Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Readers Typology: Can Poor Readers Advance to Good Readers?

Yıl 2020, , 46 - 55, 31.12.2020
https://doi.org/10.17985/ijare.800247

Öz

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.

Kaynakça

  • 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
  • Brown, A. L., Bransford J. D., Ferrara R. A., & Campione J. C. (1982). Learning, Remembering, and Understanding. Technical Report No. 244.
  • 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.
  • Chamot, A. U. (1999). The learning strategies handbook. White Plains, NY: Longman.
  • Cohen, A. D. (1995). Second language learning and use strategies: Clarifying the Issues. Research Report. Revised Version. Minnesota.
  • Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Ellis, R. (2015). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford. Oxford University Press.
  • 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.
  • Garner, R. & Alexander, P. (1989). Metacognition: Answered and Unanswered Questions. Educational Psychologist, 24 (2), 143-158. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2402_2.
  • Grenfell, M., & Harris, V. (1999). Modern Languages and learning strategies: In Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.
  • Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2013). Comprehension at the core. Reading Teacher, 66 (6), 432, 439. doi:10.1002/TRTR.1145.
  • 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.
  • Keene, E. O., & Zimmermann, S. (2013). Years later, comprehension strategies still at work. The Reading Teacher, 66 (8), 601-606.
  • 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.
  • Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (2000). The natural approach: language acquisition in the classroom. England: Longman.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • McDonough, J., Shaw, C., & Masuhara, H. (2013). Materials and methods in ELT: A teacher’s guide (3rd ed.). West Sussex, UK: Wiley & Blackwell.
  • Merriam, S. B. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  • O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press.
  • 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.
  • Schoenbach, R., Greenleaf, C., & Murphy, L. (2012). Reading for understanding: How reading apprenticeship improves disciplinary learning in secondary and college classrooms. John Wiley & Sons.
  • Snow, C. E., (2002). Reading for Understanding: Toward an R&D Program in Reading Comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
  • Soars, L., & Soars, J. (2011). New headway elementary, fourth edition materials. UK: Oxford University Press.
  • 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.
  • Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1983). The Teaching of Learning Strategies. In Innovation abstracts. 1983. p. n32.
  • Yaylı, D. (2010). A think-aloud study: Cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies of ELT Department students. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 38, 234-251.
  • Zhang, L. (2018). Metacognitive and cognitive strategy use in reading comprehension. Springer.
Yıl 2020, , 46 - 55, 31.12.2020
https://doi.org/10.17985/ijare.800247

Öz

Kaynakça

  • 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
  • Brown, A. L., Bransford J. D., Ferrara R. A., & Campione J. C. (1982). Learning, Remembering, and Understanding. Technical Report No. 244.
  • 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.
  • Chamot, A. U. (1999). The learning strategies handbook. White Plains, NY: Longman.
  • Cohen, A. D. (1995). Second language learning and use strategies: Clarifying the Issues. Research Report. Revised Version. Minnesota.
  • Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Ellis, R. (2015). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford. Oxford University Press.
  • 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.
  • Garner, R. & Alexander, P. (1989). Metacognition: Answered and Unanswered Questions. Educational Psychologist, 24 (2), 143-158. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2402_2.
  • Grenfell, M., & Harris, V. (1999). Modern Languages and learning strategies: In Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.
  • Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2013). Comprehension at the core. Reading Teacher, 66 (6), 432, 439. doi:10.1002/TRTR.1145.
  • 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.
  • Keene, E. O., & Zimmermann, S. (2013). Years later, comprehension strategies still at work. The Reading Teacher, 66 (8), 601-606.
  • 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.
  • Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (2000). The natural approach: language acquisition in the classroom. England: Longman.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • McDonough, J., Shaw, C., & Masuhara, H. (2013). Materials and methods in ELT: A teacher’s guide (3rd ed.). West Sussex, UK: Wiley & Blackwell.
  • Merriam, S. B. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  • O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press.
  • 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.
  • Schoenbach, R., Greenleaf, C., & Murphy, L. (2012). Reading for understanding: How reading apprenticeship improves disciplinary learning in secondary and college classrooms. John Wiley & Sons.
  • Snow, C. E., (2002). Reading for Understanding: Toward an R&D Program in Reading Comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
  • Soars, L., & Soars, J. (2011). New headway elementary, fourth edition materials. UK: Oxford University Press.
  • 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.
  • Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1983). The Teaching of Learning Strategies. In Innovation abstracts. 1983. p. n32.
  • Yaylı, D. (2010). A think-aloud study: Cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies of ELT Department students. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 38, 234-251.
  • Zhang, L. (2018). Metacognitive and cognitive strategy use in reading comprehension. Springer.
Toplam 29 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Sevim Kutlutürk 0000-0003-4653-8984

Yayımlanma Tarihi 31 Aralık 2020
Gönderilme Tarihi 25 Eylül 2020
Kabul Tarihi 5 Aralık 2020
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2020

Kaynak Göster

APA Kutlutürk, S. (2020). Readers Typology: Can Poor Readers Advance to Good Readers?. International Journal of Academic Research in Education, 6(1), 46-55. https://doi.org/10.17985/ijare.800247
AMA Kutlutürk S. Readers Typology: Can Poor Readers Advance to Good Readers?. IJARE. Aralık 2020;6(1):46-55. doi:10.17985/ijare.800247
Chicago Kutlutürk, Sevim. “Readers Typology: Can Poor Readers Advance to Good Readers?”. International Journal of Academic Research in Education 6, sy. 1 (Aralık 2020): 46-55. https://doi.org/10.17985/ijare.800247.
EndNote Kutlutürk S (01 Aralık 2020) Readers Typology: Can Poor Readers Advance to Good Readers?. International Journal of Academic Research in Education 6 1 46–55.
IEEE S. Kutlutürk, “Readers Typology: Can Poor Readers Advance to Good Readers?”, IJARE, c. 6, sy. 1, ss. 46–55, 2020, doi: 10.17985/ijare.800247.
ISNAD Kutlutürk, Sevim. “Readers Typology: Can Poor Readers Advance to Good Readers?”. International Journal of Academic Research in Education 6/1 (Aralık 2020), 46-55. https://doi.org/10.17985/ijare.800247.
JAMA Kutlutürk S. Readers Typology: Can Poor Readers Advance to Good Readers?. IJARE. 2020;6:46–55.
MLA Kutlutürk, Sevim. “Readers Typology: Can Poor Readers Advance to Good Readers?”. International Journal of Academic Research in Education, c. 6, sy. 1, 2020, ss. 46-55, doi:10.17985/ijare.800247.
Vancouver Kutlutürk S. Readers Typology: Can Poor Readers Advance to Good Readers?. IJARE. 2020;6(1):46-55.