Metacognitive reading strategies and its relationship with filipino high school students’ reading proficiency: insights from the pisa 2018 data

ABSTRACT Learners’ metacognitive reading strategies support their attempts to draw meaning from texts and to overcome comprehension difficulties. For second language readers, such strategies

may compensate for lack of language proficiency while reading. Taking a sample from a country that ranked last in the PISA 2018 reading assessment, this study aims to investigate potential

discrepancies in how students evaluate the usefulness of specific reading strategies and how these conceptions are associated with related to the students’ reading proficiency. We explored

the association between metacognitive reading strategies with reading proficiency by analysing data from a nationally representative sample of 15-year-old students who participated in the

PISA 2018 (_N_ = 6591). Awareness of different reading strategies was compared using repeated measures ANOVA; relationships with reading proficiency were examined using regression analysis.

Self-reports on metacognitive reading strategies accounted for a significant portion of the variation in Filipino students’ English reading proficiency, after controlling for SES, sex, and

number of books at home. The reading strategies perceived as most useful were not the most strongly associated with reading proficiency, suggesting that students may not be aware of which

reading strategies are helpful in learning to read in English. The results indicate variations in the students’ awareness of which strategies aid in their reading comprehension and point to

the need to better understand how effective reading strategy instruction is taught to and is engaged by Filipino students in their reading classes. SIMILAR CONTENT BEING VIEWED BY OTHERS

EFFECTS OF LITERATURE CIRCLES ACTIVITY ON READING COMPREHENSION OF L2 ENGLISH LEARNERS: A META-ANALYSIS Article Open access 13 March 2025 FACTORS INFLUENCING STUDENTS’ READING LITERACY IN

MOROCCO: A MULTILEVEL ANALYSIS Article Open access 20 August 2024 READING SKILLS INTERVENTION DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC Article Open access 07 February 2022 INTRODUCTION In 2018, Filipino

students participated in the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) for the first time, and the results revealed that Filipino students ranked last among 79

countries/economies in the domain of reading (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2019b). Around 80% of the Filipino students who participated in the assessment failed to

meet the minimum reading proficiency level. A few studies (e.g., Bernardo 2023; Bernardo et al. 2021; Haw et al. 2021) have attempted to explore the factors that may be related to variations

in Filipino students reading proficiency in PISA, and in this study, we focus on one factor, metacognitive awareness of reading strategies, which has been associated with reading

proficiency of readers in different parts of the world (Alkhateeb et al. 2021; Pinninti 2016; Sheikh et al. 2019). We inquire into metacognitive strategies considering that the Filipino

students were tested on their reading proficiency in English, the official medium of instruction for most high school subjects in Philippine schools, but a language that was not used at the

homes of 94% of the students. Researchers have noted how reading strategies play a very important role in learning to read in a second language or foreign language (Chen and Chen 2015;

Friesen and Haigh 2018); in particular, metacognitive strategies help students attain better reading proficiency even as they have low language proficiency (Kolić-Vehovec and Bajšanski

2007). In this study, we use data from the PISA 2018 database drawn from a nationally representative sample of 15-year-old Filipino students to explore how awareness of 11 different reading

strategies relate to Filipino students’ reading proficiency in English. READING STRATEGIES OF SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNERS Among the variables that affect the process of reading in the second

language, reading strategy use is one of the most studied (Chen and Chen 2015; Friesen and Haigh 2018). Second language and foreign language readers need to be proficient in the use of

reading strategies to be able to understand a text (Hong-Nam and Page 2014; Schiff and Calif 2004; Sheorey and Mokhtari 2001; Zhang et al. 2014). Reading strategies are actions undertaken by

readers to support their comprehension and attempts to draw meaning from texts (Garner 1987; Yoshikawa and Leung 2020). Reading strategies also involve readers’ perceptions of the reading

tasks and how they respond to difficulties encountered while reading (Singhal 2001), as the students’ reading strategies indicate how they are attempting to overcome their comprehension

difficulties (Tercanlioglu 2004). Without the use of the appropriate reading strategies, comprehension difficulties are likely to arise among second or foreign language readers, and the

difficulties might result in detachment from reading activities (Kasemsap and Lee 2015). On the other hand, the use of appropriate reading strategies can compensate for second language

readers’ lack of language proficiency while engaged in reading tasks (Carell 1989; Kolić-Vehovec and Bajšanski 2007). Reading strategies have been classified by experts as low-level and

high-level strategies, and both types need to be activated and coordinated by a reader throughout the reading process (Grabe Stoller 2013). Low-level strategies refer to the basic strategies

for literal interpretation of texts that include skimming, underlining, and rereading. On the other hand, high-level strategies are those essential to be able to regulate and monitor one’s

understanding of a text like interpreting, summarizing, and evaluating the text. In the case of second and foreign language readers who are not yet skilled in the target language, many are

forced to use low-level reading strategies which reduces their employment of the higher-level strategies (Zhang 2001). The importance of reading strategies does not simply depend on the

quantity (range and frequency) of strategies. While studies show that learners with higher reading proficiency tend to use more strategies (Sheorey and Mokhtari 2001), some non-proficient

readers also use many strategies (Hong-Nam and Page 2014). Instead, awareness and appropriate use of reading strategies seems more important in predicting reading proficiency (Hong-Nam and

Page 2014), which has shifted the focus on learners’ metacognitive reading strategies (Fitrisia et al. 2015; Hong-Nam and Page 2014). Metacognitive reading strategies refers to learners’

knowledge of their reading processes, and in particular, the self-controlled techniques they use while monitoring their reading comprehension (Ahmadi et al. 2013; Mokhtari and Reichard

2002). Research has consistently shown that metacognitive reading strategies differentiates highly proficient readers from less skilled ones (Mohseni et al. 2020; Pinninti 2016; Sheikh et

al. 2019) particularly among second language readers (Meniado 2016; Sheorey and Mokhtari 2001; Singhal 2001; Tavakoli 2014). Second language learners who know and understand their strengths

and weaknesses and who know which controlled learning strategies work for them are better able to overcome the difficulties they encounter in second language reading tasks. PISA COGNITIVE

FRAMEWORK FOR READING The PISA 2018 assessment framework also underscored the importance of metacognitive research strategies in the overall assessment of reading proficiency (Organisation

for Economic Co-operation and Development 2019a). The PISA 2018 framework for reading proficiency features a “typology of cognitive processes involved in purposeful reading activities as

they unfold in single or multiple text environments” (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2019a, p. 36). Three categories of cognitive processes are defined with specific

subprocesses specified in each category: (a) locate information (access and retrieve information within a text, search for and select relevant text), (b) understand (represent literal

meaning, integrate and generate inferences), and (c) evaluate and reflect (assess quality and credibility, reflect on content and form, detect and handle conflict). But in addition to the

cognitive processes associated with text processing, the PISA reading framework also emphasizes the goal-driven and intertextual nature of reading proficiency (McCrudden and Schraw 2007;

White et al. 2010). As such, the framework also highlights the role of the learners’ strategies and motivations that drive the management processes of the reading task (Vidal-Abarca et al.

2010). In this regard, PISA 2018 also assessed a range of non-cognitive variables associate with the learners’ beliefs, motivations, engagement, practices, and experiences in the reading

classroom; one of the variables they assessed was metacognitive awareness of reading strategies related to two important cognitive processes: (a) understanding and memorizing the text, and

(b) summarizing the text. Various measures have been developed to measure metacognitive reading strategies including the Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory (MARSI,

Mokhtari and Reichard 2002), and the Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS, Sheorey and Mokhtari 2001) which was developed for second language learners. In the PISA reading assessment, the

measure of metacognitive reading strategies was measured using two reading scenarios (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2019a). The first reading scenario involved

understanding and remembering a text, and the second scenario involved summarizing information in a text. For each scenario, the students were asked to evaluate a list of reading strategies

and to indicate how effective each was to fulfill the goal of the scenario. Two indexes of metacognitive awareness of reading strategies were computed from responses to a list of strategies

for each scenario. THE CURRENT STUDY The main objective of the current study is to explore how Filipino students’ metacognitive reading strategies is related to their reading proficiency in

English as a second language. There have not been many previous studies that inquired into Filipino students’ reading strategies. Mante-Estacio (2016) surveyed students from one Philippine

university using the SORS (Sheorey and Mokhtari 2001) and found overall high use of reading strategies, with problem-solution strategies used more than support and global strategies. Cirocki

et al. (2019) surveyed high school students from a school in a rural region of the Philippines, and also found them preferring to use more problem-solving strategies than the global and

support types. But Filipino students’ responses to these quantitative scales do not always converge with qualitative inquiries into the reading strategies. For example, Mante (2009)

administered the MARSI (Mokhtari and Reichard 2002) among university students and found that the top reported reading strategies were reading the sentence again, relating an unknown word to

something you already know, using context clues, and reading the text until it is clarified. But when given a reading task and then asked to respond to an open-ended question on what

strategies they used in the task, the students reported a different set of strategies: making previews, identifying relevant and useful learning strategies, relating one’s prior knowledge,

and double-checking on comprehension. The study also showed that the students reported using some ineffective reading strategies and not using some effective strategies (e.g., doing close

reading as an initial strategy and throughout the reading process despite difficulties encountered, and paraphrasing and checking comprehension during reading) (Mante 2009). The above

studies merely describe what strategies tended to be used by Filipino students, but two studies inquired into how the students’ strategies related to their reading comprehension performance.

Ilustre (2011) used the SORS and a researcher-made reading comprehension test with university students. Only problem-solving strategies subscale was positively associated with text

comprehension; text comprehension was negatively correlated with support reading strategies. Mante (2013) administered the MARSI among Filipino high school students and two comprehension

tests after reading four reading materials. Similar to previous studies, the students reported frequent use of all three types of metacognitive reading strategies, problem solving, global

reading strategies, and support reading strategies, and that the last two were strongly correlated with each other. But only support reading strategies predicted the reading scores of the

students’ unaided written recall. While these few studies seem to suggest the use of metacognitive strategies (particularly, problem solving strategies) based on the quantitative scales, at

least one study (Mante 2009) showed that the responses to the scale did not correspond to the students’ self-reports of actual strategies use after completing a reading task, and there is

inconsistency in results showing which of these strategies relate to better reading performance. We note that these studies all involved small sample sizes of students drawn from one school

or university. As the Filipino students’ performance in the reading domain of PISA 2018 was disappointing, the PISA assessment provides data on reading proficiency and on metacognitive

awareness of reading strategies from a nationally representative sample. The PISA 2018 database provides a good dataset to inquire into Filipino students’ reading strategies and proficiency

in ways that previous Philippine research studies were unable to. More importantly, the inquiry allows for an investigation of a potentially important factor that explains reading

proficiency, when that proficiency is very low. We note that there are previous studies that attempt to identify factors to explain the low reading proficiency (e.g., Bernardo 2023; Bernardo

et al. 2021; Haw et al. 2021), those studies did focus on reading strategies. In the current study, we explored two related questions: (1) What strategies are perceived to be more useful by

Filipino high school students? (2) What strategies are associated with Filipino high school students’ total reading proficiency and with each of the three cognitive subscales of reading

proficiency? We will seek answers to these questions using data from the PISA 2018 survey, and the PISA definition and framework for assessing reading proficiency is adopted. In particular,

the PISA 2018 framework for reading proficiency features a “typology of cognitive processes involved in purposeful reading activities as they unfold in single or multiple text environments”

(Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2019a, p. 36). Thus, aside from the overall reading proficiency, we also explore how the perceived usefulness of the strategies

related to the three broad categories of cognitive processes described earlier: locate information, understand, and evaluate and reflect. As regards metacognitive reading strategies, we

explore each of the 11 strategies measured in PISA 2018 instead of using the two indexes of metacognitive strategies computed in the database. We believe that using the 11 strategies will

provide more detailed analysis and answers to the main research questions. Previous preliminary analysis of the Philippines PISA 2018 data (Besa 2019) indicated significant sex differences

(i.e., girls outperform the boys), and across different socioeconomic statuses (socioeconomically advantaged students outperformed socioeconomically disadvantaged ones). In this regard, we

decided to include sex and socioeconomic status of the student as control variables. We included one other home background variable from the PISA survey as another control variable in the

analysis; students were asked the number of books in their home, and this factor has been consistently identified as an important home variable that predicts reading proficiency in many

different countries (Chiu and McBride-Chang 2006; Park 2008). METHOD DATA AND PARTICIPANTS We use data from the Philippine sample in the OECD PISA 2018 database. The complete nationally

representative sample comprised 7233 15-year-old Filipino students, who were randomly selected using a two-stage stratified random selection system. First, stratified sampling was used to

select 187 schools from the country’s 17 regions, and then students were randomly sampled from each school to participate in the PISA assessment (Besa 2019). Because English is the official

medium of instruction in most subjects in high school, reading proficiency was assessed in English, although only 408 (or 5.64%) reported that the main language they used at home was

English. MEASURES READING PROFICIENCY To assess reading proficiency, we referred to the plausible values provided in the PISA 2018 dataset. To clarify, the PISA 2018 assessment does not

provide actual achievement scores for each student; instead, it assesses cognitive learning in the reading domain using ten plausible values that represent ten random values drawn from the

posterior distribution of the student’s scores for reading (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2019b). In addition to the plausible value for the overall reading

proficiency, PISA 2018 also provided plausible values for three cognitive process subscales of reading: (a) locate information, (b) understand, and (c) evaluate and reflect. For the current

study, we used the first plausible for the overall reading proficiency and for the three cognitive subscales. Previous studies on PISA data have used only one plausible value (e.g., Bernardo

et al. 2023; Gomez and Suarez 2020; Spiezia 2010; Trinidad 2020) based on the assumption that one plausible value is said to provide unbiased estimates of population parameters. Prior to

deciding to use only one plausible value, we examined the distribution and correlations among the ten plausible values for overall reading proficiency and for the three cognitive subscales

and we found the means and standard deviations of the ten distributions are almost identical and are highly correlated with each other. Thus, it is unlikely that an analysis with only one of

ten plausible values would lead to loss of information. METACOGNITIVE READING STRATEGIES The student questionnaire of PISA included 11 items that referred to different strategies that

students use in their reading and writing tasks (see Table 1 for the items); 6 items referred to strategies to help them understand and memorize the text that they read, and five items

referred to strategies to help them write summaries of the text that they read. The students were asked whether they perceived each strategy as being useful for the different reading tasks

indicated, and they answered using a scale from 1 (_not useful at all_) to 6 (_very useful_). ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, AND CULTURAL STATUS Several indexes of the students’ SES were computed in the

PISA 2018, and for this study the index of economic, social, and cultural status (henceforth, ESCS) was used. The ESCS was derived from the students’ report on the availability of 16

household items (e.g., a room of one’s own, air-conditioning unit, and three country-specific items), other possessions in the students’ homes (e.g., cell phones with internet access,

computers), education and work status of the students’ parents. NUMBER OF BOOKS AT HOME The students were also asked to estimate how many books there were in their home. They were instructed

to exclude magazines, newspapers, and their schoolbooks, and they responded by ticking one of six options: 0–10 books, 11–25, 26–100, 101–200, 201–500, and more than 500 books. DATA

ANALYSIS There were numerous missing data across the different variables, and we conducted analysis only on participants with complete data on all the main variables and control variables.

The final sample for the analysis comprised 6591 students (53.86% were girls). To answer the first research question, mean scores of the 11 metacognitive reading strategies were computed and

then analyzed using a completely repeated analysis of variance. The analysis of the main effect of type of learning strategy was followed by a post hoc multiple comparison of means using

Bonferroni test. To answer the second set of questions, four hierarchical regression analyses were conducted. In each analysis, the reading proficiency score or subscale score was first

regressed to three control variables (sex, ESCS, and number of books at home). In the second step of each hierarchical regression, the 11 learning strategies were added to the model. At each

step, the overall model and change in _R_2 of the model was assessed. RESULTS The first research question of the study investigates which learning strategies for reading are perceived to be

most useful by Filipino 15-year-old learners. The results are summarized in Table 1, which lists the different learning strategies according to their perceived usefulness. As the standard

deviations indicate, the students varied in their perceptions of the different strategies, and the students’ responses spanned the full range of options for each strategy. The repeated

measures ANOVA (with learning strategy as within group factor) indicated a statistically significant difference across the means, _F_(10, 6649) = 56463.08, _p_ < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.90.

The Bonferroni test used in the post hoc multiple comparison of means indicated that the first three strategies were perceived most useful by the Filipino students compared to the other

eight strategies, although the means of the three were not statistically different from each other. The top two strategies are similar as both include underlining, with the first involving

the additional strategy of writing the underlined texts in their own words. The two strategies rated least useful are low-level reading strategies commonly chosen by readers whose repertoire

of strategies is limited. Underlining involves separating content based on importance, which is not always enough promote learning (Dunlosky et al. 2013) and is typically effective in

reading comprehension when used in combination with other strategies (Pugalee 2007). For the second question, we first investigated the learning strategies that predicted overall reading

proficiency. The results of the hierarchical regression analysis are summarized in Table 2. First, we note that adding the perceived usefulness of the 11 strategies in the regression model

explained an additional 18% of the variations in overall reading proficiency, relative to the variation explained by sex, socioeconomic status, and number of books at home. Therefore, we can

infer that the Filipino students’ metacognitive reading strategies are relevant factors in understanding their reading achievement. Second, we note (as the learning strategies are listed

according to their perceived usefulness following Table 1) that the strategies perceived most useful are not always the ones most strongly associated with the students’ overall reading

proficiency. As shown in Table 2, perceiving the first two strategies as useful was positively associated with reading proficiency, but perceiving some lower ranked strategies as useful

(i.e., ranked 3, 4, and also 6, 7, and 9) was more strongly associated with reading proficiency. In contrast, the perceived usefulness of the last two strategies was strongly negatively

associated with the students’ overall reading proficiency. That is, the students who perceived these two strategies as useful were more likely to have lower reading proficiency. Finally, the

perceived usefulness of two strategies (see, ranked 5 and 8) was not significantly associated with the students’ reading proficiency. We then ask, was the pattern of results similar when we

examined the three cognitive subscales of reading? Generally, the results in Table 3 suggest yes, except for a few interesting differences. Again, we note that adding the 11 metacognitive

reading strategies in the regression model explained an additional portion of the variations in overall reading proficiency, relative to the variation explained by the three control

variables. For locate information, adding the 11 strategies in the model resulted in Δ_R_2 = 0.16, _F_(11, 6576) = 149.77, _p_ < 0.001; for understand, Δ_R_2 = 0.18, _F_(11, 6576) = 

170.06, _p_ < 0.001; and for evaluate and reflect, Δ_R_2 = 0.14, _F_(11, 6576) = 123.75, _p_ < 0.001. Across these three cognitive subscales, there are two notable differences. In both

cases, the perceived usefulness of strategy is associated with the more basic cognitive processing but not for the higher-level processes. As shown in Table 3, perceiving “underlining

important parts of the texts” [see (2)] as useful is positively associated with scores for locating information and for understanding, but not for evaluate and reflect. Similarly, perceiving

“reading the text as many times as possible” [see (5)] as useful is positively associated with scores for locate information, but not for understand nor for evaluate and reflect. DISCUSSION

This study was conducted to explore whether Filipino students’ metacognitive reading strategies is associated with their reading proficiency. As the data analyzed were from the Philippines’

PISA 2018, where the Filipino students performed rather poorly, ranking last among all the participating countries/economies, the inquiry investigated whether the reading strategies used

(or not used) by the Filipino students could explain the poor reading performance. The results indicate that metacognitive reading strategies explains a significant portion of the variation

in Filipino students’ overall reading proficiency and also in each of the three cognitive subscales. The specific results point to some useful observations about the Filipino students’

metacognitive strategies, which we briefly discuss below. First, the two reading strategies that Filipino students perceived as very useful were not the strongest predictors of reading

proficiency. These two strategies were “I underline important parts of the text” and “I read through the text, underlining the most important sentences, [t]hen I write them in my own words

as a summary,” which were rated “very useful” by 32.3% and 30.7% of the Filipino students, respectively. Both strategies involve underlining parts that are considered important. This

selective highlighting allows readers to focus on important parts of a given text, thereby enabling them to organize the material being read. Effective highlighting allows readers to

discriminate between minor and major details of a text. These highlighting strategies may lead to an “isolation effect” (Hunt 1995) wherein the highlighted sections of a text are better

remembered and the text, in general, is better processed (Cashen and Leicht 1970). The use of both strategies was positively associated with reading proficiency, but the relationships were

weak (_β_ coefficients ≤0.05) and the first of these strategies was not associated with the scores in the higher cognitive subscale of evaluate and reflect. This result might indicate some

overestimation of the usefulness of the two strategies in aiding reading comprehension; the overestimation may be in reference to their appreciation of the usefulness of the other

strategies. In contrast, the two strategies that were perceived least useful on the average were both strongly negatively associated with reading proficiency and its cognitive subscales.

These two strategies were, “I try to copy out accurately as many sentences as possible” and “I read the text aloud to another person,” which both involve repeating the encoding of the text.

Copying sentences exactly does not engage readers to think and might be a waste of their time as it does not involve higher level processing like what is used in selective note taking. On

the other hand, reading aloud may develop reading fluency but is not likely to help in reading comprehension tasks like understanding and summarizing. Yet, these two strategies were rated as

“very useful” by 12.4% and 13.3% of the Filipino students, respectively; around 25% of the Filipino students actually rated these two strategies using the two highest points in the 6-point

scale of usefulness. This set of results indicate a sizable proportion of the students’ lacking awareness of the efficacy of two strategies, which are strongly and negatively associated with

reading proficiency according to the data. In this case, the students might be underestimating the usefulness of the two strategies relative to their actual relationship with reading

proficiency. The results point to another concern regarding two strategies that were not significantly associated with reading proficiency. These two strategies are “Before writing the

summary, I read the text as many times as possible” and “I write a summary [t]hen I check that each paragraph is covered in the summary, because the content of each paragraph should be

included.” Around 40% of the Filipino students rated the first strategy as very useful in 6-point scale of usefulness, and it was only weakly positively associated with the most basic

cognitive subscale (locate information). Around a third of the students rated the second strategy as useful, suggesting the students’ lack of awareness regarding the usefulness of the two

strategies which were not predictive of reading proficiency according to the results. In contrast, consider the two strategies that were most strongly associated with higher achievement. The

strategy “I summarize the text in my own words” was rated as “very useful” by 27.1% of the students, yet another 27.3% rated the same strategy as not useful. A student who uses this

strategy is engaging in many different processes such as differentiating minor from major details, getting the main idea, identifying the author’s purpose, integrating several ideas into one

message or theme among others. The strategy “I carefully check whether the most important facts in the text are represented in the summary” was rated as very useful by 27.8% of the

students, but 31.19% indicated that they perceived this strategy as not useful. This strategy entails examining the accuracy of their output against the given reading material, and students

must evaluate if the ideas presented in the summary are complete and are all crucial in restating the original text. Therefore, it includes judging and critiquing their own work based on how

they understood the reading material. These two strategies help not only to understand the text but also to analyze, evaluate, and critique the text; yet a significant proportion of

Filipino students consider them not useful. These results taken together suggest possible gaps in Filipino students’ awareness of and appreciation of metacognitive reading strategies. For

both sets of strategies for understanding and for writing, their awareness of the usefulness of the strategies varied across students; and some strategies that are associated with reading

proficiency were not rated as useful on the average, while other strategies not associated with reading proficiency were rated as useful on the average. The data cannot provide for

explanations for these patterns, and we should use caution in attributing these patterns to students’ lack of understanding of such strategies. Indeed, students’ responses regarding the

usefulness of the strategies might reflect what they were told by their teachers, or what their classmates shared to them, or they might indicate a limited exposure to the possible reading

strategies available to them. The students’ perceived usefulness of the strategies might also reference their own understanding of what reading proficiency means, which might not align with

the PISA reading assessment definitions. We should also consider that the students’ understanding of reading proficiency might also reflect their experiences in their reading class

instruction and assessment. Indeed, one possible important implication relates to the question of whether the Filipino students are being taught these reading strategies in their reading

education, and what competencies of reading proficiency they are assessed in their reading classes. An analysis of the Philippine high school reading curriculum in comparison to the PISA

2018 reading framework (Romero and Papango 2020) found that the task management skills (which include reading strategies) are found in the Philippine reading curriculum for Grades 7 to 10.

But their analysis suggests that these task management skills are taught as discreet topics independent of the teaching of the text processing skills. More importantly, Romero and Papango

(2020) noted that the task management skills found in the Philippine curriculum did not fully align with those indicated in the PISA 2018 reading framework (Organisation for Economic

Co-operation and Development 2019a). The results and preceding discussions point to the need for an efficient and integrated reading strategy instruction that will focus on knowledge,

skills, and experience development across the grade levels in the Philippine reading curriculum. Strategy instruction should also present a wide range of strategies from the simple

strategies to the more complex, which Filipino learners can explore and use in various types of texts in both print and online modes of reading. For instance, visualizing and

connecting-to-oneself strategies are likely to be developed when the texts are culturally relevant to the reader. Culturally relevant texts in turn are found to positively affect one’s

reading comprehension (Tan and Mante-Estacio, 2021). Related to this point, further research could inquire into how reading teachers in the Philippines actually teach reading strategies and

how students engage such instructional activities intended to develop metacognition in reading. It is also important to acknowledge that there is a threshold of reading proficiency which

needs to be met before metacognitive strategies can become a significant factor in one’s reading performance (Schoonen et al. 1998). Thus, it is possible that the 15-year-old Filipino

participants in PISA may not have reached the threshold level of reading proficiency in English for metacognitive reading strategy to make a difference in their reading performance. While it

is the case that the positive statistical relationship between some of the reading strategies and reading proficiency suggests that metacognitive reading strategies statistically predicts

the Filipino students’ reading proficiency, this notion of a threshold level of reading proficiency might be relevant to consider in deciding how early metacognitive reading strategies is

introduced in the task management components of the reading curriculum in English as a second language. Consider the rather low overall levels of reading proficiency assess in the PISA 2018,

it is possible that Filipino reading teachers might need to focus on other more basic components of reading competencies before focusing on metacognitive strategies for reading. In this

regard, it is also important to underscore that the reading proficiency analyzed in this study refers to reading in a second language. Second language research has underscored how reading in

a second language is essentially a cross-linguistic process, which means that the students’ reading in their first language has an important role in developing skills in reading in their

second language and vice versa (Koda 2005). The reading processes in the two languages can mutually facilitate and accelerate learners’ overall reading abilities. It is quite likely that the

Filipino students’ proficiency, strategies, and other cognitive and noncognitive factors related to reading in their first language also affect their reading proficiency in English. Thus,

it is probable that various other factors contribute to the differences in the reading performance of Filipino students in PISA reading assessment, and future research needs to inquire into

these, as well. The preceding arguments point to some important limitations in the study. As our analysis solely focussed on metacognitive strategies as main predictors of reading

proficiency, we included only a few control variables to those known to be very strongly associated with the PISA reading outcomes. This limitation in the scope of the analysis did not allow

us to explore the relative importance of metacognitive reading strategies together with other cognitive and non-cognitive student-level variables, family background, classroom and school

experiences, among others. The analysis was also limited to those strategies included in the PISA 2018 measure, and as such did not allow for the investigation of other reading strategies

that may have been important and/or useful for Filipino readers in English. Future research that analyze a wider range of relevant factors and reading strategies would be very useful in

deepening the findings of the current study. CONCLUSION Even with the limitations of the study, we believe that this exploration of how metacognitive reading strategies among 15-year-old

Filipino readers in English extends the very limited empirical research on reading strategies of Filipino readers in English. As most previous research on Filipino readers’ reading

strategies typically relied on small sample sizes of students in selected schools, the nationally representative sample analyzed in the study allow for greater confidence in the conclusions

regarding the role of reading strategies in second language reading of Filipinos. The results also contribute further evidence to the growing research on strategies in second language

reading in general and to the continuing need for discussions on effective reading strategy instruction among second language learners. In particular, as the results show that Filipino

students’ perceptions on the usefulness of the strategies might not always align with the strategies’ usefulness as indicated by their associations with reading proficiency, we could reflect

further on what reading competencies in the second language are actually understood and experienced by Filipino students in their classrooms. Understanding the students’ notions of reading

proficiency might help us to better understand why they perceive some strategies as more useful than others. The results also point to the need to inquire into how metacognitive reading

strategies are taught and modeled by teachers and how students engage these strategies in reading classrooms, because such experiences are likely to also shape how the students perceive the

effectiveness of the strategies. DATA AVAILABILITY The data analyzed in this study are available in the PISA 2018 Database page on the website of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation

and Development1. NOTES * https://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/2018database/, accessed on 17 February 2020 REFERENCES * Ahmadi MR, Ismail HN, Abdullah et al. (2013) The importance of metacognitive

reading strategy awareness in reading comprehension. Eng Lang Teach 6(10):235–244 Google Scholar  * Alkhateeb HM, Abushihab EF, Alkhateeb, RH et al. (2021) Reading strategies used by

undergraduate university general education courses for students in US and Qatar. Read Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2021.1912967 * Bernardo ABI (2023) Growth mindset and reading

proficiency of ESL learners: examining the role of students’ socioeconomic status using PISA 2018 Philippine data. Euro J Psychol Educ 38:675–693. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-022-00629-6

Article  Google Scholar  * Bernardo ABI, Cordel MO, Lucas RI et al. (2021) Using machine learning approaches to explore non-cognitive variables influencing reading proficiency in English

among Filipino learners. Educ Sci 11(10):628. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11100628 Article  Google Scholar  * Bernardo ABI, Cordel MO, Calleja MO et al. (2023) Profiling low-proficiency

science students in the Philippines using machine learning. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10:192. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01705-y Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Besa

F (2019) Philippines country note. Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Results from PISA 2018. OECD. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/PISA2018_CN_PHL.pdf * Carell P

(1989) Metacognitive awareness and second language reading. Mod Lang J 73(2):121–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1989.tb02534.x Article  Google Scholar  * Cashen VM, Leicht KL

(1970) Role of the isolation effect in a formal educational setting. J Educ Psychol 61(6):484–486. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030286 Article  Google Scholar  * Chen KTC, Chen SCL (2015) The

use of EFL reading strategies among high school students in Taiwan. Read Matrix 15(2):156–166 MathSciNet  Google Scholar  * Chiu MM, McBride-Chang C (2006) Gender, context, and reading: a

comparison of students in 43 countries. Sci Stud Read 10(4):331–362. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr1004_1 Article  Google Scholar  * Cirocki A, Parba J, Caparoso J et al. (2019)

Metacognitive reading strategies in the Filipino ESL classroom: use and instruction. Asian J Eng Lang Teach 28:29–60 Google Scholar  * Dunlosky J, Rawson KA, Marsh EJ, Nathan MJ, Willingham

DT (2013) Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychol Sci Public Interest Suppl 14(1):4–58.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266 Article  Google Scholar  * Fitrisia D, Tan KE, Yusuf YQ (2015) Investigating metacognitive awareness of reading strategies to strengthen students’

performance in reading comprehension. Asia Pac J Educ Educ 30:15–30 Google Scholar  * Friesen D, Haigh C (2018) How and why strategy instruction can improve second language reading

comprehension: a Review. Read Matrix 18(1):1–18 Google Scholar  * Garner R (1987) Strategies for reading and studying expository text. Educ Psychol 22(3–4):299–312.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1987.9653054 Article  Google Scholar  * Gomez R, Suarez AM (2020) Do inquiry-based teaching and school climate influence science achievement and critical

thinking? Evidence from PISA 2015. Int J STEM Educ 7(43) https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00240-5 * Grabe, W, & Stoller, FL (2013) Teaching and Researching: Reading. Routledge, London.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315833743 * Haw JY, King RB, Trinidad JER (2021) Need supportive teaching is associated with greater reading achievement: wWhat the Philippines can learn from

PISA 2018. Int J Educ Res 110:101864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2021.101864 Article  Google Scholar  * Hong-Nam K, Page L (2014) Investigating metacognitive awareness and reading

strategy use of EFL Korean university students. Read Psychol 35(3):195–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2012.675418 Article  Google Scholar  * Hunt RR (1995) The subtlety of

distinctiveness: what von Restorff really did. Psychon Bull Rev 2(1):105–112 Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Ilustre CAP (2011) Beliefs about reading, metacognitive reading

strategies and text comprehension among college students in a private university. Philipp ESL J 7:28–47 Google Scholar  * Kasemsap B, Yu-Hsiu Lee H (2015) L2 reading in Thailand: vocational

college students’ application of reading strategies to their reading of english texts. Read Matrix 15(2):101–117 Google Scholar  * Koda K (2005) Insights into Second language reading: a

cross-linguistic approach. Cambridge University Press, London Book  Google Scholar  * Kolić-Vehovec S, Bajšanski I (2007) Comprehension monitoring and reading comprehension in bilingual

students. J Res Read 30(2):198–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2006.00319.x Article  Google Scholar  * Mante MJS (2009) College students’ awareness and use of metacognitive reading

strategies. Read Assoc Philipp J 32:44–53 Google Scholar  * Mante MJS (2013) Bilingual readers’ metacognitive strategies as predictors of reading comprehension. Philipp ESL J 10(1):179–199

Google Scholar  * Mante-Estacio MJS (2016) College students’ internet use and offline/online reading motivation. In: Bernardo ABI (ed), Counseling, psychology, and education, De La Salle

University Publishing House, p 245-252 * McCrudden MT, Schraw G (2007) Relevance and goal-focusing in text processing. Educ Psychol Rev 19:113–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9010-7

Article  Google Scholar  * Meniado JC (2016) Metacognitive reading strategies, motivation, and reading comprehension performance of Saudi EFL Students. Eng Lang Teach 9(3):117–129 Article 

Google Scholar  * Mohseni F, Seifoori Z, Ahangari S et al. (2020) The impact of metacognitive strategy training and critical thinking awareness-raising on reading comprehension. Cog Educ

7(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1720946 * Mokhtari K, Reichard CA (2002) Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. J Educ Psychol 94(2):249–259.

https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.94.2.249 Article  Google Scholar  * Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019a) PISA 2018. Assessment and analytic framework. OECD

Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b25efab8-en * Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019b) PISA 2018 results (Vol I): What students know and can do. OECD Publishing.

https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en * Park H (2008) Home literacy environments and children’s reading performance: a comparative study of 25 countries. J Educ Res 15(6):489–505 Google

Scholar  * Pinninti LR (2016) Metacognitive awareness of reading strategies: an Indian context. Read Matrix 16(1):179–193 Google Scholar  * Pugalee DK (2007) Developing mathematical and

scientific literacy: effective content reading practices. Christopher-Gordon, Norwood, MA * Romero AD, Papango MC (2020) PISA reading literacy vis-à-vis K to12 English curriculum. In:

Balagtas MU, Montealegre MC (eds) Challenges of PISA: The PNU Report. Philippine Normal University and Rex Institute for Student Excellence, Inc., p 33-56 * Schiff R, Calif S (2004) An

academic intervention program for EFL university students with reading disabilities. J Adolesc Adult Lit 48(2):102–113. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40009160 Article  Google Scholar  *

Sheikh I, Soomro K, Kamal A et al. (2019) Metacognitive awareness of reading strategies, reading practices and academic attainments of university students. J Educ Educ Dev 6(1):126–137

Article  Google Scholar  * Sheorey R, Mokhtari K (2001) Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among native and non-native readers. System 29(4):431–449.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00039-2 Article  Google Scholar  * Schoonen R, Hulstijn J, Bossers B (1998) Metacognitive and language-specific knowledge in native and foreign language

reading comprehension: an empirical study among Dutch students in grades 6, 8, and 10. Lang Learn 48(1):71–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00033 Article  Google Scholar  * Singhal M

(2001) Reading proficiency, reading strategies, metacognitive awareness and L2 readers. Read Matrix 1(1). https://readingmatrix.com/articles/singhal/index.html * Spiezia V (2010) Does

computer use increase educational achievements? Student-level evidence from PISA. OECD J Econ Stud 2010(1):1–22. https://doi.org/10.1787/eco_studies-2010-5km33scwlvkf Article  Google Scholar

  * Tan DNL, Mante-Estacio MJ (2021) Reader-text connection: reporting the engagement of high school students with culturally-relevant texts. TEFLIN Journal 32(2):342–361 Article  Google

Scholar  * Tavakoli H (2014) The effectiveness of metacognitive strategy awareness in reading comprehension: the case of Iranian university EFL students. Read Matrix 14(2):314–336 Google

Scholar  * Tercanlioglu L (2004) Postgraduate students’ use of reading strategies in L1 and ESL contexts: links to success. Int Educ J 5(4):562–570 Google Scholar  * Trinidad JE (2020)

Material resources, school climate, and achievement variations in the Philippines: Insights from PISA 2018. Int J Educ Dev 75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2020.102174 * Vidal-Abarca

E, Mañá A, Gil L (2010) Individual differences for self-regulating task-oriented reading activities. J Educ Psychol 102(4):817–826. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020062 Article  Google Scholar 

* White S, Chen J, Forsyth B (2010) Reading-related literacy activities of American adults: time spent, task types, and cognitive skills used. J Lit Res 42:276–307.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1086296X.2010.503552 Article  Google Scholar  * Yoshikawa L, Leung CY (2020) Transitional shift of metacognitive awareness of reading strategy along with L2-English

reading proficiency. Read Matrix 20(1):36–44 Google Scholar  * Zhang LJ (2001) Awareness in reading: EFL students’ metacognitive knowledge of reading strategies in an acquisition-poor

environment. Lang Aware 10(4):268–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410108667039 Article  Google Scholar  * Zhang L, Goh CCM, Kunnan AJ (2014) Analysis of test takers’ metacognitive and

cognitive strategy use and EFL reading test performance: a multi-sample SEM approach. Lang Assess Quat 11(1):76–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2013.853770 Article  CAS  Google Scholar

  Download references ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research was funded by a Research Fellowship from the National Academy of Science and Technology, Philippines to the first author. The APC was

funded by the De La Salle University Science Foundation, Inc. AUTHOR INFORMATION AUTHORS AND AFFILIATIONS * De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines Allan B. I. Bernardo & Ma. Joahna

Mante-Estacio Authors * Allan B. I. Bernardo View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Ma. Joahna Mante-Estacio View author publications You can

also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar CONTRIBUTIONS Conceptualization: ABIB, MJME; Data analysis: ABIB; Writing—original draft preparation, review, and editing: ABIB, MJME;

Funding acquisition: ABIB CORRESPONDING AUTHOR Correspondence to Allan B. I. Bernardo. ETHICS DECLARATIONS COMPETING INTERESTS The authors declare no competing of interest. ETHICS APPROVAL

The study involved secondary analyses of the officially published PISA 2018 dataset; as such ethics review and approval and informed consent does not apply. This dataset was downloaded as a

public use file from the OECD websiteFootnote 1. INFORMED CONSENT The study involved secondary analyses of the officially published PISA 2018 dataset; as such ethics review and approval and

informed consent does not apply. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PUBLISHER’S NOTE Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional

affiliations. RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS OPEN ACCESS This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution

and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if

changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the

material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to

obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Reprints and permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS

ARTICLE Bernardo, A.B.I., Mante-Estacio, M.J. Metacognitive reading strategies and its relationship with Filipino high school students’ reading proficiency: insights from the PISA 2018

data. _Humanit Soc Sci Commun_ 10, 400 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01886-6 Download citation * Received: 12 February 2023 * Accepted: 21 June 2023 * Published: 10 July 2023 *

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01886-6 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable link is

not currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative