Authors

.

Abstract

Research has showed a positive relationship between metacognitive knowledge and success in reading comprehension. Thus, it is important to be aware of metacognitive strategy use in reading comprehension. This study was intended to explore metacognitive strategies in reading academic texts among more and less proficient English university student readers. To this end, 75 English as a foreign language (EFL) students (including 45 more proficient and 30 less proficient students), who were selected nonrandomly from two  universities, participated in this mixed-methods study. To collect data, the Survey of Reading Strategies and the Test of English as Foreign Language were administered to them. Also, to elicit how they utilize the metacognitive strategies, five more proficient and five less proficient EFL readers were asked to undertake think-aloud tasks. Results of quantitative (t-tests) and qualitative data analysis showed that there were significant differences between the metacognitive strategies used by more and less proficient readers. More proficient readers reported using the strategies at a high frequency level overall, but less proficient readers reported using them at a moderate frequency level. More proficient readers preferred to use problem-solving strategies followed by global strategies, whereas less proficient ones preferred to use problem solving strategies followed by support strategies. In addition, the results of think-aloud indicated that the more and less proficient readers’ methods of employing metacognitive strategies differed, to some extent, from each other in quality of use. The findings provide implications for low proficiency EFL readers who intend to improve their reading comprehension and learning autonomy. 

Keywords

Article Title [Persian]

بررسی راهکارهای فراشناختی در خواندن متون دانشگاهی در بین دانشجویان زبان انگلیسی با مهارت خواندن بیشتر و کمتر

Authors [Persian]

  • علی روحانی
  • راحله سبزعلی
  • عزیز الله میرزایی

Abstract [Persian]

تحقیقات رابطه‌ی مثبتی را بین دانش فراشناختی و موفقیت در درک مطلب نشان داده‌اند. بنابراین مهم است که از به کاربردن راهکارهای فراشناختی در درک مطلب آگاه باشیم. هدف از این مطالعه بررسی راهکارهای فراشناختی در متون دانشگاهی در میان دانشجویان با مهارت خواندن بیشتر و دانشجویان با مهارت خواندن کم تر بود. به این منظور 75 دانشجوی زبان انگلیسی (شامل 45 دانشجوی با مهارت خواندن بیشتر و 30 دانشجو با مهارت کمتر) به صورت غیرتصادفی از دو دانشگاه انتخاب شدند و در این تحقیق با روش ترکیبی شرکت کردند. به منظور جمع آوری داده‌ها، از نظرسنجی راهکارهای خواندن و آزمون انگلیسی به عنوان زبان خارجی استفاده شد. همچنین به منظور کسب اطلاعات از چگونگی استفاده از راهکارهای فراشناختی، 5 دانشجو با مهارت خواندن بیشتر و 5 دانشجو با مهارت خواندن کمتر در فعالیت های بلند اندیشی شرکت کردند. نتایج تحلیل داده‌های کمی و کیفی، نشان داد که بین خوانندگان با مهارت بیشتر و مهارت کمتر در استفاده از راهکارهای فراشناختی تفاوت معناداری وجود داشت. خوانندگان با مهارت بیشتر، فراوانی استفاده از تمامی راهکارها را درسطح بالا گزارش دادند. در حالی که خوانندگان با مهارت کم تر، فراوانی استفاده از تمامی راهکارها را درسطح متوسط گزارش دادند. دانشجویان با مهارت بیشتر تمایل داشتند که به ترتیب از راهکار حل مسئله و راهکار فراگیر استفاده کنند؛ در حالی‌که دانشجویان با مهارت کمتر تمایل داشتند که به ترتیب از راهکارهای حل مسئله و راهکار حمایتی استفاده کنند. افزون‌بر‌این، بر اساس نتایج فعالیت های بلند‌اندیشی، روش‌های استفاده از راهکارهای فراشناختی از نظر کیفی، تا حدودی در بین دو گروه خواننده متفاوت بود. نتایج این تحقیق، دستاوردهایی برای فراگیران زبان انگلیسی با سطح مهارت خواندن کم که خواهان پیشرفت در درک مطلب واستقلال در یادگیری هستند، در بر دارد.

Keywords [Persian]

  • درک مطلب
  • فراگیران زبان انگلیسی
  • راهکارهای فراشناختی

Aghaie, R., & Zhang, L. J. (2012). Effects of explicit instruction in cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies on Iranian EFL students’ reading performance and strategy transfer. Instructional Science, 40(6), 1063-1081.

Almasi, J. F. (2002). Research-based comprehension practices that create higher-level discussions. In C. C. Block, L. B. Gambrell, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Improving comprehension instruction: Rethinking research, theory, and classroom practice (pp. 229-242). San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

Anderson, N. (1999). Exploring second language reading: Issues and strategies. Canada: Heinle & Heinle.

Anderson, N. J. (2002). The role of metacognition in second/foreign language teaching and learning. Washington, DC: ERIC.

Anderson, N. J. (2003). Scrolling, clicking, and reading English: Online Reading strategies in a second/foreign language. The Reading Matrix, 3(3), 1-33.

Barnett, M. A. (1988). Reading through context: How real and perceived strategy use affects L2 comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 73(2), 150-162.

Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert, & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65-116). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Carrell, P. L. (1989). Metacognitive awareness and second language reading. The Modern Language Journal, 73(2), 121-134.

Carrell, P. L., Gajdusek, L. & Wise, T. (1998). Metacognition and EFL/ESL reading. Instructional Science, 26(1), 97-112.

Carrell, P. L., Pharis, B. G., & Liberto, J. C. (1989). Metacognitive strategy training for ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 23(4), 647-78.

Cohen, A. D. (1990). Language learning: Insights for learners, teachers, and researchers. NY: Newbury House Publishers.

Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. London: Pearson Education.

Dabarera, C., Renandya, W. A., & Zhang, L. J. (2014). The impact of metacognitive scaffolding and monitoring on reading comprehension. System, 42(1), 462-473.

Davis, J. N., & Bistodeau, L. (1993). How do L1 and L2 reading differ? Evidence from think-aloud protocols. The Modern Language Journal, 77(4), 459-472.

Educational Testing Service. (2011). Reliability and comparability of TOEFL® iBT scores. Princeton, NJ: ETS.

Eskey, D. (2005). Reading in a second language. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research on second language teaching and learning (pp. 563-580). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911.

Flavell, J. H. (1981). Cognitive monitoring. In W. P. Dickson (Ed.), Children's oral communication skills (pp. 35-60). New York: Academic Press.

Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (2001). Reading for academic purposes: Guidelines for the ESL/EFL teacher. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 187-203). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Jacobs, J. E., & Paris, S. G. (1987). Children’s metacognition about reading: Issues in definition, measurement, and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22, 225-278.

Karbalaei, A. (2010). A comparison of the global reading strategies used by EFL and ESL readers. The Reading Matrix, 10(2), 165-180.

Kuhn, D. & Dean, D. (2004). A bridge between cognitive psychology and educational practice. Theory into Practice, 43(4), 268-273.

Levine, A., Ferenz, O., & Reves, T. (2000). EFL academic reading and modern technology: How can we turn our students into independent critical readers? Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language Journal, 4(4), 65-88.

Livingston, J. (1997). Metacognition: An overview. Buffalo: State University of New York.

Mokhtari, K., & Sheorey, R. (2002). Measuring ESL students’ awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Developmental Education, 25(3), 2-10.

O´Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Oster, L. (2001).Using the think-aloud for reading instruction. The Reading Teacher 55(1) 64-69.

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. New York: Newbury House/Harper and Row.

Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M. L.Kamil, et al. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 545-561). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.

Rumelhart, D. (1977). Towards an interactive model of reading. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and performance (pp. 573-603). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

Salatacı, R., & Akyel, A. (2002). Possible effects of strategy instruction on L1 and L2 reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 14(1),1-16.

Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26(1-2), 113-125.

Schraw, G., Crippen, K., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education, 36 (1-2), 111-139.

Shah, P. M., Yusof, A., Lip, S. M., Mahmood, N., Hamid,Y. E. A., & Hashim, S. M. (2010). Comparing reading processing strategies of second language readers. American Journal of Applied Sciences, 7(1), 140-144.

Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among native and non-native readers. System, 29, 431-449.

Shokrpour, N., & Fotovatian, S. (2009). The effects of consciousness raising on metacognitive strategies on EFL students’ reading comprehension. ITL International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3, 221–245.

Singhal, M. (2001). Reading proficiency, reading strategies, metacognitive awareness and L2 readers. The Reading Matrix, 1(1), 1-9.

Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Towards an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16(1), 32-71.

Stanovich, K. E. (1990). Concepts in developmental theories of reading skill: Cognitive resources, automaticity, and modularity. Developmental Review, 10(1), 72-100.

Vandergrift, L., Goh, C., Mareschal, C., & Tafaghodtari, M. (2006). The metacognitive awareness listening questionnaire (MALQ): Development and validation. Language Learning, 56(3), 431-462.

Whitebread, D., Coltman, P., Pasternak, D. P., Sangster, C., Grau, V., Bingham, S., Almeqdad, Q., & Demetriou, D. (2009). The development of two observational tools for assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning in young children. Metacognition Learning, 4(1), 63-85.

Woolfolk, A. (2013). Educational psychology. Columbus, OH: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.

Zhang, L. J. (2001). Awareness in reading: EFL students’ metacognitive knowledge of reading strategies in an acquisition-poor environment. Language Awareness, 10, 268–288.

Zhang, L. J., & Wu, A. (2009). Chinese senior high school EFL students’ metacognitive awareness and reading-strategy use. Reading in a Foreign Language, 21(1), 37-59.