From Surface Reading to Evidence-Based Judgment: A Critical Integrative Review of Scientific-Article Reading in Higher Education

Laksmi Dyah Hapsari; Sahilda Nur Aini; Sahana Rizki Aulia Wati; Nuphanudin

doi:10.56741/IISTR.bei.002383

Authors

Laksmi Dyah Hapsari Universitas Negeri Surabaya https://orcid.org/0009-0008-6288-1217
Sahilda Nur Aini Universitas Negeri Surabaya https://orcid.org/0009-0009-5057-7645
Sahana Rizki Aulia Wati Universitas Negeri Surabaya https://orcid.org/0009-0005-3066-0696
Nuphanudin
nuphanudinnuphanudin@unesa.ac.id
Universitas Negeri Surabaya https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5684-063X

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.56741/IISTR.bei.002383

Keywords:

academic literacy, critical reading, higher education, metacognition, scientific articles, student support

Abstract

University students are routinely expected to evaluate scientific articles, yet academic reading is often assigned without explicit instruction in how to identify claims, appraise methods, verify evidence, or monitor comprehension. This article critically integrates research on metacognition, academic literacies, critical reading, and strategy instruction to answer two questions: which processes distinguish evaluative reading from surface reading, and how can those processes be translated into an implementable higher-education protocol? A concept-centred integrative review was conducted using peer-reviewed empirical, review, and theoretical sources identified through publisher platforms, ERIC, and citation chaining. Sources were retained when they addressed academic or critical reading, metacognitive regulation, disciplinary literacy, source evaluation, or embedded literacy instruction. The synthesis compared constructs, instructional mechanisms, reported outcomes, and implementation conditions rather than pooling heterogeneous effects. Five recurring functions emerged: framing a reading purpose, mapping the article's argument and research design, interrogating assumptions, verifying the relationship between claims and evidence, and synthesizing a defensible judgment. These functions were consolidated into the FRAME-V protocol, an iterative heuristic for reading scientific articles. The review indicates that named routines such as SQ3R, PQ4R, questioning, annotation, collaborative reading, and digital scaffolds are useful only when they activate monitoring, evaluation, and evidence integration; procedural completion alone does not guarantee critical reading. The article contributes an aligned set of learning activities and assessment criteria for lecturers and student-support units. Because the review is integrative rather than exhaustive and the protocol has not yet been experimentally validated, the framework should be treated as a theory-informed design proposition for subsequent classroom testing.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Laksmi Dyah Hapsari, Universitas Negeri Surabaya

is a student of Educational Management at Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Indonesia. Her academic interests include critical reading, academic literacy, student development, and learning management in higher education. She is particularly interested in developing practical reading strategies that help university students evaluate scientific arguments, research methods, and supporting evidence. (email: 25010714232@mhs.unesa.ac.id).

Sahilda Nur Aini, Universitas Negeri Surabaya

is a student of Educational Management at Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Indonesia. Her academic interests include educational management, academic literacy, collaborative learning, and student development in higher education. She is interested in examining how structured learning activities and institutional support can strengthen students’ critical and analytical abilities. (email: 25010714054@mhs.unesa.ac.id).

Sahana Rizki Aulia Wati, Universitas Negeri Surabaya

is a student of Educational Management at Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Indonesia. Her academic interests include student support, academic literacy, qualitative inquiry, and the development of critical reading practices in higher education. She is particularly interested in understanding students’ learning experiences and the institutional conditions that influence academic engagement. (email: 25010714166@mhs.unesa.ac.id).

Nuphanudin, Universitas Negeri Surabaya

serves as a lecturer in the Educational Management Study Program at Universitas Negeri Surabaya. His academic role supports the development of research, scientific writing, and educational management studies, particularly in strengthening students’ ability to produce scholarly work. In this article, his contribution is reflected in guiding the conceptual direction, ensuring the coherence of arguments, and supporting the academic quality of the manuscript. His experience in academic publication and educational management provides an important foundation for maintaining the relevance and rigor of the study. (email: nuphanudinnuphanudin@unesa.ac.id).

References

J. H. Flavell, “Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry,” Am. Psychol., vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 906–911, 1979, doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906.

M. Bruggink, E. Swart, A. van der Lee, and E. Segers, “Theories of reading comprehension,” in Putting PIRLS to Use in Classrooms Across the Globe, Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2022, pp. 3–20, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-95266-2_1.

M. A. Britt, J.-F. Rouet, and A. Durik, Literacy Beyond Text Comprehension: A Theory of Purposeful Reading. New York, NY, USA: Routledge, 2018.

K. Manarin, M. Carey, M. Rathburn, and G. Ryland, Critical Reading in Higher Education: Academic Goals and Social Engagement. Bloomington, IN, USA: Indiana Univ. Press, 2015.

M. R. Lea and B. V. Street, “Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach,” Stud. Higher Educ., vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 157–172, 1998, doi: 10.1080/03075079812331380364.

M. R. Lea and B. V. Street, “The ‘academic literacies’ model: Theory and applications,” Theory Pract., vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 368–377, 2006, doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip4504_11.

B. Street, “Academic literacies and the new orders: Implications for research and practice in student writing in higher education,” Learn. Teach. Soc. Sci., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 9–20, 2004, doi: 10.1386/ltss.1.1.9/0.

U. Wingate, Academic Literacy and Student Diversity: The Case for Inclusive Practice. Bristol, U.K.: Multilingual Matters, 2015, doi: 10.21832/9781783093496.

K. Mokhtari and C. A. Reichard, “Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies,” J. Educ. Psychol., vol. 94, no. 2, pp. 249–259, 2002, doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.249.

L. Bosley, “I don’t teach reading: Critical reading instruction in composition courses,” Lit. Res. Instr., vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 285–308, 2008, doi: 10.1080/19388070802332861.

K. Hairston-Dotson and S. Incera, “Critical reading: What do students actually do?” J. Coll. Read. Learn., vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 113–130, 2022, doi: 10.1080/10790195.2022.2033648.

T. A. Hà, “Teaching critical reading in higher education: A literature review and pedagogical model,” J. English Acad. Purp., vol. 72, Art. no. 101439, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2024.101439.

H. V. Le, “Unveiling critical reading strategies and challenges: A mixed-methods study among English major students in a Vietnamese higher education institution,” Cogent Educ., vol. 11, no. 1, Art. no. 2326732, 2024, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2024.2326732.

R. Sheorey and K. Mokhtari, “Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among native and non-native readers,” System, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 431–449, 2001, doi: 10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00039-2.

A. Mekuria, “The effects of reading strategy training on students’ reading strategy use and critical reading ability,” Cogent Educ., vol. 11, no. 1, Art. no. 2310444, 2024, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2024.2310444.

A. R. Nemat Tabrizi and A. Akhavan Saber, “The effect of critical reading strategies on EFL learners’ recall and retention of collocations,” Int. J. Educ. Lit. Stud., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 30–37, 2016, doi: 10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.4n.4p.30.

S. I. K. Gönen and E. Akbarov, “Reading beyond the lines: Teaching critical reading in a higher education context,” J. Lang. Educ. Res., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1–20, 2022.

N. Ghimire, “Evaluating the predictive power of metacognitive reading strategies for reading achievement,” Large-scale Assess. Educ., vol. 13, Art. no. 16, 2025, doi: 10.1186/s40536-025-00240-3.

F. P. Robinson, Effective Study, 4th ed. New York, NY, USA: Harper & Row, 1970.

S. Baker, C. Field, J.-S. Lee, and N. Saintilan, “Supporting students’ academic literacies in post-COVID-19 times: Developing digital videos to develop students’ critical academic reading practices,” J. Univ. Teach. Learn. Pract., vol. 18, no. 4, Art. no. 5, 2021, doi: 10.53761/1.18.4.5.

J. Shao et al., “The impact of gamified interactive e-books incorporating metacognitive reading strategies on reading comprehension,” Educ. Inf. Technol., 2025, doi: 10.1007/s10639-025-13660-z.

M.-J. Tsai, H.-Y. Wang, and C.-Y. Chang, “What do critical reading strategies look like? Eye-tracking evidence from the processing of conflicting online information,” Comput. Educ., vol. 189, Art. no. 104600, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104600.

V. W. Vongkulluksn, C. Nishiyama, M. C. Rodriguez, and E. M. Nussbaum, “Critical Reading of Informational Texts (CRIT) scaffold: Evaluating the efficacy of an instructional scaffold for reading multiple scientific texts,” Contemp. Educ. Psychol., vol. 75, Art. no. 102229, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2023.102229.

A. L. Brown, “Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms,” in Metacognition, Motivation, and Understanding, F. E. Weinert and R. H. Kluwe, Eds. Hillsdale, NJ, USA: Erlbaum, 1987, pp. 65–116.

M. Bassett and L. Macnaught, “Embedded approaches to academic literacy development: A systematic review of empirical research about impact,” Teach. Higher Educ., vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 1065–1083, 2025, doi: 10.1080/13562517.2024.2354280.

R. Whittemore and K. Knafl, “The integrative review: Updated methodology,” J. Adv. Nurs., vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 546–553, 2005, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x.

J. Thomas and A. Harden, “Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews,” BMC Med. Res. Methodol., vol. 8, Art. no. 45, 2008, doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-8-45.

Q. N. Hong, P. Pluye, M. Bujold, and M. Wassef, “Convergent and sequential synthesis designs: Implications for conducting and reporting systematic reviews of qualitative and quantitative evidence,” Syst. Rev., vol. 6, Art. no. 61, 2017, doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0454-2.

D. W. J. Anson, “The impact of large language models on university students’ literacy development,” Higher Educ. Res. Dev., vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 1330–1344, 2024, doi: 10.1080/07294360.2024.2332259.

UNESCO, Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research. Paris, France: UNESCO, 2023, doi: 10.54675/EWZM9535.

P. Khathayut and C. Walker-Gleaves, “University students’ perceptions of English critical reading and institutional support,” LEARN J., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 183–211, 2025, doi: 10.70730/MRTQ9889.

N. Pahrizal, A. Vintoni, R. Sotlikova, and H. Z. H. Ya’akub, “Metacognitive reading strategies and their impact on comprehension: Insights from rural EFL learners,” Indones. J. Learn. Adv. Educ., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 18–36, 2025, doi: 10.23917/ijolae.v7i1.23908.