DEVELOPMENT OF READING SKILLS IN FIRST AND SECOND GRADE AND THE MATTHEW EFFECT: RESULTS OF A LONGITUDINAL STUDY

Abstract

In this study, children's reading performances were monitored longitudinally from the first grade to the end of the second grade, and to what extent low reading achievement was observed among children, to what extent the performance observed in the first grade was maintained in the second grade, whether the Matthew effect was observed in their performances, and what type of SES and gender characteristics children with different levels of reading achievement displayed were examined descriptively. A total of 427 children with typical development participated in the study conducted in 45 schools in Ankara. The reading performances of the children were evaluated four times during the first and second grade using the Literacy Assessment Battery (LAB). The results showed that the proportion of children with low reading performance was 34%, that the low reading performance in the first grade was maintained at a rate of 66.9% in the second grade, the difference between the groups with different levels of reading achievement continued to increase in the following semesters, and thus the Matthew effect occurred. In addition, it was found that children from the low SES had a higher risk of reading difficulties and girls showed a higher rate of lower reading achievement. Results were discussed in detail in terms of literature and practice.

Keywords

• development of reading skills
• longitudinal study
• Matthew effect
• first and second grade

BİRİNCİ VE İKİNCİ SINIFTA OKUMA BECERİLERİNİN GELİŞİMİ VE MATTHEW ETKİSİ: BOYLAMSAL BİR ÇALIŞMANIN SONUÇLARI

Abstract

Bu çalışmada çocukların okuma performansları birinci sınıftan ikinci sınıfın sonuna kadar boylamsal olarak izlenmiş ve düşük okuma başarısının çocuklar arasında ne oranda gözlendiği, birinci sınıfta gözlenen performansın ikinci sınıfta ne oranda sürdürüldüğü, performanslarında Matthew etkisi gözlenip gözlenmediği ve farklı düzeylerde okuma başarısı gösteren çocukların ne tür SED ve cinsiyet özellikleri gösterdikleri betimsel olarak incelenmiştir. Ankara’daki 45 okulda yürütülen çalışmaya tipik gelişim gösteren toplam 427 çocuk katılmıştır. Çocukların okuma performansları Okuma Yazma Değerlendirme Bataryası (OYAB) kullanılarak birinci ve ikinci sınıf boyunca dört kez değerlendirilmiştir. Elde edilen sonuçlar düşük okuma performansı gösteren çocukların oranının %34 olduğunu, birinci sınıftaki düşük okuma performansının %66,9 oranında ikinci sınıfta da sürdürüldüğünü, farklı düzeylerde okuma başarısı gösteren gruplar arasındaki farkın ilerleyen dönemlerde artarak devam ettiğini ve böylece Matthew etkisinin oluştuğunu göstermiştir. Ayrıca, alt-SED’den gelen çocukların okuma güçlükleri açısından daha yüksek risk taşıdıkları ve kızların daha büyük oranda düşük okuma başarısı gösterdikleri bulunmuştur. Sonuçlar alanyazın ve uygulamalar açısından ayrıntılı tartışılmıştır.

Keywords

• okuma becerilerinin gelişimi
• boylamsal çalışma
• Matthew etkisi
• birinci ve ikinci sınıf

References

1. ANDERSON, R. C., Wilson, P. T. ve Fielding, L. G. (1988). Growth in reading and how children spend their time outside of school. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 285–303. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.23.3.2
2. AUNOLA, K., Leskinen, E., Onatsu-Arvilommi, T. ve Nurmi, J. E. (2002). Three methods for studying developmental change: A case of reading skills and self-concept. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 343-364. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709902320634447
3. BABAYİĞİT, S. ve Stainthorp, R. (2011). Modeling the relationships between cognitive–linguistic skills and literacy skills: New insights from a transparent orthography. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 169-189. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021671
4. BAKER, L. ve Wigfield, A. (1999). Dimensions of children’s motivation for reading and their relations to reading acitivity and reading achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 452–477. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.34.4.4
5. BAST, J. ve Reitsma, P. (1998). Analyzing the development of individual differences in terms of Matthew effects in reading: Results from a Dutch longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 34, 1373–1399. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0012-1649.34.6.1373
6. BAŞAR, M. ve Tanış-Gürbüz, H. M. (2020). İlk okuma ve yazma öğretiminde karşılaşılan sorunlar ve çözüm önerileri. Okuma Yazma Eğitimi Araştırmaları, 8(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.35233/oyea.666563
7. BENDER, W. N. (2008). Learning disabilities: Characteristics, identification, and teaching strategies (6. baskı). Boston: Pearson Education.
8. BENNETT, K. J., Brown, K. S., Boyle, M., Racine, Y. ve Offord, D. (2003). Does low reading achievement at school entry cause conduct problems? Social Science Medicine, 56(12), 2443-2448. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00247-2

9. BİNGÖL, A. (2003). Ankara’daki ilkokul 2. ve 4. sınıf öğrencilerinde gelişimsel disleksi oranı. Ankara Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Mecmuası, 56(2), 67-82. https://doi.org/10.1501/Tipfak_0000000053
10. BOLAND, T. (1993). The importance of being literate: Reading development in primary school and its consequences for the school career in secondary education. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 8, 289–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03174083.
11. BROWN, L., Sherbenou, R. J., & Johnsen, S. K. (1997). TONI-3, test of nonverbal intelligence: A language-free measure of cognitive ability. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
12. BURNS, M. S. ve Kidd, J. K. (2010). Learning to read. In P. Peterson, E. Baker ve B. McGaw (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (3rd ed., pp. 394—400). Oxford, England: Elsevier.
13. BURNS, M. K., Maki, K. E., Karich, A. C., Hall, M., McComas, J. ve Helman, L. (2016). Problem analysis at tier 2: Using data to find the category of the problem. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns ve A. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of multi-tiered systems of support (2nd ed., pp. 293–307). Springer
14. BURNS, M. K. ve Ysseldyke, J. E. (2009). Reported prevalence of evidence-based instructional practices in special education. The Journal of Special Education, 43, 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466908315563
15. BYRNE, B., Samuelsson, S., Wadsworth, S., Huslander, J., Corley, R., DeFries, J. C. ve diğ. (2007). Longitudinal twin study of early literacy development: Pre-school through Grade 1. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 20, 77–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-006-9019-9
16. CHEADLE, J. E. (2008). Educational investment, family context, and children’s math and reading growth from kindergarten through the third grade. Sociology of Education, 81, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/003804070808100101
17. CHIU, M. M. ve McBride-Chang, C. (2006). Gender, context, and reading: A comparison of students in 43 countries. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 331–362. https://doi.org/10.1207/ s1532799xssr1004_1.
18. CHRIST, T. J., Silberglitt, B., Yeo, S. ve Cormier, D. (2010). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading: An evaluation of growth rates and seasonal effects among students served in general and special education. School Psychology Review, 39, 447–462. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2010.12087765
19. CHUNG, K. K., Liu, H., McBride, C., Wong, A. M. Y. ve Lo, J. C. (2017). How socioeconomic status, executive functioning and verbal interactions contribute to early academic achievement in Chinese children. Educational Psychology, 37(4), 402-420. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2016.1179264
20. COX, K. E. ve Guthrie, J. T. (2001). Motivational and cognitive contributions to students’ amount of reading. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 116–131. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1044
21. CUNNINGHAM, A. E. ve Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33, 934—945. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.33.6.934
22. D'ANGIULLI, A., Siegel, L. S. ve Hertzman, C. (2004). Schooling, socioeconomic context, and literacy development. Educational Psychology, 24, 867-883. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341042000271746
23. DENO, S. L., Fuchs, L. S., Marston, D. ve Shinn, J. (2001). Using curriculum-based measurements to establish growth standards for students with learning disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30, 507–524. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2001.12086131
24. EHRI, L. C., Dreyer, L. G., Flugman, B. ve Gross, A. (2007). Reading rescue: An effective tutoring intervention model for language-minority students who are struggling readers in first grade. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 414–448. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207302175
25. ERGÜL, C. (2012). Okumada güçlük yaşayan öğrencilerin okuma performanslarının öğrenme güçlüğü riski açısından değerlendirilmesi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 12(3), 2033-2057.
26. ERGÜL, C. ve Demir, E. (2017). SED indeks ebeveyn bilgi formu. Yayımlanmamış proje raporu.
27. ERGÜL, C., Karaman, G., Akoğlu, G., Tufan, M., Sarıca, A. D. ve Bahap-Kudret, Z. (2014). Okul öncesi öğretmenlerinin “Erken Okuryazarlık” kavramına ilişkin bilgi düzeyleri ve sınıf uygulamaları. İlköğretim Online, 13(4), 1449-1472. https://doi.org/10.17051/io.2014.71858
28. ERGÜL, C., Ökcün-Akçamuş, M., Akoğlu, G., Kılıç-Tülü, B. ve Demir, E. (2018). Okuma Yazma Değerlendirme Bataryası. Ankara.
29. ERGÜL, C., Sarıca, D., Akoğlu, G., ve Karaman, G. (2017). The home literacy environments of Turkish kindergarteners: Does SES make a difference? International Journal of Instruction, 10(1), 187-202. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2017.10112a
30. ESASPEHLİVAN, M. (2006). Okul öncesi eğitim kurumuna gitmiş ve gitmemiş 78 ve 68 aylık çocukların okula hazır bulunuşluklarının karşılaştırılması. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
31. FARKAS, G. ve Hibel, J. (2008). Being unready for school: Factors affecting risk and resilience. In A. Booth ve A. C. Crouter (Eds.), The Penn State University family issues symposia series. Disparities in school readiness: How families contribute to transitions in school (p. 3–30). Taylor ve Francis Group/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
32. FRANCIS, D. J., Shaywitz, S. E., Stuebing, K. K., Shaywitz, B. A.ve Fletcher, J. M. (1996). Developmental lag versus deficit models of reading disability: A longitudi nal, individual growth curves analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 3-17. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.88.1.3
33. FRITH, U. (1999). Paradoxes in the definition of dyslexia. Dyslexia, 5(4). 192-214. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0909(199912)5:43.0.CO;2-N FUCHS, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Walz, L. ve Germann, G. (1993). Formative evaluation of academic progress: How much growth can we expect? School Psychology Review, 22, 27–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.1993.12085636
34. FUCHS, L. S., Fuchs, D., Schumacher, R. F. ve Seethaler, P. M. (2013). Instructional intervention for students with mathematical learning disabilities. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harrisve S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 388–405). Guilford Press.
35. GREEN, S. B. ve Salkind, N. J. (2005). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and understanding data (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, USA: Pearson.
36. GUTHRIE, J. T., Wigfield, A., Metsala, J. L. ve Cox, K. E. (1999). Motivational and cognitive predictors of text comprehension and reading amount. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 231-257. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0303_3
37. HALL, M. S. ve Burns, M. K. (2018). Meta-analysis of targeted small-group reading interventions. Journal of School Psychology, 66, 54–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.11.002
38. HECHT, S. A., Burgess, S. R., Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K. ve Rashotte, C. A. (2000). Explaining social class differences in growth of reading skills from beginning kindergarten through fourth-grade: the role of phonological awareness, rate of access, and print knowledge. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 99–127. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008033824385
39. JUEL, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437–447. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.4.437.
40. KAVALE, K. A. ve Forness, S. R. (1996). Social skill deficits and learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 226-237. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949602900301.
41. KAVALE, K. A. ve Forness, S. R. (2000). Policy decisions in special education: The role of meta-analysis. In R. Gersten, E. P. Schillerve S. Vaughn (Eds.), Contemporary special education research: Synthesis of the knowledge base on critical instructional issues (pp. 281–326). Lawrence Erlbaum.
42. KEENAN, J. M., Betjemann, R. S., Wadsworth, S. J., DeFries, J. C. ve Olson, R.K. (2006). Genetic and environmental influences on reading and listening comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 29, 75–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2006.00293.x
43. KEMPE, C., Eriksson‐Gustavsson, A. L. ve Samuelsson, S. (2011). Are there any Matthew effects in literacy and cognitive development? Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 55(2), 181-196, https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2011.554699
44. KORKMAZ, M., Bildiren, A., Demiral, N., & Çulha, D. G. (2018). TONI-3 Sözel Olmayan Zeka Testinin 6-11 yaş örneklemi norm ve standardizasyon çalışması. Anadolu Psikiyatri Dergisi, 19, 76-83. https://doi.org/10.5455/apd.292332
45. LERNER, J. W. (2000). Learning disabilities: Theories, diagnosis and teaching strategies (8. baskı). Boston: Hougton and Mifflin Company.
46. LOGERFO, L., Nichols, A. ve Reardon, S. F. (2006). Achievement gains in elementary and high school. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
47. LOVETT, M. W., Barron, R. W. ve Frijters, J. C. (2013). Word identification difficulties in children and adolescents with reading disabilities: Intervention research findings. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harrisve S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 329–360). Guilford Press.
48. LUYTEN, J. W., Cremers-van Wees, L. M. C. M. ve Bosker, R. (2003). The Matthew effect in Dutch primary education, differences between school, cohorts and pupils. Research papers in education, 18(2), 167-195. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267152032000081922
49. MCCOACH, D. B., O’Connell, A., Reis, S. ve Levitt, H. (2006). Growing readers: A hierarchical linear model of children’s reading growth during the first 2 years of school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 14–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.14
50. MEB (2019). Millî Eğitim İstatistikleri, Örgün Eğitim 2018/'19. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. (http://dspace.ceid.org.tr/xmlui/handle/1/851)
51. MEB. (2015). PISA 2012 Araştırması Ulusal Nihai Rapor. Ankara: Eğitim Araştırma ve Geliştirme Dairesi Yayınları.
52. MORGAN, P. L. ve Fuchs, D. (2007). Is there a bidirectional relationship between chil dren's reading skills and reading motivation? Exceptional Children, 73, 165-183. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290707300203
53. MORGAN, P., Farkas, G. ve Hibel, J. (2008). Matthew effects for whom? Learning Disability Quarterly, 31, 187–198. https://doi.org/10.2307/25474651
54. MORRIS. J. (1984). Children like Frank, deprived of literacy unless. . . . In D. Dennis (Ed.), Reading: Meeting children’s special needs (pp. 16–28). London: Heinemann.
55. MULLIS, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Kennedy, A. M. ve Foy, P. (2007). PIRLS 2006 International report. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS ve PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College. http://timss.bc.edu/pirls2006/intl_rpt.html
56. MYRBERG, E. ve Rosén, M. (2008). A path model with mediating factors of parents’ education on students’ reading achievement in seven countries. Educational Research and Evaluation, 14, 507–520. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610802576742
57. NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS (2013). A first look: 2013 Mathematics and Reading. National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/publications/main2013/pdf/2014451.pdf
58. NEUMAN, S. B. ve Celano, D. (2001). Access to print in low-income and middle-income communities: An ecological study of four neighborhoods. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 8-26. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.36.1.1
59. NORDSTRÖM, T., Jacobson, C. ve Söderberg, P. (2016). Early word decoding ability as a longitudinal predictor of academic performance. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 31, 175–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-015-0258-5
60. OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 Results in Focus. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisa-2015-results-in-focus.pdf
61. ÖNEY, B. ve Durgunoğlu, A. Y. (1997). Learning to read in Turkish: A phonologically transparent orthography. Applied Psycholinguistics, 18(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/ 10.1017/S014271640000984X
62. PARRILA, R., Aunola, K., Leskinen, E., Nurmi, J. E. ve Kirby, J. (2005). Development of individual differences in reading: Results from longitudinal studies in English and Finnish. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 299-319. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022 0663.97.3.299
63. PENNINGTON, B. F. (2006). From single to multiple deficit models of developmental disorders. Cognition, 101, 385-413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.04.008.
64. PERIE, M., Grigg, W. S. ve Donahue, P. L. (2005). The nation’s report card: Reading 2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
65. PFOST, M., Dörfler, T. ve Artelt, C. (2012). Reading competence development of poor readers in a German elementary school sample. An empirical examination of the Matthew- effect model. Journal of Research in Reading, 35,411-426. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j. 1467-9817.2010.01478.x
66. PFOST, M., Hattie, J., Dörfler, T. ve Artelt, C. (2014). Individual differences in reading development: A review of 25 years of empirical research on Matthew effects in reading. Review of Educational Research, 84, 203- 244. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313509492
67. PHILLIPS, L. M., Norris, S. P., Osmond, W. C. ve Maynard, A. M. (2002). Relative reading achievement: A longitudinal study of 187 children from first through sixth grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 3-13. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.94.1.3
68. RAFFAELLI, M. ve Ontai, L. L. (2004). Gender socialization in Latino/a families: Results from two retrospective studies. A Journal of Research, 50, 287-299. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SERS.0000018886.58945.06
69. RAMEY, C. T. ve Ramey, S. L. (1998). Early intervention and early experience. American Psychologist, 53, 109 –120. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.53.2.109.
70. RAMEY, C. T. ve Ramey, S. L. (2004). Early learning and school readiness: Can early intervention make a difference? Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50, 471– 491. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2004.0034
71. RESCHLY, A. L. (2010) Reading and school completion: Critical connections and Matthew effects. Reading ve Writing Quarterly, 26, 67-90, https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560903397023
72. RESCORLA, L. ve Rosenthal, A. S. (2004). Growth in standardized ability and achievement test scores from 3rd to 10th grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 85-96. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.85
73. RETELSDORF, J., Köller, O. ve Möller, J. (2014). Reading achievement and reading self-concept e Testing the reciprocal effects model. Learning and Instruction, 21-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.07.004
74. REYNOLDS, A. J. ve Ou, S. R. (2004). Alterable predictors of child well-being in the Chicago longitudinal study. Children and Youth Services Review, 26, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2003.11.005
75. RIGNEY, D. (2010). The Matthew effect. How advantage begets further advantage. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
76. SCARBOROUGH, H. S. (2002). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis) abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In S. B. Neuman ve D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 97-110). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
77. SCHATSCHNEIDER, C., Wagner, R. K., Hart, S. A. ve Tighe, E. L. (2016). Using simulations to investigate the longitudinal stability of alternative schemes for classifying and identifying children with reading disabilities. Scientific Studies of Reading, 20(1), 34–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2015.1107072
78. SCHIEFELE, U., Schaffner, E., Möller, J. ve Wigfield, A. (2012). Dimensions of reading motivation and their relation to reading behavior and competence. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 427-463. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.030.
79. SHAYWİTZ, S. E., Morris, R. ve Shaywitz, B. A. (2008). The education of dyslexic children from childhood to young adulthood. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 451 475. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.09363
80. SNOW, C. E., Burns, M. S., Griffin, P. ve National Research Council. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. National Academies Press. https://doi. org/10.17226/6023
81. SNOWLING, M. J. (2001). From language to reading and dyslexia. Dyslexia, 7, 37-46. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.185.
82. STANOVICH, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–407. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.21.4.1.
83. STANOVICH, K.E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and new frontiers. New York: Guilford Press.
84. STANOVICH, K. E. (2009). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Journal of Education, 189, 23-55.
85. STOCKARD, J. (2006). Handbook of the Sociology of Gender. J. Saltzman-Chafetz, (Ed.), Gender socialization (215-227). NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
86. TOSTE, J., Didion, L., Peng, P., Filderman, M. J. ve McClelland, A. M. (2020). A meta-analytic review of the relations between motivation and reading achievement for K–12 students. Review of Educational Research 90(3), https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320919352
87. URFALI DADANDI, P., Dadandı, G. ve Koca, F. (2018). PISA 2015 Türkiye sonuçlarına göre sosyoekonomik faktörler ile okuma becerileri arasındaki ilişkiler. Uluslararası Türkçe Edebiyat Kültür Eğitim Dergisi, 7(2), 1239-1252.
88. VELLUTİNO, F. R., Fletcher, J. M., Snowling, M. J. ve Scanlon, D. M. (2004). Specific reading disability (dyslexia): What have we learned in the past four decades? Journal ofChild Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 2-10. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0021 -9630.2003.00305.x
89. WAGNER, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., Garza, N. ve Levine, P. (2005). After high school: A first look at the postschool experiences of youth with disabilities. A report from the national longitudinal transition study-2 (NLTS2). SRI International. https:// nlts2.sri.com/reports/2005_04/nlts2_report_2005_04_execsum.pdf
90. WANG, J. ve Guthrie, J. T. (2004). Modeling the effects of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, amount of reading, and past reading achievement on text comprehension between US and Chinese students. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 162–186. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.39.2.2.
91. WANZEK, J., Vaughn, S., Scammacca, N., Gatlin, B., Walker, M. A. ve Capin, P. (2016). Meta-analyses of the effects of tier 2 type reading interventions in grades K-3. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 551–576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9321-7.
92. WATKINS, M. W. ve Edwards, V. A. (1992). Extracurricular reading and reading achievement: The rich stay rich and the poor don’t read. Reading Improvement, 29, 236–242.