Investigating Reading Strategy Use in EFL Environment: Instructors’ and Preparatory Class Students’ Perspectives

Abstract

This study investigated whether receiving cognitive and metacognitive reading strategy training explicitly would make a difference in the University preparatory class students’ reading comprehension. From the instructors’ aspect, the instructors’ views about and approaches to teaching reading strategies were investigated and compared to each other. 83 students and 4 instructors participated to the mix-method study. Following the Solomon-four-group design the participants were divided into 2 research and 2 comparison groups. Data collection methods were pre-post reading comprehension test, CRSUS, MRSUS, TRSUS, selfevaluation checklists, interviews and classroom observations. The results of the study show that there is no significant difference in the reading comprehension of the comparison and research groups at the end of the term. For the instructors, the results indicate that the research group instructors had tendency to use more reading strategies. The paper concluded with implications and suggestions for the future research

Keywords

• Cognitive and metacognitive reading strategy use
• reading strategy training
• EFT
• reading

Investigating Reading Strategy Use in EFL Environment: Instructors and Preparatory Class Students’ Perspectives

Abstract

Performans Faktörlerinin Olası Nedenlerini Belirlemek için Neden Analizi Ölçeğinin (NAÖ) Geliştirilmesi: Olay Yeri İnceleme Müdürlükleri Örneği. Bu çalışma devlet kurumları tarafından olası
performans faktörlerinin belirlenmesi amacıyla kullanılabilecek Neden Analizi Ölçeğinin (NAÖ) geliştirme ve doğrulama süreçlerini açıklamaktadır. Çalışmanın ilk aşamasında 315 Olay Yeri İnceleme ve Kimlik Tespit Müdürlüğü’nde görevli polis memurlarından toplanan veriler ölçeğin geçerliliğini ve güvenirliğini gösteren bulguları sağlamıştır. Açıklayıcı faktör analizi sonucunda üç faktör ortaya çıkmıştır: işyeri, yeterlilik ve iş değeri. 25 maddelik Neden Analizi Ölçeği’nin (NAÖ) faktörel yapısını doğrulamak amacıyla 1176 polis memurundan veri toplanmıştır. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi sonuçları üç faktörlü yapının yüksek uyum indeksleriyle iyi bir uyum gösterdiği doğrulanmıştır. Gelecekte yapılabilecek doğrulama çalışmaları sonrasında NAÖ; araştırmacılar, uygulayıcılar ve ilgili kişiler için hem teorik hem de uygulamalı bakış açısı bağlamında performans faktörlerinin belirlenmesinde tanısal bir ölçek olarak kullanılabilecektir. 

Keywords

• Bilişsel ve üstbilişsel okuma stratejisi kullanımı
• okuma stratejisi eğitimi
• İngilizce’nin Yabancı Dil olarak Öğretimi
• okuma becerisi

References

1. Barnett, M. (1988). Reading through context: How real and perceived strategy use affects L2 comprehension. Modern Language Journal, 72, 150-162.
2. Berkowitz, E., & Cicchelli, T. (2004). Metacognitive strategy use in reading of gifted high achieving and gifted underachieving middle school students in New York City. Education & Urban Society, 37 (1), 37-57.
3. Block, E. L. (1992). See how they read: Comprehension monitoring of L1 and L2 Readers. TESOL Quarterly, 26 (03), 319-341.
4. Carrell, P. L., Pharis, B. G., & Liberto, J. C. (1988). Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. Carrell, P. L., Pharis, B. G., & Liberto, J. C. (1989). Metacognitive strategy training for ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 23 (4), 647-678.
6. Çubukçu, F. (2008). Enhancing vocabulary development and reading comprehension through metacognitive strategies. Issues in Educational Research, 18 (1), 1-11.
7. Dubin, F., & Bycina, D. (1991). Academic Reading and the ESL/EFL Teacher, M. Celce- Murcia (ed.), 195-218.
8. Ellis Ormrod, J. (2006). Educational psychology: Developing learners (5th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson.

9. Gü̈ral, M. M. (2000). The role of teaching cognitive and metacognitive strategies in developing reading comprehension skills of foreign language learners. Unpublished master’s thesis. University of Hacettepe. Ankara, Turkey.
10. Hosenfeld, C., Arnold, V., Kirchofer, J., Laciura, J., & Wilson, L. (1981). Second language reading: A curricular sequence for teaching reading strategies. Foreign Language Annals, 14, 415-422.
11. Jager, B. (2002). Teaching reading comprehension: The effects of direct Instruction and cognitive apprenticeship on comprehension skills and metacognition. Retrieved November 4, 2011,
12. from http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/faculties/ppsw/2002/b.de.jager/
13. Kamhi-Stein Lia D. (2003). Reading in two languages: How attitudes toward home language and beliefs about reading affect the behaviors of ‘underprepared’ L2 college readers. TESOL Quarterly, 37 (1), 35-71.
14. Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2004). Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94 (2), 249-259.
15. National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (Expanded ed.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
16. Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
17. Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New York: Newbury House Publishers.
18. 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, 75-92.
19. Pereira-Laird, J.A., & Deane, F.P. (1997). Development and validation of a self-report measure of reading strategy use. Reading Psychology, 18 (3), 185-235.
20. Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
21. Richards, J. C., & Renanadya, W. A. (2002). Methodology in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22. Salatacı, R., & Akyel, A. (2002). Possible effects of strategy instruction on L1 and L2 reading. Reading in a http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/rfl/April2002/salataci/salataci.html 14/1. Retrieved November 6, 2011, from
23. Sallı, A. (2002). Teachers’ perceptions of strategy training in reading instruction. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. The Department of Teaching English as a Foreign Language, the Institute of Economics and Social Sciences of Bilkent University. Ankara, Turkey. Retrieved November 12, 2012 http://www.thesis.bilkent.edu.tr/0002071.pdf
24. Sayram, C. (1994). Effects of a combined metacognitive strategy training on university EFL students comprehension and retention of academic reading texts. Unpublished master’s thesis. The Institute of Social Science. University of Bilkent. Ankara, Turkey.
25. Susser, B., & Robb, T. N. (1990). EFL extensive reading instruction: Research and procedure. JALT Journal, su.ac.jp/~trobb/sussrobb.html November 13, 2011, from http://www.kyoto
26. Taraban, R., Rynearson, K., & Kerr, M.S. (2004). Analytic and Pragmatic Factors in College Students’ Metacognitive Reading Strategies. Reading Psychology, 25(2), 67-81.
27. Tuncer, U. (2011). The Adaptation and Development of “Metacognitive Reading Strategies Questionnaire” and “Reading Strategy Use Scale” for Turkish Learners Learning English as a Foreign Language. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. The Institute of Education Science. English Language Teaching Department. University of Mersin. Mersin, Turkey.
28. Tunçman, N. (1994). Effects of training preparatory school EFL students at Middle East Technical University in a metacognitive strategy for reading academic texts. Unpublished master’s thesis. The Institute of Social Science. University of Bilkent. Ankara, Turkey.
29. Wade, S. E. (1990). Using think alouds to assess comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 43 (7), 442-451.
30. Yiğiter K., Sarıçoban A. & Gürses T. (2005). Reading strategies employed by ELT learners at the advanced level. The Reading Matrix, 5 (1), 124-139.
31. Retrieved November 12, 2011, from http:www.readingmatrix.com/articles/saricoban/article2.pdf
32. Yurdaışık, A. (2007). Teachers’ Views about and Approaches to Reading Instruction and Reading Strategies. Unpublished masters’ thesis. The Institute of Social Science. English Language Teaching Department. University of Çukurova. Adana, Turkey.