An Examination of Teachers' Use of Metacognitive Strategies in Supporting the Reading Comprehension Skills of Children with Learning Disabilities

Abstract

Metacognitive reading strategies are to facilitate the reading process of students, to give them the chance to monitor and control the reading process, and to regulate the reading process. While many typically developing children can gain these cognitive processes, children with learning disabilities (LD) have difficulties. They also have more limited memory than typically developing children. It is an effective method in making it easier for children with limited memory and learning difficulties to remember the information in the text and thus increasing their understanding. The most effective people in teaching metacognitive reading strategies are teachers. Teachers' knowledge level of metacognitive strategies affects the reading comprehension success of students with LD (Oslund et al., 2016). Therefore, in this study, it is aimed to examine the views of teachers on the teaching of metacognitive reading strategies to improve the reading comprehension of children with LD. The “Metacognitive Reading Strategy Usage Scale” (MRSUS) developed by Özen and Durkan (2016) was used to evaluate the teaching of metacognitive reading strategies that teachers used to improve reading comprehension. MRSUS is a tool that evaluates a set of strategies that children use before, during, and after reading. MRSUS scores of 204 teachers participating in the study were examined. Got results; presented in the findings section.

Keywords

• learning disability
• learning strategies
• teacher training
• reading difficulties
• metacognition

References

1. Anastasiou, D., & Griva, E. (2009). Awareness of reading strategy use and reading comprehension among poor and good readers. Ilkogretim Online, 8(2). https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/230030801.pdf
2. Atanga, C., Jones, B. A., Krueger, L. E., & Lu, S. (2020). Teachers of students with learning disabilities: Assistive technology knowledge, perceptions, interests, and barriers. Journal of Special Education Technology, 35(4), 236-248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643419864858
3. Başaran, M. (2013). Fluent reading as an indicator of reading comprehension. Educational Sciences in Theory and Practice, 13(4), 2277-2290.
4. Botsas, G. (2017). Differences in Strategy Use in the Reading Comprehension of Narrative and Science Texts among Students with and without Learning Disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 15(1), 139-162. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1141985
5. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç-Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2008). Scientific Research Methods.
6. Cunningham, A., & Zibulsky, J. (2009). Introduction to the special issue about perspectives on teachers’ disciplinary knowledge of reading processes, development, and pedagogy. Reading and Writing, 22(4), 375-378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9161-2
7. Daly, E. J., Neugebauer, S., Chafouleas, S. M., & Skinner, C. H. (2015). Interventions for reading problems: Designing and evaluating effective strategies. Guilford Publications.
8. Durkin, D. (1993). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension instruction. Reading research quarterly, 481-533. https://www.jstor.org/stable/747260

9. Edmonds, M. S., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Reutebuch, C., Cable, A., Tackett, K. K., & Schnakenberg, J. W. (2009). A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading comprehension outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of educational research, 79(1), 262-300. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325998
10. Ergül, C., Akoğlu, G., SARICA, A., Tufan, M., & Karaman, G. (2015). Examination of reading together activities in kindergartens in the context of "interactive book reading". Mersin University Journal of Education Faculty, 11(3).
11. Ergül, C., Karaman, G., Akoğlu, G., Tufan, M., Dolunay Sarıca, A., & Bahap Kudret, Z. (2014). Knowledge Levels of Preschool Teachers on the Concept of "Early Literacy" and Classroom Practices. Primary Education Online, 13(4).
12. Gajria, M., Jitendra, A. K., Sood, S., & Sacks, G. (2007). Improving comprehension of expository text in students with LD: A research synthesis. Journal of learning disabilities, 40(3), 210-225. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194070400030301
13. Gardill, M. C., & Jitendra, A. K. (1999). Advanced story map instruction: Effects on the reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 33(1), 2-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246699903300101
14. 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. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543071002279
15. Hagaman, J. L., Casey, K. J., & Reid, R. (2012). The effects of the paraphrasing strategy on the reading comprehension of young students. Remedial and Special Education, 33(2), 110-123. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932510364548
16. Honig, B., Diamond, L., Gutlohn, L., Fertig, B., Daniel, H., Zemelman, S., & Steineke, N. (2008). Teaching reading sourcebook (Vol. 3, No. 2, p. 1). Arena Press; 2nd edition (April 15, 2008).
17. Kana, F. (2014). Ortaokul öğrencilerinin üstbiliş okuma stratejileri farkındalık düzeyleri. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 16(1), 100-121.
18. Kim, W., Linan‐Thompson, S., & Misquitta, R. (2012). Critical factors in reading comprehension instruction for students with learning disabilities: A research synthesis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27(2), 66-78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2012.00352.x
19. Klingner, D., Llorens, J. J., & Nalbandian, J. (2015). Public personnel management. Routledge.
20. Konza, D. (2006). Teaching children with reading difficulties.
21. Kutlu, Ö., & Çok, F. (2002). Development of Sexual Knowledge Test Based on Sex Education Program. Education and Science, 27(123).
22. Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Graetz, J. E. (2003). Reading comprehension instruction for secondary students: Challenges for struggling students and teachers. Learning disability quarterly, 26(2), 103-116. https://doi.org/10.2307/1593593
23. McFarland, J., Hussar, B., De Brey, C., Snyder, T., Wang, X., Wilkinson-Flicker, S., ... & Hinz, S. (2017). The Condition of Education 2017. NCES 2017-144. National Center for Education Statistics. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED574257
24. McGee, L. M., & Richgels, D. J. (2003). Designing early literacy programs: Strategies for at-risk preschool and kindergarten children. Guilford Publications, 72 Spring Street, New York, NY 10012.
25. Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students' metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of educational psychology, 94(2), 249. https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2002-13338-002
26. Moothedath, S., & Vranda, M. N. (2015). Knowledge of primary school teachers in identifying children with learning disabilities. Disability, CBR & Inclusive Development, 26(3), 68-76. https://doi.org/10.5463/DCID.v26i3.443
27. National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities [ NJCLD]. (2008). Professional development for teachers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 23, 2-6.
28. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [ OECD] (2019). https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/development/development-co-operation-report-2019_9a58c83f-en
29. Oslund, E. L., Clemens, N. H., Simmons, D. C., Smith, S. L., & Simmons, L. E. (2016). How vocabulary knowledge of middle-school students from low socioeconomic backgrounds influences comprehension processes and outcomes. Learning and Individual Differences, 45, 159-165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.11.013
30. Özen, F., & Durkan, E. (2016). Developing the Scale of Using Metacognitive Reading Strategies, A Validity and Reliability Study. Electronic Turkish Studies, 11(14). Öztürk, E. (2012). The Validity and Reliability Study of the Turkish Version of the Reading Strategies Metacognitive Awareness Inventory. Primary Education Online, 11(2), 292-305.,
31. Palladino, P., Cornoldi, C., De Beni, R., & Pazzaglia, F. (2001). Working memory and updating processes in reading comprehension. Memory & cognition, 29(2), 344-354. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194929
32. Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory into practice, 41(4), 219-225. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_3
33. Roberts, C. A., Leko, M. M., & Wilkerson, K. L. (2013). New directions in reading instruction for adolescents with significant cognitive disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 34(5), 305-317. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932513485447
34. Sencibaugh, J. M. (2008). A synthesis of content enhancement strategies for teaching students with reading difficulties at the middle and secondary level. Reading Improvement, 45(2), 84-99.
35. Sulak, S. E., & Behriz, A. (2018). Examining primary school teachers’ metacognitive reading strategies use levels for their students in Turkish lessons). Ordu University Journal of Social Sciences Research (ODÜSOBİAD), 8(2), 393-407.
36. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20484
37. Tabachnick, B.G, & Fideli, L.S.(2001). Using Multivariate Statistics (FourthEdition). Boston: Ally And Bacon.
38. Talbott, E., Lloyd, J. W., & Tankersley, M. (1994). Effects of reading comprehension interventions for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 17(3), 223-232. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511075
39. Tarchi, C. (2015). Fostering reading comprehension of expository texts through the activation of readers’ prior knowledge and inference-making skills. International Journal of Educational Research, 72, 80-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2015.04.013
40. Temizkan, M. (2008). The effect of cognitive reading strategies on reading comprehension of knowledge-based texts in Turkish lessons. Gazi University Journal of Gazi Education Faculty, 28(2), 129–148.
41. Van Den Bos, K. P., Brand-Gruwell, S., & Aarnoutse, C. A. J. (1998). Text copmrehension strategy instruction with poor readers. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 10, 471- 498. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007976225000
42. Van Keer, H., & Verhaeghe, J. P. (2005). Comparing two teacher development programs for innovating reading comprehension instruction with regard to teachers’ experiences and student outcomes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 543-562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.03.002
43. Wake, D., & Whittingham, J. (2013). Teacher candidates’ perceptions of technology supported literacy practices. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 13(3), 175-206. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/42101/.
44. Westbrook, J., Sutherland, J., Oakhill, J., & Sullivan, S. (2019). ‘Just reading’: the impact of a faster pace of reading narratives on the comprehension of poorer adolescent readers in English classrooms. Literacy, 53(2), 60-68. https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12141
45. Wigent, C. A. (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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.03.011