Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite
Year 2019, Volume: 15 Issue: 2, 605 - 617, 01.07.2019
https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.586757

Abstract

References

  • Aghaie, R., & Zhang, L. J. (2012). Effects of explicit instruction in cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies on Iranian EFL students’ reading performance and strategy transfer. Instructional Science, 40(6), 1063–1081. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9202-5
  • Alsheikh, N. O., & Mokhtari, K. (2011). An Examination of the Metacognitive Reading Strategies Used by Native Speakers of Arabic When Reading in English and Arabic. English Language Teaching, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v4n2p151
  • Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Cognitive monitoring in reading. In J. Flood (Ed.), Understanding reading comprehension (pp. 21–44). Newark: International Reading Association.
  • Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory. Morristown, NJ: General Learning.
  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  • Barnett, M. (1988). Reading through Context: How Real and Perceived Strategy Use Affects L2 Comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 72(2), 150–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1988.tb04177.x
  • Boulware-Gooden, R., Carreker, S., Thornhill, A., & Joshi, R. M. (2007). Instruction of metacognitive strategies enhances reading comprehension and vocabulary achievement of third-grade students. The Reading Teacher, 61(1), 70–77.
  • Chern, C. L. (1993). Chinese students’ word-solving strategies in reading in English. In T. Huckin, M. Haynes, & C. Coady (Eds.), Second language reading and vocabulary learning (pp. 67–85). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  • Cross, D. R., & Paris, S. G. (1988). Developmental and instructional analyses of children’s metacognition and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.2.131
  • Cubukcu, F. (2008). Enhancing vocabulary development and reading comprehension through metacognitive strategies. Issues in Educational Research, 18(1), 1–11.
  • Curwen, M. S., Miller, R. G., White-Smith, K. A., & Calfee, R. C. (2010). Increasing teachers’ metacognition develops students’ higher learning during content area literacy instruction: Findings from the read-write cycle project. Issues in Teacher Education, 19(2), 127–151.
  • Doğanay Bilgi, A., & Özmen, E. R. (2014). The impact of modified multi-component cognitive strategy instruction in the acquisition of metacognitive strategy knowledge in the text comprehension process of students with mental retardation. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14(2), 707–714.
  • Duffy, G. G. (1993). Rethinking strategy instruction: Four teachers’ development and low achievers’ understandings. Elementary School Journal, 93(3), 231.
  • Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.
  • Guo, L. (2018). Modeling the relationship of metacognitive knowledge , L1 reading ability , L2 language proficiency and L2 reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 30(2), 209–231.
  • Holton, D., & Clarke, D. (2006). Scaffolding and metacognition. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 37(2), 127–143.
  • Iwai, Y. (2011). The Effects of Metacognitive Reading Strategies: Pedagogical Implications for EFL/ESL Teachers. The Reading Matrix, 11(2), 150–159. Retrieved from http://readingmatrix.com/articles/april_2011/iwai.pdf
  • Karami, S., & Hashemian, M. (2012). The Relationship between (Meta)cognitive Strategies and Reading Comprehension in Iranian Female L2 Learners. International Journal of English Linguistics, 2(4), 58–64. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v2n4p58
  • Lai, E. R. (2011). Metacognition: A Literature review (Research report). New York, NY:Pearson. Retrieved from http://www.datec.org.uk/CHAT/chatmeta1.htm
  • Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. (2004). Investigating the strategic reading processes of first and second language readers in two different cultural contexts. System, 32, 379–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.04.005
  • Muñiz-Swicegood, M. (1994). The effects of metacognitive reading strategy training on the reading performance and student reading analysis strategies of third grade bilingual students. Bilingual Research Journal, 18, 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.1994.10162659
  • Ozturk, N. (2015). A short review of research on metacognition training. Journal of Educational and Instructional Studies in the World, 5 (3)(August), 50–62.
  • Phakiti, A. (2003). A closer look at the relationship of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use to EFL reading achievement test performance. Language Testing, 20(1), 26–56. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532203lt243oa
  • Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 219–225.
  • Reffyal, M., Pammu, A., & Sukmawaty. (2018). The Profiles of Metacognitive Reading Strategies of Successful and Unsuccessful EFL Learners of Senior High School. Jurnal Ilmu Budaya, 6(1), 136–142.
  • Reza Ahmadi, M., Nizam Ismail, H., & Kamarul Kabilan Abdullah, M. (2013). The importance of metacognitive reading strategy awareness in reading comprehension. English Language Teaching, 6(10). https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n10p235
  • Salataci, R., & Akyel, A. (2002). Possible Effects Of Strategy Instruction on L1 and L2 Reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 14(1), 1–17. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/docview/1705695260?accountid=12372%5Cnhttp://sfx.unimelb.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/sfxlcl41?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&genre=article&sid=ProQ:ProQ%3Aeducation&atitle=Possib
  • Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26(1), 113–125.
  • Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460–475. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1994.1033
  • Takallou, F. (2011). The effect of metacognitive strategy instruction on EFL learners’ reading comprehension performance and metacognitive awareness. Asian EFL Journal, 13(1), 272–300.
  • Tanner, K. D. (2012). Promoting student metacognition. Cell Biology Education, 11(2), 113–120.
  • Tavakoli, H. (2014). The effectiveness of metacognitive strategy awareness in reading comprehension: The case of Iranian university EFL students. Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 14(2), 314–336. Retrieved from http://www.readingmatrix.com/files/11-24o5q41u.pdf
  • Taylor, A., Stevens, J., & Asher, J. W. (2006). The effects of explicit reading strategy training on L2 reading comprehension. In M. Norris, John & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 213–244). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, R., Stoel, R. D., de Glopper, K., & Hulstijn, J. (2007). Development of Adolescent Reading Comprehension in Language 1 and Language 2 : A Longitudinal Analysis of Constituent Components Development of Adolescent Reading Comprehension in Language 1 and Language 2 : A Longitudinal Analysis of Constituent Componen. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 477–491. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.477
  • Vandergrift, L., & Tafaghodtari, M. H. (2010). Teaching L2 learners how to listen does make a difference: An empirical study. Language Learning, 60(2), 470–497.
  • Veenman, M. V. J. (2016). Metacognition. In P. Afflerbach (Ed.), Handbook of individual differences in reading (pp. 26–40). New York: Routledge.
  • Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-006-6893-0
  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Zhang, L. J. (2001). Awareness in reading: EFL students’ metacognitive knowledge of reading strategies in an acquisition-poor environment. Language Awareness, 10(4), 268–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410108667039
  • Zhang, L., & Seepho, S. (2013). Metacognitive Strategy Use and Academic Reading Achievement: Insights from a Chinese Context. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 10(1), 54–69. Retrieved from http://e-flt.nus.edu.sg/v10n12013/zhang.pdf
  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego, CA: Academic.
  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An Overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102
  • Zohar, A., & Ben David, A. (2009). Paving a clear path in a thick forest: A conceptual analysis of a metacognitive component. Metacognition and Learning, 4(3), 177–195.

Dichotomy of EFL reading: Metacognition vs. proficiency

Year 2019, Volume: 15 Issue: 2, 605 - 617, 01.07.2019
https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.586757

Abstract



























































Please fill up the following information accurately. (Please
use Times New Roman, 12 pt.


Dichotomy of EFL reading: Metacognition vs. proficiency



This study examined a) the effects of metacognition
and proficiency on EFL reading performance and b) the relation of metacognition
and EFL reading performance. Data were collected by Metacognitive Awareness Inventory
(MAI) and reading scores were examined. By variance analyses, we found that
reading scores and metacognitive knowledge show variations across proficiency
levels. There were no effects of time, timeXclass, and timeXproficiency on
metacognition. When tests incorporated higher order thinking skills,
participants' metacognitive knowledge or regulation correlated with reading
scores, positively. Although trends that can explain differences in
metacognition did not follow a pattern; it was observed that different
proficiency groups benefited from training differently; for low- and
mid-proficiency groups, a slight increase in metacognition regulation; and for
high-proficiency group, a refinement in metacognitive knowledge was observed.
We suggest instructional and assessment practices incorporate metacognition
regarding learners’ proficiency levels. Therefore, all students might see the
relevance of metacognition and take responsibility for it.



Information about Author(s)*



Author 1



Author
(Last name, First name)



 Öztürk, Nesrin



Affiliated
institution (University)



 Ege University



Country



 Turkey



Email
address



 ozturknesrin@gmail.com



Department
& Rank



 



Corresponding author (Yes/No)


Write only one corresponding author.



 Yes



Author 2



Author
(Last name, First name)



 Şenaydın, Ferah



Affiliated
institution (University)



 Ege University



Country



 Turkey



Email
address



 senaydinferah@hotmail.com



Department
& Rank



 



Corresponding
author (Yes/No)



 



Author 3



Author
(Last name, First name)



 



Affiliated
institution (University)



 



Country



 



Email
address



 



Department
& Rank



 



Corresponding
author (Yes/No)



 



Author 4



Author
(Last name, First name)



 



Affiliated
institution (University)



 



Country



 



Email
address



 



Department
& Rank



 



Corresponding
author (Yes/No)



 



 


References

  • Aghaie, R., & Zhang, L. J. (2012). Effects of explicit instruction in cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies on Iranian EFL students’ reading performance and strategy transfer. Instructional Science, 40(6), 1063–1081. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9202-5
  • Alsheikh, N. O., & Mokhtari, K. (2011). An Examination of the Metacognitive Reading Strategies Used by Native Speakers of Arabic When Reading in English and Arabic. English Language Teaching, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v4n2p151
  • Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Cognitive monitoring in reading. In J. Flood (Ed.), Understanding reading comprehension (pp. 21–44). Newark: International Reading Association.
  • Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory. Morristown, NJ: General Learning.
  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  • Barnett, M. (1988). Reading through Context: How Real and Perceived Strategy Use Affects L2 Comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 72(2), 150–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1988.tb04177.x
  • Boulware-Gooden, R., Carreker, S., Thornhill, A., & Joshi, R. M. (2007). Instruction of metacognitive strategies enhances reading comprehension and vocabulary achievement of third-grade students. The Reading Teacher, 61(1), 70–77.
  • Chern, C. L. (1993). Chinese students’ word-solving strategies in reading in English. In T. Huckin, M. Haynes, & C. Coady (Eds.), Second language reading and vocabulary learning (pp. 67–85). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  • Cross, D. R., & Paris, S. G. (1988). Developmental and instructional analyses of children’s metacognition and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.2.131
  • Cubukcu, F. (2008). Enhancing vocabulary development and reading comprehension through metacognitive strategies. Issues in Educational Research, 18(1), 1–11.
  • Curwen, M. S., Miller, R. G., White-Smith, K. A., & Calfee, R. C. (2010). Increasing teachers’ metacognition develops students’ higher learning during content area literacy instruction: Findings from the read-write cycle project. Issues in Teacher Education, 19(2), 127–151.
  • Doğanay Bilgi, A., & Özmen, E. R. (2014). The impact of modified multi-component cognitive strategy instruction in the acquisition of metacognitive strategy knowledge in the text comprehension process of students with mental retardation. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14(2), 707–714.
  • Duffy, G. G. (1993). Rethinking strategy instruction: Four teachers’ development and low achievers’ understandings. Elementary School Journal, 93(3), 231.
  • Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.
  • Guo, L. (2018). Modeling the relationship of metacognitive knowledge , L1 reading ability , L2 language proficiency and L2 reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 30(2), 209–231.
  • Holton, D., & Clarke, D. (2006). Scaffolding and metacognition. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 37(2), 127–143.
  • Iwai, Y. (2011). The Effects of Metacognitive Reading Strategies: Pedagogical Implications for EFL/ESL Teachers. The Reading Matrix, 11(2), 150–159. Retrieved from http://readingmatrix.com/articles/april_2011/iwai.pdf
  • Karami, S., & Hashemian, M. (2012). The Relationship between (Meta)cognitive Strategies and Reading Comprehension in Iranian Female L2 Learners. International Journal of English Linguistics, 2(4), 58–64. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v2n4p58
  • Lai, E. R. (2011). Metacognition: A Literature review (Research report). New York, NY:Pearson. Retrieved from http://www.datec.org.uk/CHAT/chatmeta1.htm
  • Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. (2004). Investigating the strategic reading processes of first and second language readers in two different cultural contexts. System, 32, 379–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.04.005
  • Muñiz-Swicegood, M. (1994). The effects of metacognitive reading strategy training on the reading performance and student reading analysis strategies of third grade bilingual students. Bilingual Research Journal, 18, 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.1994.10162659
  • Ozturk, N. (2015). A short review of research on metacognition training. Journal of Educational and Instructional Studies in the World, 5 (3)(August), 50–62.
  • Phakiti, A. (2003). A closer look at the relationship of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use to EFL reading achievement test performance. Language Testing, 20(1), 26–56. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532203lt243oa
  • Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 219–225.
  • Reffyal, M., Pammu, A., & Sukmawaty. (2018). The Profiles of Metacognitive Reading Strategies of Successful and Unsuccessful EFL Learners of Senior High School. Jurnal Ilmu Budaya, 6(1), 136–142.
  • Reza Ahmadi, M., Nizam Ismail, H., & Kamarul Kabilan Abdullah, M. (2013). The importance of metacognitive reading strategy awareness in reading comprehension. English Language Teaching, 6(10). https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n10p235
  • Salataci, R., & Akyel, A. (2002). Possible Effects Of Strategy Instruction on L1 and L2 Reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 14(1), 1–17. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/docview/1705695260?accountid=12372%5Cnhttp://sfx.unimelb.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/sfxlcl41?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&genre=article&sid=ProQ:ProQ%3Aeducation&atitle=Possib
  • Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26(1), 113–125.
  • Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460–475. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1994.1033
  • Takallou, F. (2011). The effect of metacognitive strategy instruction on EFL learners’ reading comprehension performance and metacognitive awareness. Asian EFL Journal, 13(1), 272–300.
  • Tanner, K. D. (2012). Promoting student metacognition. Cell Biology Education, 11(2), 113–120.
  • Tavakoli, H. (2014). The effectiveness of metacognitive strategy awareness in reading comprehension: The case of Iranian university EFL students. Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 14(2), 314–336. Retrieved from http://www.readingmatrix.com/files/11-24o5q41u.pdf
  • Taylor, A., Stevens, J., & Asher, J. W. (2006). The effects of explicit reading strategy training on L2 reading comprehension. In M. Norris, John & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 213–244). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, R., Stoel, R. D., de Glopper, K., & Hulstijn, J. (2007). Development of Adolescent Reading Comprehension in Language 1 and Language 2 : A Longitudinal Analysis of Constituent Components Development of Adolescent Reading Comprehension in Language 1 and Language 2 : A Longitudinal Analysis of Constituent Componen. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 477–491. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.477
  • Vandergrift, L., & Tafaghodtari, M. H. (2010). Teaching L2 learners how to listen does make a difference: An empirical study. Language Learning, 60(2), 470–497.
  • Veenman, M. V. J. (2016). Metacognition. In P. Afflerbach (Ed.), Handbook of individual differences in reading (pp. 26–40). New York: Routledge.
  • Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-006-6893-0
  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Zhang, L. J. (2001). Awareness in reading: EFL students’ metacognitive knowledge of reading strategies in an acquisition-poor environment. Language Awareness, 10(4), 268–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410108667039
  • Zhang, L., & Seepho, S. (2013). Metacognitive Strategy Use and Academic Reading Achievement: Insights from a Chinese Context. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 10(1), 54–69. Retrieved from http://e-flt.nus.edu.sg/v10n12013/zhang.pdf
  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego, CA: Academic.
  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An Overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102
  • Zohar, A., & Ben David, A. (2009). Paving a clear path in a thick forest: A conceptual analysis of a metacognitive component. Metacognition and Learning, 4(3), 177–195.
There are 43 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Journal Section Research Article
Authors

Nesrin Öztürk

Ferah Şenaydın This is me

Publication Date July 1, 2019
Published in Issue Year 2019 Volume: 15 Issue: 2

Cite

APA Öztürk, N., & Şenaydın, F. (2019). Dichotomy of EFL reading: Metacognition vs. proficiency. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 15(2), 605-617. https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.586757
AMA Öztürk N, Şenaydın F. Dichotomy of EFL reading: Metacognition vs. proficiency. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies. July 2019;15(2):605-617. doi:10.17263/jlls.586757
Chicago Öztürk, Nesrin, and Ferah Şenaydın. “Dichotomy of EFL Reading: Metacognition Vs. Proficiency”. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies 15, no. 2 (July 2019): 605-17. https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.586757.
EndNote Öztürk N, Şenaydın F (July 1, 2019) Dichotomy of EFL reading: Metacognition vs. proficiency. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies 15 2 605–617.
IEEE N. Öztürk and F. Şenaydın, “Dichotomy of EFL reading: Metacognition vs. proficiency”, Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 605–617, 2019, doi: 10.17263/jlls.586757.
ISNAD Öztürk, Nesrin - Şenaydın, Ferah. “Dichotomy of EFL Reading: Metacognition Vs. Proficiency”. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies 15/2 (July 2019), 605-617. https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.586757.
JAMA Öztürk N, Şenaydın F. Dichotomy of EFL reading: Metacognition vs. proficiency. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies. 2019;15:605–617.
MLA Öztürk, Nesrin and Ferah Şenaydın. “Dichotomy of EFL Reading: Metacognition Vs. Proficiency”. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, vol. 15, no. 2, 2019, pp. 605-17, doi:10.17263/jlls.586757.
Vancouver Öztürk N, Şenaydın F. Dichotomy of EFL reading: Metacognition vs. proficiency. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies. 2019;15(2):605-17.