Cognitive and Metacognitive Strategy Use in Reading: The Case of Iranian EFL Students’ Test Performance

Q3 Arts and Humanities
Zahra Mosalli, S. S. Marandi, L. Tajik
{"title":"Cognitive and Metacognitive Strategy Use in Reading: The Case of Iranian EFL Students’ Test Performance","authors":"Zahra Mosalli, S. S. Marandi, L. Tajik","doi":"10.52547/lrr.13.3.4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Individual characteristics and differences, namely strategy-use behavior have been gaining much attention among researchers due to influences that they may have on test takers’ performance on reading tests. From a language testing perspective, however, further experimental studies are needed in this regard. This study investigated the relationship between test-takers’ strategy-use behavior and their reading test performance. Five hundred and twenty Iranian English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners (both male and female) participated in this study. They were assigned to high- and the low-reading ability groups based on their scores on a teacher-made reading comprehension test. They were also required to sit for a teacher-made TOEFL-based reading comprehension test and answer the adapted version of Phakiti’s (2008) Cognitive and Metacognitive Strategy Questionnaire with 30 items immediately after the test. The reliability of both instruments was approved through Cronbach alpha and the validity was assured through content and construct evidences of validity. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) on the questionnaire indicated that three factors were identified as cognitive (comprehension, retrieval, memory) and three as metacognitive strategies (planning, monitoring, evaluation) for both ability groups. Moreover, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analysis showed that metacognitive strategies had a regulating function on cognitive strategies in both groups. Furthermore, the results showed that in the high ability group Comprehension (COM) and Memory (MEM) strategies and in the low-ability group, Retrieval (RET) strategies were the best predictors of reading test performance. Finally, some implications and suggestions for further research are presented.","PeriodicalId":53465,"journal":{"name":"Language Related Research","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Language Related Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52547/lrr.13.3.4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Individual characteristics and differences, namely strategy-use behavior have been gaining much attention among researchers due to influences that they may have on test takers’ performance on reading tests. From a language testing perspective, however, further experimental studies are needed in this regard. This study investigated the relationship between test-takers’ strategy-use behavior and their reading test performance. Five hundred and twenty Iranian English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners (both male and female) participated in this study. They were assigned to high- and the low-reading ability groups based on their scores on a teacher-made reading comprehension test. They were also required to sit for a teacher-made TOEFL-based reading comprehension test and answer the adapted version of Phakiti’s (2008) Cognitive and Metacognitive Strategy Questionnaire with 30 items immediately after the test. The reliability of both instruments was approved through Cronbach alpha and the validity was assured through content and construct evidences of validity. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) on the questionnaire indicated that three factors were identified as cognitive (comprehension, retrieval, memory) and three as metacognitive strategies (planning, monitoring, evaluation) for both ability groups. Moreover, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analysis showed that metacognitive strategies had a regulating function on cognitive strategies in both groups. Furthermore, the results showed that in the high ability group Comprehension (COM) and Memory (MEM) strategies and in the low-ability group, Retrieval (RET) strategies were the best predictors of reading test performance. Finally, some implications and suggestions for further research are presented.
认知策略与元认知策略在阅读中的运用:以伊朗英语学生考试成绩为例
个体特征和差异,即策略使用行为,由于其可能对考生在阅读测试中的表现产生影响,一直受到研究者的关注。然而,从语言测试的角度来看,这方面还需要进一步的实验研究。本研究探讨了考生策略使用行为与阅读成绩的关系。520名伊朗英语作为外语(EFL)学习者(包括男性和女性)参加了这项研究。根据他们在老师设计的阅读理解测试中的得分,他们被分为阅读能力高和阅读能力低的两组。他们还被要求参加一项由老师制作的基于托福的阅读理解测试,并在测试结束后立即回答Phakiti(2008)的认知和元认知策略问卷(包含30个项目)的改编版。通过Cronbach alpha验证两种工具的信度,通过内容效度证据和结构效度证据来保证两种工具的效度。问卷的验证性因子分析(CFA)表明,两个能力组的认知策略(理解、检索、记忆)和元认知策略(计划、监测、评价)各有3个。结构方程模型(SEM)分析表明,元认知策略对两组的认知策略均有调节作用。在高能力组中,理解(COM)和记忆(MEM)策略和检索(RET)策略是阅读测试成绩的最佳预测因子。最后,提出了进一步研究的启示和建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Language Related Research
Language Related Research Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: Language Related Research is a platform to develop scientific thought in the specific fields of language sciences, enunciation and discourse. Accordingly, Language Related Research journal welcomes the original articles with theoretical, analytical and field work backgrounds. The Journal highly recommends the scholars avoid clichés and tautology with special focus on the diversity in the field of theorizing and applied background of language, corpus based studies and reference to the main domestic and international research. In the own field of theorizing and mindfulness however, issue-driven analysis based on original hypothesis, field works with quantitative and applied domain have the scientific priority for the journal.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信