306 EPatterson AR

The Impact of Explicit Teaching of Metacognitive Strategies
on the Reading-Specific Self-Efficacy of Upper-Primary Students
ABSTRACT: This study investigated the impact of explicit teaching of metacognitive strategies on reading-
specific self-efficacy. The intervention took place over a two-week period in a naturalistic whole-class setting.
The students were taught metacomprehension in modelled and shared reading activities, using a four-part
framework: getting ready to read, monitoring understanding, applying fix-up strategies, and reflecting on
meaning. The study participants were the members of the whole-class (n=19), however particular interest was
paid to the impact of the intervention upon a group of at-risk readers (n=4). Hence, the study investigated the
following hypotheses:
That students reading self-efficacy (and thereby, comprehension) can be heightened through explicit
teaching of metacognitive strategies
That at-risk readers self-efficacy (and thereby, comprehension) can be heightened through explicit
teaching of metacognitive strategies within a whole-class context
Descriptive statistics, using means and standard deviations, indicated differences between the intervention and
the control groups. Inferential statistics (for example, analysis of covariance) were not used, and the statistical
significance of change within and between groups was not identified hence, the hypotheses have not been
unequivocally proven. However, positive trends were observed by the researcher and indicate promising
potential for future research into the correlation between metacognition and reading self-efficacy.
INTRODUCTION
For readers in the middle years of school (Grades 5 - 8), any difficulties they experience may be intensified as
reading changes from a learning outcome to a learning tool that is, as the focus shifts from learning to read to
reading to learn (Allington & Johnston 2002; cited in Nelson & Manset-Williamson, 2006, p.214). At-risk readers
decoding difficulties place them at heightened risk of poor reading comprehension (Bruce & Robinson, 2000),
which impedes both their literacy development and their ability to learn from texts used throughout the
curriculum (Migyanka, Policastro & Lui, 2005). The difficulties that struggling readers have always experienced
are often also compounded at this age, by poor confidence in their ability to work with written texts.
Confidence, or belief in ones ability to perform a given task, is called self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is a judgement
of capability (Bandura, 2005, p.309). The term is not interchangeable with self-esteem or self-concept, but
rather refers to beliefs about ones competence in specific tasks rather than to collective self-perceptions
(Schunk, 2004, p.373). Hence, an individual develops differing levels of self-efficacy for each of their various
pursuits (Bandura, 2005). Self-efficacy beliefs significantly impact motivation (McCabe, 2006), and thereby
engagement (McCrudden, Perkins & Putney, 2005) and behaviours that are conducive to learning such as
persistence; resilience; risk-taking; expectations for success; goal-setting; task-selection; and willingness to
participate and employ known strategies (Bandura, 1986; cited in McCabe 2006; Bandura,1997; cited in Klassen,
2010; Bandura, 2005; Zimmerman, 2000). Low task-specific reading self-efficacy can therefore be regarded as a
serious impediment to literacy development.
Students with low self-efficacy for reading often avoid reading or merely go through the motions (McCabe &
Margolis, 2001, p.45) of the bare bones of reading behaviours, rather than actively engaging with meaning
making. Students whose motivation is impeded by low self-efficacy are likely to read less frequently than their
highly self-efficacious peers, and this lack of practice further undermines their progress and reading enjoyment
(McCabe and Margolis, 2001; Schunk, 1991). As well as affecting motivation and reading frequency, negative self-
judgements can interfere with cognitive engagement (Whithear, 2009), as self-doubt comes to dominate a
readers internal dialogue, and thereby interfere with their working-memory (Nelson & Manset-Williamson, 2006)
and capacity to think strategically (Bandura, 2005).
Self-efficacy can, in short, be regarded as part of a web of interconnected factors that widen the gap between
struggling and successful readers as they head into adolescence. However, various studies purport that these
efficacious beliefs are not static rather, they can be improved via targeted teaching that creates an
environment conducive to raising them (Schunk, 2000; cited in Barkley, 2006; Whithear, 2009). Development of
self-efficacy can be supported by: making students successes explicit to them; drawing attention to successful
modelling of self-management or self-regulation by others (including teachers and peers); encouraging students
to self-manage or self-regulate; and, assisting students to recognise and manage their emotional responses
(Bandura, 1997; Klassen, 2010). The intervention designed for this current study included each of these elements
however, the primary focus of the current study was on raising students awareness, and ultimately their use,
of self-management strategies when reading.
In his writing on self-efficacy, Bandura (2005, p.308) states that proficient performance is partly guided by
higher-order self-regulatory skills. In the case of reading, these self-regulatory or self-management skills include
metacognitive or metacomprehension skills. Metacognition, often colloquially referred to as thinking about
thinking, is a means by which readers can manage the reading process. This conscious and deliberate mental
activity (Martinez, 2006, p. 697) incorporates a wide skill-set including (but not limited to): awareness of ones
own knowledge base; selection of related memory content; content organisation; task planning; monitoring of
ones focus and progress; goal setting and subsequent reflection; and knowledge, selection, and self-regulated
use of cognitive and learning strategies (Knight & Galletly, 2005; Cubukcu, 2008; Munro 2010a; Nelson & Manset-
Williamson, 2006; Mayer, 1996; cited in McCrudden, Perkins et al., 2005).
In terms of reading, cognitive strategies are the mental of behavioural activities that increase the likelihood of
comprehension (Van Keer & Verhaeghe, 2005, p.292) for example, rereading, making predictions based on
prior knowledge, paraphrasing, and drawing connections to the text. Metacognitive strategies are the self-
regulating strategies one uses to actively control the reading process. These include strategies such as planning
and goal setting prior to beginning to read; monitoring comprehension whilst reading; consciously selecting
cognitive strategies that will enhance or repair understanding whilst reading; and, reviewing what one has read
and reflecting on the meaning one has made using the text (Van Keer & Verhaeghe, 2005; Pintrich, Wolters &
Baxter, 2000; cited in Cubukcu, 2008; Kolic-Vehovec & Bajanski, 2006; Cantrell, Almasi, Rintamaa & Madden,
2010). Competent readers have a proactive approach to comprehending text (Schmitt, 1990), and are
predisposed towards making flexible use of a varied toolkit of strategies, both to monitor and fix-up their
comprehension (Van Keer & Verhaeghe, 2005). Such metacomprehension is an integral component of successful
reading.
It can be inferred that enhancing students metacognition, and thereby their self-regulatory behaviours, will
have a positive effect on their reading self-efficacy. Both Gee (1998) and Ralph (2000; cited in Van Keer &
Verhaeghe, 2005) purport that learning about metacomprehension through explicit cognitive and metacognitive
strategy instruction helps students to assume control by reducing the mystery surrounding the reading process.
Martinez (2006) writes that students persistence and focus can be improved as they learn to coach themselves
metacognitively, and Knight and Galletly (2005) comment on the potential of metacognition to boost motivation.
Klassen (2010, p.28) succinctly highlights the link between conscious self-management and self-efficacy, writing
that it is plausible to conclude that intervention targeted at boosting students self-regulatory processes also
boosts their confidence to regulate these processes.
All students stand to benefit from explicit instruction about metacognition and its role in self-management,
because successful reading entails awareness of whether ones comprehension is good or poor. According to
Martinez (2006, p.697), Believing that one understands when one does not is a serious and common error. But
even more serious is when students dont even consider whether they comprehend but simply take notes or read
mechanically. This becomes more relevant as students are increasingly called upon to utilise their reading skills
to support learning across the curriculum in the upper-primary years. However, teaching metacognitive self-
management is of particular relevance to students who experience reading difficulties. Various researchers have
reported that at-risk readers and students with learning difficulties often demonstrate poor use of both cognitive
and metacognitive strategies. These students need to be explicitly taught to select cognitive strategies at
appropriate times, and they need support to develop their metacognitive awareness of how to use these
strategies and how to monitor their use (Gee, 1998; Knight & Galletly, 2005; Whithear, 2009).
Klassen (2010, p.20) writes that academic skills and self-regulated learning are theoretically distinct therefore
students with a reading deficit are capable of learning to organise their learning environment, plan learning
activities, and monitor their learning in ways that are not informed by poor reading skills. At-risk readers self-
efficacy stands to benefit from teaching that makes explicit the distinction between academic ability and self-
regulation. These students often exhibit learned helplessness (Grimes, 1981; cited in Nelson & Manset-
Williamson 2006, p.214) that is, they have adopted a passive approach to reading, because they feel
disempowered and overwhelmed by repeated encounters with texts they presume they have no chance of
comprehending. Improved metacognitive awareness can, however, improve their understanding of their relative
areas of strength and weakness, and the active role they can take in using their academic or self-regulatory
strengths to support any difficulties with decoding and comprehending (Almasi & Gourgev, 2001; cited in Van
Keer & Verhaeghe, 2005; Klassen & Lynch, 2007).
2
McCrudden, Perkins & Putney (2005) report that little research has been done into the impact of reading strategy
instruction on self-efficacy however, the results of the available research hint at interrelationships between
self-efficacy and comprehension and/ or metacognition and self-efficacy. McCrudden and fellow researchers
investigated whether reading strategy instruction could increase students self-efficacy and interest in using
strategies. Their study took place over a two-week period (the same time period as this current study), and they
reported increases in self-efficacy and interest, which they cite as evidence that explicit strategy instruction
can influence student motivation in a relatively short period of time (McCrudden et al., 2005, p.119). Similarly,
in a year-long, multi-strategy teaching sequence that involved explicit strategy instruction and cross-age and
same-age peer tutoring, Van Keer and Verhaeghe (2005) identified significant effects on second and fifth grade
readers comprehension, and on fifth graders reading specific self-efficacy. Barkley (2006, p.194) also found
that students improved self-efficacy beliefs positively correlate with reading comprehension achievement; and
Gee (1998, p.6) writes that learning about metacomprehension leads to positive changes in self-esteem as
children begin to take control of their own strategy use.
It is interesting to note, however, that Nelson & Manset-Williamsons (2006, p.213) study showed that, despite
students who received explicit strategy instruction making greater gains in their reading comprehension, the
control-group students who received a less explicit strategy intervention demonstrated higher reading self-
efficacy at post-test than the explicit, self-regulatory intervention. Nelson & Manset-Williamson (2006, p.227)
discuss such divergence of reading skill and efficacy, and conclude that as readers become more aware of the
complexity of reading, perhaps they became more accurate in judging their capabilities to meet the demands of
the task.
According to Linnenbrink & Pintrich (2003; cited in Barkley 2006, p.196), it is imperative that teachers facilitate
opportunities to maintain high but accurate self-efficacy beliefs that is, opportunities to succeed, and
supportive feedback in the event that they experience failure. It has been proposed that to develop the accuracy
of, and ultimately build on, students self-efficacy beliefs one needs to help them heighten their self-awareness.
Yet, it appears that little research has been done in this area specifically. Klassen & Lynch (2007, p.505) suggest
that the task of developing students metacognitive skills as a way of improving self-efficacy calibration is a
challenging prospect, and that future intervention studies might explore the link between increased self-
awareness and self-efficacy calibration. The current study has tried to take up this challenge in a small way. The
researcher predicted that metacognition and improved self-management was integral to raising self-efficacy,
which would ultimately contribute to improved comprehension.
Previous studies that examined different ways of teaching metacognition were looked to for ideas on the best
way to intervene. Research seems to indicate that teaching metacognition, especially in the form of
metacomprehension (or comprehension monitoring) in the upper primary years is an age-appropriate
intervention, because students approaching adolescence are often in need of, and cognitively ready for, more
advanced metacognitive activity. Markman (1977; cited in Cantrell, Almasi et al., 2010) found that younger
readers are less competent at recognising incomplete information, hence are unable to recognise breakdowns in
comprehension. Likewise, Kolic-Vehovec & Bajanski (2006, p.440) found that the upper primary years are a time
when students make considerable gains in comprehension and comprehension monitoring, hence that is the
period when effective instruction in reading strategies with emphasis on comprehension monitoring should be
applied and could foster metacognitive development and reading efficiency.
As well as being developmentally appropriate, it appears that teaching students about metacognitive functioning
is appropriate to the needs of students with reading difficulties who, studies have found, commonly demonstrate
skill deficits in two areas of metacognition namely, problem solving and performance monitoring (Klassen,
2010). Van Keer & Verhaeghe (2005) demonstrated that it is possible to teach these students metacomprehension
strategies, such as effective selection and use of reading strategies; comprehension monitoring; and self-
management or regulation whilst reading. Similarly, Cubukcu (2008) found that explicitly teaching students about
metacognition assisted them in various reading tasks. Gees (1998, p.6) study of a one-on-one intervention found
that young children with severe reading difficulties can be taught about metacomprehension and can use
metacognitive reading strategies to enhance the process of making meaning from text.
These studies investigating teaching metacognitive awareness and strategy used several methods. As well as
being taught effective strategy use (Cubukcu, 2008), improvements in students reading were attributed to them
being taught to monitor and check their comprehension whilst reading (Cubukcu, 2008; Kolic & Bajsanski, 2006;
Mastropieri, Scruggs, Bakken & Wheldon, 1996; cited in Barkley, 2006). In Mastropieri & peers study (1996; cited
in Barkley, 2006) students were taught to question their reading behaviours and their understandings. Paris, Cross
& Lipson (1984) taught students about how and when to construct purposes for reading; to activate background
knowledge; to identify main ideas; make inferences; and monitor comprehension. In the literature on teaching
3
students to use metacognition to monitor their comprehension, references can often be found to the use of the
think-aloud technique both as a form of modelling metacomprehension, and a means by which students can
demonstrate and practice the self-questioning and self-talk needed to monitor their own understanding (Bauman,
Seifer-Kessell & Jones, 1987; cited in Schmitt, 1990).
The following sections outline how some of these techniques were applied in the context of the current study,
with a view to extending the earlier research. This study aimed to investigate the impact of explicit teaching of
self-management strategies on students reading self-efficacy, and thereby their comprehension. It took place in
the context of a whole-class teaching sequence, and particular attention was paid to its impact upon students
within the class experiencing reading difficulties. Hence, this study set out to investigate the following
complementary hypotheses, using a nested-study approach:
That students reading self-efficacy (and thereby, comprehension) can be heightened through explicit
teaching of metacognitive strategies
teaching of metacognitive strategies within a whole-class context
METHOD
Design
This study is an action research project that took place in the context of a real classroom. Pre and post
assessments were administered to the intervention group and a control group, in an attempt to gauge the
effectiveness of the teaching. The control group was characterised by students engaging in reading activities
without explicit metacognitive strategy instruction.
The teaching sequence was dynamic, in that it was adapted throughout the intervention in response to perceived
student needs. The effectiveness of the teaching was examined both in terms of the whole class, and with
specific reference to a small group of readers who were deemed to be at risk.
Table 1 Study design

Teaching Group Control Group
(T) n=19 (C) n=17
Control Group
Teaching Group
At-Risk
At-Risk
(CA)
(TA)
n=5
n=4

Other Other
(TO) (CO)
n=15 n=12
4
Participants
(Student Summary Appendix 1)
Whole Class (n=19)
The subjects of the study were the students of a Grade 5/6 class (nineteen students in total), taught by the
researcher (three days per week) and another teacher (two days per week). The researcher had observed that, in
spite of receiving explicit instruction in reading strategies throughout the year (including paraphrasing,
visualising and Meaning Making Motor (Munro, 2010a)), school literacy assessment data indicated the cohort had
not made substantial gains in independent reading comprehension.
The researcher also had concerns about the students reading self-efficacy. This concern arose from ongoing
observations and, in particular, from the students behaviours when engaging in group-research projects. The
collaborative nature of such projects provided an opportunity to hear the students discuss what they were
reading, and it was noted that the bulk of the students were not independently selecting and using the strategies
they had been taught to make meaning from texts. Indeed, many of the students appeared to have disengaged
they were passive in their behaviour and seemingly unperturbed by their failure to comprehend. They were not
actively working to make meaning by using the strategies they had previously been taught and, when questioned
about their understanding, they seemed plagued by self-doubt.
This whole-group behavioural pattern was reminiscent of the behaviours exhibited by the at-risk readers in the
class. In general, these students were unperturbed by reading without understanding, and seemed resigned to
their perceived role as mere receivers of texts that were difficult. For the most part, reading was a chore to be
performed at a teachers request, and it seemed that they had grown to believe a readers job was to merely
enunciate the words on the page. If a word was difficult or unknown, the majority of these at-risk readers did
not hesitate to say something nonsensical and keep reading, or to skip over it all together. They were typical of
the poor readers who, according to Gee (1998, p.1), dont expect a text to make sense are often not aware
when comprehension has broken down.
This similarity between the at-risk readers behaviours that had been observed throughout the year, and the
behaviour of the class as a whole during their group-research (their passive acceptance of a texts ability to
confuse or frustrate, and their non-strategic approach to reading), was the springboard for the dual hypotheses
of this action research project. The students seemed to attribute a lot of power to texts the power to confuse
and to frustrate. Yet they were seemingly unaware of their own power as readers to actively work with the text
to make meaning. It was hypothesised that the students in the class were apathetic about comprehending
because of their low self-efficacy as readers, which stemmed from their lack of explicit knowledge of self-
management strategies. It appeared as though these students had been taught various cognitive reading
strategies, however did not possess sufficient metacognition to feel empowered to use them.
Hence the hypothesis, focusing on outcomes for the whole class:

That students reading self-efficacy (and thereby, comprehension) can be heightened through
explicit teaching of metacognitive strategies.
Targeted Students (n=4)
As outlined above, this intervention was developed in response to a perceived whole-class need that was
reminiscent of the ongoing needs of those students in the class regarded as at-risk readers. This, however, was
not the sole reason why the intervention took place in the context of lessons taught to the whole class. It was
predicted that, in addition to serving the needs of all students, whole-class teaching would best meet the needs
of those students who were to be particularly targeted.
The four targeted students were chosen because they had fallen below the schools global assessment cut-offs
that mandate an intervention framework must be followed, or because they had come to the researchers
attention because of their extremely low levels of engagement and/or reading self-efficacy.
5
Table 2 Information on targeted students
Identified Presumed to
for have low Student background
Student intervention reading and reading behaviours observed
by global self- prior to study
assessment efficacy
Performed adequately in multiple choice reading tests but
unwilling/unable to attempt any task or question that is open-ended or
requires a response to be formulated
Disengaged during whole-class, small-group and independent reading
tasks (lacked concentration; distracted self and other students)
J
Exhibited signs of low confidence in general
No evidence of self-monitoring for comprehension (reasonable word
decoding skills; but responds I dont know if asked about text meaning)
Unforthcoming when working one-on-one with a teacher or in small groups
(resists responding to direct questioning)
Disengaged during whole-class, small-group and independent reading
tasks (pretends to read/complete task in an attempt to escape attention;
often refuses to engage or respond when prompted or challenged)
Exhibited signs of extremely low self-confidence in general, and very low
reading self-efficacy
K Expressed extreme distaste for reading

No evidence of self-monitoring for comprehension (when reading aloud,
often skips over words or substitutes nonsense; avoids answering direct
questions about text meaning)
Hostile resistance to working one-on-one with a teacher or in small groups
(uncooperative behaviour; refusal to contribute to discussions or answer
questions)
Extremely reticent in general in classroom situations
Avoided answering direct questions from adults(protracted silence
followed by I dont know if prompted; possibly linked to cultural
background )
Exhibited extreme distress at being withdrawn from classroom for another
form of intervention

Q Passively resistant to any kind of targeted teaching (appears to want to
fit in)
Engaged in independent reading (makes painstaking but steady effort)
Appeared to be engaged with whole-class and small-group reading
tasks, if allowed to listen without responding to questions
No evidence of self-monitoring for comprehension (skips or mumbles
unknown words; does not reread or ask for help)
Identified self as a poor comprehender (low self-efficacy for ability to
make meaning and remember what is read), but appears to have high
efficacy for reading aloud
Expressed desire to improve reading, and willingly engaged with
additional one-on-one assessment but nonetheless tries to cover up or
deny deficits in understanding
S Disengaged during independent reading tasks (lacks concentration; makes

excuses to try and avoid detection for incomplete tasks or lack of
understanding)
Willing and eager to participate in group reading activities (whole class
and small group), but is often distracted from the learning focus by trying
to cover weaknesses/ impress
No evidence of self-monitoring for comprehension (will read nonsense for
unknown words without pausing/ rereading/ asking for help)
Klassen & Lynch (2007, p.503) noted that students with learning difficulties have considerable difficulties with
self-awareness, perhaps due to self-protective tendencies and this appeared to be true of this group of
students. Each student had developed their own means of self-protection or compensation for their reading
6
deficit. Students J and Q avoided or deflected direct questions. Students K and S attempted to camouflage
themselves during independent reading situations by imitating the physical behaviours of their peers. Student K
responded to questions with verbal aggression; whereas Student S tried to disguise any weakness with a kind of
false bravado, often dominating the reading aloud components of shared and group reading situations and making
excuses for not understanding.
The struggle in teaching all of these students was that, although they were clearly in need of intensive
scaffolding, their avoidance and self-protection strategies made it very difficult to identify the exact nature of
their needs and their resistance or failure to participate effectively in small group or one-on-one targeted
teaching rendered those methods of intervention ineffective. In addition, for students J, K and Q it appeared
that low self-efficacy was interfering with their perseverance when reading independently, and the resulting lack
of reading practice most likely accelerated the cycle of reading failure, causing them to fall even further behind
their peers.
Klassen & Lynch (2007, p.503) cite Albert Banduras (1997) warning that offering unnecessary help lowers
confidence and impairs execution of skills. In this instance it appeared that even the offer of necessary help
over the years had been somewhat detrimental to these students confidence. Students J, K and Q all exhibited
extreme emotional reactions to any teaching they suspected might be targeting them specifically, and Student S
seemed more concerned with proving reading ability, than actually reading. Hence, it was decided that whole-
class teaching probably constituted the most suitable intervention model for this group of at-risk readers.
Whilst the students in this class were pre-teen, they had undoubtedly developed the self-consciousness and
emotional volatility associated with adolescent learners (Arnett, 2004; cited in Klassen & Lynch, 2007). Indeed,
the attitudes and behaviours of the four targeted students well and truly reflected those described in literature
about adolescents with learning difficulties. With regards to students with a history of reading difficulties,
Whithear (2009, p.33) predicts they are more likely to be resistant to instruction, and that issues of motivation,
engagement and self-efficacy will play a much larger role when designing interventions for students of this age.
Likewise, Klassen & Lynch (2007, p.504) noted that the students in their study, despite their lack of
metacognitive self-awareness, knew what they wanted from teachers: namely, help that was discreetly provided
and offered to the whole class rather than only to the students with learning difficulties.
In addition to being sensitive to the targeted students affective states, there were sound pedagogical reasons
for targeted intervention within the context of whole-class teaching. Vygotskys (1978; cited in Martinez, 2006)
theory of social mediated learning holds that social discourse (such as conversation and verbalisation) aids the
development of higher-order thinking. Discussions and verbalised thoughts that students hear constitute a form
of cognitive modelling that the learner can internalise. Various researchers have also noted the benefits of
providing students with learning difficulties opportunities to work with student role models who value learning.
Such role models can offer support within a group; contribute to a shared body of knowledge; verbalise their use
of cognitive and metacognitive strategies; and contribute ideas that support other students understanding
(McCabe & Margolis, 2001; Bruce & Robinson, 2004; Munro, 2010b). As three of the four targeted students (J, K
and Q) appeared to use listening as a preferred learning style, a whole-class intervention that facilitated peer
modelling was predicted to be suitable for their needs.
Hence the hypothesis, focusing on outcomes for the targeted students:

teaching of metacognitive strategies within a whole-class context.
Materials
Pre and Post Assessment Materials (Table 3)
Self-Efficacy Survey (Appendix 2)

Metacomprehension Strategy Index (Schmitt, 1990) (Appendix 3)
TORCH Tests of Reading Comprehension (Mossenson, Stephanou, Forster, Masters, McGregor, Anderson &
Hills, 2003)
Table 3 Description of assessment instruments

Description of Pre and Post Assessment Instruments
7
Self-Efficacy Survey (Appendix 2)
Designed by the researcher
Intended to measure pre and post reading-specific self-efficacy
Developed with reference to Banduras (2005) recommendations for designing instruments to measure self-efficacy;
the instrument described by McCrudden, Perkins et al. (2005); and the Self-Efficacy Scales from ERIK (2006)
Uses a 5-point Likert-type response scale (Fewer than recommended by Bandura (2005) for instrument sensitivity
and reliability but the researcher decided a simpler scale would be more age-appropriate)
Students were asked to rank their certainty that they could perform reading-specific tasks (How sure are you that
you can...) and to rank their agreement with statements about reading (How much do you agree...)
Language was intended to be child-friendly
Visual prompts were included (images of thumbs up/thumbs down), and the differing strength of two versus one
thumb was discussed, to scaffold students understanding of how to respond (This was changed from original design
of happy and sad faces because: Children may misread such a scale as measuring their happiness or sadness
rather than how confident they are that they can perform given tasks (Bandura 2005,p.313))
A practice item was included to familiarise respondents with the scale gauging strength of efficacy belief
(Bandura, 2005,p.313). These items were modelled and discussed
Selection of statements to include was informed by Van Keer & Verhaeghes (2005, p.301) assertion that Reading
attitude can be unfolded in three elements: childrens knowledge about and experience with reading, their positive
or negative appreciation of reading and reading material, and their tendency to read
Administered because: People who score high on perceived self-efficacy should differ in distinct ways from those
who score low in ways specified by the theory. (Bandura, 2005,p.319)
Metacomprehension Strategies Index (Schmitt, 1990) (Appendix 3)

Measures students knowledge of strategic reading processes (Schmitt, 1990)
Overall reliability is reported to be good, however Schmitt (1990, p.457) cautions against extrapolating
generalisations based on item clusters
Multiple choice self-report questionnaire
Designed for mid to upper-primary aged students
25 questions
Metacomprehension behaviours are organised into six categories (Predicting and verifying; Previewing; Purpose
setting; Self-questioning; Drawing from background knowledge; Summarising and applying fix-up strategies)
Respondents are variously asked to select strategies appropriate for use before, during and after reading
Specific to narrative texts, but could be adapted to other types of text
TORCH Tests of Reading Comprehension (Mossenson et al., 2003)

Measures reading comprehension, using Australian normative data
Assesses silent, independent reading
Requires students to read a text and complete a cloze in response
Texts used: Matches (non-fiction); The Cats (fiction)
Materials Used During the Lessons
Observation record sheets (Appendix 4) - for recording anecdotal notes on students contributions,
participation, and behaviours during the teaching intervention and immediately after in group, independent
and one-on-one reading situations.
Electronic versions of texts, for modelled and shared reading using the interactive whiteboard (included
fiction and non-fiction).
Some texts were selected because they were below the targeted students instructional level (which
would allow them to concentrate on strategy use, rather than decoding).
Others texts were chosen because they provided an authentic opportunity to apply the strategies being
taught, because they linked to the students Inquiry unit research projects.
Retrieval charts (Appendix 5) These were created by collating students prior knowledge and the ideas
generated during the first two lessons of the intervention. Strategies were organised into a metacognitive
framework that was used throughout the intervention.
8
Self-Questioning Prompts bookmarks (Appendix 6) Created by collating students suggestions for the
types of prompts and self-questions that would be useful when reading non-fiction texts in the context of
their Inquiry projects. These were used during modelled, shared and independent reading in subsequent
lessons.
Procedure
Pre & Post Assessment
All assessments were administered to the experimental and control groups in whole-class situations. Group
administered measurement instruments were chosen for two reasons: time efficiency, and because the at-risk
readers who were being targeted in the study were not forthcoming with responses in individual or group
situations.
The two self-report instruments were designed to measure pre and post-intervention self-efficacy (the
dependent variable), and knowledge of metacomprehension strategies (the main independent variable).
Attempts were made to safeguard the integrity of the self-assessment that is, to ensure that students were not
motivated to answer in a certain way. These safeguards were included in the preliminary instructions. The
importance of the respondents contributions to the research was explained to them (as recommended by
Bandura (2005)). They were assured that their responses would remain anonymous and not be used for any
purpose other than this research. Students were reminded that the Self-Efficacy Survey was not a test; hence
their responses should reflect their honest feelings and beliefs. The surveys were read aloud to ensure students
reading difficulties did hamper their ability to respond.
Comprehension of fiction and non-fiction texts was measured using TORCH reading tests (Mossenson et al.,
2003).These were chosen as a time effective, normed assessment of reading comprehension skills that would
provide a broad estimate of achievement (Mossenson et al., 2003, p. 4).
Summary of Teaching
In an attempt to raise students reading specific self-efficacy, they were explicitly taught to self-manage their
reading, with a focus on monitoring their own comprehension by setting goals and applying fix-up strategies in
the event of a breakdown. The idea was to replace the negative-affect self-talk that interferes with students
working memory (Nelson & Manset-Williamson, 2006), with more useful self-talk that emphasises the students
power to actively work to make meaning from texts.
The aim was not to teach reading strategies in depth but rather to instil in the students an understanding of
what it means to read strategically. The goal was to familiarise the students with metacomprehension (or
thinking about my understanding) and the power that it imbues in them as readers. Hence, students were not
taught isolated reading strategies (such as predicting, paraphrasing, retelling), but rather a framework that
aimed to guide them in the appropriate selection and use of strategies they had previously been taught, but did
not appear to be utilising independently outside of stand-alone lessons. Hence, the dependent variable to be
measured was not strategy acquisition, but rather the flow-on effect (the impact on self-efficacy) of an
individuals awareness that they have the power to select and apply strategies to heighten their understanding.
The metacognitive framework used throughout the intervention was based on the analogy of a treasure hunt.
This was an attempt to impress upon students that reading is an active process that incorporates planning, and
being prepared to encounter and overcome obstacles. The Hunting for Meaning framework was the result of a
synthesis of strategies and teaching approaches advocated by various researchers (Pintrich, 2000; cited in
Cubukcu, 2008; Schmitt 1990; Munro,2010a & 2010b; Van Keer & Verhaeghe, 2005; Gee, 1998; Barkley, 2006;
Knight & Galletly, 2005; Bruce & Robinson, 2000; Zimmermann & Hutchins, 2003; cited in Migyanka, Policastro et
al., 2005; McCabe & Margolis, 2001; Nelson & Manset-Williamson, 2006; Woolley, 2010).
The framework was developed in response to both the literature and perceived student needs. It incorporated
four main strategies:
Getting ready to read (Goal setting through predicting, questioning, activating prior knowledge)
Monitoring understanding (Self-questioning and retelling main ideas)
Use of fix-up strategies (Selection of the most appropriate known reading strategies)
9
Reflecting on meaning (Goals achieved, new learning, expanded knowledge, confirmed predictions)
The students prior knowledge of specific reading strategies (collated in Lessons 1 and 8) was incorporated as
sub-strategies listed on the framework retrieval charts (Appendix 5) and other visual scaffolds (Appendix 6).
The intervention was designed to progress through five teaching and learning phases that would support students
to develop automaticity:
Phase 1 Getting Ready for Learning
Phase 2 Modelling
Phase 3 Coaching
Phase 4 Scaffolding and Fading
Phase 5 Applying Knowledge & Strategies in New Contexts (Generalising)
These phases were developed in response to various models of teaching (Collins & Brown, 1989; Nelson & Manset-
Williamson, 2006; Munro, 2010a). They were utilised in an intertwined rather than linear fashion, in that a single
lesson could incorporate elements of multiple phases.
Table 4 Lesson Overviews (Activity outlines in Appendix 7)

Lesson 1 (Phase 1)
Introductory lesson
Purpose:
Define successful reading
Identify students current knowledge of reading strategies
Set goals for subsequent lessons
Method:
Discussion (whole-class and Think, Pair, Share)
Lesson 2 (Phase 2)
Modelling use of the Hunting for Meaning framework
Purpose:
Familiarise students with metacomprehension framework, developed to incorporate their known reading strategies.
Framework combines before, during and after metacognitive strategies under the umbrella heading of Hunting for
Meaning
Stages of the framework are:
Use of fix-up strategies (Selection of most appropriate known reading strategies)
Reflecting on meaning (Goal achieved? New learning? Meaning of text?)
Method:
Whole-class shared reading
Modelled use of framework by thinking-aloud, using I... statements
Lesson 3 (Phases 2 & 3)

Modelling the Hunting for Meaning framework and coaching students to assist
Purpose:
Support students to apply the framework strategies
Method:
Whole-class shared reading
Modelled and shared application of framework strategies using think-aloud technique

Developing independence in applying metacognitive strategies before reading
Purpose:
Independent practice of the Getting ready to read strategies from the framework
Method:
Support students to independently generate and record questions, predictions and to activate prior knowledge in
response to a title, picture and captions
Lesson 5 (Phases 2, 3, 4)
Developing independence in applying metacognitive strategies during reading
10
Purpose:
To closely monitor comprehension with reference (during and after reading) to goals set before reading
Method:
Whole-class shared reading of the text previewed in Lesson 4
Modelled and shared application of framework strategies using think-aloud technique
Discussion of impact of getting ready to read
Developing independence in applying metacognitive strategies before, during and after reading
Purpose:
To support students to identify and articulate own breakdowns and fix-up strategies
Method:
Whole-class shared reading of text
Scaffolded application of framework strategies using think-aloud technique
Lesson 7 (Phases 3, 4 & 5)
Exploring how to apply the Hunting for Meaning framework to an authentic task
Purpose:
Students to identify how the framework would assist them with their Inquiry unit research projects
Method:
Whole-class shared reading of text related to Inquiry unit
Scaffolded application of framework strategies using think-aloud technique
Discuss record of strategies used, and identify how they would be of use when working in research groups
Developing visual scaffold to encourage use of metacognitive strategies
Purpose:
Students to design a visual scaffold to support independent use of strategies during Inquiry unit research
Method:
Brainstorm and categorise known strategies according to use (before/during/after; fiction/non-fiction)
Formulate as self-questions/ prompts
Collate to create a bookmark for students to use
Lesson 9 (Phases 2, 4 & 5)
Modelling and shared practice of using visual aids to scaffold self-questioning/ prompting
Purpose:
Students to use bookmarks of self-questions/ prompts to scaffold use of metacognitive strategies
Method:
Model use of bookmark using think-aloud technique
Small-groups use bookmark together, using think-aloud technique
Groups report back to class on use of metacognitive strategies
Developing independence using visual aids to scaffold self-questioning/ prompting
Purpose:
Independent practice using bookmark
Identify benefits of each individual actively engaging in meaning making when engaged in group research (greater
body of shared knowledge/ insights)
Method:
Students read a short text and note their predictions, questions, prior knowledge, breakdowns, and use of fix-up
strategies
Collate group understanding
Discuss importance to individuals and groups of each reader actively engaging with meaning making
Post-Intervention Extension (Phases 4 & 5)
Reflection on lessons and scaffolded application of framework and strategies in context of Inquiry research projects and
independent reading routines
Teaching Techniques and Rationale
11
Bandura (1997) identified four sources of information about competence that can assist in the development of
self-efficacy beliefs: enactive mastery (experiences of success); vicarious experiences (observing teacher
modelling and peers attempts at similar tasks); verbal persuasion (feedback); and ones affective state
(feelings). The teaching sequence of this intervention was designed to incorporate each of these elements.
Students were scaffolded to experience success at fixing-up their own breakdowns in comprehension; they were
able to see their teacher and peers model effective use of metacognitive strategies; they received
encouragement in the context of feedback that made their successes explicit to them; and, the impact of
confidence and attitude on reading was frequently discussed during the tuning-in and reflection stages of lessons.
Self-efficacy and the affective components of reading were not addressed in isolation or prior to engagement in
academic tasks. Rather, they were targeted via a focus on skill development. This is in line with Nelson &
Manset-Williamsons (2006, p.215; attributed to the research of Chapman & Tunmer, 2003) assertion that
motivational and affective characteristics will improve in concert with academic skills. Hence, an assumption of
this intervention was that there is a link between what students know about how to learn and think and their
self-efficacy.
Similarly, the intervention in this current study was based on the belief that various cognitive and metacognitive
components of successful reading can, and need to be, developed together rather than in isolation. A multiple-
strategy approach was utilised because the researcher felt it was necessary to emphasise to this group of
students that a reader has to make choices. The teaching emphasis was on individual readers bearing the
responsibility for unpacking the meaning of the text using whatever strategies they have in their personal
toolkit. The multiple-strategy approach was adopted in the knowledge that not all students had consolidated
the reading strategies previously taught (in particular, paraphrasing, visualising and Meaning Making Motor
(Munro, 2010a)) but the goal was to raise students awareness of reading as a fluid, dynamic process whereby
they continually have to adapt their approach to achieve their best level of understanding. The lessons aimed to
teach them to become strategic, rather than to ensure mastery of isolated strategies.
This approach was supported by the findings of several researchers who advocate for teaching interventions that
incorporate the flexible use of multiple strategies (Whithear, 2009; Woolley, 2010; Cantrell, Almasi et al. 2010;
Van Keer & Verhaeghe 2005); and by Spear-Swerling & Sterbergys (1994; cited in Bruce & Robinson, 2004)
assertion that it is best not to try to address reading strategies in an isolated fashion because reading is multi-
faceted, and many struggling readers experience multiple roadblocks to success. It was also informed by the
Multiple Levels of Text Processing Model (Munro, 1985; cited in Munro 2010a) a model that outlines the various
knowledges and strategies an effective reader needs to seamlessly integrate, in order to achieve a fluid reading
process. This model illustrates that reading is not a hierarchical process, but rather an integrated and
multifaceted one.
The think-aloud strategy was used as a means for both teacher and students to model metacognition. Effort was
made by the teacher to impart declarative (What is the nature of the strategy?), procedural (How to deploy it?)
and conditional (When to use it?) knowledge as recommended by Paris, Lipson & Wixson (1983; cited in Van Keer
& Verhaeghe, 2005, p.303). Having students articulate their thinking allowed them access to one anothers
cognitive and metacognitive tools and it was predicted that at-risk readers, in particular, would benefit from
this (based on the findings of Martinez, 2006; Migyanka, Policastro et al., 2005;Whithear, 2009). The think-aloud
strategy was differentiated and scaffolded as advocated by Migyanka, Policastro et al. (2005). At the start of the
intervention, it was primarily done by the teacher. Students then began to engage in thinking-aloud with support
from the teacher, and were later encouraged to support each other.
Discussion was incorporated in both whole-class and small-group activities. This was to facilitate peer modelling
of strategy use and positive dispositions towards strategy use but also to ensure that students were able to
develop a realistic sense of both their own capabilities, and the need for all readers to make effort and
overcome breakdowns in comprehension. This was deemed to be a developmentally appropriate component of
the intervention, because students in the upper-primary years have a heightening sense of social comparison
(Piaget, 1965; cited in Nelson & Manset-Williamson, 2006). Rather than trying to disguise the discrepancies in
students reading ability in an effort to boost the self-efficacy of the struggling readers, variations in reading
performance were openly discussed in generalised terms. This was a means of redefining successful reading as
self-improvement and effort, rather than as out-performing ones peers.
The researcher attempted to be optimally interventionist (Munro, 2010b) by scaffolding the thinking of each
student as demonstrated in their thinking-alouds, and by being sensitive to the at-risk students feelings by
teaching in a whole-class context that gives them the opportunity to learn through observing. Cues and feedback
were utilised throughout the shared reading experiences, in an attempt to support learners to experience success
12
and to make their successes explicit to them. Honesty (about comprehension breakdowns experienced) and effort
to be metacognitive were the targets of praise, rather than flawless understanding.
The teaching was designed to be responsive to student needs. Group understandings were collated throughout
the intervention, in an attempt to minimise the gaps in knowledge that Munro identifies as a key area of
individual difference that impacts learning (J.K. Munro 2010, per.comm.,9 September). Also, the amount of time
spent on the various phases of teaching (for example, modelling, coaching, scaffolding) was adapted in response
to students motivation and performance. For example, teacher-only modelling was rapidly removed in response
to the needs of the majority of students. Their contributions to the shared reading and strategy application were
then harnessed and discussed, in order to scaffold the at-risk readers.
Attempts were also made to cater for students needs when selecting texts. The texts used at the outset of the
teaching sequence were at low readability levels, to allow all students to focus their attention on the use of
metacognitive strategies. Because of the simplicity of the texts, the teacher indicated comprehension
breakdowns to be fixed, rather than relying on the students to do so. In the latter half of the teaching sequence
more difficult texts were used so that the majority of students could have practice identifying genuine
breakdowns in understanding, which they were then scaffolded to address using fix-up strategies. Narrative texts
were used at the outset of the intervention, in accordance with Gees (1998) assertion that they are more
familiar to students, but the shift to expository texts was made in order to highlight the links between the
intervention teaching and an authentic context in which students could apply it (their Inquiry unit research
projects).
The teaching as a whole was geared towards supporting students to develop automaticity of metacognitive
strategy use, in order to increase their reading self-efficacy. Hence, emphasis on individual students
responsibilities was in line with Collins & Newmans (1989) model. Students were asked to articulate using think-
alouds, to reflect both during and after each lesson, and they were supported to explore the frameworks wider
application in the context of their Inquiry unit.
Data analysis
In the absence of being able to utilise inferential statistics, which demonstrate the interaction between
variables, the results and discussion are based on the use of descriptive statistics namely means, and standard
deviations. The researcher was unable to independently gauge the statistical significance of the results; however
analysis by a third party of the impact of the intervention upon comprehension is discussed.
With regard to the first hypothesis That students reading self-efficacy (and thereby, comprehension) can be
heightened through explicit teaching of metacognitive strategies pre and post-scores of the whole intervention
teaching group (T) were compared with those of the control group (C). (Table 5)
With regard to the second hypothesis That at-risk readers self-efficacy (and thereby, comprehension) can be
heightened through explicit teaching of metacognitive strategies within a whole-class context pre and post-
scores of the at-risk students within the intervention class (TA) were compared with the scores of other students
in the class (TO), and with the scores of students regarded to be at-risk in the control class (CA). (Table 5)
13
Table 5 Data analysis design
(T) n=19 (C) n=17

At-Risk At-Risk
(TA) (CA)
n=4 n=5

Other Other
(TO) (CO)
n=15 n=12
RESULTS
Slight gains in self-reported reading self-efficacy were made by both the intervention and the control group
(Table 6; Figure 1). Limited statistical expertise renders the researcher unable to prove or disprove whether
these gains are statistically significant or whether, in the case of the intervention groups (T, TA & TO), they
correlate with the gains in awareness of metacomprehension strategies (Table 7; Figure 2).
It can however be noted that the intervention group (T) demonstrated slightly higher growth in self-reported
reading self-efficacy than the control (C) and that the at-risk students in the teaching group (TA) experienced a
higher percentage growth than their at-risk peers in the control group (CA), who experienced negative mean
growth (Table 6). In fact, the targeted intervention students (TA) demonstrated the highest percentage growth in
reading self-efficacy of any group.
Table 6 Self-Efficacy Survey Results

PRE POST Mean
PRE POST Growth Effect
Group Growth Standard Standard Standard
Mean Mean (%) Size
Deviation Deviation Deviation
T 126.37 130.58 4.21 3.33 25.09 19.88 22.49 0.19
C 141.59 143.00 1.41 1.00 16.19 19.55 17.87 0.08
TA 104.25 110.25 6.00 5.76 10.81 17.06 13.93 0.43
TO 132.27 136.00 3.73 2.82 24.65 17.22 20.93 0.18
CA 126.60 126.00 -0.60 -0.47 19.55 9.53 14.54 -0.04
CO 147.83 152.17 4.33 2.93 9.88 13.41 11.64 0.37
T=Teaching; C = Control; TA= Teaching At Risk; TO= Teaching Other; CA= Control At-Risk; CO= Control Other
14
Self-Efficacy Survey
160.00
140.00
120.00
100.00
Raw Score
PRE Mean
80.00
POST Mean
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
T C TA TO CA CO
Group
T=Teaching; C = Control; TA= Teaching At Risk; TO= Teaching Other; CA= Control At-Risk; CO= Control Other Figure1
As stated above, correlation of the students awareness of metacomprehension strategies and their self-reported
reading self-efficacy cannot be proved or disproved however, in addition to slightly higher growth in reading
self-efficacy, the students in the intervention groups demonstrated growth in awareness of metacomprehension
strategies, whereas their peers in the control groups demonstrated zero mean growth (Table 7; Figure 2). This is
interesting to note, because improved awareness and use of metacognitive/ metacomprehension strategies was
predicted to be the key independent variable upon which improved reading self-efficacy would hinge.
Table 7 - Metacomprehension Strategy Index Results

PRE POST Mean
Mean Mean (%) Size
T 16.89 19.58 2.68 15.89 4.83 4.89 4.86 0.55
C 13.06 13.06 0.00 0.00 5.31 5.06 5.18 0.00
TA 10.75 14.25 3.50 32.56 2.99 5.32 4.15 0.84
TO 18.53 21.00 2.47 13.31 3.80 3.80 3.80 0.65
CA 10.20 10.20 0.00 0.00 5.63 4.44 5.03 0.00
CO 14.25 14.25 0.00 0.00 4.92 4.97 4.95 0.00
15
Metacomprehension Strategy Index
25.00
20.00
Raw Score
15.00
PRE Mean
POST Mean
10.00
5.00
0.00
T C TA TO CA CO
Group
T=Teaching; C = Control; TA= Teaching At Risk; TO= Teaching Other; CA= Control At-Risk; CO= Control Other Figure 2
In addition to predicting a rise in reading self-efficacy as a result of teaching metacomprehension, the

hypotheses of this study predicted that a flow-on effect of improved self-efficacy would be improved
comprehension. As stated above, the correlation of these variables can be neither proven nor disproved. No
clear relationship between efficacy and comprehension can be inferred.
It can be noted that students in the intervention group (T) achieved higher mean percentage growth in both
fiction and non-fiction reading comprehension than did their control group peers (C) (Tables 8 & 9) however,
data analysis by an external party (J.K. Munro 2010, pers.comm., 1 November), indicates that the differences in
improvement of the two cohorts were not significant. Hence the intervention teaching did not significantly
improve the reading comprehension of the whole-class intervention group (T).
Table 8 - TORCH Fiction Comprehension Test Results

PRE POST Mean
Mean Mean (%) Size
T 50.97 56.62 5.65 11.08 10.01 10.82 10.42 0.54
C 56.89 57.50 0.61 1.08 9.58 8.92 9.25 0.07
TA 42.48 47.98 5.50 12.95 10.87 7.28 9.07 0.61
TO 53.23 58.92 5.69 10.68 8.80 10.60 9.70 0.59
CA 48.56 50.58 2.02 4.16 6.46 6.46 6.46 0.31
CO 60.36 60.38 0.03 0.04 8.65 8.35 8.50 0.00
16
TORCH Fiction
70.00
60.00
50.00
TORCH Score
40.00 PRE Mean

30.00 POST Mean
20.00
10.00
0.00
T C TA TO CA CO
Group
Table 9 - TORCH Non-Fiction Comprehension Test Results

PRE POST Mean
Mean Mean (%) Size
T 48.72 55.83 7.12 14.61 6.40 8.56 7.48 0.95
C 50.52 52.46 1.94 3.84 7.91 8.26 8.09 0.24
TA 39.85 47.35 7.50 18.82 2.07 5.65 3.86 1.94
TO 51.08 58.09 7.01 13.73 4.83 7.84 6.33 1.11
CA 42.08 43.32 1.24 2.95 1.64 6.39 4.02 0.31
CO 54.03 56.27 2.23 4.13 6.65 5.54 6.10 0.37
TORCH Non-Fiction
70.00
60.00
50.00
TORCH Score
40.00
PRE Mean
POST Mean
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
T C TA TO CA CO
Group
17
As a group, the at-risk students in the intervention group (TA) demonstrated greater growth between their pre
and post Self-Efficacy Survey and MSI means than their peers in the class (TO), and than the at-risk readers in the
control group (CA) (Tables 6 & 7). They also showed the highest percentage mean growth of any group in both
fiction and non-fiction comprehension. In both tests, the at-risk intervention students (TA) percentage of mean
growth was fairly similar to that of their classmates (TO), however was much higher than their at-risk peers in
the control group (CA) (Tables 8 & 9).
Because of the small sample size of the at-risk intervention group (n=4) further generalisations cannot be made,
nor can statistical significance be established. However, for the individual students involved, the impact of the
intervention teaching appears to have been positive.
Table 10 - Targeted Students Data
Self-Efficacy Survey MSI TORCH Fiction TORCH Non-Fiction

Student
PRE POST Growth PRE POST Growth PRE POST Growth PRE POST Growth
Mean Mean (%) Mean Mean (%) Mean Mean (%) Mean Mean (%)
J 98 96 -2.04 14 12 -14.29 52.8 52.8 0.00 38.2 53.1 39.01

K 93 100 7.53 7 8 14.29 40.2 40.2 0.00 40.5 42.5 4.94
Q 117 134 14.53 10 17 70.00 48.7 55.4 13.76 42.5 51.3 20.71
S 109 111 1.83 12 20 66.67 28.2 43.5 54.26 38.2 42.5 11.26
Three out of the four at-risk students in the intervention group achieved higher post-test scores in self-reported
self-efficacy and knowledge of metacomprehension strategies. Only Student J demonstrated negative growth on
both of these assessments (Table 10; Figures 5 & 6).
Self-Efficacy Survey - At Risk Students
160
140
120
100
Raw Score
Self-Eff Pre
80
Self-Eff Post
60
40
20
0
J K Q S
Student
Figure 5
Students S and Q made relatively higher gains than Students J and K in knowledge of metacomprehension
strategies, as demonstrated in the MSI (Table 10).
18
Metacomprehension Strategy Index - At Risk Students
25
20
Raw Score
15
Metacog Pre
Metacog Post
10
0
J K Q S
Student
Figure 6
Students S and Q also showed improved scores in the fiction reading comprehension, whereas Students J and K
achieved identical scores on both the pre and post tests (Table 10; Figure 7). Hence, it is surprising to see that
Student J both outperformed the other three students on the non-fiction comprehension test, showing the
highest percentage increase between pre and post scores (Table 10; Figure 8).
TORCH Fiction - At Risk Students
60
50
40
TORCH Score
Torch Fiction Pre Score (scaled)

30
Torch Fiction Post Score (scaled)
20
10
0
J K Q S
Student
Figure 7
19
TORCH Non-Fiction - At Risk Students
60
50
40
TORCH Score
Torch Non-Fiction Pre Score (scaled)

30
Torch Non-Fiction Post Score (scaled)
20
10
0
J K Q S
Student
Figure 8
In summary, it can be said that the intervention class (T) as a whole and the targeted students (TA)
demonstrated relative improvement in each of the areas assessed (Tables 6, 7, 8 & 9). However, neither the
significance nor the covariance of these results has been be demonstrated hence, the hypotheses have not been
unequivocally proven.
20
DISCUSSION
The slight gains in the pre- and post-assessment means of the intervention groups (T and TA) in all assessments
indicate tentative support for the predictions made at the outset of this study. Whilst demonstrating a positive
trend, these gains in mean scores should not be accorded too much importance. Rather, various limitations in
both the study design and the pre- and post-assessment instruments need to be taken into consideration.
Limitations
The intervention group (T) demonstrated only slightly higher mean growth than the control group (C) on the Self-
Efficacy Survey (Table 6). Hence, support for the predictions made at the outset of this study stems mainly from
the researchers observations and anecdotal records. As these were not systematically recorded or analysed,
they cannot be accorded significance statistical, or otherwise. However, the researcher believes they indicate a
trend that justifies continuing to pursue this line of research in future studies studies that should be more
methodologically rigorous so as to have clearly defined and differentiated variables; should use mixed methods
that investigate both quantitative and qualitative data; and should be longitudinal.
In terms of the study design, it is almost impossible to attribute any gains in self-efficacy in the current study to
one variable. The dynamic nature of this intervention that took place in a natural classroom setting; the teaching
of a multiple-strategy approach (and of a skill that is so multi-faceted); and the lack of a proper control group
(because the methods of the control groups teacher cannot be accounted for) all blurred the lines of the
independent and dependent variables. Future studies looking to establish strong causal links between
metacognition and self-efficacy would need more tightly controlled parameters.
In retrospect, the researcher believes that the chosen assessments did not adequately measure the outcomes of
this intervention. Bandura (2005, p.305) stated that scales of perceived self-efficacy must be tailored to the
particular domain of functioning that is the object of interest. Despite have trialled the Self-Efficacy Survey
(Appendix 2) (to identify ambiguous questions), the instrument used for this study was ultimately less than ideal
because it investigated a broader domain of functioning than necessary. The lessons underwent changes in
response to students needs, so it was impossible to know in advance exactly which sub-domains of reading would
be of primary interest. Many of the questions on the survey relate to reading enjoyment and reading aloud,
rather than ones self-efficacy to do the readers job that was the focus of the intervention teaching.
Ultimately, insufficient attention was given to the targeted reading behaviour of meaning making. McCrudden,
Perkins et al. (2005, p.120) note that the more specifically a task is defined, the easier it is to gauge self-
efficacy and with the benefit of hindsight it would appear that reading-specific self-efficacy was too broad a
definition for this study.
With regards to the Metacomprehension Strategy Index (MSI) (Appendix 3), the changes made to the intervention
teaching during its implementation also undermined the relevance of this instrument somewhat. The MSI
purports to measure students awareness of metacomprehension strategies suitable for fiction texts however, in
response to the students performance in the TORCH non-fiction pre-test, and because of the perceived need to
link the teaching to their Inquiry unit research projects, the text focus was changed to expository.
The MSI was selected in the absence of an alternative instrument for measuring metacomprehension however,
since administering it, it has come to the researchers attention that it inadequately measures metacognitive
skills that were ultimately core to the intervention namely, planning, monitoring and evaluation (Schraw &
Moshman, 1995; cited in Nevill, 2008). Ideally, the MSI would have been adapted so that it investigated
knowledge of those metacognitive strategies explicitly taught, and knowledge of strategies that are suitable for
both fiction and non-fiction texts.
The researcher is also of the opinion that the current study was over-reliant on self-report instruments. Such
instruments used in isolation are limiting, because one cannot gauge to what extent respondents do or
experience the things they say they do (Schmitt, 1990). Therefore, in light of the limitations of the assessment
instruments used, the slight positive gains they indicated can only be regarded as possible support for the
predictions of the study when combined with the researchers observations during the lessons.
21
Observations
Whilst, the significance of the teaching groups (T) improvement has not been established, the intervention was
perceived by the researcher to be beneficial to the students meaning-making self-efficacy. The students
collective behaviours indicated heightened levels of interest and engagement with the challenge of
comprehending written texts. The changes in their attitude and their persistence when working on their Inquiry
research projects were quite astounding, and the majority of them shared reflections of heightened feelings of
confidence during independent reading tasks (Table 11).
Table 11 Sample reflection comments from the intervention group

Non-targeted students (TO) final written reflection at the end of the intervention
In response to the prompts:
How do you feel about reading? Has your sense of your power as a reader to understand and make meaning changed?
Positive comments
I am much better at noticing the good monkey on my shoulder when Im reading.
I feel more confident because I realised I can do the same thing with all the texts. I watch my understanding.
I feel good because I use a lot more different strategies, and I use them a lot more.
I know I have more confidence because I am now having a go at books I was never able to read.
I know that I can choose to use the strategies when I am stuck or confused, so I dont stress.
Im not so worried about not understanding because Ive realised I can fix my own understanding lots of the time.
I understand because someone told the strategies to me clearly so I could understand. Every other time the
people would just say it really fast and I couldnt hear.
I feel more confident because when Im stuck I would put myself down. But now when Im stuck I know what to do
and I dont put myself down anymore.
I feel more confident that I can choose the right strategies that will work best for me.
I feel more confident that I will understand and if I dont, I know how to fix my understanding.
I feel I could do this with almost all texts. Also, I have the confidence to.
Good! I know lots more strategies than I used to.
I think I feel better because I know more reading strategies and ways to understand.
I feel proud because I can make more meaning out of the text.
Negative comments
I dont think Im more confident because I get confused with all these reading activities. (Student O)
Targeted students (TA) final written reflection at the end of the intervention
Positive comments
I figure it out for myself now. (Student J)
Its good because I know how to understand more by using more ways to understand. (Student Q)
Im more confident now I understand what reading is all about and how to use it correctly. (Student S)
Negative comments
Im not more confident. Because I have to work more when Im reading. And I suck. So I should just keep doing
what I was doing. (Student K)
Likewise, anecdotal data would indicate that the intervention groups knowledge of metacognitive strategies has
improved however, the duration of the intervention was too short for this to translate into automaticity of
strategy use, or to be able to infer an ongoing impact on self-efficacy. It can however be noted that students
discussions within their research groups showed evidence of them making an ongoing effort to utilise the
bookmark of prompts and self-questions they had created to scaffold their metacognition.
In light of the observed positive changes in whole-group attitude, perseverance and knowledge of metacognition
observed (recorded on observational record sheets Appendix 4) it is posited that this intervention could have
had the potential to emulate or extend some of the findings of previous research had it not been for the
limitations of time; the researchers lack of statistical expertise; and the inadequacy of the measurement
instruments. For example, the observed trends are in line with Gees (1998) and Ralphs (2000; cited in Van Keer
and Verhaeghe, 2005) findings that metacognitive strategy instruction heightens students sense of control of the
reading process. Persistence, focus and motivation were both observed by the researcher to have improved, and
22
were mentioned by students in end-of-lesson reflections and this is consistent with the findings of Martinez
(2006) and Knight and Galletly (2005).
The comprehension results (Tables 8 & 9), whilst not achieving significance, were pleasantly surprising. The
hypotheses were formulated with the expectation that starker gains in self-efficacy would be observable after
the short intervention and, like McCrudden, Perkins et al. (2005), the researcher had expected that
comprehension would remain fairly stable that it would take a decent amount of time for the effects of raised
self-efficacy to flow on to students comprehension.
The gains in mean comprehension scores may be attributable to the recency with which students had seen the
texts when they sat for the post-tests. Or, it is possible (one might argue, highly likely) that the improved
comprehension was attributable to gains in metacognition rather than self-efficacy. Again, the flawed nature of
the study design makes it impossible to make attributions with any certainty and, as the growth in the
intervention groups (T) mean comprehension scores were found to not be significant (J.K. Munro 2010,
pers.comm., 1 November), this study is relying on others data (McCrudden, Perkins et al., 2005; Van Keer &
Verhaeghe, 2005) to support the prediction that comprehension would ultimately improve if the observed gains in
motivation (and presumed self-efficacy) are harnessed.
With regards to the targeted students, it was heartening to see that Student K and Student Qs improvement in
self-efficacy scores outstripped the classs mean growth. Likewise, Students Q and S showed greater pre to post
score growth than the class mean (Table 10). The researchers record of Student Q and Ss behaviours in
particular, of their willingness to contribute, their engagement, and persistence were very positive.
Whilst Student Q did not actively contribute unless called upon, he was clearly engaged in listening throughout
the intervention and was observed, during the group research, to be applying the strategies taught. Another
teacher who listened to him read and discussed a text with him towards the end of this intervention, and who
was not aware of the intervention, commented on his change in confidence when it came to talking about the
meaning of the text. Student Q himself attributed his growing confidence to knowing more ways to understand
(Table 11) and the improvement in his MSI scores was the highest of the targeted group (Table 10).
Student S demonstrated only very slight growth in reading self-efficacy on the Self-Efficacy Survey (Table 10).
Whilst her self-reported reading self-efficacy cannot be said to have improved significantly, the observed change
in her confidence to participate in reading activities without trying to disguise her struggles must be regarded as
positive growth. An unforeseen benefit of the use of peer modelling was minimising Student Ss need to impress,
and her resultant tendency to cover up any lack of understanding. In the context of this intervention, students
needed to share their comprehension break downs in order to participate and after the first two lessons,
during which the high-achieving readers happily chatted away about the things they did not understand Student
S suddenly stopped pretending to have flawless comprehension. She showed particular improvement in her MSI
score, and reported increased confidence during spoken and written reflections (Table 11).
Student J was not observed to show heightened engagement, willingness to participate, or persistence. He
responded to questions throughout the intervention with his usual wide-eyed, mute shrug. He was also the only
student in the at-risk group to demonstrate negative growth in the Self-Efficacy Survey and the MSI. Hence it was
surprising to see that his final reflection comment was positive (Table 11), and he achieved a 39% improvement
in his non-fiction comprehension scores (Table 10). His high performance on the non-fiction test cannot be
explained in light of his other results.
Closer examination of itemised records of the targeted students responses on the Self-Efficacy Survey (Appendix
9) and MSI (Appendix 8) highlights inconsistencies in Student J and Ks pre and post responses; whereas it appears
that Students Q and Ss pre-knowledge remains fairly consistent and is built upon. Students J and K may have
been guessing, or not giving the questions careful consideration. It is also possible that they were overwhelmed
by the visual format, pace, or wording of the instruments and neither of these students would have spoken up,
had that been the case. Hence, it is particularly relevant to take their final reflection comments into account
(Table 11).
The students were told that their final written reflection comments were anonymous, and to be as honest as
possible because the goal in collecting them was to improve teaching, not assess students. Only two negative
comments were received in response to the prompts: How do you feel about reading? and Has your sense of your
power as a reader to understand and make meaning changed? One of these comments was from a non-targeted
student a mid-level achiever who exhibits low levels of engagement and willingness to participate (Table 11).
The other was from Student K.
23
Student K achieved slight growth in all pre and post scores, except fiction comprehension (Table 10) yet at first
glance, her written reflection appeared to be negative. She wrote: Im not more confident. Because I have to
work more when Im reading. And I suck. So I should just do what I was doing. However, in light of who wrote it,
it can in fact be interpreted as a sign of something positive. All previous attempts at one-on-one and small-group
intervention for Student K had been met with hostility and refusal to participate. During this whole-class
intervention she was not a willing contributor to whole-class discussions, yet here was evidence that she had
been trying. She may have been sitting with a scowl on her face and acting as though she was not paying
participating but, in her own time and when the attention was not on her, she was attempting new strategies.
According to McCrudden, Perkins et.al. (2005, p.127), strategy use demands attentional resources prior to
proficiency or automation. The limited time frame of this intervention meant that many students would not
have achieved proficiency using metacognitive strategies, hence did not experience enough of the mastery
experiences necessary to improve self-efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 2005). Indeed, it can be inferred that the
students who demonstrated negative growth in self-efficacy (Appendix 1) felt the opposite of mastery, because
they were challenged and taken outside of their comfort zone. It is likely that Student Ks comments reflect this
trend.
It is also feasible that students who struggle with reading become even more aware of their struggles when they
receive explicit strategy instruction. Student Ks feedback may evidence of this particularly considering that
the emphasis of the intervention was on drawing attention to comprehension breakdowns. Her feelings align with
those students that Nelson & Manset-Williamson (2006, p.227) purported came to view reading as more complex
than originally thought once they were explicitly exposed to the cognitive, metacognitive and self-regulatory
processes that good readers use when reading.
Overall, the whole-classs (T) performance and behaviours indicate emerging trends that align with research
demonstrating the link between improved strategy use and self-efficacy. But these improvements only constitute
a glimmer of growth in self-efficacy, and the teaching cannot yet be touted as a successful intervention
especially for at-risk students. Hence, further research is necessary.
Implications for teaching practice and possible directions for future research
The results of this study are not generalisable. The sample size was small and mono-cultural, the methods non-
rigorous, and it is questionable whether the non-intervention class can act as a true control group. A major
assumption of this study design was that the class teachers were comparable but in actual fact there is no
comprehensive data on the teaching each group received prior to the study, or on the control groups activities
during the intervention. However, limitations aside, both the anecdotal records and the simple descriptive mean
analysis point towards a positive trend worth further investigation, in order to develop a body of knowledge that
could inform teaching practice with some authority.
It will always be difficult, when researching literacy, to determine exactly which factors caused which outcomes,
and to gauge the extent of this impact because the affective, cognitive and metacognitive components of the
reading process are tangled in such a complex web. Nonetheless, future research could improve upon the design
of the current study. Ultimately it was impossible to determine the impact of the various components of this
intervention teaching, which included planned teaching about metacognition, incidental teaching of strategies,
and revision of previously taught strategies. The small groups the students practiced strategies in and the texts
linked to the Inquiry topic were not chosen with this study as the first priority, but rather were selected to try
and simultaneously address other curriculum obligations. Such is the nature of a dynamic action research project
that had to take place within the time and structural limitations of classroom and level teaching commitments,
and project submission dates.
Future studies would benefit from clearer delineation of components of cognitive and metacognitive strategy
teaching, so that their comparative impact could be measured. For example, a longer term study could examine
the progressive impact of addressing metacognition of word recognition and decoding, before focussing on
metacomprehension (in order to raise self-efficacy) because at-risk readers who are poor decoders perhaps do
not have adequate working memory to successfully engage in metacomprehension activities (Martinez, 2006;
Bruce & Robinson, 2000).
In defence of the intervention, it did do what it set out to do in as much as trying to address the needs of at-risk
students within a naturalistic, whole-class context using a multiple-strategy approach. But the data collection
24
methods did not adequately measure the outcomes. Future studies would benefit from a mixed-method approach
that uses qualitative as well as quantitative assessment instruments, and that is not reliant on self-report data
for example, a mix of systematic recording and analysis of teacher observations; in-depth student reflections in
the form of one-on-one or group interviews and open-ended surveys; and work samples annotated with students
think-alouds. This would minimise the bias inherent in relying on one form of data collection, and would allow
researchers to develop a deeper understanding of complex self-efficacy beliefs.
The development of domain-specific self-efficacy takes a significant amount of time, because it is dependent on
ongoing exposure to effective models; the cumulative impact of feedback; experiences of small, developmental
successes; and opportunities to experience repeated success so as to develop a sense of mastery (Bandura, 2005;
McCabe & Margolis, 2001; McCabe, 2006; Klassen, 2010). Likewise, metacognitive self-management of reading
should be a long-term educational objective (Van Keer & Verhaeghe, 2005; Cubukcu, 2008; Klassen, 2010). If it is
to be inferred that raised self-efficacy will eventually impact upon comprehension because of factors such as
motivation, persistence, and reduction in distracting negative self-talk then two weeks is too short a time to
achieve and quantify this. The comprehension gains made within the context of this study are more likely as a
result of gains made in metacomprehension than in reading self-efficacy, so a longer term approach is needed to
assess the impact of self-efficacy on comprehension.
The intervention-teaching period of the current study was also too short to allow for independent mastery of the
metacognitive strategies taught. Future studies investigating the impact of metacognition on self-efficacy would
benefit from a longer implementation period. This would increase opportunities to personalise scaffolding; to
incorporate elements of cross-age peer tutoring that would allow at-risk readers to experience a heightened
sense of accomplishment; and to increase the likelihood of students developing automaticity of skills and
strategies. A longitudinal study would also minimise the impact of the inevitable interruptions in day-to-day
school life. Such interruptions were keenly felt in the current study, with the ten lessons unfortunately having to
be taught within seven days for reasons outside of the researchers control.
A longitudinal study, taking place within a school with a cohesive plan for developing metacognition, would be
ideal. It would enable gains in engagement and motivation to be harnessed and built upon over subsequent years;
would provide opportunities to investigate students retention and generalisation of skills in the longer term;
and, it would provide an opportunity to research how to support students as they progress through
developmental stages. Cantrell, Almasi et.al. (2010) cite studies that indicate that students in upper-primary
school are likely to be able to name and describe various reading strategies, but it is not until adolescence that
they really understand how and when to use them, and are able to independently select strategies according to
the context. Students need prolonged exposure to different strategies to be able to move through the
developmental stages of understanding and ultimate automaticity, and a longer term study would provide an
opportunity to adequately develop these skills.
Ultimately, both the mixed-method and longitudinal approaches are being proffered as areas for future research
because they support and enable a more personalised intervention approach one that incorporates the
instruments and the time necessary to more closely monitor students evolving needs and readiness for
challenges, so that the teaching, support materials, feedback and goal setting can be tailored to maximise their
experiences of mastery subsequent sense of achievement.
In conclusion
In conclusion, the researcher agrees with Van Keer & Verhaeghes (2005, p.326) hypothesis that true self
regulation is the product of years of literacy experiences and predicts that the development of true self-
efficacy takes just as long. This intervention was certainly timely, in that it addressed the needs of a class as a
whole and, in particular, was responsive to the affective state of the at-risk readers in the class.
Future research is warranted because the students level of engagement was heartening and, within the short
timeframe of the intervention, they demonstrated their growing awareness of the importance of constructive
self-talk to both efficacy and achievement. In addition, both the researchers observations of the at-risk
students and the improvements in their pre and post scores hold promise for future studies. The task ahead for
researchers is to improve the study design and methods of data collection, to ensure that the learners journeys
can be closely monitored and accounted for.
25
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Afflerbach, P. & Johnston, P. (1984). Research methodology on the use of verbal reports in reading research.
Journal of Reading Behaviour, 16, 307-321.
Anderson, P. & Fraillon, J. (2009). What makes a difference? How measuring the non-academic outcomes of
schooling can help guide school practice. Paper published in the 2009 ACER Reserach Conference Series:
Assessment and Student Learning: Collecting, interpreting and using data to inform teaching, 15-19.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2005). Guide for creating self-efficacy scales. In F.Pajares & T.Urdan (eds.). Self-efficacy beliefs of
adolescents. USA: Information Age Publishing, 307-338.
Barkley, J.M. (2006). Reading education: Is self-efficacy important? Reading Improvement, 43, 4, 194 210.
Bruce, M.E. & Robinson, G.L. (2000). Effectiveness of a metacognitive reading program for poor readers. Issues in
Educational Research, 10,1, 1-20.
Bruce, M.E. & Robinson, G.L. (2004). Clever kids: A metacognitive and reciprocal teaching program to improve
both word identification and comprehension for upper primary readers experiencing difficulty. Australian Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 9, 3, 19-33.
Cantrell, S.C., Almasi, J.F., Carter, J.C., Rintamaa, M. & Madden, A. (2010). The impact of a strategy-based
intervention on the comprehension and strategy use of struggling adolescent readers. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 102, 2, 257- 280.
Catholic Education Office Melbourne and the University of Melbourne (2006). Enhancing Reading Intervention
Knowledge (ERIK). Melbourne, Australia.
Collins, A. & Newman, J.S. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing and
mathematics. In L.B. Resnik (ed.). Knowing, Learning and Instruction:Essays in Honour of Robert Glaser.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cubukcu, F. (2008). Enhancing vocabulary development and reading comprehension through metacognitive
strategies. Issues in Educational Research, 18, 1, 1-11.
Gee, H. (1998). Metacomprehension strategies: Help for struggling readers. PEN , 112, 1-6.
Gee, H. (2000). Help for the struggling reader. Education Horizons, 6, 1, 24 -28.
Henk, W. A. & Melnick, S. A. (1995). The reader self-perception scale (RSPS): A new
tool for measuring how children feel about themselves as readers. The Reading
Teacher, 48, 470-482.
Klassen, R. & Lynch, S. (2007). Self-efficacy from the perspective of adolescents with LD and their specialist
teachers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 6, 494-507.
Klassen, R. M. (2010). Confidence to manage learning: The self-efficacy for self-regulated learning of early
adolescents with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33, 19-30.
Klingner, J. K. (2004). Assessing reading comprehension. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 29, 4, 59-70.
Knight, B.A. & Galletly, S.A. (2005). The role of metacognition in reading-accuracy learning and instruction. The
role of metacognition in reading-accuracy learning and instruction. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities,
10, 2, 63-70.
Kolic-Vehovec, S. & Bajsanski, I.(2006). Metacognitive strategies and reading comprehension in elementary-
school students. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 21, 4, 439-451.
Martinez, M.E. (2006). What is metacognition? Phi Delta Kappan, 87, 9, 696-699.
26
McCabe, P. & Margolis, H. (2001). Enhancing the self-efficacy of struggling readers. The Clearing House, 25, 1,
45-49..
McCabe, P. (2006). Convincing students they can learng to read Crafting self-efficacy prompts. The Clearing
House, 79, 6, 252-257.
McCrudden, M., Perkins, P., & Putney, L. (2005). Self-efficacy and interest in the use of reading strategies.
Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 20, 2, 119-131.
McKeown, R.G. & Gentilucci (2007). Think-aloud strategy: Metacognitive development and monitoring
comprehension in the middle school second-language classroom. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 51, 2,
136-146.
Migyanka, J.M., Policastro, C. & Lui, G. (2005) Using a think-aloud with diverse students: Three primary grade
students experience Chrysanthenum. Early Childhood Education Journal, 33, 3, 171-176.
Mossenson, L., Stephanou, A., Forster, M., Masters, G., McGregor, M. Anderson, P. & Hills, P. (2003) TORCH:
Tests of Reading Comprehension (2nd edn). Melbourne, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Munro, J.K. (2010a). Literacy Intervention Strategies, 472697. Lecture notes. Supplied at University of
Melbourne, 2010.
Munro, J.K. (2010b). The HRLTPs and individual differences in learning: Implementing explicit teaching and
learning in literacy. (Unpublished article). Supplied at University of Melbourne, 2010.
Nelson, J.M. & Manset-Williamson, G. (2006). The impact of explicit, self-regulatory reading comprehension
strategy instruction on the reading-specific self-efficacy, attributions, and affect of students with reading
disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29, 213-230.
Nevill, M. (2008). The impact of reading self-efficacy and the regulation of cognition on the reading achievement
of an intermediate elementary sample. Dissertation paper, Indian University of
Pennsylvania.http://dspace.lib.iup.edu:8080/dspace/bitstream/2069/82/1/Mark+Nevill+Corrected.pdf
Accessed 15/10/10
Paris, S., Cross, D., & Lipson, M. (1984). Informed strategies for learning: A program to improve children's
reading awareness and comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 12391252.
Schmitt, M.C. (1990) Metacomprehension Strategy Index A questionnaire to measure children's awareness of
strategic reading processes. The Reading Teacher, 43, 7, 454-461.
Schunk, D. (1991) Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 207-231.
Schunk, D. (2001). Social cognitive theory and self regulated learning. In B. Zimmerman (ed.). Self-Regulated
Learning and Academic Achievement: Theoretical Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schunk, D. (2004). Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective. New York: Pearson.
Van Keer, H. & Verhaeghe, J.P. (2005). Effects of explicit reading strategies instruction and peer tutoring on
second and fifth graders' reading comprehension and self-efficacy perceptions. The Journal of Experimental
Education, 73, 4, 291-329.
Whithear, J.L. (2009). Slipping through the cracks: Why too many adolescents still struggle to read. Literacy
Learning: The Middle Years, 17, 2, 30-45.
Woolley, G. (2010). Developing reading comprehension: Combining visual and verbal cognitive processes. Literacy
Learning: The Middle Years, 33, 2, 108-125.
Zimmerman, B.J. (2000). Self-efficacy: an essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25,
92-91.
27
APPENDICES
1. Student Summary
2. Self-Efficacy Survey
3. Metacomprehension Strategy Index (Schmitt, 1990)
4. Observation Record Sheets
5. Retrieval charts created to incorporate the teaching framework and students prior knowledge
6. Bookmark collating students suggestions for questions and prompts to support comprehension of non-fiction
7. Lesson activity outlines
8. Itemised Metacomprehension Strategy Index responses for at-risk intervention students (TA)
9. Itemised Self-Efficacy Survey responses for at-risk intervention students (TA)
28
Appendix 1 - Student Summary
Torch Torch
LNSLN Torch Torch
Non- Non-
At risk= 0 Gender ESL funding Earlier Self- Self- Fiction Fiction
Control = 0 Age in Years of Metacog Metacog Fiction Fiction
Student Not at 0=Male No=0 0=SLD Intevention Eff Eff Pre Post
Teaching=1 Attendance MONTHS Schooling Pre Post Pre Post
risk=1 1=Female Yes=1 1=ID No=0 RR=1 Pre Post Score Score
No. of Score Score
2=Asp (scaled) (scaled)
sessions (scaled) (scaled)
A 1 1 10 149 1 7 0 0 104 124 24 22 38.5 41.8 42.5 49.6
B 1 1 10 144 1 7 0 0 145 144 22 21 58.7 70.8 47.9 51.3
C 1 1 9 148 1 7 0 0 108 101 16 23 63.8 58.7 57 51.3
D 1 1 7 152 0 7 0 0 72 119 12 10 40.2 35 46.1 51.3
E 1 1 10 144 1 7 0 0 133 139 21 22 52.8 63.8 53.1 65.2
F 1 1 10 147 0 7 0 2 0 114 122 19 25 52.8 63.8 51.3 57
G 1 1 10 143 1 7 0 0 162 154 22 23 63.8 58.7 55 65.2
H 1 1 9 142 1 7 0 0 144 134 17 19 50.6 58.7 49.6 59.2
I 1 1 10 143 0 7 0 0 141 143 23 25 55.4 70.8 55 70.4
J 1 0 10 146 0 7 0 0 98 96 14 12 52.8 52.8 38.2 53.1
K 1 0 10 137 1 6 0 1 93 100 7 8 40.2 40.2 40.5 42.5
L 1 1 9 133 0 6 0 0 132 131 14 22 55.4 55.4 57 61.9
M 1 1 10 132 0 6 0 0 161 159 16 19 58.7 55.4 51.3 61.9
N 1 1 10 141 0 6 0 1 154 149 17 22 55.4 70.8 51.3 59.2
O 1 1 9 130 1 6 0 0 135 127 18 18 35 50.6 42.5 44.4
P 1 1 10 127 1 6 0 0 155 167 23 25 58.7 58.7 57 70.4
Q 1 0 8 143 0 6 0 0 117 134 10 17 48.7 55.4 42.5 51.3
R 1 1 10 125 1 6 0 0 124 127 14 19 58.7 70.8 49.6 53.1
S 1 0 10 144 1 7 0 0 109 111 12 20 28.2 43.5 38.2 42.5
CA 0 1 0 145 0 7 0 0 136 129 14 10 52.8 63.8 57 57
CB 0 1 0 143 1 7 0 0 163 167 16 17 70.8 58.7 51.3 55
CC 0 1 0 145 1 7 0 0 150 166 14 18 63.8 58.7 51.3 53.1
CD 0 1 0 150 0 7 0 0 142 143 9 8 52.8 70.8 51.3 51.3
CE 0 0 0 151 0 7 0 1 106 101 9 15 41.8 46.8 40.5 46.1
CF 0 1 0 143 1 7 0 0 149 150 19 16 46.8 46.8 42.5 49.6
CG 0 0 0 149 0 7 0 1 111 115 6 7 58.7 58.7 42.5 46.1
CH 0 1 0 154 1 7 0 0 155 166 16 20 70.8 70.8 59.2 53.1
CI 0 1 0 143 0 7 0 0 147 156 21 18 55.4 50.6 53.1 61.9
CJ 0 1 0 136 1 6 0 0 146 154 20 19 58.7 63.8 65.2 65.2
CK 0 1 0 131 0 6 0 0 138 143 18 18 55.4 63.8 51.3 59.2
CL 0 0 0 133 1 6 0 1 155 147 20 15 48.7 52.8 44.4 44.4
CM 0 1 0 136 0 6 0 0 159 161 8 7 70.8 70.8 65.2 65.2
CN 0 0 0 141 0 6 0 1 127 119 7 6 46.8 52.8 42.5 47.9
CO 0 1 0 128 0 6 0 2 0 158 161 8 7 70.8 55.4 47.9 49.6
CP 0 1 0 141 0 6 0 0 131 130 8 13 55.4 50.6 53.1 55
CQ 0 0 0 129 1 6 0 1 134 148 9 8 46.8 41.8 40.5 32.1
29
Appendix 2 - Self-Efficacy Survey
Self-Efficacy Survey Name: Date:

A
How much do you agree with these

statements?
Undecided
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Strongly
Agree
Agree
P I think chocolate is a great ice cream flavour.
1 I like reading
2 I often read by myself for enjoyment/ as a hobby
3 I feel confident when I read by myself
4
I feel confident when I have to read something to find out information or to do a task at
school
5 I am getting better at figuring out the meaning of what I read
6 I am a good reader
7 I am happy reading aloud to my family
8 I am happy to read aloud to my teacher
9 I feel confident when I read aloud to the class
10 I feel confident when I read aloud to my buddy
11 When I read, I dont have to try as hard as I used to
12 I think my teacher thinks I am a good reader
13 When I read, I can figure out words better than other kids
14 I feel confident when I have to do reading activities and tests
15 I am getting better at reading
16 I understand what I read as well as my classmates do
17 I can figure out words I dont know
18 I know lots of strategies to help me understand what I read
19 Im pretty good at understanding texts by myself
20 If something I read is confusing, I can usually figure out what it means by myself
30
B
How sure are you that you can:
Im half sure
half sure
I know
I know
I think
I think
I cant
I cant
I can
I can
P catch a ball thats been thrown really high in the air?
P saddle and ride a horse without help from anyone?
21 work out how to say new words?
22 read smoothly?
23 remember words you have read lots of times already?
24 figure out what new words mean?
25 understand each sentence you read?
26 correct any mistakes you make?
27 put together and understand the ideas in stories and others texts?
28 remember what happens in a story or text?
29 make a picture in your mind as you read?
30 tell someone what a story or text is about when you have finished?
31 answer questions about what you have read?
32 read fast enough to keep ideas in your mind?
understand the things the teacher gives you to read in class? (for example, in Inquiry or
33
Religion lessons)
34 find information that you need or wonder when you are reading?
35 find ways to make sense of a text that is hard or confusing?
Section A adapted from:

Henk, W. A., & Melnick, S. A. (1995). The reader self-perception scale (RSPS): A new tool for measuring how children feel about themselves as readers.
The Reading Teacher, 48, 470-482
Section B adapted from:

ERIK (2006)
31
Appendix 3 - Metacomprehension Strategy Index (Schmitt, 1990)
Name: Date:
Think about what kinds of things you can do to understand a story better before, during, and after you read it.
Read each of the four statements and circle which one of them would help you the most. There are no right answers. It is just what you
think would help the most.
Choose the one statement that is the best thing to do BEFORE reading the text.
1. Before I begin reading, its a good idea to
A. See how many pages B. Look up all of the big C. Make some guesses D. Think about what has
are in the story words in the dictionary about what I think will happened so far in the story
happen in the story
A. Look at the pictures to B. Decide how long it will C. Sound out the words I D. Check to see if the story
see what the story is about take me to read the story dont know is making sense
A. Ask someone to read the B. Read the title to see C. Check to see if most of D. Check to see if the
story to me what the story is about the words have long or pictures are in order and
short vowels in them make sense
A. Check to see that no B. Make a list of words Im C. Use the title and pictures D. Read the last sentence
pages are missing not sure about to help me make guesses so I will know how the story
about what will happen in ends
the story
A. Decide on why I am B. Use the difficult words to C. Reread some parts to D. Ask for help with the
going to read the story help me make guesses see if I can figure out what difficult words
about what will happen in is happening if things arent
the story making sense
A. Retell all of the main points B. Ask myself questions that I C. Think about the meanings of D. Look through the story to
that have happened so far would like to have answered in the words which have more find all of the words with three
the story than one meaning or more syllables
32
A. Check to see if I have B. Use my questions and C. Make sure I can D. Think of a better title for
read this story before guesses as a reason for pronounce all of the words the story
reading the story before I start
A. Think of what I already B. See how many pages C. Choose the best part of D. Read the story aloud to
know about the things I see are in the story the story to read again someone
in the pictures
A. Practice reading the B. Retell all of the main C. Think of what the people D. Decide if I have enough
story aloud points to make sure I can in the story might be like time to read the story
remember the story
A. Check to see if I am B. Check to see if the C. Think about where the D. List all of the important
understanding the story so words have more than one story might be taking place details
far meaning
Choose the one statement which tells a good thing to do

to help you understand a text WHILE you are reading it.
11. While I am reading, its a good idea to
A. Read the story very B. Read the title to see C. Check to see if the D. Check to see if the story
slowly so that I will not miss what the story is about pictures have anything is making sense by seeing
any important parts missing if I can tell whats happened
so far
A. Stop to retell the main B. Read the story quickly so C. Read only the beginning D. Skip the parts that are
points to see if I am that I can find out what and the end of the story to too difficult for me
understanding what has happened find out what it is about
happened so far
A. Look up all of the big B. Put the book away and C. Keep thinking about the D. Keep track of how many
words in the dictionary find another one if things title and the pictures to help pages I have left to read
arent making sense me decide what is going to
happen next
33
A. Keep track of how long it B. Check to see if I can C. Read the title to see D. Add the missing details
is taking me to read the answer any of the what the story is going to to the picture
story questions I asked before I be about
started reading
A. Have someone read the B. Keep track of how many C. List the storys main D. Check to see if my
story aloud to me pages I have read character guesses are right or wrong
16. While Im reading, its a good idea to
A. Check to see that the B. Make a lot of guesses C. Not look at the pictures D. Read the story aloud to
characters are real about what is going to because they might someone
happen next confuse me
A. Try to answer the B. Try not to confuse what I C. Read the story silently D. Check to see if I am
questions I asked myself already know with what Im saying the new vocabulary
reading about words correctly
A. Try to see if my guesses B. Reread to be sure I C. Decide on why I am D. List what happened first,
are going to be right or havent missed any of the reading the story second, third, and so on
wrong words
A. See if I can recognize B. Be careful not to skip C. Check to see how many D. Keep thinking of what I
the new vocabulary words any parts of the story of the words I already know already know about the
things and ideas in the
story to help me decide
what is going to
happen
A. Reread some parts or B. Take my time reading so C. Change the ending so D. Check to see if there are
read ahead to see if I can that I can be sure I that it makes sense enough pictures to help
figure out what is understand what is make the story ideas clear
happening if things arent happening
making sense
34
Choose the one statement which tells a good thing to do to help you understand a text better
AFTER you have read it.
21. After Ive read a story its a good idea to
A. Count how many pages I B. Check to see if there C. Check to see if I met my D. Underline the causes
read with no mistakes were enough pictures to go purpose for reading the and effects
with the story to make it story
interesting
A. Underline the main idea B. Retell the main points of C. Read the story again to D. Practice reading the
the whole story so that I be sure I said all of the story aloud
can check to see if I words right
understood it
A. Read the title and look B. Check to see if I skipped C. Think about what made D. Make a guess about
over the story to see what it any of the vocabulary me make good or bad what will happen next in the
is about words predictions story
A. Look up all of the big B. Read the best parts C. Have someone read the D. Think about how the
words in the dictionary aloud story aloud to me story was like things I
already knew before I
started reading
A. Think about how I would B. Practice reading the C. Look over the story title D. Make a list of the things I
have acted if I were the story silently for practice of and pictures to see what understood the most
main character in the story good reading will happen
Answers:
1. C 6. B 11. D 16. B 21. C
2. A 7. B 12. A 17. A 22. B
3. B 8. A 13. C 18. A 23. C
4. C 9. C 14. B 19. D 24. D
5. A 10. C 15. D 20. A 25. A
35
Appendix 4 - Observation record sheets
Student Name:
Attendance:
Self Efficacy Checklist

Behaviour Observed Date Comment
Task selection
Persistence
Diligence
Willingness to participate
Heightened engagement
Other
Informed by Barkley (2006)
36
Metacomprehension checklist
Behaviour Observed Date Comment
Asks for support
Gets ready for reading

(questions, predictions, prior
knowledge)
Monitors comprehension
- summarises main ideas to

check comprehension (during
and after)
- self-questions
Recognises when
experiencing difficulty
(articulates breakdowns)
Applies fix-up strategies
- comments on word
comprehension
(applies fix-up strategies eg.
MMM)
- comments on sentence
comprehension
(applies fix-up strategies, eg.
paraphrasing)
- reads around (re-read, read
on)
Reflects on understanding
(confirms predictions,
answers questions)
Other
37
Appendix 5 - Retrieval charts created to incorporate the teaching framework and students prior knowledge
38
39
40
Appendix 6
Bookmark collating students suggestions for questions and prompts to support comprehension of non-fiction
SELF-QUESTIONING
PROMPTS
BEFOREGet Ready to Read

o What do I already know?
o What do I want to find out?
o Where in the text might I find this
information?
o What do I predict the text will be
about? [use title, pictures]
o Other questions I think the text might
answer
DURINGMonitor Understanding
and Use Fix-Up Strategies
o Do I understand?
o Can I retell the main ideas so far?
o What else might the text tell me?
o What else do I wonder?
o How can I fix my understanding and
make meaning?
eg. Read on, Re-read,
Paraphrase, Visualise, MMM, check
title and pictures again
AFTERReflect and
Use the Information
o Did I find the information I need?
(Did I achieve my goal?)
o Did I answer my questions?
o Did I confirm my predictions?
o What did I learn? (How did my
knowledge grow?)
41
Appendix 7 - Lesson activity outlines
Lesson 1 - Introductory lesson (Getting Reading for Learning)

Time: 40 minutes
Group: Whole-class
Organisation: Discussion circle, then desks for independent written reflection
Purpose:
Define successful reading
Identify students current knowledge of reading strategies
Set goals for subsequent lessons
ACTIVITIES
Getting Knowledge Ready
Explain goal to students: to increase confidence in reading by increasing their awareness of their POWER to make meaning.
Scaffold to discuss why increased confidence matters attitude, persistence, willingness to participate, enjoyment, reduces
impact of negative self-talk
Every student can increase in confidence, regardless of comparative performance
New Strategies/ Concepts

1. Discussion Redefining successful reading
Explore what it means to be a successful reader through analogy (If a builder was building a house and noticed something
was wrong, what should they do? Why? Does noticing and fixing up a problem mean they are a good or a bad builder? Why?
If youre reading and you notice that you arent understanding, are you a good or a bad reader? )
Scaffold to identify a readers job is meaning making/ understanding and that this is possible in spite of mistakes/
comprehension breakdowns
Identify reasons to self-monitor for comprehension breakdowns
2. Think, Pair, Share, Discuss Identify current knowledge

Brainstorm what is already known about reading (strategies for meaning making)
Brainstorm what you can do if you dont understand a text
[Collate in retrieval charts for future use]
3. Discussion Goal setting

We will try to become more confident by:
Improving our awareness of our comprehension (metacomprehension)
Thinking about our understanding, and actively working to pursue it
Consolidating and Reviewing

Personal written reflection with opportunity to share
What is successful reading? How have your ideas changed since the beginning of todays lesson?
[Collect for assessment and use in Lesson 2]
Lesson 2 Modelling use of the Hunting for Meaning framework (Modelling)

Time: 40 minutes
Group: Whole-class
Organisation: Seated at interactive whiteboard, then at desks for personal written reflection
Materials: Hunting for Meaning retrieval charts; Short narrative text at level appropriate for lower achievers to focus on
modelling. [Use interactive whiteboard revealer tool to maintain shared focus]
Purpose:
Familiarise students with metacomprehension framework, developed to incorporate their known reading strategies
ACTIVITIES
Share some of students written reflections on what it means to be a successful reader [Working to understand.
Acknowledging you make mistakes/ struggle, but striving to fix understanding]
Review goals set in Lesson 1: Think about and actively pursue understanding

1. Discussion Analogy of Treasure Hunt
What are some things you might do before, during and after hunting for treasure?
Would you expect the journey to be easy?
42
Reading is like going on a treasure hunt for meaning need to prepare, be aware, check that youve achieved your goal
2. Introduce Treasure Hunt Framework retrieval posters (Appendix 5)

We are going to work at actively hunting for meaning, using strategies you already know
Indicate that strategies brainstormed by the students in Lesson 1 have been organised into four categories: Get ready to
read, Monitor understanding, Fix up understanding, Reflect on meaning
Link the stages to the before, during, after treasure hunt analogy
3. Model using Treasure Hunt Framework

Use think-aloud technique to model:
Use of fix-up strategies (Selection of most appropriate known reading strategies)
Reflecting on meaning (Goal achieved? New learning? Meaning of text?)
Think-aloud using I statements
Examples of think-aloud language:

Im going to read a text and Ill show you how Im thinking about my thinking to check whether or not Im understanding.
The questions/ predictions Ive made have given me a job to do. Now Ive got things to find out.
This doesnt make sense to me. I will (reread/ read-on/ substitute a word/etc) because...
Do I understand what Ive read so far? Can I retell the main points? What do I predict will happen next?
Now is a good time to make another prediction because...
Did I answer my questions? What were the main ideas?
What have I learned?

Discussion
Student comments
Draw attention to use of multiple strategies
Draw attention to only using a selection of strategies from the list
Personal written reflection with opportunity to share

What is one thing you saw today that would be helpful for you as a reader?
How would it make you more confident as a reader?
[Collect for assessment]
Lesson 3 Modelling the Hunting for Meaning framework and coaching students to assist (Modelling; Coaching)
Time: 30 minutes
Group: Whole-class
Organisation: Seated at interactive whiteboard
Materials: Short expository text at level appropriate for lower achievers to focus on modelling.
[Use interactive whiteboard revealer tool to maintain shared focus]
Purpose:
Support students to apply the framework strategies
ACTIVITIES
Discuss how each stage of the Treasure Hunt framework involves thinking about think/understanding
Revisit importance of self-talk. How does thinking about thinking help us feel more confident?

Whole-class shared reading Working through the Treasure Hunt stages, using the think-aloud technique
Our job today is to think-aloud when were getting ready to read and using fix-up strategies. Im going to read a text and Im
going to tell you when I dont understand. Sometimes I will use fix-up strategies myself, but sometimes I want you to help me.
Students get ready to read (questions, predictions, prior knowledge). Collate suggestions on board
Teacher reads text aloud and articulates breakdowns in understanding at strategic points
Alternate teacher modelling of appropriate fix-up strategies (including reason for choosing it) and students suggesting fix-
up strategies (scaffolding them to articulate why they are appropriate, and to be specific in their use eg. Do we need to
reread the word/ sentence/paragraph?)
Write up sentence starter to support students to formulate think-alouds as I statements: This doesnt make sense, so I
will...
43
Record the strategies used on the board
Reflect on meaning by referring back to students questions/ predictions/ prior knowledge

Instruct students to monitor own comprehension during independent Reading Routine, and to note a place where
comprehension breaks down.
Share and discuss appropriate fix-up strategies.
Discuss: How does monitoring our understanding help improve our confidence/ belief in our power as readers?
Lesson 4 Developing independence applying metacognitive strategies before reading (Coaching; Scaffolding and
Fading)
Time: 30 minutes
Group: Whole-class
Organisation: At desks, then seated at interactive whiteboard
Materials: Short expository text at level appropriate for lower achievers to focus on modelling
Purpose:
Independent practice of the Getting ready to read strategies from the framework
ACTIVITIES
Revisit Hunting for Meaning framework
Revise: Why do we need the Getting Ready to Read stage? [sets goals, gives purpose, makes reading an active process]

Independent practice Getting ready to read Think, Pair, Share (whole class)
Use interactive whiteboard to only reveal title, picture, captions
Were going to read a text together, but before we do that youre going to get ready for reading. Look at the title, picture
and captions and: pose questions (using 5Ws+H), make predictions, record your prior knowledge
Students independently note questions, predictions, prior knowledge then discuss with a partner [Collect for assessment]
Collate group knowledge, questions and predictions

Students repeat the process of Getting ready to read prior to engaging in novel reading for their independent reading
routines
After reading, discuss: What did you notice about reading, after making the effort to get ready? What impact did getting
yourself ready to read have on your interest in the text/ understanding/ confidence? How do you think our group knowledge/
questions will help us when we read the text?
Lesson 5 Developing independence applying metacognitive strategies during reading (Modelling; Coaching; Scaffolding)
Time: 30 minutes
Group: Whole-class
Organisation: At desks, then seated at interactive whiteboard
Materials: Same text as Lesson 4
Purpose:
To closely monitor comprehension with reference (during and after reading) to goals set before reading
ACTIVITIES
Revisit Hunting for Meaning framework
Revisit collated Getting reading for reading predictions, questions and prior knowledge from Lesson 4

Our job today is to think-aloud about our understanding, and when were using fix-up strategies. Im going to read a text and
Im going to tell you when I dont understand. Sometimes I will use fix-up strategies myself, but sometimes I want you to help
me. You can also point out places that you cant understand or where youve used a fix-up strategy.
Teacher reads text aloud and articulates breakdowns in understanding at strategic points
Alternate teacher modelling of appropriate fix-up strategies (including reason for choosing it) and students suggesting fix-
up strategies (scaffolding them to articulate why they are appropriate, and to be specific about how to apply the
strategy)
Reflect on meaning in light of collated predictions, questions, prior knowledge
44
Discuss: How did our group knowledge/ questions/ predictions help us when we read the text? What impact did getting
yourself ready to read have on your interest in the text/ understanding/ confidence?
Instruct students to monitor own comprehension during independent Reading Routine, and to note a place where
comprehension breaks down.
Share and discuss appropriate fix-up strategies.
Lesson 6 Developing independence in applying metacognitive strategies before, during and after reading (Coaching;
Scaffolding and Fading)
Time: 30 minutes
Group: Whole-class
Materials: Short expository text
Purpose:
To support students to identify and articulate own breakdowns and fix-up strategies
ACTIVITIES
Ask for feedback on the lessons so far (Reflections on last week). Has anyone noticed anything different when theyre
reading? (Strategy use, Confidence gains)
Revisit metaphor of the builder: Its okay to make mistakes/ lose meaning. Success is being proactive about fixing it

Our job today is to think-aloud about our understanding, and when were using fix-up strategies. Im going to read a text
aloud, and I want you to raise your hand if you notice your comprehension is starting to breakdown. If you want to have a go
at using a fix-up strategy yourself you can, otherwise the class will work together to fix-up our understanding.
Teacher reads text aloud, pausing to allow students to articulate breakdowns in understanding at strategic points
If students are not forthcoming with breakdowns, model self-questioning Do I understand the text so far? Can I retell the
main ideas? and check if students can respond
Give the student who identified a breakdown an opportunity to apply a fix-up strategy (support to select and apply one
where appropriate)
Invite other students to think-aloud the use of fix-up strategies

Discuss: Does everyone in the class experience comprehension breakdowns sometimes?
[Make an effort to invite those students perceived by their peers to be good readers to share examples of comprehension
breakdowns]
Lesson 7 Exploring how to apply the Hunting for Meaning framework in an authentic task (Coaching, Scaffolding and
Fading, Applying knowledge and strategies in new contexts)
Time: 30 minutes
Group: Whole-class
Materials: Short expository text linked to Inquiry unit research project topic
Purpose:
Students to identify how the framework would assist them with their Inquiry unit research projects
ACTIVITIES
Discuss students research projects for current Inquiry unit
Identify difficulties/frustrations (understanding the scientific expository texts)
Refer back to Lesson 1: replacing negative self-talk with useful self-talk
Goal today is to start to think about how we can use the strategies were learning during our research

Our job today is to think-aloud about our understanding. Im going to read a text aloud, and I want you to raise your hand if
you notice your comprehension is starting to breakdown. If you want to have a go at using a fix-up strategy yourself you can,
45
otherwise the class will work together to fix-up our understanding. Im going to record the questions you ask yourself and the
things you say to yourself, and at the end of the lesson were going to decide which things you thought-aloud could help you
when youre doing your research projects.
Teacher reads text aloud, pausing to allow students to articulate breakdowns in understanding at strategic points
If students are not forthcoming with breakdowns, model self-questioning Do I understand the text so far? Can I retell the
main ideas? and check if students can respond
Give the student who identified a breakdown an opportunity to apply a fix-up strategy (support to select and apply one
where appropriate)
Invite other students to think-aloud the use of fix-up strategies
Record language of students think-alouds

Look at the wording of students think-alouds
Discuss: Could we use your think-alouds for any text, or were they specific to this text? Could we change the words to make
them apply to any text?
Lesson 8 Developing visual scaffold to encourage use of metacognitive strategies (Scaffolding and Fading, Applying
knowledge and strategies in new contexts)
Time: 60 minutes
Group: Whole class
Organisation: Small groups then whole-class discussion and collation of ideas
Materials: Brainstorm materials
Purpose:
Students to design a visual scaffold to support independent use of strategies during Inquiry unit research
ACTIVITIES
Draw students attention to collated think-alouds from Lesson 7
Cite this as evidence that they are moving towards hunting for meaning independently.
Identify goal of lesson to create a tool that will help them become more independent
1. Independent Brainstorm
Instruct students to write down all known strategies/ things that are useful to do when reading
Ask them to arrange them according to whether theyre used before, during and/or after reading
Scaffold at-risk students through questioning/ prompts
[Collect for assessment at end of lesson]
2. Group Sorting Out

In small groups, identify strategies that are useful for fiction and/or non-fiction texts
Select the ones that would be most appropriate for use during the Inquiry research projects
Rewrite them as self-questions or prompts
3. Collate self-questions/ prompts

Support students to articulate why they would assist understanding of expository texts

Discuss: Are all reading strategies/ questions/ prompts suitable for all types of texts? Why/ Why not?
Lesson 9 Modelling and shared practice of using visual aids to scaffold self-questioning/ prompting (Modelling;
Scaffolding and Fading, Applying knowledge and strategies in new contexts)
Time: 60 minutes
Group: Whole class
Organisation: Whole class, small groups, then whole-class discussion
Materials: Bookmarks with collated self-questions/prompts (Appendix 6);Electronic version of short expository text for
modelling with interactive whiteboard; Multiple copies of short expository text linked to Inquiry unit research project topic
Purpose:
Students to use bookmarks of self-questions/ prompts to scaffold use of metacognitive strategies
46
ACTIVITIES
Introduce and discuss bookmarks

1. Modelled use of Bookmark
Model using the self-questions/ prompts on the bookmark to read a short expository text
2. Small Group Think-Alouds

In Inquiry research groups, read the text together
Use the bookmarks before, during and after reading to monitor and aid comprehension
Think aloud in response to the questions/ prompts
Appoint a scribe to record predictions, questions and prior knowledge and to note breakdowns and fix-up strategies
applied with a view to back to the class what you did when you were hunting for meaning
3. Whole class discussion

Groups report back on breakdowns and fix-up strategies, and reflections on meaning made (did they answer their
questions/ confirm their predictions)

Discuss: What impact did using the bookmark have on your understanding? Do you think you would always need the bookmark?
Lesson 10 Developing independence using visual aids to scaffold self-questioning/ prompting (Scaffolding and Fading,
Applying knowledge and strategies in new contexts)
Time: 60 minutes
Group: Whole class
Organisation: Independent, then small group and whole-class discussion
Materials: Bookmarks with collated self-questions/prompts (Appendix 6); Individual copies of short expository text linked to
Inquiry unit research project topic
Purpose:
Independent practice using bookmark
Identify benefits of each individual actively engaging in meaning making when engaged in group research (greater
body of shared knowledge/ insights)
ACTIVITIES
Discuss: How effective will your research groups be if every person is actively working to make meaning?
Should people rely on the perceived good readers to make meaning for the whole group? Why/ Why not?
[Scaffold students to identify benefits of collating group knowledge, different points of view, challenging each others
ideas by questioning understanding]
1. Independent reading using self-question/prompt book

Each student reads the text and records predictions, questions, prior knowledge
Annotate where they have breakdowns and how they tried to make meaning/ the meaning they made
2. Collating group understanding

Inquiry research groups come together and share their knowledge and the understandings made from texts
Instruct students to record something new that they learnt or thought about in the group
3. Whole class discussion

Students feedback to class what how their understanding was enhanced when they got into the group
Try to highlight contributions of at-risk readers (Be subtle!)

Reflection on unit as a whole (written and discussion) : How do you feel about reading? Has your sense of your power as a
reader to understand and make meaning changed?
Continue to use bookmark and report back to group on comprehension monitoring after each research session
47
Post-Intervention Extension (Phases 4 & 5)
Reflection on lessons and scaffolded application of framework and strategies in context of Inquiry research projects and
independent reading routines.
48
J
S
K
Q
MSI Item Descriptions
Student
Pre Score Black; Post Score Red
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
Predicting and verifying
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
2
Previewing
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
3
Previewing
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
5
Purpose setting
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
6
Self questioning
Before reading
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
7 Purpose setting
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
8
Drawing from background knowledge
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
9
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
10
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
11
Summarising and applying fix-up strategies
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
12
1 Summarising and applying fix-up strategies

1
1
0
0
0
1
1
13

1
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
14
Self questioning
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
15

0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
16

During reading
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
17
Self questioning
Appendix 8 - Itemised Metacomprehension Strategy Index responses for at-risk intervention students (TA)
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
18

1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
19

1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
20

0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
21
Purpose setting
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
22

1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
23

After reading
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
24

0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
25

8
7
20
12
17
10
12
14
TOTAL
Appendix 9- Itemised Self-Efficacy Survey responses for at-risk intervention students (TA)
E E C C I C C C C C I C C C I C W M M F D Q W W M F M M M A A Q M A F
Student 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Total /175

J 2 1 4 3 4 4 2 1 1 4 4 2 3 4 4 3 2 4 2 2 2 3 4 1 5 4 3 3 5 2 2 1 2 3 2 98
2 1 4 2 4 4 2 1 1 2 4 3 2 2 4 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 3 2 2 4 4 3 2 3 2 4 3 96
0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 -2 0 1 -1 -2 0 0 0 -1 0 1 1 0 0 2 -2 -2 -1 1 -1 1 0 2 0 1 1 -2
K 1 2 4 2 4 2 1 2 1 4 4 1 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 3 4 3 4 2 3 2 3 3 4 3 3 2 3 3 3 93
1 2 3 4 4 2 1 1 3 2 4 2 3 2 4 4 3 3 4 2 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 3 4 3 4 2 3 4 3 100
0 0 -1 2 0 0 0 -1 2 -2 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 -1 0 1 0 0 -1 0 -1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 7
Q 2 1 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 2 2 4 3 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 3 117
2 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 5 5 4 4 4 3 4 5 4 4 3 4 3 4 134
0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 -1 1 17
S 4 5 5 2 4 3 1 2 1 2 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 5 4 3 4 2 3 1 1 2 4 4 3 3 2 109
4 2 3 2 5 3 1 2 3 4 4 3 2 4 4 4 4 4 2 3 5 5 5 4 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 4 4 3 3 111
0 -3 -2 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 -1 0 0 1 0 0 -2 0 2 0 1 1 -1 1 0 0 0 -1 -1 0 1 0 1 2
Total growth 0 -3 -3 2 2 1 0 -1 5 -1 0 2 1 0 1 4 0 -1 0 1 3 2 2 3 -2 -1 -2 1 0 0 0 3 1 1 3 24
Pre Score Black; Post Score Red , Growth - Blue
E=Enjoyment
C=Confidence
I= Improvement
M = Make meaning (Topic level; Use strategies)
A = Apply understanding (use information from text)
F = Fix-up (self correct, monitor meaning)
Q = Fluency
D= Word decoding
W = Word meaning
50

306 EPatterson AR

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

306 EPatterson AR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Impact of Explicit Teaching of Metacognitive Strategies

on the Reading-Specific Self-Efficacy of Upper-Primary Students

Table 1 Study design

Teaching Group Control Group

Whole Class (n=19)

Hence the hypothesis, focusing on outcomes for the whole class:

Targeted Students (n=4)

Hence the hypothesis, focusing on outcomes for the targeted students:

Pre and Post Assessment Materials (Table 3)

Self-Efficacy Survey (Appendix 2)

Table 3 Description of assessment instruments

Metacomprehension Strategies Index (Schmitt, 1990) (Appendix 3)

TORCH Tests of Reading Comprehension (Mossenson et al., 2003)

Materials Used During the Lessons

Pre & Post Assessment

Table 4 Lesson Overviews (Activity outlines in Appendix 7)

Lesson 3 (Phases 2 & 3)

Lesson 4 (Phases 3 & 4)

Teaching Techniques and Rationale

Teaching Group Control Group

Teaching Group Control Group

Table 6 Self-Efficacy Survey Results

Table 7 - Metacomprehension Strategy Index Results

In addition to predicting a rise in reading self-efficacy as a result of teaching metacomprehension, the

Table 8 - TORCH Fiction Comprehension Test Results

40.00 PRE Mean

Table 9 - TORCH Non-Fiction Comprehension Test Results

Table 10 - Targeted Students Data

Self-Efficacy Survey MSI TORCH Fiction TORCH Non-Fiction

J 98 96 -2.04 14 12 -14.29 52.8 52.8 0.00 38.2 53.1 39.01

Self-Efficacy Survey - At Risk Students

TORCH Fiction - At Risk Students

Torch Fiction Pre Score (scaled)

Torch Non-Fiction Pre Score (scaled)

Table 11 Sample reflection comments from the intervention group

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Schunk, D. (2004). Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective. New York: Pearson.

3. Metacomprehension Strategy Index (Schmitt, 1990)

4. Observation Record Sheets

7. Lesson activity outlines

9. Itemised Self-Efficacy Survey responses for at-risk intervention students (TA)

Self-Efficacy Survey Name: Date:

How much do you agree with these

2 I often read by myself for enjoyment/ as a hobby

3 I feel confident when I read by myself

5 I am getting better at figuring out the meaning of what I read

7 I am happy reading aloud to my family

8 I am happy to read aloud to my teacher

9 I feel confident when I read aloud to the class

10 I feel confident when I read aloud to my buddy

11 When I read, I dont have to try as hard as I used to

12 I think my teacher thinks I am a good reader

14 I feel confident when I have to do reading activities and tests

15 I am getting better at reading

16 I understand what I read as well as my classmates do

17 I can figure out words I dont know

18 I know lots of strategies to help me understand what I read

19 Im pretty good at understanding texts by myself

How sure are you that you can:

P saddle and ride a horse without help from anyone?

21 work out how to say new words?

23 remember words you have read lots of times already?

24 figure out what new words mean?

25 understand each sentence you read?