Öğrenme Güçlüğü Olan ve Olmayan Öğrencilerin Okuduğunu Anlama Becerilerinin Dil Bilimsel Açıdan Karşılaştırılması

Year 2020, Volume: 2 Issue: 1, 1 - 26, 30.12.2020

Selcen Gündoğdu , Birkan Güldenoğlu , Tevhide Kargın

https://doi.org/10.37233/TRSPED.2020.0106

Cited By: 2

Abstract

Okuma becerisinin sürekli gelişen bir beceri olduğu düşünüldüğünde, normal gelişim gösteren öğrencilerin okul yaşamlarında göstermiş oldukları gelişmeyi, öğrenme güçlüğü olan öğrencilerin sergileyememeleri ve genel olarak düşük okuma ve okuduğunu anlama becerilerine sahip olmaları, oldukça önemli ve çözümlenmesi gereken bir sorun olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Bu nedenden dolayı bu çalışmada, öğrenme güçlüğü olan ve olmayan öğrencilerin okuduğunu anlama performanslarının dilbilimsel açıdan karşılaştırmalı olarak incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Öğrencilerin okuduğunu anlama becerilerini değerlendirmek amacıyla iki farklı metin (sözdizimsel olarak basit ve sözdizimsel olarak karmaşık metinler) ve her bir metne ilişkin beşer anlama sorusu (dört bilgi verici, bir çıkarım sorusu) kullanılmıştır. Yapılan değerlendirmelerden elde edilen tüm veriler iki faktörlü varyans analizi (GLM-ANOVA) kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Analizlerden elde edilen bulgulara genel olarak bakıldığında, öğrenme güçlüğü olan öğrencilerin okuduğunu anlama performanslarının normal gelişim gösteren öğrencilere göre daha düşük olduğu görülmüştür. Ortaya çıkan bu farklılık öğrenme güçlüğü olan öğrencilerin sahip oldukları okuma becerileri ile okuma sırasında kullandıkları okuduğunu anlama stratejileri temelinde tartışılmıştır.

Keywords

Okuma, Okuduğunu Anlama, Sözdizimi, Öğrenme Güçlüğü, Okuduğunu Anlama Güçlüğü

A Comparision of the Reading Comprehension Skills of Students with and without Learning Disabilities in a Linguistic Perspective

Abstract

This study’s main purpose is to comparatively examine the reading comprehension skills of students with and without learning disabilities. This study included 240 elementary students, of which 120 were students with learning disabilities and 120 were normally developing students and attended 3rd and 4th grades. To assess students' reading comprehension skills, two different texts (simple and complicated texts according to syntactic) and five questions (four information and one inference questions) for each text were used. All assessments were applied in students’ own schools about 15 to 20 minutes of individual sessions. The gathered data were analyzed through two factors ANOVA (GLM-ANOVA). The results showed that students with learning disabilities had poorer comprehension performance than their normally developing counterparts. Findings were discussed based on students' reading skills and the reading comprehension strategies they used.

Keywords

Reading, reading comprehension, syntax, learning disability, reading comprehension disability

References

• Adams, M. J. & Bruck, M. (1995). Resolving the Debate. American Educator, 19, 7-20.
• Akyol, H. (2005). Türkçe ilkokuma yazma öğretimi, Ankara: PegemA Yay.
• Akyol, H. (2006). Yeni programa uygun Türkçe öğretim yöntemleri, Ankara: Kök Yay
• Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89(4), 369-406.
• Baker, D. L., Santono, L., Biancarrosa, G. & Baker, S. K. (2005). Effects of quality of ınstruction on student vocabulary and comprehension during read alouds. Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness, 9, 17.
• Başaran, M. (2013). Okuduğunu anlamanın bir göstergesi olarak akıcı okuma. kuram ve uygulamada eğitim bilimleri. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 13, 4, 2277-2290.
• Baumann, J. F. (1984). The effectiveness of a direct ınstruction paradigm for teaching main ıdea comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(1), 93-115.
• Baydık, B. (2011). Okuma güçlüğü olan öğrencilerin üstbilişsel okuma süreçlerini kullanımı ve öğretmenlerinin okuduğunu anlama öğretim uygulamalarının incelenmesi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 36, 162.
• Bos, C. S. & Anders, P.L. (1990). Effects of ınteractive vocabulary ınstruction on the vocabulary learning and readingcomprehension of junior-high learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13(1), 31-42.
• Boudreau, D. M. & Hedberg, N. L. (1999). A comparison of early literacy skills in children with specific language ımpairment and their typically developing peers. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 8, 249-260.
• Börekçi, M. (2015). Söz dizim kuramları bağlamında türkçe söz dizimi. Turkish Studies, 10(16), 355-370.
• Browski, J. B., Weyhing, R. S. & Carr, M. (1998). Effects of attributional retraining on strategy-based reading comprehension in learning-disabled students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(1), 46-53.
• Bruck, M. (1992). Persistence of dyslexics’ phonological awareness deficits. Developmental Psychology, 28, 874–886.
• Burns, M.K., & VanDerHeyden, A. M. (2006). Using response to ıntervention to assess learning disabilities: Introduction to the special series. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 3-5.
• Byrne, B. (1981). Deficient syntactic control in poor readers: Is a weak phonetic memory code responsible?. Applied Psycholinguistics, 2, 201-212.
• Calfee, R. (1984). Applying Cognitive psychology to educational practice: the mind of the reading teacher. Annals of Dyslexia, 34, 219-240.
• Carr, S. C. & Thompson, B. (2010). The effects of prior knowledge and schema activation strategies on the ınferential reading comprehension of children with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly 19(1), 48-61.
• Catts, H. W., Fey, M. E., Zhang, X. & Tomblin, J. B. (1999). Language basis of reading and reading disabilities: evidence from longitudinal investigation. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 331–361.
• Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by Phase. M. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken H. A Life in Language, 1-52. Cambridge: MIT.
• Clark, M. K. & Kamhi, A. G. (2014). Influence of prior knowledge and ınterest on fourth- and fifth-grade passage comprehension on the qualitative reading ınventory-4. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 45(4), 291-301.
• Gajria, M., Jitendra, A. K., Sood, S., & Sacks, G. (2007). Improving comprehension of expository text in students with LD: A research synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 210–225.
• Garcia, J. R., Bustos, A. & Sânchez, E. (2015). The contribution of knowledge about anaphors, organisational signals and refutations to reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 38(4), 405-427.
• Gardill, M.C. & Jitendra, A.K. (1999). Advanced story map ınstruction: effects on the reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 33(1), 17-28.
• Gersten, R., Fuchs, L.S., Williams, J. P. & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71(2), 279-320.
• Gottardo, A., Stanovich, K. E., & Siegel, L. S. (1996). The relationships between phonological sensitivity, syntactic processing, and verbal working memory in the reading performance of third-grade children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 63, 563–582.
• Gough, P. B. & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6-10.
• Güldenoğlu, İ.B., Kargın, T., & Ergül, C. (2016). Sesbilgisel farkındalık becerilerinin okuma ve okuduğunu anlama üzerindeki etkisi: Boylamsal bir çalışma. İlköğretim Online, 15(1): 251-272.
• Güldenoğlu, İ.B., Kargın, T., & Miller, P. (2015). Okuma güçlüğü olan ve olmayan öğrencilerin cümle anlama becerilerinin incelenmesi. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 30 (76), 82-96.
• Güler, Ö. & Güzel-Özmen, R. (2010). Using the brief experimental analysis to determine the effective reading comprehension strategy in story comprehension of students with mental retardation. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 2 (3), 930-954
• Günayer-Şenel, H. (1995). Özel öğrenme güçlüğü terimi yerine alternatif arayışlar. Özel Eğitim Dergisi. 2 (1). 40-46.
• Günayer-Şenel, H. (1998). Okuma güçlüğü olan ve olmayan ilkokul öğrencilerinin okuma düzeylerinin ve dislektik özelliklerinin karşılaştırılması. (Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Ankara Üniversitesi, Ankara.
• Güzel-Özmen, R. (1998). Alt özel sınıflardaki öğrencilerin sesli okudukları öyküyü anlama becerilerini kazanmalarında doğrudan öğretim yöntemiyle sunulan bireyselleştirilmiş okuduğunu anlama materyalinin etkililiği. (Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi). Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara.
• Hecht, S. A., Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K. & Rasotte, C. A. (2001). The relations between phonological processing abilities and emerging individual differences in mathematical computation skills: a longitudinal study from second to fifth grades. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 79(2), 192-227.
• Hoover, W.A., & Gough, P.B. (1990). The simple of reading. reading and writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127-160.
• Idol, L. (1987). Group story mapping: a comprehension strategy for both skilled and unskilled readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20(4), 196-205.
• Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act: IDEA. (2004), P.L. 108-446
• Johnson, E., Mellard, D. F., & Byrd, S. E. (2006). Challenges with SLD Identification: What is the SLD problem? Teaching Exceptional Children Plus, 3(1).
• Kavale, K. A. (2005). Identifying Specific Learning Disability: Is responsiveness to ıntervention the answer?. Journal of Learnıng Disabilities, 38(6), 553–562.
• Kim, W., Linan-Thompson, S. & Misquitta, R. (2012). Critical factors in reading comprehension ınstruction for students with learning disabilities: A research synthesis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27(2), 66–78
• Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the ınput hypothesis. The Modern Language Journal, 73(4), 440-464.
• Kuruyer, H. G. & Özsoy, G. (2016). İyi ve zayıf okuyucuların üstbilişsel okuma becerilerinin incelenmesi: Bir durum çalışması. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 24(2), 771-778.
• Lenz, B. K. & Hughes, C. (1990). A word identification strategy for adolescents with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23(3), 149–158.
• Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, S. E. & Shaywitz, B. A. (2003). A definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 53(1), 1-14.
• Mastropieri, M.A., Scruggs, T.E., & Graetz, J.E. (2003). Reading comprehension ınstruction for secondary students: Challenges for struggling students and teachers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 103-116.
• McNamara, D. S. (2007). Reading comprehension strategies theories, ınterventions, and technologies. Newyork: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Mezynski, K. (1983). Issues concerning the acquisition of knowledge: effects of vocabulary training on reading comprehension. Review of Educational Research, 53(2), 253-279.
• Miller, P., Kargın T. & Güldenoğlu, B. (2014). Differences in the reading of shallow and deep orthography: developmental evidence from Hebrew and Turkish readers. Journal of Research in Reading, 37(4), 409-432.
• Miller, S. D. & Yochum, N. (1991). Asking students about the nature of their reading difficulties. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23(4), 465-485.
• Nakamoto, J., Lindsey, K. A., & Manis, F. R. (2007). A longitudinal analysis of English language learners word decoding and reading comprehension. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 20, 691–719.
• Oliveira, D. G., Silva, P. B., Dias, N. M., Seabra, A. G. & Macedo, E. C. (2014). Reading component skills in dyslexia: word recognition, comprehension and processing speed. Fronters in Psychology, 5, 1339.
• Olson, R., Wise, B., Conners, F. & Rack, J. (1990). Organization, heritability, and remediation of component word recognition and language skills in disabled readers. In T. Carr & B. A. Levy (Eds.), Reading and its development: Component skills approaches (140-172). New York: Academic Press.
• Otto, B. (2006). Levels of Language Knowledge. Except from Language Development in Early Childhood, 14-15
• Report of the National Reading Panel (US), National Institute of Child Health, & Human Development (US). (2000). Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of The Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction: Reports of The Subgroups. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health.
• Samuels S.J., & Kamil M.L. (1988). Models of the reading process. Carrell P.L., Devine J., Eskey D.E. (Eds.). Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading (Cambridge Applied Linguistics) (22-36). Cambridge University Press.
• Seifert, K. & Espin, C. (2012). Improving reading of science text for secondary students with learning disabilities: Effects of text reading, vocabulary learning, and combined approaches to instruction. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35(4), 236–247.
• Short, E. J. (1992). Cognitive, metacognitive, motivational, and affective differences among normally achieving, learning-disabled, and developmentally handicapped students: How much do they affect school achievement? Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 21, 229-239.
• Sideridis, G.D., Mouzaki, A., Simos, P., & Protopapas, A. (2006). Classification of students with reading comprehension difficulties: the roles of motivation, affect, and psychopathology. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29, 159-180.
• Snider, V.E. (1989). Reading comprehension performance of adolescents with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 87-96.
• Solis, M., Miciak, J., Vaughn, S. & Fletcher, J. M. (2014). Why intensive interventions matter longitudinal studies of adolescents with reading disabilities and poor reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37(4), 218-229.
• Stein, C. L., Cairns, H. S. & Zurif, E. B. (1984). Sentence comprehension limitations related to syntactic deficits in reading-disabled children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 5 (4), 305-322.
• Stevens, R., Slavin, R. & Farnish, A. (1991). The effects of cooperative learning and directed instruction in reading comprehension strategies on main idea identification. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 8-16.
• Stromer, R. & Mackay, H. A. (1992). spellıng and emergent picture-printed word relations established with delayed identity matching to complex samples. Journal Of Applied Behavıor Analysis, 25(4), 893-904.
• Swanson, H.L. (1999). Reading research for students with ld: a meta-analysis in Intervention Outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32(6), 504-532.
• Taft, M.L., & Leslie, L. (1985). The effects of prior knowledge and oral reading accuracy on miscues and comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 17, 163-179.
• Talbott, E., Lloyd, J. W. & Tankersley, M. (2014). Effects of reading comprehension ınterventions for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 17(3), 223-232.
• Taylor, L.K., Alber, S.R., & Walker, D.W. (2002). The comparative effects of a modified self-questioning strategy and story mapping on the reading comprehension of elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 11, 69–87.
• Therrien, W. J. (2004). Fluency and comprehension gains as a result of repeated reading. Remedial And Special Education, 25(4), 252-261.
• Torgensen, J. K. (2002). The prevention of reading difficulties. Journal of School Psychology, 40(1), 7-26.
• Tunmer, W.E. (2008). Recent Developments in reading intervention research: introduction to special issue. Reading and Writing, 21, 299-316.
• TÜBİTAK-114K643. (2017). İşitme engelli ve işiten öğrencilerin, morfolojik farkındalık bilgi ve becerilerinin okuma performansları üzerindeki rolünün incelenmesi.
• Varnhagen, C. K., Mcfall, G. P., Pugh, N., Routledge, L., Sumida-MacDonald, H. & Kwong, T. E. (2010). lol: new language and spelling in instant messaging. Read Writ, 23, 719–733
• Vaughn S., Cirino P. T., Wanzek J., Wexler J., Fletcher J. M., Denton C. D., . . . Francis D. J. (2010). Response to intervention for middle school students with reading difficulties: Effects of a primary and secondary intervention. School Psychology Review, 39, 3–21.
• Vaughn, S. & Swanson, E. A. (2015). Special education research advances knowledge in education. Exceptional Children, 82(1), 11-24.
• Vaughn, S. ve Klingner, J. K. (2004). Reading comprehension: ınstructional/ ıntervention frameworks. c. a. stone, e. r. silliman, b. ehren & k. apel (ed.). Handbook of language and literacy: development and disorders. New York: Guilford.
• Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K. & Rashotte, C. A. (1994). The development of reading-related phonological processing abilities: New evidence of bi-directional causality from a latent variable longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 30, 73-87.
• Walley, A. C., Metsala, J. L. & Garlock, V. M. (2003). Spoken vocabulary growth: Its role in the development of phoneme awareness and early reading ability. Reading and Writing, 16(1), 5–20.
• Waltzman, D. & Cairns, H. (2000). Grammatical knowledge of third grade good and poor readers. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21, 263-284.