International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 2834-7919   |  e-ISSN: 1554-5210
International Journal of Progressive Education
International Association of Educators

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2020, Vol. 16(5) 30-48

The Sources of Cognitive and Metacognitive Strategies Used By 7th Grade Students While Reading the ” Cells and Divisions " Unit

Emine Hatun Diken

pp. 30 - 48   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2020.277.3   |  Manu. Number: MANU-2004-15-0003

Published online: October 09, 2020  |   Number of Views: 165  |  Number of Download: 639

Save PDF

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to determine the sources of cognitive and metacognitive strategies that 7th-grade students use when studying the “Cell and Divisions” unit that belongs to the field of Biology. In the study, the case study which is one of the qualitative research methods was used. A total of 6 students from 3 different secondary schools in Kars participated in the study. In the research, 6 7th grade students who study in 3 different secondary schools read the "Cell and Divisions" unit in the 7th grade Science Textbook. Students were observed by the researcher in their process of reading this unit. Students were asked to think aloud to determine the cognitive and metacognitive strategies used in the process of reading the unit. To determine whether the strategies used in reading the unit are cognitive or metacognitive, and to determine the sources (from, where or how) of these cognitive and transcriptional strategies they are using, semi-structured interviews were conducted with them immediately after reading the unit. The observation records of the students' reading process of the unit and transcripts of the data obtained from the semi-structured interviews with the students after reading the unit were made. The transcripts of the data were analyzed. According to the results of the research; It was determined that the sources of the cognitive strategies used by the two students who study in the 1st secondary school and have high grade point averages while reading the "Cell and Divisions" unit were themselves and their teachers and the sources of metacognitive strategies of them were their teachers and friends. It was determined that the sources of the cognitive and metacognitive strategies used by the two students who study in the 2nd secondary school and have medium grade point averages were only themselves. It was determined that the sources of the cognitive strategies used by the two students who study in the 3rd school and have low grade point averages were only themselves, But it was determined that the sources of the metacognitive strategies of one student were himself/herself but since the other student did not use metacognitive strategies the sources of the strategies could not be determined.

Keywords: Cognitive and Metacognitive Strategies, Cell and Division Unit, Reading Strategies

How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Diken, E.H. (2020). The Sources of Cognitive and Metacognitive Strategies Used By 7th Grade Students While Reading the ” Cells and Divisions " Unit . International Journal of Progressive Education, 16(5), 30-48. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2020.277.3

Harvard
Diken, E. (2020). The Sources of Cognitive and Metacognitive Strategies Used By 7th Grade Students While Reading the ” Cells and Divisions " Unit . International Journal of Progressive Education, 16(5), pp. 30-48.

Chicago 16th edition
Diken, Emine Hatun (2020). "The Sources of Cognitive and Metacognitive Strategies Used By 7th Grade Students While Reading the ” Cells and Divisions " Unit ". International Journal of Progressive Education 16 (5):30-48. doi:10.29329/ijpe.2020.277.3.
References
  1. Alderman, M. K., Klein, R., Seeley, P. K. and Sanders, M. (1993). Metacognitive self-portraits: preservation teachers as learners. Reading Research and Instruction, 32(2), 38-54. [Google Scholar]
  2. Anastasiou, D and Griva E. (2009). Awareness of reading strategy use and reading coverage among poor and good readers. Elementary Education Online, 8(2), 283-297.  [Google Scholar]
  3. Baydik, B. (2011). Students with reading difficulties using the strategies of reading and reading comprehension of their teachers to examine the teaching practices. Education and Science, 36(162), 301-319. [Google Scholar]
  4. Blakey, E. and Spence, P. (1990). Developing metacognition. ERIC Digest, ED 327 218. Syracuse: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information Resources. Retrieved June 14, 2009, http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED327218.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  5. Brown, A.L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms, in F. E. Weinert and R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65-116). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  6. Brown, A. L., Armbruster, B. B. and Baker, L. (1986). The role of metacognition in reading and studying. In Orasanu, J. (Ed.), Reading Comprehension: From Research to Practice (pp. 49-75). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  7. Brown, A. L., and Palincsar, A. S. (1982). Inducing strategic learning from the text by means of informed, self-control training (Technical Report No. 262). Urbana: University of Illinois, Centre for the study of Reading. [Google Scholar]
  8. Chi, M.T.H. (1987). Representing knowledge and metaknowed: implications of interpreting metamemory research. In F.E. Weinert and R.H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation and understanding (pp. 239-266). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  9. Cope, K. (1990). S.T.O.P. and watch your students ' metacognition grow. Journal of the Wisconsin State Reading Association, 34(4), 17-19. [Google Scholar]
  10. Çakıroğlu, A. (2007). The effect of the use of metacognitive strategy on access enhancement in students with low levels of reading comprehension. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Gazi University, Institute Of Educational Sciences, Ankara. [Google Scholar]
  11. Çalışkan, P., Selçuk Sezgin, G. and Erol M. (2006). Evaluation of problem-solving behavior of physics teacher candidates.  Hacettepe University Faculty Of Education Journal, 30, 73-81. [Google Scholar]
  12. Diken, E. H., (2014). Determination of cognitive and metacognitive strategies used by 9th-grade students to solve multiple-choice science questions. Gazi University Institute Of Educational Sciences, Ankara. [Google Scholar]
  13. Diken, E. H., & Yuruk, N. (2019). 9. Determination of cognitive and metacognitive strategies used by students before, during and after solving multiple-choice questions in the field of science. Journal of Human and Social Sciences Research; 8(2), 1071-1099. [Google Scholar]
  14. Eanet, M. G. and Manzo, A.V. (1976). REAP-a strategy for improving reading, writing, study skills. Journal of Reading, 19, 647-652. [Google Scholar]
  15. Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem-solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231-235). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar]
  16. Flavell, J.H. (1979). Metacognitive and cognitive monitoring: a new area of cognitive developmental inquiry. American Psychologyst, 34, 906-911. [Google Scholar]
  17. Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading coverage. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. [Google Scholar]
  18. Georghiades, P. (2004). From the general to stuated: three decades of metacognition. International Journal of Science Education, 26(3), 365-383. [Google Scholar]
  19. Ghonsooly, B. and Eghtesadee, A. R. (2006). Role of cognitive style of field-dependence/independence in using metacognitive and cognitive reading strategies by a group of skilled and novel Iranian students of english literature. Asian EFL Journal, 8(4), 119-150. [Google Scholar]
  20. Kumlu, G. (2012). Cognitive and metacognitive strategies that become active in reading science texts in science teacher candidates with alternative concepts. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Gazi University, Institute Of Educational Sciences, Ankara. [Google Scholar]
  21. Livingstone, J. A. (1997). Metacognition: an overview. Retrieved 16 February, 2009, http://www.gse.buffalo.edu/fas/shuell/CEP564/Metacog.html.  [Google Scholar]
  22. MEB (2018). Ministry Of National Education Science Course Curriculum, Ankara. http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/dosyalar/201812312311937-fen%20programı2018.pdf retrieved on 24.02.2020. [Google Scholar]
  23. MEB (2019).  Ministry of National Education Regulation On The Secondary Education Institutions http://mevzuat.gov.tr/Dosyalar/7.5.19912.pdf retrieved on 24.02.2020. [Google Scholar]
  24. Nelson, T. O. (1996). Consciousness and metacognition. American Psychologist, 51, 02 –116. [Google Scholar]
  25. O'malley, J. M. and Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  26. Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd edition). Thousand Oaks, we have: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  27. Pesa, N., & Somers, P. (2007). Improving reading coverage through application and transfer of reading strategies (a Research Project). Chicago, Illinois: Saint Xavier University & Pearson Achievement Solutions. [Google Scholar]
  28. Robinson, F. P. (1970). Effective study. NewYork: Harper Row. [Google Scholar]
  29. Selçuk Sezgin, G., Caliskan, P., and Erol, M. (2007). The effects of gender and grade levels on turkish physics teacher candidates’ problem solving strategies. Turkish Journal Of Science Education, 4 (1), 92-100. [Google Scholar]
  30. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1987). What's all the fuss about metacognition? In Schoenfeld, A. H. (Ed.), Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp.189-215). Hillsdale, N. J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar]
  31. Schraw, G. and Moshman, d. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7(4), 351-371. [Google Scholar]
  32. Taraban, R. (2004). Analytic and programmatic factors in college students' metacognitive reading strategies. Reading Psychology, 25, 67-81. [Google Scholar]
  33. Topuzkanamış, E., Maltepe, P. (2010). Levels of reading comprehension and use of reading strategies of teacher candidates, TÜBAR, XXVII, 655-677. [Google Scholar]
  34. Thomas, D. V. and Robinson. H.A. (1972) Improving reading in every class. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. [Google Scholar]
  35. Weir, C. (1999). Using embedded questions to jumstart metacognition in middle school remadial readers. Journal of Adoloscent and Adult Literacy, 51(4), 74-77. [Google Scholar]
  36. Winne, P. H. (1996). A metacognition view of individual differences in self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8(4), 327-353. [Google Scholar]
  37. Winne, P. H. and Perry, N. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich and M. Zeidler (Eds.). Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 531-566). San Diego. CA: Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  38. Van Someren, M. W., Barnard, Y. F., and Sandberg, J. A. (1994). The think aloud method: a practical guide to modelling cognitive processes. San Diego: Academic. [Google Scholar]
  39. Akdemir, E., & Çetin Atasoy D. (2019). 7th Grade Science Textbook. Ankara: Dikey Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  40. Yildirim, A. and Simsek H. (2006). Qualitative research methods in Social Sciences. Ankara: Seçkin Publishing House. [Google Scholar]
  41. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: design and methods (3rd ed,). Thousand Oaks, we have: Sage. [Google Scholar]
Download
Metric
History
Related

Volume 16 Issue 5

October 2020

All Articles

International Journal of Progressive Education

International Association of Educators.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License.
Privacy policy     |     Terms of Use     |     Use of Cookies
Creative Commons Lisansı
© 2012 - 2024 - THDSoft e-Journal Management System.