The Effect of Awareness Raising Through Metacognitive Strategy-based Instruction on ESP Learners’ Reading Comprehension

Ahangari, Saeide; Mohseni, Fatemeh

|
|
|
How to cite
RIS EndNote BibTeX APA MLA Harvard Vancouver
|
Share

	The Effect of Awareness Raising Through Metacognitive Strategy-based Instruction on ESP Learners’ Reading Comprehension
Article 4, Volume 9, Issue 18, Winter and Spring 2016, Page 65-77 PDF (141.76 K)
Document Type: Research Paper
Authors
Saeide Ahangari ¹; Fatemeh Mohseni²
¹Department of English, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran
²Department of English, Buinzahra Branch, Islamic Azad University, Buinzahra, Iran
Abstract
The present study was an attempt to investigate the effect of meta-cognitive strategy (planning, self-monitoring) awareness raising instruction on reading comprehension of Iranian ESP learners. Participants of three groups each comprising of 21 Iranian male students studying “Civil Engineering” in “Islamic Azad University of Buin Zahra” were selected and assigned to three groups: two experimental groups (group A, and B) and one control group (group C). To meet the aim of the study, two reading comprehension tests were administered to the participants in three groups. In the first phase, a reading comprehension was administered as a pre-test. In the second phase, two experimental groups received five sessions of instruction on planning and self-monitoring awareness raising strategies on the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA) and control group received no training. In the third phase, after completion of the instruction, a reading comprehension test as a post-test was administered to the groups. The findings indicated that the participants in two experimental groups outperformed the control group in the post-test of reading comprehension. It is concluded that the instruction of planning and self-monitoring metacognitive strategies as learning aids can lead to the improvement of students’ reading comprehension performance.
Keywords
awareness-raising; Metacognitive; reading strategy; Planning; self-monitoring; reading comprehension


References
Allen, J. P. B, &Widdowson, H. G. (1974). Teaching the communicative use of English. International Review of Applied Linguistics. 7, 213-224 Auerbach, E. & D. Paxton (1997). It’s not the English thing: bringing reading researchinto the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly 31, 237-261. Benson, M.J. (1991). “University ESL reading: a content analysis”. English for Specific Purposes10: 75-88. Chastain, K. (1988). Developing second-language skills theory and practice (3rd Ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Chumpavan, S. (2000). A qualitative investigation of metacognitive strategies used by Thai students in second language academic reading. SLLT, 9, 62-77. Dole, J. A. (2000). Explicit and implicit instruction in comprehension. In B. M. Taylor, M. F. & M. Graves (Eds.), Reading for meaning: Fostering comprehension in the middle grades (pp. 52-69). New York: Teachers College Press. Dhieb-Henia, N. (2003). Evaluating the effectiveness of metacognitive strategy training for reading research articles in an ESP context. English for Specific Purposes 22,387-417. Dreyer, C. & C. Nel (2003). Teaching reading strategies and reading comprehension within a technology-enhanced learning environment. System 31: 349-365. Gelderen, V., Amos, S., Rob, S., Reinoud, D., Glopper, D., Kees, H. & Jan, I. (2007). Development of adolescent reading comprehension in L1 and L2: A longitudinal analysis of constituent components. Journal of Educational Psychology. 99(3)125-145. Grabe, W. (2002). Reading in a second language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hutchinson, T. & Waters, A. (1987) English for specific purposes: A learning centered approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Krashen, S. (1993a). The effect of grammar teaching: Still peripheral. TESOL Quarterly. 27, 717-725. Krashen, S. (1993b). The power of reading. Englewood: Colo libraries Unlimited. Mackay, R. & Mountford, A.J. (1978). English for specific purposes: A case study. London: Longman. Mante, M.J.S. (2009). Dimensions of motivation to read and metacognitive reading strategies as predictors of reading comprehension among Filipino bilinguals. Unpublished Dissertation. De LaSalle University. Nunan, D (2006).Second language teaching and learning. Boston. M.A: Heinle & Heinle. London: Longman. O’Malley, J. M. &Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Phillips, V. (1991, November). Learner strategy use and EFL proficiency. The CATESOL Journal, 36, 57-67. Pressley, M., El-Dinary, P.B., Wharton-McDonald, R., & Brown, R. (1998). Transactional instruction of comprehension strategies in the elementary grades. In D.M. Schunk & B.J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learning: From research to self-reflective practice (pp. 42–56).New York: Guilford. Sheorey, R. & K. Mokhtari (2001). Coping with academic materials: differences in the reading strategies of native and non-native readers. System 29, 431-449. Vogt, M, & Nagano, P. (2003). Turn it on with light bulb reading! Sound-switching strategies for struggling readers. Reading Teacher, 57(3), 214-221. Wood, E., M. Motz& T. Willoughby (1998). Examining students’ retrospective memories of strategy development. Journal of Educational Psychology 90, 698-704. Zimmerman, E. (2008). Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice. New York: The Guilford Press.
Statistics Article View: 612 PDF Download: 336