Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies as Predictors of Reading Comprehension Achievement among Students with Learning Disabilities in Nigeria

Kelechi Uchemadu Lazarus; Blessing I. Anwalimhobor

doi:10.21776/ub.ijds.2023.010.01.07

Authors

Kelechi Uchemadu Lazarus University of Ibadan, Nigeria
Blessing I. Anwalimhobor Department of Special Education, University of Ibadan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.ijds.2023.010.01.07

Keywords:

Learning Disabilities, Metacognitive Awareness, Reading Strategies

Abstract

Reading is an essential language skill in students’ educational success. However, reports have shown that the most prevalent type of academic difficulties among secondary school students with learning disabilities is reading difficulties. Previous studies focused more on interventions to improve reading comprehension achievement of students with learning disabilities than on the influence of metacognitive strategies on students’ reading comprehension achievement. This study, therefore, investigated the influence of metacognitive awareness of (before, during and after) reading strategies on the reading comprehension achievement of students with learning disabilities in Senior Secondary Schools (SSS) in Ibadan, Nigeria. The study adopted a descriptive research design. A sample of 100 students with learning disabilities was purposively selected from nine SSS in Ibadan, Nigeria. Instruments used were Academic records, Screening Checklist for Suspected Learning Disabilities, English Language Achievement Test, Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Questionnaire and the Reading Comprehension Test. Data collected were analyzed using the Multiple regression analysis at 0.05 level of significance. There was a joint contribution of the independent variables (metacognitive awareness of before, during and after reading strategies) to reading comprehension achievement (F₍_3,96₎=3.61; R²=0.101). The result also reveals the relative contributions of metacognitive awareness of reading strategies (before, during and after) to the reading comprehension achievement among students with learning disabilities as follows: before (β = 0.25), after (β = 0.23) and during (β = -0.17) reading strategies. The study concludes that metacognitive awareness of (before, during and after) reading strategies influence reading comprehension achievement of students with learning disabilities. It is therefore recommended that students with learning disabilities should be trained on the use of metacognitive (before, during and after) reading strategies for improved reading comprehension achievement.

References

Alexander P.A. & Jetton T.L. (2000). Learning from text: A multidimensional and developmental perspective. In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research, 3, pp. 285–310, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Baker, L. (2008). Metacognitive development in reading: Contributors and consequences. In K. Mokhtari, & R. Sheorey (Eds.), Reading strategies of first and second language learners (pp. 25-43). Norwood, MA: Christopher Gordon Publishers, Inc.

Baker L. & Brown A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of Reading Research (pp. 353–394). New York, NY: Longman.

Barnett, M.A. (1988): Reading through context: How real and perceived strategy affects L2 comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 72(2), 150-162.

Boulware-Gooden, R., Carreker, S., Thornhill, A., & Joshi, R. M. (2007). Instruction of metacognitive strategies enhances reading comprehension and vocabulary achievement of third-grade students. The Reading Teacher, 61(1), 70-77.

Brown, A. L., Armbruster, B. B., & Baker, L. (1986). The role of metacognition in reading and studying. Reading Comprehension: From Research to Practice, 49-75.

Fitrisia, D., Tan, K. E., & Yusuf, Y. Q. (2015). Investigating metacognitive awareness of reading strategies to strengthen students’ performance in reading comprehension. Asia Pacific Journal of Educators and Education, 30(1), 15-30.

Flavell, J. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231-236). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Flavell, J.H. (1978) Metacognitive Development, in J.M. Scandura & C.J. Brainerd (Eds) Structural/Process Theories of Complex Human Behaviour, pp. 34-78. Alphenaan den Rijin:Sijthoff & Noorddhoff.

Grabe, W., & Stoller, F.L. (2002). Research on teaching reading. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 44-69. Retrieved from https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/annualreview-of-applied-linguistics

Herriot, C. (2004). Screening Checklist for Suspected Learning Disabilities - Profile Sheet, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario. Available athttp://froshability.com/images/Conestoga_Learning_Disability_Screener.pdf

Kazi, A. S., Moghal, S., & Asad, Z. (2020). Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies for Academic Materials: A Study of Undergraduate Students in Pakistan. Global Social Sciences Review, V(I), 44-51.doi:10.31703/gssr.2020(V-I).05

Lazarus, K.U. (2019). Comprehension Monitoring Strategies as Determinants of Achievement in Reading Comprehension of Secondary School Students with Learning Disabilities in Ibadan, Oyo State. African Journal of Theory and Practice of Educational Research, 6, 21-33.

Marzban, A. (2006). The interdependence between the process and the product of reading in English and Persian. Paper presented at LSP international conference, Johor, Malaysia.

Meniado, J. C. (2016). Metacognitive Reading Strategies, Motivation, and Reading Comprehension Performance of Saudi EFL Students. English Language Teaching, 9(3), 117-129.

Miller, G. (2017). Metacognitive Awareness and Reading Strategy use: Investigating the Intermediate Level ESL Students’ Awareness of Metacognitive Reading Strategies. Culminating Projects in English. 115.https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/engl_etds/115

Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students' metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249.

Mokhtari. K, & Sheorey, R. (2008). Reading strategy of first and second language learners. Norwood 9A: Christopher Gordon Publishers, Inc.

Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension fostering and comprehension monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.

Pang, J. (2008). Research on good and poor reader characteristics: implications for reading research in China. Reading in a Foreign Language, 20(1), 1–18.

Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? Handbook of Reading Research, 525-544.

Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Pressley, M., Wharton-McDonald, R., Mistretta-Hampston, J., & Echevarria, M. (1998). The Nature of Literacy Instruction in Ten Grade-4/5 Classrooms in Upstate New York. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2, 159–194.

Salataci, R., & Akyel, A. (2002). Possible effects of strategy instruction on L1 and L2 reading . Reading in a Foreign Language, 14(1), 1-17.

Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460-475.

Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differing perceptions of reading strategy use between native and non-native college students. In R. Sheorey, K. Mokhtari, & R. S. KouiderMokhtari (Eds.), Reading Strategies of First and Second Language Learners. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc.

Sutiyatno, S. (2019). A survey study: The correlation between metacognitive strategies and reading achievement. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 9(4).

Swanson, H.L., Kehler, P., & Jerman, O. (2010). Working memory, strategy knowledge, and strategy instruction in children with reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 24-47.

Zhang, L. (2013). Metacognitive strategy use and academic reading achievement: Insights from a Chinese context. Foreign Language Teaching, 10(1), 54-69.