KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research / 2026 / Volume: 10 Issue: 1

Investigation of cognitive and metacognitive strategies used by pre-service science teachers exposed to explicit and peer tutoring reading strategies instruction

Gülfem Dilek Yurttaş Kumlu(SİNOP ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-4741-2654
Nejla Yürük(GAZI UNIVERSITY, GAZİ FACULTY OF EDUCATION)0000-0001-9240-750X
Sayfa
—
Yayın Tarihi
2023-03-31
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

It was found that the diversity and frequency of using cognitive strategies and products of cognitive activities were the highest in the explicit strategy instruction group, and the metacognitive strategies and products of metacognitive activities were more diverse and frequent in reading strategy instruction groups compared to no strategy instruction group.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:The aim of this study was to investigate cognitive and metacognitive strategies and products of cognitive and metacognitive processes that preservice science teachers engaged in while reading heat-temperature text after being exposed to no reading strategy instruction, explicit reading strategy instruction and peer tutoring reading strategy instruction.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:This study employed holistic multiple-case study wherein preservice teachers were assigned to one of the three groups which received no reading strategy instruction (n=9), explicit reading strategy instruction (n=10) and peer tutoring (n=10) based on their scores on Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory and good communication among them.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:It was found that the diversity and frequency of using cognitive strategies and products of cognitive activities were the highest in the explicit strategy instruction group, and the metacognitive strategies and products of metacognitive activities were more diverse and frequent in reading strategy instruction groups compared to no strategy instruction group.
🔬Tür:Research Article
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Cognitive and metacognitive strategies · Products of cognitive and metacognitive processes · Explicit reading strategy instruction

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate cognitive and metacognitive strategies and products of cognitive and metacognitive processes that preservice science teachers engaged in while reading heat-temperature text after being exposed to no reading strategy instruction, explicit reading strategy instruction and peer tutoring reading strategy instruction. This study employed holistic multiple-case study wherein preservice teachers were assigned to one of the three groups which received no reading strategy instruction (n=9), explicit reading strategy instruction (n=10) and peer tutoring (n=10) based on their scores on Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory and good communication among them. The content of strategy instruction included various domain-specific reading comprehension strategies used for activating both cognitive and metacognitive activities which contribute to improving conceptual understanding and conceptual change. It was found that the diversity and frequency of using cognitive strategies and products of cognitive activities were the highest in the explicit strategy instruction group, and the metacognitive strategies and products of metacognitive activities were more diverse and frequent in reading strategy instruction groups compared to no strategy instruction group.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Kumlu, G. D. Y., Yürük, N. (2023). Investigation of cognitive and metacognitive strategies used by pre-service science teachers exposed to explicit and peer tutoring reading strategies instruction. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, Volume: 10 Issue: 1. https://doi.org/10.33200/ijcer.1082537

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (84)

  1. Ahmadi, M. R., Ismail, H. N., & Abdullah, M. K. K. (2013). The importance of metacognitive reading strategy awareness in reading comprehension. English Language Teaching, 6(10), 235-244. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n10p235
  2. Akgul, P. (2010). Üstkavramsal faaliyetlerle zenginleştirilmiş kavramsal değişim metinlerinin fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının “ısı ve sıcaklık” konusundaki kavramsal anlamalarına etkisi [The effect of conceptual change texts enriched with metaconceptual processes on preservice science teachers' conceptual understanding about heat and temperature] (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from Turkey Digital Theses database. (Publication No. 277999).
  3. Al-Hassan, S. (2003). Reciprocal peer tutoring effect on high frequency sight word learning, retention, and generalization of fırst- and second grade urban elementary school students (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Publication No. 3148152)
  4. Alegre-Ansuátegui, F. J., Moliner, L., Lorenzo, G., & Maroto, A. (2018). Peer tutoring and academic achievement in mathematics: A meta-analysis. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 14(1), 337–354. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/79805.
  5. Author (2016). Doctoral dissertation, Gazi University. Turkey Digital Theses database.
  6. Baker, L., Dreher, M. J., Shiplet, A. K., Beall, L. C., Voelker, A. N., Garrett, A. J.,. & Finger-Elam, M. (2017). Children’s comprehension of informational text: Reading, engaging, and learning. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4(1), 197-227.
  7. Blasiman, R. N., Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. A. (2017). The what, how much, and when of study strategies: Comparingintended versus actual study behaviour. Memory, 25(6), 784–792. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2016.122197
  8. Calhoon, M. B. (2005). Effects of a peer-mediated phonological skill and reading comprehension program on reading skill acquisition for middle school students with reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(5), 424-433.
  9. Carrell, P. L. (1998). Can reading strategies be successfully taught? Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 21(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.21.1.01car
  10. Choi, I., Land, S. M., & Turgeon, A. J. (2005). Scaffolding peer-questioning strategies to facilitate metacognition during online small group discussion. Instructional Science, 33(5-6), 483-511. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-005-1277-4
  11. Choi, K., Lee, H., Shin, N., Kim, S. W., & Krajcik, J. (2011). Re-conceptualization of scientific literacy in South Korea for the 21st century. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(6), 670–697. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20424
  12. Cromley, J. G. (2005). Metacognition, cognitive strategy instruction, and reading in adult literacy. Review of Adult Learning and Literacy, 5, 187-220.
  13. De Backer, L., Van Keer, H., & Valcke, M. (2012). Exploring the potential impact of reciprocal peer tutoring on higher education students’ metacognitive knowledge and regulation. Instructional Science, 40(3), 559-588. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9190-5
  14. de Boer, H., Donker, A. S., & van der Werf, M. P. (2014). Effects of the attributes of educational interventions on students’ academic performance: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 84(4), 509-545. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314540006
  15. Djudin, T. (2017). Using metacognitive strategies to ımprove reading comprehension and solve a word problem. Journal of Education, Teaching and Learning, 2(1), 124-129.
  16. Dole, J. A., Nokes, J. D., & Drits, D. (2009). Cognitive strategy instruction. In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 347-372). New York, NY: Routledge.
  17. Dole, J. A. & Sinatra, G. M. (1998). Reconceptalizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 33(2-3), 109-128. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1998.9653294
  18. Fang, Z. & Wei, Y. (2010). Improving middle school students’ science literacy through reading infusion. The Journal of Educational Research, 103(4), 262-273. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670903383051
  19. Fiorella, L. & Mayer, R. E. (2016). Eight ways to promote generative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 28(4), 717-741. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9348-9
  20. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906.
  21. Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.
  22. Glogger, I., Schwonke, R., Holzäpfel, L., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2012). Learning strategies assessed by journal writing: prediction of learning outcomes by quantity, quality, and combinations of learning strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 452–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.02.001
  23. Gunstone, R. F., & Mitchell, I. J. (1998). Metacognition and conceptual change. In J. J. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Teaching science for understanding: A human constructivist view (pp.133-163). Academic Press.
  24. Halim, N., Arif, M. M., & Supramaniam, K. (2020). Enhancing reading comprehension through metacognitive reading strategies and peer tutoring among year 7 students at a home school centre. Asian Journal of University Education, 16(1), 22-31.
  25. Hennessey, M. G. (1999, March). Probing the dimensions of metacognition: Implications for conceptual change teaching-learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the NationalAssociation for Research in Science Teaching, Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED446921
  26. Johnson, B. E., & Zabrucky, K. M. (2011). Improving middle and high school students' comprehension of science texts. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4(1), 19-31.
  27. Kumlu, G. (2012). Alternatif kavramlara sahip fen ve teknoloji öğretmen adaylarında fen metinlerini okurlarken aktif hale gelen bilişsel ve üstbilişsel stratejiler [Cognitive and metacognitive strategies activated while the science texts being read by science and technology pre-service teachers having alternative concepts] (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from Turkey Digital Theses database. (Publication No. 317153)
  28. Laskey, M. L. & Hetzel, C. J. (2010). Self-regulated learning, metacognition, and soft skills: The 21st century learner. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED511589
  29. Leutwyler, B. (2009). Metacognitive learning strategies: Differential development patterns in high school. Metacognition and Learning, 4(2), 111–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-009-9037-5
  30. Love, O. C., Anyamene, A. N., & Anyachebelu, F. E. (2021). Effect of literature circle and peer tutoring on the reading comprehension achievement of primary school pupils in Awka South local government area of Anambra State. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies, 12(1), 33-38.
  31. Luque, M. L. (2003). The role of domain-specific knowledge in intentional conceptual change. In G. L. Sinatra & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional conceptual change (pp. 133-170). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
  32. Mason, L., & Boscolo, P. (2000). Writing and conceptual change. What changes? Instructional Science, 28(3), 199-226.
  33. McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., & Louwerse, M. M. (2012). Sources of text difficulty: Across genres and grades. In J. P. Sabatini, E. Albro, & T. O’Reilly (Eds.), Measuring up: Advances in how we assess reading ability (pp. 89–116). Lanham, MD: R&L Education.
  34. McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., McCarthy, P. M., & Graesser, A. C. (2010). Coh-Metrix: Capturing linguistic features of cohesion. Discourse Processes, 47(4), 292-330. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530902959943
  35. Meneghetti, C., Carretti, B., & De Beni, R. (2006). Components of reading comprehension and scholastic achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 291–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2006.11.001
  36. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
  37. Michalsky, T. (2013). Integrating skills and wills instruction in self-regulated science text reading for secondary students. International Journal of Science Education, 35(11), 1846–1873. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.805890
  38. Mikkilä-Erdmann, M., & Iiskala, T. (2020). Developing learning and teaching practices for adults: Perspectives from conceptual change and metacognition research. In E. K. Kallio (Ed.), Development of adult thinking: Interdisciplinary perspectives on cognitive development and adult learning (pp. 123-140). New York, NY: Routledge.
  39. Mokhtari, K. & Reichard, C. (2002). Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249-259. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.94.2.249
  40. Morehead, K., Rhodes, M. G., & DeLozier, S. (2016). Instructor and student knowledge of study strategies. Memory, 24(2), 257-271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2014.1001992
  41. Muteti, C. Z., Zarraga, C., Jacob, B. I., Mwarumba, T. M., Nkhata, D. B., Mwavita, M.,. & Mutambuki, J. M. (2021). I realized what I was doing was not working: the influence of explicit teaching of metacognition on students’ study strategies in a general chemistry I course. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 22(1), 122-135. https://doi.org/10.1039/d0rp00217h
  42. Ness, M. (2011). Explicit reading comprehension instruction in elementary classrooms: Teacher use of reading comprehension strategies. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 25(1), 98-117. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2010.531076
  43. Ness, M. K. (2016). Reading comprehension strategies in secondary content area classrooms: Teacher use of and attitudes towards reading comprehension instruction. Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy and Language Arts, 49(2), 59-85.
  44. Nielsen, W. S., Nashon, S., & Anderson, D. (2009). Metacognitive engagement during field-trip experiences: A case study of students in an amusement park physics program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(3), 265–288. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20266
  45. Nietfeld, J. L., & Schraw, G. (2002). The effect of knowledge and strategy training on monitoring accuracy. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(3), 131-142. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670209596583
  46. Nist, S. L., & Holschuh, J. P. (2000). Comprehension strategies at the college level. In R. F. Flippo & D. C. Caverly (Eds.), Handbook of college reading and study strategy research (pp. 75-104). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
  47. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224-240. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10066
  48. O’Malley, J. M. & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge University. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524490
  49. Ortlieb, E., Norris, M., & Christi, C. (2012). Using the think-aloud strategy to bolster reading comprehension of science concepts. Current Issues in Education, 15(1), 1-9.
  50. Quinn, R. J., & Wilson, M. M. (1997). Writing in the mathematics classroom: Teacher beliefs and practices. The Clearing House, 71(1), 14–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098659709599316
  51. Ozturk, E. (2012). Okuma Stratejileri Üstbilişsel Farkındalık Envanteri’nin Türkçe formunun geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması [The validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory]. İlköğretim Online, 11(1), 292-305.
  52. Palincsar, A. S. (1986). The role of dialogue in providing scaffolded instruction. Educational Psychologist, 21(1&2), 73–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1986.9653025
  53. Palincsar, A. S., Brown, A. L., & Martin, S. M. (1987). Peer interaction in reading comprehension instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22(3-4), 231-253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1987.9653051
  54. Paris, S. G., & Hamilton, E. E. (2009). The development of children’s reading comprehension. In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 32-53). New York, NY: Routledge.
  55. Pilten, G. (2016). The evaluation of effectiveness of reciprocal teaching strategies on comprehension of expository texts. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4(10), 232-247. http://dx.doi.org/10.11114/jets.v4i10.1791
  56. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211-227. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730660207
  57. Pourhosein Gilakjani, A., & Sabouri, N. B. (2016). How can students improve their reading comprehension skill? Journal of Studies in Education, 6(2), 229-240. http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/jse.v6i2.9201
  58. Roscoe, R. D., & Chi, M. (2008). Tutor learning: The role of explaining and responding to questions. Instructional Science, 36(4), 321–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-007-9034-5
  59. Rupley, W. H., Blair, T. R., & Nichols, W. D. (2009). Effective reading instruction for struggling readers: The role of direct/explicit teaching. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 25(2-3), 125-138. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560802683523
  60. Saçkes, M. (2010). The role of cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational variables in conceptual change: preservice early childhood teachers’ conceptual understanding of the cause of lunar phases (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Publication No. 3438175)
  61. Sinatra, G. M., & Pintrich, P. R. (Eds.) (2003). Intentional conceptual change. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  62. Spörer, N., Brunstein, J. C., & Kieschke, U. L. F. (2009). Improving students' reading comprehension skills: Effects of strategy instruction and reciprocal teaching. Learning and Instruction, 19(3), 272-286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.05.003
  63. Thurston, A., Cockerill, M., & Chiang, T. H. (2021). Assessing the differential effects of peer tutoring for tutors and tutees. Education Sciences, 11(3), 97-108. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11030097
  64. Topping, K. J. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology, 25(6), 631–645. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410500345172
  65. Van Keer, H. (2004). Fostering reading comprehension in fifth grade by explicit instruction in reading strategies and peer tutoring. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(1), 37-70. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709904322848815
  66. Vandergrift, L. (1997). The comprehension strategies of second language (French) listeners: A descriptive study. Foreign Language Annals, 30(3), 387-409. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1997.tb02362.x
  67. Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-006-6893-0.
  68. Veenman, M. V. J. (2011). Learning to self-monitor and to self-regulate. In R. E. Mayer & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction. (pp. 197–218). New York, NY: Routledge.
  69. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scriber, & E. Souberman, Eds.). London: Harvard University Press.
  70. Wang, J. R., Chen, S. F., Fang, I., & Chou, C. T. (2014). Comparison of Taiwanese and Canadian students’ metacognitive awareness of science reading, text, and strategies. International Journal of Science Education, 36(4), 693–713. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.826841
  71. Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 13(1), 21-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(89)90014-1
  72. Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
  73. Wexler, J., Mitchell, M. A., Clancy, E. E., & Silverman, R. D. (2017). An investigation of literacy practices in high school science classrooms. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 33(3), 258-277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2016.1193832
  74. Wiser, M., & Amin, T. (2001). “Is heat hot?” Inducing conceptual change by integrating everyday and scientific perspectives on thermal phenomenon. Learning and Instruction, 11(4-5), 331-355. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00036-0
  75. Yıldız, E. (2008). 5E modelinin kullanıldığı kavramsal değişime dayalı öğretimde üstbilişin etkileri: 7. sınıf kuvvet ve hareket ünitesine yönelik bir uygulama [The effects of metacognition during the instruction based on conceptual change used with 5E Model: An application regarding the force and motion subject in the 7th grade] (Publication No. 231557) [Doctoral dissertation, Dokuz Eylül University]. Turkey Digital Theses database.
  76. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  77. Yore, L. D. (2012). Science Literacy for all—more than a slogan, logo, or rally flag! In K. C. D. Tan, M. Kim, & S. Hwang (Eds.), Issues and challenges in science education research: Moving forward (pp. 5–23). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3980-2_2
  78. Yore, L., Hand, B., Goldman, S. R., Hildebrand, G. M., Osborne, J. F., Treagust, D. F., & Wallace, C. S. (2004). New directions in language and science education research. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(3), 347–352. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.39.3.8
  79. Yoshida, M. (2008). Think-aloud protocols and type of reading task: The issue of reactivity in L2 reading research. In M. Bowles, R. Foote, S. Perpiñán, & R. Bhatt (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 2007 second language research forum (pp. 199–209). Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
  80. Yürük, N. (2005). An analysis of the nature of students’ metaconceptual processes and the effectiveness of metaconceptual teaching practices on students’ conceptual understanding of force and motion (Publication No. 3182729) [Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
  81. Zepeda, C. D., Richey, J. E., Ronevich, P., & Nokes-Malach, T. J. (2015). Direct instruction of metacognition benefits adolescent science learning, transfer, and motivation: An in vivo study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(4), 954. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/edu0000022
  82. Zohar, A., & David, A. B. (2009). Paving a clear path in a thick forest: a conceptual analysis of a metacognitive component. Metacognition and Learning, 4(3), 177-195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-009-9044-6
  83. Baker, L., Dreher, M. J., Shiplet, A. K., Beall, L. C., Voelker, A. N., Garrett, A. J.,. & Finger-Elam, M. (2017). Children’s comprehension of informational text: Reading, engaging, and learning. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4(1), 197-227.
  84. Muteti, C. Z., Zarraga, C., Jacob, B. I., Mwarumba, T. M., Nkhata, D. B., Mwavita, M.,. & Mutambuki, J. M. (2021). I realized what I was doing was not working: the influence of explicit teaching of metacognition on students’ study strategies in a general chemistry I course. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 22(1), 122-135. https://doi.org/10.1039/d0rp00217h