An Analysis of Prospective Turkish Teachers’ Metacognitive Reading Strategy Use

References

• Akturk AO, Sahin I 2011. Ustbilis ve bilgisayar ogretimi. Selcuk Universitesi Ahmet Kelesoglu Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 31: 383–407.
   Google Scholar
• Alsheikh NO, Mokhtari K 2011. An examination of the metacognitive reading strategies used by native speakers of Arabic when reading in English and Arabic. English Language Teaching, 4 (2): 151–160.
   Google Scholar
• Anastasiou D, Griva E 2009. Awareness of reading Strategy use and reading comprehension among poor and good readers. Ilkogretim Online, 8 (2): 283–297.
   Google Scholar
• Baker L, Brown AL 1984. Metacognitive skills and Reading. In: PD Pearson, R Barr, ML Kamil, P Mosenthal (Eds.): Handbook of Reading Research. New York: Longman, pp. 353-394.
   Google Scholar
• Berkowitz E 2004. High Achieving and Underachieving Gifted Middle School Students’ Metacognitive Strategies in Reading Comprehension. PhD Thesis, Unpublished. New York, United States: Fordham University.
   Google Scholar
• Blakey E, Spence S 1990. Developing Metacognition. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information Resources [ED3272181.
   Google Scholar
• Brown AL 1977. Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of metacognition. In: R Glaser (Ed.): Advances in Instructional Psychology, Technical Report No. 47. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., pp. 1-152.
   Google Scholar
• Cetinkaya Edizer Z 2015. Turkce ogretmen adaylarinin kitap okuma aliskanligina tutumlari ile ust bilissel okuma stratejilerini kullanim duzeyleri arasindaki iliksi. KU Kastamonu Egitim Dergisi, 23 (2): 645–658.
   Google Scholar
• Cicekoglu D 2003. The Effects of Direct and Integrated Instruction of Cognitive and Metacognitive Reading Strategies at AwarenessRaising Level on Reading Proficiency and Strategy Use. PhD Thesis, UnPublished. Ankara: Middle East Technical University.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen AD 1996. Verbal reports as a source of insights into second language learner strategies. Applied Language Learning, 7: 5–24.
   Google Scholar
• Denton CA, Enos M, York MJ, Francis DJ, Barnes MA, Kluesz PA, Fletcher JM, Carter S 2015. Text-Processing differences in adolescent adequate and poor comprehenders reading accesible and challenging narrative and informational text. Reading Research Quarterly, 1-24. 10.1002/rrq.105
   Google Scholar
• Flavell JH 1979. Metacognition and cognitive Monitoring: A new area cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34 (10): 906–911.
   Google Scholar
• Ghonsooly B, Eghtesadee AR 2006. Role of cognitive style of field-dependence/independence in using meta-cognitive and cognitive reading strategies by a group of skilled and novice Iranian students of English Literature. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 8 (4): 119–150.
   Google Scholar
• Gilbert JK 2005. Visualization: A metacognitive skill in science and science education. In: JK Gilbert (Ed.): Visualization in Science Education. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 9-27.
   Google Scholar
• Hannah CI, Shore BM 2008. Twice-exceptional Students’ use of metacognitive skills on a comprehension monitoring task. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52 (1): 3–18.
   Google Scholar
• McGuire L, Yewchuk CR 1996. Use of metacognitive reading strategies by gifted learning disabled students: An exploratory study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19 (3): 293–314.
   Google Scholar
• Schellings G, Cor A, Jan VL 2006. Third grader’s think-aloud protocols: Types of reading activities in Reading an expository text. Learning and Instruction, 16: 549–568.
   Google Scholar
• Karatay H 2007. Ilkogretim Turkce Ogretmeni Adaylarinin Okudugunu Anlama Becerileri Uzerine Alan Arastirmasi. PhD Thesis, Unpublished. Ankara: Gazi University.
   Google Scholar
• Karatay H 2009. Okuma stratejileri bilissel farkindalik olcegi. Abant Izzet Baysal Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitusu Dergisi, 2 (19): 58–80.
   Google Scholar
• Karatay H 2011. Okuma Egitimi Kuram ye Uygulama. Ankara: Berikan Yayinlari.
   Google Scholar
• Kenanlar S, Pilten G 2014. The evaluation of Education faculty students’ metacognitive reading Strategies usage according to some variables. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 4 (6): 531–534.
   Google Scholar
• Lau KL 2006. Reading strategies use between Chinese good and poor readers: A think-aloud study. Journal of Research in Reading, 29 (4): 383–399.
   Google Scholar
• Ozsoy G 2008. Ustbilis. Turk Egitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 6 (4): 713–740.
   Google Scholar
• Schraw G, Moshman D 1995. Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology Review, 7 (4): 351–371.
   Google Scholar
• Taner H 2009. Butun Hikayeleri Kizil Sacli Amazon. Ankara: Bilgi Yayinevi.
   Google Scholar
• Veloo A, Rani MA, Hashim RA 2015. Assessing matriculation college students’ metacognitive awareness reading strategies (MARS) in biology. Review of European Studies, 7 (7): 453–460.
   Google Scholar
• Yaliz Solmaz D 2015. The metacognitive reading Strategies of students: a research school of physical Education and sports at Anadolu university. Pam ukkale Journal of Sport Sciences, 6 (1): 25–38.
   Google Scholar
• Yayli D 2010. A think-aloud study: Cognitive and meta-cognitive reading strategies of ELT department Students. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 38: 234–251.
   Google Scholar