The Effects of Different Approaches Used in Strategy Teaching on Students' Reading Strategies Metacognitive Awareness Skills

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to determine the relationship between different approaches used in strategy teaching and students’ reading strategies metacognitive awareness. Two experimental groups and a control group were used at the 6th grade level in the study. In Group 1 the teacher acted as the "guide"; in Group 2 the explicit strategy teaching approach in which the teacher explained strategy use and acted as the "model" was adopted. Holistic reading strategies were used in the experimental groups. In the control group, strategies were taught under teacher guidance using an implicit approach and independently of each other. The study employed a partially mixed sequential dominant status design. Sampling was determined by criterion sampling. 95 students participated in the experimental phase of the study and 32 students participated in the qualitative phase. The implementation lasted 10 weeks. The data were collected using the "Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory (MARSI)" and a semi-structured interview form. SPSS v. 22 and MAXQDA 12 software were used for data analysis. In the experimental groups in which the explicit strategy teaching approach and holistic reading strategies were used and teachers explained the strategies and modeled them or acted as the guide, a significant difference was observed in the students’ reading strategies metacognitive awareness skills. No significant difference was observed in the control group in which strategies were taught with an implicit approach under the guidance of the teacher and independently of each other. The qualitative data also supported these quantitative findings.

Keywords

• Explicit teaching
• implicit teaching
• metacognition
• reading strategies

Strateji Öğretiminde Kullanılan Farklı Yaklaşımların Öğrencilerin Okuma Stratejileri Üstbilişsel Farkındalık Becerilerine Etkisi

Abstract

Çalışmanın amacı, strateji öğretiminde kullanılan farklı yaklaşımlarla öğrencilerin okuma stratejileri bilişsel farkındalık becerileri arasında nasıl bir ilişki olduğunu belirlemektir. Araştırmada 6. sınıf düzeyinde 2 deney ve 1 kontrol grubuyla çalışılmıştır. 1. grupta öğretmenin “rehber”; 2. grupta öğretmenin stratejileri açıklayarak “model” olduğu açık strateji öğretim yaklaşımları benimsenmiştir. Deney gruplarında strateji öğretiminde, bütüncül okuma stratejileri kullanılmıştır. Kontrol grubunda stratejiler öğretmen rehberliğinde örtük bir yaklaşımla ve birbirinden bağımsız olarak öğretilmiştir. Araştırmanın modeli kısmen karma sıralı baskın statülü tasarımdır. Örneklem ölçüt örneklemeyle belirlenmiştir. Deneysel süreçte 95 öğrenci, nitel süreçte 32 öğrenciyle çalışılmıştır. Uygulama 10 hafta sürmüştür. Veriler, “Okuma Stratejileri Üstbilişsel Farkındalık Envanteri (MARSI)” ve yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme formuyla toplanmıştır. Analizler SPSS 22 ve MAXQDA 12 programıyla yapılmıştır. Açık strateji öğretimi yaklaşımının ve bütüncül okuma stratejilerinin kullanıldığı, öğretmenin stratejileri açıklayarak “model” ve “rehber” olduğu deney gruplarında öğrencilerin okuma stratejileri bilişsel farkındalık becerilerinde farklılaşma olurken; stratejilerin örtük yaklaşımla öğretmen rehberliğinde ve bağımsız olarak öğretildiği kontrol grubunda farklılaşma gerçekleşmemiştir. Nitel veriler de nicel verileri desteklemektedir.

Keywords

• Açık öğretim
• örtük öğretim
• bilişsel farkındalık
• okuma stratejileri

References

1. Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P.D. ve Paris, S.G. (2008). Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61(5), 364-373.
2. Albright, L.K. ve Ariail, M. (2005). Tapping the potential of teacher read alouds in middle schools. Journal of Adolescent&Adult Literacy, 48(7), 582-591.
3. Archer, A.L. ve Hughes, C.A. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. New York: Guilford Press.
4. Baker, L. ve Brown, A.L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil ve P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (ss. 353-394). New York: Longman.
5. Barbour, R.S. ve Schostak, J. (2005). Interviewing and focus groups. B. Somekh ve C. Lewin (Eds), Research methods in social sciences (ss. 41-49). London: Sage.
6. Billingsley, B.S. ve Wildman, T. M. (1990). Facilitating reading comprehension in learning disabled students: Metacognitive goals and instructional strategies. Remedial and Special Education, 11(2), 18-31.
7. Carter, C.E. (2011). Mindscapes: critical reading skills and strategies. USA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
8. Caverly, D.C., Orlondo, V.P. ve Mullan, J.L. (2000). Textbook study reading. Ronna F. Flippo ve David C. Caverley (Eds.), Handbook of collage reading and study strategy research (ss. 105-149). New York: Routledge.

9. Ceylan, S., Duru, K., Erkek, G. ve Pastutmaz, M. (2019). Ortaokul ve imam hatip ortaokulu Türkçe 6 ders kitabı. Z. Batur ve S. Ceylan (Ed.). Ankara: MEB.
10. Coon, D. ve Mitterer, J.O. (2011). Introduction to psychology: Gatewates to mind and behavior. USA, Belmont: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
11. Cuttler, C. (2017). Research methods in psychology. Erişim adresi: https://opentext.wsu.edu/carriecuttler/front-matter/about-this-book-2/.
12. Dole, J.A., Duffy, G.G., Roehler, L.R. ve Pearson, P.D. (1991). Moving from the old to the new. Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 239-264.
13. Driscoll, M.P. (2012). Öğretim süreçleri ve öğrenme psikolojisi. (Çev. Ömer F. Tutkun, Seçil Okay ve Evrim Şahin). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
14. Duffy, G. G. (2009). Explaining reading: A resource for teaching concepts, skills and strategies. New York: The Guilford Press
15. Fadel, C., Bialink, M. ve Triiling, B. (2015). Four dimensional education: The competencies learners need to succeed. Center for Curriculum Redesign. Erişim adresi: http://curriculumredesign.org/our-work/four-dimensional-21st-century-education-learning-competencies-future-2030/.
16. Fauzan, N. (2003). The effects of metacognitive strategies on reading comprehension: A quantitative synthesis and empirical investigation (Doctoral dissertation), Durham University, England. Erişim adresi: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/1086/1/1086.pdf.
17. Flavell, J.H., Green, F.L. ve Flavell, E.R. (1993). Chilrens’s understanding of consciousness. Child Development, 64(2), 387-398.
18. Fountas, I.C. ve Pinnell, G. S. (2006). Teaching for comprehending and fluency: Thinking, talking and writing about reading K-8. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
19. Hartman, H.J. (2002). Developing students metacognitive knowledge and skills. H. J. Hartman (Ed.), Metacognition in learning and instruction: Theory, research and instruction (ss. 33-69). NY: Springer-Science+Business Media.
20. Hattie, J., Biggs, J. ve Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of learning skills interventions on student learning: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 99-136.
21. Hodges, G.C. (2011). Textual drama: The value of reading aloud. English Drama Media, 19, 19-26.
22. Israel, S.E. (2007). Using metacognitive assesments to create individualized reading instruction. USA: International Reading Association.
23. Jacobs, J.E. ve Paris, S.G. (1987). Children’s metacognition about reading: Issues in definition, measurement, and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22, 255–278.
24. Jairam, D., Kiewra, K.A., Rogers-Kasson, S., Patterson-Hazley, M. ve Marxhausen, K. (2013). SOAR versus SQ3R: a test of two study systems. Instructional Science. Erişim adresi: https://doi: 10.1007/s11251-013-9295-0.
25. Johnstone, V. (2015). The power of the read aloud in the age of common core. The Open Communication Journal, 9, 34-38.
26. Karasar, N. (2012). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
27. Kistner, S., Rakoczy, K., Otto, B., Dignath-van Ewijk, C., Buettner, G. ve Klieme, E. (2010). Promotion of self-regulated learning in classrooms: investigating frequency, quality, and consequences for student performance. Metacognition and Learning, 5(2), 157-171. Erişim adresi: https://doi.org/(...)07/s11409-010-9055-3.
28. Kistner, S., Rakoczy, K., Otto, B. ve Klieme, E. (2015). Teaching learning strategies: The role of instructional context and teacher beliefs. Journal of Educational Research Online, 7(1), 176-197.
29. Kuhn, D. (2000). Metacognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 178-181.
30. Leech, N. L. ve Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Qual Quant, 43, 265-275.
31. Lesesne, T.S. (2006). Reading aloud: A worthwile investment?. Voices From The Middle, 13(4), 50-54.
32. Lin, X. (2001). Designing metacognitive activities. ETR&D, 49(2), 23-40.
33. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı (2019). PISA 2018 ulusal ön raporu (Eğitim Analiz ve Değerlendirme Raporları Serisi No. 10). Ankara: Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. Erişim adresi: http://pisa.meb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/PISA_2018_Turkiye_On_Raporu.pdf.
34. Mokhtari, K. ve Reichard, C.A. (2002). Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249-259.
35. Nietfeld, J.L. ve Schraw, G. (2002). The effect of knowledge and strategy training on monitoring accuracy. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(3), 131-142.
36. Nokes, J. D. ve Dole, J. A. (2004). Helping adolescent readers through explicit strategy instruction. T. J. Letton ve J. A. Dole (Eds.). Adolescent literacy research and practice (ss. 162-182). New York: Guilford Press.
37. Öztürk, E. (2012). Okuma stratejileri üstbilişsel farkındalık envanterinin Türkçe formunun geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. İlköğretim Online, 12(2), 292-305.
38. Paris, S. G. ve Myers, M. (1981). Comprehension monitoring, memory, study strategies of good, and poor readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, XIII(1), 5-22.
39. Pauk, W. (1984). The new SQ4R. Reading World, 23(3), 274-275.
40. Peteranetz, M. S. (2014). Fostering metacognition in the middle school classroom: An exploration of teachers’ practice (Master of Arts Thesis). Collage of Education and Human Sciences, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
41. Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 219-225.
42. Pressley, M. (2002). Metacognition and self-regulated comprehension. A. E. Fartsrup ve S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (ss. 291-310). USA: International Reading Association.
43. Rahman, F. ve Mahsur, R. (2011). Is metacognition a single variable?. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(5), 135-141.
44. Randi, J. ve Corno, L. (2000). Teacher innovations in self-regulated learning. M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich ve M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (ss. 651-683). New York: Academic Press.
45. Robb, L. (2007). Model reading strategies to improve comprehension for all students. Adolescent Literacy In Perspective. Erişim adresi: http://www.teachhub.com/model-reading-strategies-improve-comprehension-all-students.
46. Rosenshine, B. (1987). Explicit teaching and teacher training. Journal of Teacher Education, 38(3), 34-36.
47. Schraw, G. ve Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychological Review, 7, 351-371.
48. Schreiber, F.J. (2005). Metacognition and self-regulation in literacy. S.E. Israel, C.C. Block, K.L. Bauserman ve K.K. Welsch (Eds.), Metacognition in literacy learning. Theory, assessment, instruction and professional development (ss. 215-241). New Jersey: LEA Publishers.
49. Serafini, F. ve Giorgis, C. (2003). 13 good reasons to read aloud with older students. F. Serafini ve C. Giorgis (Ed.), Reading aloud and beyond (ss. 6-12). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
50. Simpson, M. L. ve Nist, S. L. (2000). An update on strategic learning: It’s more than textbook reading strategies. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 43(6), 528-541.
51. Teddlie, C. ve Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77-100. Erişim adresi: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1558689806292430
52. Tetik, N., Zorlu, N., Türker, H. ve Polat, Z. (2016). Ortaokul öğretmen kılavuz kitabı. Türkçe 5. sınıf. Ankara: Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları.
53. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education. (2012). TEAL Just write! Guide (Contract No. ED-VAE-09-O-0060). Washington, DC: Author. Erişim adresi: https://lincs.ed.gov/sites/default/files/TEAL_JustWriteGuide.pdf.
54. Van der Broek, P. ve Kremer, K. E. (2000). The mind in action: What it means to comprehend during reading. B. M. Taylor, M. F. Graves ve P. Van der Broek (Eds.), Reading for meaning: Fostering comprehension in the middle grades (ss. 1-32). New York: Teachers College Press.
55. Veenman, M.V.J., Van Hout-Wolters, B.H.A.M. ve Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition Learning, 1, 3-14.
56. Wong, L. (2012). Learning from collage textbooks, effective study skills. USA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
57. Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (9. bs.). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
58. Zimmerman, B. J. ve Moylan, A. R. (2009). Where metacognition and motivation Intersect. D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky ve A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition. New York: Routledge.