Content area
Abstract
The present study examined the relationship between specific individual cognitive characteristics (i.e., field-independence-dependence and verbal/spatial processing abilities) and reading comprehension and recall. The question of particular interest was whether persons with relative strengths or weaknesses in these particular cognitive styles and abilities implemented different metacognitive reading strategies to facilitate passage comprehension and recall. Two different passages were utilized to determine whether these college-aged readers would utilize different strategies to meet particular passage goals.
Multiple regression results revealed that, of the measured variables, verbal ability had the highest relationship to reading comprehension and recall of passage information. Field-independence also had a significant relationship on the passage rated as having a mathematical/scientific orientation. Persons classified as field-dependent recalled significantly more information from the passage judged to have a social orientation.
While there were no significant differences in the utilization of metacognitive reading strategies when a median split was implemented to compare field-independent-dependent students and high/low verbal and spatial ability subjects, several differences were evident when the upper and lower quartiles were compared. The high verbal students interpreted their purpose in reading as "understanding the passage," and implemented strategies to facilitate that purpose (i.e., relating to prior knowledge, summarizing in own words, self-testing) while low verbals attempted to memorize key words or phrases. Field-dependent persons tended to use the same strategies for both passages while field-independent persons demonstrated flexibility in strategy usage between the two passages.
The results were discussed in terms of the two areas of metacognition: knowledge of cognition and regulation of cognition. Persons must possess certain awareness of cognition and personal cognitive abilities before they can be expected to regulate their cognitive activities. Some of these college students revealed weaknesses in knowledge of cognition (e.g., determining purpose of activity, recognizing recall is easier if preceded by understanding), and were, therefore, not able to effectively plan and regulate their reading activity. Applications from the results are suggested for the teaching of reading.
