ÜSTBİLİŞİN ULUSAL OKUMA ÖĞRETİM PROGRAMINDAKİ YERİ

Year 2022, Volume: 51 Issue: 233, 837 - 861, 15.02.2022

Nesrin Ozturk

https://doi.org/10.37669/milliegitim.792872

Abstract

Öz: Alan araştırmaları, üstbilişin kelime hazinesi, okuma bilinci, okuma becerileri, okuduğunu anlama, performans ve öğrenme sorumluluğu üzerinde olumlu etkileri olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Fakat, araştırma ve normal sınıflardaki gerçekler benzer değildir; normal sınıflardaki öğrenciler, üstbilişsel yeterliliklere sahip olmayabilir ve uygulamadaki öğretim programları bu sorunun nedenlerinden biri olabilir. Bu bağlamda, İlkokul ve Ortaokul Türkçe Programı’nda üstbilişin yerini ve ağırlığını belirlemek amacıyla, okuma kazanımları doküman analizi ve tümden gelimsel tematik kodlama yoluyla incelenmiştir. Bulgular, ulusal programdaki okuma kazanımlarının üstbilişi tanıdığını ve öğrencilerin üstbilişsel yeterliklerini sınırlı ölçüde geliştirmelerine yardımcı olabileceğini ortaya koymuştur. Bu kazanımlar, öğrencilerin metin yapısı, türü, mekanik ve dil kullanımı bağlamında üstbilişsel bilgileri geliştirebilir ve bu kazanımlar öğrencilerin sınırlı sayıda planlama, düzenleme ve okuma-anlama ile değerlendirme becerilerini kazanmalarına yardımcı olabilir. Kazanımlar bağlamında oluşturulabilecek üstbilişsel deneyimler, öğrencilere üstbilişsel bilgiyi geliştirme, stratejileri düzenlenme ve öz değerlendirme yapma fırsatları sağlayabilir. Okuma kazanımları, öğrencilerin okuma, okuyucu olarak birey, stratejiler ve okuma görevleri hakkında üstbilişsel bilgilerini geliştirecek ve okuma süreci, stratejilerin etkililiği, okuma ürünleri, görev veya hedeflerle ilgili öz değerlendirme yapmalarını sağlayacak şekilde revize edilmelidir. Ayrıca, kazanımların hayata geçirilmesini mümkün kılacak öğretmenler düşünüldüğünde, öğretmen eğitimi programlarının üstbiliş öğretimini hedef alan seçmeli derslere yer vermesi önemlidir.

Keywords

üstbiliş, okuma,, ilkokul,, ortaokul,, öğretim programı, okuma kazanımları

PLACE OF METACOGNITION IN THE TURKISH NATIONAL CURRICULUM OF READING

Abstract

Abstract: Metacognition research has provided evidence for its beneficiary impacts on vocabulary, reading awareness, skills, comprehension, performance, and responsibility for learning. However, the realties between research and mainstream classrooms are not similar; students in mainstream classrooms may suffer from deficiency of metacognitive competencies for various reasons. The curriculum might be a potential reason for this problem. Therefore, via document analysis and thematic deductive coding, the national curriculum of Turkish language, specifically reading standards, were analysed to identify the place and weight of metacognition in this specific context. The analysis revealed that reading standards recognize metacognition and might help students develop metacognitive competencies to a limited extend. In its current form, standards can develop students’ metacognitive knowledge about text structures, genre, mechanics, and language use and they can also help students’ practice few planning strategies, couple of fix-up and/or comprehension strategies, and comprehension evaluation. Metacognitive experiences may provide students with opportunities to supplement limited metacognitive knowledge, regulation of strategies, and doing self-assessment by reasoning and/or critical thinking. It is important to revise the standards to include metacognitive knowledge about reading, self, strategies, and task and to have students practice self-assessment of reading process, effectiveness of strategies, reading products, and task completion or goal-achievement. It is also important for teacher education programs to include at least, elective classes for teaching metacognition, therefore, such standards can be realized, effectively.

Keywords

Metacognition, reading, elementary school, middle school, curriculum, reading standards

References

• Afflerbach, P., & Meuwissen, K. (2005). Teaching and learning self-assessment strategies in middle school. In S. E. Israel, C. Collins
• Block, K. L. Bauserman, & K. Kinnucan-Welsch (Eds.), Metacognition in literacy learning: Theory, assessment, instruction, and professional development (pp. 141–164). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Anastasiou, D., & Griva, E. (2009). Awareness of reading strategy use and reading comprehension among poor and good readers. Elementary Education Online, 8(2), 283–297.
• Baker, L. (2017). The development of metacognitive knowledge and control of comprehension: Contributors and consequences. In K. Mokhtari (Ed.), Improving reading comprehension through metacognitive reading strategies instruction (pp. 1–31). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
• Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984a). Cognitive monitoring in reading. In J. Flood (Ed.), Understanding reading comprehension (pp. 21–44). International Reading Association.
• Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984b). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, J. L. Kamil, & P. Rosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 1, pp. 353–394). New York: Longman.
• Bolhuis, S., & Voeten, M. J. . (2001). Toward self-directed learning in secondary schools: What do teachers do? Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 837–855.
• Book, C., Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., Meloth, M. S., & Vavrus, L. G. (1985). A study of the relationship between teacher explanation and student metacognitive awareness during reading instruction. Communication Education, 34, 29–36.
• 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.
• Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
• Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (Expanded). Washington DC: National Academy.
• Carroll, M. (2008). Metacognition in the classroom. In J. Dunlosky & R. A. Bjork (Eds.), Handbook of metamemory and memory (pp. 411–427). New York: Psychology Press.
• 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
• 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.
• Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., Sivan, E., Rackliffe, G., Book, C., Meloth, M. S., … Bassiri, D. (1987). Effects of explaining the reasoning associated with using reading strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(3), 347–368.
• Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2008). Effective practices of developing reading comprehension. Theory, Research, Reflection on Teaching and Learning, 189(1/2), 107–122.
• Fisher, R. (2002). Shared thinking: Metacognitive modelling in the literacy hour. Reading, 36(2), 63–67.
• Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.
• Garner, R. (1981). Monitoring of passage inconsistency among poor comprehenders: A preliminary test of the “piecemeal processing” explanation. The Journal of Educational Research, 74(3), 159–162.
• Gourgey, A. F. (1998). Metacognition in basic skills instruction. Instructional Science, 26, 81–96.
• Gourgey, A. F. (2001). Metacognition in basic skills instruction. In H. J. Hartman (Ed.), Metacognition in learning and instruction: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 17–32). Boston: Kluwer.
• Hartman, H. J. (2001). Developing students’ meatcognitive knowledge and skills. In H. J. Hartman (Ed.), Metacognition in learning and instruction: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 33–68). Boston: Kluwer.
• Jacobs, J. E., & Paris, S. G. (1987). Children’s metacognition about reading: Issues in definition, measurement, and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22(3), 255–278.
• Kerndl & Aberšek, M. K. (2012). Teachers’ competence for developing reader’s reception metacognition. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 46(1979), 52–61.
• Lai, E. R. (2011). Metacognition: A Literature review (Research report). New York, NY:Pearson. Retrieved from http://www.datec.org.uk/CHAT/chatmeta1.htm
• Long, J. D., & Long, E. W. (1987). Enhancing student achievement through metacomprehension training. Journal of Developmental Education, 11(1), 2–5.
• Ministry of National Education. (2019). Curriculum of Turkish Language. Retrieved from http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=663
• Myers, M., & Paris, S. G. (1978). Children’s metacognitive knowledge about reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(5), 680–690.
• Ozturk, N. (2015). A short review of research on metacognition training. Journal of Educational and Instructional Studies in the World, 5 (3), 50–62.
• Ozturk, N. (2017a). An analysis of teachers’ self-reported competencies for teaching metacognition. Educational Studies, Advence online publication.
• Ozturk, N. (2017b). Identifying the nature of metacognition instruction in reading classrooms (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland.
• Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.
• Papleontiou-louca, E. (2003). The concept and instruction of metacognition. Teacher Development, 7(1), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530300200184
• Paris, S. G., Cross, D. R., & Lipson, M. Y. (1984). Informed strategies for learning: A program to improve children’s reading awareness and comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(6), 1239–1252.
• Paris, Scott G, & Jacobs, J. E. (1984). The benefits of informed instruction for children’s reading awareness and comprehension skills. Child Development, 55(6), 2083–2093.
• Perry, N. E., Hutchinson, L., & Thauberger, C. (2008). Talking about teaching self-regulated learning: Scaffolding student teachers’ development and use of practices that promote self-regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 47, 97–108.
• Pintrich, P. R., Wolters, C. A., & Baxter, G. P. (2000). Assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning. In Gregory Schraw & J. C. Impara (Eds.), Assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning (pp. 43–97). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
• Pintrich, Paul R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 219–225. Pogrow, S. (2004). The missing element in reducing the learning gap: Eliminating the “blank stare.” Teachers College Record, 106(10), 11381.
• Pressley, M. (2002). Metacognition and self-regulated comprehension. In A. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 291–309). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
• Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. NJ: Routledge.
• Pressley, Michael, & Gaskins, I. W. (2006). Metacognitively competent reading comprehension is constructively responsive reading: How can such reading be developed in students? Metacognition Learning, 1, 99–113.
• Schraw, G. (2001). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. In H. J. Hartman (Ed.), Metacognition in learning and instruction: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 3–16). Boston, MA: Kluwer.
• Schraw, Gregory. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26(1), 113–125.
• Tanner, K. D. (2012). Promoting student metacognition. Cell Biology Education, 11(2), 113–120.
• Thomas, K. F., & Barksdale-ladd, M. A. (2000). Metacognitive processes: Teaching strategies in literacy education courses. Reading Psychology, 21, 67–84.
• Van Keer, H., & Vanderlinde, R. (2010). The impact of cross-age peer tutoring on third and sixth graders’ reading strategy awareness, reading strategy use, and reading comprehension. Middle Grades Research Journal, 5(1), 33–45.
• Veenman, M. V. J. (2013). Training metacognitive skills in students with availability and production deficiencies. In H. Bembenutty, T. Cleary, & A. Kitsantas (Eds.), Applications of self-regulated learning across diverse disciplines. (pp. 299–324). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
• Veenman, M. V. J. (2016). Metacognition. In P. Afflerbach (Ed.), Handbook of individual differences in reading (pp. 26–40). 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
• Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1990). What influences learning? A content analysis of review literature. The Journal of Educational Research, 84(1), 30–43.
• 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.