacognitive_online_reading_strategies_in_reading_academic_texts_among_ESL_university_students
Sain, N., Bown, A., Fluck, A., & Kebble, P. (2017). ESL learners’ online research and comprehension strategies. In K. Borthwick, L., Bradley, & S.Thouësny (Eds), CALL in a climate of change: adapting to turbulent global conditions.EUROCALL (pp.271-276). 
Salataci, R., & Akyel, A. (2002). Possible effects of strategy instruction on L1 and L2 reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 14(1), 1-17. 
Salmerón, L., Strømsø, H. I., Kammerer, Y., Stadtler, M., & van den Broek, P. (2018). Comprehension processes in digital reading. In M. Barzillai, J. Thomson, S. Schroeder, & P., van den Broek (Eds.). Learning to Read in a Digital World (pp. 91-120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26, 113-125.
Schraw G., & Gutierrez, A. P. (2015). Metacognitive strategy instruction that highlights the role of monitoring and control processes. Metacognition: Fundaments, Applications, and Trends, 3-16. 
Seedanont, C., & Pookcharoen, S. (2019). Fostering metacognitive reading strategies in Thai EFL classrooms: a focus on proficiency. English Language Teaching, 12(7), 75-86.
Seng, G. H., & Hashim, F. (2006). Use of L1 in L2 reading comprehension among tertiary ESL learners. Reading in a Foreign Language, 18(1), 29-54. 
Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognition awareness of reading strategies among native and non-native readers. System, 29(4), 431-449. 
Spiro, R. J., Coulson, R. L., Feltovich, P. J., & Anderson, D. K. (1988). Cognitive flexibility theory: Advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. Retrieved from: http://cognitive flexibility theory advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured  domains
Srisang, P. (2017). Influence of inferential skills on the reading comprehension ability of adult Thai (L1) and English (L2) students (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http:// srisang_PhD_2017.pdf
Tseng, M. (2006). A comparative study on Taiwanese college students’ reading comprehension of printed text and hypertext (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://www.airitilibrary.com
Tseng, M. (2008). Comparing EFL learners’ reading comprehension between hypertext and printed text. CALL-EJ Online, 9(2). Retrieved from http://callej.org/journal/9-2/tseng.html
Tseng, M. (2010). Factors that influence online reading: An investigation into EFL students’ perceptions. The Reading Matrix, 10(1), 96-105. 
Vianty, M. (2007). The comparison of students’ use of metacognitive reading strategies between reading in Bahasa Indonesia and in English. International Education Journal, 8(2), 449-460.
Wang, Y. (2016). Reading strategy use and comprehension performance of more successful and less successful readers: A think-aloud study. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 16(5), 1789 – 1813. 
Warschauer, M. (1999). Electronic literacies: language, culture, and power in online education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Weih, T. G. (2018). Teaching reading comprehension to students in grades 4-6. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov
Wenden, A. L. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 515-537. 
Whitworth, A. (2017). Using literature circles to enhance student knowledge of nonfiction text (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from ProQuest dissertation and theses database. (Document ID10600249)
Zhang, L. J. (2001). Awareness in reading: EFL students’ metacognitive knowledge of reading strategies in an acquisition-poor environment. Language Awareness, 10(4), 268-288. 
Zhang, L. J., & Wu, A. (2009). Chinese senior high school EFL students’ metacognitive awareness and reading-strategy use. Reading in a Foreign Language, 21(1), 37-59.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of Self-regulation (pp. 13-39). London: Elseiver.