The Metacognitive Reading Strategies of Students: A Research School of Physical Education and Sport at Anadolu University

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı, Anadolu Üniversitesi Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Yüksekokulunda öğrenim gören öğrencilerin çeşitli değişkenlere göre üst bilişsel okuma stratejilerini incelemektir. Araştırma grubunu, Anadolu Üniversitesi Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Yüksekokulunda öğrenim gören toplam 416 öğrenci oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmanın verileri “Üst Bilişsel Okuma Stratejileri Ölçeği” ile toplanmıştır. Verilerin analizinde, betimsel istatistikler, t-testi ve ANOVA kullanılmıştır. Elde edilen bulgulara göre, öğrencilerin üstbiliş okuma stratejilerini ve analitik stratejileri sık sık; pragmatik stratejileri ise bazen kullandıkları ortaya çıkmıştır. Öğrencilerin, üstbiliş okuma stratejilerini kullanma düzeyleri cinsiyetlerine ve sınıf düzeylerine göre farklılaşmamakta, ancak bölümlerine göre farklılaşmaktadır. Öğrencilerin, analitik okuma stratejileri cinsiyetlerine ve sınıf düzeylerine göre farklılaşmamakta, buna karşın bölümlerine göre ise farklılaşmaktadır. Öğrencilerin, pragmatik okuma stratejileri cinsiyetlerine göre farklılaşmamakta, ancak bölümlerine ve sınıf düzeylerine göre ise farklılaşmaktadır. Sonuç olarak, bu araştırma, bir üniversitede öğrenim gören Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Yüksekokulunun öğrencileri ile yürütülmüştür. Araştırmanın Türkiye genelindeki diğer üniversitelerin Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Yüksekokulunda öğrenim gören öğrencilerin de dahil edilerek karşılaştırma çalışmalarının yapılmasının alan yazına önemli katkılar getireceği düşünülmektedir. Ayrıca, nicel çalışmalarla birlikte nitel çalışmalar da desenlenmelidir.

Keywords

• Metacognition, Metacognition Reading Strategies, Analytical and Pragmatic Reading Strategies

References

1. Anderson, N. J. (2002). The Role of metacognition in second/foreign language teaching and learning. ERIC Digest. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics.
2. Babacan, T. (2012). “Searching the correlation between Metacognitive Reading Strategies and Multiple Intelligences of Primary School Teachers Candidates”. Master’s Thesis, Cumhuriyet University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Sivas.
3. Baker, L. and Brown, A. L. (1984). Handbook of Reading Research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, (pp. 353–394). Inc., Publishers, New Jersey.
4. Berkowitz, E. and Cicchelli, T. (2004). Metacognitive strategy use in reading of gifted high achieving and gifted under achieving middle school students in New York City. Education and Urban Society, 37, pp. 37-57.
5. Chou, C.-P. and Bentler, P. M. (1995). Estimates and Tests in Structural Equation Modelling. Rick H. Hoyle (Eds.), Structural Equation Modelling: Concepts, Issues and Applications, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6. Cohen, A. D. (1990). Language Learning: Insights For Learners, Teachers and Researchers. NY: Newbury House.
7. Coleman, J. A. (1997). Residence abroad within language study. Language Teaching, 30 (1), pp. 1-20.
8. Collins, M. D. and Cheek, E. H. (1999). Assessing & Guiding Reading Instruction. New York: The McGrawHill Companies, Inc.

9. Curan, P.J., West, S.G. ve Finch, J.F. (1996). The Robutness of test statistics to non-normality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Pyschological Methods, 1(1), pp. 16- 29.
10. Çöğmen, S. (2008). “Students’ usage of Reading Strategies In the Faculty of Education”. Master’s Thesis. Adnan Menderes University, Institute of Social Sciences, Aydın.
11. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, pp. 906–911.
12. Karbalaei, A. (2010). A Comparison of the metacognitive reading strategies used by Efl and Esl readers. The Reading Matrix, 10 (2), pp. 165-180.
13. Kuhn, D. (2000). Metacognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9 (5), pp. 178–181.
14. Moss, G. (2000). Raising Males’ Attainment In Reading Some Principles For Intervention: Reading. Blackwell Publishers.
15. Muhtar, S. (2006). “Effects of training university EFL students in metacognitive strategies for reading”. Master’s Thesis. Ankara University, Institute of Social Sciences, Ankara.
16. Oluk, S. and Başöncül, N. (2009). The Metacognitive Reading Strategy Usage Level and It’s Effect on Science Technologies and Turkish Course Success of Primary Education 8th Grade Students. Kastamonu Education Journal, 17 (1), ss. 183-194.
17. Özdamar, K. (2004). Package Programs and Statistical Data Analysis 2. Kaan Bookstore, Eskişehir.
18. Paris, S. G. and Winograd, P. (1990). How Metacognition can Promote Academic Learning and Instruction. B. F. Jones and L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of Thinking and Cognitive Instruction (pp. 15-51). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
19. Phakiti, A. (2003). A Closer look at gender and strategy use in L2 reading. Language Learning, 53(4), pp. 649-703.
20. Pressley, M. and Block, C.C. (2002). Comprehension Instruction: Research Based Best Practices. USA: Guilford Press.
21. Rothman, S. (2002). Achievement in Litercay and Numeracy By Australian 14 Year-Olds, 1975-1998. LSAY Research Report Number, 29.
22. Ruddell, R. B. (2002). Teaching Children to Read and Write: Becoming An Effective Literacy Teacher. London: Allyn & Bacon.
23. Senemoğlu, N. (2003). Development, Learning and Teaching: From Theory to Practice. Gazi Bookstore, Ankara.
24. Shelton, E. D. (2006). “A Comparison of The Awareness of Developmental Reading Students and Non-Developmental Reading Students with Regards to Their Use of Reading Strategies While Attempting to Read Academic Materials Assigned By Their Instructors in A College Setting”. PhD Thesis. University of Houston, Graduate Faculty of the College of Education, Houston.
25. Simpson, M. L. and Nist S. L. (2002). Encouraging Active Reading At The College Level. C. C. Blocks, M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction research-based best practices (365- 378). New York: The Guilford Press.
26. Supancic, S. A. (1995). “A Descriptive Study of The Use of Reading Strategies in Illinois Vocational Classrooms”. Master’s Thesis, Southern Illinois University, Department of Plant, Soil and Agriculture Systems, Illinois.
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”. Master’s Thesis. Mersin University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Mersin.
28. Vianty, M. (2007). The Comparison of students’ use of metacognitive reading strategies between reading in Bahasa Indonesia and in English. International Education Journal, 8(2), pp. 449-460.
29. Wenden, A.L., (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics, 19 (4), pp. 515-537.