Readers Typology: Can Poor Readers Advance to Good Readers?

Abstract

This study aims to determine the reader’s typology among the preparatory class students regarding their use of reading strategies while they read texts written in English, and to find out whether cognitive and metacognitive strategy training can make students advance from poor readers to good readers. The participants of the study were 27 evening education students with the age range between 18 and 22 at the preparatory school of Inonu University School of Foreign Languages in Malatya, Turkey. The students were instructed cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies with the purpose of the study for eight weeks. The study has provided an exciting opportunity to advance both the researcher’s and the participants’ knowledge of cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies. Throughout the study, the researcher, as the instructor of the sampling group, and the students have improved their understanding of reading comprehension of an English written text. Qualitative method was used to collect data. Qualitative data collection instruments involving Think-Aloud Protocol (TAP), learner and researcher’s diaries were descriptively analyzed. Findings revealed that the participants raised their awareness on strategy use after involvement in cognitive and metacognitive strategy training. The findings from TAPs also indicated that poor readers could advance to good readers by taking part in the lessons so that weaker students were able to indicate the problems they had encountered, and stronger ones could reveal what made them successful.

Keywords

• Cognitive reading strategies
• Metacognitive reading strategies
• Readers typology
• Reading comprehension
• Think-aloud protocol

References

1. Bailey, K. M. (1991). Diary Studies of Classroom Language Learning: The Doubting Game and the believing Game. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?q=kathleen+bailey&ft=on&id=ED367166
2. Brown, A. L., Bransford J. D., Ferrara R. A., & Campione J. C. (1982). Learning, Remembering, and Understanding. Technical Report No. 244.
3. Carver, R. P. (1985). How Good Are Some of the World's Best Readers?. Reading Research Quarterly, 20 (4), 389–419. doi.org/10.2307/747851.
4. Chamot, A. U. (1999). The learning strategies handbook. White Plains, NY: Longman.
5. Cohen, A. D. (1995). Second language learning and use strategies: Clarifying the Issues. Research Report. Revised Version. Minnesota.
6. Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
7. Ellis, R. (2015). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford. Oxford University Press.
8. Garner, R. (1980). Monitoring of understanding: An investigation of good and poor readers’ Awareness of induced miscomprehension of text. Journal of Literacy Research, 12 (1), 55-63.

9. Garner, R. & Alexander, P. (1989). Metacognition: Answered and Unanswered Questions. Educational Psychologist, 24 (2), 143-158. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2402_2.
10. Grenfell, M., & Harris, V. (1999). Modern Languages and learning strategies: In Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.
11. Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2013). Comprehension at the core. Reading Teacher, 66 (6), 432, 439. doi:10.1002/TRTR.1145.
12. Huang, S. (2006). Reading English for academic purposes – What situational factors may motivate learners to read? System, 34 (3), 371-383. doi:10.1016/j.system.2006.04.006.
13. Keene, E. O., & Zimmermann, S. (2013). Years later, comprehension strategies still at work. The Reading Teacher, 66 (8), 601-606.
14. Kendeou, P., Smith, E. R., & O’Brien, E. J. (2013). Updating during reading comprehension: Why causality matters. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39 (3), 854-865.
15. Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (2000). The natural approach: language acquisition in the classroom. England: Longman.
16. Kutluturk, S. (2016). An Investigation on the Effects of Using Cognitive and Metacognitive Strategies to Enhance University Students’ Reading Skills. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Çağ University, Mersin, Turkey.
17. Kutluturk, S., & Yumru, H. (2017). Cognitive and metacognitive strategy training to enhance freshmen’s reading skills. International Journal of Language and Literature, 5(1), 7-15.
18. Macnamara, J., (1971). The Cognitive Strategies of Language Learning. In "Conference on Child Language," preprints of papers presented at the Conference, Chicago, Illinois, November 22-24, p471- 484.
19. McDonough, J., Shaw, C., & Masuhara, H. (2013). Materials and methods in ELT: A teacher’s guide (3rd ed.). West Sussex, UK: Wiley & Blackwell.
20. Merriam, S. B. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
21. O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press.
22. Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Rubin, J. (1975). What the “Good Language Learner” Can Teach Us. TESOL Quarterly, 9 (1), 41.
23. Schoenbach, R., Greenleaf, C., & Murphy, L. (2012). Reading for understanding: How reading apprenticeship improves disciplinary learning in secondary and college classrooms. John Wiley & Sons.
24. Snow, C. E., (2002). Reading for Understanding: Toward an R&D Program in Reading Comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
25. Soars, L., & Soars, J. (2011). New headway elementary, fourth edition materials. UK: Oxford University Press.
26. Spring, C. (1985). Comprehension and study strategies reported by university freshmen who are good and poor readers. Instructional Science, 14 (2), 157. doi:10.1007/BF00052395.
27. Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1983). The Teaching of Learning Strategies. In Innovation abstracts. 1983. p. n32.
28. Yaylı, D. (2010). A think-aloud study: Cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies of ELT Department students. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 38, 234-251.
29. Zhang, L. (2018). Metacognitive and cognitive strategy use in reading comprehension. Springer.