MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING HANOI UNIVERSITY IMPACTS OF READING ANXIETY AND METACOGNITIVE READING STRATEGIES ON EFL STUDENTS’ READING PERFORMANCE Principal Supervisor : Assoc..
INTRODUCTION
Background
Reading is highly significant in daily life (Heyne et al., 2023; OECD, 2021)
Reading expands our knowledge, helps us respond to real-life situations, and adds enjoyment to our lives In digital worlds where information overload is common, we become more skeptical of perspectives that oppose our own As a result, we read to assess the value and credibility of diverse sources, to distinguish facts from opinions, and to deepen our knowledge We also read to reach our goals, unlock our potential, and participate more fully in society.
In academic settings, particularly in second or foreign language acquisition, reading is depicted as a fundamental skill (Cook, 2008; Habib & Watkins, 2023; Muhid et al., 2020; Nunan, 2003; Par, 2020) As Wallace (1992) emphasized, it is
Language learning—whether you’re acquiring a first, second, or foreign language—centers on language itself, with a focus that goes beyond mere grammar to shape overall communicative ability Its constructive roles include augmenting listening, speaking, and writing (Maxom, 2009), while also supporting reading proficiency in academic environments that demand comprehension beyond traditional language classes (Nunan).
2003), providing learners with writing models, granting them exposure to newly updated topics, and stimulating discussions due to good reading texts (Richards & Renandya, 2002)
Reading sits at the heart of education, yet it is often underestimated as an effortless, solitary task In reality, reading is both a silent and internal activity, carried out privately with abundant opportunity for reflection and reconsideration Nevertheless, it remains a highly complex cognitive process that can be influenced by a wide range of factors.
Reading is best understood as the act of decoding text and constructing meaning, with comprehension as the central outcome of the reading process In the field of English reading instruction, affective and cognitive factors critically influence learners’ success, and among these, reading anxiety and metacognitive reading strategies have attracted increasing attention for their impact on performance, particularly in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) contexts.
Once key influences on reading comprehension are identified, attention shifts to deliberate reading strategies—goal-directed approaches readers use to decode text, understand vocabulary, and construct meaning (Afflerbach et al., 2008) These strategies act as a bridge between decoding and comprehension and can speed up understanding, with Mokhtari et al (2008) noting that strategic reading supports learners’ reading development In the digital era, readers continually evaluate the information they encounter online, making effective strategies to think about, monitor, and adapt their reading activity essential (OECD).
As of 2021, these mental activities are recognized as metacognitive reading strategies (MRS), a framework that encompasses global reading strategies (GLOB), problem-solving strategies (PROB), and support strategies (SUP) MRS helps students quickly grasp key ideas, monitor their understanding while reading, and tailor their approach to different texts, thereby enhancing comprehension, reading efficiency, and overall learning outcomes.
Section 3 analyzes the meaning of the textual content (Albazi & Shukri, 2016; Par, 2020) Across prior studies, there is no evidence of a negative correlation between reading strategies and reading comprehension; rather, the majority of research shows that strategic reading enhances comprehension In summary, most studies support the usefulness of applying reading strategies to improve understanding of texts.
Strategic approaches to text processing guide how we decode and interpret written material, but emotional experiences also play a pivotal role in shaping reading outcomes These experiences—whether positive or negative—stem from the ongoing interplay among context, text, and readers, and they influence core cognitive processes such as attention, inference, and working memory during reading, as highlighted by Bohn-Gettler.
Kaakinen (2022) and colleagues argue that negative emotions often function as mediating or moderating variables in language performance (Zaccoletti et al., 2019) Among these emotions, anxiety—defined as an acute fear or apprehension related to situations that require processing textual information (Ramirez et al., 2019, p 17)—is categorized as a key factor that can influence how individuals perform in language tasks.
Reader affect can weaken reading comprehension, with studies by Alderson (2000), Ghaith (2020), Hassaskhah and Joghataeian (2016), and Mardianti et al (2021) showing that higher anxiety among learners correlates with poorer scores on reading comprehension tests Yet anxiety is not universally detrimental to English reading; in some cases, the level of anxiety may even facilitate aspects of the reading process (Badara et al., 2018) It remains unclear whether readers’ use of metacognitive strategies could amplify anxiety’s impact on reading performance.
This study investigates how English reading anxiety influences reading performance and whether metacognitive reading strategies mediate this relationship, focusing on the impact of anxiety on performance and the mediating role of metacognitive strategies in the link between reading anxiety and outcomes Motivated by curiosity, the researcher conducts a thorough literature review to clarify the effects of English reading anxiety on performance and to illuminate how metacognitive reading strategies can mediate this relationship.
The rationale for the research
Grounded in the preceding literature review, this study is driven by two central concerns in English-language teaching: meeting the practical needs of the classroom and addressing gaps in the theoretical understanding of English pedagogy.
Practically, students in two reading-skills courses struggled with lengthy passages, often appearing fatigued, discouraged, and emotionally reactive rather than applying the taught reading strategies Informal post-class feedback echoed these patterns, with many students reporting anxiety during quizzes and boredom during reading activities Data from the school's Testing Department further corroborate these concerns: in the most recent semester, 288 of 603 students scored below 5 on Progress Tests 1 and 2, with 18 scoring zero on Test 2 and 10 scoring zero on Test 1 Taken together, these findings raise questions about the factors shaping learners’ reading behaviors and performance and how to support better reading outcomes.
Consequently, to contextualize these tertiary‐level challenges, the researcher turned to examine students’ prior reading instruction in General Education, particularly at the high‐school level, to identify potential foundational causes The researcher found a wide mismatch between general and tertiary education in teaching English language reading, especially how text length, topic familiarity, and academic linguistic features affect reading anxiety and performance Circular 32/2018/TT-BGDĐT issued by the Ministry of Education and Training (MOET,
2018) mandates that General Education reading passages span roughly 220-300 words, with strategy instruction limited to identifying main ideas and supporting details, scanning, summarizing, drawing conclusions, and understanding text logic Topics are drawn from students’ everyday experience (e.g., social media, urbanization, environmental issues, cultural diversity, gender equality) In contrast, the English‐language program at the research site requires freshmen to complete two reading‐skills courses using expert‐authored texts of 300-3,500 words on
5 unfamiliar subjects (e.g., linguistics, humanities, environmental engineering, medieval culture)
Longer, more complex texts may heighten reading anxiety and reduce comprehension Although tertiary-level instruction reiterates several reading strategies, empirical reading-score data from the Testing Department show persistent underperformance, with 288 of 603 students scoring below 5 on progress tests and several recording zero These observations lead to the prediction that higher reading anxiety predicts lower reading scores and that reading strategies might mediate the relationship between anxiety and performance These predictions have guided a deeper theoretical investigation into the interplay of reading anxiety, reading strategies, and reading performance.
These classroom realities prompted a deeper review of the existing literature to test these predictions The theoretical focus centers on reading anxiety as a key factor shaping reading performance, which has often shown negative or non-significant associations Some prior studies report that reading anxiety relates to comprehension scores, whereas others find no correlation at all Similarly, findings on metacognitive reading strategies indicate either positive associations with reading performance or null effects Studies examining the interaction between reading anxiety and strategy use yield mixed results—positive, negative, or no relationship Taken together, while these investigations address each pairwise relationship, they have not yet evaluated whether metacognitive reading strategies mediate the effect of reading anxiety on reading performance.
Existing studies on English reading anxiety and reading strategies reveal several limitations Notably, only a few have conducted in-depth analyses of how English reading anxiety and reading strategies jointly influence reading performance; many studies report only simple bivariate relationships Moreover, English reading anxiety is typically treated as a standalone variable rather than examined within the broader context of cognitive, instructional, and contextual factors that shape reading outcomes.
The variable has been operationalized as an aggregate score, and the distinct influence of its component factors was overlooked in previous studies, limiting a comprehensive understanding of the research issue Although prior work documents the pairwise links among reading anxiety, reading strategy use, and reading comprehension, none has used mediation analysis to reveal whether reading strategies mediate the impact of anxiety on performance Specifically, only Ghaith (2020) and Le (2020b) have examined all three variables together, yet neither study conceptualizes reading strategies as a mediator; Ghaith (2020) treated reading anxiety as the mediator between metacognitive reading strategies and reading comprehension, while Le (2020b) examined only pairwise associations among the three variables Third, these studies lack a theoretical base to guide understanding of the bivariate or multivariate relationships among the three variables Additionally, most studies employ quantitative designs, which raises skepticism about the depth and interpretive richness of their findings (Adunyarittigun, 2021).
This study addresses prior limitations by examining multiple dimensions of reading anxiety rather than treating it as a single construct and by evaluating how different anxiety facets predict reading performance In line with Tsai (2013), it advocates for in-depth interviews to uncover the facets of reading anxiety and the reading strategies students employ Earlier small-scale studies have established the existence of reading anxiety and its association with English reading test scores, including relationships with metacognitive reading strategies, but they did not test whether these strategies mediate the anxiety–performance link Given that students complete two reading-skills courses before entering specialized majors, the current work investigates whether metacognitive reading strategies mediate the relationship between English reading anxiety factors and reading achievement, thereby shedding light on the mechanism underlying anxiety and performance.
This study examines whether anxiety affects students’ strategic reading and whether that impact subsequently shapes their academic performance The approach aligns with Preacher and Hayes (2008), who argue that to understand how or by what means a causal effect occurs, researchers must identify intervening or mediator variables that reveal the underlying causal mechanisms By testing mediation effects, the work aims to unpack the pathway from anxiety to reading strategies to performance, offering actionable insights for educators seeking to support students’ reading and achievement.
Research aims and objectives
The limitations of prior research discussed in the rationale and recommendations of past studies (Preacher & Hayes, 2008; Tsai, 2013; Tsai & Lee,
This study seeks to provide an insightful understanding of how English reading anxiety (ERA) affects reading performance (RP) and to examine whether metacognitive reading strategies mediate the ERA–RP relationship; in practical terms, it asks whether the negative impact of ERA on RP can be attenuated through the mediation of metacognitive reading strategies These aims are grounded in a theoretical framework that combines Processing Efficiency Theory (PET) (Eysenck & Calvo, 1992) with the Knowledge Monitoring Assessment framework (KMA) (Everson & Tobias).
Building on a 1996 work that addresses the theoretical gap identified in the research rationale, this study will discuss these points in Section 2.6 in detail The PET framework explains how anxiety affects performance by emphasizing the worry component, which can prevent the allocation of cognitive resources to the task at hand The KMA focuses on learners’ self-assessments of what information they truly know and do not know, and the accuracy of these self-assessments enables learners to evaluate their learning, regulate strategy use, and plan effectively Based on these aims, the study outlines the specific objectives to be achieved.
to investigate students’ levels of English reading anxiety influenced by various factors
to explore students’ use of metacognitive reading strategies
to examine the effects of English reading anxiety on reading performance measured by self-perceived performance and reading scores
to examine the mediating role of metacognitive reading strategies in the effects of English reading anxiety on reading performance
Research questions
Using an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design in a two-phase study, this approach pairs quantitative data with qualitative data to illuminate and contextualize the quantitative findings (Creswell & Creswell, 2023) In the first phase, the principal research question and its sub-questions were addressed through quantitative analysis, laying the groundwork for subsequent qualitative exploration that explains and elaborates on the numerical results.
How does English reading anxiety affect reading performance?
There were four sub-research questions as follows:
1 What is the students’ level of English reading anxiety influenced by various factors?
2 What metacognitive reading strategies do students use?
3 To what extent do English reading anxiety factors affect reading performance measured by self-perceived performance and reading scores?
4 To what extent do metacognitive reading strategies mediate the relationship between English reading anxiety and reading performance?
In the study’s second phase, semi-structured interview questions were developed from the survey results obtained after Phase 1’s quantitative analysis These questions aimed to illuminate the major findings from Phase 1 by providing a qualitative follow-up that clarifies and expands the quantitative results Rather than treating quantitative and qualitative questions separately, the study adopted a mixed-methods approach with items that embed both quantitative and qualitative components within the same question, aligning with Onwuegbuzie and Leech (2006, p 483).
This study contributes to theory and pedagogy by unpacking discrete reading-anxiety facets and the metacognitive strategies readers employ, addressing calls by Tsai and Lee (2018) and Tsai (2013) for deeper exploration of reading anxiety and strategy use By treating anxiety as multiple factors rather than a single construct and by testing metacognitive strategies as a mediator, it fills a notable gap in the literature on reading performance More importantly, it integrates Processing Efficiency Theory and Knowledge Monitoring Assessment into a unified framework, offering a coherent explanation of how English reading anxiety factors, metacognitive strategy use, and reading performance interact.
This study contributes to understanding reading anxiety from a Vietnamese perspective and provides valuable insights into the anxiety phenomenon within the reading process It underscores the role of students’ psychological states in language learning—particularly negative ones—and has pedagogical significance for English lecturers and teachers of other languages at the research site and in similar contexts By raising awareness of students’ feelings during learning, the findings suggest adjustments in teaching approaches Moreover, the study’s exploration of Metacognitive Reading Strategies (MRS) offers teachers a comprehensive picture of how learners apply the reading strategies they have been instructed, helping explain why learners achieve low, moderate, or high scores in reading tests and finals, and enhancing instruction by guiding students to transfer these strategies into automatic skills.
Most importantly, the students who participated as the main research subjects are the primary beneficiaries The findings will illuminate gaps in vocabulary size, gaps in knowledge of language rules, psychological barriers, and other factors that influence the learning-to-read process By identifying these shortcomings, the study will help learners address their deficiencies and improve their reading skills and overall learning outcomes.
Students may gain greater awareness of the causes of their reading anxiety, which can motivate them to adopt concrete steps to reduce it The study’s findings on actual use of metacognitive reading strategies (MRS) help students evaluate their knowledge of strategic reading—understanding which strategies to use and how, when, and why to apply them This metacognitive insight can prompt targeted adjustments in reading approaches, resulting in more effective comprehension and performance.
Scope of the research
This study defines its scope along five dimensions, focusing on English reading anxiety as the language focus within a private university that operates four campuses (Hanoi, Da Nang, Can Tho, and Ho Chi Minh City), yet collecting data only at the Hanoi campus due to cost, logistical constraints, and geographic distance; the findings are thus most applicable to Hanoi and should be interpreted with caution for other campuses or broader contexts English is the primary foreign language taught at the site, and learners must complete English Preparatory Courses before progressing to their specialized majors, underscoring the significance of this focus The participant characteristics are first-year students in the 2024– cohort, and while Hanoi has the largest student population, generalizability to other campuses remains limited.
During the 2025 academic year, the study focused on students who had completed two reading-skills courses and were transitioning into specialized majors—Information Technology, Business, Multimedia Communication, Graphic Design, and Foreign Language Studies Data collection and analysis spanned two and a half academic years, from late 2022 through early 2025 Grounded in Processing Efficiency Theory (Eysenck & Calvo, 1992) and Knowledge Monitoring Assessment (Tobias & Everson, 2002), the research uses these theoretical foundations to examine English reading anxiety.
11 facets affect reading performance and how metacognitive strategies mediate the influence of English reading anxiety factors on reading performance.
Structure of the research
The thesis encompasses seven chapters Chapter 1 introduces the background, the rationale for the research, the design, the aims, the research questions, the study’s significance, and the thesis’s organization
This Chapter 2 presents a literature review of published information relevant to the research problem, focusing on six core areas: English reading anxiety, metacognitive reading strategies, reading performance, the relationships among reading anxiety, reading strategies, and reading performance, the theoretical framework, and gaps in the literature The review of English reading anxiety explores its causes, affective impacts on comprehension, and implications for engagement and achievement The literature on metacognitive reading strategies examines planning, monitoring, and evaluation practices and their association with higher reading performance Studies on reading performance synthesize evidence across contexts to identify reliable predictors and outcome measures The chapter also analyzes the relationships among reading anxiety, reading strategies, and reading performance, highlighting how strategy use can mitigate anxiety and enhance comprehension A theoretical framework is outlined to integrate cognitive, metacognitive, and affective processes underlying reading Finally, the review identifies gaps in the existing research to guide future inquiry and practical interventions.
Chapter 3, Methodology, provides a detailed account of the research approach, covering the research design, sampling process, data collection procedures, and data analysis, while the chapter first discusses the researcher’s worldview to establish the lens through which the study is conducted; ethical considerations are given substantial attention throughout, underscoring the study’s commitment to responsible and transparent research.
Chapter 4, Quantitative Results, reports Phase 1 findings on English reading anxiety levels and their contributing factors, examines the prevalence and patterns of metacognitive reading strategies (MRS) use, and analyzes the impacts of English reading anxiety on reading performance; it further identifies the mediating role of MRS in the relationship between English reading anxiety and reading performance, outlining the mechanism by which anxiety affects outcomes and how metacognitive strategies influence performance.
Chapter 5, Qualitative Results, analyzes students’ experiences shared from in-depth discussions with the researcher Lots of quoted words, phrases, and sentences were referenced as evidence for their sharing
Chapter 6, Discussion, synthesizes the study’s main findings after integrating the two databases, providing clear justifications and practical implications of the results The section also compares the current findings with those of previous studies, identifying where results align or diverge and explaining possible reasons for these patterns Moreover, the discussion revisits the theoretical framework to determine whether the findings confirm or disconfirm its key propositions, thereby clarifying the framework’s relevance to the observed outcomes.
Chapter 7, Conclusions, summarizes the research findings, contributions, implications, and significance of the study The chapter also exhibits the research’s limitations and suggestions for future research
LITERATURE REVIEW
Reading anxiety
Below is a synthesized review of reading anxiety, encompassing key conceptual definitions and relevant empirical studies
To better understand reading anxiety in a second language (L2), we first examine anxiety as a broader construct—its facets, typologies, and its implications for learning Anxiety is one of the most extensively studied negative emotions in educational contexts and is often described as a natural phenomenon that anyone may experience It can occur daily for many learners and may even involve concerns about the future, making it a highly relevant factor in L2 reading performance In psychological terms, anxiety is defined as an unpleasant emotional state that can affect cognitive processing, motivation, and achievement.
482) and regarded as “a complex psychological construct” involving various factors (Sellers, 2000, p 512)
The underlying anxiety factors encompass tension, apprehension, nervousness, and worry associated with arousal of the autonomic nervous system (Spielberger, 1983, as cited in Horwitz et al., 1986, p 125) Scovel (1978) regards anxiety as a psychological construct.
Anxiety is defined as a state of apprehension—a vague fear that is only indirectly linked to a specific object (p 18) Building on this, Sellers (2000) identifies additional manifestations such as frustration, self-doubt, insecurity, or ongoing apprehension (p 512) Taken together, these definitions portray anxiety as a subjective feeling (Spielberger, 1972, p 482) reflecting its internal nature, and as an affective state (Tobias, 1978, p 10).
Anxiety has been classified as one of the intrinsic learner variables since 1976 (as cited in Scovel, 1978) However, Shen (2022) argues that anxiety is elicited by both intrinsic and extrinsic factors For instance, unfamiliar situations or feelings of uncertainty exemplify external arousal of anxiety Beyond psychological manifestations, general anxiety also produces physiological effects, including electrodermal responses, increased heart rate, faster respiration, and pupillary dilation (Mueller, 1992).
Anxiety can influence behaviors by undermining the ability to regulate one’s affective responses, a finding reported by Otto et al (2010, p 131) This view emphasizes the multifaceted, multidimensional nature of anxiety, which will be explored further in the next section.
In this study, anxiety is understood as an emotional and psychological state that encompasses the subjective sensations of tension, apprehension, nervousness, and worry, all linked to the arousal of the autonomic nervous system, as described by Spielberger This conceptualization treats anxiety as a multidimensional construct that affects thoughts, feelings, and behavior, and it is observable through both self-report and physiological indicators of autonomic activation Framing anxiety in this way provides a coherent foundation for measurement and interpretation across different contexts within the research.
Anxiety is a multidimensional phenomenon best understood through three components: cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses The cognitive dimension governs information processing under stress, with worry emerging as the dominant cognitive feature Worry comprises persistent, distressing concerns about impending or anticipated stressful events, especially when people feel out of their depth, and it centers on thoughts about performance, the consequences of failure, and comparisons of one’s abilities with others As a result, worry can preoccupy attention and influence how individuals respond in challenging situations.
Test anxiety triggers negative thoughts and self-doubt when a person cannot solve a task satisfactorily (Blankstein & Toner, 1989; Sarason, 1988) Research shows that individuals with higher levels of test anxiety perform more poorly on tests than those with lower levels of anxiety (Deffenbacher & Hazaleus, 1985).
The affective or somatic dimension comprises both objective signs of physiological arousal and the self‑perceived experience of bodily tension and emotions (Zeidner & Matthews, 2011) Physiological reactions include sweaty palms, increased heart rate, faster respiration, nausea, and other bodily cues of anxiety In high‑stakes situations such as exams or job interviews, an anxious individual may exhibit these symptoms—sweating, trembling, and muscle tension—reflecting the interplay between physiological arousal and emotional state.
Compared with cognitive and emotional components, the behavioral dimension of anxiety is harder to define because anxiety-related behavior can be cognitively controlled (Zeidner & Matthews, 2011) For instance, a student with test anxiety may feel an inner urge to escape the examination room but remains seated due to this cognitive control Nevertheless, this element can be measured through observation Calvo and Miguel-Tobal (1998) described four types of behavioral anxiety signs, with motor behaviors such as nonverbal tension—touching the body and nail biting—and facial behaviors including lip licking, swallowing, throat clearing, sighs, and grimacing (Zeidner).
In Matthews (2011, p 19), the third component is verbal behaviors expressed through speech blocks and avoidance comments, while the final component is social anxiety, assessed by eye-contact avoidance during speeches.
Among the three facets, reading anxiety is categorized within the cognitive facet because reading relies on information processing, comprehension monitoring, and meaning-making under time pressure Research shows that readers experience worry during the reading process, including concerns about misunderstanding texts, failing to recall information, or being evaluated negatively by teachers and peers (Ahmad et al., 2013; Muhlis, 2017).
Similarly, Chow et al (2021) underscored how reading anxiety prevents the allocation of mental resources for successful comprehension
To grasp the multidimensional nature of anxiety, scholars have identified various anxiety types to explore A foundational framework distinguishes beneficial (facilitative) anxiety from inhibitory (debilitative) anxiety (Alpert & Haber, 1960; Dörnyei, 2005, p 198), showing that anxiety is not automatically detrimental to language learning and can, in some cases, support learner performance and motivation.
A low level of anxiety can be favorable for language learners, as Krashen (1982) suggested Conversely, anxiety is described as “a mental block” (Horwitz et al., 1986, p 121) that could “pervasively obstruct the learning process” (Arnold & Brown, 1999, p 8), inhibit language learning (Horwitz, 2001; Horwitz, 2010), and impede learners’ successful performance in language classes (Horwitz et al., 1986).
The second taxonomy differentiates trait, situational, and state anxiety along a continuum from stability to transience (Zheng, 2008) Trait anxiety describes an individual's enduring tendency to feel anxious across a wide range of situations, placing it at the stable end of the anxiety spectrum It is defined as a stable predisposition to become nervous in many contexts (Spielberger, 1983, as cited in Horwitz et al., 2010, p 96).
Metacognitive reading strategies (MRS)
English reading anxiety encompasses the affective barriers that hinder reading performance, while metacognitive reading strategies (MRS) are the cognitive and regulatory tools learners use to manage these challenges and boost comprehension This section provides an information synthesis of metacognitive reading strategies, defining core concepts and summarizing related studies on MRS to guide effective reading practices.
Metacognition holds a prominent place in education, drawing sustained attention from educational psychologists As a result, scholars offer varying definitions of the concept Some recent definitions describe metacognition as thinking about thinking, but this view remains too broad and benefits from a more precise breakdown The term was first coined by Flavell in 1976, who defined it as knowledge concerning one’s own cognitive processes and the products of those processes, as well as the active management of them.
38 monitoring, consequent regulation and orchestration of these processes” (p 232) In simpler words, it is “knowledge and cognition about cognitive phenomena” (Favell,
1979, p 906) According to Flavell (1976), metacognition encompasses two aspects: metacognitive knowledge and regulation of cognition Following researchers have attempted to further clarify the term For example, a simpler definition is provided by Kuhn and Dean (2004), who define metacognition as
“awareness and management of one’s own thought” (p 270) Martinez (2006) offers another transparent description, stating that metacognition is “the monitoring and control of thought” (p 696) Nevertheless, this explanation seems to overlook the first aspect of metacognition - metacognitive knowledge - as defined by Flavell
Across various theoretical explanations, metacognition is recognized as a multidimensional concept, and the current research follows Flavell’s 1979 definition of metacognition as its guiding framework The following sections examine the components of metacognition in detail, outlining how awareness of one’s thinking, planning and regulatory strategies, and evaluative processes function to support learning and cognitive performance.
Flavell's 1979 formal model of metacognitive monitoring identifies four interrelated components—metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive experiences, goals (or tasks), and actions (or strategies)—that together guide cognitive regulation Metacognitive knowledge includes beliefs about thinking processes and is subdivided into person knowledge (awareness of one's own and others’ cognitive capacities), task knowledge (understanding a task's demands and structure), and strategy knowledge (familiarity with methods to achieve cognitive objectives) Metacognitive experiences are the feelings and judgments that arise during thinking, which can trigger new goals, activate or adjust strategies, and reshape existing knowledge Goals specify the intended outcomes of a cognitive activity, such as understanding a text, while actions are the techniques applied to steer thinking toward those goals In this dynamic system, experience informs knowledge, knowledge guides goal setting, and strategies govern performance, creating a fluid loop where monitoring and control of thinking continually interact to support successful learning and problem solving.
Based on Flavell’s (1979) pioneering model, Brown (1985) and Baker and Brown
A two-component framework for metacognition distinguishes metacognitive knowledge (knowledge of cognition) from metacognitive regulation (regulation of cognition) Building on earlier work, Brown et al proposed that these two areas are clearly distinct yet closely complementary (Brown et al., 1982) Metacognitive knowledge is described as stable, declarative, fallible, and late-developing, whereas metacognitive regulation is not necessarily stable or easily described, can be somewhat unstable, and tends to be relatively age-independent Proponents of the two-component perspective offer deeper insights into how these two forms of knowledge differ, and the following discussion provides a detailed description of each component.
Knowledge of cognition, often referred to as metacognition, denotes what individuals know about their own thinking or about thinking in general, as well as knowledge about cognitive processes that learners can apply to guide and regulate their mental activities Schraw (2001) characterizes it as awareness of one’s cognitive states and processes, while Livingston (2003) describes it as knowledge about cognitive operations that supports the control and management of learning Together, these definitions position knowledge of cognition as both a reflective understanding of thinking and a practical toolkit for selecting, monitoring, and adjusting strategies to improve learning outcomes.
2) It encompasses three types of metacognitive awareness: declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, and conditional knowledge (Schraw & Moshman, 1995), as illustrated in Figure 2.2
Model of Metacognition based on Flavell (1976, 1979)
Declarative knowledge refers to “knowing what or knowing that” (Schmitt,
Metacognitive knowledge comprises declarative, procedural, and conditional components that help learners understand and regulate their thinking Declarative knowledge is knowing about oneself as a learner and recognizing factors that influence performance, often learned from instructional contexts and useful as heuristics for solving problems Procedural knowledge involves knowing how to execute skills and apply knowledge, strategies, and steps to achieve goals Conditional knowledge is knowing when and why to use declarative and procedural knowledge, supporting metacognitive awareness by guiding strategy selection and decisions about timing and rationale for applying them For example, students may know when a particular reading strategy is appropriate and why it improves comprehension.
The second component of the metacognition model proposed by Brown (1985) and Baker & Brown (1984) is the regulation of cognition, referring to the set of metacognitive activities that help control one’s thinking and learning This regulatory facet encompasses planning how to approach tasks, monitoring ongoing cognitive processes, and adjusting strategies to improve accuracy and efficiency Schraw and Moshman (1995) describe these processes as essential for guiding and coordinating cognitive activities toward achieving learning goals In practice, effective metacognitive regulation enables learners to select appropriate study strategies, manage resources, and reflect on outcomes to inform future learning.
Self-regulated learning (SRL) is a set of activities that help students control their learning (Schraw, 2001) Jacobs and Paris (1987) describe it as the self-management of thinking that turns knowledge into practice SRL rests on three main regulatory skills: planning, monitoring, and evaluating Planning involves selecting and applying appropriate strategies, such as pre-reading techniques like previewing the text and making predictions Monitoring refers to a learner’s on-line awareness of comprehension and task performance, prompting periodic self-testing or self-assessment during a task Evaluating entails appraising the products and efficiency of one’s learning, guiding adjustments to improve future outcomes.
Metacognitive evaluation is an offline learning process described by Schraw (2001, p 5) that unfolds after task performance, when learners become aware of how they approached the task In this evaluation stage, students assess the effectiveness of the strategies they used and the accuracy of their results, such as the number of correct answers achieved when applying procedures This reflective practice helps identify which approaches yielded the best outcomes and where adjustments are needed, strengthening future performance and self-regulated learning.
2.2.3 Roles of metacognition in learning
Since Flavell first introduced the concept in 1976, metacognition has attracted sustained attention from scholars across diverse fields of teaching and learning The central role of metacognition in the learning process has been widely recognized as particularly significant, a perspective originated by Flavell and reinforced by subsequent research in education and cognitive psychology.
1979) Chamot et al (1999) stated that “metacognition, or reflecting on one’s own thinking and learning, is the hallmark of the successful learner” (p 2) Chamot et al
Metacognition helps learners understand how they learn, the strategies they apply, and their learning preferences, enabling them to regulate and steer their studying to reach goals This awareness fosters greater independence and self-regulation, and, as Paris and Winograd (1990) note, metacognitive individuals become active participants rather than passive recipients of instruction Moreover, metacognitive practices are associated with improved academic performance across disciplines, including oral communication, oral persuasion, listening and reading comprehension, writing, language acquisition, attention, memory, problem solving, social cognition, and various forms of self-control and self-instruction (Flavell, 1979, p 906).
“learners without direction or opportunity to review their progress, accomplishments, and future directions” (O’ Malley et al., 1985, p 561) As such, the role of metacognition in learning is crucial
2.2.4 Metacognition in relation to reading
Metacognition has long been recognized as vital to language learning, with researchers examining its role across all four skills: listening (Vandergrift & Goh,
2011), speaking (Zhang & Goh, 2006), reading (Zhang, 2010), and writing (Anderson, 2007) This research study, however, narrows its lens to metacognition
42 in reading in English as a foreign or second language A foundational framework for this inquiry is the two-component model of metacognition proposed by Brown
(1985) and Baker and Brown (1984) (see Sub-section 2.2.2), which continues to inform both classic and contemporary research on reading processes (Baker, 2017)
Researchers studying metacognition in reading typically rely on two complementary approaches Decontextualized interviews and questionnaires assess metacognitive knowledge—readers’ beliefs about how reading works and the strategies they think they could use In contrast, task-based methods such as error-detection tasks and think-aloud protocols reveal metacognitive regulation by showing how readers monitor and adjust their thinking in real time when confronting comprehension challenges (Baker, 2017) The first approach rests on self-reports of understanding and intentions, while the second relies on observed evidence of the strategies readers deploy during actual reading tasks.
Reading performance
Reading anxiety can undermine comprehension, while metacognitive reading strategies can enhance it, placing both factors in a close relationship with learners’ overall reading performance This section surveys how reading performance has been defined and measured in prior research and proposes a unified, collective definition of the construct to guide assessment and interpretation across studies.
Research on the relationship between reading anxiety or metacognitive reading strategies and reading outcomes shows inconsistent labeling of the dependent variable Some researchers refer to it as reading comprehension (e.g., Chen, 2019; Ghaith, 2020; Hassaskhah & Joghataeian, 2016; Mardianti et al., 2021; Soares et al., 2023; Wahyuni et al., 2018), while others describe it as reading comprehension tests (e.g., Fitrisia et al., 2015), reading comprehension performance (e.g., Guimba & Alico, 2015; Halim et al., 2020), reading comprehension scores (e.g., Dardjito, 2019), or reading performance (e.g., Soomro et al., 2018; Zhu, 2021) Despite these labels, all studies rely on test scores to measure this variable, drawing on standardized assessments such as the TOEFL (e.g., Ghaith, 2020; Wahyuni et al., 2018), TOEIC reading tests (Fitrisia et al., 2015), the York Adult Assessment Battery–Revised (Soares et al., 2023), IELTS (Soomro et al., 2018), and CAE (Zhu).
2021) and other unspecified reading comprehension tests, without detailing the instrument used
To address the inconsistency in labeling the term as discussed above, the present study proposes using the term reading performance as Soomro et al (2018) and
Zhu (2021) utilized in their studies This term aligns with Eysenck and Calvo’s
Processing Efficiency Theory (1992) defines performance as the effective execution of cognitive tasks, aligning with the current study’s aims However, Soomro et al (2018) and Zhu (2021) have not yet offered clear definitions of reading performance, revealing a definitional gap in how reading outcomes are conceptualized and measured in the literature.
Reading performance is best understood through a spectrum of definitions that tie it to task achievement and outcomes Abba and Mugizi (2018) characterize performance as the effective completion of tasks, while Tobias and Everson (1996) link it to tangible indicators such as test scores within knowledge monitoring In the reading domain, PISA (2012) frames reading performance as the ability to understand, use, and reevaluate written texts to achieve goals, build knowledge, and enable social participation, with assessment via reading-test scores Alek and Nguyen (2023) describe it as the level of reading comprehension proficiency demonstrated after assessment Building on these perspectives, this study offers a collective definition: reading performance is readers’ effective accomplishment or achievement of reading comprehension tasks that supports their academic goals.
Reading performance, within the construct domains discussed, is primarily measured by standardized test scores—IELTS, TOEIC, and TOEFL—and by mean scores on reading assessments Following Teimouri et al (2019), who contend that language achievement can be gauged by GPA, self-perceived performance, course grades, and language tests, this study proposes measuring reading performance using these components By integrating these interpretations of performance and language achievement, the present study finalizes the proposed definition of reading performance.
Reading performance is readers’ effective accomplishment or achievement of reading comprehension tasks to reach their academic goals It can be
51 measured by mean scores on reading comprehension tasks or standardized tests, self-perceived performance, and course grades/scores
Reading performance is measured through self-perceived performance (SPP) and course grades, with SPP being akin to self-assessment where students reflect on and judge their own performance; such self-assessment can foster personal achievement and enhance practice Accordingly, this study aims to measure SPP to determine whether students understand how anxiety affects their performance, thereby revealing performance issues that teachers might miss Specifically, self-perceived performance assesses how English reading anxiety influences both the effectiveness and accuracy of reading, enabling a meaningful comparison between perceived and actual achievement.
Course grades or scores are a form of assessment of learning (AOL) that is retrospective, evaluating what learners have achieved over a term, year, or key stage; in simpler terms, they are after-task assessments of ability grounded in performance This AOL component can inform teachers’ future instruction based on learner achievement (Hall & Sheehy, 2018; Andrade, 2019) In this study, three assessment components are identified: final reading tests (20%), final writing tests (10%), and vocabulary tests (10%), with the analysis focusing solely on final reading test scores to align with the study’s reading-domain focus.
2.4 The relationships between reading anxiety, metacognitive reading strategies, and reading performance
Sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 have provided detailed conceptual and empirical overviews of the three key variables of this study: English reading anxiety (ERA), metacognitive reading strategies (MRS), and reading performance (RP) Section 2.4 now shifts attention to examining the interrelationships among these variables Specifically, this research aimed to examine the effect of ERA factors on reading
To lay a robust foundation, the researcher conducted a systematic review of empirical studies, prioritizing peer‑reviewed journal articles from Google Scholar, Wiley Online Library, Springer Link, and Sage Open Although numerous articles emerged in initial searches, only 18 articles (see Appendix B) met methodological rigor and were relevant to tertiary EFL learners These 18 studies primarily investigated the relationships between ERA and RP, between MRS and RP, and between ERA and MRS, with relatively few publications addressing interactions among all three variables Additionally, research evaluating the mediating role of MRS in the effects of ERA on RP was limited The following subsections detail the relationships and gaps surrounding theory, methodology, and the research problem, informing this investigation.
2.4.1 The relationship between English reading anxiety and reading performance
Empirical studies have generally found a significant correlation between English reading anxiety (ERA) and reading performance (RP) Because anxiety is commonly viewed as a debilitating factor, it has predominantly been shown to negatively affect reading performance (Ghaith, 2020; Hassaskhah & Joghataeian, 2016; Mardianti et al., 2021).
Ghaith (2020) conducted a correlational study with 103 Lebanese EFL learners, administering the Foreign Language Reading Anxiety Scale (FLRAS; Saito et al.,
Using data from a 1999 study that employed a validated TOEFL reading test, researchers examined the impact of ERA on reading comprehension Ghaith (2020) reported a significant inverse relationship between ERA and comprehension scores, indicating that higher ERA is associated with lower reading performance This pattern aligns with the findings of Mardianti et al., suggesting a consistent negative association between ERA and reading comprehension across studies.
A 2021 study surveyed 50 Indonesian undergraduates to examine the relationship between their English reading anxiety and reading performance, using the English Foreign Language Reading Anxiety Inventory (EFLRAI) and a reading comprehension test Mardianti et al (2021) found a medium negative relationship between English reading anxiety and reading performance.
Research consistently shows a negative relationship between ERA and reading performance Chen (2019) reported a significant negative correlation between ERA and reading comprehension among 140 Taiwanese EFL students In contrast, Xie and Huang (2024) found a strong negative correlation between ERA and online reading comprehension among 43 Chinese EFL students These results indicate that higher ERA is associated with lower reading comprehension, both in traditional and online contexts.
In contrast, Hassaskhah and Joghataeian (2016) found no significant correlation between reading anxiety (RA) and reading comprehension among 41 Iranian female EFL learners, suggesting that contextual factors can moderate this relationship This finding is consistent with Zhu (2021), who observed a comparable lack of correlation between Chinese EFL students’ ERA and their reading results from CAE tests, based on 47 participants.
(2016) and Zhu (2021) relied on relatively small sample sizes, like Mardianti et al
(2021), which may limit the reliability and generalizability of their findings
Distinct from prior studies that treated ERA as a summated score, Soomro et al (2018) and Soares et al (2023) used factor analysis to examine English reading anxiety and its influence on reading performance Soomro et al.’s (2018) study of 200 first-year EFL students in Pakistan found that bottom-up and classroom-related reading anxiety negatively affected reading performance, while top-down anxiety showed no impact Soares et al (2023) likewise employed factor analysis to explore these constructs, though the available excerpt does not detail their findings.
Gaps opening up from the relationships between English reading anxiety,
In brief, the review of the published literature shows several gaps that this study aims to address In terms of an empirical gap, although the relationships between
A growing body of research explores the connections among English reading anxiety, metacognitive reading strategies (MRS), and reading performance Studies on English reading anxiety and MRS include Kim (2021); Le (2020a); Lien (2011, 2016); Sari (2018); Tsai (2013); and Zarei (2014), while the relationship between English reading anxiety and reading performance has been examined by Ghaith (2020); Guimba & Alico (2015); Hassaskhah & Joghataeian (2016); and Mardianti et al (2021) Investigations into the link between metacognitive reading strategies and reading performance are represented by Albazi & Shukri (2016) and Dardjito Taken together, these studies indicate that both English reading anxiety and MRS are related to reading performance across diverse learner populations.
2019; Fitrisia et al., 2015; Halim et al., 2020; Kung & Aziz, 2020; Wahyuni et al.,
Although some research has touched on the variables, investigations that assess all three variables simultaneously are scarce Only two earlier studies (Ghaith, 2020; Le, 2020b) addressed tri-variable interactions, but neither offered a thorough account This shortfall risks yielding an incomplete view of the research problem and a fragmented understanding of how the variables relate In short, the issue has received only cursory attention, leaving little evidence on these relationships Crucially, neither study examined the mediating role of MRS in the link between RA and reading performance In Ghaith (2020), reading anxiety was modeled as a mediator, whereas Le (2020b) looked only at direct relationships between ERA and reading performance and between MRS and reading performance Additionally, ERA was treated as a summed score in both studies instead of being analyzed as a factor This methodological limitation signals a clear need for further exploration to extend the existing literature.
Within the contextual gap in Southeast Asia research, studies on English reading anxiety, metacognitive reading strategies, and reading performance rarely include Vietnamese learners, with only two relevant studies identified (Le, 2020a, 2020b) This scarcity highlights a missing piece in understanding how Vietnamese students experience English reading anxiety, apply metacognitive strategies, and perform on reading tasks compared with regional peers Addressing this gap through targeted empirical work will help inform instructional practices and policy for Vietnamese learners in Southeast Asia.
With no studies conducted at the present research site, this work aims to address that gap by foregrounding Vietnamese voices in the literature Expanding the inquiry to Vietnamese EFL learners can broaden the regional evidence base and yield locally relevant insights that inform both practice and policy.
A methodological gap is evident because all assessments across the studies are quantitative and rely on self-reported questionnaires (e.g., FLRAS, SORS) Nevertheless, the predominance of quantitative analyses can fuel skepticism regarding study findings (Adunyarittigun, 2021) In addition, Veenman (2005, as cited in Ozturk, 2017) cautioned that questionnaires used to gauge metacognitive reading strategies may not reliably capture actual metacognitive behavior Pintrich et al (2000) similarly argued that the measurement and evaluation of skills through questionnaires remain contentious.
More importantly, the positive, negative, and neutral relationships between ERA and MRS require further explanation Thus, a mixed-methods or qualitative approach is called for to address this methodological gap
Regarding a research participant gap, previous studies focused on both non- and
Research has extensively examined reading anxiety and strategy use among English majors (Ghaith, 2020; Lien, 2016; Tsai, 2013) and among non-English majors across fields such as Humanities, Languages, Technology, and Science (Kim, 2021), Electronic Engineering, Business and Administration, Chemistry, Mathematics, and Chinese (Lu & Liu, 2015), and Economics, Law, Social Politics, and Engineering (Faruq, 2019) However, little is known about students in Information Technology, Business, Multimedia Communication, and Graphic Design, whose reading demands, disciplinary texts, and learning environments may influence both reading anxiety causes and reading strategy use in distinct ways.
Presented in Appendix B, the theoretical gap shows that only Ghaith (2020) explicitly references Horwitz et al (1986), but its application is misaligned with the study’s purpose and fails to reference the findings in the discussion; further, this framework treats ERA as a mediator, while Horwitz et al only address the effects of ERA on reading performance, suggesting it does not adequately address MRS as a mediator between reading anxiety and reading performance To address this gap, the current study will introduce a more applicable theoretical framework described in Section 2.6.
Building on previously identified gaps, this study expands the literature by integrating more Vietnamese perspectives and directly responding to Li (2021) by investigating the relationship between ERA and MRS It also aims to clarify the mediating role of MRS in the impact of English reading anxiety on reading performance To achieve these goals, the research adopts a mixed-methods design, employing a larger quantitative sample and enriching the quantitative data with complementary qualitative insights to triangulate findings and deepen interpretation.
This qualitative study highlights how the subjects distinguish themselves from previous research by majoring in IT, Business, Multimedia Communication, and Graphic Design The roadmap of the current study combines one theory and one framework, as presented in the section below.
Processing efficiency theory and knowledge monitoring assessment as
To address the lack of a theoretical framework that explains the interactions among ERA, MRS, and reading performance found in prior studies, this research proposes an integrated approach that combines theory with a framework to establish the theoretical base for the current inquiry This synthesis aims to clarify how ERA and MRS jointly influence reading outcomes, providing a coherent, evidence‑driven foundation for analyzing their effects and guiding subsequent investigations in reading research.
2.6.1 Overview of the processing efficiency theory
Anxiety emerges when individuals perceive a high level of threat and believe they cannot effectively manage or resolve a situation that threatens their goals, producing an uncomfortable state that can impair cognitive performance Scholars have sought to understand the link between anxiety and cognitive functioning, with evidence suggesting that anxiety debilitates how well people perform cognitive tasks across domains (Power & Dalgleish, 1997, as cited in Derakshan & Eysenck, 2009; Eysenck & Calvo, 1992; Smith et al., 2001; Wilson, 2008; Wong et al., 2013) A central account is Processing Efficiency Theory (PET), proposed by Eysenck and Calvo (1992), which explains how anxiety consumes cognitive resources and undermines task performance.
PET is an improved version of the Cognitive Interference Theory (CIT) by Sarason
Cognitive Interference Theory (CIT, 1988) posits that anxiety is linked to task-irrelevant thoughts—such as worry and self-preoccupation—that drain attention from the task, resulting in reduced performance However, critics contend that explaining the anxiety–performance link solely in terms of worry is an oversimplification that does not capture the relationship's full complexity, a point raised by Derakshan and Eysenck in their discussions of attentional control.
2009, for a review) Furthermore, another limitation of CIT is its failure to explain how task-irrelevant processing interferes with cognitive functioning
To address the first limitation of CIT, Processing Efficiency Theory (PET) makes a critical distinction between performance effectiveness—the quality or accuracy of the task outcome—and processing efficiency—the cognitive resources and effort required to achieve that outcome These two components are central to PET, highlighting that similar levels of accuracy can be achieved with varying mental effort, and that overall performance depends on both the end result and the efficiency with which it is produced In this framework, performance effectiveness measures outcome quality, while processing efficiency captures the cognitive cost in attention, working memory, and processing resources, as described by Derakshan & Eysenck.
Processing efficiency is the relationship between performance effectiveness and the mental effort or processing resources invested In simple terms, it reflects how much cognitive effort is required to achieve a given level of performance (Wilson, 2008, p 187; 2009, p 169).
According to PET, the cognitive system uses self-regulation to manage how anxiety influences processing efficiency and performance effectiveness, with Eysenck and Calvo (1992) outlining this framework The theory posits that worry, a major component of state anxiety, has two major effects on performance effectiveness, and the first is that worry reduces performance by preventing portions of the working memory’s processing and storage resources, particularly impacting the central executive As a result, tasks that rely heavily on working memory capacity tend to be more adversely affected by anxiety.
A second view of worry's impact on performance is that worry is not always detrimental; worrisome thoughts can motivate anxious individuals, reducing the overall negative effect of anxiety on performance Under stressful conditions, people appear to devote substantial effort to compensate for impaired information processing—spending more time and activating additional processing activities, such as task strategies and external assistance When these compensatory efforts succeed, they can increase available working memory capacity and help sustain performance under pressure (Derakshan & Eysenck, 2009; Wilson, 2008).
To address the second limitation of CIT, PET argues that the consequence of anxiety is linked to the working memory system that mediates the anxiety–performance relationship (Hadwin et al., 2005) (see Figure 2.3) The working memory model comprises three components, with the central executive responsible for planning, strategy selection, and attentional control (Derakshan et al.).
According to the working-memory framework described by Eysenck (2009) and Eysenck & Calvo (1992), the central executive sits at the helm of two subordinate components: the phonological loop, which specializes in rote verbal rehearsal for transient storage, and the visuo-spatial sketchpad, which handles visual and spatial information.
Processing Efficiency Theory (PET) posits that worry mainly disrupts the central executive of working memory, undermining processing efficiency more than overall performance In practical terms, anxiety diverts cognitive resources, limiting the efficiency of information processing and reducing the working memory system’s capacity to handle the task at hand, as proposed by Eysenck & Calvo (1992).
The Processing Efficiency Theory with its Components (Synthesized by the Researcher)
PET has been used to test anxiety–performance relationships across sports sciences, mathematics, and educational achievement, with studies such as Murray & Janelle (2007); Wilson et al (2006); Soltanlou et al (2019); and Owens et al (2008) contributing to the evidence It has also been empirically shown to implicate metacognitive activities during reading and practice, making this theory suitable for the present study Reading is a highly complex cognitive process in which mental activity is shaped by the reader’s interaction with the text, the surrounding context, and the self as they construct meaning.
(Bohn-Gettler & Kaakinen, 2022), hereby affecting readers’ performance Text complexities and surroundings have been empirically proved to cause learners’ reading anxiety (see more from 2.1.5) which debilitate learners’ reading performance A typical scholarly work that tested PET in the reading domain is Calvo et al (1994), who established that low anxiety readers, compared with highly anxious readers, showed no significant differences in reading comprehension scores Nevertheless, learners of high anxiety employed reading strategies less efficiently than their low-anxiety counterparts
According to PET, the cognitive system is flexible, able to reallocate resources and deploy alternative strategies to compensate for limitations in specific processes, and thus processing efficiency can be shaped by metacognitive activities Accordingly, this study introduces the Knowledge Monitoring Assessment (KMA) to manage the worry caused by anxiety and its impact on the anxiety–performance relationship in the reading domain.
Metacognition is the ability to monitor, assess, and plan learning activities (Flavell, 1979, as cited in Tobias & Everson, 1996) Research summarized by Tobias & Everson (1996) shows that learning effectiveness depends on metacognitive abilities Among metacognitive processes, prior knowledge monitoring is a fundamental prerequisite for higher-level activities, as illustrated in Figure 2.4; in simple terms, knowledge monitoring (KM) helps learners estimate what they know and what they don’t know The accuracy of this self-assessment is central to learning environments and underpins higher-level tasks such as evaluating progress, selecting effective strategies, and planning steps to reach goals (Tobias & Everson, 1996).
Knowledge monitoring is a key theme in this work, as illustrated by Everson (2002) and shown in Figure 2.4 To operationalize this idea, Tobias and Everson (1996) developed a procedure to assess students’ metacognitive abilities: their capacity to monitor their own knowledge and to differentiate between what they believe they know, what they believe they don’t know, and what they actually know In short, the method measures the accuracy of students’ self-assessments and their ability to reconcile belief with actual understanding.
“metacognitive knowledge monitoring assessment (KMA)” (p 1)
A Componential Model of Metacognition (Tobias & Everson, 2002)
Chapter summary
Chapter 2 offers a comprehensive review of the three primary constructs and their interrelationships First, English reading anxiety is treated as a situation-specific construct and is quantified using means and standard deviation Its sources are parsed into internal and external factors Second, metacognitive reading strategies are framed within the domain of metacognitive knowledge, the first component of metacognition Past studies have shown that this taxonomy of reading strategies have been moderately used Third, reading performance is first introduced in this study and operationalized both through self-perceived performance and reading test scores
This chapter synthesizes how reading anxiety, metacognitive reading strategies, and reading performance interact, highlighting their combined impact on comprehension and achievement, and identifies methodological, contextual, empirical, and theoretical gaps in the literature These gaps directly inform the study’s aims and research questions, framing a path to bridge theory and practice by examining how anxiety and strategy use shape reading outcomes.
This study addresses a gap by proposing an integrated framework that combines Processing Efficiency Theory (PET), which explains how anxiety affects performance, with Knowledge Monitoring Assessment (KMA), which captures learners’ self-evaluation of their knowledge From this synthesis emerges a conceptual model designed to examine how metacognitive regulation mediates the impact of reading anxiety on reading performance.