Cognitive and Metacognitive Strategy Use in Reading: The Case of Iranian EFL Students’ Test Performance | ||
| جستارهای زبانی | ||
| Article 4, Volume 13, Issue 3 - Serial Number 69, 1401, Pages 55-85 PDF (1.17 M) | ||
| Document Type: مقاله تحقیق | ||
| DOI: 10.52547/LRR.13.3.4 | ||
| Authors | ||
| Zahra Mosalli1; Seyyedeh Susan Marandi* 2; Leila Tajik2 | ||
| 1PhD Candidate, Department of English, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 2Associate Professor, Department of English, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 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. | ||
| References | ||
|
| ||
|
Statistics Article View: 276 PDF Download: 177 |
||
| Number of Journals | 45 |
| Number of Issues | 2,171 |
| Number of Articles | 24,674 |
| Article View | 24,435,947 |
| PDF Download | 17,551,257 |