Enhancing Reading Comprehension via Metacognitive Strategy Training: Gender and Discipline Variation
محورهای موضوعی : language teaching
1 - Department of English, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran
کلید واژه: reading comprehension, gender, metacognitive strategy training, discipline,
چکیده مقاله :
The aim of this quasi-experimental study was to investigate the impact of a metacognitive training program on university freshmen’s reading comprehension skill in a three-credit General English (GE) Course. The participants included eight groups of freshmen, in four disciplines: Management, Psychology, Mechanical Engineering and Computer Engineering. They were randomly assigned as four experimental and four control groups, each including approximately 30 participants. The same materials were taught to all groups after their initial homogeneity in English was assessed via Analysis of Variance of the pre-test scores obtained from a Key English Test (KET). In the experimental groups, one whole session was devoted to explicitly teaching three sets of metacognitive strategies and five reading strategies: skimming, scanning, previewing, using context clues, and making inferences. These groups also received metacognitive awareness-raising while applying the strategies in each reading lesson for six sessions. The analyses of the research data revealed that metacognitive strategy training promoted the participants’ learning when integrated with a reading-focused GE course regardless of their gender and a small effect from discipline. The findings have implications for teachers, materials developers, and teacher trainers.
تحقیق حاضربا هدف بررسی تأثیر آموزش راهبردهای فراشناختی بر مهارت خواندن و درک مطلب دانشجویان سال اول در درس زبان عمومی انجام گرفت. آزمودنی‌ها شامل هشت گروه دانشجویان سال اول در قالب هشت کلاس هریک با حدود سی زبان‌آموز در چهار رشته تحصیلی مدیریت، روان‌شناسی، مهندسی مکانیک و مهندسی کامپیوتر بودند که به‌طور تصادفی به چهار گروه تحقیق و چهار گروه شاهد تعیین شدند. ابتدا با انجام آزمون استاندارسطح مبتدی و تحلیل نمرات این آزمون با استفاده از تحلیل واریانس، همگنی اولیه گروه‌ها در انگلیسی عمومی تأیید شده و سپس مطالب آموزشی یکسانی در همه گروه‌ها به مدت 6 جلسه تدریس شدگردید. در گروه‌های تحقیق یک جلسه کامل به تدریس صریح3 مجموعه راهبردهای فراشناختی و 5 راهبرد خواندن شامل درک کلیات متن، درک جزئیات متن، پیش‌خوانی مطلب، استفاده از نشانه‌های بافتی و استنتاج پرداخته شد. در طول شش جلسه آموزشی و حین تدریس فصل‌های مختلف کتاب نیز آموزش‌های مشابه و مختصری درابتدای هرجلسه و در حین انجام فعالیت‌های آموزشی با هدف ایجاد آگاهی فراشناختی در گروه‌های تحقیق انجام گردید. تحلیل داده‌های تحقیق حاصل از پس آزمون خواندن و درک مطلب نشان داد که آموزش راهبردهای فراشناختی در درس زبان عمومی توانسته بود خواندن و درک مطلب آزمودنی‌های مؤنث ومذکر را ارتقا بخشد. گرچه دانشجویان رشته کامپیوتر بالاترین میانگین را در آزمون پایانی کسب نمودند، ضریب تأثیر پایین نشانگرتأثیر جزئی رشته تحصیلی بر نتایج بود. معلمان و اساتید زبان، مؤلفان کتاب‌ها و مطالب آموزشی و مربیان می‌توانند نتایج تحقیق حاضررا مورد استفاده قرار دهند.
Birjandi, P., &Seifoori, Z. (2009).The effect of training and task-planning on the complexity ofIranian learners’ oral speech.The Journal of Applied Linguistics,2(4), 57-80.
Borkowski, J., Carr, M., &Pressely, M. (1987). “Spontaneous” strategy use: Perspective frommetacognitive theory. Intelligence, 11, 61-75.
Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms.In F. E. Weinert and R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation,and understanding (pp. 65-116). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Chamot, A. U., & O'Malley, J. M. (1987). A cognitive academic language learning approach: Abridge to the mainstream. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 227-49.
Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. Harlow: Longman.
Coskun, A. (2010). The effect of metacognitive strategy training on the listening performance of beginner students.Novitas-ROYAL, Research on Youth and Language, 4(1), 35-50.
Cromley, J. G. (2005). Metacognition, cognitive strategy instruction, and reading in adult literacy. Review of Adult Learning and Literacy, 5, 187-204.
Dornei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in secondlanguage acquisition. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dreyer, C., &Nel, C. (2003).Teaching reading strategies and reading comprehension within a technology-enhanced learning environment.System, 31, 349-365.
Ellis, G., & Sinclair, B. (1989).Learning to learn English: A course in learner training.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ehrman, M., & Oxford, R. (1989). Effects of sex differences, career choice, and psychologicaltype on adult language learning strategies. Modern Language Journal, 73, 1-13.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring; A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry.American psychologist, 34, 906-911.
Feng, X., &Mokhtari, K. (1998).Reading easy and difficult texts in English and Chinese: Strategy use by native speakers of Chinese.Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 8, 19-40.
Green, J. A., & Oxford, R. (1995).A close look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, andgender.TESOL Quarterly, 29, 261-297.
Hong-Nam, K., &Leavel, A.G. (2011).Reading strategy instruction, metacognitive awareness, and self-perception of striving college developmental readers. Journal of College Literature& Learning, 37, 3-17.
Huang, C. H., & Van Naerssen, M. (1987).Learning strategies for oral communication.AppliedLinguistics, 8(3), 287-307.
Karbalaei, A. (2010). A comparison of the metacognitive reading strategies used by EFL and ESL readers. The Reading Matrix, 10 (2), 165-180.
Larsen Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language Acquisition.Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 141-165.
Larsen Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lee, L. (2011). Select reading: Teacher-approved readings for today’s students. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Littlewood, W. (1996). Autonomy: An anatomy and a framework. System, 24(4), 427-435.
Livingstone, J. A. (1997). Metacognition: An overview. Retrieved from http://www.gse.buffalo.edu/fs/shuell/cep564/Metacogn.htm.
Mokhtari, K., &Reichard, C. (2002).Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of readingstrategies.Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249-259.
Nam, C., & Oxford, R. (1998). Portrait of a future teacher: Case study of learning styles, strategies, and language disabilities. System, 26, 51-63.
Nunan, D. (2005). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ofodu, G.O., &Adedipe, T.H. (2011).Assessing ESL students’ awareness and application of metacognitive strategies in comprehending academic materials.Journal of Emerging Trendsin Educational Research and Policy Studies (JETERAPS), 2(5), 343-346.
O'Malley, J. M., &Chamot, A. U. (1990).Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R., (1985). A new taxonomy of second language learning strategies. Washington, DC.: Centre for Applied Linguistics.
Oxford, R. (1989). Use of language learning strategies: A synthesis of studies with implicationsfor strategy training. System, 17(2), 235-247.
Oxford, R. (1990a). Language learning strategies and beyond: A look at strategies in the context of styles. In S. S. Magnan (Ed.), Shifting the instructional focus to the learner (35-55). Middlebury, VT: Northeast Conference on Teaching of Foreign Languages.
Oxford, R. (1990b). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Newbury House.
Oxford, R. (1993). La difference continue...: Gender difference in second/foreign languagelearning styles and strategies. In J. Sutherland (Ed.), Exploring gender (140-147). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Oxford, R., & Burry-Stock, J. A. (1995).Assessing the use of language learning strategiesworldwide with the ESL/EFL version of the Strategy Inventory of Language Learning (SILL).System, 23(1), 1-23.
Oxford, R., &Nyikos, M. (1989).Variables affecting choice of language learning strategies by university students.Modern Language Journal, 73, 291-300.
Phakiti, A. (2003). A closer look at gender and strategy use in L2 reading.Language Learning, 53(4), 649-702.
Peacock, M. (2001). Match or mismatch? Learning styles and teaching styles in EFL. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 1-20.
Peacock, M., &Ho, B. (2003).Student language learning strategies across eight disciplines.International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 1-20.
Politzer, R., &McGroarty, M. (1985).An exploratory study of learning behaviours and their relationship to gains in linguistic and communicative competence.TESOL Quarterly, 19, 103-124.
Poole, A. (2005). Gender and academic reading strategies: A survey of adult EFL learners inMainland China. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics,10(2), 38-51.
Pressley, M., &Afflerbach, P. (1995).Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructivelyresponsive reading. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Quicke, J. (1994). Metacognition, pupil empowerment and the school context.School Psychology International, 15(3), 247-260.
Riding, R., &Rayner, S. G. (1998). Cognitive styles and learning strategies: Understanding style difference in learning and behaviour. London: David Fulton.
Seifoori, Z. (2009). The Impact of Metacognitive Strategies-based Training and Levels of Planning on Accuracy, Complexity, and Fluency of Task-based Oral Performance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).Islamic Azad University-Tabriz Branch, Iran.
Seifoori, Z., &Vahidi, Z. (2012).The impact of fluency strategy training on Iranian EFL learners’ speech under online planning conditions.Language Awareness, 21(1-2), 101-112.
Sheorey, R. (1999). An examination of language learning strategy use in the setting of an indigenized variety of English.System, 27, 173-190.
Spurling, S., &Llyin, D. (1985).The impact of learner variables on language test performance.TESOL Quarterly, 19, 283-301.
Sheorey, R., &Mokhtari, K. (2001).Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among native and non-native readers.System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics, 29, 431-449.
Sternberg, R. J. (1984). What should intelligence tests test? Implications for a triarchic theory ofintelligence for intelligence testing.Educational Researcher, 13(1), 5-15.
Wenden, A. (1987). How to be a successful language learner: Insights and prescriptions from L2 learners. In A. Wenden and J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (103-116). Cambridge: Prentice Hall.
Wenden, A. L. (1991). Learner strategies for learner autonomy. Hemel Hempstead: PrenticeHall.
Wenden, A. L. (2002). Learner development in language learning.Applied Linguistics, 23(1), 32-55.
Wenden, A., & Rubin, J. (Eds.). (1987). Learner strategies in language learning. Cambridge: Prentice-Hall.
Williams, M., & Burden, R. L. (1997).Psychology for language teachers: A social constructivist approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Willis, J. (1996). A flexible framework for task-based learning.In J. Willis and D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (52-62). Oxford: Heinemann.
Wood, E., Motz, M., & Willoughby, T. (1998).Examining students’ retrospective memories of strategy development.Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 698-704.
Yang, N. D. (1996).Effective awareness-raising in language learning strategy instruction. In R. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning strategies around the world: Crosscultural perspectives (205-210). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
