SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ana Dili Eğitimi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 12 Sayı: 1

Comparing Textual Comprehension Strategies of Lower Secondary Students with and without Learning Disabilities through Metacognitive Interviews

Öğrenme Güçlüğü Olan ve Olmayan Ortaokul Öğrencilerinin Kullandıkları Metin Anlama Stratejilerinin Üstbilişsel Görüşme Aracılığıyla Karşılaştırılması

Emine Rüya Özmen(GAZİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, GAZİ EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-0226-1672
Hatice Cansu Bilgiç(GAZİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, GAZİ EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-6006-0000
Merve Özdemir Kılıç(GAZİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, GAZİ EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-1768-0095
Hanifi Sanır(GAZİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, GAZİ EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-2598-569X
Pages
87–110
Publication Date
2024-01-29
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

On the other hand, it was found that students with AA had some knowledge of pre and post reading cognitive strategies, but they had limitations in while-reading cognitive and metacognitive strategies.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Textual comprehension requires the use of pre-while-post reading cognitive and metacognitive strategies.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The purpose of this study was to determine the knowledge of textual comprehension strategies of lower secondary school students with Learning Disabilities (LD) and Average Achievement (AA) through metacognitive interviews and to identify differences in the strategies they use. 30 students with LD and 30 students with AA in grades 5, 6, 7, and 8 participated in the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:On the other hand, it was found that students with AA had some knowledge of pre and post reading cognitive strategies, but they had limitations in while-reading cognitive and metacognitive strategies.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Üstbiliş · okuduğunu anlama stratejileri · öğrenme güçlüğü

Abstract

Textual comprehension requires the use of pre-while-post reading cognitive and metacognitive strategies. The purpose of this study was to determine the knowledge of textual comprehension strategies of lower secondary school students with Learning Disabilities (LD) and Average Achievement (AA) through metacognitive interviews and to identify differences in the strategies they use. 30 students with LD and 30 students with AA in grades 5, 6, 7, and 8 participated in the study. Metacognitive interviews were used to collect research data. The results of the study indicated that students with LD had inadequate and ineffective knowledge of textual comprehension strategies compared to students with AA. On the other hand, it was found that students with AA had some knowledge of pre and post reading cognitive strategies, but they had limitations in while-reading cognitive and metacognitive strategies.

Özet

Metin anlama becerisi; okuyucunun okuma öncesi, okuma sırası ve okuma sonrasında bilişsel ve üstbilişsel stratejilerin kullanımını gerektirir. Bu araştırmada Öğrenme Güçlüğü (ÖG) olan ve Ortalama Başarı (OB) gösteren ortaokul öğrencilerinin metin anlama strateji bilgilerinin üstbilişsel görüşme aracılığıyla belirlenmesi ve kullandıkları stratejiler bakımından farklılıklarının ortaya konması amaçlanmıştır. Çalışmaya 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflara devam eden 30 ÖG olan ve 30 OB gösteren öğrenci katılmıştır. Araştırma verilerinin toplanması amacıyla üstbilişsel görüşme yapılmıştır. Araştırma sonuçları; ÖG olan öğrencilerin OB gösteren öğrencilere göre yetersiz ve etkisiz metin anlama strateji bilgisine sahip olduklarını göstermektedir. OB gösteren öğrencilerin ise okuma öncesi ve okuma sonrası bilişsel strateji bilgisinin bir kısmına sahip oldukları buna karşın okuma sırasında kullanılan bilişsel ve üstbilişsel stratejiler konusunda sınırlılıkları olduğu bulunmuştur.

🔖

Cite This Article

Özmen, E. R., Bilgiç, H. C., Kılıç, M. Ö., Sanır, H. (2024). Comparing Textual Comprehension Strategies of Lower Secondary Students with and without Learning Disabilities through Metacognitive Interviews. Ana Dili Eğitimi Dergisi, Cilt: 12 Sayı: 1, 87–110. https://doi.org/10.16916/aded.1369846

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (67)

  1. Akın, E. & Çeçen, M. A. (2014). Ortaokul öğrencilerinin okuma stratejileri üstbilişsel farkındalık düzeylerinin değerlendirilmesi (Muş-Bulanık örneği). Turkish Studies, 9(8), 91-110.
  2. Aktaş, E. & Bayram, B. (2018). Türkçe öğretiminde okuduğunu anlama stratejilerinin kullanımı üzerine bir inceleme. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 22(3), 1401-1414.
  3. Altunkaya, H. & Sülükçü, Y. (2018). 7. sınıf öğrencilerinin okuma stratejileri üstbilişsel farkındalık düzeyleri ile okuduğunu anlama becerileri arasındaki ilişki. Uluslararası Türkçe Edebiyat Kültür Eğitim Dergisi, 7(4), 2502-2517.
  4. Anastasiou, D., & Griva, E. (2009). Awareness of reading strategy use and reading comprehension among poor and good readers. İlköğretim Online, 8(2), 283-297.
  5. Artelt, C., & Schneider, W. (2015). Cross-country generalizability of the role of Metacognitive knowledge in students’ strategy use and reading competence. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 117(1), 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811511700109
  6. Ayre, C., & Scally, A. J. (2014). Critical values for lawshe’s content validity ratio: Revisiting the original methods of calculation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 47(1), 79-86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175613513808
  7. Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559.
  8. Baydık, B. (2011). Okuma güçlüğü olan öğrencilerin üstbilişsel okuma stratejilerini kullanımı ve öğretmenlerinin okuduğunu anlama öğretim uygulamalarının incelenmesi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 36(162), 302-319.
  9. Bayram, K. & Kanmaz, A. (2022). 8. Sınıf öğrencilerinin üstbilişsel okuma stratejilerini kullanma düzeyleri ile okuduğunu anlama başarıları arasındaki ilişki. Ana Dili Eğitimi Dergisi, 10(2), 309-326.
  10. Berkeley, S., & Larsen, A. (2018). Fostering self‐regulation of students with learning disabilities: Insights from 30 years of reading comprehension intervention research. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 33(2), 75-86. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12165
  11. Boardman, A., Vaughn, S., Buckley, P., Reutebuch, C., Roberts, G., & Klingner, J. (2016). Collaborative strategic reading for students with learning disabilities in upper elementary classrooms. Exceptional Children, 82(4), 409-427. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915625067
  12. Botsas, G. (2017). Differences in strategy use in the reading comprehension of narrative and science texts among students with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 15(1), 139-162.
  13. Botsas, G., & Padeliadu, S. (2003). Goal orientation and reading comprehension strategy use among students with and without reading difficulties. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(4), 477-495.
  14. Bulut, A. (2016). Ortaokul öğrencilerinin okuma stratejileri bilişsel farkındalık düzeyleri. Turkish Studies, 11(3), 625-644.
  15. Butler, D. L. (1998). Metacognition and learning disabilities. In B. Y. L. Wong (Ed.), Learning about learning disabilities, (2nd ed) (pp. 277-310). Elsevier Academic Press.
  16. Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. V. (1999). Inference making ability and its relation to comprehension failure in young children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 11, 489-503. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008084120205
  17. Ciullo, S., Ortiz, M. B., Al Otaiba, S., & Lane, K. L. (2016). Advanced reading comprehension expectations in secondary school: Considerations for students with emotional or behavior disorders. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 27(1), 54-64.
  18. Conca, L. (1989). Strategy choice by LD Children with good and poor naming ability in a naturalistic memory situation. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12(2), 97-106. https://doi.org/10.2307/1510725
  19. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
  20. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
  21. Cromley, J. G., & Azevedo, R. (2006). Self-report of reading comprehension strategies: What are we measuring? Metacognition and Learning, 1(3),229-247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-006-9002-5
  22. Çetinkaya-Edizer, Z. & Özbilgin, E. (2019). Sekizinci sınıf öğrencilerinin üstbilişsel okuma farkındalıkları. OPUS Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, 10(17), 154-175. https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.501825
  23. Çetinkaya-Edizer, Z. (2015). An analysis of prospective Turkish teachers’ metacognitive reading strategy use. The Anthropologist, 22(2), 249-256.
  24. Çetinkaya-Edizer, Z. Dilidüzgün, Ş., Ak-Başoğul, D., Karagöz, M. & Yücelşen, N. (2018). Türkçe öğretiminde üstbilişsel okuma stratejileri ile okuma yöntem-tekniklerinin metin türüne göre değerlendirilmesi. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 29, 479-511. https://doi.org/10.14520/adyusbd.420841
  25. Daly, E. J. III., Witt, J. C., Martens, B. K., & Dool, E. J. (1997). A model for conducting a functional analysis of academic performance problems. School Psychology Review, 26(4), 554-574.
  26. Dermitzaki, I., Georgia Andreou, G., & Paraskeva, V. (2008). High and low reading comprehension achievers’ strategic behaviors and their relation to performance in a reading comprehension situation. Reading Psychology, 29(6), 471-492. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710802168519
  27. Elleman, A. M., & Oslund, E. L. (2019). Reading comprehension research: Implications for practice and policy. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 6(1), 3-11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732218816339
  28. Englert, C. S., & Mariage, T. V. (1991). Making students partners in the comprehension process: Organizing the reading "POSSE". Learning Disability Quarterly, 14(2), 123-138. https://doi.org/10.2307/1510519
  29. Englert, C. S., Raphael, T. E., Fear, K. L., & Anderson, L. M. (1988). Students’ metacognitive knowledge about how to write informational texts. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11(1), 18-46. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511035
  30. Englert, C. S. (2009). Connecting the dots in a research program to develop, implement, and evaluate strategic literacy interventions for struggling readers and writers. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24(2), 104-120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2009.00284.x
  31. Erdağı- Toksun, S. (2015). Türkçe öğretmenlerinin okuma stratejileri bilişsel farkındalık becerilerini kullanma düzeylerine ilişkin görüşleri. e-Kafkas Journal of Educational Research, 4(2), 10-18. https://doi.org/10.30900/kafkasegt.310416
  32. Fırat, T. & Koçak, D. (2019). Başarılı okuyucular ile öğrenme güçlüğü olan öğrencilerin metni anlamak için kullandıkları bilişsel ve üstbilişsel stratejiler. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 27(2), 669-681. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.2672
  33. Filderman, M. J., Austin, C. R., Boucher, A. N., O’Donnell, K., & Swanson, E. A. (2022). A meta-analysis of the effects of reading comprehension interventions on the reading comprehension outcomes of struggling readers in third through 12th grades. Exceptional Children, 88(2), 163-184.
  34. Furnes, B., & Norman, E. (2015). Metacognition and reading: Comparing three forms of metacognition in normally developing readers and readers with Dyslexia. Dyslexia, 21, 273-284. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1501
  35. Graham, L., & Bellert, A. (2005). Reading comprehension difficulties experienced by students with learning disabilities. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 10(2), 71-78. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404150509546791
  36. Graham, L., & Wong, B. Y. L. (1993). Comparing two modes of teaching a question-answering strategy for enhancing reading comprehension: Didactic and self-instructional training. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26(4), 270-279.
  37. Graham, S., Schwartz, S., & MacArthur, C. (1993). Knowledge of writing and the composing process, attitude toward writing and self-efficacy for students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26(4), 237-249.
  38. Jacobsen, B., Lowery, B., & DuCette, J. (1986). Attributions of learning disabled children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(1), 59-64. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.78.1.59
  39. Kana, F. (2014). Ortaokul öğrencilerinin üstbiliş okuma stratejileri farkındalık düzeyleri. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 16(1), 100-120. https://doi.org/10.17556/jef.73171
  40. Karatay, H. (2007). İlköğretim Türkçe öğretmeni adaylarının okuduğunu anlama becerileri üzerine alan araştırması (Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi). Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara.
  41. Kletzien, S. B. (1991). Strategy use by good and poor comprehenders reading expository text of differing levels. Reading Research Quarterly, 26(1), 67-86.
  42. Koç, C. & Arslan, A. (2017). Ortaokul öğrencilerinin akademik öz yeterlik algıları ve okuma stratejileri bilişüstü farkındalıkları. YYÜ Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(1), 745-778.
  43. Kolić-Vehovec, S., Zubković, B. R., & Pahljina-Reinić, R. (2014). Development of metacognitive knowledge of reading strategies and attitudes toward reading in early adolescence: The effect on reading comprehension. Psychological Topics, 23(1), 77-98.
  44. Kuruyer, H. G. & Özsoy, G. (2016). İyi ve zayıf okuyucuların üstbilişsel okuma becerilerinin incelenmesi: Bir durum çalışması. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 24(2), 771-788.
  45. Lau, K. L. (2006). Reading strategy use between Chinese good and poor readers: A think-aloud study. Journal of Research in Reading, 29(4), 383-399.
  46. Lau, K. L., & Chan, D. W. (2003). Reading strategy use and motivation among Chinese good readers and poor readers in Hong Kong. Journal of Research in Reading, 26(2), 177-190.
  47. McTavish, M. (2008). "What were you thinking?": The use of metacognitive strategy during engagement with reading narrative and informational genres. Canadian Journal of Education, 31(2), 405-430.
  48. MEB. (2019). Türkçe dersi öğretim programı (ilkokul ve ortaokul 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar). Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı.
  49. Miles, M, B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
  50. Miyamoto, A., Pfost, M., & Artelt, C. (2019). The relationship between intrinsic motivation and reading comprehension: Mediating effects of reading amount and metacognitive knowledge of strategy use. Scientific Studies of Reading, 23(6), 445-460. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2019.1602836
  51. Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students' metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249-259.
  52. Paris, S. G., & Paris, A. H. (2001). Classroom applications of research on self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 89-101. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3602_4
  53. Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1994). Becoming a strategic reader. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 788-811). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association.
  54. Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of Metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 219-225. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_3
  55. Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  56. Pressley, M., & Gaskins, I. (2006). Metacognitively competent reading comprehension is constructively responsive reading: How can such reading be developed in students? Metacognition and Learning, 1, 99-113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-006-7263-7
  57. Sanır, H., Özmen, E. R., & Özer, A. (2023). The mediating effects of reading fluency, comprehension strategies and prior knowledge on the relationship between intrinsic motivation and reading comprehension. Current Psychology, 42, 19009-19024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03084-0
  58. Schmitt, M. C. (2003). Metacognitive strategy knowledge: Comparison of former reading recovery children and their current classmates. literacy teaching and learning, 7(1-2), 57-76.
  59. Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York: Guilford Press.
  60. Stevens, E. A., Park, S., & Vaughn, S. (2019). A review of summarizing and main idea interventions for struggling readers in grades 3 through 12: 1978-2016. Remedial and Special Education, 40(3), 131-149.
  61. Topuzkanamış, E. (2009). Öğretmen adaylarının okuduğunu anlama ve okuma stratejilerini kullanma düzeyleri (Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Balıkesir Üniversitesi, Balıkesir.
  62. Vaughn, S., & Klingner, J. (2004). Teaching students with reading comprehension to students with learning disabilities. In C. A. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy: Development and disorders (pp. 541-553). New York: The Guilford Press.
  63. Veenman, M., & Elshout, J. J. (1999). Changes in the relation between cognitive and metacognitive skills during the acquisition of expertise. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14(4), 509-523. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03172976
  64. Westby, C. (2004). A Language Perspective on Executive Functioning, Metacognition, and Self-Regulation. In C. A. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy development and disorder (pp. 398-427). New York: Guilford Press.
  65. Wigent, C. (2013). High school readers: A profile of above-average readers and readers with learning disabilities reading expository text. Learning and Individual Differences, 25, 134-140.
  66. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. (8. Basım). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  67. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.