Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Special Issue on Covid 19 Challenges April 2021 Pp. 364 -380
The Impact of Metacognitive Online Reading Strategies on Online Reading Disposition of
Saudi EFL Learners
Eyhab T. Yaghi
English Department, The Deanship of Common first year
Majmaah University, Saudi Arabia
Received: 10/18/2020 Accepted: 3/7/2021 Published: 4/26/2021
The scientific knowledge related to online reading dispositions and factors affecting the occurrence of these dispositions is limited. Therefore, this treatise aims at studying the impact of metacognitive online reading strategies on online reading dispositions. To achieve this goal, the mixed method was employed using questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Students’ responses were keyed to AMOS software. The statistical analysis has shown students’ preference for utilizing support strategies to tackle the problems they might face while they engage with online materials. Reflection, as a disposition, was the most frequently reported by students through their responses to the questionnaires. Further, the results confirmed the impact of metacognitive online reading strategies on online reading dispositions, which was the aim of this paper. These findings provide a holistic understanding of the nature of the relationship between metacognition and dispositions, paving the way for further research that touch other aspects of online reading dispositions.
Keywords: Online reading, metacognition, dispositions, reading strategies, Saudi EFL learners
Cite as: Yaghi, E. T. (2021). The Impact of Metacognitive Online Reading Strategies on Online Reading Disposition of Saudi EFL Learners. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Special Issue on Covid 19 Challenges (1) 364 -380.
Anderson, N. J. (2003). Scrolling, clicking, and reading English: Online reading strategies in a second/foreign language. The Reading Matrix, 3(3).
Boggiano, A. K., Main, D. S., & Katz, P. A. (1988). Children’s preference for challenge: The role of perceived competence and control. Journal of personality and social psychology, 54(1), 134.
Carr, M., & Claxton, G. (2002). Tracking the development of learning dispositions. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 9(1), 9-37.
Castek, J., Bevans-Mangelson, J., & Goldstone, B. (2006). Reading adventures online: Five ways to introduce the new literacies of the Internet through children’s literature. The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 714-729.
Castek, J., Coiro, J., Henry, L. A., Leu, D. J., & Hartman, D. K. (2015). Research on instruction and assessment in the new literacies of online research and comprehension. Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices, 324-344.
Claxton*, G., & Carr, M. (2004). A framework for teaching learning: the dynamics of disposition. Early years, 24(1), 87-97.
Coiro, J. (2003). Exploring literacy on the internet: Reading comprehension on the internet: Expanding our understanding of reading comprehension to encompass new literacies. The Reading Teacher, 56(5), 458-464.
Coiro, J. (2007). Exploring changes to reading comprehension on the Internet. Paradoxes and possibilities for diverse adolescent readers (Thesis doctoral). University of Connecticut, Rhode Island, US.
Coiro, J. (2009). Rethinking online reading assessment. Educational Leadership, 66(6), 59-63.
Dewi, K. S., & Sahiruddin, S. J. S. B. N. (2020). Online Reading Culture among Indonesian EFL Students at Tertiary Education Level. 4(2), 104-117.
Eagleton, M., & Dobler, E. (2007). Reading the Web: strategies forInternet inquiry. In: New York: Guilford Press.
Fitzgerald, M. A. (2000). Critical thinking 101: The basics of evaluating information. Knowledge Quest, 29(2), 13.
Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): Sage Publications.
Hooper, V., & Herath, C. (2014). Is Google Making Us Stupid? The Impact of the Internet on Reading Behaviour. Paper presented at the Bled eConference.
Huang, H.-c., Chern, C.-l., & Lin, C.-c. (2009). EFL learners’ use of online reading strategies and comprehension of texts: An exploratory study. Computers & Education, 52(1), 13-26.
Huang, S.-H. (1999). A descriptive study of reading strategies used by Taiwanese EFL university more and less proficient readers.
Hurmerinta-Peltomäki, L., & Nummela, N. (2006). Mixed methods in international business research: A value-added perspective. Management International Review, 46(4), 439-459.
Lawless, K. A., & Schrader, P. (2008). Where do we go now? Understanding research on navigation in complex digital environments. Handbook of research on new literacies, 267-296.
Leu, D. J., Castek, J., Hartman, D., Coiro, J., Henry, L., Kulikowich, J., & Lyver, S. (2005). Evaluating the development of scientific knowledge and new forms of reading comprehension during online learning. Final report presented to the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory/Learning Point Associates. Retrieved May, 15, 2006.
Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J. L., & Cammack, D. W. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other information and communication technologies. Theoretical models and processes of reading, 5(1), 1570-1613.
Marboot, K., Roohani, A., & Mirzaei, A. J. I. i. L. T. (2020). Investigating Iranian EFL students’ metacognitive online reading strategies, critical thinking, and their relationship: A mixed-methods study. 9(1), 151-182.
McEneaney, J. E. (2003). Does hypertext disadvantage less able readers? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29(1), 1-12.
Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. (2004). Investigating the strategic reading processes of first and second language readers in two different cultural contexts. System, 32(3), 379-394.
O’Byrne, W. I., & McVerry, J. G. (2009). Measuring the dispositions of online reading comprehension: A preliminary validation study. Paper presented at the National Reading Conference Yearbook.
Ramli, N. F. M., Darus, S., & Bakar, N. A. (2011). Metacognitive online reading strategies of adult ESL learners using a learning management system. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(3), 195-204.
Shang, H.-F. (2016). Online Metacognitive Strategies, Hypermedia Annotations, and Motivation on Hypertext Comprehension. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(3).
Shen, Y.-s., & Min, H.-T. (2003). A study of the effects of two text structures on Taiwanese EFL junior high school students strategy use. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan.
Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Coping with academic materials: differences in the reading strategies of native and non-native readers. System, 29(4), 431-449.
Taki, S. (2016). Metacognitive online reading strategy use: Readers’ perceptions in L1 and L2. Journal of Research in Reading, 39(4), 409-427.
Tate, M., & Alexander, J. (1996). Teaching critical evaluation skills for World Wide Web resources. Computers in libraries, 16(10).
Tsai, M.-J., & Tsai, C.-C. (2003). Information searching strategies in web-based science learning: The role of Internet self-efficacy. Innovations in education and Teaching International, 40(1), 43-50.
Vaičiūnienė, V., & Užpalienė, D. (2013). Metacognitive online reading strategies in foreign language learning context at university. Social Technologies, 3(2), 316-329.
Yaghi, E., & Abdullah, A. (2020). Understanding Online Reading Dispositions from the Perspective of Saudi EFL Learners.
Zawilinski, L., Carter, A., O’Byrne, I., McVerry, G., Nierlich, T., & Leu, D. J. (2007). Toward a taxonomy of online reading comprehension strategies. Paper presented at the 57rd Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference (Austin, TX).