The present experiment was composed of both qualitative and quantitative methods and aimed at investigating Reading Metacognitive Strategy Awareness (RMSA) and use by the aid of three inventory techniques including a questionnaire, a think-aloud protocol, and a Computerized RMSA System. The computerized system was specifically designed and validated to satisfy the needs of this study in measuring and practicing Reading Metacognitive Strategies. It also tried to explore any possible effects of Computerized RMSA System on reading comprehension of the participants. To this end, a sample of 25 university students majoring in English Translation and English Literature from a University in Iran were selected based on purposive and clustered sampling. The research data were selected using a number of instruments including the reading section of Test of English as a Foreign Language as pre/posttest, a researcher-made Reading Metacognitive Strategies questionnaire, think-aloud protocol and a Computerized RMSA System. The research findings show that the questionnaire, think-aloud and Computerized RMSA System results vary significantly. Moreover, Computerized RMSA System has a positive effect on reading comprehension of learners of English as a Foreign Language. Pedagogical implications of the findings are discussed.
AdıgüzelA.OrhanA. (2017).
The relation between English learning students’ levels of self-regulation and metacognitive skills and their English academic achievements, Journal of Education and Practice,
8(9), 115–125.
2.
Al-AlwanA. F. (2012).
The effect of using metacognition reading strategies on the reading comprehension of Arabic texts. International Journal of Applied Educational Studies,
13(1), 2.
3.
Al-JarrehJ. M. M.MansorN.TalafhahR. H.Al-JarrehJ. M. (2018).
A review of research into metacognitive strategies in the process of education: Teaching and learning of English skills. International Journal of Current Research,
10(12), 76832–76838.
AndersonN. J. (2002). The role of metacognition in second/foreign language teaching and learning. ERIC Digest.
ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics.
6.
AndersonR. C.PearsonP. D. (1984). A schema-theoric view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In P.PearsonD. (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 255–291).
Longman.
7.
AsikcanM.SabanA. (2018).
Prospective teachers’ metacognitive awareness levels of reading strategies. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences,
13(1), 23–30.
8.
AzevedoR.HadwinA. F. (2005).
Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition—Implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science33(2005), 367–379.
9.
BannertM. (2006).
Effects of refection prompts when learning with hypermedia. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
35(4), 359–375.
10.
BecirovicS.Brdarevic-CeljoA.SinanovicJ. (2017).
The use of metacognitive reading strategies among students at International Burch University: A case study. European Journal of Contemporary Education,
6, 645–655.
11.
BergB. (2009). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences.
Allyn & Bacon.
12.
BisharaS.KaplanS. (2018).
The relationship of locus of control and metacognitive knowledge of math with math achievements. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 65(6), 631–648.
13.
Boulware-GoodenR.CarrekerS.ThornhillA.JoshiR. M. M. (2007).
Instruction of metacognitive strategies enhances reading comprehension and vocabulary achievement of third-grade students. The Reading Teacher,
61(1), 76–77.
14.
CarrettiB.CaldarolaN.TencatiC.CornoldiC. (2014).
Improving reading comprehension in reading and listening settings: The effect of two training programmes focusing on metacognition and working memory.British Journal of Educational Psychology,
84(2), 194–210.
15.
CattsH. W. (2018).
The simple view of reading: Advancements and false impressions. Remedial and Special Education,
39(5), 317–323.
16.
ChamotA. U. (2004).
Issues in language learning strategy research and teaching. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching1(1), 14–26.
17.
Chamot, A.U. & El-Dniary, P.B. (1999). Children’s learning strategies in immersion classrooms. The Modern Language Journal83(3), 319–341.
Charters, E. (2003). The use of think-aloud methods in qualitative research: an introduction to think-aloud methods. Brock Education12(2), 68–82.
20.
Cohen, A.D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. Longman.
21.
CoskunA. (2010).
The effect of metacognitive strategy training on the listening performance of beginner students. Novitas-Royal,
4(1), 35–50.
22.
CoskunY. (2018).
A study on metacognitive thinking skills of university students. Journal of Education and Training Studies,
6(3), 38–46.
23.
CoxK.ClarkD. (1998).
The use of formative quizzez for deep learning. Computers and Education,
30(3), 157–167.
24.
CurwenM. S.MillerR. G.White-SmithK. A.CalfeeR. C. (2010). Increasing teachers’ metacognition develops students’ higher learning during content area literacy instruction: Findings from the read-write cycle project. http://digitalcommons.edu/education_articles/6
25.
DabareraC.RenandyaW. A.ZhangL. J. (2014).
The impact of metacognitive scaffolding and monitoring on reading comprehension. System,
42, 462–473.
26.
DagocD. A.TanD. A. (2018)
. Effects of metacognitive scaffolding on the mathematics performance of grade 6 pupils in a cooperative learning environment.International Journal of English and Education,
7(4), 378–391.
27.
DardjitoH. (2019).
Students’ metacognitive reading awareness and academic English reading comprehension in EFL context. International Journal of Instruction,
12(4), 611–624.
28.
DinsmoreD. L.AlexanderP. A.LoughlinS. M. (2008).
Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review,
20, 391–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9083-6
29.
Dixon-woodsM.ShawR. L.AgarwalS.SmithJ. A. (2004).
The problem of appraising qualitative research.Quality and Safety in Healthcare,
13, 223–225.
30.
DjudinT. (2017).
Using metacognitive strategies to improve reading comprehension and solve a word problem. Journal of Education Teaching and Learning,
2(1), 124–129.
31.
DornyeiZ. (2003). Questionnaires in second language researches.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
32.
DornyeiZ. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics.
Oxford University Press.
33.
Duffy, S.A., Morris, R.K., & Rayner, K. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading. Journal of Memory and Language27, 429–446.
34.
EllemanA. M.OslundE. L. (2019).
Reading comprehension research: Implications for practice and policy. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
6(1), 3–11.
35.
EllisA. K.DentonD. (2010). Teaching, learning and assessment together: Reflective assessments for middle and high school mathematics and science.
Eye on Education.
36.
EricssonK. A.SimonH. A. (1980).
Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review,
87(3), 215–251.
37.
FazeliS. H. (2012).
Use of metacognitive English language learning strategies based on personality trait.Theory and Practice in Language Studies,
2(3), 531–539.
38.
FitrisiaD.TanK. E.YusufY. Q. (2015).
Investigating metacognitive awareness of reading strategies to strengthen students’ performance in reading comprehension. Asia Pacific Journal of Educators and Education,
30(1), 15–30.
39.
FlavellJ. H. (1979).
Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist,
34, 906–911.
40.
FurnesB.NormanE. (2015).
Metacognition and reading: Comparing three forms of metacognition in normally developing readers and readers with dyslexia.Dyslexia,
21(3), 273–284.
41.
GavoraP.VaculikovaJ., Kalenda, J. Kalman, O., Gombos, P., Swigost, M., & Bontova, A. (2019).
Comparing metacognitive reading strategies among university students from Poland, Hungry, Slovakia and Czech Republic. Journal of Further and Higher Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2019.1614545
42.
GerstenR.FuchsL. S.WilliamsJ. P.BakerS. (2001).
Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational research,
7(1), 279–320.
43.
GhaithG.El-SanyouraH. (2019).
Reading comprehension: The mediating role of metacognitive strategies.Reading in a Foreign Language,
31(1), 19–43.
44.
HaiderA. H.Al-NaqabiA. K. (2008).
Emirati high school students’ understandings of stoichiometry and the influence of metacognition on their understanding. Research in Science and Technological Education,
26(2), 215–237.
45.
HarrisonG. M.VallinL. M. (2017).
Evaluating the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory using empirical factor-structure evidence.Metacognition and Learning. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-017-9176-z
46.
HeinrichE.WangY. (2003). Online marking of essay-type assignments. Proceedings of the World Conference on Educational Multimedia Hypermedia and Telecommunications (Conference session). AACE.
47.
IserbytiP.ElenJ.BehetsD. (2010).
Instructional guidance in reciprocal peer tutoring with task cards. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,
29(1), 38–53.
48.
IsmaielN.TawalbehT. (2015).
Effectiveness of a metacognitive reading strategies program for improving low achieving EFL readers. International Education Studies,
8(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v8n1p71
49.
JacobsJ. E.ParisS. G. (1987).
Children’s metacognition about reading: Issues in definition, measurement, and instruction. Educational Psychologist,
22(3), 255–278.
50.
JayaprabaG. (2013).
Metacognitive instruction and cooperative learning-stratgeis for promoting insightful learning in science. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications,
4(1), 165–172.
51.
Joreskog, K.G., & Sorbom, D. (1979). Advances in factor analysis and structural equation models. Abe Books.
52.
KanaF. (2015).
Türkçe öğretmeniadaylarının üstbiliş farkındalık düzeyleri [Investigation the effect of metacognition training on distance education students’ metacognitive awareness levels],Akademik Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi,
3(17), 66–81.
53.
KistnerS.RakoczyK.OttoB.DignathC. (2010).
Promotion of self-regulated learning in classrooms: Investigating frequency, quality, and performance.Metacognition and Learning,
5(2), 157–171.
54.
LeeJ. G.VaPattenB. (1995). Making communicative language teaching happen.
McGraw-Hill.
55.
Leon-GuerreroA. (2008).
Self-regulation strategies used by student musicians during music practice. Music Education Research,
10(1), 91–106.
56.
LeungL. (2015).
Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research.Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care,
4(3), 324–327.
57.
LeutwylerB. (2009).
Metacognitive learning strategies: Differential development patterns in high school. Metacognition and Learning,
4(2), 111–123.
58.
LiC.KamW. K. (2011).
Mosston’s reciprocal style of teaching: A pilot study in Hong Kong. New Horizons in Education,
29(2), 27–37.
59.
LincolnY. S.LynhamS. A.GubaE. G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 97–128). SAGE.
60.
LiuH.SungW.YaoW. (2014). Computer, intelligent computing and education technology.
CRC Press.
61.
LunenbergM.KorthagenF.SwennenA. (2007).
The teacher educator as a role model.Teaching and Teacher Education,
23(5), 586–601.
62.
Lv.F.ChenH. (2010).
A study of metacognitive-strategies-based writing instruction for vocational college students. English Language Teaching,
3(3), 136–144.
63.
MackeyA.GassS. M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
64.
MacNamaraD. S. (2011).
Measuring deep, reflective comprehension and learning strategies: Challenges and successes.Metacognition and Learning,
6, 195–203.
65.
MarzanoR. J.PickeringD. J.PollockJ. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement.
ASCD.
66.
McAlisterA. M.LeeD. M.EhlertK. M.KajfezR. L.FaberC. J.KennedyM. S. (2017). Qualitative coding: An approach to assess inter-rater reliability [Paper presentation]. 124th American Society for Engineering Education Annual (ASEE) Conference and Exposition, Columbus, OH, United States.
67.
McBrideD. M.DosherB. A. (2002).
A comparison of conscious and automatic memory processes for picture and word stimuli: A process dissociation analysis. Consciousness and Cognition,
11, 423–460.
68.
McLainK. V.GridleyB. E.McIntoshD. (1991).
Value of a scale used to measure metacognitive reading awareness. The Journal of Education Research,
85(2), 81–87.
69.
MehrpourS.SadighiF.BagheriZ. (2012).
Teaching reading comprehension strategies to Iranian EFL pre-university students. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS),
4(1), 107–139.
70.
MeniandoJ. C. (2016).
Metacognitive reading strategies, motivation and reading comprehension performance of Saudi EFL students. English Language Teaching,
9(3), 117–129.
71.
MetcalfeJ.ShimmuraA. P. (1994). Metacognition: Knowing about knowing.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
72.
Miholic, V. (1994). An inventory to pique students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Reading38, 84–86.
73.
MokhtariK.DimetrovD. M.ReichardC.A. (2018).
Revising the Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory (MARSI) and testing for factorial invariance. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching,
8(2), 219–246.
74.
MokhtariK.ReichardC. A. (2002).
Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology,
94(2), 249–259
75.
MokhtariK.SheoreyR. (2002).
Measuring ESL students’ awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Developmental Education,
25(3), 2–10.
76.
MosstonM.AshworthS. (2002). Teaching physical education.
Benjamin Cummings.
77.
NunanD.BaileyK. M. (2009). Exploring second language classroom research.
Cengage Learning.
78.
OlsonG. M.DuffyS. A.MackR. L. (1984). Thinking-out-loud as a method for studying real-time comprehension processes. In D. Kieras & M. Just (Eds.), New methods in reading comprehension research (pp. 253–286). Erlbaum.
79.
O’MalleyA. U.ChamotJ. M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the cognitive academic language learning approach.
Addison Wesley Longman.sss
80.
O’MalleyJ. M.ChamotA.U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition.
Cambridge University Press.
81.
OxfordR. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know.
Newbury Publishers’ House.
82.
PalincsarA. S.BrownA. L. (1984).
Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction,
1(2), 117–175.
83.
PatersonA. H. (2002).
What has QTL mapping taught us about plant domestication?New Phytologist,
154(3), 591–608.
84.
Pereira-LairdJ. A.DeaneF. P. (1997).
Development and validation of a self-report measure of reading strategy use. Reading Psychology,
18(3), 185–235.
85.
PressleyM. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In KamilM. L.MosenthalP. B.PearsonP. D.BarrR. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research.
Erlbaum (pp. 545–561).
86.
PressleyM.AfflerbachP. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading.
Routledge.
87.
RahmanS. (2016).
The advantages and disadvantages of using qualitative and quantitative approaches and methods in language “testing and assessment” research: A literature review. Journal of Education and Learning,
6(1), 102–112.
88.
RavitchD. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education.
Basic Books.
89.
RazakN. Z. A.GaniN. A. A.IthninN. H. C. (2018).
Reading metacognitive strategies employed by ESL learners. International Journal of Education and Multidisciplinary Studies,
12(3), 61–73.
90.
ReidN. (2002). Designing online quiz questions to assess a range of cognitive skills. Proceedings of the World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (Conference session). AACE.
91.
RichardsJ. C.LockhartC. (1996). Reflective teaching in second language classrooms.
Cambridge University Press.
92.
RosenblattL.M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work.
Southern Illinois University Press
93.
Rosenblatt, L.M. (1986). The aesthetic transaction. Journal of Aesthetic Education20, 122–127.
94.
RussoJ. E.JohnsonE. J.StephensD. L. (1989).
The validity of verbal protocols.Memory and Cognition,
17, 759–769.
95.
SalleeM. W.FloodJ. T. (2012).
Using qualitative research to bridge research, policy, and practice.Theory Into Practice,
51(2), 137–144.
96.
SaracS.KarakelleS. (2012).
On-line and off-line assessment of metacognition. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education,
4(2), 301–315.
97.
SchellingsG. (2011).
Applying learning strategy questionnaire: Problem and possibilities.Metacognition and Learning,
6, 91–109.
98.
SchmittM. C. (1990).
A questionnaire to measure children’s awareness of strategic reading processes. The Reading Teacher,
43(7), 454–461.
99.
SelamatS.SidhuG. K. (2013).
Enhancing listening comprehension: The role of metacognitive strategy instruction (MetSI). Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences,
90(2013), 421–430.
100.
Shang, H.F. (2016). Online metacognitive strategies, hypermedia annotations, and motivation on hypertext comprehension. Journal of Educational Technology & Society19(3), 321–334.
101.
SheikhI.SoomroK. A.HussainN. (2019).
Metacognitive awareness of reading strategies, reading practice and academic attainment of university students. Journal of Education and Educational Development,
6(1), 126–137.
102.
SimG.HolifieldP.BrownM. (2004)
Implementation of computer assisted assessment: Lessons from the literature. Association for Learning Technology Journal,
12(3), 215–229.
103.
SyedM.NelsonS. C. (2015).
Guidelines for establishing reliability when coding narrative data. Emerging Adulthood,
3(6), 375–387.
104.
TrapmanM.van GelderenA.van SchootenE.HulstijnJ. (2017).
Reading comprehension level and development in native and language minority adolescent low achievers: Roles of linguistic and metacognitive knowledge and fluency.Reading and Writing Quarterly,
33(3), 239–257.
105.
TsaiM. (2009).
The model of strategic e-learning: Understanding and evaluating student e-learning from metacognitive perspective. Educational Technology and Society,
12(1), 34–48.
106.
TurelV.McKennaP. (2013). Design of language learning software. In B. Zou, M. Xing, C. H. Xiang, Y. Wang, & M. Sun (Eds.), Computer-assisted foreign language teaching and learning: Technological advances (pp. 188–209). Hershey.
VandergriftL. (2003).
Orchestrating strategy use: Toward a model of the skilled second language listener. Language Learning,
53(3), 463–496. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00232
109.
VeenmanM. V. J.Hout-WoltersB. V.AfflerbachP. (2006).
Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning,
1, 3–14
110.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Harvard University Press.
111.
WangJ.SpencerK.XingM. (2009).
Metacognitive beliefs and strategies in learning Chinese as a foreign language. System,
37(1), 46–56.
112.
WardP. C.LeeM. (2005).
Peer-assisted learning in physical education: A review of theory and research. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,
24(3), 205–222.
113.
WinneP. H.PerryN. E. (2005). Measuring self-regulated learning. In BoekaertsM.PintrichP. R.ZeidnerM. (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 531–566).
Elsevier Academic Press.
114.
YangY (2010).
Developing a reciprocal teaching/learning for collegue remedial reading instruction. Computers and Education,
55(10), 1193–1201.
115.
YoungT. J. (2015). Questionnaires and Surveys. In HuaZ. (Eds.), Research methods in intercultural communication: A practical guide (pp.163–180).
Willey Blackwell.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
