Open access peer-reviewed chapter
Abstract
This brief chapter examines the metacognitive strategies that deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) students utilize to make sense of texts. After providing an overview of the definition and history of metacognition, this chapter reviews current studies on metacognitive strategies, which can be divided into three main categories: planning or before reading; monitoring or during reading; and evaluating or after reading strategies. This chapter emphasizes the importance of linguistic knowledge and vocabulary knowledge to reading comprehension. Because metacognitive strategies are vital to reading comprehension, teachers must assess students’ metacognitive strategies and use the results to design reading comprehension instruction. This chapter also discusses metacognitive assessments used to evaluate metacognitive strategies, including interviews, questionnaires, and think-aloud.
Keywords
- reading comprehension
- metacognitive assessments
- deaf and hard of hearing (DHH)
- prior knowledge
- vocabulary
1. Introduction
The term metacognition emerged in the 1970s and is attributed to the well-known cognitive psychologist John Flavel [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. Metacognition has been recognized as one of the most crucial areas in the field of cognition. Although the term is difficult to define and assess, it refers specifically to people’s ability to control their own thinking by thinking about their thinking (see [4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13]).
Within the context of reading comprehension metacognition refers to individuals’ ability to apply their knowledge and different cognitive strategies to maximize their comprehension (see [1, 4, 5]). One of the earliest studies on metacognition related to reading addressed memory and metamemory, which refers to individuals’ knowledge and awareness of their memory’s content and processes [8]; early work in reading explained that reading comprehension can be fostered through metacognitive awareness (see [14]; c.f., [15, 16]). This chapter discusses this term with respect to reading comprehension, prior knowledge, and vocabulary knowledge, specifically with individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing (DHH).
2. History of reading comprehension in relation to metacognition
Experts such as behaviorist Thorndike, and other scientists, such as Binet, Piaget, and Vygotsky have discussed metacognition using various terms. Thorndike examined metacognition’s relation to reading comprehension by explaining that younger children, such as those in sixth grade may be unable to understand the text that they read automatically. Instead, they must learn to monitor their comprehension. In his work
Alfred Binet also contributed to the field of metacognition and reading comprehension, particularly with respect to the efforts that readers make to comprehend reading materials (cited in [14]; c.f., [17]). Binet’s work addressed the metacognitive strategies that are categorized as evaluating or after-reading strategies. These strategies, such as judging and critiquing texts, were discussed in Albalhareth et al.’s [4] work. The authors indicated that these strategies require a high level of skill, and they reported that DHH individuals who are poor readers use these strategies the least.
Additionally, Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget discussed the earlier scholars who also provided compelling evidence of metacognition. Piaget was among those who were interested in the schema, which refers to the cognitive process in which readers retrieve existing information and recall it to help them make sense of new texts they read [18]. Schema is the ability to integrate and add new information to the existing information they have (see [19]). Piaget explained that children may not be able to fully understand a text because they monitor their comprehension poorly. For example, Piaget [20] reported that many young children perform poorly when asked questions about a story to which they have listened. Alsamari and Albalhareth [4] explained that this is even more difficult for DHH children because when a story’s content is conveyed through sign language or speech, receivers must memorize it. Yet, when the content is written out, the readers are able to reread the text and have more time to make sense of the information (see [21]; c.f., [22]).
In one of Vygotsky’s studies in the 1930s, he explained that social interactions with more knowledgeable individuals increased less knowledgeable individuals’ metacognitive strategies [23]. Similarly, Albalhareth et al. [4] investigated the way that peer tutoring and class discussion can increase DHH students’ reading comprehension. They argued that the thinking together strategy, which is a type of reading or monitoring strategy, helps students to understand the text by sharing their ideas with others and explaining their understanding of the texts to their peers.
As previously mentioned, two areas that contribute to reading comprehension are vocabulary and prior knowledge [4, 24]. For DHH students, early acquisition of sign language is important for language, literacy, and academic outcomes [25]. Prior knowledge includes three areas: vocabulary knowledge, contextual knowledge, and structural knowledge. As stated previously, readers must have a sufficient vocabulary to comprehend the text. Furthermore, readers must possess some awareness of the particular content that they are reading; for instance, if the content is about physics, the readers must have some knowledge of this area to understand the text. Finally, readers must have some knowledge of the content’s structure, which includes the text’s grammar and syntax. Readers must be familiar with the grammar to be able to make sense of the passage that they read. Albalhareth et al. [4] reported an instructional practice that teachers of DHH students use in which they read the passage in English and then translate it into American Sign Language (ASL). This is referred to as “Read in English and translate into ASL”. This pedagogical method helps teachers to make a complex reading passage easy to understand. Further, it increases DHH students’ familiarity with the vocabulary and enhances their schema knowledge. As will be covered in the following section, previous studies have also demonstrated the importance of increasing individuals’ vocabulary knowledge to enable them to use appropriate metacognitive strategies that help them to comprehend the texts (c.f., [5, 24, 26]).
3. Metacognitive knowledge
Metacognition includes two components (see Figure 1), the knowledge of metacognition and metacognitive regulation (e.g., [1, 2, 3, 4]). Metacognitive knowledge refers to the awareness of what one does and does not know [28]. McCormick [29] divided metacognitive knowledge into three separate components. The first is
Figure 1.
Metacognitive types based upon [
Other scholars have divided metacognitive knowledge differently, indicating that knowledge contains three elements: self-characteristics, task characteristics, and task-relevant strategies [3, 27, 29, 31]. Self-characteristics include the ability to read and the skills required to reach the goal of learning. Task characteristics are related to reading levels and the material’s difficulty, and they also involve the reader’s familiarity with the reading tasks. Finally, task-relevant strategies refer to the metacognitive strategies that readers must use to comprehend the text [29].
4. Metacognitive regulation
This section explores the second component of metacognition, known as metacognitive control or regulation, which includes three types of metacognitive strategies used in the context of reading comprehension (see Figure 1). The field of reading comprehension received much attention from researchers and scholars 40 years ago [12]. More recent research has investigated how metacognitive regulation strategies facilitate reading comprehension, particularly for DHH students. These strategies are comprised of three categories: planning or before reading; monitoring or during reading, and evaluating or after reading strategies (see Figure 1) [4, 5].
4.1 Metacognitive planning strategies
Metacognitive planning strategies are those that occur before reading (Israel [1]. Largely, these strategies help readers to use their prior knowledge to think about their reading. As indicated earlier, prior knowledge consists of three elements [24], the readers’ vocabulary knowledge, their knowledge of the text, and their knowledge about the text’s structure and grammar; this may include morphological knowledge as well [4]. Activating students’ prior knowledge by thinking about vocabulary, particularly understanding the meaning of unfamiliar words, can help readers think about the way that the vocabulary influences the text’s meaning. Albalhareth et al. [4] explained that linguistics and vocabulary knowledge are the most critical components of reading comprehension [33].
In addition, before reading, readers may think about the text and enhance their understanding of it by connecting their previous knowledge to the text. During classroom discussions before reading, teachers may ask their students to think together about the reading’s subject as well, so that they can share their thinking with other students, which could help students rethink the text by activating their prior knowledge (see [4, 34]).
Albalhareth et al. [4] argued that developing DHH individuals’ knowledge and skills in both sign language and English is critical. It is important to cultivate their vocabulary and enhance their grammar knowledge by developing their syntax and semantic knowledge in both English and ASL (see [4]) or Arabic and Saudi Sign language (see [5]).
There are other metacognitive strategies that can fall under more than one category, such as prediction and think-together strategies, which are known also as metacognitive monitoring strategies or during-reading strategies.
4.2 Metacognitive monitoring strategies
These are known also as during-reading strategies [1]. Van Kraayenoord [35] used the terms metacognitive monitoring and metacomprehension interchangeably. These strategies are used to evaluate the passage in relation to the readers’ linguistics and prior knowledge about the text. Albalhareth and Alasmari [5] argued that monitoring strategies are the most common metacognitive strategies in reading instruction, particularly for DHH readers. Previous work (e.g., [1, 2, 4]) discussed several metacognitive monitoring strategies, such as peer tutoring or class-wide peer tutoring (CWPT), which encourage students to exchange thoughts with each other to foster their reading comprehension both in the general and special education classroom settings [36]. Peer tutoring, which can be used in one-on-one learning and employed in special instruction, helps students to exchange ideas to practice thinking and repeating ideas together ([4]; c.f., [37]). The terms peer tutoring and CWPT have been used interchangeably [38] and include three monitoring strategies: predicting, self-questioning, and summarizing the passage (c.f., [39, 40, 41, 42]). Readers can benefit from working one-on-one or in small group settings, where they are able to monitor their own learning process [38, 43]. Albalhareth et al. [4] found several actions that occur while reading and working with peers, including thinking together, and exchanging thoughts reciprocally, so they can monitor their understanding of the text [44, 45]. Other examples of monitoring strategies are encouraging readers to predict words’ meaning by thinking about the definition within the context of the individual sentence’s meaning or within the overall context of the passage [1, 4, 5].
Look-back strategies are the most common strategies used by DHH students during reading [18]. One such strategy includes readers re-reading the previous sentences when they encounter difficulties understanding a word or the ideas in a certain sentence. Readers also may read the entire paragraph and think about its meaning by breaking down the ideas from individual sentences to determine the overall meaning ([4]; c.f., [1, 2, 24, 26, 46]). Another look-back tactic readers may implement is to keep reading and try to comprehend the meaning later, or they may underline the words that they do not know and return to them later, determining their meaning based on the text’s overall meaning. When text includes pictures reflecting ideas from the reading, readers, particularly children, can use the pictures to help them understand the text (e.g., [1, 4, 24, 26]).
In addition to thinking about the meaning based on pictures and/or context clues, looking at the text’s heading or the title may help the readers clarify the passage’s meaning [4]. Further, pausing their reading to look up a word’s meaning in a dictionary can also help them comprehend it (see [4, 5]).
The “read in English and translate into ASL” approach is another common metacognitive strategy used by DHH learners. As reported by Albalhareth et al., DHH readers can read the text in English and then they try to make sense of the reading text in their first language, ASL. There are several monitoring strategies that can be used before reading, such as prediction. Further, thinking together can be used before reading, and summarization can be used after reading, while graphic organizers can be developed to convey the text’s meaning (see [4]).
4.3 Metacognitive evaluation strategies
This category is also referred to as after-reading strategies [1]. Because they require strong cognitive skills (e.g., evaluating, revising, and critiquing the text), metacognitive evaluation strategies are considered the most challenging and the least used, likely because poor readers are unable to employ them. There are other variables that can be related to these types of strategies’ use, such as the text’s difficulty and the readers’ prior knowledge. For instance, readers must be able to evaluate and critique the reading passage and identify the text’s difficulties and appropriateness by determining whether it is appropriate for the target readers. Further, they must evaluate the text’s structure and grammar. More proficient readers and individuals with strong cognitive skills can use these strategies, while younger or weaker readers are rarely able to use them [1, 4, 27, 47].
Schirmer [24] explained three metacognitive evaluation strategies that strong DHH readers can use: (1) expressing skepticism; (2) evaluating the author’s writing style; and (3) judging whether the reading passage was interesting and enjoyable to read. However, as claimed previously, these strategies are not used often. Accordingly, more investigations of metacognitive strategies are needed, particularly to explain DHH readers’ use of after-reading or evaluation strategies. The following sections discuss metacognitive assessments.
5. Metacognitive assessment
Metacognitive assessment, defined as an individual’s process of cognitive evaluation, is one of the most important strategies to discuss [48, 49]. In relation to reading, metacognitive assessment can be defined as the thinking process that readers use to assess a text and how they apply their metacognitive and self-regulation knowledge (c.f., [4, 50]). There is theoretical evidence of metacognition’s application in reading comprehension, which is critical to understand students’ ability behaviors related to reading practices. Metacognitive assessment outcomes allow practitioners to determine the effectiveness of instruction, intervention, and methods to meet their students’ needs. It also develops practitioners’ and teachers’ awareness and knowledge of teaching metacognitive strategies [49]. Assessing readers’ metacognition helps teachers to choose the most suitable instructions, activities, and materials before, during, and after reading that will help students to learn the metacognitive strategies that are critical in developing reading comprehension abilities [1, 4].
5.1 Reading comprehension in relation to metacognitive assessment
Comprehension integrates several skills that are difficult to assess. Similar to mental processes, in which reading comprehension occurs within the reader’s brain, metacognition also can be assessed only indirectly. As indicated previously, reading comprehension and metacognitive assessments help to provide in-depth knowledge about readers’ metacognitive strategies (e.g., [1, 4, 51]).
5.1.1 The use of cloze and related procedures
This assessment can assess both comprehension performance and metacognitive knowledge. The test does not evaluate the types of metacognitive strategies that readers use, but it helps to develop students’ skills by using tactics such as prediction and look-back strategies [31]. LaSasso and Davey [34] used the cloze test to assess DHH readers using multiple-choice and free-response questions. The readers were assigned to one of two conditions to answer these types of questions, in which they were allowed to use lookback or no lookback. When the readers in the look-back group were allowed to go back and review the information, it helped them to answer the questions; however, those who were not able to use the look-back technique were unable to confirm the correct information. The authors used a look-back strategy to fill in the blanks in sentences and to answer multiple-choice questions. They found that the participants relied mainly on the “visual matching” strategy to answer these questions by matching the words in the question to predict the correct answer. This is referred to as the guessing strategy, which is a random method to answer questions. Further, readers could use the entire meaning or the context clues to fill in the blank, which is an effective metacognitive strategy (see [4]).
There are other assessments similar to the cloze test. For instance, the What’s the Problem? test requires readers to fill in the missing information in certain words after they read the texts aloud. Block [31] stated that in the What’s the Problem? test, readers need to fill in missing words rather than letters. The researcher can assess readers’ visual imagery, context clues use, and prediction skills by using words with missing letters [31]. However, prediction strategies may not allow readers to fill in the missing words or letters correctly. Carroll [52] also claimed that the cloze test is used to assess readers’ vocabulary and linguistics knowledge, although it gives more information about readers’ syntax than their semantics knowledge. Albalhareth et al. [4] emphasized that for readers with insufficient vocabulary and linguistics knowledge, using metacognitive strategies, such as context clues strategies or prediction strategies can be effective if readers are provided with sufficient prior knowledge about the context and vocabulary in the texts, which would apply to the What’s the Problem? test as well.
5.2 Metacognitive assessments instruction
There are three ways to identify metacognitive strategies [1, 4, 49]: interviews, surveys and inventories, and think-aloud assessments. These three types of assessments are valid ways to assess readers’ metacognitive strategies including those with special needs, such as DHH readers (e.g., [1, 4, 53, 54]. These three assessments can be used together with other activities before, during, and after reading and can be combined to collect information on metacognitive strategies; for instance, readers can be interviewed and asked to think-aloud, or they can complete a survey during the interview, and the interviewer can clarify the questions and help them to complete the survey [1, 4].
5.2.1 Interviews
Interviews are the most common assessment used to evaluate readers’ metacognitive strategies, and it is appropriate for all readers with or without disabilities; it is also suitable to use with children of all ages or adults [1]. The most important consideration is using appropriate language during the interview. When interviewing DHH children, it is important that the readers use fluent language, such as sign language. Interviews can be used before reading by asking readers about the strategies they can use; for instance, the readers can be informed about the topic and asked whether they can use specific planning strategies, such as activating prior knowledge. This is beneficial for teachers, as they may provide their students with the necessary knowledge about the text to enhance their prior knowledge. Interviews can be used during reading and after reading as well to assess readers’ monitoring and evaluating strategies (see [4, 47]). Compared to other assessments, interviews are useful for two major reasons (see [1]). First, using open-ended questions to assess readers’ metacognitive strategies allows researchers and practitioners to identify the metacognitive strategies that readers use and obtain more details about them. Second, it helps researchers and practitioners to identify the most effective strategies that are used depending upon the readers’ age and types of texts, such as narrative or explanatory [4].
Both formal and informal interviews are useful, as they help to obtain details about readers’ metacognitive strategies. Interviewers may develop open-ended questions appropriate for the participant’s age and language skills; further, they may ask follow-up questions to clarify the readers’ responses and obtain more knowledge during the interview that could be helpful, such as readers’ behavior [4, 16, 49].
5.2.2 Surveys or questionnaires
Surveys, questionnaires, and inventory data collection tools are the most useful methods to learn about behaviors and metacognitive reading strategies readers use before, during, and after reading [1, 4]. Surveys can help researchers and practitioners collect more information in less time, and because the survey can be developed with multiple-choice questions, readers do not have to spend as much time responding compared to open-ended questions. Additionally, they can be used with one reader, smaller groups, or large populations [48]. Checklists or multiple-choice questions be used with individuals with or without disabilities. However, it is critical to develop suitable questions that are clear for the target participants. Thus, practitioners may need to develop visual cues to help readers comprehend the questions and their purpose easily. With DHH readers, pictures may be used to clarify questions for them. Moreover, surveys can help researchers collect more information if they are combined or used together with other assessment methods, such as interviews [53]. Researchers are able to clarify questions for DHH readers using sign language. Most importantly, the readers need to understand the interview’s purpose and be given the directions necessary to complete the assessment, particularly for DHH children, so that they can provide accurate responses.
5.2.3 Think-aloud
The think-aloud assessment was developed as a tool to collect information about cognitive processes and abilities, such as metacognition. Interviews and think-aloud are the most common tools used to assess metacognition’s dimensions [1, 55, 56]. A verbal report is a think-aloud tool that can be conducted with individuals with special needs (e.g., DHH) and individuals without disabilities (e.g., [4]). The verbal report can collect information about metacognitive strategies and provide researchers with more information about how and why readers use these strategies [31]. The think-aloud tool also provides information that identifies readers’ strategies and the reason they choose them [24].
The think-aloud or verbal protocol is among the most appropriate tools with which to collect data on cognitive processes [57]. During reading, the participants think-aloud about the monitoring strategies that they are using and usually write their responses [58]. Verbal reports can be used to identify before, during, or after reading strategies, or any other strategies that are important for DHH readers’ comprehension [2, 24, 26].
6. Conclusion
Although metacognition was first discussed 40 years ago, it remains one of the cognitive terms that is difficult to define and assess. This chapter provides the definition of metacognition and other terms related to reading comprehension. Metacognitive strategies are critical for reading comprehension, and planning strategies, which are also defined as before reading strategies, are the most critical. It is reported that sign language knowledge (e.g., ASL) is important for DHH prior knowledge. This chapter indicated that without sufficient prior knowledge, readers may struggle to understand a reading passage. Therefore, it is important for teachers to increase their DHH students’ knowledge about the passage before they read it; further, teachers may need to ensure that readers have sufficient vocabulary knowledge.
This chapter reported that among other types of strategies, monitoring, or during-reading strategies are used most. On the other hand, evaluating strategies are used the least, particularly with poor and average readers, because they require strong reading skills. Therefore, future research should investigate this issue further. There are some strategies that can be used before reading, such as the prediction strategy; also, there are other mentoring strategies that can be used after reading, such as the summarization strategy.
Young DHH readers have different challenges when accessing ideas that are important for their prior knowledge. DHH who were born to hearing parents go through different experiences of acquiring knowledge than those who were born to deaf parents. DHH who were born to deaf parents and have early access to sign language may use different metacognitive strategies than those who were born to hearing parents who may use different modes of communication. Future research may be able to explore this idea further.
Identifying metacognitive strategies is necessary for designing appropriate reading comprehension instructions; this chapter also explained that metacognitive assessments are important and can be conducted with three tools, interviews, surveys, and think-aloud. Interviews are used most often with other types of assessments and can be used for all ages and for individuals with or without disabilities.
There are other types of assessments of metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive strategies (see [31, 59, 60, 61]; c.f., [4, 62, 63]). This chapter called for more investigations about metacognitive assessments to detect metacognitive strategies used by DHH learners before, during, and after reading.
References
- 1.
Israel SE. Using Metacognitive Assessments to Create Individualized Reading Instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association; 2007 - 2.
Pressley M, Afflerbach P. Verbal Protocols of Reading: The Nature of Constructively Responsive Reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1995 - 3.
Schmitt MC. Measuring students’ awareness and control of strategic processes. In: Israel SE, Bauserman KL, Kinnucan-Welsch K, Block CC, editors. Metacognition in Literacy Learning: Theory, Assessment, Instruction, and Professional Development. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2005. pp. 123-142 - 4.
Albalhareth A, Paul PV, Alasmari A. Teachers’ perceptions of metacognitive strategies and assessments used with d/deaf and hard of hearing students. Human Research in Rehabilitation. 2022; 12 (1):5-21 - 5.
Albalhareth A, Alasmari A. Metacognitive strategies implemented with d/Dhh students in upper elementary schools in Saudi Arabia. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2023; 47 :101222 - 6.
Flavel JH. Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In: Resnick LB, editor. The Nature of Intelligence. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1976. pp. 231-235 - 7.
Flavel JH, Friedrichs AG, Hoyt JD. Developmental changes in memorization processes. Cognitive Psychology. 1970; 1 (4):324-340 - 8.
Flavel JH, Wellman HM. Metamemory. In: Kail R, Hagen J, editors. Perspectives on the Development of Memory and Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1977 - 9.
Flavel JH. Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive- developmental inquiry. American Psychologist. 1979; 34 (10):906-911 - 10.
Fleming SM, Lau HC. How to measure metacognition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 2014; 8 :443 - 11.
Myers M, Paris SG. Children’s metacognitive knowledge about reading. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1978; 70 (5):680-690 - 12.
Pearson PD, Cervetti GN. The roots of reading comprehension instruction. In: Israel SE, editor. Handbook of Research on Reading Comprehension. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2017. pp. 12-56 - 13.
Wellman HM. Knowledge of the interaction of memory variables: A developmental study of metamemory. Developmental Psychology. 1978; 14 (1):24 - 14.
Baker L, Carter Beall L. Metacognitive processes and reading comprehension. In: Israel SE, Duffy GG, editors. Handbook of Research on Reading Comprehension. New York: Routledge; 2009. pp. 373-388 - 15.
Hacker DJ, Dunloskey J, Graesser AC, editors. Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1998 - 16.
Israel SE, Block CC, Kinnucan- Welsch K, Bauserman K. Metacognition in Literacy Learning: Theory, Assessment, Instruction, and Professional Development. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.; 2005 - 17.
Siegler RS. The other Alfred Binet. Developmental Psychology. 1992; 28 :179-190 - 18.
McAnally PL, Rose S, Quigle SP. Reading Practices with Deaf Learners. USA: Pro-Ed; 2007 - 19.
Rousseau DM. Schema, promise and mutuality: The building blocks of the psychological contract. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 2001; 74 (4):511-541 - 20.
Piaget J. The Language and Thought of the Child (M. Gabain, Trans.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul; 1926 - 21.
Morrison C, Marschark M, Sarchet T, Convertino CM, Borgna G, Dirmyer R. Deaf students’ metacognitive awareness during language comprehension. European Journal of Special Needs Education. 2013; 28 (1):78-90 - 22.
Alasmari A, Albalhareth A. Specific challenges in the development of English literacy for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. International Journal of Literacies. 2022; 29 (2):13-26 - 23.
Vygotsky LS. Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1978 - 24.
Schirmer BR. Using verbal protocols to identify the reading strategies of students who are deaf. Journal of Deaf Studies & Deaf Education. 2003; 8 (2):157-170 - 25.
Strong M, Prinz P. Is American sign language skill related to English literacy. Language Acquisition by Eye. 2000; 2000 :131-141 - 26.
Schirmer BR, Bailey J, Lockman AS. What verbal protocols reveal about the reading strategies of deaf students: A replication study. American Annals of the Deaf. 2004; 149 (1):5-16 - 27.
Baker L, Brown A. Metacognitive skills and reading. In: Pearson PD, Barr R, Kamil ML, Mosenthal P, editors. Handbook of Reading Research. New York: Longman; 1984. pp. 353-394 - 28.
Meichenbaum D. Teaching thinking: A cognitive-behavioral perspective. In: Thinking and Learning Skills. Routledge; 2013. pp. 407-426 - 29.
McCormick CB. Metacognition and learning. In: Reynolds WM, Miller GE, editors. Handbook of Psychology: Educational Psychology. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons; 2003. pp. 79-102 - 30.
Paris SG, Lipson MY, Wixson K. Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 1983; 8 (3):293-316 - 31.
Block CC. What are metacognitive assessments? In: Israel SE, Block CC, Bauserman KL, Kinnucan-Welsch K, editors. Metacognition in Literacy Learning: Theory, Assessment, Instruction, and Professional Development. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.; 2005. pp. 83-100 - 32.
Pressley M, Harris KR. Cognitive strategies instruction: From basic research to classroom instruction. In: Alexander PA, Winne PH, editors. Handbook of Educational Psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2006. pp. 265-286 - 33.
National Reading Panel. Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read – An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and its Implications for Reading Instruction. National Institute for Literacy at EDPubs. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; 2000 - 34.
LaSasso C, Davey B. The relationship between lexical knowledge and reading comprehension for prelingually, profoundly hearing-impaired students. Volta Review. 1987; 89 (4):211-220 - 35.
Van Kraayenoord CE. The role of metacognition in reading comprehension. Focal Points of the Research and Development of Pedagogically-psychological Perspectives. 2010; 2010 :277-302 - 36.
Mahdavi JN, Tensfeldt L. Untangling reading comprehension strategy instruction: Assisting struggling readers in the primary grades. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth. 2013; 57 (2):77-92 - 37.
Utley CA, Mortweet Van Scoyoc S, Greenwood CR. Peer-mediated instruction and interventions. Focus on Exceptional Children. 1997; 29 (5):1-24 - 38.
Alzahrani T, Leko M. The effects of peer tutoring on the reading comprehension performance of secondary students with disabilities: A systematic review. Reading & Writing Quarterly. 2017; 34 (1):1-17 - 39.
Fuchs D, Fuchs LS. Peer-assisted learning strategies: Promoting word recognition, fluency, and reading comprehension in young children. The Journal of Special Education. 2005; 39 (1):34-44 - 40.
Fuchs D, Fuchs LS. Increasing strategic reading comprehension with peer-assisted learning activities. In: McNamara DS, editor. Reading Comprehension Strategies: Theories, Interventions, and Technologies. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2007. pp. 175-197 - 41.
Maheady L, Mallette B, Harper GF. Four classwide peer tutoring models: Similarities, differences, and implications for research and practice. Reading & Writing Quarterly. 2006; 22 (1):65-89 - 42.
Palincsar A, Brown AL. Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction. 1984; 1 (2):117-175 - 43.
Mastropieri MA, Scruggs TE, Graetz JE. Reading comprehension instruction for secondary students: Challenges for struggling students and teachers. Learning Disability Quarterly. 2003; 26 (2):103-116 - 44.
Greenwood CR, Delquadri JC, Hall RV. Longitudinal effects of classwide peer tutoring. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1989; 81 (3):371-383 - 45.
Greenwood CR. Longitudinal analysis of time, engagement, and achievement in at-risk versus non-risk students. Exceptional Children. 1991; 57 (6):521-532 - 46.
Snow CE, Burns MS, Griffin P, editors. Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1998 - 47.
Silvestri JA, Wang Y. A grounded theory of effective reading by profoundly deaf adults. American Annals of the Deaf. 2018; 162 (5):419-444 - 48.
Harris TL, Hodges RE. The Literacy Dictionary: The Vocabulary of Reading and Writing. Newark, DE: International Reading Association; 1995 - 49.
Paris SG, Flukes J. Assessing children’s metacognition about strategic reading. In: Israel SE, Block CC, Bauserman KL, Kinnucan-Welsh K, editors. Metacognition Literacy Learning: Theory, Assessment, Instruction, and Professional Development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2005. pp. 121-139 - 50.
Zimmerman BJ. Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist. 1990; 25 (1):3-17 - 51.
Block CC, Israel SE. The ABCs of performing highly effective think-alouds. The Reading Teacher. 2004; 58 (2):154-167 - 52.
Carroll JB. Defining language comprehension: Some speculation. In: Carroll JB, Freedle RO, editors. Language Comprehension and the Acquisition of Knowledge. Washington DC: V.H. Winston and Sons; 1972 - 53.
Strassman BK. Deaf adolescents’ metacognitive knowledge about school-related reading. American Annals of the Deaf. 1992; 137 (4):326-330 - 54.
Banner A, Wang Y. An analysis of the reading strategies used by adult and student deaf readers. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education. 2011; 16 (1):2-23 - 55.
Ericsson KA, Simon H. Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1984 - 56.
Ericsson KA, Simon H. Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1993 - 57.
Krahmer E, Ummelen N. Thinking about thinking aloud: A comparison of two verbal protocols for usability testing. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication. 2004; 47 (2):105-117 - 58.
Krockow EM, Colman AM, Pulford BD. Exploring cooperation and competition in the centipede game through verbal protocol analysis. European Journal of Social Psychology. 2016; 46 (6):746-761 - 59.
Perfetti CA, Lesco R. Sentences, individual differences, and multiple texts: Three issues in text comprehension. Discourse Processes. 1979; 23 (3):337-355 - 60.
Stanovich KE. The Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences for individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly. 1986; 21 (4):360-407 - 61.
Tergeson JK, Wagner J. What it means to learn to read. Child Development. 1987; 56 (5):1134-1144 - 62.
Oakhill J, Yuill N. Higher order factors in comprehension disability: Processes and remediation. In: Cornoldi L, Oakhill J, editors. Models of Effective Educational Assessment. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.; 1999. pp. 111-135 - 63.
LaSasso C. The effect of WH question format versus incomplete statement format on deaf students’ demonstration of comprehension of text-explicit information. American Annals of the Deaf. Washington, D.C: Gallaudet University Press; 1979; 124 (7):833-837