The Effect of Cognitive and Metacognitive Strategies that Become Activated While Reading the Expository Science Text on Conceptual Understanding

Abstract

The aim of this research is to examine the cognitive and metacognitive strategies, the products of metacognitive processes that were active in pre-service science teachers’ mind who changed or who did not change their conceptual understanding after reading an expository science text about heat and temperature. Case study was used in this study. Nine volunteer pre-service science teachers who had a variety of alternative conceptions in terms of both the number and diversity participated in this study. In order to examine their conceptual understandings regarding to heat-temperature in detail, before and after reading the expository science texts, semi-structured interviews were conducted with each of them as a pre and post-interview. To be able to identify their cognitive and metacognitive strategies and the products of metacognitive processes, they were asked to read aloud and think aloud as they read the texts and semi-structured interviews were conducted after their reading assignment. Based on the data analysis, it was found that the pre-service science teachers who changed their alternative conceptions to scientific conception after reading used more strategies and the products of metacognitive processes in terms of both number and diversity and the aim of using strategies and the products of metacognitive processes were mostly to activate their metaconceptual process such as awareness, monitoring, and evaluating.

Keywords

• Conceptual understanding,expository science text,cognitive and metacognitive strategies,pre-service-science teachers,heat-temperature

Açıklayıcı Fen Metni Okunurken Aktif Hale Gelen Bilişsel ve Üstbilişsel Stratejilerin Kavramsal Anlamaya Etkisi

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı kavramsal anlamasında değişim olan ve olmayan fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının, ısı-sıcaklık ile ilgili hazırlanmış açıklayıcı metni okurlarken zihinlerinde aktif hale gelen bilişsel - üstbilişsel stratejileri ile süreç ürünlerini ve kullanım amaçlarını incelemektir. Araştırmada durum çalışması kullanılmıştır. Isı-sıcaklık konusunda hem sayı hem de çeşitlilik açısından fazla alternatif kavrama sahip olduğu belirlenen 9 öğretmen adayı araştırmaya katılmıştır. Bu öğretmen adaylarının ısı-sıcaklık ile ilgili kavramsal anlamaları hakkında detaylı bilgi edinmek amacıyla bu öğretmen adayları ile hem metin öncesi hem de metin sonrası görüşme yapılmıştır. Bu öğretmen adaylarının ısı-sıcaklık ile ilgili bir metni okurken kullandıkları stratejileri ve süreç ürünlerini belirlemek için öğretmen adaylarından ilgili metni sesli okumaları ve sesli düşünmeleri istenmiştir. Kullandıkları stratejilerin ve süreç ürünlerinin bilişsel ya da üstbilişsel olup olmadığını belirlemek amacıyla metin okuma süreci tamamlandıktan sonra kullanım amaçlarını belirlemeye yönelik yarı-yapılandırılmış görüşme yapılmıştır. Elde edilen veriler analiz edildikten sonra, metin okuma öncesi sahip olduğu alternatif kavramı, metin okuma süreci sonrasında gideren öğretmen adaylarının metni okuma sürecinde fazla sayıda strateji ile süreç ürünleri kullandıkları ve bunların daha çok üstkavramsal faaliyetleri aktif hale getirmek amacıyla kullanıldığı belirlenmiştir.

Keywords

• Kavramsal anlama,açıklayıcı metin,bilişsel ve üstbilişsel stratejiler,öğretmen adayları,ısı-sıcaklık

References

1. Adesope, O. O., Cavagnetto, A., Hunsu, N. J., Anguiano, C., & Lloyd, J. (2017). Comparative effects of computer-based concept maps, refutational texts, and expository texts on science learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 55(1), 46-69.
2. Ahmadi, M. R., Ismail, H. N., & Abdullah, M. K. K. (2013). The Importance of Metacognitive Reading Strategy Awareness in Reading Comprehension. English Language Teaching, 6(10), 235-244.
3. Akgül, P. (2010). Üstkavramsal faaliyetlerle zenginleştirilmiş kavramsal değişim metinlerinin fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının “ısı ve sıcaklık” konusundaki kavramsal anlamalarına etkisi. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara.
4. Ateş, S. ve Yıldırım, K. (2014). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin okuma becerisine yönelik uygulamaları: strateji öğretimi ve anlama. İlköğretim Online, 13(1), 235-257.
5. Baydık, B. (2011). Okuma güçlüğü olan öğrencilerin üstbilişsel okuma stratejilerini kullanımı ve öğretmenlerinin okuduğunu anlama öğretim uygulamalarının incelenmesi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 36(162), 301-319.
6. Best, R. M., Rowe, M., Ozuru, Y., & McNamara, D. S. (2005). Deep-level comprehension of science texts: The role of the reader and the text. Topics in Language Disorders, 25(1), 65-83.
7. Blown, E. J., & Bryce, T. G. K. (2013). Children's concepts of the shape and size of the earth, sun and moon. International Journal of Science Education, 35(3), 388-446.
8. Brown, A. L. (1977). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of metacognition. (Report. No. 47). Washington, DC: National Inst. of Education (DHEW).

9. Celements, T. B. (2011). The role of cognitive and metacognitive reading comprehension strategies in the reading and interpretation of mathematical word problem texts: Reading clinicians’ perceptions of domain relevance and elementary students’ cognitive strategy use. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, USA.
10. Choi, K., Lee, H., Shin, N., Kim, S. W., & Krajcik, J. (2011). Re-conceptualization of scientific literacy in South Korea for the 21st century. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(6), 670–697.
11. Cromley, J. G. (2005). Metacognition, cognitive strategy instruction, and reading in adult literacy. Review of Adult Learning and Literacy, 5, 187-220.
12. Diakidoy, I.-A. N., Mouskounti, T., Fella, A., & Ioannides, C. (2016). Comprehension processes and outcomes with refutation and expository texts and their contribution to learning. Learning and Instruction, 41, 60–69.
13. Djudin, T. (2017). Using Metacognitive Strategies to Improve Reading Comprehension and Solve a Word Problem. Journal of Education, Teaching and Learning, 2(1), 124-129.
14. Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671 – 688.
15. Eason, S. H., Goldberg, L. F., Young, K. M., Geist, M. C., & Cutting, L. E. (2012). Reader–text interactions: How differential text and question types influence cognitive skills needed for reading comprehension. Journal of educational psychology, 104(3), 515.
16. Fang, Z. (2005). Scientific literacy: A systemic functional linguistics perspective. Science Education, 89(2), 335–347.
17. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American psychologist, 34(10), 906.
18. Ghonsooly, B., & Eghtesadee, A. R., (2006). Role of cognitive style of field- dependence / independence in using metacognitive and cognitive reading strategies by a group of skilled and novice Iranian students of English. Asian EFL Journals, 8(4), 119-150.
19. Gooding, J., & Metz, B. (2011). From misconceptions to conceptual change. The Science Teacher, 78(4), 34.
20. Gunstone, R.F., & Mitchell, I.J. (1998). Metacognition and conceptual change. In J. J. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee and J. D. Novak (Eds.), Teaching science for understanding: A human constructivist view (pp.133-163). San Diego: Academic Press.
21. Guzzetti, B. J. (2000). Learning counter-intuitive science concepts: What have we learned from over a decade of research? Reading Research Quarterly, 16(2), 89–98.
22. Guzzetti, B. J., Snyder, T. E., & Glass, G. V. (1992). Promoting conceptual change in science: Can texts be used effectively?. Journal of Reading, 35(8), 642-649.
23. Guzzetti, B. J., Williams, W. O., Skeels, S. A., & Wu, S. M. (1997). Influence of text structure on learning counterintuitive physics concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(7), 701-719.
24. Hanrahan, M. (2009). Bridging the literacy gap: Teaching the skills of reading and writing as they apply in school science. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 5(3), 289–304.
25. Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes Publishing.Hennessey, M. G. (1999, March). Probing the dimensions of metacognition: implications for conceptual change teaching-learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the NationalAssociation for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA.
26. Herscovitz, O., Kaberman, Z., Saar, L., & Dori, Y. J. (2012). The relationship between metacognition and the ability to pose questions in chemical education. In A. Zohar & Y. J. Dori (Eds.), Metacognition in science education: Trends in current research (pp. 165–195). Dordrecht: Springer.
27. Kaltakçı-Gurel, D. K., Eryılmaz, A., & McDermott, L. C. (2015). A Review and comparison of diagnostic instruments to identify students' misconceptions in science. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(5).
28. Kendeou, P., & Van den Broek, P. (2007). The effects of prior knowledge and text structure on comprehension processes during reading of scientific texts. Memory & Cognition, 35(7), 1567-1577.
29. Kendeou, P., Van Den Broek, P., Helder, A., & Karlsson, J. (2014). A cognitive view of reading comprehension: Implications for reading difficulties. Learning disabilities research & practice, 29(1), 10-16.
30. Koch, A. (2001). Training in metacognition and comprehension of physics texts. Science Education, 85(6), 758-768.
31. Kumlu, G. (2012). Alternatif kavramlara sahip Fen ve Teknoloji öğretmen adaylarında fen metinlerini okurlarken aktif hale gelen bilişsel ve üstbilişsel stratejiler. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara.
32. Lai, E. R. (2011, April). Metacognition: A Literature Review. Pearson Assessment Research Report. New York, NY: Pearson.
33. Leutwyler, B. (2009). Metacognitive Learning Strategies: Differential Development Patterns in High School. Metacognition and Learning, 4(2), 111–123.
34. Luques, M. L. (2003). The role of domain-specific knowledge in intentional conceptual change. In G. L. Sinatra & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional Conceptual Change (pp. 133-170). Mahwah, New Jersey: L. Erlbaum.
35. McNamara, D. S., & Kendeou, P. (2011). Translating advances in reading comprehension research to educational practice. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4(1), 33–46.
36. Moje, E. B. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(2), 96–107.
37. Narvaez, D. (2002). Individual differences that influence reading comprehension. In M. Pressley & C. C. Block (Eds.), Reading Comprehension Instruction (pp. 158-175). New York: Guilford.
38. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
39. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2015). Scientific literacy: Its relationship to “literacy”. In R. Gunstone (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science education (pp. 947–950). Berlin: Springer.
40. O’Malley, J.M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
41. Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
42. Pressley, M., & Gaskins, I. W. (2006). Metacognitively competent reading comprehension is constructively responsive reading: How can such reading be developed in students?. Metacognition Learning, 1(1), 99-113.
43. Rivard, L., & Yore, L.D. (1992, March). Review of reading comprehension instruction: 1985-1991. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA.
44. Saçkes, M. (2010). The role of cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational variables in conceptual change: preservice early childhood teachers’ conceptual understanding of the cause of lunar phases. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University.
45. Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26(1-2), 113-125.
46. Sinatra, G. M., & Broughton, S. H. (2011). Bridging reading comprehension and conceptual change in science education: The promise of refutation text. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(4), 374–393.
47. Sinatra, G. M., & Pintrich, P. R. (Eds.) (2003). Intentional conceptual change. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
48. Singhal, M. (2001). Reading proficiency, reading strategies, metacognitive awareness and L2 readers. The Reading Matrix, 1(1), 1-23.
49. Tarchi, C. (2010). Reading comprehension of informative texts in secondary school: A focus on direct and indirect effects of reader's prior knowledge. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(5), 415–420.
50. Taşçı, G. (2011). Yükseköğretim biyoloji öğrencilerinin öğrenme stratejileri ve bilişsel yapılarının incelenmesi. Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara.
51. Tekkaya, C., Çapa, Y. & Yılmaz, Ö. (2000). Biyoloji öğretmen adaylarının genel biyoloji konularındaki kavram yanılgıları. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 18, 140-147.
52. Thomas, G. P. (2012). Metacognition in science education: Past, present and future considerations. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 131–144). Dordrecht: Springer.
53. Tippett, C. D. (2010). Refutation text in science education: A review of two decades of research. International journal of science and mathematics education, 8(6), 951-970.
54. Vandergrift, L. (1997). The comprehension strategies of second language (French) listeners: A descriptive study. Foreign Language Annals, 30(3), 387-409.
55. Venville, G., Wilhelm, J., & Louisell, R. (2012). A complex dynamic systems view of young children’s knowledge about the Moon. Research in Science Education, 42(4), 729–752.
56. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. (7. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin.
57. Yıldız, E. (2008). 5E modelinin kullanıldığı kavramsal değişime dayalı öğretimde üstbilişin etkileri: 7. sınıf kuvvet ve hareket ünitesine yönelik bir uygulama. Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, İzmir.
58. Yore, L. D., Craig, M. T., & Maguire, T. O. (1998). Index of science reading awareness: An interactive‐constructive model, test verification, and grades 4‐8 results. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(1), 27‐51.
59. Yore, L. D., & Treagust, D. F. (2006). Current realities and future possibilities: Language and science literacy – empowering research and informing instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 291–314.
60. Wang, J., Spencer, K., Minjie, & Xing, M. (2009). Metacognitive beliefs and strategies in learning Chinese as a foreign language. System, 37(1), 46-56.
61. Wang, J. R., Chen, S. F., Fang, I., & Chou, C. T. (2014). Comparison of Taiwanese and Canadian students’ metacognitive awareness of science reading, text, and strategies. International Journal of Science Education, 36(4), 693–713.
62. Wharton, G. (2000). Language learning strategy use of bilingual foreign language learners in Singapore. Language Learning, 50(2), 203-243.
63. Zohar, A., & Barzilai, S. (2013). A review of research on metacognition in science education: Current and future directions. Studies in Science Education, 49(2), 121–169.
64. Zohar, A., & David, A. B. (2009). Paving a clear path in a thick forest: a conceptual analysis of a metacognitive component. Metacognition and Learning, 4(3), 177-195.
65. Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. J. (Eds.). (2012). Metacognition in science education: Trends in current research. Dordrecht: Springer.