Awareness of reading strategy use and reading comprehension among poor and good readers

Öz

The present study was designed to explore the primary school students’ awareness of reading strategies and to identify possible differences between poor and good readers, in terms of frequency and efficiency. Furthermore, it aimed at exploring the relation between reading strategy awareness and reading comprehension. Eighteen poor readers and eighteen good readers, aged between 11 and 12, which were selected from a total of 201 sixth grade students, participated in the study. The study was conducted by using retrospective interviews as the basic instrument, in combination with reading test scores. Both groups utilized a variety of cognitive strategies, though it was revealed that poor readers, on the one hand, were less aware of the more sophisticated cognitive strategies, and on the other hand they reported a limited number of metacognitive strategies in comparison with good readers. In addition, both cognitive and metacognitive strategy awareness made a unique contribution to reading comprehension, beyond and above the effects of reading accuracy and reading speed.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• reading comprehension,awareness of cognitive strategies,awareness of metacognitive strategies,poor readers

Awareness of reading strategy use and reading comprehension among poor and good readers

Öz

-

Anahtar Kelimeler

• -

Kaynakça

1. Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2. Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in L2 reading and testing. Modern Language Journal, 75, 460-472.
3. Anderson, V. (1992). A teacher development project in transactional strategy instruction for teachers of severely reading disabled adolescents. Teacher and Teacher Education, 8, 91-403.
4. Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, D. (1984). A schema-thematic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthals (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (pp. 255 - 291). New York: Longman.
5. Afflerbach, P. (1990). The influence of prior knowledge and text genre on readers’ prediction strategies. Journal of Reading Behaviour, 22, 131-148.
6. Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P. D., & Paris, S. G. (2008). Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61, 364-373.
7. Beck, I. L., Perfetti, C. A., & McKeown, M. G. (1982). Effects on long-term vocabulary instruction on lexical access and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 506-521.
8. Brown, H. D. (1987). Principles of language learning and teaching. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

9. Brown, R., Pressley, M., Van Meter, P., & Schuder, T. (1996). A quasi-experimental validation of transactional strategies instruction with low-achieving second-grade readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 18-37.
10. Camps, J. (2003). Concurrent and retrospective verbal reports as tools to better understand the role of attention in second language tasks. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13, 201-221.
11. Collins, C. (1991). Reading instruction that increases reading abilities. Journal of Reading, 34, 510-516.
12. Devine, J. (1993). The role of metacognition in second language reading and writing. In J. Carson, & I. Leki (Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom: Second language perspectives (pp. 105-121). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
13. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87, 215-251.
14. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. (1984). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.
16. Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
17. Gough, P. B. & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6-10.
18. Grabe, W. & Stoller, F. L. (2002). Teaching and researching reading. London: Longman.
19. Guthrie, J., & Wigfield, A. (1999). How motivation fits into a science of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 199–205.
20. Haynes, M. (1993). Patterns and perils of guessing in second language reading. In T. Huckin, M. Haynes, & J. Coady (Eds.), Second language reading and vocabulary learning (pp. 46-62). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
21. Jacobs, J. E., & Paris, S. G. (1987). Children’s metacognition about reading: Issues in definition, measurement, and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22, 255–27.
22. Johnston, P.H. (1983). Reading comprehension assessment: A cognitive basis. New Jersey: I.R.A.
23. Juel, C., Griffith, P. L. & Gough, P. B. (1986). Acquisition of literacy: A longitudinal study of children in first and second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 243–255.
24. Juliebö, M., Malicky, G. V., & Norman, C. (1998). Metacognition of young readers in an early intervention programme. Journal of Research in Reading, 21, 24-35.
25. Lau, K.-L. (2006). Reading strategy use between Chinese good and poor readers: a think-aloud study. Journal of Research in Reading, 29, 383-399.
26. Lau, K.-L. & Chan, D. W. (2006). Reading strategy use and motivation among Chinese good and poor readers in Hong Kong. Journal of Research in Reading, 26, 177-190.
27. Meneghetti, C., Carretti, B., & De Beni, R. (2006). Components of reading comprehension and scholastic achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 291–301.
28. Miles, M. B. & Huberman M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29. Morrison, L. (1996). Talking about words: A study of French as a second language learners’ lexical inferencing procedures. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 53(1), 41-66.
30. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
31. Nisbett, R., & Wilson, T. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231-259.
32. O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in Second Language acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
33. O’Neil, S. P. (1992). Metacognitive strategies and reading achievement among developmental students in an urban community college. Reading Horizons, 32, 316-330.
34. Palincsar, A. & Brown, A. (1987). Enhancing instructional time through attention to metacognition. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 67-75.
35. Paris, S. C., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 293-316.
36. Paris, S. C., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1994). Becoming a strategic reader. In R. Rudell, M. R. Rudell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed.) (pp. 788 - 810). Newark, DA: International Reading Association.
37. Paris, S., Wasik, B. A., & Turner, J. C. (1991). The development of strategic readers. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & D. Pearson, Handbook of Reading Research, Vol. 2 (pp. 609 – 640). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
38. Pereira-Laird, J. A., & Deane, F. P. (1997). Development and validation of a self-report measure of reading strategy use. Reading Psychology: An International Journal, 18, 185–235.
39. Perfetti, C., & Hogaboam, T. (1975). Relationship between single word decoding and reading comprehension skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 461-469.
40. Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
41. Pressley, M. (2002). Reading instruction that really works: The case for balanced reading (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
42. Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 545–561). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
43. Rumelhart, D. E. (1994). Toward an interactive model of reading. In R. Rudell, M. R. Rudell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed.) (pp. 864 - 894). Newark, DA: International Reading Association.
44. Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26, 113-125.
45. Sindelar, P., Monda, L., O’Shea, L. (1990). Effects of repeated readings on instructional- and mastery-level readers. Journal of Educational Research, 83, 220-226.
46. Sweet, A. P. & Snow, C. (2002). Reconceptualizing reading comprehension. In C. C. Block, L. B. Gambrell, M. Pressley (Eds.), Improving comprehension instruction (pp. 17-53). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
47. Tan, A., & Nicholson, ^. (1998). Flashcards revised: Training poor readers to read words faster improves their comprehension of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 276-288.
48. Triga, A. K. (2004). ���� ������������ ��������. [Test of reading ability]. Athens: Atrapos.
49. Van Dijk, T. A. & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. NY: Academic Press.
50. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182.
51. Veenman, & Van Hout-Wolters, B., H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition Learning, 1, 3–14.
52. Veenman, M. V. J., & Beishuizen, J. J. (2004). Intellectual and metacognitive skills of novices while studying texts under conditions of text difficulty and time constraint. Learning and Instruction, 14, 621–640.
53. Veenman, M. V. J., Kok, R., & Blöte, A. W. (2005). The relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills in early adolescence. Instructional Science, 33, 193–211.
54. Wesche, M. B., & Paribakht, T. S. (2000). Reading-based exercises in Second Language vocabulary learning: An introspective study. The Modern Language Journal, 84, 196-213.
55. Zwaan, R. A., & Brown, C. M. (1996). The influence of language proficiency and comprehension skill on situation-model construction. Discourse Processes, 21, 289-327.