The results indicated significant differences amonggroups in terms of frequency use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies indicating theimpact of culture on employing strategies.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study focused on cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies and aimed to find outthe relationship and differences between two groups of participants’ reports on the use ofcognitive and metacognitive reading strategies at English Language Teaching Departments ofÇanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Çukurova University, Erciyes University, and GaziUniversity in Turkey; and Marand University, Tehran University, and Tehran AzadUniversity in Iran.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study firstly investigated how frequently advanced level languagestudents were using cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies, secondly it revealed therelationship between the participants’ use of cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies.Moreover, it investigated gender differences among groups in terms of using strategies.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results indicated significant differences amonggroups in terms of frequency use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies indicating theimpact of culture on employing strategies.
This study focused on cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies and aimed to find outthe relationship and differences between two groups of participants’ reports on the use ofcognitive and metacognitive reading strategies at English Language Teaching Departments ofÇanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Çukurova University, Erciyes University, and GaziUniversity in Turkey; and Marand University, Tehran University, and Tehran AzadUniversity in Iran. The study firstly investigated how frequently advanced level languagestudents were using cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies, secondly it revealed therelationship between the participants’ use of cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies.Moreover, it investigated gender differences among groups in terms of using strategies. Thedata were collected by means of questionnaires which were delivered participants in the fallsemester of 2009-2010 academic year. The results indicated significant differences amonggroups in terms of frequency use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies indicating theimpact of culture on employing strategies.
KASIMİ, Y. (2013). Cognitive and metacognitive strategies employed by Iranian and Turkish EFL readers. ELT Research Journal, Cilt: 1 - Sayı: 3, 159–174. https://ajindex.com/articles/754090
Abbott, M. L. (2006). ESL reading strategies: differences in Arabic and Mandarin speaker test performance. Language Learning, 56: 633–670.
Aebersold, J. A. and Field, M. L. (1997). From reader to reading teacher: Issues and strategies for second language classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing. Modern Language Journal, 75, 460-472.
Baker, L., and Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 1, pp. 353-394). New York: Longman. Barnett, M. (1988). Reading through context: How real and perceived strategy use affects L2 comprehension. Modern Language Journal, 72, 150-162.
Block, E. (1986). The comprehension strategies of second language readers. TESOL Quarterly, 20 (3): 463-494.
Brown, A. (1981). Metacognition in reading and writing: The development and facilitation of selective attention strategies for learning from texts. In M. Kamil (Ed.), Directions in reading research and instruction (pp. 21-43). Washington D.C. National Reading Conference. Carrell, P. L. (1998). Can reading strategies be successfully taught? ARAL, 21(1), 1-20.
Chamot, A. and O’Malley, M. (1987). The cognitive academic language learning approach: A bridge to the mainstream. TESOL Quarterly, 21, (2), 227-249.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Cziko, G. A. (1980). Language competence and reading strategies: A comparison of first- and second-language oral reading errors. Language Learning, 30, 104-114.
Çubukçu, F. (2008). Enhancing vocabulary development and reading comprehension through metacognitive strategies. Issues in Educational Research, 18 (1), 1-11.
Drisoll, M. P.( 2000). Psychology of learning for instruction. 2nd. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Erten, İ. H. & Razı, S. (2003). An experimental investigation into the impact of cultural schemata on reading comprehension. Presented at 2nd International Balkan ELT Conference ‘Theory and Practice of TESOL’, Edirne – Turkey. Fisher-Kohn. E. (1986). Teaching close-reading for ESL/EFL: Uses and abuses. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 271952
Forbes, S.; Poparad, M. A.; McBride, M. (2004). To err is human; to self-correct is to learn. The Reading Teacher, 57 (6), 566-572.
Goodman, K. (1986). What's whole in whole language. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books Harr