Cognitive and Metacognitive Strategies Used by Good Readers and Students with Learning Disabilities to Understand a Text

Year 2019, Volume: 27 Issue: 2, 669 - 681, 15.03.2019

Tahsin Fırat , Duygu Koçak

https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.2672

Cited By: 8

Abstract

In this study, cognitive and metacognitive strategies used by good readers and students with learning disabilities in reading process were investigated comparatively.  The study was conducted with eight students with learning disabilities, and with eight good readers continuing on the 6th, 7th, and 8th grades. Focus group interview was held to determine the strategies and behaviors the students used before, during and after the reading. The data were analyzed by using content analysis technique. Evidence was found that good readers used many strategies before, during and after reading to understand the text, while students with learning disabilites used very few strategies. 

Keywords

Cognitive and metacognitive strategy , good readers , learning disability

Başarılı Okuyucular ile Öğrenme Güçlüğü Olan Öğrencilerin Metni Anlamak için Kullandıkları Bilişsel ve Üstbilişsel Stratejiler

Abstract

Bu araştırmada, başarılı okuyucular ile öğrenme güçlüğü olan öğrencilerin okuma sürecinde kullanmış oldukları bilişsel ve üstbilişsel stratejiler karşılaştırmalı olarak incelenmiştir. Araştırma, 6.,7., ve 8. Sınıfa devam eden sekiz başarılı okuyucu ve sekiz öğrenme güçlüğü tanısı almış öğrenci ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Öğrencilerin okuma öncesi, sırası ve sonrası kullandığı stratejileri ve davranışları belirlemek amacıyla odak grup görüşmesi yapılmıştır. Elde edilen veriler, içerik analizi yapılarak yorumlanmıştır. Araştırma sonucunda başarılı okuyucuların metni anlamak için okuma öncesi, sırası ve sonrası birçok strateji kullandıkları belirlenirken, öğrenme güçlüğü olan öğrencilerin çok az strateji kullandığı tespit edilmiştir. 

Keywords

Başarılı okuyucular , bilişsel ve üstbilişsel strateji , öğrenme güçlüğü

References

• Anastasiou, D., & Griva, E. (2009). Awareness of reading strategy use and reading comprehension among poor and good readers. İlköğretim Online, 8(2), 283-297.
• Arya, P. (1998). The effects of varying text length on the oral reading miscues of good and poor readers in grade two (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9905239)
• Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: an introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
• Botsas, G., & Padeliadu, S. (2003). Goal orientation and reading comprehension strategy use among students with and without reading difficulties. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(4), 477-495.
• Buxton, J. A. (2017). An investigation of the relationships among high school students’ reading comprehension strategy instruction, strategy use, attitudes, and achievement (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 10686076)
• Durkin, D. (1993). Teaching them to read (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
• Edmonds MS, Vaughn S, Wexler J, Reutebuch CK, Cable A, Tackett K, et al. A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of Educational Research. 2009;79(1):262–300.
• Ehrlich, M. F., Kurtz-Costes, B., & Loridant, C. (1993). Cognitive and motivational determinants of reading comprehension in good and poor readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25(4), 365-381.
• Espinoza, M. F., & Márquez Cruz, S. D. (2015). The teaching strategies in the Teaching-Learning proccess of reading skill in eleventh grade, Doctoral dissertation, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Nicaragua, Managua.
• Fırat, T. (2017). Okuma öncesinde, sırasında ve sonrasında düşün (3D) stratejisi öğretiminin öğrenme güçlüğü olan öğrencilerin okuduklarını anlama becerilerine etkisi. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi, Ankara.
• Ford, M. P., & Opitz, M. F. (2011). Looking back to move forward with guided reading. Reading Horizons, 50(4), 225-240.
• Gaddy, S.A. (2004). Teaching text-structure strategies to postsecondary students with learning dısabilities to compare their reading comprehension performance on expository text (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3196666)
• Gelen, İ. (2003). Bilişsel farkındalık stratejilerinin Türkçe dersine ilişkin tutum, okuduğunu anlama ve kalıcılığa etkisi. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Çukurova Üniversitesi. Adana.
• Gersten, R., Williams, J. P., Fuchs, L., Baker, S., Koppenhaver, D., Spadorcia, S., & Harrison, M. (1998). Improving reading comprehension for children with disabilities: A review of research. Final report. Washington, DC: Special Education Programs (SD/OSERS).
• Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71(2), 279-320.
• Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (1999). How motivation fits into a science of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3(3), 199-205.
• Guthrie, J. T., Hoa, A. L. W., Wigfield, A., Tonks, S. M., Humenick, N. M., & Littles, E. (2007). Reading motivation and reading comprehension growth in the later elementary years. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 282–313.
• Güldenoğlu, B., Kargin, T., ve Miller, P. (2013). Okuma güçlüğü olan ve olmayan öğrencilerin cümle anlama becerilerinin incelenmesi. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 30(76), 82.
• Hallahan, D.P., Kauffman, J.M., & Lloyd, J.W. (1996). Introduction to learning disabilities. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
• Hummel, S. (2000). Developing comprehension skills of secondary students with specific learning difficulties. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 5(4), 22-27.
• Jitendra, A. K., Hoppes, M.K., & Xin, Y. P. (2000). Enhancing main idea comprehension for students with learning problems: The role of a summarization strategy and self-monitoring instruction. The Journal of Special Education, 34(3), 127-139.
• Johnson, S. D. (1997). Examining the validity structure of qualitative research. Education. 118(3), 282-292.
• Kavale, K., & Schreiner, R. (1979). The reading processes of above average and average readers: A comparison of the use of reasoning strategies in responding to standardized comprehension measures. Reading Research Quarterly, 15(1), 102-128.
• Kendeou, P., & van den Broek, P. (2007). The effects of prior knowledge and text structure on comprehension processes during reading of scientific texts. Memory and Cognition, 35(7), 1567-1577.
• Kitzinger, J. & Farquhar, C. (1999). The analytical potential of ‘sensitive moments’ in focus group discussions. In R. Barbour & J. Kitzinger (Eds), Developing focus group research: Politics, theory and practice (pp. 156–172). London: SAGE.
• Kletzien, S. B. (1991). Strategy use by good and poor comprehenders reading expository text of differing levels. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 67-86.
• Klingner, J.K., & Vaughn, S. (2004). Strategies for struggling second-language readers. In T.L. Jetton & J.A. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research and practice (pp. 183–209). New York: Guilford.
• Kuruyer, H. G., & Özsoy, G. (2015). İyi ve zayıf okuyucuların üstbilişsel okuma becerilerinin incelenmesi: Bir durum çalışması. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 24(2), 771-788.
• Lau, K. L. (2006). Reading strategy use between Chinese good and poor readers: A think‐aloud study. Journal of Research in Reading, 29(4), 383-399.
• Lau, K. L., & Chan, D. W. (2003). Reading strategy use and motivation among Chinese good and poor readers in Hong Kong. Journal of Research in Reading, 26(2), 177-190.
• León, J. A., & Carretero, M. (1995). Intervention in comprehension and memory strategies: Knowledge and use of text structure. Learning and instruction, 5(3), 203-220.
• Livingston, J. A. (2003) Metacognition: An overview. Retrieved January 20.01.2018, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED474273.pdf
• Mahdavi, J. N., & Tensfeldt, L. (2013). Untangling reading comprehension strategy instruction: Assisting struggling readers in the primary grades. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 57(2), 77-92.
• Maine, F. (2013). How children talk together to make meaning from texts: A dialogic perspective on reading comprehension strategies. Literacy, 47(3), 150-156.
• Mason, L. H. (2004). Explicit self-regulated strategy developmentversus reciprocal questioning: Effect on informational reading comprehension among struggling readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 283–296.
• Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Graetz, J. E. (2003). Reading comprehension instruction for secondary students: Challenges for struggling students and their teachers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 103–116.
• McNamara, D. S., Ozuru, Y., Best R., & O’Reilly, T. (2012). Pronged comprension strategy framework. McNamara, D. S. (Ed.). Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 465–496). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: Asourcebook of new methods. California;SAGE Publications.
• Oakhill, J., Hartt, J., & Samols, D. (2005). Levels of comprehension monitoring and working memory in good and poor comprehenders. Reading and Writing, 18, 657–86.
• Pressley, M. (2002). Metacognition and self-regulated comprehension. What Research Has to Say About Reading Instruction, 3, 291-309.
• Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Routledge.
• Pressley, M., & Gaskins, I. (2006). Metacognitively competent reading comprehension is constructively responsive reading: How can such reading be developed in students? Metacognition Learning, 1(1), 99-113
• Swanson, H. L. ( 1999). Reading research for students with ld: A meta-analysis of intervention outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 504-532.
• Swanson, E. A., & Vaughn, S. (2010). An observation study of reading instruction provided to elementary students with learning disabilities in the resource room. Psychology in the Schools, 47(5), 481-492.
• Tannenbaum, K. R., Torgesen, J. K., & Wagner, R. K. (2006). Relationships between word knowledge and reading comprehension in third-grade children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(4), 381-398.
• Taboada, A., Tonks, S. M., Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (2009). Effects of motivational and cognitive variables on reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 22(1), 85-106.
• Tilstra, J. S. (2007). What good and struggling 5th grade readers do when reading expository text for a specific purpose: Implications for ıntervention (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3263144)
• Torgesen, J. K. (1982). The learning disabled child as an inactive learner: Educational implications. Topics in Learningand Learning Disabilities, 2(1), 45–52.
• Wigent, C. (2013). High school readers: A profile of above average readers and readers with learning disabilities reading expository text. Learning and Individual Differences, 25, 134–140.
• Yıldırım A., & Şimşek H. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.