Reading in another language is considered one of the most efficient abilities to enhance students’ capacities in language achievement. The ability to read and comprehend the deep content of the text opens up new opportunities and worlds. It offers learners to gain new knowledge and enjoy learning a new language. But in fact, the majority of EFL students find it quite hard to read and understand the texts on the syllabus because they haven't been taught or haven't developed the skills and strategies needed to read and understand texts, although they have spent a long-time studying English. Moreover, most EFL teachers come to class with the opinion that learners know how to read but they never take into account whether students know how to read or not (Ahmadi 2017). 

But by exploring previous studies, the researcher could not find any study on the contribution of reading strategy awareness in L1 (Arabic) to motivation to read in English. Therefore, the present study is designed to address this purpose and see whether reading strategy awareness play any role in motivation to read in EFL learners.

The present study, therefore, aims to fill this gap and shed light on the contribution of reading strategy awareness in L1 (Arabic) to motivation to read in English. It is hoped that by doing this research the role of reading strategy awareness in it, learners, as well as teachers, will be more aware of the importance of reading strategy awareness not only in the learning process but also in the teaching process; specifically, in the field of EFL learning and teaching.

As cited in Farhady (2005), the reading requires a variety of diverse but complementary abilities, tactics, and techniques because it is such a difficult talent. Due to the complexity of these requirements for successful understanding, reading comprehension is frequently the subject wherein learners with learning challenges have the most trouble.

Additionally, children showed their understanding of and engagement with the material in a variety of ways. Successful readers are continually aware of these phases when they are obtaining mastery because they connect the abilities in a smart way, employ a variety of reading techniques they have previously learned, and draw on previous knowledge. Therefore, by being informed on how to properly implement these processes, understanding has taken place. Learners may gain understanding in the simplest manner by learning reading skills. In other words, reading is thought of as a complicated activity. Because of this, it is not surprising that students have trouble reading (Cele-Murica et al., 2014).

EFL students face difficulty in developing their comprehension level, due to the emphasis on speaking skill in their learning setting; rather than receptive skills that are ignored. Reading skill is taught with less awareness about the different comprehension strategies, which hurts students’ achievement during reading. Despite the teachers’ great effort to encourage learners to read and comprehend what they read, some EFL students still face difficulties in performing the reading task. These difficulties can be in terms of their interest in reading. It is observed that some English students have difficulties in reading caused by a lack of interest which affects their understanding of the text, their participation, and motivation to read more. This issue affects negatively the students’ perception of the reading course and the reading skill in general.

Reading Strategy Awareness

The phrase "reading strategy awareness" is used by several philosophers and academics to explain or analyze metacognitive processes in learning languages (Kraayenoord, 2010; Mokhtari and Sheorey, 2002; Wallace, 1992). Reading strategy awareness encourages students to consider their thinking while they participate in academic assignments, in addition to guide and manage their cognitive strategy processing for optimal performance. A learning strategy is typically considered as a person's understanding approach to a topic. The actions that make sure that everyone knows of their thinking when performing reading assignments are considered reading strategy awareness in the context of reading.

Whereas the aforementioned authors and academics all utilize the phrase "reading strategy awareness" in their analyses, Grabe (2009), in contrast, seems to think that using this idea or pitting it against cognitive techniques is meaningless. He views metacognition as more of a knowledge of the numerous tactics that might be used to accomplish significant overall reading goals, including goal planning, monitoring, assessment, etc. Each sort of reflective awareness, in his opinion, employs a variety of cognitive techniques. However, Grabe (2009) also points out that reading strategy research is undoubtedly a contentious area, making it rather obvious that researchers frequently hold divergent opinions. This, in turn, serves to once again highlight the need for additional and in-depth studies on reading strategy and strategy instruction.

It is generally accepted that reading strategy awareness and reading strategies share similar traits. According to Chamot and O'Malley (1985), there are three primary parts to metacognitive learning processes. Such tactics include executive learning processes, monitoring one's production and understanding, and assessing how effectively one has met a learning target (Chamot & O'Malley, 1985). There are three different forms of metacognitive reading methods, according to Chamot and O'Malley (1990). The first is focused attention, that is making a conscious choice to focus on a learning activity and ignore unimportant distractions and sustaining focus while carrying out the job. The second kind is self-management, that could be defined as knowing the circumstances that permit a reader to successfully complete language tasks, making sure that such circumstances exist, and managing one's linguistic performance to make the most of what is already known. The third category mentioned by Chamot and O'Malley (1990) is problem identification, that is the process of locating the work's difficulty area or a component that prevents the activity from being completed successfully.

According to Oxford (1990), who shares the same viewpoint as the aforementioned writers, reading strategy awareness entails three strategy sets: concentrating your learning, organizing and planning your learning, and assessing your learning. Overviewing, making connections with prior knowledge, and paying attention are all parts of centering your learning. Obtaining data about language learning, organizing, defining goals and objectives, determining the aim of a language activity, preparing for a language task, and looking for practice chances are all part of organizing and planning your learning. Self-monitoring and self-evaluation combine to generate the last set of tactics, which is assessing your learning.

Planning, monitoring, and assessing strategies are the three clusters of metacognitions that Iwai (2011) divides reading strategy awareness into (Iwai, 2011). Planning techniques are used before reading. Planning tactics include activating learners' prior knowledge, preparing for reading, and establishing reading objectives. Reading involves the use of monitoring techniques. Monitoring techniques include self-reflection, summarizing, and determining the primary concept of each paragraph, to name a few (Iwai, 2011). After reading, evaluation procedures are used.

An evaluation method may be to consider how to use what one has read in different contexts. Due to the range of techniques used by each group depicted, readers must engage in metacognitive thinking (Iwai, 2011). There appears to be a very common perception of the nature of metacognitive learning and reading techniques in the scholarly institution, notwithstanding slight discrepancies in definition and classification.

Reading Motivation 

Reading is a crucial ability that must be learned, as previously said, and motivation plays a crucial part in improving a learners' desire to read since it may inspire anyone to take action. According to Komiyama (2013), reading has a beneficial impact on motivation. The students' desire to read in a second language might be increased by the positive relationship between reading and motivation. The fundamental issue is a lack of academic development. According to Kweldju, reported in Masduqi (2014) and Yuliandari (2016), students are not motivated to read their assigned readings, while knowing how important it is. In real life, individuals often read anything due to their motivated to do so and find the action to be enjoyable. This is due to their interested in the matter or the goal of the text.

According to Guthrie and Caddington (2010), the pleasure and internal benefits of reading activities may be used to characterize reading motivation. Whenever anyone finds reading enjoyable, they will engage in it frequently and it will have a positive effect on their reading ability. Reading motivation is influenced by a variety of elements depending on why readers choose to read; these reasons may include satisfaction of the reading activity, a want to read, or a need to know more. Interest, self-assurance, and devotion were some of the elements that affected reading motivation, according to Guthrie and Cambria (2010). In the meantime, if a kid does not find reading enjoyable or does not want to read because of environmental support, they will avoid it.

Furthermore, reading motivation is a type of internal drive that compels people to read; it may arise from either an internal or external source. Internal reading motivation is often driven by personal desire, but external reading motivation may be sparked by an individual's overall life or by external incentives like rewards or an eagerness to accomplish a certain objective. Day and Bamford (1998), cited in Gridi (2006), stated that learners of foreign languages will opt to read in the L2 dependent on two essential notions, anticipation and value. This is what occurred to the foreign-language students.

According to Murniasih (2013), reading motivation is a type of inner drive that encourages someone to read; it may arise from both internal and external sources. Internal reading motivation typically stems from the reader's own need to learn more, achieve a goal, or read for pleasure, but external reading motivation may result from the reader's social life or from obligations placed on them by a work or school program.

Previous Studies

For the academic year 2015–2016, Yuliandari (2016) sought to ascertain the reading motivation of learners at Jember University. In this study, both qualitative and quantitative data were used. Two approaches were employed to get the data: first, 42 freshmen were given the MREQ, which was followed by semi-structured interviews with the students to elicit more detailed information. The findings of this study demonstrated that intrinsic and extrinsic motives both played a role in encouraging students to read in English.

Murniasih (2013) sought to investigate the relationship between learners' reading motivation and reading speed. The researcher who conducted this research employed a correlational investigation using the Pearson Correlation as its quantitative methodology.  In order to determine the importance of the correlation between two variables, this correlation research is typically employed. According to the study's findings, reading motivation among learners and reading speed are related.

The following study, by Gridi and Saadi (2006), looked at reading motivation in English language learners. The purpose of this study was to look at second-year English language learners' desire to read at college. At the conclusion of the academic year 2005–2006, the researcher conducted this study using a quantitative approach and distributed 30 survey questions items to a total of 71 respondents.  The MRQ originally created by Guthrie and Wigfield (1997) and a different version of the same survey accepted by Mori served as the basis for the survey (2002). The survey's findings showed that motivation for English-language learners to read in EFL is a complicated concept.

Alderson (2000) concurs with the notion that reading metacognitive skills are crucial. He thinks that a key component of successful reading is the capacity to monitor reading and to effectively apply metacognitive methods. He claims that the efficacy of applying metacognitive methods can discriminate between competent and less proficient readers, and that this feature differs between older and younger readers (2000).

According to Pressley (2006) and Mokhtari and Reichard (2002), excellent readers employ more metacognitive methods than less experienced and younger readers. Additionally, they employ these techniques more frequently, intentionally interacting with the text in a variety of ways. A variety of planning tactics are used by proficient readers to set reading objectives, assess the effectiveness of those objectives' achievement, assess their own understanding, and make appropriate revisions.

Research Questions

This study attempts to investigate the effects of reading strategy awareness in on motivation to read in L2. In other words, this study aims to find out which variable (i.e., reading strategy awareness in L1 contributes more to motivation to read in L2.  The following research questions were examined in this study:

RQ1: Are there correlations among reading strategy awareness in L1 and motivation to read in L2?

RQ2: Which category among the categories of MARS questionnaire has the most and least contribution to motivation to read in L2?

Design

The current study aims to explore the contribution of reading strategy awareness in L1 (Arabic) to motivation to read in English. Correlational design will be used to show the correlation between reading strategy awareness of EFL learners and motivation to read in English.

Participants

200 EFL learners were requested to participate in the present study from private Language Institutes in Iraq. There were 100 men and 100 women, their age ranged from 15 to 21. They were all from Iraq, with the same mother tongue which was Arabic. The participants had the same cultural background, as they had never been aboard since they were born.  The participants selected were in the same level as the institute had a criterion for placing each learner in their level. 

Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory (MARSI) 

The MARSI Questionnaire, which was verified by Mokhtari and Reichard (2002) using a large sample of students with equal reading skills, was used to examine students' reading strategy utilization in this study. It consisted of 30 items. On a Likert type scale ranging from 1 (I never or almost never do this) to 5 (I always or almost always do this), all participants were asked to read the items and write the number that best reflect their use of the tactics discussed in the items. 

Motivation for Reading Questionnaire (MRQ)

The motivation to read in L2 questionnaire was used to measure students’ motivation in reading English. The questionnaire was used from Komiyama (2013). It had 43 items and students were supposed to choose from “Very untrue of me” to “Very true of me”. 

200 EFL learners were requested to participate in the present study from private Language Institute in Iraq. In the data gathering procedure, at first, the researcher at the beginning of the semester explained the aims and the process of doing this research to the participants, by a brief introduction to Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory, Motivation for Reading Questionnaire, and also what had been expected of them. Also, very short orientation session was held for the teachers; this action could make the participants familiar with the goals of the study and agree on teaching sessions for administering the research tools. The researcher, then, introduced the tools which were supposed to be used during the study.

Afterward, the researcher administered the Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory, Motivation for Reading Questionnaire, to the participants. Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory was given to participants to examine their reading strategy awareness in L1 (Arabic). Then, Motivation for Reading Questionnaire was given to them to examine their motivation to read in English. The contribution of reading strategy awareness in L1 (Arabic) and motivation to read in English were specified based on the results from the test.

Data Analysis

To analyze the data, SPSS version 24 will be used for the General English Proficiency Test and the MARSI questionnaires of EFL learners. First, the equality of variance and the normal distribution of the data will be confirmed. Then, Pearson correlation procedure, which is a statistical quantitative analysis, was employed to analyze the data aimed at answering the research questions.

Descriptive Statistics

This section contains the descriptive statistics according to the research questions. Table 4.1 provided the results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov one-sample test and the Shapiro-Wilk. It was necessary to check the normality of the data before analyzing them. It can be seen from table 4.1 that p-values of the one-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests was more than 0.05, then the observed distribution was the same as the expected distribution, that is, the distribution of the desired function was closer to the normal distribution. Therefore, parametric (normal) tests were used for statistical analysis of the data.

Table 4.1

Table 4.2 provides the Mean and SD of three variables that were reading strategy awareness in L1, and motivation to read in L2. The table showed that the mean for MARS in L1 was 62.34 (13.892), and MOT to read in L2 was 127.56 (30.762).

Table 4.2

Mean and Standard Deviation

The first research question aimed to examine whether there were correlations among reading strategy awareness in L1, and motivation to read in L2. To answer this question, learners’ score on the questionnaires and test were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 24 (IBM SPSS Statistics 24.0). Since the data were normally distributed, the Pearson correlation test was employed to answer the first research question. The findings are shown in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3

Correlation Matrix for All the Variables.

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.

The value of Pearson correlation is r = 0.558, p–value =.000 between MARS and MR indicates that there are positive, strong, linear relationships between these variables.

To answer the second research question, Multivariate linear regression analyses were employed in order to test the correlation between the predicting variables (global reading strategy (GRS), problem solving strategy (PSS) support reading strategy (SRS)) and motivation to read in L2.       

Table 4.6

The Model Summary of GRS, PSS, SRS and MOT.

Predictors: (Constant), GRS, PSS, SRS                                        

Dependent Variable: Motivation                                                

In the regression model, the independent variables were used to explain Mot, the obtained results showed that in model number (1) after entering the first variable, i.e. GRS, this variable alone was able to account for 0.1% of participants’ Mot changes. Model number (2) showed that after adding the PSS variable, this value had increased to 0.9%. Model number (3) showed that after adding the SRS variable, this value has increased to 1.3%.

Table 4.7

Regression coefficients of the Model (Contribution of GRS, PSS and SRS to MOT).

a dependent variable: Motivation 

Table (4.7) showed that the GRS with a beta of .103 and sig of <0.391, PSS with beta of .062 and sig. of <0.681, SRS with beta of .117 and sig. of <0.358, in relation to the motivation to read in L2. Therefore, we could conclude that the SRS and PSS could have the greatest and least influence on the motivation to read in L2 respectively. It is worth mentioning that the effects of FRS, PSS and SRS on the motivation to read in L2 were not positive. 

The findings of this research revealed a significant positive relationship between the variables under research (i.e., motivation to read in English, and awareness of reading strategies in L1 (Arabic)). Multiple linear regression analysis's findings also revealed that strategy awareness in L1 contributed for reading motivation in English. 

The relationship between motivation and reading comprehension is moderated by strategy from the perspective of linguistic threshold hypothesis (LTH) and linguistic interdependence hypothesis (LIH). The results of the present study partly confirm the moderating role of reading strategy awareness, and motivation to read in L2. 

It is important to note that, according to the findings of this study, in conjunction with reading strategy awareness, that is identified as the strongest influencing factors that have been identified, L2 language proficiency is also identified as a possible cause influencing the cross-language relationship in bilinguals and determining the circumstances within which linguistic interconnectedness happens (Cobo-Lewis et al., 2002; Prevoo et al., 2015). Castilla et al. (2009) suggests that language interconnectedness was primarily caused by linguistic differences learning abilities instead of cross-linguistic transfer, but the results of this research raise doubts about that claim since statistical analyses showed that strategy has a significant impact on EFL students' reading.

This study further confirms LTH and prior research findings that, in addition to strategy, a certain amount of proficiency in L2 is required to improve reading. Hacquebord (1989), Bernhardt and Kamil (1995), and Yamashita (2002) discovered that proficiency had a stronger relationship with reading than strategy. Bernhardt and Kamil (1995) found that strategy accounted for 10-16% of L2 reading differences, whereas proficiency accounts for 30-38% of reading variance. However, this study found that both proficiency and strategy are influential factors.

Considering these facts in conjunction with the findings of the analysis of variance performed in this study allows us to estimate that learners with higher awareness of reading strategy become more motivate to read in L2. Nonetheless, given that this study comprised a broader variety of learner characteristics, the findings validated the potential significance of cognition, language, and socio-affective characteristics (motivation) in regulating the level of variation in the cross-language relationship (Forbes, 2018; Sierens et al., 2019).

According to studies (e.g., Dhanapala, 2008; Grabe, 2009; Jafari & Shokrpour, 2012; Tercanlioglu, 2001), there is a relationship between reading motivation and comprehension. This study confirms this relationship in terms of a more focused definition of L2 reading motivation and comprehension, i.e., reading and motivation domains. In their study employing structural equation modeling, Gardner et al. (1997) shown that, among a number of IDs, motivation and attitude most substantially predicted success in the L2. However, this study demonstrated that the strength of the motivational influence may not be as great across all L2 acquisition areas. The initial argument that motivation to acquire L2 positively affects L2 acquisition achievement is supported by the study's findings; however, given the connection between motivation and L2 reading comprehension achievement, this impact is not as great as that suggested by earlier research. Overall, the researcher must reaffirm Guthrie and Wigfield's (2000) assertion that proficient students may struggle to read without motivation, and she must also concur with Guthrie and Klauda's (2014) assertion that EFL learners' disengagement from reading may be caused by their lack of motivation rather than their poor reading skills.

An essential goal of reading instruction is to encourage "lifelong reading" (Wigfield et al., 2016). These findings suggest that L1 (Arabic) reading method awareness favorably affect L2 reading motivation. The results of this study may be used to class procedures and second language training to customize teaching for certain student profiles. All in all, the latest results advise that, in order to gain a more complete understanding of the relationship between languages, scholars should go beyond the conventional idea that only two factors—namely, and L1 reading ability—are taken into account when researching the nature of interdependence between languages. Instead, they should take other moderating variables, such as IDs (for example, motivation), into account.

According to Koda (2005), by examining individual differences in L2 reading, we can determine what exactly separates strong readers from weak readers on a theoretical level, and on a practical level, we can enhance the quality of teaching by taking into account the various needs of individual students. Additionally, given that proficiency and strategy were linked in this research, it is advised that L2 reading instructors boost students’ motivation to read in L2 in order to make up for any potential deficiencies in these areas.

Lastly, as adolescent language learners interact with different texts and build their metacognition and reading strategy knowledge and skills, ongoing monitoring of their literacy progress is required. The current study makes numerous recommendations to teachers for ways to improve students' knowledge as well as ways to direct future research.

1. Ahmadi, M. R. (2017). The impact of motivation on reading comprehension. International Journal of Research in English Education, 2(1), 1-7. DOI:10.18869/acadpub.ijree.2.1.1

2. Bamford, J., & Day, R. R. (1998). Teaching reading. Annual review of applied linguistics, 18, 124-141. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368829802900211

3. Bernhardt, E. B., & Kamil, M. (1995). Interpreting relationships between L1 and L2 reading consolidating the linguistic threshold and the linguistic interdependence hypothesis. Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 15–34. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.1.15

4. Buzan, B., & Harrison, J. (2010). The mind map book: Unlock your creativity, boost your memory, change your life. Pearson BBC Active. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Mind-Map-Book%3A-Unlock-Your-Creativity%2C-Boost-Buzan-Buzan/9e3894de6b06cc9534c01f18fe4d1129c4c74cfc

5. Chavangklang, T., & Suppasetseree, S. (2018). Enhancing Thai EFL university students’ reading comprehension through a flipped cooperative classroom. PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences, 4(3), 238-261. DOI:10.20319/pijss.2018.43.238261

6. Cobo-Lewis, A. B., Eilers, R. E., Pearson, B. Z., & Umbel, V. C. (2002). Interdependence of Spanish and English knowledge in language and literacy among bilingual children. In D. K. Ollers & R. E. Eilers (Eds.), Language and literacy in bilingual children (pp. 118–132). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853595721-007

7. Dhanapala, K. V. (2008). Motivation and L2 reading behaviors of university students in Japan and Sri Lanka. Journal of International Development and Cooperation, 14(1), 1–12. DOI:10.15027/28495

8. Farhady, H. (2005). The effect of coaching on TOEFL type and task based tests. Pazhuhesh-e Zaban-haye Khareji Journal, 20, 1-10. https://www.academia.edu/26535903/The_Effect_of_Coaching_on_TOEFL_Type_and_Task_Based_Tests

9. Feng, L. I. U. (2011). A short analysis of the text variables affecting reading and testing reading. Studies in Literature and language, 2(2), 44-49. DOI:10.3968/j.ccc.1923670020110702.012

10. Forbes, K. (2018). The role of individual differences in the development and transfer of writing strategies between foreign and first language classrooms. Research Papers in Education, 3(2), 121–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2018.1452963

11. Gardner, R. C., Tremblay, P. F., & Masgoret, A. M. (1997). Towards a full model of second language learning: An empirical investigation. The Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 344–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1997.tb05495.x

12. Grabe, W. (2009). 24 Teaching and Testing Reading. The handbook of language teaching, 441. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444315783.ch24

13. Grabe, W. P., & Stoller, F. L. (2013). Teaching and researching: Reading. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315833743

14. Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (1999). How motivation fits into a science of reading. Scientific studies of reading, 3(3), 199-205.

15. Hacquebord, H. (1989). Text comprehension in Turks learning Dutch. Foris Publications. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.1994.tb00056.x

16. Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching. London/New York, 401-405. https://archive.org/details/practiceofenglis0000harm

17. Hawkins, J. A. (1991). On (in) definite articles: implicatures and (un) grammaticality prediction1. Journal of linguistics, 27(2), 405-442. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4176125

18. Jafari, S. M., & Shokrpour, N. (2012). EAP students, reading motivation of English academic expository texts: A mixed methods design. International Journal of Linguistics, 4(4), 372–392. DOI:10.5296/IJL.V4I4.2459

19. Koda, K. (2005). Insights into second language reading: A cross linguistic approach. Cambridge University Press. https://archive.org/details/insightsintoseco0000koda

20. Koda, K. (2007). Reading and language learning: Crosslinguistic constraints on second language reading development. Language Learning, 57(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.101997010-i1

21. Mokhtari, K., & Sheorey, R. (2002). Measuring ESL students' awareness of reading strategies. Journal of developmental education, 25(3), 2-11. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285641803_Measuring_ESL_students%27_awareness_of_reading_strategies

22. Mokhtar, A. A. (2010). Achieving Native-like English Lexical Knowledge: The Non-native Story. Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 1(4). DOI:10.4304/jltr.1.4.343-352

23. Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading. https://archive.org/details/verbalprotocolso0000pres

24. Prevoo, M. J. L., Malda, M., Emmen, R. A. G., Yeniad, N., & Mesman, J. (2015). A context-dependent view on the linguistic interdependence hypothesis: Language use and SES as potential moderators. Language Learning, 65(2), 449–469. https://cris.maastrichtuniversity.nl/en/publications/a-context-dependent-view-on-the-linguistic-interdependence-hypoth

25. Sierens, S., Slembrouck, S., Van Gorp, K., Agirdag, O., & Van Avermaet, P. (2019). Linguistic interdependence of receptive vocabulary skills in emergent bilingual preschool children: Exploring a factor-dependent approach. Applied Psycholinguistics, 40(05), 1269–1229.https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/applied-psycholinguistics/article/abs/linguistic-interdependence-of-receptive-vocabulary-skills-in-emergent-bilingual-preschool-children-exploring-a-factordependent-approach/0478F47BAFE481854400D9497F32D8F0

26. Shokrpour, N., Sadeghi, A., & Seddigh, F. (2013). The effect of summary writing as a critical reading strategy on reading comprehension of Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Studies in Education, 3(2), 127-138. DOI:10.5296/JSE.V3I2.2644

27. Wigfield, A., Gladstone, J. R., & Turci, L. (2016). Beyond cognition: Reading motivation and reading comprehension. Child Development Perspectives, 10(3), 190–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12184

28. Yamashita, J. (2002). Mutual compensation between L1 reading ability and L2 language proficiency in L2 reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 25(1), 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.00160

29.