A think-aloud study: Cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies of ELT department students

Problem Durumu: Okuduğunu anlama, farklı ortamlarda yazılı metinlerden anlam çıkarma sürecidir. Yazılı metinler kaynak bakımından ders kitaplarından bilgisayar ekranlarına kadar çeşitlilik gösterir. Okurların hangi bilişsel okuma stratejileri kullandıklarına ve bu kullanımlarının farkındalığına yönelik birçok araştırma öncelikli olarak İngilizcenin anadili olarak kullanıldığı ortamlarda yapılmıştır. Bu tip çalışmalara İngilizcenin ikinci/yabancı dil olarak öğretildiği ülkelerde de ihtiyaç duyulmaktadır. Okurların okuma sırasında aklından geçen zihinsel işlemleri ortaya çıkarmaya yarayan Sesli Düşünme Protokolleri (SDP) ve Geçmişi Anma Protokolleri’nin (GAP) veri toplama araçları olarak kullanımı gözlenmeye başlamıştır. Ancak bu bağlamda, Türkiye’de yabancı dil olarak İngilizce ortamında gerçekleştirilen çalışma sayısı yok denecek kadar azdır. Bu çalışmalarda veri toplama aracı olarak çoğu zaman envanter ve anketler kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın Amacı: Bu araştırma, bir Türk üniversitesinin İngiliz Dili Eğitimi birinci sınıf lisans düzeyi öğrencilerinin İleri Okuma ve Yazma dersinde gösterdikleri okuduğunu anlama başarı düzeylerindeki farklılığın gözlenmesi üzerine tasarlanmıştır. Buna dayanarak, bu araştırmanın amacı SDP ve GAP veri toplama yoluyla başarılı ve daha az başarılı öğrencilerin kullandıkları bilişsel ve üst-bilişsel okuma stratejilerinin türlerini ve kullanım sıklıklarını bilgi verici ve yazınsal metin türleri açısından belirlemek ve tartışmaktır.

Bir sesli düşünme çalışması: İngiliz dili eğitimi bölümü öğrencilerinin bilişsel ve üst-bilişsel okuma stratejileri

Problem Statement: The main purpose of reading instruction is to foster strategic readers who are capable of using cognitive reading strategies flexibly and controlling their comprehension. Since cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies play a pivotal role in reading comprehension, there is a need for studies focusing on strategy use by EFL learners from contexts other than mainstream ESL. There is little research that uses think-aloud and/or retrospective protocols to investigate strategy use by learners of English in Turkish universities. Purpose of Study: This study employs think-aloud and retrospective protocols to gather verbal report data on cognitive and metacognitive reading strategy use by the students enrolled in an English Language Teaching (ELT hereafter) department in Turkey. Methods: This study relies on the think-aloud and retrospective protocols of 6 proficient (PR hereafter) and 6 less proficient readers (LPR hereafter), who were chosen as participants according to their mid-term (20%) and final reading exam scores (40%) in the Advanced Reading and Writing course and their paper-based Reading Comprehension TOEFL scores (40%). First, the participants were asked to read and paraphrase an expository and a narrative text in the think-aloud session. Second, in the retrospective session, they were asked to share how they comprehended the two texts, what comprehension problems they encountered and how they solved them. Data analysis aimed to reveal both cognitive and metacognitive reading strategy types and also the frequencies of their use, as included in the verbal protocols. Findings and Results: The PRs used cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies more frequently than the LPRs in both text types, and both groups mainly used the same strategy types. The findings also revealed that the LPRs especially referred to cohesive ties, mainly while guessing the meaning of unknown vocabulary items or making connections within the text. Therefore, ‘using cohesive ties’ and ‘awareness of cohesive ties’ were taken as cognitive and metacognitive reading strategy types, respectively. Conclusions and Recommendations: The limited variety in reading strategy use may stem from the similar literacy and foreign language education in the EFL context in Turkey, which is teacher-centered, structural and behavioristic. Bearing this in mind, learners should be explicitly trained in what cognitive reading strategies are and how they are used at different times, and this awareness will in turn help learners monitor and evaluate their comprehension.

PDF

___

Afflerbach, P. (2000). Verbal reports and protocol analysis. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 163-179). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Afflerbach, P. (2002). Teaching reading self-assessment strategies. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 96- 111), New York: Guilford.
Akyel, A., & Erçetin, G. (2009). Hypermedia reading strategies employed by advanced learners of English. System, 37(1), 136-152.
Allington, R.L. (2001). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing researchbased programs. White Plains: NY: Longman.
Anderson, N.J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing. The Modern Language Journal, 75(4), 460-472.
Baker, L. (2002). Metacognition in comprehension instruction. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 77- 95), New York: Guilford.
Baker, L., & Brown, A.L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P.D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. B. Mosenthal, (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. I, pp. 353-394). New York: Longman.
Block, C.C. (2004). Teaching comprehension: The comprehension process approach. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Block, E.L. (1992). See how they read: Comprehension monitoring of L1 and L2 readers. TESOL Quarterly, 26(2), 319-343.
Brown, R., Pressley, M., Van Meter, P., & Schuder, T. (1996). A quasi-experimental validation of transactional strategies instruction with low-achieving secondgrade readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 18-37.
Chamot, A.U., & O’Malley, J.M. (1987). The cognitive academic language learning approach: A bridge to the mainstream. TESOL Quarterly, 21(2), 227-249.
Chamot, A.U., & O’Malley, J.M. (1996). The cognitive academic language learning approach: A model for linguistically diverse classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 96(3), 259-273.
Cohen, A. D. (1987). Using verbal reports in research on language learning. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.). Introspection in second language research (pp. 82-95). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Cohen, A.D., & Upton, T.A. (2007). ‘I want to go back to the text’: Response strategies on the reading subtest of the new TOEFL. Language Testing, 24(2), 209-250.
Duke, N.K., & Pearson, P.D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S.J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd Ed., pp. 205-242), Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Ericsson, K.A., & Simon, H.A. (1987). Verbal reports on thinking. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.). Introspection in second language research (pp. 24-53). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Gambrell, L.B., Block, C.C., & Pressley, M.(2002). Improving comprehension instruction: An urgent priority. In C. C. Block, L. B. Gambrell, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Improving comprehension instruction: Rethinking research, theory, and classroom practice (pp. 3-16), San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwod, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Grabe, W. (2000). Reading research and its implications for reading assessment. In A.J. Kunnan (Ed.), Fairness and validation in language assessment: Selected Papers from the 19th Language Testing Research Colloquim, Orlando, Florida (Studies in Language Testing 9, pp. 226-262). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grabe, W., & Stoller, F.L. (2002). Teaching and researching reading. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education.
Green, A.J.F. (1998). Using verbal protocols in language testing research: A handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hall, K.M., Sabey, B.L., & McClellan, M. (2005). Expository text comprehension: Helping primary-grade teachers use expository texts to full advantage. Reading Psychology, 26, 211-234.
Halliday, M.A.K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London:Longman.
Janssen, T., Braaksma, M., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2006). Literary reading activities of good and weak students: A think aloud study. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 21(1), 35-52.
Janzen, J., & Stoller, F.L. (1998) Integrating strategic reading in L2 instruction. Reading in a Foreign Language, 12(1), 251-269.
Jimenez, R.T, Garcia, G.E., & Pearson, P.D. (1996). The reading strategies of bilingual Latina/o students who are successful English readers : Opportunities and obstacles. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(1), 90-112.
Kern, R. (2000). Literacy and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kırkgöz, Y. (2007). English language teaching in Turkey: Policy changes and their implementations. RELC Journal, 38, 216-228.
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Language strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Özek, Y., & Civelek, M. (2006). A study on the use of cognitive reading strategies by ELT students. The Asian EFL Journal, 14, 1-26.
Palincsar, A.S., & Brown, A.L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117- 175.
Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 545-561). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pressley, M. (2002a). Comprehension strategies instruction. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 11- 27), New York: Guilford.
Pressley, M. (2002b). Metacognition and self-regulated comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd Ed., pp. 291-309), Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Salatacı, R., & Akyel, A. (2002). Possible effects of strategy instruction on L1 and L2 reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 14, 1-17.
Sarıçoban, A. (2002). Reading strategies of successful readers through the three phase approach. The Reading Matrix, 2(3), 1-16.
Seferoğlu, G., & Uzakgören, S. (2004). Equipping learners with listening strategies in English language classes. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 27, 223- 231.
Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among native and non-native readers. System, 29, 431-449.
Williams, J.P. (2002). Reading comprehension strategies and teacher preparation. In A. E. Farstrup & S.J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd Ed., pp. 243-260), Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Yang, Y. (2002). Reassessing readers’ comprehension monitoring. Reading in a Foreign Language, 14(1), 18-42.
Yang, Y. (2006). Reading strategies or comprehension monitoring strategies? Reading Psychology, 27, 313-343.
Yau, J.C. (2005). Two mandarin readers in Taiwan: Characteristics of children with higher and lower reading proficiency levels. Journal of Research in Reading, 28(2), 108-124.
Yıldırım, Ö. (2008). Pre-service English teachers’ views of teacher and student responsibilities in the foreign language classroom. Egitim Arastirmalari- Eurasion Journal of Educational Research, 33, 211-226.
Zhang, L.J. (2000). Metacognition in L2 literacy acquisition. The case of ten Chinese tertiary students learning to read EFL. In A. Brown (Ed.), Developing multiliteracies (pp. 45-56), Singapore: National Institute of Education.
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.