X hits on this document

Word document

Awareness of reading strategy use and reading comprehension - page 8 / 15

50 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

8 / 15

Table 4. Ranking of Metacognitive Strategy Awareness

Rank

Metacognitive Strategy

Reading Group

Poor

Good

Total

f

%

f

%

f

%

Monitoring & planning strategies*

24

68.57

64

75.30

88

73.33

1

Rereading

14

40.00

18

21.18

32

26.67

2

Selective attention (e.g. looking for the main idea, key meanings)

4

11.43

17

20.00

21

17.50

4

Slowing down reading

5

14.28

6

7.06

11

9.17

6

Self-questioning

1

2.86

9

10.59

10

8.33

7

Comprehension  control

0

0.00

5

5.88

5

4.17

9

Directed attention (concentrating on the task, defying distraction, task persistence)

0

0.00

4

4.70

4

3.33

8

Over-viewing

0

0.00

5

5.88

5

4.17

Evaluating strategies*

11

31.43

21

24.70

32

26.67

3

Performance or text evaluation

7

20.00

14

16.47

21

17.50

5

Problem identification

4

11.43

6

7.06

10

8.33

10

Self-correction & errors’ explanation

0

0.00

1

1.18

1

0.83

TOTAL

35

100.00

85

100.00

120

100.00

Note: *Cumulative frequencies and percentages.

As it is presented in Table 5, there were significant relationships between selective attention strategy and reading group (χ2 = 19.31, df = 1, p = .000), and between self-questioning strategy and reading group (χ2 = 8.86, df = 1, p < .01); no significant relationship was found between slowing down reading strategy and reading group (χ2 = .13, df = 1, p > .05); while the chi-square statistic was not valid in the case of rereading strategy. In the case of comprehension control, directed attention and over-viewing strategies the chi-square statistic was not also valid, since no poor readers reported these strategies and in a statistical level there were cells that have expected count less than 5; it can easily be noticed that 4-5 good readers reported at least once each of these strategies (see Table 5). Thus, apart from rereading and slowing down reading strategies, poor readers reported the remaining six monitoring and planning strategies less frequently than poor readers.

As it is shown in Table 5, there were significant relationships between strategy of performance or text evaluation and reading group (χ2 = 5.60, df = 1, p < .05), but no significant relationship was found between problem identification strategy and reading group (χ2 = .55, df = 1, p > .05); while the chi-square statistic was not valid in the case of self-correction strategy, since just one good reader reported this strategy.

With reference to readers’ efficiency of awareness of metacognitive strategies, nonparametric Mann-Whitney (2-tailed) tests were carried out to examine possible differences between poor and good readers, which led to similar results to χ2 statistic [selective attention (U = 14.00, p = .000), self-questioning (U = 87.00, p = .003), comprehension control (U =  117.00, p = .018)], directed attention (U = 126.00, p = .037)], and over-viewing (U = 117.00, p = .018)]. The only difference was that good readers in rereading had significantly higher efficiency of awareness than poor readers (U = 68.00, p = .001), while no significant differences were found in the strategy of slowing down reading (U = 150.00, p  > .05).

Document info
Document views50
Page views50
Page last viewedSun Dec 11 00:30:44 UTC 2016
Pages15
Paragraphs769
Words9245

Comments