Effects of Cooperative Learning on Using Reading Comprehension Strategies and Attitudes Towards Reading

Year 2006, Volume: 48 Issue: 48, 481 - 502, 01.09.2006

Kamile Ün Açıkgöz Arzu Güngör

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to study effects of cooperative learning on primary school students' reading comprehension strategy use and attitudes towards reading. Pre-test and post-test experimental design with control group was employed for the research. A cooperative learning technique “Learning Together” was used in the experimental group and traditional teaching methods in the control group. Data was collected through Reading Comprehension Strategy Scale and Attitudes Towards Reading Scale. Mean, standard deviation and t-test were utilized in data analysis. Research results indicate that cooperative learning method is more effective than traditional methods on reading comprehension strategy use. In addition, it has been found out that the students in the cooperative learning group used reading comprehension strategies more often than those in traditional group. Findings have also revealed that cooperative learning made significant differences on attitudes measured by subscales of “Affective Effects of Reading” and “General Views About Reading”. Summary Reading comprehension is the second of 21 “top priority” subjects chosen by more than 100.000 respondents of a questionnaire administered in five continents of the world for 20 years (Buzan, 2001). Improving reading comprehension and increasing its effectiveness depends on use of serious comprehension strategies and building up positive attitudes towards reading. This indicates necessity of nontraditional methods to teach reading comprehension. Because reading is not only vocalizing written words; being able to read, especially being able to comprehend requires some mental activities beyond seeing. For this reason, a reader should understand the ideas in the text, comprehend connections among ideas, organize them comparing with his/her prior knowledge and select those he/she wants to retain in memory (Adalı, 2003; Dökmen, 1994). Briefly speaking, a special care should be given to reading comprehension in schools. Unfortunately, reading comprehension efforts in our country cannot reach its real objectives. Young children who starts the school excitedly and motivated to read, lose those feelings within time, and begin to read only compulsory things to pass the class. One of the major reasons for this situation is traditional methods which suppose that students are passive recipients of knowledge. In traditional classes teachers are in the center of everything and make all the decisions about students learning. In the exam, on the other hand, students are supposed to repeat the text word by word. This pushes students to memorize instead of comprehending. It causes students face difficulties and to develop negative attitudes toward reading. Research results indicate that students don't spend time reading (Balcı, 2003; Batmankaya, 2003; Özen, 2003). For this reason, we need nontraditional methods which help students comprehend, transform, question, criticize and produce creative ideas. This means students are helped to transform from passive receivers into active processors. Cooperative learning which promotes positive attitudes and effective strategy use, can be a possible solution (Açıkgöz, 1996; Brush, 1997; Kosters,1991; Lindquist,1996; McInerney, McInerney ve Marsh, 1997; Okebukola, 1986; Özkal, Yıldız, Altunay ve Tonbul, 2002; Steven ve Slavin, 1995). It is expected to be effective in Turkish classes by improving positive attitudes and strategy use. No research records are available within this context. Therefore, this research aims at investigating effects of cooperative and traditional methods on students' attitudes towards reading and strategy use. Research questions to be answered can be started as: what are the effects of cooperative and traditional method on (1) reading comprehension strategies and, (2) attitudes towards reading. Method Research Model: In this research pre- and post test research design with control group was utilized. One experimental and one control group participated in the research. Participants: Sixth graders (n=56) enrolled to two classes in a state elementary school participated in this research. There were 12 girls and 18 boys in experimental, 12 girls and 14 boys in control group. Their ages ranges between 11-13. Instruments: Data was colleted by Scale of Reading Comprehension Strategy” (SRCS) and Scale of Attitudes toward Reading” (SAR). Cronbach Alpha Reliability estimate for the former is .87, for latter is .85. Procedure: Treatment lasted for 30 class hours in regular class settings and schedule. Same texts were utilized for reading comprehension activities both in experimental and control groups. In control group, whole class instruction was implemented. In experimental group, cooperative learning was combined with active learning tasks such as, painting, story tree, making conclusions, finding mottos, writing poems and songs and asking questions. Data Analysis: Data was analyzed through SPSS. Mean, Standard Deviation and t test were employed in data analysis. Results and Discussion Students in cooperative learning class employ more learning strategies. This result supports other research findings (Açıkgöz, 1996; McInerney, McInerney ve Marsh, 1997; Özkal, Yıldız, Altunay ve Tonbul 2002). Cooperative learning's superiority in strategy use may result from interaction opportunities in cooperative groups. There, students are able to observe each other reading, explaining, questioning, criticizing and thinking aloud. Besides, active learning tasks may promote strategy use by activating students' minds. Shortly, students in cooperative groups do much more than mere reading and answering comprehension question. Cooperative learning fosters positive attitudes in dimensions of Affective of Reading and General views about Reading. It has no significant effects on dimension Effects of Reading on Improvement. This supports other research results (Okebukola, 1986; Kosters, 1991; Steven ve Slavin, 1995; Lindquist, 1996; Brush, 1997; Gömleksiz, 1993; Oral, 1995 ve Sarıtaş, 2000). We need to develop positive attitudes towards reading. It is an urgent need in our country where people lack reading habit, critical reading and prefer TV to reading (Altunay, 2000). If we can promote strategy use and positive attitudes toward reading through cooperative learning, we can also promote high reading achievement which is directly correlated with these variables. Besides, increase in reading achievement will make a good base for learning other subjects effectively.

Keywords

Reading comprehension , cooperative learning , reading strategies and attitude

İşbirlikli Öğrenme Yönteminin Okuduğunu Anlama Stratejilerinin Kullanımı ve Okumaya Yönelik Tutum Üzerindeki Etkileri

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı, işbirlikli öğrenme yönteminin, ilköğretim öğrencilerinin okuduğunu anlama stratejilerini kullanımları ve okumaya yönelik tutum üzerindeki etkilerini incelemektir. Araştırmada kontrol gruplu ön test son test deney deseni uygulanmıştır. Deney grubunda işbirlikli öğrenme tekniklerinden Birlikte Öğrenme, kontrol grubunda ise geleneksel öğretim yöntemleri uygulanmıştır. Araştırmanın verileri Okuduğunu Anlama Stratejileri Ölçeği ve Okumaya Yönelik Tutum Ölçeği ile toplanmıştır. Verilerin çözümlenmesinde Aritmetik Ortalama, Standart Sapma ve t-testi kullanılmıştır. Araştırma sonucunda, işbirlikli öğrenme yönteminin, öğrencilerin okuduğunu anlama stratejileri ve okumaya yönelik tutumları üzerinde geleneksel öğretime göre daha etkili olduğu belirlenmiştir. İşbirlikli öğrenme grubundaki öğrencilerin, okuduğunu anlama stratejilerini geleneksel öğretim grubunda bulunan öğrencilere göre daha sık kullandıkları saptanmıştır. İşbirlikli öğrenme yöntemi öğrencilerin okumaya yönelik tutumlarında Okumanın Gelişmeye Etkileri alt boyutunda anlamlı fark oluşturmazken, Okumanın Duyuşsal Etkileri, Okumayla İlgili Genel Görüşler alt boyutlarında ise anlamlı farklılıklar oluşturduğu saptanmıştır.

Keywords

Okuduğunu anlama , işbirlikli öğrenme , strateji ve tutum

References

• Açıkgöz, K. Ü. (1992). İşbirlikli öğrenme: Kuram, araştırma ve uygulama. Malatya: Uğurel Matbaası.
• Açıkgöz, K. Ü. (1996). İşbirlikli ve geleneksel sınıflardaki öğrenme stratejileri ve edim. 8. Ulusal Psikoloji Kongresi Bilimsel Çalışmaları, Ankara: Türk Psikologlar Derneği Yayınları, 125-136.
• Açıkgöz, K. Ü. (1997). İşbirlikli öğrenme grupla yarışma: Etkileri, bilişsel süreçler ve öğrenme stratejileri. Yayımlanmamış Araştırma Raporu, İzmir.
• Açıkgöz, K. Ü. (2003). Etkili öğrenme ve öğretme. İzmir: Kanyılmaz Matbaası.
• Adalı, O. (2003). Anlamak ve anlatmak. İstanbul: Pan Yayınları.
• Alfassi, M. (1998). Reading for Meaning: The Efficacy of Reciprocal Teaching in Fostering Comprehension in High School Students in Remedial Reading Classes. American Educational Research Journal, 35(2).
• Altunay, U. (2000). Ön örgütleyiciler ve öğrenci tutumlarının ingilizce ironik metinlerin anlaşılması üzerine etkileri. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, İzmir.
• Anderson, H. T. (1980). Study strategy and adjunct aids. Bulunduğu Eser: R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, W. F. Brewer (Ed). Theoretical issues in reading comprehension, perspectives from cognitive psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence, and education. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Balcı, V. (2003). Geleceğe Zar Atıyorlar. Cumhuriyet Gazetesi (30 Kasım 2003).
• Batmankaya, M (2003). Okumak külfet mi? Radikal Kitap (8 Ağustos 2003).
• Bingham, F. A. (2001). Understanding reading comprehension strategy. http://bromwell.dpsk12.org/stories/storyReader$151 (3 Aralık 2002).
• Brown, J. M. (1980). Metacognitive development and reading. Bulunduğu Eser: R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, W. F. Brewer (Ed). Theoretical issues in reading comprehension, perspectives from cognitive psychology, linguistics, artificial intelligence, and education. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Brush, A. T. (1997). The effect on student achievement and attitudes when using integrated learning systems with cooperative pairs. Etr&D, 45(1), 51- 64.
• Buzan, T. (2001). Okuma hızı. İstanbul: Melisa Matbaacılık.
• Ciardiello, A. V. (1998). Did you ask a good question today? Alternative cognitive and metacognition strategies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 42(3), 210.
• Collins, M. D., Cheek, E. H. (1999). Reading instruction. The McGraw-Hill Companies.
• Dökmen, Ü. (1994). Okuma becerisi, ilgisi ve alışkanlığı üzerine psiko-sosyal bir araştırma. Istanbul: Milli Eğitim Basımevi.
• Emory, P. H. (1989). The effects on reading comprehension scores using the oral retelling or written retelling strategies. Yüksek lisans tezi. Maryland College Park Üniversitesi.
• Gömleksiz, M. (1993). Kubaşık öğrenme yöntemi ile geleneksel yöntemin demokratik tutumlar ve erişiye etkisi. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Çukurova Üniversitesi, Adana.
• Guthrie, J. T., Anderson, E., Alao, S., Rinehart, J. (1999). Influences of concept-oriented reading instruction on strategy use and conceptual learning from text. The Elementary School Journal. 99, 4.
• Güngör-Kılıç, A. (2004). İşbirlikli öğrenme, okuduğunu anlama, strateji kullanımı ve tutum. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, İzmir.
• Güngör, A. (2005). 6., 7. ve 8. Sınıf Öğrencilerinin Okuduğunu Anlama Stratejilerini Kullanma Düzeyleri, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28, 101-108.
• İsen, G. ve Batmaz, V. (2002). Ben ve toplum. İstanbul: Om yayınevi.
• Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, Minnesota: Ineration. Book Company.
• Lindquist, T. M., Abraham, R. J. (1996). Whitepeak corporation: A case analysis of a jigsaw in application of cooperative learning. Accounting Education. 1(2), 113-126.
• Kosters, A. E. (1991). The effects of cooperative learning in the traditional classroom on student achivement and attitude. Master thesis. University of South Dakota.
• McInerney, V. McInerney, D. ve Marsh, H. (1997). Effect of metacognitive strategy training within a cooperative group learning context on computer achivement and anxiety: an aptitude treatment interaction study, Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(4), 689-695.
• Nist, l. S., Holschuh, P. J. (2000). Active learning strategies for college success. London: Ally and Bacon.
• Okebukola, P. A. (1986). Cooperative learning and students attitudes to laboratory work. School Science and Mathematics, 86(7), 582-90.
• Oral, B. (1995). Sosyal bilgiler dersinde işbirlkli öğrenme ile küme çalışması yöntemlerinin öğrencilerin erişileri, derse yönelik tutumları ve öğrenilenlerin kalıcılığı üzerindeki etkileri, Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 2, 43-49.
• Özkal, N., Yıldız, V., Altunay, U., Tonbul, C. (2002). İşbirlikli Öğrenmenin ve Geleneksel Öğretim Yöntemlerinin İngilizce Okuma Stratejileri Üzerindeki Etkileri, 2000’li Yıllarda 1. Öğrenme ve Öğretme Sempozyumu, Marmara Üniversitesi Atatürk Eğitim Fakültesi, 29-31 Mayıs 2002.
• Özen, F. (2003). Gençlere göre okumak gereksiz. Cumhuriyet Gazetesi, (4 Mart 2003).
• Pressley, M., Wharton-McDonald, R. (1997). Skilled comprehension and its development through instruction. School Psychology Review, 26(2), 129-143.
• Quiocho, A. (1997). The quest to comprehend expository text: Applied classroom research. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 40(6), 450.
• Sarıtaş, M. (2000). Ilköğretim okulları IV. sınıf Beden Eğitim dersi öğretimine yarışmalı öğrenme ve işbirlkli öğrenme yönteminin akademik başarı bakımından etkileri, Pamukkale Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, sayı 7, özel sayı.
• Slaimber, G. B. (1999). SCAN and RUN: A reading comprehension strategy that works. Journal of Adolesscent & Adult Literacy, 42(5), 386.
• Smith, C. M. (1991). An investigation of the construct validity of the adults survey of reading attitude. http://www.cedu.niu.edu/~smith/papers/asra.htm (20 Mayıs 2002).
• Steven, J., Slavin, R. E., Farnish, A. M. (1991). The effect of cooperative learning and direct instruction in reading comprehension strategies on main idea identification. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 8-16.
• Steven, J. R. ve Slavin, R. E. (1995). The cooperative elementary school effects on students achievement, attitudes and social relations. American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 312-351.
• Uttero, D. A. (1992). The effects of the instruction-modeling-cooperative engagement model on children’s print comprehension in science. Master thesis, Lowell University.