Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Loading next page...
/lp/de-gruyter/reciprocal-teaching-as-a-cognitive-and-metacognitive-strategy-in-a0XpW6yzjt
References
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
- Publisher
- de Gruyter
- Copyright
- © 2023 the author(s), published by De Gruyter
- ISSN
- 2544-7831
- DOI
- 10.1515/edu-2022-0200
- Publisher site
- See Article on Publisher Site
Abstract
Reading is a key skill in English and other languages as it facilitates the accumulation and growth of knowledge as well as exposure to diverse experiences. Besides, the present era is characterized by swift transformations, escalating creativity, and a surfeit of information, and the ability to comprehend written material in English as a global language is developing into a skill that should be honed throughout one’s lifetime (VanDeWeghe, 2007). As the contemporary society is characterized by increased exposure to information, this requires individuals to engage in reading, synthesis, and comprehension (Bilici & Subasi, 2022). In the language classroom, reading has the potential to enhance language acquisition and cognitive development among learners. Reading also enables learners to acquire an adequate amount of comprehensible input, which can later be applied in both written and oral communication.Reading involves both cognitive and metacognitive processes as it is inextricably tied to thinking as a problem-solving activity that includes both absorption and development of ideas (Mokhtari & Reichard, 2002). From one perspective, it is a cognitive activity that increases comprehension by encouraging learners to seek answers to their problems. It requires them to evaluate the material, find key concepts, and make connections between them. Reading, as the major source of learners’ information, is a sophisticated cognitive process that is essential for proper language development. The reading classroom is a good place to start since teaching higher-level cognitive processes demands comprehension, inference, and decision-making.Reading also involves processes of comprehension monitoring and controlling. It serves as a self-check to determine whether the text has been comprehended. This characteristic is known as metacognitive knowledge, and it is described as the capacity to evaluate whether a strategy is making progress toward a given objective. Mokhtari and Reichard (2002) affirm that reading is one of the most effective monitoring and regulating strategies for achieving comprehension among all metacognitive strategies. Therefore, reading comprehension is an interactive process involving both cognitive and metacognitive characteristics. The cognitive characteristic of reading is defined by Palincsar and Brown (1984) as fostering comprehension, while the metacognitive characteristic is defined as monitoring comprehension.Previous research (e.g., Choo, Eng, & Ahmad, 2011; Komariah, Ramadhona, & Silviyanti, 2015; Navaie, 2018) has highlighted the necessity of teaching students to be interactive readers who assess their own comprehension and use a set of effective comprehension strategies to enhance their knowledge. RT offers a coordinated instructional package that encompasses an array of effective strategies to enhance the learning outcomes for second language (L2) readers, as suggested by Dadabhoy and Dadabhoy (2021). This endeavor aims to reconcile the disparity between prevalent pedagogical approaches and empirical findings in the domain of teaching reading comprehension. RT involves collaborative dialogue between the teacher and students, with the aim of collectively constructing meaning from a shared text (Cuartero, 2018). It employs four distinct comprehension strategies, namely, predicting, questioning, clarifying, and summarizing, which are carefully selected to support and monitor comprehension.The utilization of RT strategies has been shown to enhance thinking, interaction, and collaboration during the process of reading. Hence, the four RT strategies serve as the foundation for educators’ amalgamation of teaching practices to instruct learners in comprehending the text they are reading (Okkinga, Van Steensel, Van Gelderen, & Sleegers, 2018). Meanwhile, RT promotes the exchange of roles between instructor and learner to improve reading comprehension. The first step in using RT in a language classroom is guided by the instructor who first serves as the group’s leader, explaining and showing the strategies, monitoring learners’ learning and understanding, scaffolding their efforts, offering feedback, and tailoring the instruction to learners’ present level of proficiency. The instructor phases out this role as soon as feasible, and each student in the group acts the role of group leader. Coaching eventually replaces active instruction. As a consequence, RT focuses on teaching learners to adopt the strategies that professional readers employ naturally in the language classroom (Gorlewski & Moon, 2011).Rodli and Prastyo (2017) add that RT enhances reading comprehension by creating a natural setting for peers to demonstrate prior knowledge. The exchange of information between peers plays a crucial role in learners’ cognitive and metacognitive development. As per Lestari’s (2016) research, it has been observed that readers acquire knowledge by engaging in discussions about the material they have read and sharing their knowledge with others. In the context of RT, learners engage in scaffolded activities such as read-aloud, dialogue, structured comprehension, and peer teaching to facilitate their understanding of the text (Basoeki, Wu, & Huang, 2020; Cuartero, 2018).As RT encompasses cognitive and metacognitive strategies for learning in the context of reading comprehension, it empowers readers to engage in a non-linear approach to comprehending text, whereby they move back and forth between different parts of the text to test their understanding (Choo et al., 2011). This process of moving back and forth incorporates the four RT strategies of predicting, questioning, clarifying, and summarizing, as identified by Lestari (2016).1Aim of the StudyThe study’s focus was on enhancing the reading comprehension of level-two university students in a collaborative learning context. This was achieved by providing RT as a cognitive and metacognitive set of strategies for boosting the students’ reading comprehension skills through employing the four RT strategies of predicting, questioning, clarifying, and summarizing; scaffolding these strategies when reading by modeling, coaching, and implementing them; and assisting the students in fostering and monitoring their reading comprehension using the four RT strategies.2Problem of the StudyDespite the large amount of research showing that RT improves reading comprehension (e.g., Bilici & Subasi, 2022; Hasani & Pahamzah, 2022; Salehi & Vafakhah, 2013), Saudi university classrooms do not fully utilize RT-based reading strategies. Previous studies (e.g., Alfallaj, 2017; Alharbi, 2022; Keezhatta & Omar, 2019) have indicated that enhancing the reading comprehension skills of Saudi university students necessitates the implementation of more efficient teaching and learning strategies. Furthermore, drawing from the researcher’s experience in instructing English as a foreign language (EFL) to Saudi university students, it has been noted that a significant proportion of these students seem to engage in a process of mere word recognition when it comes to reading, thereby encountering difficulties in this area. It seems that they lack an understanding that reading encompasses more than mere deciphering of written words and phrases. This poses a challenge for their active engagement in classroom discussions. Given the aforementioned challenges, this study posits an instructional strategy centered on RT as a means to enhance Saudi EFL university students’ reading comprehension skills.3Questions of the StudyWhat is the effect of RT on developing Saudi EFL university students’ total score of reading comprehension?How effective is RT in developing the inferential and critical reading comprehension skills of Saudi EFL university students?4Hypotheses of the StudyThe experimental group exposed to the RT strategy outperforms the control group receiving regular instruction on the post-test in total score of reading comprehension.The experimental group outperforms the control group on the post-test in each inferential and critical reading skill.The experimental group’s performance on the pre-test and post-test differs statistically in total score of reading comprehension in favor of the post-test.The experimental group’s performance on the pre-test and post-test differs statistically in each inferential and critical reading skill in favor of the post-test.5Literature ReviewRT was devised in the middle of the 1980s with the purpose of teaching learners how to approach a text thoughtfully (Palincsar & Brown, 1984, 1988). The origins of RT can be traced back to its initial development in the primary classroom, rather than its application in the college classroom (Palincsar & Brown, 1984). Subsequently, this instructional approach has been widely adopted across various age groups, spanning from 7-year-old learners to adults (Rosenshine & Meister, 1994). The research program on RT initiated in 1981 involved a sample of 400 students from first to third grade in the primary school and 300 students from the middle school, as reported by Palincsar and Klenk (1992). Thus, the initial work was centered on primary-school students who demonstrated proficiency in decoding skills but exhibited low performance on comprehension assessments. Later on, numerous research replications have been undertaken at the secondary and university education levels (Brown & Campione, 1992).Clark and Graves (2005) define RT as a collaborative and structured instructional forum, where the instructor acts as a mediator through the utilization of scaffolding, coaching, and gradual reduction of support rendered during an interactive discussion. Gorlewski and Moon (2011) add that RT serves as a constructivist model to learning. It provides collaborative strategies, and it functions on a phased basis. In this process, the meaning of a text is shaped by the active involvement of participants in a group discussion that revolves around a shared reading experience. Lederer (2000) posits that the utilization of the RT’s four strategies by the instructor leads to enhanced comprehension among learners during dialogue engagement. Subsequently, students proceed to actively participate in the practical application and execution of each of the four strategies on an individual basis. Over a period of time, students progressively adopt the responsibility of leading conversations within the group, with limited or no involvement from the instructor (King & Johnson, 1999). As a consequence, RT is predominantly a reflection of the concept of expert scaffolding, in which the expert or instructor provides support for new learning, and as learners’ competence develops, they require less assistance from the instructor.A central component in RT methodology is instructor modeling. As learners employ RT cognitive and metacognitive strategies, the instructor gives them the responsibility to lead reading discussions, allowing them to actively apply these strategies to reading tasks. This practice is essential for the reading process, with the instructor and other learners on hand to provide feedback (King & Johnson, 1999). Finally, minimal instructor support facilitates the transfer of responsibilities between instructor and learner (Klingner & Vaughn, 1996). Learners internalize the instructor’s strategies and apply them to comprehend the text.Theoretical underpinnings of RT are rooted in social constructivism and the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978), expert scaffolding (Wood, Burner, & Ross, 1976), as well as cognitive psychology theory as reflected in research on metacognition and reading instruction (Rogoff & Gardner, 1984; Rosenshine & Meister, 1994). Based on Vygotsky’s (1978) learning theory, the fostering of learning and cognitive development is directly influenced by social interaction. Accordingly, novice learners can engage in a complex task even if they lack full comprehension of it, provided they receive guidance from more proficient peers who can scaffold their learning process. Learners gradually internalize and comprehend the strategies they employ during interactions, with the assistance and guidance provided by their instructors (Myers, 2006). Initially, the instructor provides direction for this process; however, as time progresses, learners assume increasing levels of responsibility.Another theoretical underpinning of RT is cognitive psychology theory and research centering on the function of metacognition in reading comprehension. The utilization of reading strategies is a key factor that sets proficient readers apart from less skilled readers, as evidenced by the findings of various studies (e.g., Myers, 2006; Ostovar-Namaghi & Shahhosseini, 2011). Proficient readers possess the ability to effectively utilize diverse reading strategies based on the specific task, while also being cognizant of the appropriate timing and rationale for their implementation. They engage in task analysis, evaluate their knowledge and comprehension of the text, devise effective strategies to complete the reading in a timely manner, and regularly evaluate and monitor their progress towards achieving their goals (Whitman & Demarest, 2000).6RT as a Cognitive and Metacognitive StrategyRT strategies have a dual function as they are employed to develop and monitor learning. Hou (2015) describes RT as having both cognitive and metacognitive components. The capacity to reflect on one’s own cognitive processes, including knowing when and why to participate in various cognitive activities, is the first component. RT, as described by Palincsar and Brown (1984), is meant to instruct students in the use of cognitive strategies that may enhance their reading comprehension, such as summarization, question generation, clarification, and prediction.The second component is the use of metacognitive strategies that enable learners to monitor their comprehension. Haller, Child, and Walberg (1988) define metacognition as the conscious awareness, monitoring, and regulation of cognitive processes. They describe awareness as a competent reader’s examination of the basis of their lack of comprehension – language, context, author’s presentation, and implicit vs explicit ideas. The reader’s ability to check his or her own comprehension is referred to as monitoring. It requires linking data to bigger ideas, making predictions, evaluating actions, and verifying assumptions. Regulation involves compensatory techniques like rereading, skimming, and scanning, as well as self-questioning (Hasani & Pahamzah, 2022). The provision of instructor modeling and explicit instruction in metacognitive strategies equips learners with an understanding of comprehension difficulties, familiarity with diverse strategies that can be employed (declarative knowledge), proficiency in the application of these strategies (procedural knowledge), and knowledge of the appropriate timing and context for their use (conditional knowledge) (Brown & Palincsar, 1989).7RT Strategies: Predicting, Questioning, Clarifying, and Summarizing7.1PredictingPrior to engaging with the text, learners engage in collaborative group work to make predictions regarding the content they are about to encounter. Predictions are formed by learners through the process of recalling their prior knowledge on a given topic and making informed guesses about potential future outcomes. Choo et al. (2011) argue that prediction highlights the significance of both visual and textual cues, encourages learner engagement, fosters a motivation to read, and advances fairness in classroom discourse. Upon reading the text, learners engage in a reflective process regarding their initial predictions (Seymour & Osana, 2003). Predicting activities and techniques include any of the following activities or a combination of them depending on the nature of the reading task, learners’ linguistic proficiency level, and the time available for predicting (Crawley & Merritt, 1996; Honig, 2001):–Predicting T-Chart/Hypothesis-Proof T-Chart: Prediction or hypothesis on left column; textual evidence on right column.–Picture Uncover: The instructor progressively discloses a picture on the overhead and allows learners to make informed guesses based on evidence, which they can then validate or modify as more pieces are revealed.–Story-Picture Sequence: It is used to assist learners in recognizing sequence. The instructor prepares a series of images depicting a story. After reading the story, learners arrange the illustrations and retell it in the correct order.–Title Matching: It is used to assist learners in identifying the central idea of a passage or selection. The instructor prints out brief stories. Following each narrative are several potential titles. Learners should then select the story’s finest title.7.2QuestioningAfter reading the introductory section of the text, learners generate a series of questions based on the material that is presented. The group engages in discussing these questions, poses additional questions, and in instances of discord or misapprehension, revisits the written material using the KWL (What I know, What I Want to Know, What I Learned) chart. KWL, developed by Ogle (1986), is an educational technique used for building upon students’ prior knowledge so that they could successfully begin generating questions. According to Hashey and Connors (2003), individuals engage in questioning as a means of posing inquiries pertaining to the text across various stages, namely, pre-reading, during-reading, and post-reading. Questioning serves to direct the focus of learners towards the principal concepts, verifies their current comprehension of the material being read, and engages them in the process of active comprehension. Palincsar and Herrenkohl (2002) add that questioning serves to enhance learners’ engagement, provide guidance, and challenge them to engage in deeper and more complex thinking, as well as assess their level of comprehension. In addition, learners exhibit a higher level of engagement in their reading when they are aware of the requirement to formulate questions regarding the material.7.3ClarifyingThe goal of clarifying is to facilitate comprehension in cases where an individual or a group is faced with an unfamiliar concept, term, or expression causing confusion. Here clarifying is described as a metacognitive process of comprehension monitoring at various levels, including the word, sentence, and inter-sentence relationships. Myers (2006) asserts that learners are instructed to remain attentive for difficulties at this stage and are subsequently taught on strategies that facilitate the resolution of any comprehension difficulties they may face. Little and Richards (2000) assert that the clarifying strategy is commonly employed to address a range of issues, including challenging or unfamiliar vocabulary, such as idiomatic expressions and metaphors, unclear referents, disorganized text, and incomplete information. Accordingly, learners engage in a collaborative effort to clarify any points of confusion.7.4SummarizingAs described by Doolittle et al. (2006), summarizing helps learners grasp the key information of the material that has been read and deliberated upon and equips them with the necessary background information to advance to the subsequent section of the text. Summarizing is a useful metacognitive strategy for learners to consolidate significant information, and it serves as a self-review tool that allows readers to monitor their comprehension. For example, restating the main idea of the text using one’s own language facilitates not only the understanding of the text but also the engagement with the content at a more profound level.The four RT-based strategies – predicting, questioning, clarifying, and summarizing – have been shown to have a substantial impact on learners’ reading comprehension in a wide range of studies spanning from elementary schools to universities. An elaborate study was conducted by Palincsar and Brown (1984) who compared the efficacy of four instructional procedures that were specifically developed to teach the four RT strategies to seventh-grade students. The results affirm the effectiveness of RT and that instructional components such as working within the zone of proximal development and employing a scaffolded approach are crucial. In a qualitative study conducted by Hacker and Tenent (2002), the focus was on examining the implementation and practice of RT among teachers in two elementary schools. The students were presented with effective exemplars for the tasks of summarizing, clarifying, predicting, and questioning. Through the implementation of increased scaffolded instruction, the teachers observed that the students exhibited prolonged and earnest engagement in their textual discussions and demonstrated heightened involvement in their reading activities.Weedman (2003) examined the effects of a reading program using RT strategies on the reading comprehension of ninth-grade students. The study involved four experimental groups (1) a group received instruction in the four RT strategies, (2) a group received no instruction in RT strategies, (3) a group received instruction in only the summarizing strategy, and (4) a group received instruction in only the generating questions strategy. In the post-test, the group that received instruction in all four RT strategies had greater comprehension scores than the other groups. Similarly, Oo, Magyar, and Habók (2021) found that the reflection-based RT model was effective in enhancing the EFL reading comprehension skills of upper secondary school students. This model incorporated RT, involving questioning, clarifying, summarizing, and predicting, and as a result a significant increase was evidenced in the students’ reading comprehension.At the university level, Spivey and Cuthbert (2006) explored the impact of RT on enhancing the lecture comprehension skills of low-verbal ability college students. The instructor modeled the four RT strategies and guided the students in performing comprehension activities. Results showed that these students significantly increased their lecture comprehension, and these increases were maintained over time. Furthermore, Koşar and Akbana (2021) conducted a 7 week intervention in RT to improve the reading comprehension skills of pre-service EFL teachers. The results revealed that the participants viewed RT as effective for enhancing their reading comprehension skills, and that they intended to implement it in their future instruction.8Method and Procedure8.1Research DesignThe study employed the quasi-experimental pretest-posttest control group/experimental group design. Two intact classes were chosen at random to represent the experimental and control groups in the study. For the purpose of developing their reading comprehension skills, the experimental group received reading instruction through the RT strategy. Students in the control group received regular reading instruction. A pre-post-test of reading comprehension was administered to both groups before and after the experiment.8.2ParticipantsIn the first semester of the academic year 1442–1443 H, a sample of 64 level-two university students was randomly chosen from College of Languages and Translation at Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU). The sample was divided into two groups, with 34 students in the experimental group and 30 students in the control group. The age of the students in both groups spanned from 18 to 20 years. The researcher provided instruction to the experimental group students during the 14-week implementation of the experiment, with two instructional periods per week. The control group received two periods of regular reading instruction from their instructor.8.3The Reading Comprehension Test8.3.1Objectives of the TestThe researcher developed and conducted a pre-post reading comprehension test (i.e., the same version of the test was used before and after the experiment). Prior to the implementation of the RT strategy, the test was employed to ensure that both groups of students possessed roughly equivalent reading comprehension skills. This measure was implemented to ensure that any advancements made by the experimental group could be attributed to the RT strategy to which they were exposed. The posttest was employed to examine the efficacy of the RT strategy in enhancing the targeted inferential and critical reading comprehension skills.8.3.2Test ValidityIn order to assess the content validity of the test, an initial version comprising of two reading passages with 24 questions was administered to four EFL professors who were tasked with evaluating each item based on its appropriateness in relation to the content and the level of comprehension it measured. In addition, they were requested to assess the overall test based on three criteria: (a) accuracy, (b) quantity of items, and (c) appropriateness of the reading materials and test questions for level-two university students. The test demonstrated a high degree of validity, as it assessed the intended construct.The test reviewers provided and emphasized significant comments in the test final version that was used as a pre-posttest. It was suggested that the most effective test items that equally assessed the two levels of reading comprehension (i.e., inferential and critical) be selected and tailored to align with the linguistic proficiency of Saudi level-two university students. The number of test items was excessive, and the test reviewers voiced their concern regarding the potential impact of fatigue on the students’ performance during the test. Thus, it was suggested that the test be optimized for ease of use, feasibility, and relevance by carefully curating the most appropriate items for assessing the designated two levels of reading comprehension. Consequently, the final version of the test comprised a total of 18 questions, with 3 questions allocated to each of the 6 inferential and critical reading skills. Each question carried a weightage of 2 marks, culminating in an aggregate score of 36.8.4Content and Readability Level of the Reading PassagesThe experiment encompassed a total of five units from the designated textbook Reading Explorer 3 (Douglas, 2010), which contains validated texts of a B1 CEFR level. This is the suitable level for the students as prescribed by College of Languages and Translation, IMSIU. Each unit comprises of two reading comprehension passages as well as formative evaluation reading activities. Reading passages are of the same level and cover a wide range of real-world topics covering culture, science, social issues, and travel and adventure. The reading passages are all adapted from authentic National Geographic sources. They develop visual literacy and incorporate graphic organizers to help learners become better readers. Reading comprehension activities cover essential reading skills and question types commonly found on standardized tests such as TOEFL, TOEIC, and IELTS. Vocabulary practice activities and vocabulary builder boxes present and reinforce high-frequency vocabulary items, while review units include a vocabulary review, a magazine-like spotlight on UNESCO World Heritage sites, and a graphic overview of important global issues.8.5Duration of the StudyEach reading comprehension lesson was completed over a duration of two classroom periods, with each period lasting 50 mins. Consequently, the two reading comprehension passages for each unit were conducted over a span of four classroom periods. Two class periods were devoted to formative assessment, one for each reading passage. The course was delivered with a frequency of two sessions per week, spanning a duration of 14 weeks during the first semester of the academic year 1442–1443 H.8.6The RT StrategyThe researcher implemented RT with carefully selected pre-, during-, and post-reading techniques to enhance the inferential and critical reading comprehension skills of the experimental group students. The teaching strategies involved the division of each reading comprehension lesson into three distinct phases, which incorporated the four RT strategies in a manner that was mutually reinforcing and interdependent. The phases involved in the reading process were categorized into pre-reading, during-reading, and post-reading. The pre-reading phase encompasses questioning and predicting, while the during-reading phase involves predicting, questioning, and clarifying. Finally, the post-reading phase involves questioning and summarizing.Throughout these phases, the instructor randomly divided the class into small groups (four students each; the predictor, the questioner, the clarifier, and the summarizer). The students in each group worked collaboratively to complete each strategy using a Bookmark as a reminder and guide. On a daily basis, group members rotated through the four strategy roles for each reading passage. Each student was given a role card. The predictor would make guesses about what the author would tell the group next or he would make suggestions about what the following events in the story would be. He would then write the group’s predictions on the prediction chart and then reported them to the instructor. The clarifier was responsible for highlighting and addressing difficult or unclear passages in the text, as well as making an effort to clarify such passages in partnership with the other members of the group, and reporting the group’s replies and concerns to the instructor. The questioner was responsible for offering part of the questions, and other students might also provide questions. It was the responsibility of the summarizer to deliver to the instructor summary of the text that highlighted the most important ideas.The instructor acted as the maestro, facilitating group discussion. As the groups worked, the instructor moved around the classroom, observing, listening in, and writing down good questions, words, or problems to clarify before leading a whole-class debriefing. On an as-needed basis, the instructor demonstrated and scaffolded the students’ implementation of strategies. The next section delves further into these three phases by examining them in detail.8.6.1The Phase of Pre-Reading (Predicting and Questioning)This phase was intended to activate the essential background information. It employed the questioning and prediction strategies. Pre-reading questions targeted at generating predictions about the next content. The following are the phase objectives: (a) giving students a reason to read; (b) motivating them to read the text; (c) facilitating comprehension since students know what to look for; (d) activating students’ related background knowledge of linguistic and rhetorical structures; and (e) relating the reading material to students’ own experiences. Before reading the text, each group made predictions about the next topic. This was accomplished by the instructor’s attempts to elicit students’ predictions, which included the following instructions and question: Before you begin reading the text, look at the title, scan the paragraphs to read the topic sentences, and look at the illustrations. What do you suppose a reading with this title and these illustrations would be about? During the pre-reading phase, the students participated in at least one of the following techniques.8.6.2Predicting T-ChartThe task required the formulation of either a prediction or a hypothesis on the left-hand side, followed by the provision of textual evidence on the right-hand side to support the statement. The predicting T-Chart was utilized by each group to generate predictions concerning the next text. Upon completion, every predictor conveyed their predictions to the instructor. The task facilitated the identification of explicitly stated information or specific details by the students. The instructor wrote the predictions of each group onto the board without providing any feedback and informed the students that they would subsequently determine whether their predictions had been confirmed or disproven upon reading the assigned text.8.6.3BrainstormingGraphic organizers, such as semantic or story maps, as well as the first two columns of the KWL Chart, were utilized. The instructor directed the students’ focus toward the task of expanding their graphic organizers or filling out the third column of their KWL charts during the post-reading phase, contingent upon the information garnered from their reading of the text. This procedure facilitated the identification of explicitly stated information or specific details by the students. The instructor had the flexibility to opt for either one or a blend of the aforementioned techniques. The selection of a particular technique was based upon various factors, including the characteristics of the reading material, the objectives of the reading task, and time constraints associated with the pre-reading phase.8.6.4The Phase of During-Reading (Predicting, Questioning, and Clarifying)The students were required to engage in a comprehensive reading of the text, utilizing all language cue systems in conjunction. Additionally, they were expected to verify and rectify their predictions, monitor their comprehension, and engage in group reading to confirm or refute their initial predictions of the reading passage. In addition, the students engaged in a thorough reading process aimed at extracting further details pertaining to the content of the reading material. This was done either to address their own questions and subsequently record their responses in the third column of KWL charts during the post-reading phase, or to construct their visual aids such as graphic organizers and semantic/story maps.8.6.5PredictingIt targeted establishing a clear intention for reading, sustaining the focus of students, encouraging them to engage with the text, stimulating their relevant prior knowledge, and establishing connections between the reading material and their personal encounters. Upon reading each paragraph of a given text, the students were directed by the predictors within each group to anticipate the forthcoming content. Therefore, predicting during reading was intended to engage the students in a predict-read-prove cycle, wherein they established a reading purpose, processed ideas, and referenced text evidence to support their predictions. The students engaged in reading activities to verify, refute, or modify their hypotheses.8.6.6QuestioningAfter reading the first section of the text, the questioner in each group was tasked with coming up with a number of reading-related questions prompted by the information presented. The group considered the questions at hand, posed more questions, and, in cases of disagreement or confusion, read the text once again.Questioning served as a valuable tool to enhance student’s engagement, guidance, and cognitive stimulation at deeper and higher levels. Additionally, it fostered a greater sense of purpose in reading by prompting the students to formulate questions related to the reading material. This practice also aided in directing attention towards key concepts and verifying comprehension of the text. Furthermore, questioning facilitated the retention of factual information and promoted active comprehension among the students. In addition to this, the students were encouraged to become more aware of the essential skills for inferential and critical reading comprehension, and they practiced these skills in context by employing a variety of the following questioning activities that were tailored to each student’s level and expertise in reading comprehension.8.6.7Active ComprehensionThe predictor elicited questions from the students regarding what they wanted to know. The students posed their own questions in response. The predictor recorded questions posed by the students into the second column of the KWL chart. The predictor strategically paused the text at junctures where the students posed questions or where their questions were addressed in the text.8.6.8Text-Questions T-ChartFor example, the instructor employed the think-aloud technique to extract the main idea of a paragraph or text. The instructor then invited students to begin questioning by composing a question for each topic sentence that they anticipated the paragraph to answer. Then, he invited the students to work in groups to determine the main idea of each paragraph. Subsequently, the questioners were asked to formulate and write a number of questions based on the content of the text they had just read, using the Text/Questions Chart as a guide and the Bookmark as a prompt. Members of the group also posed questions beginning with simple ones. The group addressed these questions, raised more questions, and reread the material in case there was disagreement or confusion.8.6.9Story MapAfter reading texts, the questioners were invited to generate and write several during-reading questions prompted by the part just read using the Bookmark as a guide and the clues (question starters) included in the story map. They started with simple questions. The remaining time was then utilized to formulate higher-order questions. The group examined these questions, posed more questions, and, in cases of disagreement or confusion, read the text once again. The instructor encouraged the questioners to submit their questions to the class when the narrative map was complete. Members of other groups might respond to questions posed by one questioner at a time.8.6.10Problem/Solution ChartIt illustrated problem-solving elements. The questioner posed questions about the text’s main idea, the problem, all probable causes, its effects, and solutions. Each group wrote the answers to the text questions. The questioner charted the responses and reported them to the instructor. Each group completed the chart together. The students created and answered true/false questions and corrected incorrect statements. After that, they selected one of four options to identify the text’s main idea in multiple-choice questions.8.6.11ClarifyingThe aim of this strategy was to identify the structure of the text, create a visual representation of its content, identify specific details, make inferences about relationships, recognize chronological order, clarify unfamiliar concepts or language, monitor comprehension at the word, sentence, and inter-sentence levels, and address comprehension difficulties through appropriate techniques. The designated clarifier within each group was instructed to orally read the text to the group, while the group members were directed to engage in silent reading. Each member of the group was required to ascertain whether the meaning was accessible or hard. If the meaning was challenging, the students identified the cause of the difficulty, for example a challenging word or sentence structure (grammar, pronoun referents, and so on).The students in each group were instructed to engage in a collaborative discussion regarding their individual challenges and to seek assistance from their peers. Using the Bookmark, the clarifier posed a series of broad questions that encouraged the students to probe thoroughly into the text, analyze the author’s words and message, and arrive at their own interpretations. Upon completion of their group work, the students engaged in a process of clarifying any areas of confusion amongst themselves.The clarifier informed the instructor of the group’s unresolved problems. The instructor examined each group and used the (demonstration, discussion, invitation, and more discussion) cycle to teach students how to solve their problems and correct them. If there was a common problem, the instructor addressed it with the class. If any group had a difficulty with clarification, the instructor convened a meeting with the group members to resolve the issue. In this process, the instructor reinforced the students’ awareness of their reading skills and fostered their application by employing a combination of clarifying techniques and activities as follows.8.6.12Word Attack TechniquesThey assisted in dealing with ambiguous words, reading the text, and attempting to determine the meaning of ambiguous words via the following procedures: (a) searching for contextual clues (items following and preceding the unfamiliar word and the whole text). This could be a direct definition, synonym/antonym, cause-effect, description, or relationship between an object and its function; (b) determining the meanings of the word elements (prefixes and suffixes such as un, ness, etc.) to see if they were consistent with their guesses; (c) determining the part of speech of the word; (d) searching for connective devices in the sentence containing the difficult word, such as but, because, and so on; (e) searching for punctuation marks, such as full stop, commas, and question marks; and (f)replacing the unknown word with the guess and determining whether the meaning was understood.8.6.13Definition MapIn the My Definition Box, the students utilized a diagram to anticipate what they believed a word or phrase meant using word attack strategies. If they were incorrect, they could look it up, then think of synonyms, and finally use it in a sentence.8.6.14The Phase of Post-Reading (Questioning and Summarizing)Post-reading questions were utilized as an assessment tool for measuring comprehension and as a mechanism for structuring and explaining the content. In addition, summarizing was employed as a means of identifying important details or rephrasing the main ideas of the material that had been read and reflected upon, utilizing the language of the students themselves. This phase facilitated the students in reconstructing the text, reviewing and retaining information, integrating important information, recalling significant details, identifying main ideas, and engaging in self-review, thereby enabling them to monitor their comprehension and process the material more thoroughly. The following interventions employed during the post-reading phase were designed to promote the students’ deeper comprehension and processing of the reading material.8.6.15Leave In/Leave Out T-ChartThe instructor developed a master list of lines from all groups’ summarizers presenting the main ideas from the text. The instructor wrote down whatever the students believed was essential. The instructor then allocated letters or numbers and ordered the students to cut them in half or more by placing some numbers on the left and some on the right side of the T-chart. For Leaving In, the students utilized the following criteria: relevance to the reading, character, cause and effect, and truth or fact. For Leaving Out, they assessed if the material was irrelevant, repetitious, or an opinion.8.6.16Graphic OrganizersThe summarizers created and expanded on various graphic organizers (such as KWL charts and semantic maps) to include new information learned during reading.8.6.17Summary WritingThe summarizers were instructed to utilize the semantic/story map and KWL charts as tools to generate a summary that accurately captured the main ideas of the text, expressed in their own words. Each group composed a single paragraph in a collaborative manner. The process of paraphrasing involved expressing information in the students’ own words, focusing on the main ideas and avoiding redundant or extraneous details. Upon completion of the writing process, the instructor directed the groups to engage in peer assessment by exchanging their paragraphs for correction.9Results of the StudyBefore applying the RT strategy to the experimental group, the pre-test results were statistically analyzed to identify whether the experimental and control groups differed in inferential and critical reading skills before starting the study.Based on the data presented in Table 1, the t-test value is equal to 0.139. This value does not reach statistical significance at a confidence level of 0.05. The mean total score for the experimental group is 17.07, while the mean total score for the control group is 17.32. This suggests that both groups exhibited a comparable level of low reading proficiency at the beginning of the study, given that the total score on the exam is 36 (the distribution of marks is described in detail in the section on test validity). Additionally, a series of t-tests were employed to compare the average scores of the experimental and control groups in inferential and critical reading skills, as presented in Table 2.Table 1Pre-test results for the experimental and control groups’ total reading comprehensionGroupNMSDDFt valueSig. levelExperimental3417.073.91620.1390.328Control3017.324.05Not significantTable 2Pre-test results for the experimental and control groups’ inferential and critical reading skillsReading skillExperimental group pre-testControl group pre-testDFt-valueSig. levelMSDMSDGuessing the meaning of unknown words3.421.013.531.3062−0.15Not sig.Making inferences2.870.963.321.2562−0.46Not sig.Determining pronoun referents2.740.912.450.97620.37Not sig.Identifying the main idea of the passage2.681.172.790.8962−0.16Not sig.Drawing conclusions2.970.842.680.58620.48Not sig.Making comparisons2.391.052.550.8162−0.23Not sig.There are no statistically significant differences between the experimental and control groups in each inferential and critical reading skill as shown by p-values >0.05 in Table 2. The experimental group’s average marks ranged from 2.74 to 3.42 (out of 6). The control group’s marks were similar and ranged from 2.45 to 3.53. These results provide additional evidence that both study groups began with comparable low levels of performance in all inferential and critical reading skills prior to the experiment.Hypothesis One:The experimental group exposed to the RT strategy outperforms the control group receiving regular instruction on the post-test in total score of reading comprehension.Table 3 displays the results of a t-test for independent samples used to assess whether there were statistically significant differences in post-test reading comprehension between the experimental and control groups.Table 3Results of the experimental and control groups’ total score on the reading comprehension post-testGroupNumberMeanSDDFt-valueSig. levelEffect sizeExperimental3427.891.396213.97Significant5.06Control3019.271.65LargeThe results in Table 3 demonstrate a clear increase in post-test reading comprehension scores for the experimental group. These scores (27.89 in the post-test compared to 19.27 in the pre-test) show a significant improvement, as indicated by a t-value of 13.97 at the 0.01 level. In contrast, the findings indicate that the students in the control group exhibited an increase in their overall reading performance, as evidenced by their pre-test score of 17.32, which improved to 19.27 in the post-test. However, this observed improvement does not reach statistical significance at the 0.01 level.In order to validate the t-test results and assess the impact of RT on the experimental group students’ inferential and critical reading skills, the effect size was measured using Dunlap’s (1994) formula that calculates the effect size (D) in the light of the estimated t value (T) and the square root of the degrees of freedom (D.F) as follows (Table 4):D=2TD.FD=\frac{2T}{\sqrt{\text{D}\text{.F}}}Table 4Referential framework for identifying the effect size of t-values (Dunlap, 1994)Effect size (d value)InterpretationFrom 0.2 till less than 0.5SmallFrom 0.5 till less than 0.8Medium0.8 or moreLargeAccording to the results presented in Table 3, the effect size of 5.06 indicates a significant improvement in the students’ total reading comprehension in the post-test as a result of implementing the RT strategy.Hypothesis Two:The experimental group outperforms the control group on the post-test in each inferential and critical reading skill.Table 5 displays the results of a series of t-tests that compared the performance of the experimental and control groups on each inferential and critical reading skill.Table 5T-test results of the post-test comparing the experimental and control groups in each reading skillReading skillExperimental group post-testControl group post-testDFt-valueSig. levelEffect sizeMSDMSDGuessing the meaning of unknown words4.290.313.790.09627.42Sig. Large (1.80)Making inferences4.790.213.760.88624.56Sig. Large (2.85)Determining pronoun referents5.290.692.831.026214.17Sig. Large (4.34)Identifying the main idea of the passage4.670.593.010.89628.94Sig. Large (3.27)Drawing conclusions4.010.242.900.60625.40Sig. Large (2.59)Making comparisons4.840.502.980.95628.23Sig. Large (2.34)Table 5 shows that there are differences between the experimental and control groups, with the experimental group showing statistically significant differences and improved performance in all inferential and critical reading skills at the 0.01 level. The results additionally demonstrate that the control group students exhibited a marginal enhancement in their reading performance across inferential and critical reading skills, as observed from the pre-test to the post-test. This improvement, however, is not statistically significant at the 0.01 level.Hypothesis Three:The experimental group’s performance on the pre-test and post-test differs statistically in total score of reading comprehension in favor of the post-test.The t-value in Table 6 is 18.95, which denotes a statistically significant difference between the total reading comprehension of the students in the experimental group on the pre-test and the post-test, in favor of the post-test scores. Furthermore, the effect size value 8.06 indicates that the utilization of RT strategy had a substantial impact on the total reading performance of the experimental group students on the post-test as compared to their performance on the pre-test.Table 6Pre-test vs post-test in the total scores of the experimental group’s reading comprehensionTestMean valueSDDFt-valueSig. levelEffect sizePre-test17.074.183318.95Significant8.06Post-test27.891.33LargeHypothesis Four: The experimental group’s performance on the pre-test and post-test differs statistically in each inferential and critical reading skill in favor of the post-test.Results presented in Table 7 show that the experimental group students’ marks averaged between 4.29 and 4.84 (out of 6) in the post-test, whereas these scores ranged from 2.39 to 3.42 in the pre-test. The t-test and effect size values are statistically significant and affirm that there are statistically significant differences in each inferential and critical reading skill in favor of the experimental group’s post-test.Table 7Experimental group’s performance on the pre-test vs the post-test in each reading skillReading skillExperimental group pre-testExperimental group post-testDFt-valueSig. levelEffect sizeMSDMSDGuessing the meaning of unknown words3.421.014.290.31332.86Sig. Large (4.87)Making inferences2.870.964.790.213310.28Sig. Large (9.80)Determining pronoun referents2.740.915.290.773312.43Sig. Large (12.07)Identifying the main idea of the passage2.681.174.670.59336.91Sig. Large (8.51)Drawing conclusions2.970.844.010.35334.49Sig. Large (3.74)Making comparisons2.391.054.840.16338.70Sig. Large (11.52)The results provided answers to the two research questions as well as support for the four hypotheses posited in the study. The students in the experimental group who received instruction through the RT strategies exhibited superior performance on the post-test in both total score of reading comprehension and individual reading skills, in comparison to the control group students who did not receive training in RT.10DiscussionThe use of RT as a cognitive and metacognitive strategy yielded positive and significant results. The effectiveness of RT comprehension fostering and monitoring features were such that the experimental group students exhibited quantitative and qualitative changes in their reading comprehension performance. The provision of strategy instruction (predicting, questioning, clarifying, and summarizing) was advantageous in equipping the students with the necessary skills to employ effective cognitive processes during the reading process. Besides, these four RT-based strategies afforded the students the chance to engage in pre-, during-, and post-reading cognitive processes, collaborate with their peers, read with intentionality and focus, and assume shared responsibility for their advancement in reading comprehension. These results are consistent with prior studies (e.g., Choo et al., 2011; Hasani & Pahamzah, 2022) that have demonstrated the efficacy of RT as a strategic instructional model for the development of cognitive skills and the improvement of reading performance.As a metacognitive strategy, RT enabled the students to monitor their own comprehension. In addition, RT had positive effects on the students’ self-perception as readers and promoted their independence by allowing them to follow the instructor’s example and gradually adopt his role and style of questioning, developing summaries, explaining content, and making predictions. The students’ verbal reports and performance tasks demonstrated metacognitive growth as well. In alignment with previous research (e.g., Bilici & Subasi, 2022; Hasani & Pahamzah, 2022; Schünemann, Spörer, & Brunstein, 2013), combining these instructional activities has a greater impact on students’ reading comprehension.Most crucially, the implementation of the four RT strategies (i.e., questioning, clarifying, summarizing, and predicting) resulted in greater improvements in reading comprehension among students in the experimental group. The students were presented with models of the four strategies and were given the opportunity to apply these strategies in a supportive environment to enhance their comprehension of reading texts. This aligns with previous research (e.g., Komariah et al., 2015; Navaie, 2018) that suggests RT is more effective when it is preceded by direct explanation and modeling strategies, and followed by teacher-guided student practice of the strategies, rather than relying solely on RT. While training students in each of the four RT strategies can improve reading comprehension, combining all four strategies results in greater efficacy (Dadabhoy & Dadabhoy, 2021; Lenchuk, 2020).Key to the success of RT was the incorporation of the prediction strategy that involved utilizing the titles of reading texts, accompanying illustrations, and story incidents (Doolittle et al., 2006). For example, the pre-reading phase involved engaging in prediction activities such as completing prediction/confirmation charts for reading texts. The implementation of these activities proved to be significant in stimulating the students’ prior knowledge regarding the content as well as the cultural and contextual aspects of the reading materials, thereby enhancing their aptitude for reading comprehension. Moreover, the students’ inclination to read with attentiveness and purpose was enhanced, as they sought to verify or disprove their initial predictions and locate corroborating evidence within the reading material. The instructor assisted the students in honing their cognitive abilities while practicing prediction as they thought critically prior to and during the act of reading, with a focus on highlighting the dynamic nature of the process of constructing meaning. These results are consistent with Taka’s study (2020) showing that encouraging students to make informed predictions about the content of reading materials prior to and during reading improves their comprehension skills.During RT discussions in the during-reading phase, the students were tasked with playing the instructor’s role by adopting the questioning strategy to ask one another questions prior to, during, and after reading based on the text ideas. They were taught to generate questions regarding a text’s central idea, key details, and textual inferences. As the instructor continued to model question formulation and as the students shared their questions with the class, the students’ questions increased in quality and depth, and questioning became the preferred strategy of many students. Every time they read with the intent of generating questions, the students became incredibly enthused. Some students whispered to the instructor, “I’ve just found my question!” after highlighting part of the reading text. These results align with past research (e.g., Mason, 2004; Sari, 2021) that using questioning before, during, and after reading improves students’ reading skills.The implementation of the clarifying strategy enabled the students to monitor their comprehension by recognizing and addressing the challenges they encountered while comprehending specific segments of the text or complex vocabulary. The instructor modeled how to figure out difficult words and called on volunteers to share these words and how they figured them out. The inclusion of the clarifying strategy within RT facilitated a more explicit problem-solving process for the students engaged in reading activities. Upon acquiring the skill of recognizing and elucidating complex vocabulary or perplexing segments of the written material, the students demonstrated an enhanced ability to approach reading in a strategic manner. Several studies, including those by Doolittle et al. (2006), Hamdani (2020), and Lestari (2016), have emphasized the usefulness of the clarifying strategy for facilitating students’ collaborative efforts to increase the quality of their reading comprehension.The strategy of summarizing involved the utilization of multiple skills. In order to effectively produce a summary, each student was required to retrieve and organize the significant events within a given text. The task necessitated the identification of crucial elements and their organization in a coherent sequence in the text. The students were regularly presented with occasions to observe peers engaging in the act of summarizing and to partake in the process of generating their own summaries, thereby enhancing their aptitude for reading. These results are supported by evidence from studies conducted by Alfallaj (2017) and Sari (2021) that summarizing provides students with a chance to recognize the main ideas in the written material, articulate their understanding, and merge the novel information with their prior knowledge.Furthermore, The RT-based procedure comprised of four effective pedagogical components, namely, scaffolding, think-aloud, metacognition, and cooperative learning, a finding which is supported by prior research (e.g., Seymour & Osana, 2003; Tarchi & Pinto, 2016). Scaffolding was an essential component in boosting the students’ learning and providing them with the opportunity to participate during their engagement in RT. Consequently, the students were propelled to the next level of reading proficiency due to the assistance they received, which facilitated their progress through more challenging reading assignments. Besides, the implementation of think-aloud demonstrated to the students the cognitive processes employed by proficient readers during reading, thereby furnishing support for the cultivation of strong reading comprehension skills. The utilization of RT strategies was verbally expressed by both the instructor and the students through alternating think-aloud sessions. The process of think-aloud was closely associated with metacognition, as the students engaged in verbalizing their cognitive processes and reflecting on their employment of the predicting, questioning, clarifying, and summarizing strategies.Throughout the various phases of the RT strategy implementation, the instructor’s utilization of scaffolded instruction played a crucial role in fostering the students’ ability to check and independently monitor their comprehension. The students successfully imitated the strategies of prediction, questioning, clarification, and summarization, as they assumed a teacher-like role during the instructor’s implementation of scaffolded instruction. Although the initial responsibility for instruction and strategy modeling rested with the instructor, it gradually transitioned to the students over time. The facilitation of student engagement is achieved by the instructor through the provision of scaffolding, which includes supportive statements, prompts, and adjustments to student requirements. Lysynchuck, Pressley, and Vye (1990) underscore the significance of scaffolding, asserting that instructors play a critical role in imparting metacognitive information pertaining to the strategies being taught. This encompasses the reasons, timing, and contexts under which these strategies are utilized.In accordance with Basoeki et al.’s (2020) findings, the incorporation of cooperative groups during the RT lessons effectively involved the students in pre-, during-, and post-reading tasks and activities. The collaborative aspect of RT was a significant component of structured guidance, verbalized thought processes, and self-awareness that were inherent to the RT-based reading lessons. These practices transformed reading from an individualistic pursuit to a collaborative one. Furthermore, it fostered a collaborative learning environment where the students with stronger reading comprehension skills were incentivized to assist their peers with weaker abilities, ultimately resulting in heightened motivation and improved reading comprehension processes among all the students. In this collaborative learning context, the construction of meaning through RT was facilitated by the robust dialogue between the students and their instructor and among the students themselves. As a result of the instructor’s active involvement in discourse and provision of directed exercises, the students emulated their instructor and employed the RT strategies to foster meaningful discussion and provided each other with constructive feedback (Schünemann et al., 2013). As such, the cooperative learning environment, peer support, and students’ involvement in interactive group work were all shown to have a positive impact on the students’ motivation and engagement in reading activities (Cuartero, 2018).The utilization of RT strategies proved to be effective in addressing the motivational obstacles encountered by students in their role as active readers, as supported by prior studies (e.g., Khan & Ch, 2021; Tarchi & Pinto, 2016). This was achieved by fostering a mindset of risk-taking and error acceptance without being interrupted by the instructor. As a result, the students’ confidence levels increased significantly, leading to a greater willingness to engage in the reading process. Meanwhile, RT provided the students with a self-reliant mechanism to structure their thoughts. This afforded the students the chance to engage in metacognition and regulate their own comprehension, consequently facilitating the comprehension and perspective-taking of their peers through collaborative verbalization (Cuartero, 2018).The RT strategy also incorporated a variety of graphic organizers, such as KWL charts and semantic/story maps, which were completed by the students during the pre-reading phase and further developed during the reading phase of the lessons. The potential of graphic organizers was attributed to the activation of the students’ prior knowledge pertaining to the topics of the reading materials during the pre-reading phase. Additionally, the instructor aided the students in reading with focus and intentionality in order to accurately and effectively complete the graphic organizers during the reading process. Upon the inclusion of new information from the reading texts, the graphic organizers were expanded to serve as a visual depiction of the reading texts. This aided the students in identifying implicit connections between various components and events within the text. Through this process, the instructor improved the students’ capacity to identify the main ideas, specific details, and organizational frameworks of the written materials (e.g., making comparisons).The utilization of charts and story-picture sequence not only facilitated the listing of events in a story but also served as an effective tool for instructing and reinforcing the skill of summarizing. The students completed boxes with relevant information from the reading material. Upon completion of the boxes, it became apparent that a summary had been produced along with the accurate sequencing of events. The implementation of story maps by the students facilitated their ability to identify and articulate the main events within the text. This instructional procedure heightened the students’ motivation, cultivated their in-depth comprehension of reading material, and enhanced their concentration on the textual content (Taka, 2020; Tarchi & Pinto, 2016). Meanwhile, the integration of both oral discussion and visual aids proved advantageous for students in terms of facilitating the organization of their ideas and showcasing their comprehension. The aforementioned findings align with the outcomes reported by Sari (2021).This multi-faceted RT classroom involved a requisite shift in the instructor’s role from that of an authoritative figure to that of a facilitator, guide, and anxiety reducer. The instructor refrained from imposing assistance on those who did not require it but instead provided aid only when necessary. The instructor as a facilitator transitioned from the role of a demonstrator to that of a motivator, scaffold builder, feedback provider, reinforcer, and observer. These roles exhibited adaptability to cater to the unique needs of individual students and were found to be recursive in nature, contingent upon the given circumstances. The instructor delivered clear guidance and demonstration during the initial phase, offered constructive support as the students commenced implementing the strategies, and gradually faded out of participation and left the learning responsibility to the students by the end of the intervention. Establishing a welcoming and stress-free learning environment also served to enhance the level of student involvement in the reading process. Meanwhile, the students transitioned through various roles including observer, listener, tentative imitator, active participator, autonomous monitor, and evaluator of their own comprehension. This facilitated their engagement as active learners, willingness to take chances, acknowledgement of mistakes without instructor intervention, and development of greater autonomy. These results are in line with the studies conducted by Gorlewski and Moon (2011), Okkinga et al. (2018), and Taka (2020).On the other hand, the students in the control group received no RT, while doing the same tests and activities that the experimental group completed. They completed the passages and activities individually, usually with no help from their instructor. As a result, they naturally showed improvement in their reading skills from the pre-test to the post-test administration, yet this improvement was not significant. This might be due to the traditional teaching procedure adopted with these students that depended merely on silent reading of texts and answering questions in a traditional fashion. These results concur with previous research (e.g., Alharbi, 2022; Keezhatta & Omar, 2019) that highlighted the negative impact of ineffective reading practices that include much emphasis placed on grammatical and structural items in the students’ book. These studies agree that such students produce the language but without any attention to key reading processes skills, i.e., making inferences, predicting next incidents, guessing, and summarizing.11ConclusionThe study presented empirical support for the efficacy of the RT as a cognitive and meta-cognitive strategy in enhancing the reading comprehension skills of the experimental group students. Conversely, the little progress achieved by the control group students leads to the conclusion that EFL instructors should do a careful analysis of the nature of reading comprehension when teaching strategies in the language classroom. These instructors are recommended to use an array of effective RT strategies to enhance their students’ reading comprehension skills. The strategies involve exploring the text in depth to ensure the construction of meaning. For example, the strategy of predicting is recommended to confirm or disconfirm self-generated hypotheses. The strategy of summarizing can be utilized to create a context for understanding the specifics of a text, and the strategy of clarifying to remediate confusion through re-reading, contextual analysis, and external resources such as dictionaries. There is also evidence that the implementation of questioning, prior to, during, and post-reading, is effective in promoting reading comprehension skills. EFL instructors should also employ techniques such as think-aloud, brainstorming, and graphic organizers for helping students check and monitor comprehension.The educational benefits of RT are associated with its three interconnected principles, which include (a) teaching reading strategies that enhance comprehension; (b) utilizing expert modeling, scaffolding, and fading techniques; and (c) offering students opportunities to practice and discuss reading strategies with their peers, under the guidance and coaching of the instructor (Okkinga et al., 2018). Therefore, a significant amount of training and coaching is required for EFL instructors to attain expertise in implementing RT. Similarly, reading materials provided to students should exhibit a diverse range of interesting, up-to-date topics, serve as a source of motivation, pique their interest, and align with their linguistic proficiency levels. Moreover, the integration of visual aids is recommended in reading comprehension lessons to enhance learners’ active reconstruction of the writer’s ideas.
Journal
Open Education Studies – de Gruyter
Published: Jan 1, 2023
Keywords: reciprocal teaching; predicting; questioning; clarifying; summarizing