X hits on this document

Word document

Awareness of reading strategy use and reading comprehension - page 6 / 15

58 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

6 / 15

Table 2. Ranking of Cognitive Strategy Awareness  and percentages within reading groups

Rank

Cognitive Strategy

Reading group

Poor

Good

Total

f

%

f

%

f

%

Organisation strategies*

38

54.28

48

36.09

86

42.36

1

Underlining

17

24.28

17

12.78

34

16.75

2

Dictionary use

12

17.14

14

10.53

26

12.81

3

Using titles

8

11.42

16

12.03

24

11.82

13

Writing down

1

1.43

1

0.75

2

0.99

Elaborate cognitive strategies*

8

11.42

54

40.60

62

30.54

4

Guessing from the context

3

4.29

16

12.03

19

9.36

5

Activating prior knowledge

2

2.86

14

10.53

16

7.88

9

Imagery

2

2.86

11

8.27

13

6.40

10

Keep meaning in mind

1

1.43

11

8.27

12

5.91

12

Summarizing

0

0.00

2

1.50

2

0.99

Using linguistic features of the text*

5

7.14

25

18.80

30

14.78

7

Using linguistic clues

1

1.43

14

10.53

15

7.39

8

Using text markers

4

5.71

11

8.27

15

7.39

Others

6

Skipping the difficult parts

13

18.57

3

2.26

16

7.88

11

Repeating words or phrases

6

8.57

3

2.26

9

4.43

TOTAL**

70

99.99

133

100.01

203

100

Note: *Cumulative frequencies and percentages, **Total not exactly 100.00 due to rounding

It is worth noting that the less ‘elaborate’ strategy of skipping the difficult parts reported as the most popular strategy among poor readers (24.28%) compared to good readers who reported their preference to use it to a lesser degree (12.78%). In relation to this strategy, there was a significant relationship between strategy awareness and reading group (χ2 = 16.20, df = 1, p < .001), indicating that poor readers reported this ‘ambiguous’ strategy more frequently than poor readers did.

Referring to the readers’ efficiency of cognitive strategy awareness, nonparametric Mann-Whitney (2-tailed) tests were carried out to examine possible differences between poor and good readers. These analyses yielded similar results to χ2 statistic, showing that good readers had significant better efficiency of awareness in the more elaborate cognitive strategies [guessing from the context (U = 25.50, p = .000), activating prior knowledge (U = 44.00, p = .000), imagery (U = 80.00, p = .002), keeping meaning in mind (U = 69.00, p = .000)], apart for summarising (U = 144.00, p > .05). Also, good readers had significantly higher efficiency of awareness in the strategies based on linguistics features [linguistic clues (U = 39.50, p = .000), text markers (U = 98.50, p = .044)]. In relation to the efficiency of awareness in the organisation strategies, there were no statistically significant differences among poor and good readers [underlining (U = 128.00, p > .05), using dictionaries (U = 134.00, p > .05), writing down (U = 162.00, p > .05)], except for using titles strategy where good readers had significantly higher efficiency of awareness (U = 54.00, p = .000). In addition, there was no significant difference among poor and good readers in repeating words or phrases (U = 138.00, p > .05). In the ‘ambiguous strategy of skipping the difficult parts, poor readers had significantly higher efficiency of awareness than good readers (U = 57.00, p = .001). To sum up,

Document info
Document views58
Page views58
Page last viewedFri Jan 20 04:20:31 UTC 2017
Pages15
Paragraphs769
Words9245

Comments