X hits on this document

Word document

Awareness of reading strategy use and reading comprehension - page 9 / 15

39 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

9 / 15

Table 5. Frequency of metacognitive strategy awareness among poor and good readers

Metacognitive Strategy

Reading Group

Poor

Good

χ2 (1)

p

Planning and monitoring strategies

Rereading

no

4

0

4.50

nv****

yes

14

18

Selective attention (focusing on the main idea, key words etc.)

no

14

1

19.31

.000***

yes

4

17

Slowing down reading

no

13

12

0.13

1.00

yes

5

6

Self-questioning

no

17

9

8.86

.003**

yes

1

9

Comprehension control

no

18

13

yes

0

5

5.81

nv****

Directed attention

no

18

15

3.27

nv****

yes

0

3

Over-viewing the text and important parts

no

18

13

5.81

nv****

yes

0

5

Evaluating strategies

Performance or text evaluation

no

11

4

5.60

.018*

yes

7

14

Problem identification

no

6

4

.55

.457

yes

12

14

Self-correction and errors’ explanation

no

18

17

1.03

nv****

yes

0

1

*p <.05 significance of Fisher’s Exact Test at the 2-tailed level, **p <.01, ***p <.001, nv****= the χ2 statistic was not valid

Similarly, good readers had significantly higher efficiency of awareness in the strategy of performance/text evaluation than poor readers (U = 81.50, p = .007), but no significant differences were found in the strategies of problem identification (U = 140.00, p > .05) and self-correction (U = 153.00, p  > .05).

To summarize the findings presented above, it can be mentioned that good readers had higher efficiency of awareness in the most sophisticated strategies of monitoring, planning and evaluating in comparison with poor readers.

Comparison of awareness of cognitive and metacognitive strategies among poor and good readers

Two independent t-tests were performed on the Cognitive Strategy Index Awareness (CSAI - quantifies the awareness of cognitive strategies) and Metacognitive Strategy Awareness Index (MSAI - quantifies the awareness of cognitive strategies to an index) in order to test the differences between poor and good readers. The means and standard deviations for the Cognitive Strategy Awareness Index (CSAI), Metacognitive Strategy Awareness Index (MSAI) are shown in Table 6.

The mean CSAI score of good readers was significantly higher than that of poor readers (t = -8.28, df = 27.12, p  <. 001), indicating that good readers have better awareness of cognitive strategies than poor readers. Also, the mean MSAI score of good readers was significantly higher than that of poor readers (t  = -7.02, df = 34, p <.001), indicating that good readers have better awareness of metacognitive strategies than poor readers.

Document info
Document views39
Page views39
Page last viewedSun Dec 04 04:08:45 UTC 2016
Pages15
Paragraphs769
Words9245

Comments