臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

最近在語言測驗的研究中, 開始聚焦於個人特質對語言測驗成績的影響，其中在後設認知與認知學習策略在語言測驗對學習者的問題解決、錯誤理解改正和閱讀動機有顯著的影響。過去的研究多數以學生在學習行為上的改變、學習動機的增加和閱讀成效作架構，而本研究主要為分析學生在策略使用及閱讀測驗成績的影響。
此研究使用仿真新多益試題來測驗學生的英語能力與問卷來了解學生後設認知和認知學習策略，結構方程模式調節作用和多群組比較與AMOS 21版被本研究採用來分析學生的學習策略使用和學生的閱讀測驗成績，研究對象為工學院和管理學院總共151位學生(包括81 位工學院三年級和四年級學生和70位管理學院三年級學生)。研究結果為所有學習者在後設認知與認知學習策略可以同時互相影響但是在後設認知學習策略使用較大，而所有學生的學習策略使用跟篇章能力與單字文法能力能互享影響，也對英語閱讀測驗有顯著影響可以影響，另外學生的能力(篇章閱讀能力、單字文法能力)在學生的後設認知和認知學習策略具有調節作用。另外再多群組比較分析，男性與女性群組的後設認知和認知學習策略亦可以同時進行，而女性群組在後設認知和認知學習策略有比男性有較大的使用。在工院學生與管理學院學生方面，管理學院學生在學習策略使用對英語閱讀測驗有顯著影響大於管理學院學生，且兩組的篇章閱讀和單字文法能力比較具有顯著性。本研究探討在性別和工學院及管理學院學生的學習策略差異比較，語言教師可以藉此從學生不足的學習策略在未來英語教學去做個別化的教學。

The study compares the use of metacognitive and cognitive learning strategies with test-takers’ text comprehension and lexical grammatical competence to the test performance in English reading comprehension of junior and senior undergraduates in both genders and the engineering and management colleges through a questionnaire. A total of 151 participants responded to the 38 items of the metacognitive and cognitive learning strategy questionnaire and the 55 items of the simulated TOEIC reading comprehension test, including the text comprehension section (8 items in Skimming and scanning and 12 items in Reading in depth) and lexical-grammatical section (13 items in Banked cloze and 22 items in Multiple-choice cloze). The participants were considered in two groups: the engineering group (N=80) and the management group (N=71), Male group (N=80) and male group (N=71). Furthermore, the framework of structural equation modeling (SEM) was applied based on the literature review, and multiple-group SEM analysis was used to compare the use of learning strategies with test-takers’ ability level and the performance on the reading comprehension tests between the two groups of genders and colleges. The hypothesized SEM for this study was acceptable, and the results showed the metacognitive learning strategy and cognitive learning uses were well defined by the test-takers of the final exam, and their ability of text comprehension and understanding of lexical grammar correlated with the learning strategy used. Another result of the modifier SEM (ability level as a moderator variable) indicated that the female group used learning strategies more well defined than the male group did and that the female group’s learning strategy use led to more effective reading comprehension performance than did that of the male group. The other result of the modifier SEM (ability level as moderator variable) showed that test-takers from the management college applied learning strategies more well defined than the test-takers from the engineering college did. Furthermore, the test-takers from the engineering college performed well-measured in the skimming and scanning of the text comprehension section and the multiple-choice cloze section of the lexical-grammatical section, and the test-takers from the management college performed well-measured in the text comprehension and lexical-grammatical sections. These findings contribute to a better understanding of cognitive and metacognitive learning strategies for language testing as well as for the future education of language learners and instructors.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
摘要.............................................................................................................................................i
ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................iv
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................vii
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................viii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................1
1.1 Background of the Study............................................................................................1
1.2 Statement of the Problem .........................................................................................3
1.3 Research Motivation ...............................................................................................5
1.4 Purpose of the study ....................................................................................................6
1.5 Research Questions..................................................................................................7
1.6 Definition of terms...................................................................................................8
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ..........................................................11
2.1 Computer Assisted Language Learning in Computer-Based Tests (CBT)…..........11
2.2 Computer-Based English Proficiency Tests.............................................................12
2.3 Metacognitive and Cognitive learning strategy in language use..............................14
2.3.1 Metacognitive learning strategy in language use................................................14
2.3.2 Cognitive learning strategy in language use........................................................19
2.4 Metacognitive and Cognitive learning strategy of participants used use reading comprehension..........................................................................................................23
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY...................................................................32
3.1 Participants Setting....................................................................................................31
3.2 Instrument..................................................................................................................31
3.2.1 Online English Competence Training Program.............................................................31
3.2.2 New TOEIC Computer-Based Tests System...........................................................33
3.2.3 Test questions of Reading Comprehension section in New TOEIC CBT System...34
3.2.4 The Metacognitive and Cognitive learning strategy questionnaire.......................35
3.3 Procedure of the present study............................................................................................36
3.4 Research Model, Research Questions and Research Hypothesis.......................................38
3.4.1 Research Model.............................................................................................................38
3.4.2 Research Questions........................................................................................................39
3.4.3 Research Hypothesis......................................................................................................40
3.5 Data Collection...................................................................................................................42
3.5.1 Data Collection of Metacognitive and Cognitive Questionnaire...................................42
3.5.2 Data Collection of New TOEIC CBT System...........................................42
3.6 Data Analysis......................................................................................................................43
3.6.1 Descriptive analysis………………….…………………………………………………43
3.6.2 Reliability of Metacognitive and Cognitive Questionnaire...........................................43
3.6.2.1 Reliability of Metacognitive and Cognitive Questionnaire……..............................43
3.6.2.2 Reliability of Test Questions of Reading Comprehension Section...........................44
3.6.3 Exploratory Factor Analysis and Confirmatory Factor Analysis.....................................44
3.6.3.1 EFA of Questionnaire and Test Questions................................................................44
3.6.3.2 CFA of Questionnaire and Test Questions...............................................................44
3.6.4 Discriminate analysis.......................................................................................................45
3.6.5 Structured Equation Model..............................................................................................45
3.6.6 Model of multiple-group SEM analysis...........................................................................46
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULT............................................................................................47
4.1 Reliability of learning strategy questionnaire and reading comprehension test questions.47
4.2 Participants’ information………………………………………………………………….67
4.3 Descriptive analysis of learning strategy and reading comprehension test questions….50
4.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)……………………………………………………65
4.5 Discriminate analysis………………………….…………………………………………72
4.6 Hypothesized SEM…………………………………………………………………...74
4.7 Modifier SEM with the ability moderator (interaction variables) …………………79
4.8 Modifier SEM in multiple group comparison………………………………………84
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION..................................................................................93
5.1 Discussion and conclusion………...……………………………………………………...93
5.2 Implication………………………………………………………………………………112
5.3 Limitation of the present study…........……………………………………………….…114
5.4 Suggestion for further studies….……………….……………………………………….115
5.5 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………....116
Reference………………………………………………………………………………….119
Appendix A. The metacognitive and cognitive learning strategy questionnaire………….126
Appendix B. The metacognitive and cognitive learning strategy questionnaire in Chinese version……….................................................................................................................……129
Appendix C. Sample of the test questions in Stimulated New TOEIC CBT System……135








LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Reliability of Learning Strategy Use, Ability Level of Midterm Exam, and Reading Comprehension Test Performance…………………………………………………………….48
Table 2 Demographic of the participants……………………………………………………50
Table 3 Descriptive Data and univariate normality of all the participants...........……………52
Table 4 Descriptive Data and univariate normality of the gender participants……...…….…55
Table 5 Descriptive Data and univariate normality of the colleges participants…………….58
Table 6 Descriptive Data and multivariate normality of all the participants…………………60
Table 7 Descriptive Data and multivariate normality of the gender participants…………….62
Table 8 Descriptive Data and multivariate normality of the colleges participants…………...64
Table 9 Model fit of Confirmatory Factor Analysis in Test-takers’ Learning Strategy Use to Ability Level of Midterm Exam………………………………………………………………68
Table 10 Standardized Factor Loading, Composite Reliability (C.R), and Averaged Variance Estimates(AVE) of Test-takers’ Learning Strategy Use to Ability Level of Midterm Exam...69
Table 11 Model fit of Confirmatory Factor Analysis in test-takers’ reading comprehension test performance………………………………………………………………………….….……71
Table 12 Standardized Factor Loading, Composite Reliability (C.R), and Averaged Variance Estimates(AVE) of test-takers’ reading comprehension test performance…………...………72
Table 13 Discriminate Validity of Test-takers’ Learning Strategy Use, Ability Level, and Test Performance………………………………………………………………………………….74
Table 14 Model fit of SEM………………………………………………………………...…76
Table 15 Estimates, Beta value, and p-value of SEM…………………………….………….77
Table 16 Model fit of SEM Modifier…………………………………………………………81
Table 17 Unstandardized Regression Weight of SEM Modifier………………………...…...82
Table 18 Standardized Regression Weight of SEM Modifier…………………………...…...83
Table 19 Gender Comparison by STATWIKI……………………………………………….88
Table 20 Colleges Comparison by STATWIKI………………………………………….…92










LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 The Design of the Study in Biology Video Search ................................................. 15
Figure 2 Language Proficiency Model of Bachman and Palmer............................................. 17
Figure 3 Core and Peripheral Components of Language Proficiency .................................... 18
Figure 4 The Model of Mediation ……………………………............................................... 19
Figure 5 Experimental Procedures for The Study in SCT vs. SGQ ........................................22
Figure 6 Unitary SEM for investigating the test-takers’ learning strategy use and reading test performance..............................................................................................................................23
Figure 7 Classification of Language Learning Strategy .........................................................24
Figure 8 Language-Oriented Strategies (Based on Taraban) ..................................................26
Figure 9 Model of CMS-Supported Reading Strategy Instruction …………………………27
Figure 10 Questionnaire of Learning Strategy with Metacognitive and Cognitive ………….28
Figure 11 Schedule of Online English Competence Training program ………….......………32
Figure 12 A Flow Chart of the Statistical Procedures Used in The Study …………………37
Figure 13 The Hypothesized SEM ……………………………………………………….38
Figure 14 Research Hypothesis with SEM ………………………...………………………...40
Figure 15 Research Hypothesis with SEM Modifier…………………...…………………….41
Figure 16 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of test-takers’ learning strategy use to Ability Level of Midterm Exam…………………………………………………………………………….67
Figure 17 Confirmatory of test-takers’ reading comprehension test performance………….70
Figure 18 Discriminate Validity of Test-takers’ Learning Strategy Use, Ability Level, and Test Performance…………………………………………….………………………........….73
Figure 19 Hypothesized SEM.…………………….…….………………………....…………75
Figure 20 The modifier SEM (Ability level as moderator variable) ...………………………80
Figure 21 SEM Modifier of the male group…………………...…………………………….85
Figure 22 SEM Modifier of the female group……………………………………...………...87
Figure 23 SEM Modifier of the Engineering College group…………………………………90
Figure 24 SEM Modifier of the Management College group……………………………….91

A. Juffs., and B. E, Friedline. (2014). Sociocultural influences on the use of a web-based tool for learning English vocabulary. System, 42, 48-59.
Afflerbach, P. P. (1990). The influence of prior knowledge on expert readers’ main idea construction strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 31–46.
Anam, S., and Stracke, E. (2016). Language learning strategies of Indonesian primary school students: In relation to self-efficacy beliefs. System, 60, 1-10.
Aleven, V. A. W. M. M., and Koedinger, K, R. (2002). An effective metacognitive strategy: learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based cognitive tutor. Journal of Cognitive Science, 26, 147-149.
Anderson, N. J. (2003). Scrolling, Clicking, and Reading English: Online Reading Strategy in a Second/Foreign Language. The Reading Matrix 3(3), 1-33.
Barrière, C., and Duquette, L. (2008). Cognitive-based model for the development of a
reading tool in FSL. Journal of Computer Assisted Language Learning, 15(5), 469-481.
Bax, S. (2013). The cognitive processing of candidates during reading tests: Evidence from eye-tracking. Journal of Language Testing, 30(4), 441-465. doi: 10.1177/0265532212473244
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: Wiley.
Botsas, G., and Padeliadu, S. (2003). Goal orientation and reading comprehension
strategy use among students with and without reading difficulties. International Journal of
Educational Research, 39, 477-495.
C, Barrie`re., and L, Duquette. (2010). Cognitive-Based Model for the Development of a
Reading Tool in FSL. Computer assisted language learning, 15 (5), 469-481.
Channa, M. A., Abassi, A. M., John, S., Mohammad, J. K., Memon, M. A., and Nordin, Z. S. (2018). Reading Comprehension and Metacognitive Strategies in First Year Engineering University Students in Pakistan. International Journal of English Linguistics 8 (6), 78-87.
https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v8n6p78
Christensen, E., Merrill, P., and Yanchar, S. (2007). Second language vocabulary acquisition using a diglot reader or a computer-based drill and practice program. Journal of Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(1), 67-77. doi: 10.1080/09588220601118511.
Coiro, J. (2011). Predicting reading comprehension on the Internet: Contributions of offline reading skills, online reading skills, and prior knowledge. Journal of Literacy Research, 43(4), 352-392. doi: 10.1177/1086296X11421979
Dadarera, C., Renandya, W. A., and Zhang, L. J. (2014). The impact of metacognitive scaffolding and monitoring on reading comprehension. System, 42, 462-473.
Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231-236). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Fornell, C., and Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1), 39-50.
Ghaemi, H. (2011). Application of structural equation modeling in assessing the relationship between stuttering students' cognitive and metacognitive strategies and their reading comprehension performance. Journal of Language Testing in Asia, 1(7),1-26.
Ghahari, S., and Basanjideh, M. (2015). Dynamics of Strategies-based Language Instruction: A Study of Reading Comprehension and Problem Solving Abilities via Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of RELC, 46(3), 237-253. doi: 10.1177/0033688215595713.
Gorsuch, G.J., and Taguchi, E. (2008). Repeated reading for developing reading fluency
and reading comprehension: The case of EFL learners in Vietnam. System, 36, 253-278.
Guoxing, Y., Zhang, J. (2017). Computer-Based English Language Testing in China: Present and Future. Language Assessment Quarterly, 14 (2), 177-188. doi: 10.1080/15434303.2017.1303704
Hair, J. F. Anderson, R.E. Tatham, R. L, and Black, W. C., (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, USA: Prentice Hall.
Hardan, A. A. (2013). Language learning strategy: A general overview. Journal of Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 106, 1712-1726.
Huang, H.-C. (2014). Online vs. paper-based instruction: Comparing two strategies training modules for improving reading comprehension. RELC Journal, 45(2), 165-180. doi: 10.1177/0033688214534797.
Hubbard, P., & Romeo, K. (2012). Diversity in learner training. In G. Stockwell (Ed.), Computer-assisted language learning: Diversity in research and practice. (pp. 33–48).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (16) (PDF) Enhancing learners’ self-directed use of technology for language learning: The effectiveness of an online training platform.
Hulstijn, J. H. (2011). Language proficiency in native and nonnative speakers: An agenda for research and suggestions for second-language assessment. Journal of Language Assessment Quarterly. 8(3), 229-249. doi: 10.1080/15434303.2011.565844.
J.-Y, Wu. (2014). Gender differences in online reading engagement, metacognitive
strategies, navigation skills and reading literacy. Journal of computer assisted learning, 30 (3), 252-271. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12054.
K. Uhrig. (2015). Learning styles and strategies for language use in the context of
academic reading tasks. System, 50, 21-31
Kanji, J. (2002). Metacognitive strategy training in EFL learning. Foreign Language World, 2. 中國清華大學985科研項目.
Karimi, M. N., and Alibakhshi, G. (2014) EFL learners' text processing strategies across comprehension vs. integration reading task conditions. System, 46, 96-104.

Katushemererwe, F., and Nerbonne, J. (2015). Computer-assisted language learning (CALL) in support of (re)-learning native languages: The case of Runyakitara. Journal of Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(2), 112-129. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2013.792842.
Ke, S., Chan, S.-D. (2017). Strategy use in L2 Chinese reading: The effect of L1 background and L2 proficiency. System, 66, 27-38.
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363–394.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.
Kunnan, A. J. (1995). Test taker characteristics and test performance: A structural modeling approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kyungsim, H.-N., Leavell, A. G. (2006). Language learning strategy use of ESL students in an intensive English learning context. System, 34, 399-415.
L, Mcgrath., J, Berggren., and S, Mezek. (2016). Reading EAP: Investigating high proficiency L2 university students' strategy use through reading blogs. Journal of English for Academic Purpose, 22, 152-164.
Lai, C., Shum, M., and Tian, Y. (2016). Enhancing learners’ self-directed use of technology for language learning: the effectiveness of an online training platform. Journal of Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(1), 40-60. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2014.889714.
Lee, C., Yeung, A. S., and Ip, T. (2017). University English language learners' readiness to use computer technology for self-directed learning. System, 67, 99-110
Lei, P.-L., Sun, C.-T., Lin, S. S. J., Huang, T.-K. (2015) Effect of metacognitive strategies and verbal-imagery cognitive style on biology-based video search and learning performance. Journal of Computer and Education, 87, 326-339.
Levy, M. (1997). CALL: Context and Conceptualisation. Oxford (pp. 13-46): Oxford University Press.
Lin, C.-H., Zhang, Y., and Zheng, B. (2017). The roles of learning strategies and motivation in online language learning: A structural equation modeling analysis. Journal of Computer and Education, 113, 75-85.
Liu, P.-L., Chen, C.-J., and Chang, Y.-J. (2010) Effects of a computer-assisted concept
mapping learning strategy on EFL college students’ English reading comprehension. Journal of Computer and Education, 54, 436-445
Lo, J.-J., Yeh, S.-W., and Sung, C.-S. (2013). Learning paragraph structure with online annotations: An interactive approach to enhancing EFL reading comprehension. System 41, 413-427.
Lysenko, L. V., and Abrami, P. C. (2014). Promoting reading comprehension with the use of technology. Journal of Computer and Education, 75, 162-172.

L. Vandergrift and C. C. M. Goh. (2012). Teaching and Learning Second Language Listening: Metacognition in Action.
M.-M. Chang, M.-C. Lin. (2014). The effect of reflective learning e-journals on reading comprehension and communication in language learning. Computer and education, 71, 124-132.
MacCallum, R. C., Lee, T., & Browne, M. W. (2010). The issue of is power in power analysis for tests of structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 17, 23-41.
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Cai, L. (2006). Testing differences between nested covariance structure models: Power analysis and null hypotheses. Psychological Methods, 11, 19-35.
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130-149.
Mardia, K. V. and Foster, K. (1983). Omnibus test of multinormality based on skewness and kurtosis. Comm. Statist. Theory Methods 12, 207-221.
Matsumoto, H., Hiromori, T., and Nakayama, A. (2015). Toward a tripartite model of L2 reading strategy use, motivations, and learner beliefs. System, 41, 38-49.
Mcgrath, L., Berggren, J., and Mezek, S. (2016). Reading EAP: Investigating high proficiency L2 university students' strategy use through reading blogs. Journal of English for Academic Purpose, 22, 152-164.
Mirzaei, A., Domakani, M. R., and Heidari, N. (2014). Exploring the relationship between reading strategy use and multiple intelligences among successful L2 readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 34(2), 208-230. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2013.785053
Nalliveettil, M. G. (2014). Assessing Reading Strategies of Engineering Students: Think Aloud Approach. English Language Teaching 7 (5), 38-49. doi:10.5539/elt. v7n5p38
Nergis, A. (2013). Exploring the Factors That Affect Reading Comprehension of EAP Learners. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12, 1-9.
Olga, U.-E. (2015). Improving EFL students’ performance in reading comprehension through explicit instruction in strategies. Journal of Rastros Rostros, 17 (31), 37-52.
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
O’Sullivan, I. (2007). Enhancing a process-oriented approach to literacy and language learning: The role of corpus consultation literacy. Journal of ReCALL, 19(3), 269-286. doi:10.1017/S095834400700033X.
Oxford, R. L. (2003) Language Learning Styles and Strategies: An Overview. GALA Oxford.


Özdemir, E. (2017). Promoting EFL learners’ intercultural communication effectiveness: a focus on Facebook. Journal of Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(6), 510-528. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2017.1325907.
P.-L, Liu., C.-J. Chen., and Y.-J Chang. (2010). Effects of a computer-assisted concept mapping learning strategy on EFL college students’ English reading comprehension. Computers & Education 54, 435-445.
Paris, S., Waskik, B., & Turner, J. (1991). The development of strategic readers. In R. Barr et al. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 609–640). New York, NY: Longman.
Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1990). How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive
instruction (pp. 15–51). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Phakiti, A. (2008). Strategic competence as a fourth-order factor model: A structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Language Assessment Quarterly, 5(1), 20-42. doi: 10.1080/15434300701533596.
Phakiti, A. (2016). Test Takers’ Performance Appraisals, Appraisal Calibration, and Cognitive and Metacognitive Strategy Use. Journal of Language Assessment Quarterly, 13(2), 75-108. doi: 10.1080/15434303.2016.1154555.
Plass, J. L. (1998). Design and evaluation of the user interface of foreign language multimedia software: A cognitive approach. Journal of Language Learning and Technology, 2(1), 40-53.
Ponce, H. R., Lopez, M. J., and Mayer, R. E. (2012). Instructional effectiveness of a computer-supported program for teaching reading comprehension strategies. Journal of Computer Education, 59, 1170-1183.
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pritchard, R. M. O., and Nasr, A. (2004). Improving reading performance among Egyptian engineering students: Principle and practice. Journal of English for Specific Purpose 23 (4), 425-445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2004.01.002.
Purpura, J. E. (1997). An analysis of the relationships between test takers’ cognitive and metacognitive strategy use and second language test performance. Journal of Language Learning, 47(2), 289-325.
Purpura, J. E. (1998). Investigating the Effects of Strategy Use and Second Language Test Performance with High- and Low-ability Test Takers: A Structural Equation Modelling Approach. Language Testing. SAGE, 15 (333). doi: 10.1177/026553229801500303.
R.J. Riding, S.G. Rayner. (1998). Cognitive Styles and Learning Strategies. New York. Routledge, Taylor and Francis group.

Saks, K., and Leijen, Ä. (2018). The efficiency of prompts when supporting learner
use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies. Journal of Computer Assisted Language Learning. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2018.1459729
Sheorey, R., Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among native and non-native readers. System, 29, 431-449.
Shin, H. W., and So, Y. (2018). The moderating role of socioeconomic status on motivation of adolescents’ foreign language learning strategy use. System, 73, 71-79.
Song, X., and Cheng, L. (2006). Language learner strategy use and test performance of Chinese learners of English. Language Assessment Quarterly: An International Journal, 3(3), 243-266. doi: 10.1207/s15434311laq0303_2
Taraban, R., Kerr, M., and Rynearson, K. (2004). Analytic and pragmatic factors in college students’ metacognitive reading strategy. Reading Psychology, 25, 67-81
Torkzadeh, G., Koufteros, X., & Pflughoeft, K. (2003). Confirmatory analysis of computer self-efficacy. Structural Equation Modeling, 10(2), 263-275.
Tsai, Y.-R., and Talley, P. C. (2014). The effect of a course management system (CMS)-
supported strategy instruction on EFL reading comprehension and strategy use. Journal of Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(5), 422-438. doi; 10.1080/09588221.2012.757754.
Vandergrife, L., Goh, C. C. M., Mareschal, C. J., & Tafaghodtari, M. H. (2006). The Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire: Development and validation. Language Learning, 56, 431–462.
Vandergrift, L., and Goh, C. C. M. (2012). Teaching and learning second language listening: Metacognitive in action. New York, NY: Routlege.
Wang, J., Spencer, K., and Xing, M. (2009). Metacognitive beliefs and strategies in learning Chinese as a foreign language. System 37, 46-56. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2008.05.001.
Wenden, A. L. (1998) Meta-cognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 515-537.
Wenden, A. L., & Rubin, J. (1987). Learner Strategies in Language Learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Wu, G., and Zhang, J (2017). Computer-based English language testing in China: Present and future. Journal of Language Assessment Quarterly, 14(2), 177-188. doi:
10.1080/15434303.2017.1303704.
Wu, J.-Y. (2014). Gender differences in online reading engagement, metacognitive strategies, navigation skills and reading literacy. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(3), 252-271. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12054
Yu, F.-Y., and Wu, C.-P. (2016). The effects of an online student-constructed test strategy on knowledge construction. Journal of Computer and Education, 94, 89-101.


Zhang, L., Aryadoust, V. (2015). Fitting the mixed Rasch model to a reading comprehension test: Exploring individual difference profiles in L2 reading. Journal of Language Testing, 33(4), 529-553. doi: 10.1177/0265532215594640.
Zhang, L., Goh, C., & Kunnan, A. (2014). Analysis of test takers’ metacognitive and cognitive strategy use and EFL reading test performance: A multi-sample SEM approach. Journal of Language Assessment Quarterly, 11(1), 76-102. doi:10.1080/15434303.2013.853770.
Zhang, L. J. (2010). A dynamic metacognitive systems account of Chinese university students’ knowledge about EFL reading. Journal of TESOL Quarterly, 44(2), 320-353. doi: 10.5054/tq.2010.223352.