result shows significant differences at level the 0.05 level (p < 0.05) when it is classified
under the metacognitive strategy Selective Attention.
Comparison of the Metacognitive Strategy Processes the Students Employed before and
after Reciprocal Teaching
Table 4.6 shows the metacognitive strategy processes (planning, monitoring, and
evaluating) the students employed before and after reciprocal teaching.
Table 8 Comparison of the Metacognitive Processes the Students Employed Before and
After Reciprocal Teaching
strategy, the students moderately planned and monitored, below a mean score of 3.5.
Concerning the process of planning, they employed four metacognitive reading strategies:
Prediction (items 1, 2, 4), Goal Setting (items 3, 18), Background Activation (items 6, 7),
and Self-management (item 8), with a mean score of 3.39. For monitoring, they employed
three metacognitive reading strategies: Inferences (item 10), Selective Attention (items 9,
11, 12, 17, 20), and Note Taking (item 15), with a mean score of 3.37.
However, this table shows that the students employed the process of evaluating at
the mean score of 3.53, which is above the moderate level. In this process, they employed
Metacognitive Strategy Processes
**p <0 .01
From Table 4.6, it can be seen that before receiving instructions on the reading
Experimental Group (N = 30)