Cognitive and metacognitive strategies employed by Iranian and Turkish EFL readers

Abstract

This study focused on cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies and aimed to find out
the relationship and differences between two groups of participants’ reports on the use of
cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies at English Language Teaching Departments of
Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Çukurova University, Erciyes University, and Gazi
University in Turkey; and Marand University, Tehran University, and Tehran Azad
University in Iran. The study firstly investigated how frequently advanced level language
students were using cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies, secondly it revealed the
relationship between the participants’ use of cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies.
Moreover, it investigated gender differences among groups in terms of using strategies. The
data were collected by means of questionnaires which were delivered participants in the fall
semester of 2009-2010 academic year. The results indicated significant differences among
groups in terms of frequency use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies indicating the
impact of culture on employing strategies.

Keywords

• cognition, metacognition, reading strategies, cognitive reading strategies, metacognitive reading strategies

References

1. Abbott, M. L. (2006). ESL reading strategies: differences in Arabic and Mandarin speaker test performance. Language Learning, 56: 633–670.
2. Aebersold, J. A. and Field, M. L. (1997). From reader to reading teacher: Issues and strategies for second language classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing. Modern Language Journal, 75, 460-472.
4. Baker, L., and Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 1, pp. 353-394). New York: Longman.
5. Barnett, M. (1988). Reading through context: How real and perceived strategy use affects L2 comprehension. Modern Language Journal, 72, 150-162.
6. Block, E. (1986). The comprehension strategies of second language readers. TESOL Quarterly, 20 (3): 463-494.
7. Brown, A. (1981). Metacognition in reading and writing: The development and facilitation of selective attention strategies for learning from texts. In M. Kamil (Ed.), Directions in reading research and instruction (pp. 21-43). Washington D.C. National Reading Conference.
8. Carrell, P. L. (1998). Can reading strategies be successfully taught? ARAL, 21(1), 1-20.

9. Chamot, A. and O’Malley, M. (1987). The cognitive academic language learning approach: A bridge to the mainstream. TESOL Quarterly, 21, (2), 227-249.
10. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
11. Cziko, G. A. (1980). Language competence and reading strategies: A comparison of first- and second-language oral reading errors. Language Learning, 30, 104-114.
12. Çubukçu, F. (2008). Enhancing vocabulary development and reading comprehension through metacognitive strategies. Issues in Educational Research, 18 (1), 1-11.
13. Drisoll, M. P.( 2000). Psychology of learning for instruction. 2nd. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
14. Erten, İ. H. & Razı, S. (2003). An experimental investigation into the impact of cultural schemata on reading comprehension. Presented at 2nd International Balkan ELT Conference ‘Theory and Practice of TESOL’, Edirne – Turkey.
15. Fisher-Kohn. E. (1986). Teaching close-reading for ESL/EFL: Uses and abuses. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 271952
16. Forbes, S.; Poparad, M. A.; McBride, M. (2004). To err is human; to self-correct is to learn. The Reading Teacher, 57 (6), 566-572.
17. Goodman, K. (1986). What's whole in whole language. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books
18. Harris, K. R., & Pressley, M. (1991). The nature of cognitive strategy instruction: Interactive
19. strategy construction. Exceptional Children, 57, 392-404.
20. Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21. Hosenfeld, C. (1976). Learning about learning: Discovering our students’ strategies. Foreign Language Annals, 9, 117-129.
22. Huey, E. B. (1968). The psychology and pedagogy of reading. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23. (Original work published in 1908)
24. Li, J. (2008). Metacognitive knowledge, vocabulary size and EFL reading comprehension of Chinese tertiary students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.
25. Lynch, B., and T. Hudson. 1991. EST reading. In Teaching English as a second or foreign language. 2nd ed. ed. M. Celce-Murcia, 216-232. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
26. Maghsudi, M. and Talebi, S. H. (2009). The impact of lingualuity on the cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies awareness and reading comprehension ability. J Soc Sci, 18(2): 119-126.
27. Mokhtari, K.; Reichard, C. A. (2004). Investigating the strategic reading processes of first and second language readers in two different contexts. System, 32, 379-394.
28. O’Malley, C., and Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29. Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New York: Newbury House Publishers.
30. Oxford, R. L. (2001). Language learning strategies. In R. Carter, & D. Nunan (eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp. 166-172). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31. Oxford, R. L. (2002). Language learning strategies in a nutshell: update and ESL suggestions. In J. C. Richards; W. A. Renandya (eds.), Methodology in Language Teaching (pp. 124-132). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32. Oxford, R. (2003). Towards a more systematic model of L2 learner autonomy. In Palfreyman, D. and Smith, R. C. (Eds.), Learner autonomy across cultures: Language education perspectives. Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke (pp. 75–92).
33. Palinscar, A. and Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching: A means to a meaningful end. In J. Osborn and P. T. Wilson (Eds.), Reading education: Foundations for a literate America, 310. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Lexington.
34. Parry, K. (1996). Culture, literacy and L2 reading. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 665–692.
35. Pressley, M., Borkowski, J. G., & Schneider, W. (1987). Cognitive strategies: Good strategy
36. users coordinate metacognition and knowledge. In R. Vasta, & G. Whilehurst (Eds.),
37. Annals of child development, 4 (pp. 80-129). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
38. Pressley, M., Goodchild, F., Fleet, J., Zajchowski, R., & Evans, E. D. (1989). The challenges
39. of classroom instruction. Elementary School Journal, 89, 301-342.
40. Pressley, M.; Snyder, B. and Cariglia-Bull, B. (1987). How can good strategy use be taught to children? Evaluation of six alternative approaches. In S. Cormier & J. Hagman (Eds.), Transfer of learning: Contemporary research and application (pp. 81-120). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
41. Pressley, M.; Woloshyn, V. (1995). Cognitive strategy instruction: That really improves children’s academic performance (2nd ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Brookline Books.
42. Purpura, J. (1997). An analysis of the relationships between test takers’ cognitive and metacognitive strategy use and second language test performance. Language Learning, 47, 289–325.
43. Razı, S. (2007). Okuma Becerisi Öğretimi ve Değerlendirilmesi (Teaching and assessing reading). İstanbul: Kriter Yayınları.
44. Razı, S. (2008). The impact of learning multiple foreign languages on using metacognitive learning strategies. Reading Matrix, 8 (1): 117-138.
45. Razı, S. (2010). Effects of a metacognitive reading program on the reading achievement and metacognitive strategies. Unpublished PhD disseratiton. İzmir: Dokuz Eylül University.
46. Sarıçoban, A. (2002). Reading strategies of successful readers through the three phase approach. The Reading Matrix, 2 (3), 1-16.
47. Sarig, G. (1987). High-level reading in the first and in the foreign language: Some comparative process data. In J. Devine; P. L. Carrell and D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Research in reading in English as a second language (pp. 105-120). Washington, DC: TESOL. Schuman, L. (1996). Perspectives on instruction. [On-line]. Available: http://edweb.sdsu.edu/courses/edtec540/Perspectives/Perspectives.html
48. Sheorey R, Mokhtari K (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among native and non-native readers. System, 29 (4): 431-449.
49. Silberstein, S. (1994). Techniques and resources in teaching reading. New York: Oxford University Press.
50. Taraban, R.; Kerr, M.; and Rynearson, K. (2004). Analytic and pragmatic factors in college students' metacognitive reading strategies. Reading Psychology, 25 (2) 67-81.
51. Tercanlıoğlu, L. (2004). Postgraduate students’ use of reading strategies in L1 and ESL contexts: Links to success. International Educational Journal, 5 (4), 562-570.
52. Wallace, C. (1992). Reading. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
53. Wilkinson. G.L. (Ed.) (1995). Constructivism, objectivism, and isd. IT forum discussion, April http://itech1.coe.uga.edu/itforum/extra4/disc-ex4.html August 21, 1995. [On-line]. Available:
54. Wood, E., Woloshyn, V., Willoughby, T. (1995). Cognitive strategy instruction for middle
55. and high schools. MA: Brookline Books.
56. Yigiter K., Saricoban A. & Gurses T. (2005). Reading strategies employed by ELT learners at the advanced level. The Reading Matrix, 5 (1). Retrieved June 18, 2010 from http://www.readingmatrix.com/articles/saricoban/article2.pdf