Structures of cognitive and metacognitive reading strategy use for reading comprehension of geometry proof

Educational Studies in Mathematics

Volumn 80, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 307-326

  Yang, Kai Lin ^a  

^a NATIONAL TAIWAN NORMAL UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Geometry proof; Reading comprehension; Reading strategy

Indexed keywords

EID: 84861847270     PISSN: 00131954     EISSN: 15730816     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10649-011-9350-1     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Aarnoutse, C., & Schellings, G. (2003). Learning reading strategies by triggering reading motivation. Educational Studies, 29(4), 387-409.
2. Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P. D., & Paris, S. (2008). Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61(5), 364-373.
3. Alexander, P. A., & Judy, J. E. (1988). The interaction of domain-specific and strategic knowledge in academic performance. Review of Educational Research, 58, 375-404.
4. Alcock, L. (2009). e-Proofs: Student experience of online resources to aid understanding of mathematical proofs. Paper presented at the 12th Conference on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, Raleigh, NC. Available from http://mathed. asu. edu/crume2009/Alcock1_LONG. pdf. Accessed 7 November 2010.
5. Anastasiou, D., & Griva, E. (2009). Awareness of reading strategy use and reading comprehension among poor and good readers. Elementary Education Online, 8(2), 283-297.
6. Arbuckle, J. L. (2009). Amos 18 user's guide. Chicago: Smallwaters.
7. Borasi, R., Siegel, M., Fonzi, J., & Smith, C. (1998). Using transactional reading strategies to support sense-making and discussions in mathematics classrooms. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(3), 275-305.
8. Brenna, B. (1995). The metacognitive reading strategies of five early readers. Journal of Research in Reading, 18(1), 53-62.
9. Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS, EQS, and LISREL: Comparative approaches to testing for the factorial validity of a measuring instrument. International Journal of Testing, 1, 55-86.
10. Chazan, D. (1993). High school geometry students' justification for their views of empirical evidence and mathematical proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 24(4), 359-387.
11. Cioffi, G. (1986). Relationships among comprehension strategies reported by college students. Reading Research and Instruction, 25, 220-232.
12. Cohen, J. (1973). Eta-squared and partial eta-squared in communication science. Human Communication Research, 28, 473-490.
13. Dahlberg, R. P., & Housman, D. L. (1997). Facilitating learning events through example generation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 33, 283-299.
14. Dreyer, C., & Nel, C. (2003). Teaching reading strategies and reading comprehension within a technology-enhanced learning environment. System, 31, 349-365.
15. Garner, R. (1980). Monitoring of understanding: An investigation of good and poor readers' awareness of induced miscomprehension of text. Journal of Reading Behavior, 12, 55-63.
16. Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371-95.
17. Harel, G. (2001). The development of mathematical induction as a proof scheme: A model for DNR-based instruction. In S. Campbell & R. Zazkis (Eds.), Learning and teaching number theory (pp. 185-212). New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
18. Harel, G., & Sowder, L. (2007). Toward comprehensive perspectives on the learning and teaching of proof. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 805-842). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
19. Healy, L., & Hoyles, C. (2000). A study of proof conception in algebra. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(4), 396-428.
20. Heinze, A., Cheng, Y. H., Ufer, S., Lin, F. L., & Reiss, M. K. (2008). Strategies to foster students' competencies in constructing multi-steps geometric proofs: Teaching experiments in Taiwan and Germany. ZDM Mathematics Education, 40(3), 443-453.
21. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.
22. Johnston, P. H. (1983). Reading comprehension assessment: A cognitive basis. New Jersey: I. R. A.
23. Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1984). LISREL-VI user's guide. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.
24. Law, Y. K. (2009). The role of attribution beliefs, motivation and strategy use in Chinese fifth-graders' reading comprehension. Educational Research, 51, 77-95.
25. Lin, F. L., & Yang, K. L. (2007). The reading comprehension of geometric proofs: The contribution of knowledge and reasoning. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5, 729-754.
26. Magliano, J., Radvansky, G. A., & Copeland, D. E. (2007). Beyond language comprehension: Situation models as a form of autobiographical memory. In F. Schmalhofer & C. Perfetti (Eds.), Higher level language processes in the brain: Inference and comprehension processes (pp. 379-391). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
27. Magliano, J. P., Todaro, S., Millis, K. K., Wiemer-Hastings, K., Kim, H. J., & McNamara, D. S. (2005). Changes in reading strategies as a function of reading training: A comparison of live and computerized training. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32, 185-208.
28. O'Donnell, A. (1993). Searching for information in knowledge maps and texts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 222-239.
29. Olson, G., Duffy, S., & Mack, R. (1984). Thinking-out-loud as a method for studying real-time comprehension processes. In D. E. Kieras & M. A. Just (Eds.), New methods in reading comprehension research (pp. 253-286). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
30. Paris, S. G., & Oka, E. (1986). Children's reading strategies, metacognition and motivation. Developmental Review, 6, 25-86.
31. Paris, S., Wasik, B. A., & Turner, J. C. (1991). The development of strategic readers. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 609-640). New York: Longman.
32. Pereira-Laird, J. A., & Deane, F. P. (1997). Development and validation of a self-report measure of reading strategy use. Reading Psychology: An International Journal, 18, 185-235.
33. Phakiti, A. (2003). A closer look at gender and strategy use in L2 reading. Language Learning, 53, 649-702.
34. Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 31(6), 459-470.
35. Pritchard, R. E., Romeo, G. C., & Muller, S. A. B. (1999). Integrating reading strategies into the accounting curriculum. College Student Reading, 33(1), 77-82.
36. Purpura, J. E. (1997). An analysis of the relationships between test-takers' cognitive and metacognitive strategy use and second language test performance. Language Learning, 47, 289-325.
37. Purpura, J. E. (1999). Learner strategy use and performance on language tests: A structural equation modeling approach. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate and Cambridge University Press.
38. Selden, A., & Selden, J. (2003). Validations of proofs considered as texts: Can undergraduates tell whether an argument proves a theorem? Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 34, 4-36.
39. Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among native and nonnative readers. System, 29(4), 431-449.
40. Solow, D. (2002). How to read and do proofs: An introduction to mathematical thought processes. New York: Wiley.
41. Soranastaporn, S., & Chuedoung, M. (1999). A comparative study of reading comprehension strategies employed by ESP students. Occasional Papers, 8, 39-52.
42. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics, 3rd ed. New York: HarperCollins College Publishers.
43. Vandergrift, L. (2003). Orchestrating strategy use: Toward a model of the skilled second language listener. Language Learning, 53(3), 463-496.
44. Vann, R. J., & Abraham, R. G. (1990). Strategies of unsuccessful language learners. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 177-198.
45. Wang, Y. T. (2008). The strategies of high school students' reading comprehension of geometry proof. Unpublished Master's thesis, School of Science, National Changhua University of Education, Taiwan.
46. Weber, K., Brophy, A., & Lin, K. (2008). Learning advanced mathematical concepts by reading text. Paper presented at Conference on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, San Diego, CA. Available from http://mathed. asu. edu/crume2008/Proceedings/Weber%20LONG. pdf. Accessed 7 November 2010.
47. Weinberg, A., & Weisner, E. (2010). Understanding mathematics textbooks through reader-oriented theory [Electronic version]. Educational Studies in Mathematics Education. Available from http://www. springerlink. com/content/948013868jp24372/fulltext. pdf. Accessed 7 November 2010.
48. Yang, K. L. (2010). The potential of statement-posing tasks. For the Learning of Mathematics, 30(2), 22-23.
49. Yang, K. L., & Lin, F. L. (2008). A model of reading comprehension of geometry proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67(1), 59-76.
50. Yang, K. L. & Lin, F. L. (2009). Designing innovative worksheets for improving reading comprehension of geometry proof. In Tzekaki, M., Kaldrimidou, M. & Sakonidis, C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 5, pp. 377-384). Thessaloniki, Greece: PME.
51. Yang, K. L., Lin, F. L., & Wang, Y. T. (2007). Reading strategies for comprehending geometry proof. In Woo, J. H., Lew, H. C., Park, K. S. & Seo, D. Y. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (vol. 1, p. 333).
52. Yang, K. L., & Wang, L. W. (2008). Propositions posed under a proof without its proposition. Paper presented at the 11th International Congress on Mathematical Education, Mexico. Available from http://tsg. icme11. org/document/get/285. Accessed 7 November 2010,.