THE CORRELATION BETWEEN COGNITIVE TEST-TAKING STRATEGIES AND ACHIEVEMENT IN TOEFL READING COMPREHENSION OF THE STUDENTS OF ENGLISH DEPARTMENT AT STATE UNIVERSITY OF MAKASSAR
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26618/exposure.v5i1.813Abstract
This study investigated the correlation between cognitive test-taking strategies and achievement in TOEFL reading comprehension. It was conducted to find out: (1) the most dominant cognitive test-taking strategy applied by the students of English Department at the State University of Makassar, (2) the TOEFL reading achievement of the students of English Department at the State University of Makassar, (3) the correlation between students’ cognitive test-taking strategies and their achievement in TOEFL reading comprehension. The research applied correlation research design. This research was conducted to the fourth-semester students in three fields of study at English Department of the State University of Makassar. There were 20 students were from English Education, 12 students from English Literature and 15 students from Business English. The data were collected through documentation of TOEFL reading comprehension score and questionnaire. The research result showed that (1) comprehending strategy was the most dominant cognitive test-taking strategy applied by the students of English Department at the State University of Makassar, (2) the TOEFL reading achievement was achieved into the fair category. It was proven by mean score 42.51 range from 21-30 score. (3) There was a correlation between cognitive test-taking strategies and TOEFL reading achievement with r = .822 classified as a high category in which score interval was higher than 66. Therefore, cognitive test-taking strategies have a role toward TOEFL reading achievement.
Keywords: Cognitive Test-Taking Strategies, TOEFL Reading Comprehension, Correlating Strategies, and Achievement.
References
Alderson, J.C. 2000. Assessing Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bachman, L.F & Palmer, A.S. 1996. Language Testing in Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L.F. 1990. Fundamental Consideration in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cohen, A. D. & Upton, T. 2006. Strategies in responding to the new TOEFL reading tasks [Monograph No. 33]. Princeton, NJ: ETS. (http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-06-06.pdf).
Gay et al. 2006. Educational Research. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Ghafournia, N & Afgari, A. 2013. The Interaction between Cognitive Test-Taking Strategies, Reading Ability, and Reading Comprehension Test Performance of Iranian EFL Learners. English Language Teaching, (Online), Vol.6, No.8 (http://www. ccsenet.org/elt, retrieved on September 11, 2013).
Grabe, W. 2005. Reading in a Second Language: Moving from Theory to Practice. United States of America (USA): Cambridge University Press.
Heinkel, E.2005.TOEFL Test Strategies 3rd ed. Ciputat: Binarupa Aksara
Hornby, A.S. 2000. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (6th Edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jabu,B. 2008. English Language Testing. Makassar: Badan Penerbit UNM
Jaiprayoon, R.V.K. 1999. An Assessment of the Effectiveness of Teaching Test-Taking Strategies for Multiple-Choice English Reading
Comprehension Tests (http://www.la.mahidol.ac.th, retrieved on February 3, 2014)
Mohammadi, M. P and Abidin, M. J. 2011. Test-taking Strategies, Schema Theory and Reading Comprehension Test Performance. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, (Online) Vol. 1, No 18, p. 237 (http://www.ijhssnet.com/journal/index/586, retrieved November 16, 2013)
O’ Malley, J. M & Chamot, A. U. 1990. Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. United States of America (USA): Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R. 1990. Language Learning Strategy: What Every Teacher Should Know. New York: Newbury House.
Phakiti, A.2006. Modelling Cognitive and Metacognitive Strategies and their Relationship to EFL Reading Test Performance. Melbourne Paper in Language Testing, (Online), Vol 11, No.1 (http://ltrc.unimelb.edu.au/mplt, retrieved on December 9, 2013).
Phillips, D. 2001. Longman Complete Course for the TOEFL Test (pdf). New York: Longman.
Purpura.J.E.1999. Learner Strategy Use and Performance on Language Tests: A Structural Equation Modelling Approach (Studies in Language Testing). Cambridge: University of Cambridge Local Examination Syndicate.
Stathopoulou, M & Nikaki, D. 2009. Test-Taking Strategies in the KPG Reading Test: Instrument Construction & Investigation Results. The Journal of Applied Linguistics (Online).Vol.25 (http://www/enl.auth.gr, retrieved on September 16, 2013)
Sugiyono. 2012. Metode Penelitian Kombinasi (Mixed Methods). Bandung: Alfabeta
Tankersley, K. 2003. The Threads of Reading. United States of America (USA): Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Alexandria.
Zhang, et al. 2013. English Test-Taking Strategy Use and Students’ Test Performance. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly (Online), Vol 13, No. 2 (http://www.asian-efl-journal.com, retrieved on September 11, 2013)
Zhare-ee, A. 2007. The Relationships between Cognitive and Metacognitive Strategy use and EFL Reading Achievement. Journal of applied Psychology (Online), Vo.2, No.5 (http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa, retrieved on March 9, 2014).
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
In order to assure the highest standards for published articles, a peer review policy is applied. In pursue of the compliance with academic standards, all parties involved in the publishing process (the authors, the editors and the editorial board and the reviewers) agree to meet the responsibilities stated below in accordance to the Journal publication ethics and malpractice statement.
Duties of Authors:
- The author(s) warrant that the submitted article is an original work, which has not been previously published, and that they have obtained an agreement from any co-author(s) prior to the manuscript’s submission;
- The author(s) should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal;
- The authors(s) make certain that the manuscript meets the terms of the Manuscript Submission Guideline regarding appropriate academic citation and that no copyright infringement occurs;
- The authors(s) should inform the editors about any conflict of interests and report any errors they subsequently, discover in their manuscript.
Duties of Editors and the Editorial Board:
- The editors, together with the editorial board, are responsible for deciding upon the publication or rejection of the submitted manuscripts based only on their originality, significance, and relevance to the domains of the journal;
- The editors evaluate the manuscripts compliance with academic criteria, the domains of the journal and the guidelines;
- The editors must at all times respect the confidentiality of any information pertaining to the submitted manuscripts;
- The editors assign the review of each manuscript to two reviewers chosen according to their domains of expertise. The editors must take into account any conflict of interest reported by the authors and the reviewers.
- The editors must ensure that the comments and recommendations of the reviewers are sent to the author(s) in due time and that the manuscripts are returned to the editors, who take the final decision to publish them or not.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
