MOROCCAN EFL UNIVERSITY STUDENTS’ RELIANCE ON GOAL-SETTING AND BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE IN PROCESSING ENGLISH (L3) WRITTEN TEXTS: AN EXPLORATORY CASE STUDY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v11i3.5230Nøgleord:
background knowledge, goal-setting, metacognition, planning strategies, textual readingResumé
The present study investigates the extent to which EFL university learners engage in metacognitive planning strategies for conducting the multifaceted process of reading in an effectual, self-regulated manner. Addressing this set objective, this exploratory study, which is part and parcel of my unpublished dissertation (defended in 2015) dealing with the interplay between metacognition and EFL reading, targeted 113 Moroccan English department students (Group 1: N=50; Group 2: N=63) pursuing their English Language Studies at the first-semester level. The data were elicited from the respondents employing two advanced-level EFL reading comprehension texts (i.e., narrative, expository) and a retrospective questionnaire. The attained results indicate that the targeted EFL groups (Group 1 & Group 2) did have recourse to their background knowledge as an efficient platform for generating an effective sense of the assigned written discourse without setting explicit, self-directed goals prior to processing the textual content. Thus, some pertinent recommendations falling within the parameters of pedagogy and research as well as a few limitations are presented.
Article visualizations:
Referencer
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Afflerbach, P., & Meuwissen, K. (2005). Teaching and learning self-assessment strategies in middle school. In S.E. Esrael, C.C. Block, K. Bouserman and K. Kinnucan-Welsch (Eds.), Metacognition in literacy learning: Theory, assessment, instruction, and professional development (pp.141-164). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Al-Bataineh, A. T., Brenwall, L., Stalter, K. & York, J. (2019). Student growth through goal setting. International Journal of Learning and Teaching, 11(4), 147-161. https://doi.org/10.18844/ijlt.v11i4.4329
Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Alvermann, D. E., Smith, L. C., & Readence, J. E. (1985). Prior knowledge activation and the comprehension of compatible and incompatible text. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(4), 420–436. https://doi.org/10.2307/747852
Bandura, A. (1982). The self and mechanisms of agency. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (vol. 1, pp. 3-39). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(3), 586–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.41.3.586
Boakye, N. A. (2017). Extensive reading in a tertiary reading programme: Students’ accounts of affective and cognitive benefits. Reading & Writing, 8(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.4102/rw.v8i1.153
Boyraz, S., & Altinsoy, E. (2017). Metacognitive awareness of reading strategies in EFL context. International Journal of Language Academy, 5(5), 159-167.
Brown, A. L. (1980). Metacognitive development and reading. In R. J. Spiro, B. Bruce & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp.453-479). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Carrell, P. L. (1984). Schema theory and ESL reading: Classroom implications and applications. The Modern Language Journal, 68(4), 332-343. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.15404781.1984.tb02509
Carrell, P., & Eisterhold, J. (1988). Schema theory and ESL writing. In P. Carrell, J. Devine, & D. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp. 73-92). Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Carrell, P. L. (1983). Three components of background knowledge in reading comprehension. Language Learning, 33, 183-203. https://doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1983.tb00534.x.
Celce-Murcia, M., & Olshtain, E. (2000). Discourse and context in language teaching: A guide for language teachers. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Corno, L. & Mandinach, E. B. (1983). The role of cognitive engagement in classroom learning and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 18 (2), 88-108. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461528309529266
Davies, F. (1995). Introducing reading. London: Penguin Group.
Flavell, J. H. (1971). First discussant's comments: What is memory development the development of? Human Development, 14(4), 272-278. https://doi.org/10.1159/000271221
Gayo, E., Deaño, M., Ribeiro, I., Cadime, I., & Alfonso, S. (2014). Effect of an intervention program on the reading comprehension processes and strategies in 5th and 6th grade students. Psicothema, 26(4), 464-470.
Gelderen, A. V., Schoonen R., Glooper, K. D., Hulstijin, J., Simis, A., Snellings, P., Smith, A., & Stevenson, M. (2003). Roles of linguistic knowledge, metacognitive knowledge, and processing speed in L3, L2, and L1 reading comprehension: A structural equation modeling approach. The International Journal of Bilingualism, 7(1), 7–25.
Grabe, W. (1991). Current developments in second language reading research. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 375- 406. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586977
Griffith, P. L., & Ruan, J. (2005). What is metacognition and what should be its role in literacy instruction? In S. E. Israel, C. C., Block, K. L., Bauserman, and K. Kinnucan-Welsch (Eds.), Metacognition in literacy learning: Theory, assessment, instruction, and professional development (pp.3-18). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Haas, C., & Flower, L. (1988). Rhetorical reading strategies and the construction of meaning. College Composition and Communication, 39 (2), 167-183.
Hoeft, M. E. (2012). Why university students don’t read: What professors can do to increase compliance. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning, 6(2), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2012.060212
Johnson, P. (1982). Effects on reading comprehension of building background knowledge. TESOL Quarterly, 16 (4), 503-516.
Kendeou, P., Van Den Broek, P., Helder, A., & Karlsson, J. (2014). A cognitive view of reading comprehension: Implications for reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 29 (1), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12025
Kern, R. G. (1989). Second language reading strategy instruction: Its effects on comprehension and word inference ability. The Modern Language Journal, 73(ii), 135-149. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1989.tb02535.x
Lin, Z. (2002). Discovering EFL learners’ perception of prior knowledge and its roles in reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 25(2), 172-190.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
McCrudden, M., T., & Schraw, G. (2007). Relevance and goal-focusing in text processing. Educational Psychology Review, 19(2), 113-135.
Mikami, Y. (2012). Effects of goal setting and self-monitoring instruction on EFL learners’ goals and motivation. Annual Review of English Language Education in Japan, 23, 33–44. https://doi.org/10.20581/arele.23.0_33
Msaddek, M. (2015). Moroccan EFL Students’ Learning of Cognitive and Metacognitive Reading Strategies: Rabat FLHS Semester One Students as a Case Study (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Faculty of Letters and Human Sciences, Mohamed V University, Rabat, Morocco.
Msaddek, M. (2017). The text type effect on Moroccan EFL university learners’ reading achievement. English Language and Literature Studies (ELLS), 7(2), 99-109. Canadian Center of Science and Education (CCSE). http://doi.org/10.5539/ells.v7n2p99
Msaddek, M., & Boudassamout, H. (2023). The role of explicit metacognitive strategy intervention in the promotion of declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge of reading heuristics amongst Moroccan EFL university students. Journal of Studies in Education (JSD), 13(2), 72-92, Macrothink Institute (MI). https://doi.org/10.5296/jse.v13i2.20984
Ridley, D. S., Schutz, P. A., Glanz, R. S., & Weinstein, C. E. (1992). Self-regulated learning: The interactive influence of metacognitive awareness and goal-setting. Journal of Experimental Education, 60(4), 293–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1992.9943867
Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Shih, Y. & Reynolds, B. (2018). The effects of integrating goal setting and reading strategy instruction on English reading proficiency and learning motivation: A quasi-experimental study. Applied Linguistics Review, 9(1), 35-62. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2016-1022
Suyitno, I. (2017). Cognitive strategies use in reading comprehension and its contributions to students’ achievement. IAFOR Journal of Education, 5(3), 107-121. https://doi.org/10.22492/ije.5.3.05
Ulijn, J. M. & Salager-Meyer, F. (1998). The Professional reader and the text: Insights from L2 research. Journal of Research in Reading, 21 (2), 79- 95. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.00046
Weaver, C. (1994). Reading process and practice: From sociopsycholinguistics to whole language. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Weinstein, C. E., & Hume, L. M. (1998). Study strategies for life-long learning (psychology in the classroom). Washington: American Psychological Association.
Willis, J. (2008). Teaching the brain to read: Strategies for improving fluency, vocabulary and comprehension. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Zhu, A., Mofreh, S. A. M., & Salem, S. (2023). The effect of goal setting based on China’s standard of English proficiency scales on reading achievement. Sustainability,15 (5), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054519
Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Goal setting: A key proactive source of academic self-regulation. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 267–295). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Downloads
Publiceret
Nummer
Sektion
Licens
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
