Sınıf Öğretmeni Adaylarının Üstbilişsel Okuma Stratejilerini Kullandırma Düzeyleri: Bir Karma Yöntem Çalışması

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının üstbilişsel okuma stratejilerini kullandırma düzeylerini belirlemektir. Bu amaç doğrultusunda araştırmada nitel ve nicel bulguların yorumlama aşamasında birleştirildiği karma yöntem deseni olarak yakınsayan desen kullanılmıştır. Nicel veriler Özen ve Durkan (2016) tarafından geliştirilen Üstbilişsel Okuma Stratejileri Kullandırma (ÜBOSK) ölçeğinden, nitel veriler ise sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının öğretmenlik uygulaması I kapsamında Türkçe derslerinde gözlemlenmesiyle elde edilmiştir. Nicel verilerinin çözümlenmesinde parametrik olan alt boyutlar için t testi ve tek yönlü varyans analizi testi; parametrik olmayan alt boyutlar için ise Mann Whitney U Testi ve Kruskal Wallis H Testi SPPS paket programı kullanılarak yapılmıştır. Gözlem formu aracılığıyla elde edilen nitel verilerde betimsel analiz kullanılmıştır. Araştırmada öğretmen adaylarının not ortalaması ve cinsiyet gibi bireysel özelliklerinin ÜBOSK üzerinde fark yarattığı; öğretmen adaylarının Türkçe dersinde gözlem yapmalarının bu stratejileri kullandırmada etkili olduğu ama Türkçe dersinde uygulama yapmanın bu stratejileri etkin kılmada fark yaratmadığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Öğretmen adaylarının sınıf içinde ÜBSOK da özellikle okuma esnası ve okumayı değerlendirme kısımlarında yeterli davranış sergileyemedikleri gözlemlenmiştir. Araştırma sonuçları ışığında bu stratejilere yönelik öğretmen yetiştirme programlarında meslek bilgisi dersleri kapsamında uygulamalar içeren eğitimlerin verilmesi ve çeşitli teknikler ile öğretim tasarımları geliştirilmesi önerilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Üst biliş
• okuma stratejileri
• üstbilişsel okuma stratejileri
• sınıf öğretmeni adayı
• öğretmen eğitimi
• karma yöntem

Levels of Primary School Teacher Candidates’ Getting the Students to Use Metacognitive Reading Strategies: A Mixed Method Research

Öz

The objective of this study is to determine the levels of primary school teacher candidates’ getting the students to use metacognitive reading strategies. For this purpose, the convergent pattern was used as a mixed methods pattern in which the qualitative and quantitative findings were combined in the interpretation phase. The quantitative data were obtained using the Metacognitive Reading Strategies Utility Scale developed by Özen and Durkan (2016), whereas the qualitative data were obtained by observing the primary school teacher candidates in Turkish lessons within the scope of Teaching Practice I. In the analysis of the quantitative data, t-test and one-way analysis of variance test were used for parametric sub-dimensions, whereas Mann Whitney U Test and Kruskal Wallis H Test SPPS package program were used for non-parametric sub-dimensions. Descriptive analysis was used in the qualitative data obtained through the observation form. In the research, it was found out that the individual characteristics of the primary school teacher candidates, such as grade point average and gender, made a difference on the Metacognitive Reading Strategies Utility Scale and that the primary school teacher candidates’ observations in Turkish lessons were effective in getting the students to use these strategies although practicing in Turkish lessons did not make a difference in terms of making these strategies effective. It was observed that the primary school teacher candidates were not able to display adequate behavior in the classroom, especially in the during reading and reading evaluation sub-dimensions. In the light of the results of the research, it is recommended to provide trainings with applications within the scope of vocational knowledge courses in teacher education programs for these strategies, and to develop instructional designs by developing various techniques.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Metacognitive
• reading strategies
• metacognitive reading strategies
• primary school student teacher
• teacher education
• mixed method research

Kaynakça

1. Akın, E. ve Çeçen, M. A. (2014). Ortaokul öğrencilerinin okuma stratejileri üstbilişsel farkındalık düzeylerinin değerlendirilmesi (muş-bulanık örneği). Electronic Turkish Studies, 9(8).
2. Alexander, P. A. & Jetton, T. L. (2000). Learning from text: A multidimensional and developmental perspective.
3. Almasi, J. F. (2003). Teaching strategic reading processes. New York, NY: Guilford.
4. Anastasiou, D. & Griva, E. (2009). Awareness of reading strategy use and reading comprehension among poor and good readers. Elementary Education Online, 8(2).
5. Anderson, N. J. (2012). Reading instruction. The Cambridge guide to pedagogy and practice in second language teaching, 218-225.
6. Andreassen, R. & Bråten, I. (2011). Implementation and effects of explicit reading comprehension instruction in fifth-grade classrooms. Learning and Instruction, 21(4), 520-537.
7. Arastaman G., Öztürk Fidan İ. ve Fidan T.(2018). Nitel araştırmada geçerlik ve güvenirlik: kuramsal bir inceleme. YYÜ Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (YYU Journal of Education Faculty), 15(1), 37-75.
8. Artelt, C., Schiefele, U. & Schneider, W. (2001). Predictors of reading literacy. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 16(3), 363-383.

9. Artelt, C. & Schneider, W. (2015). Cross-country generalizability of the role of metacognitive knowledge in students’ strategy use and reading competence. Teachers College Record.
10. Ataalkın, A. N. (2012). Üst bilişsel öğretim stratejilerine dayalı öğretimin öğrencilerin üst bilişsel farkındalık ve becerisine, akademik başarı ile tutumuna etkisi. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Akdeniz Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Antalya.
11. Ates, S. (2013). Eleştirel okuma ve bir beceri olarak öğretimi. Turkish journal of education, 2(3), 40-49.
12. Aydın, F. ve Coşkun, M. (2011). Geography teacher candidates’ metacognitive awareness levels: A case study from Turkey. Archives of Applied Science Research, 3(2), 551-557.
13. Azevedo, R. & Aleven, V. (2013). Metacognition and learning technologies: An overview of current interdisciplinary research. In International handbook of metacognition and learning technologies (pp. 1-16). Springer, New York, NY.
14. Baker, L., Dreher, M. J. & Guthrie, J. T. (Eds.). (2000). Engaging young readers: Promoting achievement and motivation. Guilford Press.
15. Basaran, M. (2013). Reading fluency as an indicator of reading comprehension. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 13(4), 2287-2290.
16. Baykara, K. (2011). Öğretmen adaylarının bilişötesi öğrenme stratejileri ile öğretmen yeterlik algıları üzerine bir çalışma. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 40(40), 80-92.
17. Best, J. W. & Kahn, J. V. (2017). Eğitimde araştırma yöntemleri. M. Durmuşçelebi (Çev.), O. Köksal (Çev. Ed.). Konya: Dizgi Ofset.
18. Block, C. C. & Israel, S. E. (2005). Reading first and beyond: The complete guide for teachers and literacy coaches. Corwin Press.
19. Block, C. C. ve Pressley, M. (2007). Best Practices in Teaching Comprehension.
20. Boghian, I. (2016). Metacognitive learning strategies in teaching English as a foreign language. Journal of Innovation in Psychology, Education and Didactics, 20(1), 53-62.
21. Brantmeier, C. (2003). Beyond linguistic knowledge: Individual differences in second language reading. Foreign Language Annals, 36(1), 33-43.
22. Büyüköztürk, S., Kılıc-Cakmak, E., Akgün, O. E., Karadeniz, S. ve Demirel, F.(2011). Bilimsel Arastirma Yontemleri [Scientific Research Methods]. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
23. Cain, K., Oakhill, J. & Bryant, P. (2004). Children's reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of educational psychology, 96(1), 31.
24. Cano, F., García, Á., Justicia, F. & García-Berbén, A. B. (2014). Learning approaches and reading comprehension: The role of student questioning and prior knowledge. Revista de Psicodidáctica, 19(2), 247-265.
25. Cantrell, S. C., Almasi, J. F., Carter, J. C., Rintamaa, M. & Madden, A. (2010). The impact of a strategy-based intervention on the comprehension and strategy use of struggling adolescent readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 257.
26. Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2005). Research methods in education. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data. Master e-book ISBN.
27. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative and mixed methods approaches. London and Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
28. Creswell, J. W. & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage publications.
29. Creswell, J. W. & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Choosing a mixed methods design. Designing and conducting mixed methods research, 2, 53-106.
30. Cromley, J. G., Snyder-Hogan, L. E. & Luciw-Dubas, U. A. (2010). Reading comprehension of scientific text: A domain-specific test of the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 687.
31. Cromley, J. G. & Azevedo, R. (2007). Testing and refining the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 311.
32. Curwen, M. S., Miller, R. G., White-Smith, K. A. & Calfee, R. C. (2010). Increasing teachers' metacognition develops students' higher learning during content area literacy instruction: Findings from the read-write cycle project.
33. Çakıroğlu, A. (2007). Üstbilişsel strateji kullanımının okuduğunu anlama düzeyi düşük öğrencilerde erişi artırımına etkisi. Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara.
34. Çeçen, M. A. ve Alver, M. (2011). Türkçe öğretmeni adaylarının üstbilişsel okuma stratejilerini kullanma düzeyleri (Giresun Üniversitesi örneği). Karadeniz Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 3(5), 39-56.
35. Demir, Ö. ve Özmen, S. K. (2011). Üniversite öğrencilerinin üst biliş düzeylerinin çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 20(3), 145-160.
36. Dilci, T. ve Kaya, S. (2012). Examination of meta-cognitive awareness levels of class teachers teaching 4th and 5th grades in terms of various variables. SDU Faculty of Arts and Sciences Journal of Social Sciences, 27, 247-267.
37. Dinner, L. R. (2009). Analysis of the metacognitive and affective components of learning on reading achievement of striving readers with and without a reading disability (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas).
38. Dole, J. & Nokes, J. J. Drits, D.(2009).Cognitive strategy instruction. Handbook of Research on Reading Comprehension. NY: Routledge.
39. Duffy, G. (2005). Metacognition and the development of reading teachers. Metacognition and literacy learning, 299-314.
40. Edmonds, M. S., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Reutebuch, C., Cable, A., Tackett, K. K. & Schnakenberg, J. W. (2009). A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading comprehension outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of educational research, 79(1), 262-300.
41. Edwards, A. J., Weinstein, C. E., Goetz, E. T. & Alexander, P. A. (2014). Learning and study strategies: Issues in assessment, instruction, and evaluation. Elsevier.
42. Ekiz, D. (2003). Introduction to research methods in education. Ankara: Ani Yayincilik.
43. Erdem, C. (2012). Türk dili ve edebiyatı öğretmen adaylarının okuma stratejilerini kullanma düzeyleri. Uluslararası Türkçe Edebiyat Kültür Eğitim (TEKE) Dergisi, 1(4), 162-186.
44. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American psychologist, 34(10), 906.
45. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K. & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific studies of reading, 5(3), 239-256.
46. Girgin, D. ve Şahin, Ç. (2019). Sınıf Öğretmeni Adaylarının Öğretmenlik Uygulaması Dersi Kapsamındaki Etkinlik Hazırlama ve Uygulama Süreçlerinin İncelenmesi. Gazi University Journal of Gazi Educational Faculty (GUJGEF), 39(3).
47. Graham, S. J. (2003). Learners' metacognitive beliefs: A Modern Foreign Languages case study. Research in Education, 70(1), 9-20.
48. Hartman, H. J. (Ed.). (2001). Metacognition in learning and instruction: Theory, research and practice (Vol. 19). Springer Science & Business Media.
49. Houtveen, A. A. M. & Van de Grift, W. J. C. M. (2007). Effects of metacognitive strategy instruction and instruction time on reading comprehension. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 18(2), 173-190.
50. Irak, M. ve Tosun, A. (2008). Exploring the role of metacognition in obsessive–compulsive and anxiety symptoms. Journal of anxiety disorders, 22(8), 1316-1325.
51. Israel, S. E. (2007). Using Metacognitive Assessments to Create Individualized Reading Instruction. International Reading Association. 800 Barksdale Road, PO Box 8139, Newark, DE 19714-8139.
52. Ivankova, N. V.& Kawamura, Y. (2010). Emerging trends in the utilization of integrated designs in the social, behavioral, and health sciences. Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research, 2, 581-611.
53. Iwai, Y. (2011). The effects of metacognitive reading strategies: Pedagogical implications for EFL/ESL teachers. The Reading Matrix 11 (2), 150, 159.
54. İnce, Y. ve Duran, E. (2013). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin okuduğunu anlama stratejilerine yönelik görüşleri ve kullanma düzeyleri, Okuma Yazma Eğitimi Araştırmaları, 1(1), 9-19.
55. Johnson, R. B. & Christensen, L. (2019). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. SAGE Publications, Incorporated.
56. Karakelle, S. ve Saraç, S. (2010). Üst biliş hakkında bir gözden geçirme: Üstbiliş çalışmaları mı yoksa üst bilişsel yaklaşım mı?. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 13(26), 45-60.
57. Karasar, N. (2014). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi (24. Basım). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
58. Karatay, H. (2010). İlköğretim öğrencilerinin okuduğunu kavrama ile ilgili bilişsel farkındalıkları. Journal of Türklük Bilimi Araştırmaları, 15(27).
59. Khezrlou, S. (2012). The relationship between cognitive and metacognitive strategies, age, and level of education. The Reading Matrix, 12(1).
60. Klingner, J. K., Urbach, J., Golos, D., Brownell, M. & Menon, S. (2010). Teaching reading in the 21st century: A glimpse at how special education teachers promote reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(2), 59-74.
61. Kolić-Vehovec, S., Rončević Zubković, B. & Pahljina-Reinić, R. (2014). Development of metacognitive knowledge of reading strategies and attitudes toward reading in early adolescence: The effect on reading comprehension. Psihologijske teme, 23(1), 77-98.
62. Kuzu, T. S. (2004). Etkileşimsel modele uygun okuma öğretiminin Türkçe bilgilendirici metinleri anlama düzeyine etkisi. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 37(1), 55-77.
63. Leech, N. L. & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2007). An array of qualitative data analysis tools: A call for data analysis triangulation. School psychology quarterly, 22(4), 557.
64. Li, W. (2013). A Study of Metacognitive Awareness of Non-English Majors in L2 Listening. Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 4(3).
65. Martens, D. (2005). Research methods in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative approaches. Thousand 0aks: Sage.
66. Maxwell, J. A. & Loomis, D. M. (2003). Mixed methods design: An alternative approach. Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research, 1(2003), 241-272.
67. McInerney, D. M. (2013). Educational psychology: Constructing learning. Pearson Higher Education AU.
68. Mendoza-Denton, R. & Ayduk, Ö. (2015). Coengagement, coconstruction, coevocation: Three principles to bridge relationships and social cognition.
69. Merriam, S. B. (2002). Introduction to qualitative research. Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis, 1(1), 1-17.
70. Merriam, S. B. (2013). Nitel araştırma: Desen ve uygulama için bir rehber (3. Baskıdan Çeviri) S. Turan (Çev. Ed.). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
71. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (2015). Nitel veri analizi. Çev. Ed Sadegül Akbaba Altun ve Ali Ersoy). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
72. Miller, P. (2006). What the visual word recognition skills of prelingually deafened readers tell about their reading comprehension problems. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 18(2), 91-121.
73. Mokhtari, K. & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students' metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of educational psychology, 94(2), 249.
74. Morse, J. M. & Niehaus, L. (2009). Mixed methods design. Walnut Creek.
75. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/ nrp/upload/smallbook_pdf.pd
76. Ness, R. (2006). Language Development and Learning to Read: The Scientific Study of How Language Development Affects Reading Skill. Childhood Education, 83(2), 114-115.
77. Noushad, P. P. (2008). Cognitions about cognitions: The theory of metacognition. ERIC Clearinghouse.
78. O’Reilly, T. & McNamara, D. S. (2007). The impact of science knowledge, reading skill, and reading strategy knowledge on more traditional “high-stakes” measures of high school students’ science achievement. American educational research journal, 44(1), 161-196.
79. Özdemir, S. (2018). Öğretmen adaylarının okuma stratejilerini kullanma düzeyleri. Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(1), 296-315.
80. Özen, F. ve Durkan, E. (2016). Üstbilişsel okuma stratejileri kullandırma ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi, bir geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik çalışması. Turkish Studies, International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 11(14), 565-586.
81. Özsoy, G. ve Günindi, Y. (2011). Okulöncesi öğretmen adaylarının üstbilişsel farkındalık düzeyleri. Elementary Education Online, 10(2).
82. Papleontiou-Louca, E. (2003). The concept and instruction of metacognition. Teacher development, 7(1), 9-30.
83. Paris, S. G., Carpenter, R. D., Paris, A. H. & Hamilton, E. E. (2005). Spurious and genuine correlates of children’s reading comprehension. Children’s reading comprehension and assessment, 131-160.
84. Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Sage publications.
85. Perfetti, C. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific studies of reading, 11(4), 357-383.
86. Phakiti, A. (2003). A closer look at the relationship of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use to EFL reading achievement test performance. Language testing, 20(1), 26-56.
87. Pressley, M. (2000). Development of grounded theories of complex cognitive processing: Exhaustive within-and between study analyses of think-aloud data. Issues in the measurement of metacognition, 262-296.
88. Pressley, M. (2002). Comprehension strategies instruction: A turn-of-the-century status report. Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices, 11-27.
89. Pressley, M. (2002). Metacognition and self-regulated comprehension. What research has to say about reading instruction, 3, 291-309.
90. Pressley, M., Brown, R., El-Dinary, P. B. & Allferbach, P. (1995). The comprehension instruction that students need: Instruction fostering constructively responsive reading. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice.
91. Pressley, M. & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Routledge.
92. Pressley, M. & Harris, K. R. (2009). Cognitive strategies instruction: From basic research to classroom instruction. Journal of Education, 189(1-2), 77-94.
93. Pressley, M. & McCormick, C. (1995). Cognition, teaching, and assessment. New York: HarperCollins College Publishers.
94. Roeschl-Heils, A., Schneider, W. & van Kraayenoord, C. E. (2003). Reading, metacognition and motivation: A follow-up study of German students in grades 7 and 8. European journal of psychology of education, 18(1), 75-86.
95. Schneider, W. (2010). Metacognition and memory development in childhood and adolescence. Metacognition, strategy use, and instruction, 54-81.
96. Schraw, G. (2001). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. In Metacognition in learning and instruction (pp. 3-16). Springer, Dordrecht.
97. Sheorey, R. & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among native and non-native readers. System, 29(4), 431-449.
98. Silverman, D. (2013). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. SAGE publications limited.
99. Steinbach, J.C. (2010). The effect of metacognitive strategy instruction on writing. Lexington: First Edition.
100. Stewart, J. & Landine, J. (1995). Study Skills from a Metacognitive Perspective. Guidance & Counselling, 11(1), 16-20.
101. Sulak, S. E. ve Behriz, A. (2018). Sınıf Öğretmenlerinin Türkçe Derslerinde Öğrencilerine Üstbilişsel Okuma Stratejilerini Kullandırma Düzeylerinin İncelenmesi. Sosyal Bilimler Arastirmalari Dergisi, 8(2).
102. Sutiyatno, S. & Sukarno, S. (2019). A Survey Study: The Correlation between Metacognitive Strategies and Reading Achievement. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 9(4), 438-444.
103. Teddlie, C. & Tashakkori, A. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research, 1, 13-50.
104. Teddlie, C. & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of mixed methods research, 1(1), 77-100.
105. Topuzkanamış, E. ve Maltepe, S. (2010). Öğretmen adaylarının okuduğunu anlama ve okuma stratejilerini kullanma düzeyleri. Tübar-27, 655-677.
106. Vagle, M. D. (2009). Locating and exploring teacher perception in the reflective thinking process. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 15(5), 579-599.
107. Van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, R., Stoel, R. D., De Glopper, K. & Hulstijn, J. (2007). Development of adolescent reading comprehension in language 1 and language 2: A longitudinal analysis of constituent components. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 477.
108. Vista, A. (2013). The role of reading comprehension in maths achievement growth: Investigating the magnitude and mechanism of the mediating effect on maths achievement in Australian classrooms. International Journal of Educational Research, 62, 21-35.
109. Wade, S. E., Trathen, W. & Schraw, G. (1990). An analysis of spontaneous study strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 147-166.
110. Wang, A. Y. (1993). Cultural-familial predictors of children's metacognitive and academic performance. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 7(2), 83-90.
111. Williams, L. & Hall, K. (2010). Exploring Students' Reading Attitudes. Journal of Reading Education, 35(2).
112. Wilson, J. (2001). Methodological Difficulties of Assessing Metacognition: A New Approach.
113. Yıldırım, A., ve Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. (9. Genişletilmiş Baskı) Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi.
114. Yin, R. K. (2003). Designing case studies. Qualitative Research Methods, 359-386.