Metacognitive Reading Strategies: Greek adaptation of the MARSI-(GR) and a comparative study of adolescent students with and without special learning difficulties
Published:
Jun 15, 2019
Keywords:
metacognition reading comprehension reading strategies specific learning difficulties MARSI
Abstract
The paper presents the adaptation of the Metacognitive Awareness of Reading
Strategies Inventory (MARSI) in the Greek language. MARSI was designed to
evaluate the metacognitive awareness and the perceived use of school and
academic content reading strategies by students. The tool measures three subscales: General strategies, problem-solving strategies, and support reading strategies. The present study examined the factorial structure and the psychometric properties of the Greek version of MARSI revealing good internal consistency and testretest reliability. The use of MARSI showed that the Greek students with and without learning difficulties use metacognitive reading strategies, but they score low in support reading strategies.
Strategies Inventory (MARSI) in the Greek language. MARSI was designed to
evaluate the metacognitive awareness and the perceived use of school and
academic content reading strategies by students. The tool measures three subscales: General strategies, problem-solving strategies, and support reading strategies. The present study examined the factorial structure and the psychometric properties of the Greek version of MARSI revealing good internal consistency and testretest reliability. The use of MARSI showed that the Greek students with and without learning difficulties use metacognitive reading strategies, but they score low in support reading strategies.
Article Details
- How to Cite
-
Κουλιανού Μ., Ρούσσος Π., & Σαμαρτζή Σ. (2019). Metacognitive Reading Strategies: Greek adaptation of the MARSI-(GR) and a comparative study of adolescent students with and without special learning difficulties. Psychology: The Journal of the Hellenic Psychological Society, 24(1), 138–156. https://doi.org/10.12681/psy_hps.22391
- Issue
- Vol. 24 No. 1 (2019)
- Section
- RESEARCH PAPERS
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The journal PSYCHOLOGY adopts a Platinum open-access policy. Submission, processing or publication costs are waived by the Hellenic Psychological Society. Papers published in the journal PSYCHOLOGY are licensed under a 'Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International' licence. The authors reserve the copyright of their work and grant the journal the right of its first publication. Third-party licensees are allowed to use the published paper immediately after publication as they wish, provided they retain the defined by the license copyright formalities, regarding the reference to its author(s) and its initial publication in the journal PSYCHOLOGY. Moreover, any adjusted work should be shared under the same reuse rights, so with the same CC license.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
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 (Vol. 3, pp. 285–310). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Allington, R. (2000). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing research-based programs. New York: Longman.
Alvermann, D. E., & Guthrie, J. T. (1993). Themes and directions of the National Reading Research Center: Perspectives in reading research, No. 1. Universities of Georgia and Maryland, National Reading Research Center.
Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 255–292). White Plains, NY: Longman.
August, D. Flavell, J.H.,& Clift, R.T. (1984). Comparison of Comprehension Monitoring of Skilled and Less Skilled Readers. Reading Research Quarterly 20(1), 39.
Ay, S. (2009). Academic Reading strategies and metacognitive awareness of university students. In S. Ay, O. Aydin, I. Ergenc, S, Gokmen, S. Issever& D. Pecenek (Eds.). Essays on Turkish linguistics: Proccedings of the 14th International Conference on Turkish, Linguistics, August 6-8 2008, (pp. 441-450). Wiesbaden, Germany, Harrassowitz, Verlag.
Aydin, U., &Ubuz, B. (2010). Turkish Version of the Junior Metacognitive Awareness Inventory: The Validation Study. Education and Science, 35(157), 30-45.
Bereiter, C. & Bird, M. (1985). Use of think aloud in identification and teaching of reading comprehension strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 131-156.
Borkowski, J. G. (1992). Metacognition theory: A framework for teaching literacy, writing, and math skills. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 253-257.
Borkowski, J., Carr, M. & Pressley, M. (1987). “Spontaneous” strategy use: Perspectives from metacognitive theory. Intelligence, 11, 61-75.
Borkowski, J. G., Chan, L. K. S.,&Muthukrishna, N. (2000). A process-oriented model of metacognition: Links between motivation and executive functioning. In G. Schraw & J. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (p. 42) Lincoln: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements, University of Nebraska.
Borkowski, J. G., Day, J. D., Saenz, D., Dietmeyer, D., Estrada, T. M. &Groteluschen, A. (1992). Expanding the boundaries of cognitive interventions. In B. Y. L. Wong (Ed.), Contemporary intervention research in learning disabilities (pp. 1-21). New York: Springer.
Baker, L. (1985). How do we know when we don’t understand? Standards for evaluating text comprehension. In D. L. Forrest-Pressley, G. E. McKinnon & T. G. Waller (Eds.), Meta-cognition, cognition and human performance (pp. 155-206). New York: Academic Press.
Baker, L. (2002). Metacognition in comprehension instruction. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 77-95). New York: Guilford Press.
Baker, L. (2005). Developmental differences in metacognition: Implication for metacognitively oriented reading instruction. In S. E. Israel, C. C. Block, K. L. Bauserman, & K. Kinnucan-Welsch (Eds.), Metacognition in literacy learning: Theory, assessment, instruction, and professional development (pp. 61–79). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Baker, L. & Beall, L. C. (2009). Metacognitive processes and reading comprehension. In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 373-388). New York: Routledge.
Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. Στο P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L.Kamil, & P. Mosenthal, Handbook of reading research (pp. 353 - 394). New York, NJ: Longman.
Bollen, K. A., & Stine, R. A. (1992). Bootstrapping goodness-of-fit measures in structural equation models. Sociological Methods and Research, 21, 205-229.
Brown, A. L. (1980). Metacognitive development and reading. In R. J. Spiro, B. B.
Bruce & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension (pp. 453- 481). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe, (Eds.)
Metacognition, motivation, and understanding(pp. 65-116). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brown, A. L., Armbruster, B. B. & Baker, L. (1986). The role of metacognition in reading and studying. In J. Orasanu (Ed.), Reading comprehension: From research to practice (pp. 49-76). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Butler, D. L. (1998). Metacognition and learning disabilities. Στο B. L. Wong, Learning about learning disabilities (σελ. 277 - 308). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Byrne, B. M. (2012). A Primer of LISREL Basic Applications and Programming for Confirmatory Factor Analytic Models. New York Springer Science & Business Media.
Cross, D. R. & Paris, S. G. (1988). Developmental and instructional analyses of children’s metacognition and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 131-142.
Dündar, S. (2016). Determining EFL students’ awareness of metacognitive reading strategies. ELT Reasearch Journal 5(1), 47-59 ISSN: 2146-9814.
Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving, in: L.B. Resnick (Ed.) The nature of intelligence (231–235) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Garison, D. R. (1997). Self-Directed Learning: Toward a Comprehensive Model. Adult Education Quarterly 48(1), 18-33.
Garner, R. (1988). Metacognition and readingcomprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Girli, A. & Ozturk., H. (2017). Metacognitive reading strategies in learning disability: Relations between usage level, academic self-efficacy and self-concept. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 10, 1, 93-102.
Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., &Graesser, A. C. (Eds.). (1998). The educational psychology series. Metacognition in educational theory and practice. Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Hu, L., &Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1, 1-55.
Iwai, Y. (2011). The Effects of Metacognitive Reading Strategies: Pedagogical Implications for EFL/ESL Teachers. The Reading Matrix, 1 (2), 150-159.
Jacobs, J. E. & Paris, S. G. (1987). Children’s metacognition about reading: Issues in definition, measurement and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22, 255 – 278.
Johnston, P. &Afflerbach, P. (1985). The process of constructing main ideas from text. Cognition and Instruction, 2 (3&4), 207-232.
Kintsch, W., &Kinstch, E. (2005). Comprehension. In S. G. Paris, & S. A. Stahl (Eds.), Children's Reading Comprehension and Assessment. (pp. 71-92). Mahwah, NJ Ablex.
Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Kolić-Vehovec, S. and Bajšanski I. (2006). Metacognitive strategies and reading comprehension in elementary-school students. European Journal of Psychology of Education. Vol. 21,No. 4 (December 2006), pp. 439-451.
Kolic-Vehovec, S., (2010). Self-monitoring and attribution training with poor readers. Studiapsychologica 44 (1), 57-68.
Κουλιανού, Μ. & Ευγενικού, Ε. (2013). Μεταγνωστικό προφίλ και Eπίδοση στο WISC-III των παιδιών με ειδικές μαθησιακές δυσκολίες. Στα πρακτικά του 3ου Πανελληνίου Συνεδρίου Ειδικής Αγωγής, 11-12 Απριλίου 2013.
Κουλιανού, Μ. Μαστροθανάσης, Κατσιφή-Χαραλαμπίδη Σ., Ζουγανέλη Ά. (2016). Μεταγνωστικές στρατηγικές ανάγνωσης μαθητών με και χωρίς μαθησιακές δυσκολίες: διαφυλικές& ηλικιακές διαφορές με χρήση του MARSI. Προφορική Παρουσίαση στο 4ο Πανελλήνιο Συνέδριο Γνωστικής Ψυχολογίας. Αθήνα 14-16 Απριλίου 2016.
Koulianou, M. &Samartzi, S. (2018). Greek teachers’ metacognitive awareness on reading strategies. Selected Paper of the 10th World Conference on Educational Sciences (WCES-2018) 01-03 February 2018 Top Hotel Praha Congress Centre, Prague, Czech Republic. New Trends and Issues Proceedings on Humanities and Social Sciences, Vol 5(1), 68-74.
Κουτσουράκη, Σ. (2009). Μεταγνώση και αναγνωστική κατανόηση: Σύγχρονες τάσεις στη θεωρία, στην έρευνα και στην πράξη. Ψυχολογία, 16 (3), 205-225.
Κωσταρίδου-Ευκλείδη, Α. (2011). «Μεταγνωστικές Διεργασίες και Αυτόρύθμιση». Αθήνα: Εκδόσεις Πεδίο.
Lenski καιNierstheimer, (2002). Strategy instruction from a sociocognitive perspective. Reading Psychology 23(2), 127-143.
MacCallum, R. C., Roznoswi, M., &Necowitz, L. B. (1992). Model modifications in covariance structure analysis: The problem of capitalization on chance.
Psychological Bulletin, 111, 490-504.
Mardia, K. V. (1970). Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika, 57, 519–530.
Mastrothanasis, K., Koulianou, M. Katsifi, S. &Zouganeli, A. (2018). The use of Metacognitive knowledge and regulation strategies’ of students with and without special learning difficulties. International Journal of special education 33(1), 191-207.
Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C.A. (2002). Assessing Students’ Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies. Journal of Education Psychology, 94(2), 249-259.
Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C.A. (2004). Investigating the strategic reading processes of first and second language readers in two different cultural contexts. System, 32(3), 379-394.
Mokhtari, K. Dimitrov, D. & Reichard, C.A. (2018). Revising the Metacognitive
Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory (MARSI) and testing for factorial
invariance. Studies in second language Learning and Teaching 8(2), 219-246.
Miholic, V. (1994). An inventory to pique students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies, Journal of Reading, 38(1), 2 – 4.
Nicolielo-Carrilho, A.P., &Hage, S.R de V. (2017). Metacognitive strategies of children with learning disabilities. CoDAS 23(3), 1-6.
Ozturk, E. (2012). The Validity and Reability of the Turkish Version of the Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory. LlkogretimOnline, 11(2), 292-305.
Παντελιάδου, Σ. Πατσιοδήμου, Α. & Μπότσας, Γ. (2004). Οι μαθησιακές δυσκολίες στη δευτεροβάθμια εκπαίδευση. ΠΤΔΕ: ΠανεπιστήμιοΘεσσαλίας.
Padeliadu, S., Botsas, G. &Sideridis, G. (2002). Metacognitive awareness and reading strategies: Average and reading disabled students. In M.Makri –Tsilipakou (ed.). Selected papers on theoretical and applied linguistics, pp. 307 – 318, Thessaloniki, School of English, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. (σελ. 166 – 178).
Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., &Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 293-316.
Paris, S. G., & Jacobs, J. E. (1984). The benefits of informed instruction for children’s reading awareness and comprehension skills. Child Development, 55, 2083–2093.
Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1990). How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction. In B. F. Jones, & L. Idol, Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (15 - 51). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Paris, S. G., Wasik, B. A., & Turner, J. C. (1991). The Development of Strategies of Readers. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. 2, pp. 609-640). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pereira-Laird, J. A., & Deane, F. P. (1997). Development and validation of a self-report measure of reading strategy use. Reading Psychology: An International Journal, 18, 185–235.
Pressley, M. &Afflerbach, P. (1995). What readers can do when they read: A summary of the results from the on – line self – report studies of reading. Στο M. Pressley & P. Afflerbach (eds.) Verbal protocols of reading. (σελ. 30 – 82). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M. Kamil, P., Mosenthal, P., Pearson, & R., Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 545–561). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pressley, M. & Block, C. C. (2002). Summing up: What comprehension instruction could be. Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices, 383-392.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1992). The Reader, the Text, the Poem: The Transactional Theory of the Literary Work. 2nd ed. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Schmitt, M. C. (1990). A questionnaire to measure children’s awareness of strategic reading processes. The Reading Teacher, 43, 454–461.
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460-475.
Shikano, M. (2013). A quantitative survey on metacognitive awareness of reading strategy use in English by Japanese university students. The Bulletin of the Center for International Education, Nanzan University, 14, 11―24.
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Sperling, R. A., Howard, B. C., Miller, L. A., & Murphy, C. (2002). Measures of children’s knowledge and regulation of cognition. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 51-79.
Temur, T. &Bahar, Ö. (2011). Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies of Turkis Learners Who Learn English as a Foreign Language. European Journal of Educational Studies 3(2), 421-427.
Τζιβινίκου, Σ. (2015). Μαθησιακές δυσκολίες - διδακτικές παρεμβάσεις.Kεφ 5. [Ηλεκτρ. βιβλ.] Αθήνα: Σύνδεσμος Ελληνικών Ακαδημαϊκών Βιβλιοθηκών.
Τσιγγίλης, Ν. (2010). Βασικές έννοιες και εφαρμογή της μοντελοποίησης δομικών εξισώσεων στις κοινωνικές επιστήμες. Επιστημονική Επετηρίδα Ψυχολογικής Εταιρείας Βορείου Ελλάδας, 8, 1-35.
Yüksel, İ.&Yüksel, İ. (2012). Metacognitive Awareness of Academic Reading Strategies. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 894–898.
Van Dijk, T., &Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies discourse comprehension. New York, NJ: Academic Press.
Vellutino, F. R. &Denckla, M. B. (1991). Cognitive and neuropsychological foundations of word identification in poor and normally developing readers. Handbook of reading research, 2, 571-608.
Vellutino, F., Fletcher, J., Snowling, M., & Scanlon, D. (2004). Specific reading disability (dyslexia): what have we learned in the past four decades. Journal οf Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 45 (1), 2-40.
Wong, B.Y.L. (1996). Metacognition and learning disabilities. In B.Y.L. Wong (Ed.), The ABCs of Learning Disabilities (pp. 120-139). San Diego: Academic Press.
Wong, B. Y. L. (1994). Instructional parameters promoting transfer of learned strategies in students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 17(2), 110-120.
Wong, B. Y.L. (1986). Metacognition and special education: A review of a view. The Journal of Special Education 20 (1), (9-29).
Wu, L., Valcke, M., & van Keer, H. (2012). Validation of a chinese version of Metacognitive awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory. Egitim Arastirmalari – Euroasian Journal of Educational Research, 48, 117-134.
