Interactive Web-Based Scaffolding for Online Reading Comprehension: A Conceptual Framework

Online reading requires learners to understand academic content while also navigating a digital environment. This can be demanding for tertiary ESL learners, who must read in a second language while deciding how to approach the text, check their understanding, and evaluate what they have learned. This concept paper proposes a framework for embedding metacognitive scaffolding in an interactive web-based reading environment. The framework focuses on planning, monitoring and regulation, and evaluation. These processes are linked mainly to the before-, during-, and after-reading stages and supported through stage-specific digital scaffolds. The framework brings together metacognitive regulation, reading stages, and digital delivery in one design, while treating technology acceptance as a separate evaluation lens. Pre-reading prompts support planning; in-text checkpoints and repair prompts support monitoring and regulation; and post-reading tasks support evaluation. The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is used to examine perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use of the web-based delivery, not to explain the reading process itself. The framework therefore offers a clear, theory-based foundation for designing and later evaluating support for strategic online academic reading among tertiary ESL learners.

Metacognitive Strategies, Online Reading Comprehension, Interactive Scaffolding, Technology Acceptance Model, Higher Education

1. Anggia, H., & Habók, A. (2024). University students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies (MARS) in online reading and MARS’ role in their English reading comprehension. PLOS ONE, 19(11), e0313254. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313254 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology.MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Khellab, F., Demirel, Ö., & Mohammadzadeh, B. (2022). Effect of teaching metacognitive reading strategies on reading comprehension of engineering students. SAGE Open, 12(4). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221138069 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Khurram, B. A. (2023). The impact of metacognitive instruction on ESL university level students’ awareness and use of the reading strategies. SAGE Open, 13(2). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231179695 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Lin, Y., & Yu, Z. (2023). Extending Technology Acceptance Model to higher-education students’ use of digital academic reading tools on computers. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20, Article 34. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00403-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. List, A., & Lin, C.-J. (2023). Content and quantity of highlights and annotations predict learning from multiple digital texts. Computers & Education, 199, 104791. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104791 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Mekheimer, M. (2025). Digital mind magnets as a scaffold for improving EFL online reading comprehension. Discover Education, 4, Article 531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-00988-4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Reiber-Kuijpers, M., Kral, M., & Meijer, P. C. (2021). Digital reading in a second or foreign language: A systematic literature review. Computers & Education, 163, 104115. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104115 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Schraw, G., & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02212307 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Sinas, S., Narasuman, S., Sim, S. P.-L., Issa, R., & Singki, E. E. (2024). Effect of metacognitive online reading comprehension strategies on students’ comprehension achievement in the digital era. Asian Journal of University Education, 20(3), 776–789. https://doi.org/10.24191/ajue.v20i3.27005 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. van der Graaf, J., Raković, M., Fan, Y., Lim, L., Singh, S., Bannert, M., Gašević, D., & Molenaar, I. (2023). How to design and evaluate personalized scaffolds for self-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 18(3), 783–810. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-023-09361-y [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Wongdaeng, M., & Higgins, S. (2023). Effectiveness of metacognitive interventions in tertiary EFL contexts: Evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 17(4), 795–811. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2022.2146122 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study