Introduction

Twenty-first-century pedagogy has significantly reshaped the instructional landscape by promoting a shift from teacher-centered to learner-centered approaches. This transformation is especially critical in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) education, where fostering learners’ autonomy, collaboration, and higher-order thinking skills has become a pedagogical imperative. In this learner-centered paradigm, the teacher acts more as a facilitator and scaffolder, guiding students toward strategic engagement with language and texts.

Despite these pedagogical advancements, reading comprehension in many Algerian EFL classrooms continues to be taught through traditional methods characterized by passive student participation, rote memorization, and minimal strategic instruction. Reading is often approached as a solitary, individual task dominated by the teacher’s authority, which may hinder students’ ability to construct meaning critically and reflectively. This gap highlights the need for more socially mediated and metacognitively rich instructional practices.

Placing the student at the heart of the learning process—while acknowledging the diverse capabilities each learner brings—can enhance engagement and learning outcomes. One instructional approach that operationalizes these values is reciprocal teaching (RT). Rooted in Vygotskian sociocultural theory and built upon the principle of scaffolding within the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), RT involves structured peer interaction where students collaboratively practice four core reading strategies: predicting, questioning, clarifying, and summarizing. It has been shown to foster cognitive, metacognitive, and social gains in reading instruction.

A growing body of international research (e.g., Juhkam et al., 2023; Thurston et al., 2020; Dew et al., 2021) confirms RT’s effectiveness in improving reading comprehension. However, limited attention has been given to how RT specifically affects the use of analytic and pragmatic metacognitive reading strategies, particularly in the Algerian EFL context. While existing studies have explored RT’s impact on reading performance, few have examined the underlying processes that enable this improvement—namely, metacognitive strategy development.

The present study therefore seeks to fill this gap by exploring how reciprocal teaching influences Algerian EFL students’ strategic approach to reading. It aims to investigate two core research questions:

• RQ1: To what extent does reciprocal teaching develop EFL students’ use of pragmatic and analytic metacognitive reading strategies?

• RQ2: Does reciprocal teaching improve students’ reading comprehension ability?

In response, two hypotheses are proposed:

• H1: Reciprocal teaching significantly enhances EFL students’ use of analytic and pragmatic metacognitive reading strategies.

• H2: Reciprocal teaching significantly improves students’ reading comprehension performance.

This study is situated within the broader discourse of educational reform and quality enhancement in Algerian higher education. It contributes to both theoretical understanding and pedagogical practice by advocating for the integration of evidence-based, collaborative instructional approaches such as reciprocal teaching. Furthermore, its findings may enrich the training of pre-service teachers in Algeria, encouraging wider adoption of reflective and strategy-based reading instruction.

1. Literature Review

1.1. Reading Comprehension: Definitions and Evolving Perspectives

Reading comprehension has traditionally been understood as a complex process involving both cognitive and metacognitive operations. It integrates decoding, meaning-making, inference, and evaluation. Contemporary scholarship emphasizes the interactive nature of comprehension, wherein readers actively construct meaning through the simultaneous application of top-down and bottom-up processes (Li & Wilhelm, 2008; Urquhart & Weir, 1998; Grabe & Stoller, 2013). The interactive model assumes that reading comprehension involves a reciprocal relationship between the reader’s background knowledge and textual information.

According to Li and Wilhelm (2008), reading comprehension encompasses a range of cognitive and metacognitive skills, such as activating prior knowledge, making predictions, monitoring understanding, and drawing inferences. This perspective aligns with constructivist theories that view comprehension as an active, goal-oriented, and strategic process rather than a passive intake of information (Veeravagu et al., 2010).

While early models favored either top-down or bottom-up processes, recent research (e.g., Juhkam et al., 2023; Dew et al., 2021) supports a dynamic, recursive model where strategic readers flexibly adapt their reading approach according to the demands of the text and task. Grabe and Stoller (2013) emphasize this adaptability:

“Being a strategic reader means being able to read flexibly [...]. Similarly, reading is an evaluating process in that the reader must decide if the information being read [...] matches the purpose for reading” (p. 12).

Metacognitive awareness is thus central to reading proficiency, as it enables learners to plan, monitor, and evaluate their reading strategies before, during, and after engaging with a text. Janzen and Stoller (1998) further assert that effective instruction in reading must make these processes explicit, especially for EFL learners who may lack autonomous strategy use due to limited exposure to academic reading tasks.

1.2. Analytic and Pragmatic Metacognitive Strategies

Jacobs and Paris (1987) classify metacognitive strategies into two primary categories: analytic and pragmatic. Analytic strategies—such as planning, monitoring, and evaluating—support a reader’s internal regulation of comprehension. These include predicting content, setting reading goals, questioning the text, and reflecting on comprehension outcomes. Each phase—before, during, and after reading—activates specific analytic tools. Planning involves setting goals and activating prior knowledge; monitoring includes self-questioning and inference-making; evaluation relates to reflecting on the coherence and completeness of understanding.

In contrast, pragmatic strategies—as outlined by Taraban et al. (2004)—involve tangible, behavioral techniques that support cognitive processing. These include highlighting, annotating, rereading, and note-taking. While sometimes considered surface-level techniques, pragmatic strategies can scaffold deeper comprehension when integrated meaningfully into the reading process.

It is important to note that both types of strategies operate synergistically. Analytic strategies enable strategic control, while pragmatic strategies provide external markers and supports for internal reflection. A lack of balance between the two can limit students’ metacognitive growth, especially in EFL settings where instructional models often emphasize one at the expense of the other.

1.3. Reading as a Socially Constructed Activity

Beyond the cognitive and behavioral domains, reading is increasingly viewed as a socially situated activity. Goodman (1996) asserts that comprehension arises not only through solitary engagement with text but also via interaction with peers and instructors. This view aligns with Vygotskian theories of learning, which posit that higher-order skills develop first through social interaction before being internalized by the learner.

Reciprocal teaching (RT) exemplifies this view by combining explicit strategy instruction with collaborative learning structures. Students engage in guided reading tasks using four key strategies: predicting, questioning, clarifying, and summarizing. Through scaffolded peer interaction, learners become more reflective, strategic, and autonomous in their reading practices. RT thus serves as a bridge between individual cognition and collective meaning-making.

The next section discusses reciprocal teaching in greater detail, positioning it as a scaffolded method for developing metacognitive reading strategies and fostering reading comprehension among EFL learners.

2. Conceptual and Theoretical Foundations

2.1 The Role of Metacognitive Strategies in EFL Reading Comprehension

This study is grounded in the theory of social constructivism, particularly the work of Lev Vygotsky (1978, 1987), which posits that learning is mediated through social interaction and cultural tools. Central to Vygotsky’s framework is the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)—the conceptual space where learners can perform tasks beyond their current level of competence when supported by more knowledgeable others. This principle underpins reciprocal teaching (RT), which fosters peer-mediated learning and teacher scaffolding to promote higher-order thinking.

Palincsar and Brown’s (1984) model of reciprocal teaching operationalizes the ZPD by structuring reading comprehension instruction around four key metacognitive strategies: predicting, questioning, clarifying, and summarizing. These strategies are not only taught explicitly but are embedded within a dialogic process that allows learners to internalize them through collaborative practice. The scaffolding mechanism in RT enables learners to gradually assume responsibility for their own strategic thinking.

2.2 A Scaffolded Approach to Reading Development

Oczkus (2018) extends this approach by emphasizing the dynamic roles that students can take within RT groups (e.g., summarizer, questioner, clarifier), thus reinforcing autonomy, role flexibility, and self-regulated learning. The collaborative structure also resonates with Tharp and Gallimore’s (1988) notion of assisted performance, further validating RT as a socially grounded instructional method.

In the context of reading strategy use, Jacobs and Paris (1987) offer a useful taxonomy distinguishing between analytic (planning, monitoring, evaluating) and pragmatic (note-taking, highlighting, rereading) strategies. This distinction is crucial to the present study, which aims to measure growth in both dimensions under the RT framework.

Together, these theoretical perspectives provide the foundation for this research, justifying both the selection of reciprocal teaching as an intervention and the emphasis on metacognitive development. The integration of cognitive psychology, sociocultural theory, and educational pedagogy positions this study within a robust interdisciplinary discourse on reading comprehension and strategy use in EFL contexts.

3. Methodology

3.1 Research Design and Participants 

To investigate the effectiveness of reciprocal teaching in enhancing EFL students’ use of analytic and pragmatic metacognitive strategies, the study adopted a pre-experimental one-group pretest-posttest design. While this design lacks a control group and random assignment—two features typically required for establishing strong causal claims—it was deemed appropriate due to contextual constraints and the exploratory nature of the study. The selection of this design aimed to provide an initial empirical grounding and guide future quasi-experimental or experimental investigations.

The study involved 60 second-year EFL students enrolled in the Department of English at the University of Algiers 2 during the 2022–2023 academic year. An intact group sampling strategy was used, reflecting administrative constraints that precluded random assignment. Although this may limit generalizability, it mirrors typical classroom settings and therefore increases ecological validity.

3.2 Instruments and Data Collection Procedures 

Three instruments were employed to ensure data triangulation:

• Metacognitive Reading Strategies Questionnaire (MRSQ): Adapted from Taraban et al. (2004), this questionnaire included 21 items across two scales—16 analytic and 5 pragmatic strategies. Participants rated each item on a five-point Likert scale from “Never Use” (1) to “Always Use” (5). The tool was piloted for internal consistency and cultural appropriateness prior to its full implementation.

• Reading Comprehension Test: A standardized test adapted from IELTS was administered pre- and post-intervention to assess changes in reading comprehension. The test focused on inferencing, summarizing, and identifying main ideas—skills aligned with the strategies taught.

• Classroom Observation Checklist: Qualitative observations were conducted to assess strategy use, student engagement, and interactive reading behavior during the intervention. The researcher used a structured observation form focused on visible metacognitive behaviors.

The study was conducted in three stages:

• Pre-intervention: Participants completed the MRSQ and the reading comprehension test. Baseline behaviors were documented through classroom observation.

• Intervention (9 weeks): Students were introduced to reciprocal teaching and organized into groups of five. Instruction focused on explicit modeling and collaborative practice of the four core RT strategies: predicting, questioning, clarifying, and summarizing. Students used guided learning logs to track their engagement during before-, during-, and after-reading tasks. Each session included scaffolded feedback and rotating student roles to ensure active participation.

• Post-intervention: All participants retook the MRSQ and reading comprehension test. Final observations were also conducted to identify behavioral shifts.

3.3 Data Analysis and Limitations 

Quantitative data from the MRSQ were analyzed using descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) and inferential statistics (paired-samples t-tests) to assess change between pretest and posttest scores. Though limited by the absence of a control group, effect sizes were calculated to estimate the magnitude of observed gains.

Observation data were analyzed qualitatively to capture changes in strategy use and student engagement. Patterns of behavior were compared across sessions to detect increased metacognitive activity and collaborative reading practices.

This study is subject to several limitations. First, the absence of a control group restricts the ability to infer causality. Second, the use of intact group sampling limits generalizability. Third, the relatively short duration of the intervention (9 weeks) may not capture long-term strategy retention. However, these limitations are counterbalanced by the study’s practical relevance and internal consistency. Future research employing randomized controlled trials, longitudinal designs, or cross-institutional samples is necessary to validate and expand upon the present findings.

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Results

4.1.1. Results of the Pretesting Phase: The Questionnaire

The results of the metacognitive reading strategies questionnaire in the pre-testing phase are presented in the tables below.

Table 1 illustrates that the most frequently used analytic strategies by the students include “Meaning,” “Strengths,” “Hard,” “Revise,” “Reading goals,” “Activate,” and “Visualize descriptions,” with mean scores ranging from 3.11 to 4.03. These scores suggest that participants “sometimes” to “often” used these strategies. Conversely, less frequently used strategies such as “Evaluate,” “Back,” “Consider,” “Distinguish,” and “Summarize” received mean values ranging between 2.12 and 2.46, indicating “rare” to “occasional” use. This disparity suggests that students may lack strategic depth in their reading processes prior to intervention.

Table 1. Results of the Analytic Metacognitive Reading Strategies Scale (Pre-test)

N	Items	Mean	SD
1	Evaluate	2.23	0.51
2	Anticipate	2.46	0.81
3	Activate	3.20	1.32
4	Back	2.15	0.36
5	Revise	3.31	1.14
6	Consider	2.12	0.45
7	Distinguish	2.36	0.39
8	Infer	2.85	1.26
9	Reading goals	3.26	1.35
10	Summarize	2.26	1.06
11	Present later	2.41	0.41
12	Meaning	4.03	1.54
13	Current information	2.35	0.65
14	Strengths	3.53	1.47
15	Visualize descriptions	3.11	1.13
16	Hard	3.47	1.07

Table 2 focuses on pragmatic strategies. The data show that “Read more” and “Highlight” are most frequently used, with mean scores of 4.12 and 3.19 respectively. “Notes,” “Underline,” and “Margin” strategies scored lower, suggesting limited behavioral engagement with texts.

Table 2. Results of the Pragmatic Metacognitive Reading Strategies Scale (Pre-test)

N	Items	Mean	SD
1	Notes	2.23	0.36
2	Highlight	3.19	0.28
3	Margin	2.68	0.74
4	Underline	2.31	0.69
5	Read more	4.12	1.13

4.1.2. Results of the Reading Pretest

As shown in Table 3, the average reading score was 10.06 (out of 20), suggesting an intermediate level of comprehension prior to the intervention.

Table 3. Reading Pretest Results

Number of Participants	Mean Score	SD
60	10.06	2.47

4.1.3. Results of the Post-testing Phase : The Questionnaire

Post-test data show marked improvement in the use of analytic and pragmatic strategies.

In Table 4, strategies such as “Meaning,” “Summarize,” “Revise,” “Activate,” “Consider,” and “Infer” now show high-frequency use, with mean scores between 4.02 and 4.85. This indicates substantial growth in strategic awareness.

Table 4. Results of the Analytic Metacognitive Reading Strategies Scale (Post-test)

N	Items	Mean	SD
1	Evaluate	4.02	1.23
2	Anticipate	3.41	0.69
3	Activate	4.25	1.59
4	Back	4.11	1.65
5	Revise	4.26	1.71
6	Consider	4.23	0.98
7	Distinguish	3.27	1.36
8	Infer	4.18	1.57
9	Reading goals	3.79	1.33
10	Summarize	4.35	1.84
11	Present later	3.69	1.01
12	Meaning	4.85	1.31
13	Current information	3.91	1.23
14	Strengths	3.78	0.94
15	Visualize descriptions	3.25	1.34
16	Hard	3.97	1.71

Table 5 shows consistent gains in pragmatic strategy use. “Read more,” “Notes,” and “Highlight” strategies all exceed a mean of 4.2. “Margin” and “Underline” strategies, while still moderately used, show considerable improvement compared to pre-test scores.

Table 5. Results of the Pragmatic Metacognitive Reading Strategies Scale (Post-test)

N	Items	Mean	SD
1	Notes	4.36	1.39
2	Highlight	4.23	1.26
3	Margin	3.65	0.69
4	Underline	3.75	1.05
5	Read more	4.66	1.78

4.1.4. Results of the Reading Posttest

The mean post-test reading score rose to 13.01 (Table 6), suggesting a substantial gain in comprehension performance.

Table 6. Reading Posttest Results

Number of Participants	Mean Score	SD
60	13.01	2.07

A paired samples t-test confirms the statistical significance of the improvement (t= -9.8, p < .05), as shown in Table 7.

Table 7. Paired Samples T-test of Reading Test

Test	N	Mean	SD	df	t-value	Critical Value	Significance
Pretest	60	10.06	2.37	60	-9.8	2.00 (α= 0.05)	Significant
Posttest	60	13.01	—	—	—	—	—

These findings validate the efficacy of reciprocal teaching in promoting both metacognitive strategy use and reading comprehension.

4.2. Discussion

The present study aimed to investigate the effects of reciprocal teaching on the development of analytic and pragmatic metacognitive reading strategies and on the reading comprehension abilities of Algerian EFL students. The findings indicate that reciprocal teaching had a substantial impact in both areas, confirming the proposed hypotheses.

Regarding the first research question, the results of the pre-intervention questionnaire revealed that students demonstrated limited use of many analytic metacognitive strategies, particularly those related to planning, evaluating, and making inferences. They also showed infrequent use of pragmatic strategies such as taking notes, underlining key points, and writing margin questions. This limited use suggests that prior to the intervention, students lacked strategic awareness and often approached reading passively, with minimal reflective engagement.

Post-intervention results, however, indicated a marked shift. Participants reported significantly higher frequency in the use of both analytic and pragmatic strategies. They became more inclined to activate background knowledge, make predictions, and monitor their comprehension through strategies such as summarizing and evaluating. Pragmatic behaviors such as rereading, highlighting, and note-taking also increased substantially. These outcomes confirm that reciprocal teaching is effective in scaffolding strategic reading behavior and in promoting metacognitive regulation. The findings echo prior studies by Tang and Moore (1992), who emphasized that proficient readers engage in a diverse set of strategies to support comprehension, and Memiş and Bozkurt (2013), who highlighted the correlation between strategic awareness and reading performance.

With respect to the second research question, the increase in students’ reading comprehension scores from pre- to posttest was both statistically and educationally significant. The paired samples t-test confirmed the effectiveness of the intervention in improving reading performance. These findings align with earlier empirical evidence from Gani et al. (2016), Hamdani (2020), and Dew et al. (2021), all of whom reported positive effects of reciprocal teaching on reading comprehension in EFL contexts.

The improvements observed can be attributed to the dialogic, scaffolded nature of reciprocal teaching. As Vygotsky (1987) and Oczkus (2018) have asserted, structured peer interaction and guided strategy use within the Zone of Proximal Development foster not only immediate comprehension gains but also long-term strategy internalization. By engaging in collaborative reading tasks, students practiced and gradually took ownership of metacognitive strategies. Over the course of the intervention, they developed the ability to monitor their own understanding and adapt their reading behaviors accordingly.

Furthermore, the structure of reciprocal teaching—based on rotating roles, feedback loops, and collective meaning-making—helped create a supportive environment conducive to cognitive and social growth. As Cavendish and Hodnett (2017) suggest, this model empowers learners to take responsibility for their own learning while benefiting from peer support and instructional modeling.

In sum, the results provide strong support for the integration of reciprocal teaching into EFL reading pedagogy. Not only does it enhance comprehension outcomes, but it also cultivates reflective, autonomous readers capable of navigating complex texts through strategic engagement. These findings support the theoretical foundations of the study and contribute to the growing body of literature advocating for interactive, strategy-based reading instruction in foreign language contexts.

Conclusion and Implications

The present study sought to explore the effectiveness of reciprocal teaching (RT) in enhancing Algerian EFL students’ use of analytic and pragmatic metacognitive reading strategies and improving their reading comprehension. Through a pre-experimental design, significant improvements were documented across all measures: strategy use, reading performance, and classroom engagement. The findings underscore the pedagogical potential of RT as a structured, collaborative, and student-centered approach that addresses the limitations of traditional, teacher-fronted reading instruction prevalent in Algerian higher education.

Reciprocal teaching facilitated not only the acquisition of metacognitive strategies but also encouraged reflective, autonomous, and socially mediated learning. The observed shift from passive to strategic reader behaviors reflects RT’s capacity to scaffold complex reading processes. In doing so, the intervention contributed to bridging the gap between theoretical models of reading and practical classroom implementation.

However, limitations related to the research design, sample scope, and intervention duration call for caution. The absence of a control group restricts causal inference, while the institutional specificity of the sample limits generalizability. These limitations, nonetheless, do not detract from the study’s contribution as an exploratory investigation grounded in context-specific challenges.

1. Implications for Practice

• Teacher training programs should integrate RT techniques and strategy instruction modules to better equip instructors for learner-centered reading pedagogy.

• Curricula should include collaborative reading tasks with built-in metacognitive reflection to foster deep learning.

• Institutions should support the adoption of flexible grouping and formative assessment strategies that align with RT principles.

1. Directions for Future Research

• Employ quasi-experimental or experimental designs with control groups to verify causal claims.

• Conduct longitudinal studies to examine long-term retention and transfer of strategy use.

• Investigate the applicability of RT across different academic disciplines and EFL proficiency levels.

In conclusion, reciprocal teaching holds considerable promise for enhancing reading outcomes among Algerian EFL learners. Its structured dialogic framework not only improves reading proficiency but also nurtures critical thinking, self-regulation, and academic confidence—core objectives of 21st-century education. The study thus serves as a call to action for educators, researchers, and policymakers seeking to transform EFL literacy instruction in Algeria and beyond.