Attention and Summarization) with both a mean score of 3.50. The least used
metacognitive strategy was item 11 (Selective Attention), with a mean score of 2.47.
Students’ use of the metacognitive strategies after reciprocal teaching.
From Table 4.4, we can see that after reciprocal teaching the average of most
reading strategies stood above 3.5, except the ones for item 11 and item 12 which are in
selective attention metacognitive reading strategy. Item 11 was the least used
metacognitive strategy by the participants after they received instruction through
reciprocal teaching. Its mean score was 2.80 and its paired difference mean was 0.33.
However, it shows a significant difference at 0.05. Item 12 is the strategy that improved
the least, showed by its paired difference mean which stood at 0.26. Moreover, it does not
show a significant difference at 0.05 level.
Comparison of the Ten Types of Metacognitive Strategies Students Employed before
and after Reciprocal Teaching
The metacognitive strategies from the questionnaire can be classified into ten
types (see Table 3.1, Unit 3). Table 4.5 reveals the ten types of metacognitive strategies
the students in the experimental group employed before and after reciprocal teaching.