The Effect of Metacognitive Strategies Training on Reading Comprehension of Field-dependent / Field- independent Learners
الموضوعات : نشریه زبان و ترجمه
Mehdi Sheykhi
1
(English Teaching Department, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran)
Zohre Mohamadi
2
(English Teaching Department, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran)
الکلمات المفتاحية: learning styles, reading comprehension, Field dependent and field independent learners, Cognitive and metacognitive strategy training,
ملخص المقالة :
This study investigated how English as Foreign Language (EFL) learners with different learning styles (Field dependent and field independent) boost up their reading comprehension abilities as they develop their metacognitive skills. To conduct this research, 60 participants were randomly invited to sit PET (Preliminary English Test) to ensure homogeneity of the participants in terms of language proficiency level. A Group Embedded Figure Test (GEFT) was then administered to distinguish field dependent and field independent learners. Two groups of 30 students were made; field dependent and field independent groups. Prior to any instruction on metacognitive strategy, groups of students attended a reading test as a pretest. Students were then received instruction with the focus on metacognitive strategies including inferring meaning through word analysis, using background knowledge, guessing the later topic, center- ing learning, arranging and planning leaning and elaborating as a treatment. After the instruction was completed the students were given a posttest in relation to the reading skills. The within and between group analysis of data gathered from this quasi experimental research using a series of t-test and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) indicated that field dependent learners outperformed field independent learners in reading comprehension after the treatment. The finding suggested a need for principled decisions and planning on metacognitive strategy training in language teaching and materials development.
Astika, G. G. (1993). Analytical assessments of foreign students' writing. RELC Journal, 24(1), 61-70.
Bacha, N. (2001). Writing evaluation: what can analytic versus holistic essay scoring tell us? System, 29(3), 371-383.
Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of second language writing, 14(3), 191-205.
Brown, J. D., & Hudson, T. (2002). Criterion-referenced language testing: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writ-ing. Journal of second language writing, 12(3), 267-296.
Ellis, R. (1998). Teaching and research: Options in grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 39-60.
Fathman, A., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher re-sponse to student writing: Focus on form versus content. Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom, 9,178-190.
Finson, K. D., & Ormsbee, C. K. (1998). Rubrics and their use in inclusive science. Inter-vention in school and clinic, 34(2), 79-88.
Fujieda, Y. (2007). Perceptional change toward peer response: How writers incorporated feedback into revisions. Kyoai Gakuen Journal, 7, 139-153.
Gholami, J., & Narimani, E. (2012). Conscious-ness-Raising Through Written Corrective Feedback: The Case of Marked Third Person-s. Research in Applied Linguistics, 3(2), 49-66.
Hadley, A. O., & Reiken, E. (1993). Teaching Language in Context, and Teaching Lan-guage in Context--Workbook: ERIC.
Halleck, G. B. (1995). Assessing oral proficien-cy: A comparison of holistic and objec-tive measures. The Modern Language Journal, 79(2), 223-234.
Heaton, J. B. (1975). Writing English language tests: a practical guide for teachers of English as a second or foreign language:Longman Publishing Group.
Huot, B. (2003). Rearticulating writing assess-ment for teaching and learning: Universi-ty Press of Colorado.
Jafarpur, A. (1991). Can naive EFL learners es-timate their own proficiency? Evaluation & Research in Education, 5(3), 145-157.
Johnson, D. M., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (1995). Re-search on the Rating Process: Rating Nonnative Writing: The Trouble with Ho-listic Scoring. Tesol Quarterly, 29(4), 759-762.
Kaplan, R. B. (2010). The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics: Oxford UniversityPress.
Kroll, B. (2001). Considerations for teaching an ESL/EFL writing course. Teaching Eng-lish as a second or foreign language, 3,219-232.
Liu, Y. (2008). The effects of error feedback in second language writing. Arizona working papers in SLA & Teaching, 15(1), 65-79.
Moskal, B. (2000). Assessment Resource
Page.[Online] 13 de abril de 2001< http://www. mines. edu/Academic/assess.
Resource. htm.
Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing.
Journal of second language writing, 8(3),265-289.
Qi, D. S., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second lan-guage writing task. Journal of second language writing, 10(4), 277-303.
Rezaei, A. R., & Lovorn, M. (2010). Reliability and validity of rubrics for assessment through writing. Assessing writing, 15(1), 18-39.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Lin-guistics, 11(2), 206-226.
Soleimani , H. & Rahmanian, M. (2012). Self-, peer-, and teacher-assessments in writing improvement: A study of complexity, ac-curacy, and fluency. RALs, 5(2), 128-148.
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (2006). How lan-guages are learned: Oxford UniversityPress.
Truscott, J. (2004). Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of second language writing, 13(4), 337-343.
Tsui, A. B., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments?
Journal of second language writing, 9(2),147-170.
Vygotsky, L. (1934). 1986. Thought and lan-guage. Trans. A. Kozulin. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Weigle, S, C. (2002). Assessing writing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Xi, X. (2007). Evaluating analytic scoring for the TOEFL® Academic Speaking Test (TAST) for operational use. Language Testing, 24(2), 25
