Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Literacy
Literacy
net/publication/330474908
CITATIONS READS
9 343
1 author:
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Open call for a special issue of Journal of Writing Research (ESCI/Scopus index) Promoting metacognitive strategy-focused instruction for EFL/L2 writing: Orientation,
practice, and performance View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Mark Feng Teng on 14 September 2019.
© 2019 UKLA. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 101 Station Landing, Medford, MA 02155, USA.
2 Metacognitive instruction in reading
attention to reading processes, particularly in the con- Schraw and Dennison (1994) posited that metacogni-
ceptualisation of reading as a socially, historically and tion consists of two basic components: knowledge
culturally situated activity (Larkin, 2010). and regulation of metacognition. Knowledge of meta-
cognition refers to an individual’s own cognition (or
In addition, given relatively recent trends in moving cognition in general) and encompasses three types of
reading classroom practice towards collaborative group knowledge: (1) declarative knowledge (i.e., factual
work (Grabe & Stoller, 2002), it is necessary to investi- knowledge and information an individual knows); (2)
gate the self-regulatory features of English language procedural knowledge (i.e., knowing how to perform
young readers, who are often unable to process infor- certain activities); and (3) conditional knowledge (i.e.,
mation quickly enough to make sense of what has been knowing when and why to allocate resources when
presented in a text. This problem may be attributable to using declarative and procedural knowledge) (Brown,
young learners’ limited cognitive load. Literacy teachers 1987). Metacognitive regulatory skills related to read-
or educators face the challenging task of helping young ing include the following: (1) planning (i.e., choosing
learners improve a skill that involves unobservable pro- appropriate strategies and effectively allocating re-
cesses. It is therefore essential to assist English language sources to complete a task); (2) monitoring (i.e., observ-
learners, particularly young learners, in understanding ing task comprehension and identifying targets for op-
the cognitive processes underlying reading to uncover timal performance); and (3) evaluation (i.e., appraising
features that may help students evaluate, manage and the regulatory process and the efficiency with which a
develop reading comprehension skills. task is completed) (Jacobs & Paris, 1987).
The first objective in the present study was to elicit and Fogarty (1994) suggests that metacognition is a three-
identify primary school students’ metacognitive part process. To be successful thinkers, learners must
knowledge about reading in English. Two types of develop a plan before reading, monitor their under-
metacognitive knowledge were examined: task knowl- standing of the text, use “fix-up” strategies when
edge and strategy knowledge. According to Paris and meaning breaks down and finally, evaluate their think-
Winograd (1990), task knowledge is defined as the pur- ing after reading. This process implies the role of
pose, demands and nature of learning tasks, whereas metacognitive instruction in teaching reading compre-
strategy knowledge refers to the approaches and tech- hension, as such instruction may help learners sift
niques likely to be effective in accomplishing a task through a text to identify its main points and then ex-
or goal. To assess task knowledge, the researcher ex- tend that knowledge to critically evaluate what has
amined how learners thought about the purpose of been understood.
reading and the motivational factors influencing their
reading. In terms of strategy knowledge, the researcher
explored learners’ perceptions of the effectiveness of Metacognition and reading
metacognitive reading strategies. The second objective
was to investigate the usefulness of metacognitive Promoting high levels of literacy for learners is chal-
reading strategy instruction in enhancing learners’ lenging; learners must apply a range of strategies
reading performance. The research questions under- when interpreting and evaluating what they read,
pinning this study are as follows: drawing conclusions based on evidence and develop-
ing higher-order thinking skills (Raphael & Au, 2005).
1. What factors influence reading as reported by
The benefits of metacognitive instruction in English
learners?
learning, including listening (Goh & Taib, 2006), word
2. What metacognitive strategies are adopted by
learning (Teng, 2017) and writing (Teng, 2016; Teng &
learners while reading?
Huang, 2018), have been acknowledged in the litera-
3. What impact does metacognitive instruction have
ture. Metacognitive instruction can potentially sensi-
on reading development?
tise students to the learning process and help them
cultivate metacognitive knowledge.
© 2019 UKLA
Literacy Volume 00 Number 00 xxxx 2019 3
metacognitive processing explains why many young English learners may become more proficient in read-
learners are not successful readers. Efficient readers ing by practicing and applying metacognitive strate-
have often been described as strategic or “construc- gies. For example, metacognitive instruction may help
tively responsive” in that they carefully orchestrate them discover how to use such strategies to develop a
cognitive resources when reading (Pressley & deeper understanding of the meaning of texts. Stu-
Afflerbach, 1995). Nevertheless, some researchers have dents may also apply metacognitive strategies to con-
argued that young learners do not possess meta- struct knowledge, monitor the use of these strategies
cognitive knowledge or skills, thus rendering the during reading and then evaluate suitable methods to
provision of metacognitive instruction ineffective correct emerging problems (Teng, 2018). Finally, young
(Williams & Atkins, 2009). One explanation may be English learners’ choices of metacognitive strategies
that young children have limited executive function- depend on their language proficiency and the assess-
ing, referring to the ability to coordinate various cogni- ment methods used. To validate these conclusions,
tive processes to accomplish a task. more sensitive assessment methods and studies in-
volving learners with various levels of English profi-
However, empirical research has substantiated the ef- ciency are needed to evaluate the development of
fects of metacognitive instruction on young learners’ young learners’ metacognitive reading strategy
reading comprehension. In an early study (Brenna, awareness.
1995), data from observations and interviews revealed
that five young L2 learners employed a variety of
metacognitive strategies while reading. Her study The present study
demonstrated that young readers knew how to use
metacognitive strategies of self-knowledge, task This study was conducted to explore the benefits of
knowledge and text knowledge to repair comprehen- metacognitive instruction in reading for young English
sion. However, the five learners were ahead of their language learners. Much progress has been made in re-
peers in reading ability, and reading was also valued search with secondary school L2 learners (e.g.,
in their home environment; these variables likely influ- Dabarera et al., 2014); however, studies detailing how
enced their perceptions of reading. young learners deploy metacognitive strategies as part
of their reading efforts are scarce. In light of limited
Zhang et al. (2008) explored reading-related meta- scholarship, data gathered from young learners pro-
cognitive strategies among 18 L2 learners from three vided insufficient pedagogical information on how pri-
primary schools in Singapore. Data were collected mary school young learners elicited and identified
using think-aloud protocols. The findings indicated metacognitive knowledge about reading in English.
that these young learners were able to display In addition, the effects of metacognitive instruction
metacognitive strategies in reading comprehension. on young learners’ English reading needed to be deter-
However, strategy use varied according to language mined by designing a series of process-based reading
proficiency and grade level. High-proficiency learners lessons. Despite being a small-scale study with a group
outperformed lower-proficiency learners in terms of of primary school students, this work contributes to
the number of strategies applied. Nevertheless, as only the growing body of research related to incorporating
one high-proficiency learner and one low-proficiency metacognitive instruction into young English learners’
learner in each grade at each school participated, infer- reading.
ential statistics in this study should be interpreted
cautiously.
Method
Varga (2017) focused on textual discussions of fiction
in Grades 6 and 7. By analysing the correlation be- Participants
tween linguistic strategies used by the teacher and
the metacognitive perspectives developed by the stu- Students were recruited from one fifth-grade class in
dents, results suggested that explicit teacher modelling an international primary school in Hong Kong. The
could help learners adapt their use of metacognitive sample (N = 25) consisted of 12 boys and 13 girls, all
strategies for reading comprehension. In addition, the of whom were 11 to 12 years old. According to the
young learners were better able to observe and most recent end-of-semester reading examination and
verbalise their text interpretation processes and emo- teacher’s assessment, 10 were considered to have ad-
tional reactions while reading and recognise meaning- vanced reading comprehension, 10 had average read-
ful interactions between the text and the reader. ing ability and 5 had poor reading ability. English
was the medium of instruction at the school. Of the
These empirical studies reveal considerable insights. participants, 10 were from Britain, 5 were locals in
First, young English language learners may possess Hong Kong, 4 were from India, 4 were from
and use metacognitive strategies during reading. Sec- Australia and 2 were from mainland China. Reported
ond, young English language learners with knowledge by the participants, British and Australian students
of metacognitive strategies may be able to regulate used English and Chinese at home, Indian students
such methods to repair comprehension. Third, young spoke Hindi at home and students from mainland
© 2019 UKLA
4 Metacognitive instruction in reading
China and Hong Kong used Chinese (Putonghua or workshop and word study. Following UK and US ped-
Cantonese) at home. Hence, the participants were agogical principles, teachers employed instructional
learning English as a second language (L2). This study strategies involving reading workshops (i.e., reading
was approved by the primary school’s teaching aloud, independent reading and shared reading), writ-
department, and students’ parents each signed an in- ing workshops (i.e., guided writing, shared writing
formed consent form. and interactive writing) and word study (i.e., spelling
and grammar). Metacognitive reading strategy aware-
In terms of reading performance, the group of students ness instruction was incorporated into the reading les-
who received metacognitive reading strategy instruc- sons for the EG in the present study. This study was
tion was defined as experimental group (EG) while conducted in the middle of the first semester to help
the group without receiving metacognitive reading students become familiar with the lessons and the
strategy instruction was defined as control group teacher’s teaching style. Ten process-based reading les-
(CG). The CG was one class of 25 students, of similar sons, drawn from Goh and Taib (2006), were provided.
background to the EG, who were receiving normal The lessons were modified after consulting with the
school reading instruction. All students in EG and teacher to make them more suitable for teaching read-
CG read the same texts, received instruction from the ing. Each lesson was an hour long. Instruction, includ-
same teacher and were tested on the school test at the ing practice for the reading examination as well as op-
same time. The only difference was that students in portunities to develop reading comprehension, aligned
CG did not receive metacognitive instruction- with curricular teaching requirements. The lessons
embedded reading lessons but school reading instruc- followed a three-stage sequence: read and answer, re-
tion. Thus, the results from the EG and CG are directly flect, and report and discuss. Details of the three-stage
comparable. sequence were listed as follows:
Process-based reading lessons This stage, which lasted approximately 20 minutes, in-
cluded two parts: balanced literacy instruction and
The notion of providing a classroom environment con- traditional reading pedagogy. The balanced literacy
ducive to reading literacy has become popular in re- instruction mainly included instructional strategies in-
cent years (Teng, 2015). This project was based on 10 volving reading and writing workshops, which were
process-based lessons conducted in the classroom, in line with the curricula requirement. In terms of tra-
during which the teacher monitored pupils’ progress ditional reading pedagogy, students first read a text
on reading tasks and offered support or direct instruc- and answered three to five multiple-choice compre-
tion to individuals and groups. Process-based reading hension questions. Pre-reading activities were not pro-
lessons in the present study refer to lessons which vided so as to replicate examination conditions. The
require students to read for authentic purposes during chosen reading materials were parallel versions of the
an extended process that includes reading of a text reading examination. Each text consisted of approxi-
followed up with the answering of questions, mately 150 words and addressed topics related to fam-
reflecting on the reading and finally, reporting on ily life, science, stories, society, announcements and let-
comprehension and discussing the use of reading strat- ters. To answer the questions, the students first needed
egies. The process is completed in a recursive manner to comprehend the details of the text. Participants were
rather than in discrete steps. A key element in also asked to respond to three to five short-answer
monitoring, support and direct instruction was the questions. The type of questions included literal, infer-
applications of metacognitive strategies to facilitate in- ential and evaluative questions, which would help stu-
dividual reflection and group discussion. As learners dents respond to factual recall, make inferences and
were focused on monitoring reading comprehension, give an opinion. Varying the types of required re-
meaningful, well-prepared metacognitive prompts sponses also helped the researcher discern whether
were essential to engaging learners in trying to under- metacognitive instruction influenced students’ percep-
stand text – a process that could be abstract and con- tions of task demands and strategy use.
fusing for young readers. This multifaceted teaching
technique involves a combination of strategies Stage 2: reflect
intended to gradually cultivate a degree of reading in-
dependence in primary school readers. After Stage 1, students were asked to spend 20 minutes
reflecting independently on how they had completed
Participants were enrolled in a balanced literacy course their reading exercises. Metacognitive prompts, which
intended to ensure that each child learns to read, write had not been previously introduced to the participants,
and spell successfully. The balanced literacy course, ac- were printed as a list and distributed to the students.
cording to the school document, is an English literacy Metacognitive prompts were organised following the
course that includes several components: the read Question Answer Relationship framework proposed
aloud, guided reading, shared reading, interactive by Raphael and Au (2005) and the questioning frame-
writing, shared writing, reading workshop, writing work suggested by Wilson and Smatana (2011). These
© 2019 UKLA
Literacy Volume 00 Number 00 xxxx 2019 5
models provided an outline for students to link strate- offered comments. This stage aligned with the structure
gies at appropriate points in the reading cycle. In addi- of think alouds (Wilhelm, 2001), during which students
tion, this structure guided question-asking practices be- engaged in discussions while the teacher and other
fore (e.g., eliciting relevant background knowledge), students monitored and helped. This framework was
during (e.g., focusing on relevant reading strategies) chosen to create a record of the strategic decision-
and after (e.g., evaluating strategy use) reading. making process involved when consuming a text to
Table 1 presents the teaching procedure in Stage 2, help learners become aware of noticing, doing, asking
which involved immediate retrospection following and understanding as they read and then discussing
completion of the reading and allowed students to re- reading strategies used within the content of the text.
port their mental and cognitive processes before they
were forgotten (Nunan & Bailey, 2009). During individ-
ual reflection, students were asked to take notes on their Data collection
actual experiences during reading. Teachers guided stu-
dents in reflecting during this stage, as students could Four types of data were collected to evaluate the use-
possess different levels of metacognitive awareness. fulness of process-based reading lessons supple-
mented with metacognitive instruction. First, each
Stage 3: report and discuss student was asked to write a short reflection during
an additional lesson 1 week after the last reading les-
Participants randomly formed five-member groups for son. The prompt “What I think about my reading abil-
the final stage of reporting and discussion. The teacher ity after the reading lessons” was provided to students
facilitated this stage, which also lasted for 20 minutes. to guide their reflections. Second, prior to drafting
In each group, students took turns reading their reflec- their reflections, students were given time for group
tion notes aloud while the other students listened and discussion; this was intended to help consolidate
took notes. Sometimes students asked questions or learners’ metacognitive knowledge about the reading
Teacher’s role:
(1) The teacher informed students of the usefulness of metacognitive prompts and encouraged them to exert extra
effort in it.
(2) The teacher used the list of metacognitive prompts (e.g., comprehension, connection, strategy and reflection) and
helped individual learners when necessary.
Student’s role:
(1) Each student reflected individually on the metacognitive, self-addressed questions.
(2) Each student verified his/her cognitive and metacognitive skills based on feedback-corrective processes,
including with enrichment and remedial help provided from the teacher as necessary.
Metacognitive prompts:
(1) Comprehension
Purpose: familiarise students with articulation of the main ideas in the text.
What was the text about?
What were the purposes of this text?
What specific points did I find important in this text?
(2) Connection
Purpose: guide students in contemplating the similarities and differences between an immediate text and
previously read texts.
What were the similarities and differences between this and those I have read in the past?
(3) Strategy
Purpose: allow students to reflect on appropriate strategies for the exercise.
What strategies were appropriate for completing this text reading in time?
What strategies were useful for grasping the gist of this text?
What strategies were useful for inferring unknown words?
(4) Reflection
Purpose: guide students in evaluating their reading process during or at the end of the exercise.
Did my strategies for reading make sense?
Did I focus on all the details of the text?
Did I consider all relevant information while figuring out the purpose of this text?
What prevented me from achieving the correct answers?
What did I do to understand as much of the text as possible?
© 2019 UKLA
6 Metacognitive instruction in reading
process, during which the teacher provided hints to fa- Data analysis
cilitate students’ use of metacognitive prompts
throughout the discussion. Group discussions were The data analytic process was developed from Larkin
videotaped and then analysed to identify students’ (2009). Analysis involved three levels: the first level
metacognitive incidents, defined as observable shifts focused on repeated viewing of video data from
from focusing on the task or social interaction to focus- students’ group discussions to identify learners’
ing on an aspect of metacognition (i.e., regulation and metacognitive incidents; the second level aimed to tri-
control of thinking). Third, two sets of reading tests angulate video findings with students’ written reflec-
were administered to examine students’ reading per- tions and notes from Stages 2 and 3 to compare and
formance: the teacher developed the first set, and the analyse metacognitive incidents; and the third level
second comprised the required school examination. differentiated between and within metacognitive inci-
The first test was administered immediately before dents to establish codes. The selected coding scheme
and after the lessons to compare learners’ reading was grounded in the data through a metacognitive
scores before and after the intervention and assess the theory lens. Two independent researchers, who were
value of metacognitive strategy instruction. The sec- not otherwise involved in this study, were invited to
ond test was administered 1 month before and after conduct the coding analysis. Initial interrater reliabil-
the lessons to remain consistent with students in other ity produced a Cohen’s kappa of 0.62, which is fair
classes; this test allowed for comparisons to learners to good. The final analysis in the present study in-
outside the intervention reading program. The format cluded only those agreed incidents. A Wilcoxon
of the tests was similar; each focused on comprehen- signed-rank test, a nonparametric test, was performed
sion of text content with a maximum score of 30 points. to compare group differences because the assumption
To answer the questions, the learners may need to con- of data normality has been violated (Dalgaard, 2008).
nect information in different parts of the text. Finally, Effect size was based on Cohen’s (1988) criteria of
notes written by students during Stages 2 and 3 were 0.1 = small effect, 0.3 = medium effect and 0.5 = large
collected to analyse participants’ metacognitive knowl- effect.
edge of reading.
Text
(a) Knowledge integration
It is difficult for me to make connections between my current knowledge of a topic, new information and my
personal experience.
(b) Vocabulary
I am not sure of the sentence when I am not able to decipher a keyword’s part of speech, meaning, useful context
clues or how it functions in a sentence.
(c) Information
I read, but I often forget the supporting details, the sequence of events and the overall structure of the text.
(d) Text complexity
I am not sure of the meaning because some sentences in the text have multiple layers of meaning.
(e) Text genres
I think different genres have unique characteristics. I am more familiar with the story genre, so this kind of
knowledge provides a scaffold for comprehension. But the situation is different when reading science.
Task
(a) Types of questions
Both types of questions require me to look back and find text information.
(b) Test format
I felt unsure about answering some questions. When selecting the best answer, I could rule out some choices and I
did not really have to look back to the text. However, when it comes to free response, I have to check the text again
to locate the details for the answer.
Environment
(a) Test conditions
I think this kind of reading is like taking a test. There was a lot of pressure to have tests every day.
Personal factors
(a) Motivation
Sometimes I lose motivation because it causes too much anxiety for me to read texts for examination rather than for
pleasure.
Teacher instruction
(a) I get used to teachers’ direct instruction. I need some explanations about the text.
© 2019 UKLA
Literacy Volume 00 Number 00 xxxx 2019 7
Planning actions for reading e.g., I will scan the text and plan what parts I need to focus 15 52
on to make a predictive map of the text’s contents.
Discerning declarative, e.g., Sometimes when difficult words appear, I know when 21 62
procedural and conditional and how to use the context to guess the meaning of the
strategies used to overcome word so as not to be worried.
challenges while reading
Expressing positive feelings e.g., I was happy when I thought I could answer that 16 53
about skills learned question correctly because I could use my predictive and
contextualising skills to guess the main point for that
question.
Monitoring progress e.g., I would consider how I could monitor and repair 18 58
misunderstanding through drawing out information in a
visual form.
Reflecting on what has e.g., After reading, through making up my own 22 62
been learned (e.g., skills and questions, I quiz myself and reflect on what can be done
strategies) for more robust learning and memory.
Describing challenges posed e.g., To comprehend the text, one difficult exercise was when 22 63
by the exercises as much information as possible was included for the topic,
I needed to determine which ideas were the most prominent
or important in the text.
Positive self-talk e.g., When reading boring texts, I talked to and comforted 19 59
myself to get rid of negative feelings.
Linking with what has been e.g., To infer the meaning of some unknown words, I 19 56
learned would think about what background knowledge or cultural
background I knew that was related to this text.
© 2019 UKLA
8 Metacognitive instruction in reading
the reading exercises at hand and meaning-making teacher test and scored 24.12 on the school examina-
attempts. Some comments included the following: tion. Learners with poor reading ability increased their
performance from 16.14 to 20.12 on the teacher test and
“Skimming is a difficult skill for me. I am always afraid scored 19.15 on the school examination. These results
whether I can answer the questions accurately. When I suggest that all participants benefited from meta-
skim a text, I think I miss some message. After skimming cognitive instruction, and those with advanced read-
a text, I forget the answers. Then I have to read it again. ing ability demonstrated the best performance.
If there is a long and complicated sentence, I will slow
down and think of some words. I don’t know whether The mean scores of EG in the school test was compared
the words are important or not.” with CG. With a maximum score of 30 points, EG
achieved a mean score of 23.46 while CG achieved a
“When I check the text again, I still cannot understand mean score of 20.11. Results of Wilcoxon signed-rank
some words. I will stop my reading and just focus on tests did not show a significant difference between
some difficult words.” EG and CG for the school pre-test (z = 7.13,
P > 0.05). However, the advantage of the EG over the
Improved reading performance CG was statistically reliable for the school post-test,
z = 4.18, P < 0.001, with a large effect size (0.51). In
Students’ reading performance was analysed by com- addition, a Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed a statis-
paring average scores from Group A (10 students con- tically significant difference in comparing teacher-
sidered to have advanced reading ability), Group B (10 developed pre-test and post-test for the EG
students considered to have average reading ability) (z = 3.93, P < 0.001), with a medium effect size
and Group C (5 students considered to have poor read- (0.44). On the basis of these findings, metacognitive
ing ability). Results are presented in Table 4. reading strategy instruction adds value to the reading
Although learners who earned low marks on the pre- lessons and leads to better reading performance.
test did not show drastic improvement, all learners
demonstrated a certain level of progress. Learners with The final reflection reports also substantiated the posi-
advanced reading ability increased their scores on the tive effects derived from reading lessons. Students’
teacher-developed test from 25.12 to 29.96, scoring comments implied motivation from the teacher
27.12 on the end-of-semester school examination a directing them to reflect on their learning, and assum-
month later. Learners with average reading ability in- ing more responsibility for the reading process. Con-
creased their performance from 20.12 to 25.45 on the sider the following examples:
Groups M SD M SD M SD M SD
EG Group A (n = 10) 25.12 1.56 29.96 1.42 24.02 1.46 27.12 1.44
Group B (n = 10) 20.12 1.45 25.45 1.34 19.05 1.26 24.12 1.25
Group C (n = 5) 16.14 1.28 20.12 1.16 16.03 1.14 19.15 1.12
EG Total (n = 25) 20.46 1.43 25.17 1.30 19.70 1.28 23.46 1.27
CG Total (n = 25) — — — — 19.50 1.34 20.11 1.41
© 2019 UKLA
Literacy Volume 00 Number 00 xxxx 2019 9
“I like the reading sessions. I think I know what I should knowledge helped participants identify when, why
focus on when reading. My reading skills have and how to adapt strategic choices to plan, monitor
improved.” and evaluate their reading processes. These actions
might enhance students’ self-regulation, especially as
“After the reading lessons, I have learnt how to cope with the process was consistent with Zimmerman’s (2000)
the reading test.” model of self-regulation development. He postulated
that the highest level of self-regulatory competence –
“I am more motivated to read English texts after the les- including the adaptation of skills and strategies to
sons because I am more confident at grasping the gist.” personal needs and contextual conditions – require
learners to develop metacognitive awareness of what,
how and why certain strategies apply. In turn,
“I feel pretty confident and feel that I met the require-
self-regulatory capacity feeds back into enhanced
ments. Even though I started out unsure of myself, I
awareness of metacognitive strategies. Finally, meta-
think I did pretty well.”
cognitive strategies (e.g., planning, monitoring and
evaluating reading and self-regulation) were closely
However, some learners expressed concerns about the
tied to how students felt about reading and their po-
traditional reading instruction, particularly as it relates
tential to successfully cope with reading exercises.
to reading text. Some comments included the
Overall, cueing students to apply metacognition
following:
while reading appeared to encourage them to take
more initiative when reading and to self-regulate
“I feel pretty scared when I need to finish some exercises
their reading.
after reading.”
The findings also reveal that receiving explicit
“I need to reflect on what I had read, but not through metacognitive instruction contributed to improved
some tests like exercises.” reading performance. The success of metacognitive
reading strategies training in enhancing reading com-
“Completing multiple choice type of comprehension prehension has also been documented by Dabarera
questions is like asking me to guess through the clues et al. (2014), in which secondary school Year 1 students
contained in the questions. Within the limited time, I fo- receiving metacognitive strategy instruction outper-
cused on some part of information but ignoring other formed students who were not provided such
parts because the questions only covered a partial part instruction. Learners receiving this intervention could
of the text.” presumably build a repertoire of strategies upon which
to draw while reading. As suggested by Varga (2017)
and Teng (2018), improved metacognitive skills may
Discussion lead to enhanced reading because the development of
metacognitive strategies could sensitise learners to
Young learners who are learning a receptive skill, such text-embedded contextual information and facilitate a
as reading, can easily become passive and disengaged. self-questioning reading process.
They may encounter boredom and frustration. They
may also be deprived of opportunities to take control Although young learners in the present study demon-
of their reading development. In the present study, in- strated some evidence of metacognitive processing,
corporating metacognitive reading strategies instruc- results also implied a complex interaction between
tion to help students report, discuss and reflect on the reading and metacognitive experiences. Not all
cognitive processes in which they engaged during metacognitive experiences influenced reading devel-
reading appeared to aid them in determining reading opment; some students, particularly those with low
strategies. Previous studies have also suggested that English proficiency, did not adopt multiple perspec-
metacognitive instruction improves L2 young learners’ tives on the cognitive process while reading. Consis-
awareness of ways and reasons to monitor their own tent with Zhang et al. (2008), learners with higher
understanding or progress and reading proficiency English proficiency displayed stronger linguistic
(e.g., Zhang et al., 2008). In the present study, readers knowledge of English, which might have prepared
progressed from an initial reliance on reading and ex- them to better discern the reading requirements and
ercise completion to awareness of a wider repertoire strategies influencing reading. They appeared more
of factors that influenced their reading. While reading, skilled in determining how to decode and encode tex-
young learners became aware of metacognitive strate- tual conventions, construct meaning from the text
gies combining semantic, syntactic and phonological and understand the purposes of different texts to use
cues, self-knowledge and text knowledge. them in different ways. In contrast, learners with lower
English proficiency could not decode properly, and
In line with prior studies (e.g., Larkin, 2010; Myers & their decoding was often unrelated to meaning mak-
Paris, 1978), these findings provide evidence of young ing. Hence, high-proficiency young readers applied
students’ metacognitive capabilities. Metacognitive reading comprehension strategies more frequently
awareness of declarative, procedural and conditional than their lower-proficiency counterparts.
© 2019 UKLA
10 Metacognitive instruction in reading
© 2019 UKLA
Literacy Volume 00 Number 00 xxxx 2019 11
Despite these drawbacks, this study presents possibili- LARKIN, S. (2009) Socially mediated metacognition and learning to
ties for metacognitive instruction and creating oppor- write. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4.1, pp. 149–159.
LARKIN, S. (2010) Metacognition in Young Children. Abingdon, Oxon:
tunities for young readers to adapt their approaches Routledge.
to reading accordingly. This study is highly relevant MYERS, M. and PARIS, S. G. (1978) Children’s metacognitive knowl-
to literacy educators and researchers interested in edge about reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70.1,
reading development as well as to teachers who pp. 680–690.
instruct young learners in reading. Metacognitive in- NUNAN, D. and BAILEY, K. M. (2009) Exploring Second Language
Classroom Research: A Comprehensive Guide. Boston: Heinle,
struction represents a worthwhile attempt to improve Cengage Learning.
existing reading pedagogy to help young L2 learners PARIS, S. G. and WINOGRAD, P. (1990) ‘How metacognition can
employ strategies for self-regulated reading, including promote academic learning and instruction’, in B. F. Jones, L. Idol
intentional and remedial actions by which young (Eds.) Dimensions of Thinking and Cognitive Instruction. Hillsdale,
readers plan, integrate, monitor and control their NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 15–25.
PRESSLEY, M. and AFFLERBACH, P. (1995) Verbal Protocols of Read-
own reading processes. ing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
RAPHAEL, T. E. and AU, K. H. (2005) QAR: enhancing comprehen-
sion and test taking across grade and content levels. The Reading
Conflict of Interest Teacher, 59.3, pp. 206–221.
SCHRAW, G. and DENNISON, R. S. (1994) Assessing metacognitive
awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19.1, pp. 460–475.
The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.
TENG, F. (2015) Extensive reading plus explicit vocabulary exercises:
is it better than extensive reading-only? Malaysian Journal of ELT
Research, 11.2, pp. 82–101.
References TENG, F. (2016) Immediate and delayed effects of embedded
metacognitive instruction on Chinese EFL students’ English writ-
AFFLERBACH, P. and CHO, B. Y. (2009) ‘Identifying and describing ing and regulation of cognition. Thinking Skills and Creativity,
constructively responsive comprehension strategies in new and 22.1, pp. 289–302.
traditional forms of reading’, in S. Israel, G. Duffy (Eds.) Handbook TENG, F. (2017) The effects of task-induced involvement load on
of Research on Reading Comprehension. New York: Routledge, word learning and confidence judgments mediated by knowledge
pp. 69–90. and regulation of cognition. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice,
AFFLERBACH, P., PEARSON, P. D. and PARIS, S. G. (2008) Clarify- 17.3, pp. 791–808.
ing differences between reading skills and reading strategies. The TENG, F. (2018) A learner-based approach of applying online read-
Reading Teacher, 61.5, pp. 364–373. ing to improve learner autonomy and lexical knowledge. Spanish
Block, C. C. and Pressley, M. (Eds.) (2002) Comprehension Instruction: Journal of Applied Linguistics, 31.1, pp. 104–134.
Research-based Best Practices. New York: Guilford Press. TENG, F. and HUANG, J. (2018) Predictive effects of writing strate-
BRENNA, B. A. (1995) The metacognitive reading strategies for five gies for self-regulated learning on secondary school learners’ EFL
early readers. Journal of Research in Reading, 18.1, pp. 53–62. writing proficiency. TESOL Quarterly https://doi.org/10.1002/
BROWN, A. (1980) ‘Metacognitive development and reading’, in R. J. tesq.462.
Spiro, B. Bruce, W. Brewer (Eds.) Theoretical Issues in Reading Com- TSE, S. K., HUI, S. Y. and NG, H. W. (2015) The reading attainment of
prehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 453–482. Hong Kong primary four students: a study of literacy achieve-
BROWN, A. (1987) ‘Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, ments and its implications. Education Journal, 43.1, pp. 35–58.
and other more mysterious mechanisms’, in F. E. Weinert, R. H. VARGA, A. (2017) Metacognitive perspectives on the development
Kluwe (Eds.) Metacognition, Motivation, and Understanding. of reading comprehension: a classroom study of literary text-
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 65–116. talks. Literacy, 51.1, pp. 19–25.
COHEN, J. (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. WILHELM, J. D. (2001) Strategic Reading. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton
New York, N. Y.: Routledge. Cook Publishers, Inc.
DABARERA, C., RENANDYA, W. A. and ZHANG, L. (2014) The WILLIAMS, J. P. and ATKINS, J. G. (2009) ‘The role of metacognition
impact of metacognitive scaffolding and monitoring on reading in teaching reading comprehension to primary students’, in D. J.
comprehension. System, 42.1, pp. 462–473. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, A. C. Graesser (Eds.) Handbook of Metacogni-
DALGAARD, P. (2008) Introductory Statistics with R. New York, N. tion in Education. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 26–43.
Y.: Springer. WILSON, N. S. and SMATANA, L. (2011) Questioning as thinking: a
DUKE, N. K. and PEARSON, P. (2002) ‘Effective practices for devel- metacognitive framework to improve comprehension of exposi-
oping reading comprehension’, in A. E. Farstrup, S. J. Samuels tory text. Literacy, 45.1, pp. 84–90.
(Eds.) What Research Has to Say about Reading Instruction. Newark, ZHANG, L. J., GU, Y. and HU, G. (2008) A cognitive perspective on
DE: International Reading Association, Inc, pp. 205–242. Singaporean primary school pupils’ use of reading strategies in
FLAVELL, J. H. (1979) Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a learning to read in English. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psycholo- 78.1, pp. 245–271.
gist, 34.10, pp. 906–911. ZIMMERMAN, B. J. (2000) ‘Attaining self-regulation: a social cogni-
FOGARTY, R. (1994) How to Teach for Metacognitive Reflection. Car- tive perspective’, in M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, M. Zeidner (Eds.)
lisle, P. A.: Pennsylvania State University. Handbook of Self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press,
GOH, C. and TAIB, Y. (2006) Metacognitive instruction in listening pp. 13–39.
for young learners. ELT Journal, 60.3, pp. 222–232.
GRABE, W. and STOLLER, F. L. (2002) Teaching and Researching Read-
ing. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.
HAMMER, C. S., HOFF, E., UCHIKOSHI, Y., GILLANDERS, C.,
CASTRO, D. C. and SANDILOS, L. E. (2014) The language and lit- CONTACT THE AUTHOR
eracy development of young dual language learners: a critical re- (Mark) Feng Teng, Hong Kong Baptist University,
view. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29.4, pp. 715–733. Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong.
JACOBS, J. and PARIS, S. (1987) Children’s metacognition about email: tengfeng@uni.canberra.edu.au
reading. Issues in definition, measurement, and instruction. Educa-
tional Psychologist, 22.1, pp. 255–278.
© 2019 UKLA