Effects of individual and group metacognitive prompts on EFL reading comprehension and incidental vocabulary learning

Abstract

Recent research has highlighted the value of providing metacognitive guidance for learning English in a small group setting. This study investigated the effects that the presence or absence of metacognitive prompts for group or individual learning could have on reading comprehension and the incidental learning of vocabulary through reading. A total of 171 university students were randomly assigned to four treatment conditions: collaborative learning with metacognitive prompts, collaborative learning without metacognitive prompts, individual learning with metacognitive prompts, and individual learning without metacognitive prompts. Results indicated that after the treatment, learners in the collaborative learning with metacognitive prompts group outperformed the other groups on both reading comprehension and incidental vocabulary learning assessments. In addition, the vocabulary knowledge acquired by students in the collaborative learning with metacognitive prompts group was highest for meaning recognition, followed by form recognition, meaning recall, and finally form recall. These findings highlight the importance of training students’ self-regulated learning and suggest that the use of metacognitive prompts in a group setting is an effective means to boost EFL reading comprehension and the incidental vocabulary learning for Chinese university students. Pedagogical implications of these and other nuanced findings are discussed.

Modeling higher order thinking skills and metacognitive awareness in English reading comprehension among university learners

“…The increase in the learners' reading metacognitive awareness is likely to increase these learners' effective use of HOTS to comprehend English reading texts. It is in line with previous studies (Darjito, 2019;Soto et al, 2019;Teng and Reynolds, 2019;Teng, 2020) which found that ESL learners' comprehension is geared up by effective reading metacognitive skills. It, in turn, implies that learners' lack of metacognitive control of the text can negatively affect their critical reading performance (Lindholm and Tengberg, 2019).…”

“…Previous studies have investigated the direct effect of metacognitive skills on reading, yet few of them have analyzed the moderating effect of reading metacognitive skills on the relationship between learners' HOTS and reading performance. Prior studies (Darjito, 2019;Soto et al, 2019;Teng and Reynolds, 2019;Teng, 2020) have found a positive relationship between learners' metacognitive controls on the texts and reading performance. However, a recent study (McCarthy et al, 2018) did not replicate the findings of most prior studies.…”

A comparison of text structure and self-regulated strategy instruction for elementary school students’ writing

“…The proposed SRSI technique aligns well with self-regulated learning (Zimmerman, 1990), which guides the writing process through training metacognition (i.e. one's ability to become aware of thought processes during learning) (Teng, 2016(Teng, , 2019a or taking control of strategic actions such as Elementary school students' writing planning, monitoring and evaluating personal progress (Teng, 2017;Teng and Reynolds, 2019). Self-regulation is critical to helping learners transfer independent learning strategies to tasks in other settings.…”

Does the use of a web-based collaborative platform reduce cognitive load and influence project-based student engagement?

“…Most studies highlighted the evidence of collaborative learning in groups work from different collaborative processes, and students tend to interact based on designed processes or plans, which often failed to address the di culties in factors that in uence group work. It is, therefore, necessary to channel collaborative learning in groups towards socio-metacognitive activities such as models of collaborative learning, motivation, collective thinking processes, and group coordination/regulation to promote learning (Kwon, Hong, & Laffey, 2013;Borge, & White, 2016;Borge, Ong, & Rosé, 2018;Teng, & Reynolds, 2019).…”