INTEGRATING THE METACOGNITIVE FUNNEL AND STRATEGIC ANNOTATION TO ENHANCE ACADEMIC READING IN HIGHER EDUCATION
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46991/educ-21st-century.v8.i1.088Keywords:
reading comprehension, metacognition, annotation strategy, higher education, cognitive engagement, academic literacy, metacognitive funnelAbstract
Reading comprehension in higher education is still largely viewed through a limited lens emphasizing merely decoding and recall of content, while often overlooking the role of the metacognitive and reflective processes necessary for deep understanding. This study presents and examines an integrated approach, the metacognitive funnel and strategic annotation, aimed at developing more active and critical reading practices among undergraduates. Guided by socio-constructivist and metacognitive theory, the study investigates how a structured recursive sequence of predicting, monitoring, clarifying and reflecting combined with annotation strategies alters or enhances students' comprehension and cognitive engagement with academic texts. A qualitative case study was carried out with bachelor’s students at the European University of Armenia employing think-aloud protocols along with guided reading sessions and reflective interviews. The findings demonstrate how the metacognitive funnel allowed students to engage with texts purposefully, recognize conceptual deficiency and perform a far deeper analysis of those texts. Annotations were not conceived as mere supports but proved to be meaning-making processes alongside metacognitive awareness. Moreover, the study focuses on strategic reading obstacles and suggests the teaching approaches for embedding metacognition in the university curriculum. The research offers both a theoretical and practical approach by highlighting a transferable model for enhancing learner autonomy, academic literacy and reflective practice. Such an approach calls for a shift in paradigm from comprehension-as-recall to comprehension-as-construction in order to emphasize the fact that readers should be trained not just to comprehend texts, but to interrogate them actively.
Downloads
References
Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P. D., & Paris, S. G. (2008). Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61(5), 364–373. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.61.5.1
Aghaie, R., & Zhang, L. J. (2012). Effects of explicit instruction in cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies on Iranian EFL students’ reading performance and strategy transfer. Instructional Science, 40(6), 1063–1081. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9202-5
Alexander, P. A., Fox, E., Maggioni, L., & Loughlin, S. M. (2012). Reading into the future: Competence for the 21st century. Educational Psychologist, 47(4), 259–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.722511
Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1980). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 353–394). Longman.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Ablex.
Goodman, K. S. (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the Reading Specialist, 6(4), 126–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388076709556976
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. RASE: Remedial & Special Education, 7(1), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104
Kolić-Vehovec, S., & Bajsanski, I. (2006). Metacognitive strategies and reading comprehension in elementary-school students. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 21(4), 439–451. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173513
Marshall, C. C. (1997). Annotation: From paper books to the digital library. In Proceedings of the Second ACM International Conference on Digital Libraries (pp. 131–140). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/263690.263806
McNamara, D. S. (Ed.). (2007). Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (1st ed.). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203810033
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass.
Mokhtari, K., Dimitrov, D. M., & Reichard, C. A. (2018). Revising the Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory (MARSI) and testing for factorial invariance. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8(2), 219–246. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.2.3
Nokes, J. D., Dole, J. A., & Hacker, D. J. (2007). Teaching high school students to use heuristics while reading historical texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 492–504. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.492
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.
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). Routledge.
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. International University Press.
Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 219–226. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_3
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (2012). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203052938
Rouet, J.-F., & Britt, M. A. (2011). Relevance processes in multiple document comprehension. In M. T. McCrudden, J. P. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 199–228). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-61735-531-820251003
Rumelhart, D. E. (1977). Toward an interactive model of reading. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and performance VI (pp. 722–750). Erlbaum.
Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26(1), 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003044231033
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460–475.
Snow, C. E., & Uccelli, P. (2009). The challenge of academic language. In N. Torrance & D. R. Olson (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of literacy (pp. 112–133). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609664.008
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Wolfe, J. L., & Neuwirth, C. M. (2001). From the margins to the center: The future of annotation. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 15(3), 333–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/105065190101500304
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2
Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2011). Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203839010
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Luiza Marabyan, Alina Petrosyan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
