Dichotomy of EFL reading: Metacognition vs. proficiency
Yıl: 2019 Cilt: 15 Sayı: 2 Sayfa Aralığı: 605 - 617 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.17263/jlls.586757 İndeks Tarihi: 10-01-2020
Dichotomy of EFL reading: Metacognition vs. proficiency
Öz: This study examined a) the effects of metacognition and proficiency on EFL reading performance and b) therelation of metacognition and EFL reading performance. Data were collected by Metacognitive AwarenessInventory (MAI) and reading scores were examined. By variance analyses, we found that reading scores andmetacognitive knowledge show variations across proficiency levels. There were no effects of time, timeXclass,and timeXproficiency on metacognition. When tests incorporated higher order thinking skills, participants'metacognitive knowledge or regulation correlated with reading scores, positively. Although trends that can explaindifferences in metacognition did not follow a pattern; it was observed that different proficiency groups benefitedfrom training differently; for low- and mid-proficiency groups, a slight increase in metacognition regulation; andfor high-proficiency group, a refinement in metacognitive knowledge was observed. We suggest instructional andassessment practices incorporate metacognition regarding learners’ proficiency levels. Therefore, all studentsmight see the relevance of metacognition and take responsibility for it.
Anahtar Kelime: Konular:
Yabancı dil olarak İngilizce okuma ikilemi: Üstbilişe karşı yeterlilik
Öz: Bu çalışmanın amacı a) üstbiliş ve yeterliliğin yabancı dil olarak İngilizce okuma performansı üzerindeki etkilerini ve b) üstbiliş ve okuma performansı arasındaki ilişki incelemektir. Veriler Üstbiliş Farkındalık Envanteri (MAI) ile toplanmış ve okuma puanları incelenmiştir. Varyans analizleriyle, okuma puanlarının ve üstbiliş bilgisinin yeterlilik seviyelerinde farklılıklar gösterdiği ve zaman, zamanXsınıf ve zamanXyeterliliğinin üstbilişe etkisinin olmadığı bulunmuştur. Bunun yanı sıra, okuma sınavları üst düzey düşünme becerilerini içerdiğinde, katılımcıların üstbiliş bilgisi veya düzenlemeleri okuma puanlarıyla pozitif yönde ilişkili olduğu diger bir bulgudur. Üstbiliş farklılıkları açıklayabilen eğilimler bir örüntü izlemese de; farklı yeterlilik gruplarının eğitimlerden farklı şekilde yararlandığı ortaya çıkmıştır. Bu bağlamda üstbiliş eğitimi, düşük ve orta yeterlilik gruplarında üstbiliş düzenlemesinde hafif bir artış ve yüksek yeterlilik grubu için, üstbiliş bilgisinde bir düzenlemeyi mümkün kılmıştır. Bu çalışmanın bulgular ışığında, öğretim ve ölçme-değerlendirmede, öğrencilerin yeterlilik düzeyleriyle uyumlu üstbiliş uygulamalarını öneriyoruz. Böylece, tüm öğrenciler üstbilişin gerekliliğini görebilir ve uygulama sorumluluğunu alabilirler.
Anahtar Kelime: Konular:
Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
- Alsheikh, N. O., & Mokhtari, K. (2011). An Examination of the Metacognitive Reading Strategies Used by Native Speakers of Arabic When Reading in English and Arabic. English Language Teaching, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v4n2p151
- Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
- Bandura, Albert. (1971). Social learning theory. Morristown, NJ: General Learning.
- Barnett, M. (1988). Reading through Context: How Real and Perceived Strategy Use Affects L2 Comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 72(2), 150–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540- 4781.1988.tb04177.x
- Boulware-Gooden, R., Carreker, S., Thornhill, A., & Joshi, R. M. (2007). Instruction of metacognitive strategies enhances reading comprehension and vocabulary achievement of third-grade students. The Reading Teacher, 61(1), 70–77.
- Chern, C. L. (1993). Chinese students’ word-solving strategies in reading in English. In T. Huckin, M. Haynes, & C. Coady (Eds.), Second language reading and vocabulary learning (pp. 67–85). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
- Curwen, M. S., Miller, R. G., White-Smith, K. A., & Calfee, R. C. (2010). Increasing teachers’ metacognition develops students’ higher learning during content area literacy instruction: Findings from the read-write cycle project. Issues in Teacher Education, 19(2), 127–151.
- Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.
- Guo, L. (2018). Modeling the relationship of metacognitive knowledge , L1 reading ability , L2 language proficiency and L2 reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 30(2), 209–231.
- Holton, D., & Clarke, D. (2006). Scaffolding and metacognition. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 37(2), 127–143.
- Iwai, Y. (2011). The Effects of Metacognitive Reading Strategies: Pedagogical Implications for EFL/ESL Teachers. The Reading Matrix, 11(2), 150–159. Retrieved from http://readingmatrix.com/articles/april_2011/iwai.pdf
- Karami, S., & Hashemian, M. (2012). The Relationship between (Meta)cognitive Strategies and Reading Comprehension in Iranian Female L2 Learners. International Journal of English Linguistics, 2(4), 58–64. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v2n4p58
- Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. (2004). Investigating the strategic reading processes of first and second language readers in two different cultural contexts. System, 32, 379–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.04.005
- Muñiz-Swicegood, M. (1994). The effects of metacognitive reading strategy training on the reading performance and student reading analysis strategies of third grade bilingual students. Bilingual Research Journal, 18, 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.1994.10162659
- Ozturk, N. (2015). A short review of research on metacognition training. Journal of Educational and Instructional Studies in the World, 5 (3), 50–62.
- Ozturk, N. (2017a). Assessing metacognition: Theory and practices. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 4(2), 134–148.
- Ozturk, N. (2017b). Identifying the Nature of Metacognition (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland.
- Phakiti, A. (2003). A closer look at the relationship of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use to EFL reading achievement test performance. Language Testing, 20(1), 26–56. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532203lt243oa
- Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 219–225.
- Reffyal, M., Pammu, A., & Sukmawaty. (2018). The Profiles of Metacognitive Reading Strategies of Successful and Unsuccessful EFL Learners of Senior High School. Jurnal Ilmu Budaya, 6(1), 136– 142.
- Reza Ahmadi, M., Nizam Ismail, H., & Kamarul Kabilan Abdullah, M. (2013). The importance of metacognitive reading strategy awareness in reading comprehension. English Language Teaching, 6(10). https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n10p235
- Salataci, R., & Akyel, A. (2002). Possible Effects Of Strategy Instruction on L1 and L2 Reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 14(1), 1–17.
- Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26(1), 113–125.
- Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460–475. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1994.1033
- Takallou, F. (2011). The effect of metacognitive strategy instruction on EFL learners’ reading comprehension performance and metacognitive awareness. Asian EFL Journal, 13(1), 272–300.
- Tanner, K. D. (2012). Promoting student metacognition. Cell Biology Education, 11(2), 113–120.
- Tavakoli, H. (2014). The effectiveness of metacognitive strategy awareness in reading comprehension: The case of Iranian university EFL students. Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 14(2), 314–336. Retrieved from http://www.readingmatrix.com/files/11-24o5q41u.pdf
- Taylor, A., Stevens, J., & Asher, J. W. (2006). The effects of explicit reading strategy training on L2 reading comprehension. In M. Norris, John & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 213–244). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
- van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, R., Stoel, R. D., de Glopper, K., & Hulstijn, J. (2007). Development of adolescent reading comprehension in language 1 and language 2: A longitudinal analysis of constituent components. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 477–491. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.477
- Vandergrift, L., & Tafaghodtari, M. H. (2010). Teaching L2 learners how to listen does make a difference: An empirical study. Language Learning, 60(2), 470–497.
- Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-006-6893-0
- Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Zhang, L. J. (2001). Awareness in reading: EFL students’ metacognitive knowledge of reading strategies in an acquisition-poor environment. Language Awareness, 10(4), 268–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410108667039
- Zhang, L., & Seepho, S. (2013). Metacognitive Strategy Use and Academic Reading Achievement: Insights from a Chinese Context. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 10(1), 54– 69.
- Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego, CA: Academic.
- Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An Overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102
- Zohar, A., & Ben David, A. (2009). Paving a clear path in a thick forest: A conceptual analysis of a metacognitive component. Metacognition and Learning, 4(3), 177–195.
| APA | Ozturk N, SENAYDIN F (2019). Dichotomy of EFL reading: Metacognition vs. proficiency. , 605 - 617. 10.17263/jlls.586757 |
| Chicago | Ozturk Nesrin,SENAYDIN Ferah Dichotomy of EFL reading: Metacognition vs. proficiency. (2019): 605 - 617. 10.17263/jlls.586757 |
| MLA | Ozturk Nesrin,SENAYDIN Ferah Dichotomy of EFL reading: Metacognition vs. proficiency. , 2019, ss.605 - 617. 10.17263/jlls.586757 |
| AMA | Ozturk N,SENAYDIN F Dichotomy of EFL reading: Metacognition vs. proficiency. . 2019; 605 - 617. 10.17263/jlls.586757 |
| Vancouver | Ozturk N,SENAYDIN F Dichotomy of EFL reading: Metacognition vs. proficiency. . 2019; 605 - 617. 10.17263/jlls.586757 |
| IEEE | Ozturk N,SENAYDIN F "Dichotomy of EFL reading: Metacognition vs. proficiency." , ss.605 - 617, 2019. 10.17263/jlls.586757 |
| ISNAD | Ozturk, Nesrin - SENAYDIN, Ferah. "Dichotomy of EFL reading: Metacognition vs. proficiency". (2019), 605-617. https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.586757 |
| APA | Ozturk N, SENAYDIN F (2019). Dichotomy of EFL reading: Metacognition vs. proficiency. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 15(2), 605 - 617. 10.17263/jlls.586757 |
| Chicago | Ozturk Nesrin,SENAYDIN Ferah Dichotomy of EFL reading: Metacognition vs. proficiency. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies 15, no.2 (2019): 605 - 617. 10.17263/jlls.586757 |
| MLA | Ozturk Nesrin,SENAYDIN Ferah Dichotomy of EFL reading: Metacognition vs. proficiency. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, vol.15, no.2, 2019, ss.605 - 617. 10.17263/jlls.586757 |
| AMA | Ozturk N,SENAYDIN F Dichotomy of EFL reading: Metacognition vs. proficiency. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies. 2019; 15(2): 605 - 617. 10.17263/jlls.586757 |
| Vancouver | Ozturk N,SENAYDIN F Dichotomy of EFL reading: Metacognition vs. proficiency. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies. 2019; 15(2): 605 - 617. 10.17263/jlls.586757 |
| IEEE | Ozturk N,SENAYDIN F "Dichotomy of EFL reading: Metacognition vs. proficiency." Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 15, ss.605 - 617, 2019. 10.17263/jlls.586757 |
| ISNAD | Ozturk, Nesrin - SENAYDIN, Ferah. "Dichotomy of EFL reading: Metacognition vs. proficiency". Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies 15/2 (2019), 605-617. https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.586757 |
