Metacognition of young readers in an early intervention programme

Abstract

This qualitative study was designed to investigate the metacognitive behaviour displayed by young children during their involvement in a reading intervention program, using videotapes of both intervention sessions and stimulated recall to access metacognition. The children demonstrated a wide range of metacognitive behaviour consistent with models of metacognition for older children proposed by researchers such as Flavell (1979) and Paris (Cross and Paris, 1988). Most metacognitive responses during intervention sessions involved self-regulation whereas responses during stimulated recall tended to reflect metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Results support the need to use multiple measures of metacognition with young children as well as the need for further research on the relationship between metacognition and reading achievement of children in reading intervention programmes. RE  SUME  La meÂtacognition de jeunes lecteurs dans un programme d'intervention preÂcoceOn a re alise cette e tude qualitative pour examiner le comportement me tacognitif que pre sentent de jeunes enfants apprenant aÁ lire aÁ partir d'un programme d'intervention pre coce base sur les principes de`Recouvrement de la lecture' (Clay, 1985(Clay, , 1993b. Clay parle de systeÁ mes d'autode veloppement centre s sur des compe tences me tacognitives de re solution de probleÁ mes, d'autocorrection et de pilotage, mais elle ne pre sente pas de modeÁ le de me tacognition lie aÁ la lecture. Les modeÁ les de me tacognition utilise s en vue de cette e tude ont e te propose s par des chercheurs tels que Flavell (1979) et Paris (Cross et Paris, 1988).Cette e tude porte sur cinq enfants. Pour chaque enfant, on a vide oscope deux sessions d'intervention vers la fin du programme de chacun d'eux. On a analyse la verbalisation spontane e des strate gies me tacognitives dans les vide o. La plupart des re ponses me tacognitives pendant les sessions d'intervention impliquent une autore gulation. Le nombre de re ponses me tacognitives en condition spontane e est limite du fait du cours et de la progression d'une lecË on de lecture. Le maõà tre voulait introduire une strate gie pour faciliter la lecture des enfants, et quand l'enfant re ussissait le maõà tre ne stoppait jamais les activite s de lecture pour discuter de la strate gie que l'enfant avait employe e. Il fallait proce der autrement pour e valuer la me tacognition des enfants.On a e labore une situation de stimulation pour y parvenir. On a rassemble des mate riaux utilise s pendant chaque session vide oscope e et on a demande aux enfants un aÁ un de verbaliser ce qu'ils pensent quand ils se voient lire sur la vide o. Tout en regardant leur propre vide o, les enfants ont commente ce qui se passait sur les enregistrements, aÁ quoi ils avaient pense quand ils avaient re ussi et comment ils parvenaient aÁ apporter des re ponses spe cifiques au mate riau e crit. Pour mieux comprendre ce que les enfants savaient de la lecture et de la me ...

High and Low Reading Comprehension Achievers' Strategic Behaviors and Their Relation to Performance in a Reading Comprehension Situation

“…The results of the study showed that, in general, third graders were relatively able to use a repertoire of skilled and strategic behaviors during their efforts to understand the given text, corroborating recent research that documents that students can be strategic at least to a degree early in their school life (Juliebö et al, 1998;Perry, 1998;Siegler, 2000;Whitebread et al, 2005). More specifically, the participants were found to sufficiently regulate their motivation toward the tasks at hand, since they were found to persist in the face of difficulties, to retain their interest in the activities, and to remain concentrated on them.…”

“…It is also known that even high school graduates and beginning college students are not metacognitively mature with respect to reading (Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995). Although children at about 9-10 years of age have rudimentary understanding of the task of reading, they have incomplete concepts about the nature and purpose of reading, and their understanding and control of strategies, especially metacognitive ones (Juliebö et al, 1998;Paris, Wasik, & Turner, 1991), are often inadequate and will increase with skill and age. The findings of the study also showed that high achievers outperformed low achievers in employing all the strategic behaviors assessed, thus corroborating previous research (Brown & Pressley, 1994;Horner & Shwery, 2002;Jacobs & Paris, 1987;Stahl, 2004).…”

“…The vast majority of previous research examining students' self-regulation used mainly self-reports instrumentation in a domain of knowledge, such as self-completed questionnaires or verbal reports on the problem-solving process (Stokking & Voeten, 2000;Winne & Perry, 2000). Few studies provided data on students' actual self-regulatory behavior as it spontaneously emerges during a specific learning and problem-solving situation (see, for example, Juliebö, Malicky, & Norman, 1998;Whitebread, Coltman, Anderson, Mehta, & Pasternak, 2005).…”

Predicting School Achievement Rather than Intelligence: Does Metacognition Matter?

“…On the other hand, educational programs, which seek to improve General Academic Performance, would focus their efforts on the development of general metacognitive abilities. In spite of the number of studies showing that metacognitive intervention improves academic achievement (Bianchi, 2008;Bigozzi, De Bernart, & Del Vecchio, 2007;Blank, 2000;Csíkos & Steklács, 2010;Juliebö, Malicky, & Norman, 1998;Victor, 2005), further studies should investigate the suggestion aforementioned, incorporating general and specific metacognitive abilities in their intervention (or instruction), and relating them to general and specific achievement.…”

How Can Reading Comprehension Strategies and Recall Be Improved in Elementary School Students?

“…Some studies have concluded that these programs produce beneficial results (e.g. Block, Parris, & Whiteley, 2008;Brenna, 1995;Brown, Pressley, van Meter, & Schuder, 1996;Connor, et al, 2010;Dignath, Buettner, & Langfeldt, 2008;Eliers & Pinkley, 2006;Gardner & Bochna, 2004;Juliebö, Malicky, Norman, 1998;Kinnunen, Vauras, & Neimi, 1998), while other studies, relatively similar to these, have not found a significant improvement in beginning readers (e.g. Rosenshine, Meister & Chapman, 1996).…”