1887

Examining the Delivery Modes of Metacognitive Awareness and Active Reading Lessons in a College Nonmajors Introductory Biology Course

    Authors: Kendra M. Hill1,*, Volker S. Brözel1, Greg A. Heiberger1
    VIEW AFFILIATIONS HIDE AFFILIATIONS
    Affiliations: 1: Department of Biology and Microbiology, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD 57007
    AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION
    • Published 01 May 2014
    • Supplemental materials available at http://jmbe.asm.org
    • *Corresponding author. Mailing address: South Dakota State University, Department of Biology and Microbiology, Box 2104A, Brookings, SD 57007. Phone: 605-688-4560. Fax: 605-688-6677. E-mail: kendra.hill@sdstate.edu.
    • ©2014 Author(s). Published by the American Society for Microbiology.
    Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. May 2014 vol. 15 no. 1 5-12. doi:10.1128/jmbe.v15i1.629
MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.
  • PDF
    277.88 Kb
  • XML
  • HTML
    59.42 Kb

    Abstract:

    Current research supports the role of metacognitive strategies to enhance reading comprehension. This study measured the effectiveness of online versus face-to-face metacognitive and active reading skills lessons introduced by Biology faculty to college students in a nonmajors introductory biology course. These lessons were delivered in two lectures either online (Group 1: N = 154) or face to face (Group 2: N = 152). Previously validated pre- and post- surveys were used to collect and compare data by paired and independent t-test analysis (α = 0.05). Pre- and post- survey data showed a statistically significant improvement in both groups in metacognitive awareness (p = 0.001, p = 0.003, respectively) and reading comprehension (p < 0.001 for both groups). When comparing the delivery mode of these lessons, no difference was detected between the online and face-to-face instruction for metacognitive awareness (pre- p = 0.619, post- p = 0.885). For reading comprehension, no difference in gains was demonstrated between online and face-to-face (p = 0.381); however, differences in pre- and post- test scores were measured (pre- p = 0.005, post- p = 0.038). This study suggests that biology instructors can easily introduce effective metacognitive awareness and active reading lessons into their course, either through online or face-to-face instruction.

Key Concept Ranking

Beta
0.935785
Stems
0.6408553
Lead
0.625
0.935785

References & Citations

1. Carlston DLBenefits of student-generated note packets: a preliminary investigation of SQ3R implementationTeach Psychol38142146
2. Cooke M, et al2012Lecture Capture: first year student nurses’ experiences of a web-based lecture technologyAust J Adv Nurs291421
3. Ertmer PA, Newby TJ1996The expert learner: strategic, self-regulated, and reflectiveInstr Sci2412410.1007/BF00156001 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00156001
4. Flavell JH1976Metacognitive aspects of problem solving Resnick LBThe nature of intelligence231236ErlbaumHillsdale, NJ
5. Flavell JH1979Metacognition and cognitive monitoringAm Psychol3490691110.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
6. Ford CL, Yore LD2012Toward convergence in critical thinking, metacognition, and reflection: illustrations from natural and social sciences, teacher education, and classroom practice Zohar A, Dori YJMetacognition in science education: trends in current research, contemporary trends and issues in science education40251271SpringerNetherlands10.1007/978-94-007-2132-6_11 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2132-6_11
7. Garner R1987Metacognition and reading comprehensionAblexNorwood, NJ
8. Hill K, Heiberger G2012Abstr. 19th ASM Conference for Undergraduate Educators, abstr. 15-AJ. Microbiol. Biol. Educ131105123
9. Kennedy-Manzo K2006Graduates can’t master college textEduc Wk2516
10. Lipson MY, Wixson KK2003Assessment and instruction of reading and writing disability3rd edLongmanNew York, NY
11. Martino NL, Norris JA, Hoffman PR2001Reading comprehension instruction: effects of two typesJ Dev Educ25212
12. Mokharti K, Reichard CA2002Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategiesJ Educ Psychol9424925910.1037/0022-0663.94.2.249 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.249
13. Nist S, Holschuh J2000Comprehension strategies at the college level Flippo R, Caverly DHandbook of college reading and study strategy research75104ErlbaumMahwah, NJ
14. Ottenhoff J2011Metacognition in liberal educationLib Educ972833
15. Ridley DS, Schutz PA, Glanz RS, Weinstein CE1992Self-regulated learning: the interactive influence of metacognitive awareness and goal-settingJ Exp Educ6029330610.1080/00220973.1992.9943867 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1992.9943867
16. Robinson FP1946Effective study1st edHarper & RowNew York, NY
17. Rogers WD, Ford R1997Factors that affect student attitude toward biologyBioscene2335
18. Russell J, Hollander S1975A biology attitude scaleAm Biol Teach3727027310.2307/4445229 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4445229
19. Sanoff AP2006What professors think: a perception gap over students’ preparationChron Higher Edu52B9[Online.] http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i27/27b00901.htm
20. Taraban R, Rynearson K, Kerr M2000Analytic and pragmatic factors in college students’ metacognitive reading strategiesRead Psychol25678110.1080/02702710490435547 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02702710490435547
21. Taraban R, Rynearson K, Kerr M2000Metacognition and freshman academic performanceJ Dev Educ241220
22. Uno GE1988Teaching college and college-bound biology studentsAm Biol Teach5021321610.2307/4448711 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4448711
23. White HANursing instructors must also teach reading and study skillsRead Impr413850
24. Zohar A, Dori YJ2012Metacognition in science education: trends in current research, contemporary trends and issues in science education40SpringerNetherlands10.1007/978-94-007-2132-6 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2132-6
jmbe.v15i1.629.citations
jmbe/15/1
content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v15i1.629
Loading

Citations loading...

Supplemental Material

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v15i1.629
2014-05-01
2017-09-24

Abstract:

Current research supports the role of metacognitive strategies to enhance reading comprehension. This study measured the effectiveness of online versus face-to-face metacognitive and active reading skills lessons introduced by Biology faculty to college students in a nonmajors introductory biology course. These lessons were delivered in two lectures either online (Group 1: N = 154) or face to face (Group 2: N = 152). Previously validated pre- and post- surveys were used to collect and compare data by paired and independent t-test analysis (α = 0.05). Pre- and post- survey data showed a statistically significant improvement in both groups in metacognitive awareness (p = 0.001, p = 0.003, respectively) and reading comprehension (p < 0.001 for both groups). When comparing the delivery mode of these lessons, no difference was detected between the online and face-to-face instruction for metacognitive awareness (pre- p = 0.619, post- p = 0.885). For reading comprehension, no difference in gains was demonstrated between online and face-to-face (p = 0.381); however, differences in pre- and post- test scores were measured (pre- p = 0.005, post- p = 0.038). This study suggests that biology instructors can easily introduce effective metacognitive awareness and active reading lessons into their course, either through online or face-to-face instruction.

Highlighted Text: Show | Hide
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmbe/15/1/jmbe-15-5.xml.a.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v15i1.629&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Figures

Image of FIGURE 1.

Click to view

FIGURE 1.

Pre- and post- survey results, Metacognitive Awareness in Reading Skills Inventory (MARSI) mean scores. The overall analysis within groups shows both groups with significant gains in MARSI scores (online 0.001, and face-to-face 0.003). Error bars depict 95% confidence intervals.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. May 2014 vol. 15 no. 1 5-12. doi:10.1128/jmbe.v15i1.629
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 2.

Click to view

FIGURE 2.

Pre- and post- survey results, Reading Comprehension mean scores. Reading comprehension increased to a significant level in both groups ( 0.001 in all groups). Error bars depict 95% confidence intervals.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. May 2014 vol. 15 no. 1 5-12. doi:10.1128/jmbe.v15i1.629
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 3.

Click to view

FIGURE 3.

Pre- and post- survey results, Reading Comprehension gains. Reading comprehension gains showed no difference between the two groups ( 0.381). Error bars depict 95% confidence intervals.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. May 2014 vol. 15 no. 1 5-12. doi:10.1128/jmbe.v15i1.629
Download as Powerpoint
Image of FIGURE 4.

Click to view

FIGURE 4.

Pre- and post- survey results, Biology Attitude Scale (BAS) mean scores. Attitudes toward biology in the online group decreased with significance ( 0.001) but did not change significantly in the face-to-face group ( 0.390). Error bars depict 95% confidence intervals.

Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. May 2014 vol. 15 no. 1 5-12. doi:10.1128/jmbe.v15i1.629
Download as Powerpoint

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Please check the format of the address you have entered.
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error