Müfredat Temelli Değerlendirme (MTD): Okuma Güçlüğü Riskinin Belirlenmesinde Alternatif Bir Yaklaşım

Nihal Özdemir; Emine Rüya Özmen

doi:10.67415/bujer.1874227

TR EN

Müfredat Temelli Değerlendirme (MTD): Okuma Güçlüğü Riskinin Belirlenmesinde Alternatif Bir Yaklaşım

Abstract

Okuma becerilerindeki güçlükler, öğrencilerin akademik yaşamları boyunca karşılaşabilecekleri başarısızlıkların en güçlü yordayıcıları arasında yer almaktadır. Bu nedenle, okuma güçlüğü riskinin erken dönemde belirlenmesi, önleyici ve hedefe yönelik öğretim uygulamalarının planlanması açısından kritik öneme sahiptir. Bu gereksinimler doğrultusunda geliştirilen ve biçimlendirici değerlendirme niteliği taşıyan yaklaşımlardan biri de Müfredat Temelli Değerlendirme (MTD)’dir. MTD, öğretim süreci devam ederken öğrencilerin akademik becerilerindeki gelişimin sistematik olarak izlemeye olanak tanımakta ve gecikmiş müdahaleler yerine zamanında destek sunulmasını mümkün kılmaktadır. Bu yaklaşım, okuma güçlüğü risk grubunda olduğu düşünülen öğrencilerin erken fark edilmesinde ve öğretmenlerin öğretimsel müdahalelerini hangi alt beceriler üzerinde yoğunlaştırmaları gerektiğine karar vermelerinde belirleyici bir rol oynamaktadır. Çalışmada, MTD’nin hızlı, güvenilir, geçerli ve maliyet-etkin bir değerlendirme yaklaşımı olduğu vurgulanmaktadır. MTD, öğretmenlerin veriye dayalı, zamanında ve uygun öğretimsel kararlar almasını sağlayarak öğrencinin okuma potansiyelini en üst düzeye çıkarmaya yardımcı olmaktadır. Aynı zamanda MTD, süreç içerisinde akranlarında anlamlı düzeyde farklılık gösteren ve okuma becerilerinde risk grubunda olma ihtimali olan öğrencilerin belirlenmesinde etkili yaklaşımlardan biridir. Sonuç olarak öğrencilerin erken tanılanmasında ve süreç odaklı izlenmesinde en etkili yaklaşımlardan biri olarak değerlendirilmektedir.

Keywords

müfredat temelli değerlendirme, okuma güçlüğü, risk grubundaki öğrenciler

A Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM): An Alternative Approach to Identifying Early Reading Disability

Abstract

Deficiencies in reading skills are among the strongest predictors of academic failure that students may encounter throughout their educational lives. Therefore, the early identification of students at risk for reading difficulties is critical for planning preventive and targeted instructional interventions. One of the formative assessment approaches developed to address this need is Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM). CBM enables systematic monitoring of students’ reading development during instruction, allowing for timely support rather than delayed intervention. The purpose of this review is to introduce CBM as a practical, well-established approach for identifying and supporting students at risk for reading difficulties. The study emphasises that CBM is a rapid, reliable, valid, and cost-effective assessment approach. By enabling teachers to make timely, appropriate, and data-driven instructional decisions, CBM helps maximise students’ reading potential. In conclusion, CBM is regarded as one of the most effective approaches for the early identification and process-oriented monitoring of students who differ significantly from their peers and are at risk for reading difficulties.

Keywords

curriculum-based measurement, reading difficulties, students at risk

References

Abu-Hamour, B. (2013). Using curriculum-based measurement to improve students’ achievement in a special education university course. International Journal of Special Education, 28(1), 111–119.
Afflerbach, P. (2016). Reading assessment: Looking ahead. The Reading Teacher, 69(4), 413–419. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1430.
Akın, U. (2020). Öğrenme güçlüğü riski olan öğrencilerin akıcı okuma ve okuduğunu anlama becerilerinde zenginleştirilmiş okuma becerileri müdahale paketinin etkililiği: Müdahaleye tepki modeli düzey-II yaklaşımı uygulaması (Tez No. 10331934) [Doktora tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi]. Yöktez.
Akyol, H., Yıldırım, K., Ateş, S., Çetinkaya, Ç., & Rasinski, T. V. (2014). Okumayı değerlendirme. Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
Allen, A. A., & Smith, R. A. (2022). Curriculum-Based Measurement. In Curriculum-Based Measurement, Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781138609877-REE114-1.
Bailey, T. R., Colpo, A., & Foley, A. (2020). Assessment practices within a multi-tiered system of supports. The Collaboration for Effective Educator Development, Accountability, and Reform (CEEDAR) Center, University of Florida.
Bogaert, R., Merchie, E., Aesaert, K., & Van Keer, H. (2023). The development of the reading comprehension—Progress monitoring (RC-PM) tool for late elementary students. Frontiers in Education, 8, Article 1066837. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1066837.
Castles, A., & Coltheart, M. (2004). Is there a causal link from phonological awareness to success in learning to read? Cognition, 91(1), 77–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00164-1.
Catts, H. W., Nielsen, D. C., Bridges, M. S., & Liu, Y. S. (2016). Early identification of reading comprehension difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49(5), 451-465. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219414556121.
Clarke, S. (2009). Curriculum-Based Measurement: A Proven Tool to Increase Achievement. Focus On. Educational Research Service.

Cusumano, D. L. (2007). Is it working? An overview of curriculum-based measurement and its uses for assessing instructional, intervention, or program effectiveness. The Behavior Analyst Today, 8(1), 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100099.
Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52(3), 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440298505200303.
Deno, S. L. (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. The Journal of Special Education, 37(3), 184–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669030370030801.
Fry, E. C., Toste, J. R., Feuer, B. R., & Espin, C. A. (2024). A systematic review of CBM content in practitioner-focused journals: Do we talk about instructional decision-making? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 57(5), 275–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194231215031.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2004). Identifying Reading Disabilities by Responsiveness-to-instruction: Specifying Measures and Criteria. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27(4), 216–227. https://doi.org/10.2307/1593674.
Fuchs, L. S., & Deno, S. L. (1991). Paradigmatic distinctions between instructionally relevant measurement models. Exceptional Children, 57(6), 488–500. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299105700603.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1999). Monitoring student progress toward the development of reading competence: A review of three forms of classroom-based assessment. School Psychology Review, 28(4), 659–671.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Stecker, P. M. (2021). Bringing data-based individualization to scale: A call for the next-generation technology of teacher supports. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 54(5), 319–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219420950654.
Gesel, S. A., & Lemons, C. J. (2020). Comparing schedules of progress monitoring using curriculum-based measurement in reading: A replication study. Exceptional Children, 87(1), 92–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402920924845.
Gutiérrez, N., Jiménez, J. E., de León, S. C., & Seoane, R. C. (2020). Assessing foundational reading skills in kindergarten: A curriculum-based measurement in Spanish. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53(2), 145–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219419893649.
Hill, D. R., & Lemons, C. J. (2015). Early grade curriculum-based reading measures for students with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 19(4), 311–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744629515574812.
Hosp, M. K., Hosp, J. L., & Howell, K. W. (2016). The ABCs of CBM: A practical guide to curriculum-based measurement (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
Hudson, R. F., Lane, H. B., & Pullen, P. C. (2005). Reading fluency assessment and instruction: What, why, and how? The Reading Teacher, 58(8), 702–714. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.58.8.1.
Kelley, B., Hosp, J. L., & Howell, K. W. (2008). Curriculum-based evaluation and math: An overview. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33(4), 250–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508407313490.
Lee, J. A. C., Lee, S., Mat Yusoff, N. F., Ong, P. H., Nordin, Z. S., & Winskel, H. (2020). An early reading assessment battery for multilingual learners in Malaysia. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1700. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01700.
National Center on Intensive Intervention. (2021). Technical review committee on progress monitoring standards: Technical standard 1. American Institutes for Research. https://intensiveintervention.org/resource/technical-review-committee-progress-monitoring-technical-standard-1.
Okur, M., & Aksoy, V. (2024). Öğrenme güçlüğü erken belirtileri tarama ölçeğinin psikometrik niteliklerinin belirlenmesi. Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (Journal of Uludag University Faculty of Education), 37(2), 534–554. https://doi.org/10.19171/uefad.1401110.
Özmen, E. R., Aşiret, S., Karasu, H. P., Doğanay- Bilgi, & A. Sanır, H., (2022–2025). Okuma güçlüğünün önlenmesi: Müdahaleye tepki modeli- II. kademe uygulaması (Proje No. 22K149). TÜBİTAK.
Roskos, K. A., & Neuman, S. B. (2012). Formative assessment: Simply, no additives. The Reading Teacher, 65(8), 534–538. https://doi.org/10.1002/TRTR.01079.
Shin, J., Espin, C. A., Deno, S. L., & McConnell, S. (2004). Use of hierarchical linear modeling and curriculum-based measurement for assessing academic growth and instructional factors for students with learning difficulties. Asia Pacific Education Review, 5(2), 136–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03024951.
Shinn, M. R. (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. Guilford Press.
Shinn, M. R., Shinn, M. M., Hamilton, C., & Clarke, B. (2002). Using curriculum-based measurement in general education classrooms to promote reading success. In M. R. Shinn, H. M. Walker, & G. Stoner (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavior problems II: Preventive and remedial approaches (pp. 113–146). National Association of School Psychologists.
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. National Academy Press. Speece, D. L., & Case, L. P. (2001). Classification in context: An alternative approach to identifying early reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(4), 735–749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.4.735.
Sönmez, M. (2021). Okuma becerilerini nasıl değerlendiriyoruz? Okuma Yazma Eğitimi Araştırmaları, 9(2), 127–146. https://doi.org/10.35233/oyea.
Speece, D. L., & Case, L. P. (2001). Classification in context: An alternative approach to identifying early reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(4), 735–749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.4.735.
Stecker, P. M., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2005). Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of research. Psychology in the Schools, 42(8), 795–819. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20113.
Valladolid, V. C. (2015). Development and validation of curriculum-based measurement (CBM) for identifying students with reading difficulties. Educational Measurement and Evaluation Review, 6, 2–16.
Vural, M. (2019). Zihinsel yetersizlikten etkilenmiş öğrencilerin ve okuma düzeyi düşük olan öğrencilerin akıcı okuma ve okuduğunu anlama becerilerinde akran destekli ve hedef yönlendirimli birleştirilmiş okuma stratejisinin etkililiği (Tez No. 601882) [Doktora tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi]. Yöktez.
Van Norman, E. R., Klingbeil, D. A., Truman, K., Nelson, P. M., & Parker, D. C. (2023). A comparison of decision rule accuracy from curriculum-based measurement of reading and nonsense word fluency. Remedial and Special Education, 45(2), 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325231190812.
Wayman, M. M., Wallace, T., Wiley, H. I., Ticha, R., & Espin, C. A. (2007). Literature synthesis on curriculum-based measurement in reading. The Journal of Special Education, 41(2), 85–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669070410020401.
Wheldall, K., Madelaine, A., & Bell, N. (2025). Further evidence for the reliability and validity of a curriculum-based measure of oral reading fluency. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 30(2), 129–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404158.2025.2553502.

Details

Primary Language

Turkish

Subjects

Special Education and Disability (Other)

Journal Section

Review

Authors

Nihal Özdemir ^*
0000-0003-4587-2729
Türkiye

Emine Rüya Özmen
0000-0002-0226-1672
Türkiye

Publication Date

June 30, 2026

Submission Date

February 4, 2026

Acceptance Date

February 10, 2026

Published in Issue

Year 2026 Volume: 10 Number: 1

DOI

https://doi.org/10.67415/bujer.1874227

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA73ZJ52SJ

APA

Özdemir, N., & Özmen, E. R. (2026). Müfredat Temelli Değerlendirme (MTD): Okuma Güçlüğü Riskinin Belirlenmesinde Alternatif Bir Yaklaşım. Bartın University Journal of Educational Research, 10(1), 51-59. https://doi.org/10.67415/bujer.1874227

AMA

1.Özdemir N, Özmen ER. Müfredat Temelli Değerlendirme (MTD): Okuma Güçlüğü Riskinin Belirlenmesinde Alternatif Bir Yaklaşım. ANNOUNCEMENTS. 2026;10(1):51-59. doi:10.67415/bujer.1874227

Chicago

Özdemir, Nihal, and Emine Rüya Özmen. 2026. “Müfredat Temelli Değerlendirme (MTD): Okuma Güçlüğü Riskinin Belirlenmesinde Alternatif Bir Yaklaşım”. Bartın University Journal of Educational Research 10 (1): 51-59. https://doi.org/10.67415/bujer.1874227.

EndNote

Özdemir N, Özmen ER (June 1, 2026) Müfredat Temelli Değerlendirme (MTD): Okuma Güçlüğü Riskinin Belirlenmesinde Alternatif Bir Yaklaşım. Bartın University Journal of Educational Research 10 1 51–59.

IEEE

[1]N. Özdemir and E. R. Özmen, “Müfredat Temelli Değerlendirme (MTD): Okuma Güçlüğü Riskinin Belirlenmesinde Alternatif Bir Yaklaşım”, ANNOUNCEMENTS, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 51–59, June 2026, doi: 10.67415/bujer.1874227.

ISNAD

Özdemir, Nihal - Özmen, Emine Rüya. “Müfredat Temelli Değerlendirme (MTD): Okuma Güçlüğü Riskinin Belirlenmesinde Alternatif Bir Yaklaşım”. Bartın University Journal of Educational Research 10/1 (June 1, 2026): 51-59. https://doi.org/10.67415/bujer.1874227.

JAMA

1.Özdemir N, Özmen ER. Müfredat Temelli Değerlendirme (MTD): Okuma Güçlüğü Riskinin Belirlenmesinde Alternatif Bir Yaklaşım. ANNOUNCEMENTS. 2026;10:51–59.

MLA

Özdemir, Nihal, and Emine Rüya Özmen. “Müfredat Temelli Değerlendirme (MTD): Okuma Güçlüğü Riskinin Belirlenmesinde Alternatif Bir Yaklaşım”. Bartın University Journal of Educational Research, vol. 10, no. 1, June 2026, pp. 51-59, doi:10.67415/bujer.1874227.

Vancouver

1.Nihal Özdemir, Emine Rüya Özmen. Müfredat Temelli Değerlendirme (MTD): Okuma Güçlüğü Riskinin Belirlenmesinde Alternatif Bir Yaklaşım. ANNOUNCEMENTS. 2026 Jun. 1;10(1):51-9. doi:10.67415/bujer.1874227

Bartın University Journal of Educational Research

Müfredat Temelli Değerlendirme (MTD): Okuma Güçlüğü Riskinin Belirlenmesinde Alternatif Bir Yaklaşım

Abstract

Keywords

A Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM): An Alternative Approach to Identifying Early Reading Disability

Abstract

Keywords

References

Details

Primary Language

Subjects

Journal Section

Authors

Publication Date

Submission Date

Acceptance Date

Published in Issue

DOI

IZ

Cite