Postmodern Metinlerden Okuduğunu Anlama Doğrudan ve Dolaylı İlişkiler Modeli

Öz

Bu araştırmada ilkokul 4. sınıfta öğrenim gören öğrencilerin postmodern metinleri anlamada sesli ve sessiz akıcı okuma, okur benlik algısı, okumaya adanmışlık ve metne yönelik tepki düzeyleri arasındaki doğrudan ve dolaylı ilişkileri test etmek amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmada okuduğunu anlama bağımlı; sesli/sessiz akıcı okuma ve okur benlik algısı bağımsız; okuyucu tepkileri ve okumaya adanmışlık ise bağımsız aracı değişken olarak ele alınmıştır. Araştırma ilişkisel tarama modelinde yürütülmüştür. Çalışma grubunu Ankara ilinde ilkokullarda öğrenim gören 349 ilkokul 4. sınıf öğrencisi oluşturmaktadır. Veriler Boşluk Doldurma Tekniği (BDT) testi, postmodern metin okuduğunu anlama testi, sessiz akıcı okuma testi, yanlış analiz envanteri, okuma prozodisi rubriği okur benlik algısı ölçeği ve okuyucu tepkileri yönergesi ile toplanmıştır. Veriler SPSS 22 ve AMOS 22 programları ile analiz edilmiştir. Araştırmada, postmodern metinlerden okuduğunu anlama yapısal regresyon modelinin mükemmel uyum değerlerine [(χ2[31] = 40,311; χ2/sd = 1,300, p = .122; GFI = ,98; AGFI = ,957; SRMR = ,0347; RMSEA = ,029; CFI = ,992; TLI = ,985; NFI = ,966)] sahip olduğu belirlenmiştir. Model; postmodern metinlerden okuduğunu anlama varyansın %81’ini açıklamaktadır. Bulgular, sessiz akıcı okuma postmodern metinlerden okuduğunu anlamanın, doğrudan, anlamlı ve en güçlü yordayıcısı olduğunu; sesli akıcı okumanın okumaya adanmışlık aracılığıyla okuduğunu anlamayı dolaylı olarak anlamlı şekilde yordadığını göstermektedir. Bunun yanı sıra okuyucu tepkilerinin sesli akıcı okuma ile okuduğunu anlama arasında tam ve anlamlı aracılık yaptığı; akıcı okuma, okumaya adanmışlık, okur benlik algısı ve okuyucu tepkileri birlikte okuduğunu anlama becerilerini geniş düzeyde etkilediği belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Postmodern metinler
• okuduğunu anlama
• yapısal eşitlik modeli

The Direct and Indirect Relations Model of Reading Comprehension on Postmodern Text

Öz

In the present study, we examined the direct and indirect relations of postmodern text of reading comprehension, silent and oral reading fluency, reading engagement, reading self-concept, and students’ response to picture books. Furthermore, we address the mediating role of reading engagement and children’s’ responses to picture books on reading comprehension. The sample consists of 349 4th grade Turkish elementary school students in public schools in Ankara. The data were collected with n postmodern reading comprehension tests, Cloze Tests, Silent Fluent Reading Tests, Reader Response Prompts, The Informal Reading Inventory, Multidimensional Fluency Scale, and The Reading Self-Concept Scale. Data were analyzed with SPSS 22 and AMOS 22. The results showed that (a) postmodern silent and oral reading fluency have positively, moderately and significantly related, and reading fluency (oral and silent) and reading self-concept poor and significantly related (b) postmodern reading comprehension model had an excellent fit, (c) Total amount of variance explained in reading comprehension was 81% for postmodern model, respectively, (d) silent reading fluency was the best predictor of postmodern reading comprehension and uniquely and directly related to (e) oral reading fluency made the largest contributions to reading engagement (f) reading engagement was the best predictor of students’ responses to postmodern texts (g) oral reading fluency indirectly affected reading comprehension via mediating role of reading engagement (h) students’ responses completely mediated the relations of oral reading fluency to reading comprehension in postmodern text (i) reading fluency, reading engagement and self-perception, and reader responses have largely effect size on reading comprehension.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Reading comprehension
• postmodern picture books
• structural equational modeling

Kaynakça

1. Akyol, H. (2014). Türkçe ilk okuma yazma öğretimi. Ankara: Pegem A.
2. Anstey, M. (2002). " It's not all black and white": Postmodern picture books and new literacies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45(6), 444-457.
3. Arizpe, E., & McAdam, J. (2011). Crossing visual borders and connecting cultures: Children's responses to the photographic theme in David Wiesner's Flotsam. New Review of Children's Literature and Librarianship, 17(2), 227-243.
4. Arizpe, E., Styles, M., Cowan, K., Mallouri, L., & Wolpert, M. A. (2008). The voices behind the pictures. Postmodern picturebooks. In L. Sipe & S. Pantaleo (Eds.), Postmodern picturebooks: Play, parody and self-referentiality (pp. 207 – 222). New York, NY: Routledge.
5. Baştuğ, M., ve Akyol, H. (2012). Akıcı okuma becerilerinin okuduğunu anlamayı yordama düzeyi. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi, 5(4), 394-411.
6. Baştuğ, M. ve Keskin, H. K. (2012). Akıcı okuma becerileri ile anlama düzeyleri (basit ve çıkarımsal) arasındaki ilişki. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (KEFAD), 13(3), 227-244.
7. Browne, A. (2010). Through the magic mirror. London: Walker books.
8. Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd edition). Routledge.

9. 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, 31–42. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.31
10. Cartwright, K. B. (2002). Cognitive development and reading: The relation of reading-specific multiple classification skills to reading comprehension in elementary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 56.
11. Chapman, J. W., & Tunmer, W. E. (1995). Development of young children’s reading self-concepts: An examination of emerging subcomponents and their relationship with reading achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 154-167.
12. Chard, D.J., Pikulski, J. J., & McDonagh, S. H. (2006). Fluency: The link between decoding and comprehension for struggling readers. In T. V., Rasinski, C. L., Blachowicz, & K. Lems, (Eds.), Fluency instruction: Research-based best practices, (pp. 39-61). Guilford.
13. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
14. Çetinkaya, F. Ç., Ateş, S., ve Yıldırım, K. (2016). Prozodik okumanın aracılık etkisi: Lise düzeyinde okuduğunu anlama ve akıcı okuma arasındaki ilişkilerin incelenmesi. Turkish Studies International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 11(3), 809-820.
15. De Naeghel, J., Van Keer, H., Vansteenkiste, M., & Rosseel, Y. (2012). The relation between elementary students' recreational and academic reading motivation, reading frequency, engagement, and comprehension: A self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 1006
16. Dresang, E. T. (1999), Radical change: Books for youth in a Digital Age. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(3), 277-293.
17. 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, 239–256.
18. Gambrell, L. B. (2011). Seven rules of engagement: What's most important to know about motivation to read. The Reading Teacher, 65(3), 172-178. doi: 10.1002/TRTR.01024
19. Garan, E. M., & DeVoogd, G. (2008). The benefits of Sustained Silent Reading: Scientific research and common sense converge. The Reading Teacher 62(4), 336-344.
20. Goldstone, B. P. (2002). Brave new worlds: The changing image of the picture book. The New Advocate, 12, 331-344.
21. Guthrie, J. T. (2004). Teaching for literacy engagement. Journal of Literacy Research, 36(1), 1-30.
22. Guthrie, J. T., Klauda, S. L., & Ho, A. N. (2013). Modeling the relationships among reading instruction, motivation, engagement, and achievement for adolescents. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(1), 9-26.
23. Guthrie, J. T., McGough, K., Bennett, L., & Rice, M. E. (1996). Concept-oriented reading instruction: An integrated curriculum to develop motivations and strategies for reading. In L. Baker, P. Afflerbach & D. Reinking (Eds.), Developing engaged readers in school and home communities. (pp. 165-190). NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
24. Guthrie, J. T., Schafer, W. D., & Huang, C. W. (2001). Benefits of opportunity to read and balanced instruction on the NAEP. The Journal of Educational Research, 94(3), 145-162.
25. Hale, A. D., Hawkins, R. O., Sheeley, W., Reynolds, J. R., Jenkins, S., Schmitt, A. J., & Martin, D. A. (2011). An investigation of silent versus aloud reading comprehension of elementary students using maze assessment procedures. Psychology in the Schools, 48(1), 4-13.
26. Hancock, M. R. (2008). A celebration of literature and response: Children, books, and teachers in K-8 classrooms (3rd ed.). Columbus, Ohio: Pearson-Merrill Prentice Hall.
27. Henk, W. A., & Melnick, S. A. (1995). The Reader Self-Perception Scale (RSPS): A new tool for measuring how children feel about themselves as readers. The Reading Teacher, 48(6), 470-482.
28. Henk, W. A., Marinak, B. A., & Melnick, S. A. (2012). Measuring the reader self‐perceptions of adolescents: Introducing the RSPS2. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(4), 311-320.
29. Hiebert, E. H., Wilson, K. M., & Trainin, G. (2011). Are students really reading in independent reading contexts? An examination of comprehension-based silent reading rate. In E. H. Hiebert & D. R. Reutzel (Eds.), Revisiting silent reading: New directions for teachers and researchers (pp. 151–167). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
30. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.
31. Hudson, R. F., Lane, H. B., & Pullen, P. C. (2005). Reading fluency assessment and instruction: What, why, and how? Reading Teacher, 58(8), 702-714.
32. Jenkins, J. R., Fuchs, L. S., Van Den Broek, P., Espin, C., & Deno, S. L. (2003). Sources of individual differences in reading comprehension and reading fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 719.
33. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Scientific Software International.
34. Karasar, N. (2011). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi (22. baskı). Ankara: Nobel.
35. Kim, Y.S.G. (2017) Why the simple view of reading ıs not simplistic: Unpacking component skills of reading using a direct and ındirect effect model of reading (DIER), Scientific Studies of Reading, 21(4), 310-333, 10.1080/10888438.2017.1291643
36. Kim, Y. S., Petscher, Y., & Foorman, B. (2015). The unique relation of silent reading fluency to end-of-year reading comprehension: understanding individual differences at the student, classroom, school, and district levels. Reading and Writing, 28(1), 131-150.
37. Kim, Y. S., Wagner, R. K., & Foster, E. (2011). Relations among oral reading fluency, silent reading fluency, and reading comprehension: A latent variable study of first-grade readers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15(4), 338-362.
38. Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 3–21. doi:10.1037/0022 0663.95.1.3
39. Kuhn, M. R., Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Meisinger, E. B., Levy, B. A., & Rasinski, T. V. (2010). Aligning theory and assessment of reading fluency: Automaticity, prosody, and definitions of fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(2), 230-251.
40. Lai, S. A., Benjamin, R. G., Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Kuhn, M. R. (2014). The longitudinal relationship between reading fluency and reading comprehension skills in second-grade children. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 30(2), 116-138.
41. Lee, J. S. (2014). The relationship between student engagement and academic performance: Is it a myth or reality? The Journal of Educational Research, 107(3), 177-185.
42. Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J. L., & Cammack, D. W. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other information and communication technologies. Theoretical models and processes of reading, 5(1), 1570-1613.
43. Lohfink, G. S. (2006). Responses to postmodern picture books: A case study of a fourth grade book club (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation) Kansas State University.
44. Long, T. W., & Gove, M. K. (2003). How engagement strategies and literature circles promote critical response in a fourth-grade, urban classroom. The Reading Teacher, 57(4), 350-361.
45. MEB, (2015). Türkçe dersi (1-8. Sınıflar) öğretim programı. Ankara: MEB.
46. Miller, J., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (2008). A longitudinal study of the development of reading prosody as a dimension of oral reading fluency in early elementary school children. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(4), 336-354.
47. Moutray, C. L., Pollard, J. A., & McGinley, J. (2001). Students explore text, themselves, and life through reader response. Middle School Journal, 32(5), 30-34.
48. National Reading Panel (NRP). (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based as¬sessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
49. Paige, D. D., Rasinski, T., Magpuri-Lavell, T., & Smith, G. S. (2014). Interpreting the relationships among prosody, automaticity, accuracy, and silent reading comprehension in secondary students. Journal of Literacy Research, 46(2), 123-156.
50. Pantaleo, S. (2007). Writing texts with Radical Change characteristics. Literacy, 41(1), 16-25.
51. Pantaleo, S. (2008). Ed Vere’ s The getaway: Starring a postmodern cheese thief. In L. Sipe & S. Pantaleo (Eds.), Postmodern picturebooks: Play, parody and self-referentiality (pp. 238 – 255). New York, NY: Routledge.
52. Pantaleo, S. (2014). The metafictive nature of postmodern picturebooks. The Reading Teacher, 67(5), 324-332.
53. Parker, R., Hasbrouck, J. E., & Tindal, G. (1992). The maze as a classroom-based reading measure: Construction methods, reliability, and validity. The Journal of Special Education, 26(2), 195-218.
54. Price, K. W., Meisinger, E. B., Louwerse, M. M., & D'Mello, S. K. (2012). Silent reading fluency using underlining: Evidence for an alternative method of assessment. Psychology in the Schools, 49(6), 606-618.
55. Primor, L., Pierce, M. E., & Katzir, T. (2011). Predicting reading comprehension of narrative and expository texts among Hebrew-speaking readers with and without a reading disability. Annals of Dyslexia, 61(2), 242-268.
56. Rankin, E. F., & Culhane, J. W. (1969). Comparable cloze and multiple-choice comprehension test scores. Journal of Reading, 13(3), 193-198.
57. Rasinski, T. V. (2003). The fluent reader: Oral reading strategies for building word recognition, fluency, and comprehension. NY: Scholastic.
58. Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2008). An introduction to applied multivariate analysis (1st Edition). NY: Taylor & Francis.
59. Rosenblatt, L. M. (1982). The literary transaction: Evocation and response. Theory into Practice, 21(4), 268-277.
60. Samuels, S. J., Hiebert, E. H., & Rasinski, T. V. (2010). Eye movements make reading possible. In E. H. Hiebert & D. R. Reutzel (Eds.), Revisiting silent reading: New directions for teachers and researchers (pp. 24–44). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
61. Schimmel, N., & Ness, M. (2017). The effects of oral and silent reading on reading comprehension. Reading Psychology, 38(4), 390-416.
62. Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2010). Structural equation modeling. NY. Routledge
63. Serafini, F. (2005). Voices in the park, voices in the classroom: Readers responding to postmodern picture books. Reading Research and Instruction, 44(3), 47 – 65.
64. Sipe, L. (2008). First graders interpret David Wiesner’s The three pigs: A case study. In L. Sipe & S. Pantaleo (Eds.), Postmodern picturebooks: Play, parody, and self-referentiality (pp. 223 – 237). NY: Routledge.
65. Sipe, L. R. (1999). Children's response to literature: Author, text, reader, context. Theory into Practice, 38(3), 120-129.
66. Sipe, L. R. (2000). The construction of literary understanding by first and second graders in oral response to picture storybook read‐alouds. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(2), 252-275.
67. Spiegel, D. L. (1998). Reader response approaches and the growth of readers. Language Arts, 76(1), 41-48.
68. Sümer, N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve örnek uygulamalar. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3(6), 49-74
69. Swaggerty, E. (2009). “That just really knocks me out”: Fourth grade students navigate postmodern picture books. Journal of Language and Literacy Education [Online], 5(1), 9-31.
70. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2012). Using multivariate statistics (6th edition). Pearson.
71. Tan, S. (2012). Kayıp şey. (S. Okan, Çev.). İstanbul: İthaki.
72. Taş, U. E., Arıcı, Ö., Ozarkan, H. B., ve Özgürlük, B. (2016). PISA 2015 ulusal raporu. Ankara: Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı.
73. Taylor, S. E., & Raisinski, T. (2011). Moving toward fluency in silent reading. In S. E. Taylor (Ed.). Exploring silent reading fluency: Its nature and development (pp. 107-142). Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.
74. Türkyılmaz, M., Can, R., Yıldırım, K., ve Ateş, S. (2014). Relations among oral reading fluency, silent reading fluency, retell fluency, and reading comprehension. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 4030-4034.
75. Ulusoy, M. (2016). Resimli çocuk kitapları ve okur-tepki teorisi. İlköğretim Online, 15(2), 487-497.
76. Unrau, N. J., & Quirk, M. (2014). Reading motivation and reading engagement: Clarifying commingled conceptions. Reading Psychology, 35(3), 260-284.
77. Van Allsburg, C. (2005). Kutup ekspresi. (O. M. Özkan, Çev.). İstanbul: Kapital.
78. Veenendaal, N. J., Groen, M. A., & Verhoeven, L. (2016). Bidirectional relations between text reading prosody and reading comprehension in the upper primary school grades: A longitudinal perspective. Scientific Studies of Reading, 20(3), 189-202.
79. Wigfield, A. & Guthrie, J.T. (1997). Relations of children’s motivation for reading to the amount and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 420-432.
80. Willson, A. M. (2013). Examining children's comprehension of conventional, wordless, and postmodern picturebooks. University of Texas, San Antonio.
81. Wilson, M. G., Chapman, J.W., and Tunmer, W.E. (1995). Early reading difficulties and reading self concept. Journal of Cognitive Education, 4, 33-45.
82. Wollman-Bonilla, J. E. and Werchadlo, B. (1995). Literature response journals ın a first grade classroom. Language Arts,72(8), 562-570.
83. Wu, S. (2014). Negotiation of narratives in postmodern picture book. Theory & Practice in Language Studies, 4(4), 806-811.
84. Yıldız, M. (2013). Okuma motivasyonu, akıcı okuma ve okuduğunu anlamanın beşinci sınıf öğrencilerinin akademik başarılarındaki rolü, Turkish Studies, 8(4), 1461-1478.
85. Yıldız, M., ve Bulut, A. (2016). Okur benlik algısı ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. International Journal of Eurasia Social Sciences, 7(22), 311-326.
86. Yıldız, M., Yıldırım, K., Ateş, S. ve Çetinkaya, Ç. (2009). Effect of prosodic reading on listening comprehension. World Applied Sciences Journal, 7, 744–747.
87. Yıldız, M., Yıldırım, K., Ateş, S., Rasinski, T., Fitzgerald, S., ve Zimmerman, B. (2014). The relationship between reading fluency and reading comprehension in fifth-grade Turkish students. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 2(1), 35-44.