The Impact of Students’ Learning Strategies and Teachers’ Strategy Instructions on English Literacy-Driven Achievement
Author: Chao-Yun Lee (Master Program of Professional Teacher, National Taichung University of Education), Jin-Chang Hsieh (Research Center for Testing and Assessment, National Academy for Educational Research)
Vol.&No.：Vol. 71, No. 2
Date：June 2026
Pages：35-71
DOI：https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202606_71(2).0002
Abstract：
Purpose
The research is to explore the influence of learning strategies and teacher’s strategy instructions on English literacy-driven achievement in the context of 12-year basic education. The study has two goals. The first goal is to investigate the relationship between English literacy-driven achievement and learning strategies including memory, cognition, inference and metacognition strategies. The second goal is to test whether teacher’s strategy instructions affect the means of English achievement in the class and adjust the impact of learning strategies on English achievement.
Literature Review
The researches have indicated that learning strategies affect students’ English grades. These studies use Pearson correlation and description statistics to demonstrate the relationship between grades and learning strategies. Additionally, the studies reveal that teachers’ strategy instructions influence on English achievement. A semi-structure interview is applied to explore the impact of teachers’ strategy instructions on English grades. However, no research has investigated how learning strategies and teachers’ strategy instructions affect achievement within the same framework. Furthermore, contextual effects have not been considered when examining the relationship between learning strategies, teachers’ strategy instructions and achievement.
Method
1. Participants
The participants are the seventh-grade students who were the first cohort of 12-year basic education in Taiwan in 2020. There are 2264 students including 1184 males and 1080 females. Additionally, there are 219 teachers from 216 schools.
2. Variable
In this research, the dependent variable is student’s English literacy-driven achievement. The independent variables include student’s learning strategies and teacher’s strategy instructions. Student’s learning strategies consist of four variables: memory, cognition, inference and metacognition strategy. Similarly, the teacher’s strategy instruction consists of memory, cognition, inference and metacognition strategy instruction.
3. Instrument
(1) Memory strategy: The scale contains six items. The factor loading ranges from .77 to .85. The composite reliability is .92.
(2) Cognition strategy: The scale contains six items. The factor loading ranges from .67 to .80. The composite reliability is .89.
(3) Inference strategy: The scale contains eight items. The factor loading ranges from .71 to .83. The composite reliability is .93.
(4) Metacognition strategy: The scale contains ten items. The factor loading ranges from .69 to .81. The composite reliability is .93.
(5) English Literacy-Driven Achievement: The assessment includes 93 reading comprehension question and 89 listening questions.
(6) Memory strategy instruction: The scale contains two items. The factor loading ranges from .64 to .81. The reliability is .76.
(7) Cognition strategy instruction: The scale contains three items. The factor loading ranges from .57 to .78. The reliability is .69.
(8) Inference strategy instruction: The scale contains three items. The factor loading ranges from .63 to .82. The reliability is .76.
(9) Metacognition strategy instruction: The scale contains three items. The factor loading ranges from .68 to .78. The reliability is .76.
4. Data Analysis
In this study, HLM is applied. To use HLM, data is weighted and centered. Additionally, five models are evaluated.
Results
1. Descriptive Statistics
Pearson correlation between achievement and learning strategies is .29, .30, .42, and .35 for memory cognition, inference and metacognition strategy respectively. All of correlations are significant. Additionally, the correlation between achievement and learning strategy instructions is .02, .06, .07, .06 for memory cognition, inference and metacognition strategy instruction respectively. However, cognition, inference, and metacognition strategy instruction show significant correlations, while only memory strategy instruction is not significant.
2. HLM Analysis
(1) Model 1: Intercept-Only Model
The result shows that interclass correlation is .29 which is higher .05. Additionally, reliability of the mean is .8 which is higher .7. Therefore, the further analysis should be applied.
English Literacy-Driven achievement = β0j + γij
β0j = γ00 + μ0j
(2) Model 2: Means-As-Outcomes Model
The analysis reveals that the coefficient of memory, cognition, and metacognition strategy instruction are not significant. However, the coefficient of inference strategy instruction is significant (γ03 = 5.81). In addition, the variance of random variable (μ0j) is significant indicating that next step is needed.
English Literacy-Driven achievement = β0j + γij
β0j = γ00 + γ01memory strategy instruction + γ02cognition strategy instruction + γ03inference strategy instruction + γ04metacognition strategy instruction + μ0j
(3) Model 3: Incorporating Individual-Level Explanatory Variables While Treating The Slope As A Fixed Coefficient
The result shows that coefficients of inference (γ30) and metacognition (γ40) strategy are significant (γ30 = 16.32; γ40 = 5.10). However, at the intercept of second level, inference strategy instruction (γ03) is significant (γ03 = 5.83).
English Literacy-Driven achievement = β0j + β1j memory strategy + β2j cognition strategy +
β3j inference strategy + β4jmetacognition strategy + γij
β0j= γ00 + γ01memory strategy instruction + γ02cognition strategy instruction + γ03inference strategy instruction + γ04metacognition strategy instruction + μ0j
β1j = γ10
β2j = γ20
β3j = γ30
β4j = γ40
(4) Model 4: Random Coefficient Model
The results of the random coefficient model are very similar to model 3. The coefficients of inference (γ30) and metacognition (γ40) strategy are significant (γ30 = 17.11; γ40 = 4.60). Moreover, inference strategy instruction (γ03) is also significant (γ03 = 6.36). However, the variance of μ1j, μ2j, μ3j, and μ4j are not significant.
English Literacy-Driven achievement = β0j + β1j memory strategy + β2j cognition strategy +
β3j inference strategy + β4jmetacognition strategy + γij
β0j= γ00 + γ01memory strategy instruction + γ02cognition strategy instruction + γ03inference strategy instruction + γ04metacognition strategy instruction+μ0j
β1j = γ10+μ1j
β2j = γ20+μ2j
β3j = γ30+μ3j
β4j = γ40+μ4j
(5)Model 5: Slopes-as-Outcomes Model (Full Model). In this model, teachers’ strategy instructions are added to predict the slopes of students’ learning strategies. The results show that the cross-level interaction terms (γ₁₁-γ₄₁) are not significant, indicating that teachers’ strategy instructions do not moderate the effects of students’ learning strategies on English literacy-driven achievement. In addition, only the variance of the intercept (μ₀j) remains significant. Therefore, Model 4 is selected as the final model.
Although D2 decreases as model complexity increases, the variances of the random slopes (μ₀j-μ4j) in the random coefficient model are not significant. Therefore, the random coefficient model (Model 4), rather than the more complex slopes-as-outcomes model, is chosen as the final model.
Conclusion
The study highlights the importance of learning strategy and strategy instruction in the context of 12-year basic education. Students’ inference and metacognition strategies have a significant impact on English Literacy-Driven achievement, while memory and cognition strategies do not. Regarding teacher’ strategy instruction, inference strategy instruction has positive effect on the mean of English achievement in the class. In contrast, memory, cognition, and metacognition strategy instruction do not have impacts on English achievement in the class. Furthermore, regardless of which strategies teacher choose, the coefficients of students’ learning strategies on English achievement are not moderated.
Through analysis of HLM, the role of teachers, students, and learning achievements are depicted more clearly compared to previous literature. Based on the result, the following suggestions are proposed. First, students should improve their inference and metacognition strategy. Second, teachers should guide students in developing inference strategy to enhance overall English achievement in the class.
Besides, other topics and issues warrant further investigation. In the study, only junior high school students were included. However, to gain the deeper understanding of learning strategies, further research should also include elementary school students to examine the effects of learning strategies from an early stage. Furthermore, this study focused solely on listening and reading. However, English proficiency encompasses listening, reading, writing and speaking. Therefore, further research should consider all four skills.
Keywords：
metacognition strategy, English academic achievement, memory strategy, inference strategy, cognition strategy
《Full Text》
References：王一芝（2019）。108課綱新趨勢：全球教改都在推「素養」，台灣做對了嗎？天下雜誌。https://www.cw.com.tw/article/5097553
【Wang, Y.-Z. (2019). The new trends in the 108 curriculum: Global education reforms are promoting “literacy-based learning”– Is Taiwan on the right track? CommonWealth Magazine. https://www.cw.com.tw/article/5097553】
任宗浩（2018）。十二年國民基本教育實施成效評估—臺灣學生成就長期追蹤評量計畫（第一期）（總計畫）（NAER-107-12-B-1-01-00-1-02）。國家教育研究院。https://teric.naer.edu.tw/ wSite/ct?mp=teric_g&xItem=2065996&ctNode=648
【Jen, T.-H. (2018). Effectiveness of 12-year basic education program: A longitudinal study on Taiwan assessment of student achievement (TASA-L) (I) (NAER-107-12-B-1-01-00-1-02). National Academy for Educational Research. https://teric.naer.edu.tw/wSite/ct?mp=teric_g&xItem=2065996&ctNode=648】
朱秀瑜（2019）。英文閱讀策略教學之實踐與研究。通識教育學報，7，1-19。https://doi.org/ 10.6517/MCUT.201912_(7).0001
【Chu, H.-Y. (2019). Practice and research on English reading strategy instruction. Journal of General Education, 7, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.6517/MCUT.201912(7).0001】
吳正新（2019）。長期追蹤調查抽樣技術與權重校正（NAER-2019-113-A-1-1-E1-03）。國家教育研究院。https://www.naer.edu.tw/PageMain5/projectDetail/RP000000001089
【Wu, J.-S. (2019). Sampling design and weighting adjustment of large-scale surveys (NAER-2019-113-A-1-1- E1-03). National Academy for Educational Research. https://www.naer.edu.tw/PageMain5/projectDetail/ RP000000001089】
巫博瀚、賴英娟（2011）。性別、自我效能、工作價值、科學素養及學校層次因素對臺灣青少年學習情緒之影響：個人與情境交互作用之多層次分析。教育科學研究期刊，56（3），119-149。
【Wu, P.-H., & Lai, Y. -C. (2011). The impact of gender, self-efficacy, task value, scientific literacy, and school-level factors on Taiwanese teenagers’ academic emotions: A multilevel analysis of person-context interactions. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 56(3), 119-149.】
» More
一、中文文獻
王一芝（2019）。108課綱新趨勢：全球教改都在推「素養」，台灣做對了嗎？天下雜誌。https://www.cw.com.tw/article/5097553
【Wang, Y.-Z. (2019). The new trends in the 108 curriculum: Global education reforms are promoting “literacy-based learning”– Is Taiwan on the right track? CommonWealth Magazine. https://www.cw.com.tw/article/5097553】
任宗浩（2018）。十二年國民基本教育實施成效評估—臺灣學生成就長期追蹤評量計畫（第一期）（總計畫）（NAER-107-12-B-1-01-00-1-02）。國家教育研究院。https://teric.naer.edu.tw/ wSite/ct?mp=teric_g&xItem=2065996&ctNode=648
【Jen, T.-H. (2018). Effectiveness of 12-year basic education program: A longitudinal study on Taiwan assessment of student achievement (TASA-L) (I) (NAER-107-12-B-1-01-00-1-02). National Academy for Educational Research. https://teric.naer.edu.tw/wSite/ct?mp=teric_g&xItem=2065996&ctNode=648】
朱秀瑜（2019）。英文閱讀策略教學之實踐與研究。通識教育學報，7，1-19。https://doi.org/ 10.6517/MCUT.201912_(7).0001
【Chu, H.-Y. (2019). Practice and research on English reading strategy instruction. Journal of General Education, 7, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.6517/MCUT.201912(7).0001】
吳正新（2019）。長期追蹤調查抽樣技術與權重校正（NAER-2019-113-A-1-1-E1-03）。國家教育研究院。https://www.naer.edu.tw/PageMain5/projectDetail/RP000000001089
【Wu, J.-S. (2019). Sampling design and weighting adjustment of large-scale surveys (NAER-2019-113-A-1-1- E1-03). National Academy for Educational Research. https://www.naer.edu.tw/PageMain5/projectDetail/ RP000000001089】
巫博瀚、賴英娟（2011）。性別、自我效能、工作價值、科學素養及學校層次因素對臺灣青少年學習情緒之影響：個人與情境交互作用之多層次分析。教育科學研究期刊，56（3），119-149。
【Wu, P.-H., & Lai, Y. -C. (2011). The impact of gender, self-efficacy, task value, scientific literacy, and school-level factors on Taiwanese teenagers’ academic emotions: A multilevel analysis of person-context interactions. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 56(3), 119-149.】
柯華葳、幸曼玲、陸怡琮、辜玉旻（2010）。閱讀理解策略教學手冊。教育部。
【Ko, H.-W., Shing, M.-L., Lu, I.-C., & Ku, Y.-M. (2010). Teaching handbook of reading comprehension strategies. Ministry of Education.】
洪碧霞（主編）（2021）。PISA 2018臺灣學生的表現。心理。
【Hung, P.-H. (Ed.). (2021). The performance of Taiwanese students in PISA 2018. Psychological.】
張芳全（2019）。班級脈絡、文化資本、學習動機、課後補習與英語學習成就之多層次分析。臺北市立大學學報˙教育類，50（1），1-24。https://doi.org/10.6336/JUTEE.201906_50(1).0001
【Chang, F.-C. (2019). A multilevel study on class context, cultural capital, learning motivation, supplementary school lessons, and English achievement. Journal of University of Taipei．Education, 50(1), 1-24. https://doi. org/10.6336/JUTEE.201906_50(1).0001】
張春興（2007）。教育心理學。東華。
【Chang, V.-H. (2007). Educational psychology. Tunghua.】
張雅如、蘇宜芬（2003，10月）。國小學童推論理解測驗之編製與研究（研討會論文）。中國心理學會第四十二屆年會，新北市，臺灣。
【Chang, Y.-J., & Su, Y.-F. (2003, October). Research and development of inferential comprehension test for elementary students [Paper presentation]. The Chinese Psychological Association 42st Annual Meeting, New Taipei City, Taiwan.】
教育部（2018）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要，語文領域—英語文。https://cirn.moe. edu.tw/Upload/file/26192/74206.pdf
【Ministry of Education. (2018). Curriculum guidelines of 12-year basic education for elementary school, junior high school and general senior high schools-subject of English in the domain of language. https://cirn.moe.edu.tw/Upload/file/26192/74206.pdf】
教育部國民及學前教育署（2017）。十二年國民基本教育課程總綱宣講（國民中小學階段公播版—完整版）〔簡報影片〕。https://ws.ylc.edu.tw/Download.ashx?u=LzAwMS9VcGxvYWQvODkyL3JlbGZpbGUvMC82NjQ5MS80MGJlZGQ3MS1lMmM5LTQ0MDgtYTk1OC0xMDgzN2ViYmY1NmQucHB0eA%3D%3D&n=MTA2MDQxMGNvdXJzZW91dGxpbmUucHB
0eA%3D%3D
【K-12 Education Administration, Ministry of Education. (2017). Preach of curriculum guidelines of 12-year basic education (Public Broadcast Version 1, Complete Edition) [Presentation Video]. https://ws.ylc.edu.tw/Download.ashx?u=LzAwMS9VcGxvYWQvODkyL3JlbGZpbGUvMC82NjQ5MS80MGJlZGQ3MS1lMmM5LTQ0MDgtYTk1OC0xM DgzN2ViYmY1NmQucHB0eA%3D%3D&n=MTA2MDQxMGNvdXJzZW91dGxpbmUucHB0eA%3D%3D】
陳芷廷、蔡妤姿、王立弘、張智凱（2020）。融入後設認知策略的科技增強英語聽力活動設計。國立臺灣科技大學人文社會學報，16（3），301-316。
【Chen, C.-T., Tsai, Y.-T., Wang, L.-H., & Chang, C.-K. (2020). Learning activity design for integrating technology-enhanced EFL listening with metacognitive strategies. Journal of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences, 16(3), 301-316.】
陳奕安、潘乃欣（2023）。112會考英文：難題變少卻變長，考前做這4件事提升閱讀力。翻轉教育。https://flipedu.parenting.com.tw/article/007245
【Chen, I.-A., & Pan, N.-H. (2023). 2023 comprehensive assessment program English: Fewer but longer difficult questions– Do these four things to enhance your reading ability before the exam. Flip Education. https://flipedu. parenting.com.tw/article/007245】
陳柏軒（2018）。焦慮、動機、外向性、與英文成就對台灣英語學習者使用語言學習策略的複合效應：以南部某大學為例。語文與國際研究，20，53-98。https://doi.org/10.3966/181147172 018120020003
【Chen, P.-H. (2018). The joint effects of anxiety, motivation, extroversion, and English achievement on Taiwanese EFL learners’ language strategy use: A case of learners from one university in southern Taiwan. Languages and International Studies, 20, 53-98. https://doi.org/10.3966/181147172018120020003】
陳柏軒（2019）。由下而上及由上而下閱讀策略對台灣英語為外語學習者之英文閱讀理解能力的個別及聯合效應。語文與國際研究，21，123-157。https://doi.org/10.3966/181147172019 060021006
【Chen, P.-H. (2019). The individual and joint effects of bottom-up and top-down reading strategy use on Taiwanese EFL learners’ English reading comprehension. Languages and International Studies, 21, 123-157. https://doi. org/10.3966/181147172019060021006】
陳柏熹、彭淑惠、藍珮君（2019）。華語文寫作測驗信度與評分規準適切性研究：以流利精通級摘要寫作題型為例。華語文教學研究，16（2），75-102。https://doi.org/10.6393/JCLT. 201906_16(2).0003
【Chen, P.-H., Peng, S.-H., & Lan, P.-J. (2019). The reliability and rubric relevance of the TOCFL writing test: Analyzing band C summary writing as an example. Journal of Chinese Language Teaching, 16(2), 75-102. https://doi.org/10.6393/JCLT.201906_16(2).0003】
傅瑞德（2008）。台灣大學生EFL學習者聽力策略訓練。華岡英語期刊，14，63-85。https://doi. org/10.7109/HKJELL.200807.0063
【Shannon, F. (2008). Cognitive and metacognitive listening strategies training for university non-English majors. Hwa Kang Journal of English Language & Literature, 14, 63-85. https://doi.org/10.7109/HKJELL.200807. 0063】
溫福星（2009）。階層線性模式：原理、方法與應用。雙葉書廊。
【Wen, F.-H. (2009). Hierarchical linear modeling: Theory, method and application. Yeh Yeh Book Gallery.】
劉佩雲（2020）。國小中高年級學童文章結構辨識與閱讀理解之研究。課程與教學，23（1），143-164。https://doi.org/10.6384/CIQ.202001_23(1).0006
【Liu, P.-Y. (2020). Effects of text structures identification on 3th graders’ to 6th graders’ reading comprehension. Curriculum & Instruction Quarterly, 23(1), 143-164. https://doi.org/10.6384/CIQ.202001_23(1).0006】
蕭佳純（2017）。學生學習動機與學業成就關聯之研究：教師創意教學的多層次調節式中介效果。特殊教育研究學刊，42（1），79-111。https://doi.org/10.6172/BSE.2017.03.4201004
【Hsiao, C.-C. (2017). Correlation between students’ learning motivation and academic achievements: The multilevel moderated mediation of creative teaching. Bulletin of Special Education, 42(1), 79-111. https://doi.org/10.6172/ BSE.2017.03.4201004】
賴光真（2023）。認知負荷理論對學習策略指導的啟示。臺灣教育評論月刊，12（10），121-125。
【Lai, G.-Z. (2023). The implications of cognitive load theory for learning strategy guidance. Taiwan Educational Review Monthly, 12(10), 121-125.】
賴映君（2016）。英文字彙能力與學習策略之使用及看法。語文與國際研究，15，27-46。https://doi.org/10.3966/181147172016060015002
【Lai, Y.-C. (2016). Vocabulary learning strategies: Actual use, perceived usefulness, and lexical competence. Languages and International Studies, 15, 27-46. https://doi.org/10.3966/181147172016060015002】
謝俊義（2015）。多層次分析：理論、方法與實務。鼎茂圖書。
【Hsieh, J.-Y. (2015). Multilevel analysis: Theory, method, and application. Tingmao Press.】
謝進昌（2023a）。建構英語文素養評量指引：TASAL標準本位大型評量。臺灣教育研究資訊網。https://teric.naer.edu.tw/wSite/ct?ctNode=645&mp=teric_b&xItem=2062179
【Hsieh, J.-C. (2023a). The guideline of establishing English literacy assessment: TASAL standard-based assessment. Taiwan Education Resources Information Center. https://teric.naer.edu.tw/wSite/ct?ctNode=645&mp=teric_ b&xItem=2062179]
謝進昌（2023b）。「混合專家與學生實徵表現導向」大型教育評量標準設定之效度評估研究。教育科學研究期刊，68（2），1-35。https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202306_68(2).0001
【Hsieh, J.-C. (2023b). Assessing the validity of standard-setting for an English language assessment with a hybrid expert and empirical performance model. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 68(2), 1-35. https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202306_68(2).0001】
羅正佳（2019）。臺灣大學生閱讀學術英文後設認知變化之個案研究：以被動閱讀英文教科書者為例。教育實踐與研究，32（2），81-116。https://tpl.ncl.edu.tw/NclService/Journal ContentDetail?SysId=A20001795
【Luo, J.-J. (2019). A case study on a passive Taiwanese university student’s metacognition changes in the process of English academic reading. Journal of Educational Practice and Research, 32(2), 81-116. https://tpl.ncl.edu.tw/ NclService/JournalContentDetail?SysId=A20001795】
二、外文文獻
Abbassi, A., Hassaskhah, J., & Tahriri, A. (2018). The effect of teaching memory strategies on Iranian EFL learner’s vocabulary retention in terms of learners’ multiple intelligences. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 6(2), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac. ijels.v.6n.2p.1
Al-Qahtani, M. F. (2013). Relationship between English language, learning strategies, attitudes, motivation, and students’ academic achievement. Education in Medicine Journal, 5(3), 19-29. https://doi.org/10.5959/eimj.v5i3.124
An, S. (2013). Schema theory in reading. Theory & Practice in Language Studies, 3(1), 130-134. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.3.1.130-134
Anggarista, S., & Wahyudin, A. Y. (2022). A correlational study of language learning strategies and English proficiency of university students at EFL context. Journal of Arts and Education, 1(2), 26-35. https://doi.org/10.33365/jae.v2i1.68
Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 2, 89-195. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079- 7421(08)60422-3
Aziz, Z. A., Nasir, C., & Ramazani, R. (2019). Applying metacognitive strategies in comprehending English reading texts. Celt: A Journal of Culture, English Language Teaching & Literature, 19(1), 138-159. https://doi.org/10.24167/celt.v19i1.1863
Bernhardt, E. (2005). Progress and procrastination in second language reading. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 133-150. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190505000073
Carrell, P. L. (1983). Schema theory and language comprehension. University of Hawaii Working Papers in ESL, 2, 1-17. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/38551
Chamot, A. U., & Kupper, L. (1989). Learning strategies in foreign language instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 22(1), 13-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1989.tb03138.x
Chamot, A. U., Barnhardt, S., El-Dinary, P. B., & Robbins, J. (1999). Learning strategies handbook. Pearson Education.
Chao, J. Y.-G., & Chen, C.-H. (2014). Effects of inference strategy instruction on EFL college freshman’s listening comprehension. NCUE Journal of Humanities, 10, 87-107.
Gagné, E. D., Yekovich, F. R., & Yekovich, C. W. (1993). The cognitive psychology of school learning (2nd ed.). HarperCollins College Publishers.
Gamboa-González, Á. M. (2017). Reading comprehension in an English as a foreign language setting: Teaching strategies for sixth graders based on the interactive model of reading. Folios, 45, 159-175. https://doi.org/10.17227/01234870.45folios159.175
Ghanizadeh, A., Pour, A. V., & Hosseini, A. (2017). IELTS academic reading achievement: The contribution of inference-making and evaluation of arguments. European Journal of English Language Teaching, 2(2), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.438720
Grund, S., Lüdtke, O., & Robitzsch, A. (2023). Pooling methods for likelihood ratio tests in multiply imputed data sets. Psychological Methods, 28(5), 1207-1221. https://doi.org/10.1037/met 0000556
Gustanti, Y., & Ayu, M. (2021). The correlation between cognitive reading strategies and students’ English proficiency test score. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 2(2), 95-100. https://doi.org/10.33365/jeltl.v2i2.1452
Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Ibarra Santacruz, D., & Martínez Ortega, D. (2018). Can working memory strategies enhance English vocabulary learning? How, 25(2), 29-47. https://doi.org/10.19183/how.25.2.410
Ilter, I. (2018). Effects of the instruction in inferring meanings from context on the comprehension of middle school students at frustration reading level. Journal of Education, 198(3), 225-239. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022057418818818
Kunasaraphan, K. (2015). English learning strategy and proficiency level of the first year students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 1853-1858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro. 2015.07.246
Lai, Y.-C. (2013). Integrating vocabulary learning strategy instruction into EFL classrooms. Taiwan Journal of TESOL, 10(1), 37-76. https://doi.org/10.30397/TJTESOL.201409_10(1).0002
LaRoche, S., Joncas, M., & Foy, P. (2020). Sample design in TIMSS 2019. In M. O. Martin, M. von Davier, & I. V. S. Mullis (Eds.), Methods and procedures: TIMSS 2019 technical report (pp. 3.1-3.33). Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center.
Lestari, M., & Wahyudin, A. Y. (2020). Language learning strategies of undergraduate EFL students. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 1(1), 25-30. https://doi.org/10.33365/jeltl. v1i1.242
Little, R. J., & Schenker, N. (1995). Missing data. In G. Arminger, C. C. Clogg, & M. E. Sobel, (Eds.), Handbook of statistical modeling for the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 39-75). Plenum. https://doi.org/10.2307/2077424
MacArthur, C. A. (2014). Strategy instruction in writing in academic disciplines. In P. Klein, P. Boscolo, L. Kirkpatrick, & C. Gelati (Eds.), Writing as a learning activity (pp. 149-168). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004265011_002
Mathieu, J. E., & Taylor, S. R. (2007). A framework for testing meso‐mediational relationships in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(2), 141-172. https://doi. org/10.1002/job.436
Mayer, R. E. (1992). Thinking, problem solving, cognition. Henry Holt.
McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M.-H. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 64-82. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.64
Minguela, M., Solé, I., & Pieschl, S. (2015). Flexible self-regulated reading as a cue for deep comprehension: Evidence from online and offline measures. Reading and Writing, 28(5), 721-744. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9547-2
Mislevy, R. J., Beaton, A. E., Kaplan, B., & Sheehan, K. M. (1992). Estimating population characteristics from sparse matrix samples of item responses. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29(2), 133-161. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1992.tb00371.x
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524490
O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner‐Manzanares, G., Russo, R. P., & Küpper, L. (1985). Learning strategy applications with students of English as a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 19(3), 557-584. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586278
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019). PISA 2018 assessment and analytical framework. https://doi.org/10.1787/b25efab8-en
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Heinle ELT.
Pérez, L. M., & Alvira, R. (2017). The acquisition of vocabulary through three memory strategies. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 19(1), 103-116. https://doi.org/10.14483/calj.v19n1. 10032
Rahimi, M., & Katal, M. (2012). Metacognitive strategies awareness and success in learning English as a foreign language: An overview. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 73-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.019
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Sage.
Robillos, R. J., & Bustos, I. G. (2022). Learners’ listening skill and metacognitive awareness through metacognitive strategy instruction with pedagogical cycle. International Journal of Instruction, 15(3), 393-412. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2022.15322a
Rutkowski, L., Gonzalez, E., Joncas, M., & von Davier, M. (2010). International large-scale assessment data: Issues in secondary analysis and reporting. Educational Researcher, 39(2), 142-151. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X10363170
Salikin, H., Bin-Tahir, S. Z., & Emelia, C. (2017). The higher achiever students’ strategies in English learning. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods, 7(11), 79-95. https://saidnazulfiqar. wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/the-higher-achiever-students_-strategies-in-english-learning.pdf
Schmitt, N. (2010). Key issues in teaching and learning vocabulary. In R. Chacón-Beltrán, C. Abello-Contesse, & M. del Mar Torreblanca-López (Eds.), Insights into non-native vocabulary teaching and learning (pp. 28-40). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/ 9781847692900-004
Su, H.-Y., & Huang, S.-H. C. (2008). EFL learners’ use of lexical inferencing strategies. Spectrum: NCUE Studies in Language, Literature, Translation, 2, 155-167. https://doi.org/10.29601/YYW YLL.200801.0011
Sun, Y., Wang, J., Dong, Y., Zheng, H., Yang, J., Zhao, Y., & Dong, W. (2021). The relationship between reading strategy and reading comprehension: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 635289. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.635289
Suyitno, I. (2017). Cognitive strategies use in reading comprehension and its contributions to students’ achievement. IAFOR Journal of Education, 5(3), 107-121. https://doi.org/10. 22492/ije.5.3.05
Uribe-Enciso, O. L. (2015). Improving EFL students’ performance in reading comprehension through explicit instruction in strategies. Rastros Rostros, 17(31), 37-52. https://doi.org/10.16925/ra.v17i31.1271
van den Broek, P., Fletcher, C. R., & Risden, K. (1993). Investigations of inferential processes in reading: A theoretical and methodological integration. Discourse Processes, 16(1-2), 169-180. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539309544835
Vandergrift, L. (1997). The comprehension strategies of second language (French) listeners: A descriptive study. Foreign Language Annals, 30(3), 387-409. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944- 9720.1997.tb02362.x
Walters, J. (2004). Teaching the use of context to infer meaning: A longitudinal survey of L1 and L2 vocabulary research. Language Teaching, 37(4), 243-252. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444805 002491
Warm, T. A. (1989). Weighted likelihood estimation of ability in item response theory. Psychometrika, 54(3), 427-450. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294627
Wickens, C. D., & Carswell, C. M. (2021). Information processing. In G. Salvendy & W. Karwowski (Eds.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (pp. 114-158). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119636113.ch5
Wickens, C. D., Hollands, J. G., Banbury, S., & Parasuraman, R. (2015). Engineering psychology and human performance. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315665177
Yang, C. (2009). A study of metacognitive strategies employed by English listeners in an EFL setting. International Education Studies, 2(4), 134-139. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v2n4p134
Yang, S. C. (1991). The relationship between English learning strategies, learning styles, and English aptitude [Unpublished master’s thesis]. National Taiwan Normal University.
Yayli, D. (2010). A think-aloud study: Cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies of ELT department students. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 38(3), 234-251.