Patterns of Metacognitive Reading Strategies of Secondary Students in Research-Oriented Learning Contexts

Background and Aim: Metacognitive awareness of reading strategies is essential for teachers as it helps them understand how students plan, monitor, and evaluate their reading. This awareness informs targeted instruction, strategy modeling, and scaffolding for complex texts, supporting deeper comprehension and research literacy. While prior research has extensively examined these strategies among university students in EFL contexts, limited attention has been given to how secondary students apply metacognitive strategies when reading scholarly texts in research-oriented instruction. Addressing this gap, the present study examines the levels and differences in global, problem-solving, and support reading strategies among secondary students enrolled in a research course. Materials and Methods: A quantitative descriptive design was employed to assess students’ metacognitive reading strategies. The sample consisted of 350 students from a secondary institution in Baguio City, Philippines, selected using cluster sampling. The adapted Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory (MARSI) was used to measure global, problem-solving, and support strategies. Data were collected via a questionnaire administered online with informed consent. Descriptive statistics and Huynh–Feldt–corrected repeated-measures ANOVA were used to analyze strategy levels and differences. Results: The repeated-measures ANOVA revealed statistically significant differences in the extent to which students employed the three types of metacognitive reading strategies. The analysis indicated that students did not use all strategies equally, but rather demonstrated a distinct hierarchical pattern. Post hoc comparisons showed that problem-solving strategies were used significantly more frequently than global strategies, while global strategies were used significantly more than support strategies (problem-solving > global > support). This pattern highlights that when engaging with scholarly texts, students tend to prioritize immediate comprehension and problem-solving tactics over broader evaluative strategies and supportive practices like note-taking or consulting references, which may impede comprehensive understanding of scholarly texts. Conclusion: Students actively employ metacognitive strategies when reading scholarly texts, with problem-solving strategies dominant, global strategies moderate, and support strategies least used. The study proposes the Global–Problem-Solving–Support (G–P–S) model as a framework for understanding the interdependence of the different metacognitive strategies for effective reading of scholarly texts. Findings highlight the need for explicit instruction to strengthen global and support strategies. Teachers may design guided research-reading activities, to support students in purpose-setting, monitoring comprehension, and synthesizing information, thereby promoting a more balanced use of global, problem-solving, and support reading strategies.