The Role of Word Decoding Speed and Accuracy on Reading Comprehension in a Highly Transparent and Morphologically Complex Orthography

Abstract

This research aimed to investigate the impact of word decoding speed and accuracy on reading comprehension in Turkish, which is characterized by a highly transparent and morphologically complex orthographic system. The study involved 160 students, half of whom were identified as poor readers, while the other half were classified as good readers. These participants were selected from the second and fourth grades of public elementary schools. The assessment process involved evaluating participants' isolated word decoding skills using a task that measured their ability to decode both real words and pseudowords. Additionally, reading fluency and comprehension were measured using grade-level appropriate reading texts. The analysis included a series of MANOVAs as well as a mediation model (Model 7) employing Haye's PROCESS macro for SPSS. The findings indicated that the poor readers' limited reading comprehension abilities were primarily attributed to their overall deficiency in word decoding fluency, with a particular emphasis on their inadequate phonological decoding skills. These results are significant as they shed light on the challenges that children with reading comprehension difficulties may face in transparent orthographic systems. The attainment of proficient reading comprehension in such languages appears to be influenced by the specific aspects of word decoding fluency.

Keywords

• word decoding
• reading fluency
• reading comprehension
• mediation model.
• orthography

Kaynakça

1. Alatlı, R., Güldenoğlu, B. & Kargın, T. (2022). Examination of the reading comprehension skills of good and poor readers in the dimension of reading components developed by a reading skills assessment tool. Education and Science, 47 (211), 273-295.
2. Álvarez Cañizo, M., Cueva, E., Cuetos Vega, F., & Suárez Coalla, M. P. (2020). Reading fluency and reading comprehension in Spanish secondary students. Psicothema, 32(1), 75–83.
3. Arabacı, G. (2022). Öğrenme Güçlüğü Olan ve Olmayan Öğrencilerde Akıcı Okuma ve Okuduğunu Anlama Becerileri Arasındaki İlişkinin İncelenmesi. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi, 23(2), 365-388. https://doi.org/10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.700711
4. Aytaç, A. (2017). Prozodi ile okuduğunu anlama arasındaki ilişki. Ana Dili Eğitimi Dergisi, 5(2), 102-113. https://doi.org/10.16916/aded.286282
5. Babayigit, S., & Stainthorp, R. (2010). Component processes of early reading, spelling, and narrative writing skills in Turkish: A longitudinal study. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23(5), 539–568. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9173-y
6. Babayiğit, S., & Stainthorp, R. (2011). Modeling the relationships between cognitivelinguistic skills and literacy skills: New insights from a transparent orthography. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 169–189. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021671
7. Baştuğ, M., & Keskin, H. K. (2012). Akici okuma becerileri ile anlama düzeyleri basit ve çikarimsal arasindaki ilişki. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(3), 227-244.
8. Coltheart, M. (2005). Modeling reading: The dual-route Approach. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 6–23). Blackwell Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470757642.ch1

9. Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., & Ziegler, J. (2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108(1), 204–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.1.204
10. Cutting, L. E., & Scarborough, H. S. (2006). Prediction of reading comprehension: Relative contributions of word recognition, language proficiency, and other cognitive skills can depend on how comprehension is measured. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(3), 277 299.
11. Day, R. R., & Park, J. S. (2005). Developing reading comprehension questions. Reading in a foreing language, 17(1), 60-73.
12. Durgunoğlu, A. Y. (2006). Learning to read in Turkish. Developmental Science, 9(5), 437–439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2006.00522.x
13. Durgunoğlu, A. Y., & Öney, B. (2002). Phonological awareness in literacy acquisition: It's not only for children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6(3), 245–266. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532799XSSR0603_3
14. Durgunoğlu, A. Y., & Öney, B. (1999). A cross-linguistic comparison of phonological awareness and word recognition. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 11(4), 281–299. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008093232622
15. Fernandes, S., Querido, L., Verhaeghe, A., Marques, C., & Araújo, L. (2017). Reading development in European Portuguese: Relationships between oral reading fluency, vocabulary and reading comprehension. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 30(9), 1987–2007. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9763-z
16. Frost, R. (1998). Toward a strong phonological theory of visual word recognition: True issues and false trials. Psychological Bulletin, 123(1), 71-99.
17. Frost, R. (2006). Becoming literate in Hebrew: The grain-size hypothesis and semitic orthographic systems. Developmental Science, 9(5), 439-440.
18. 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.
19. García, J. R., & Cain, K. (2014). Decoding and reading comprehension: A meta-analysis to identify which reader and assessment characteristics influence the strength of the relationship in English. Review of Educational Research, 84(1), 74–111. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313499616
20. Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6-10.
21. Goswami, U., & Ziegler, J. C. (2006). Fluency, phonology and morphology: A response to the commentaries on becoming literate in different languages. Developmental Science, 9(5), 451–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2006.00511.x
22. Güldenoğlu, B., Kargin, T., & Miller, P. (2012). İyi ve zayıf okuyucuların kelime işlemleme ve okuduğunu anlama becerilerinin karşılaştırılmalı olarak incelenmesi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri (KUYEB), 12(4), 2807-2828. Karasar, N. (2006). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemi.Ankara: Nobel Yayınevi.
23. Kargın, T., Güldenoğlu, B., & Alatlı, R. (2023). Okuma Güçlüğü Olan ve Olmayan Okuyucuların Okuma Performanslarının Okumanın Bileşenleri Açısından Gelişimsel Olarak İncelenmesi. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 24(1), 68-105. https://doi.org/10.29299/kefad.1177181
24. Keskin, H., Baştuğ, M., & Akyol, H. (2013). Sesli Okuma ve Konuşma Prozodisi: İlişkisel Bir Çalışma. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(2), 168-180. https://doi.org/10.17860/efd.92252
25. Kim, Y.S., Park, C., & Wagner, R.K. (2014). Is oral/text reading fluency a “bridge” to reading comprehension? Reading and Writing, 27(1), 79–99. https://doi:10.1007/s11145-013-9434-7
26. Kim, Y.-S., Petscher, Y., Foorman, B. R., & Zhou, C. (2010). The contributions of phonological awareness and letter-name knowledge to letter-sound acquisition—a cross-classified multilevel model approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 313–326.
27. Kuhn, M. R., Schwanenflugel, P. J., Meisinger, E. B., & Levy, B. A., & Rasinski, T. V. (Eds.). (2010). Aligning theory and assessment of reading fluency: Automaticity, prosody, and definitions of fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(2), 230–251. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.2.4
28. Lonigan, C. J., Burgess, S. R., & Schatschneider, C. (2018). Examining the simple view of reading with elementary school children: Still simple after all these years. Remedial and Special Education, 39(5), 260–273.
29. Oney, B., & Durgunoğlu, A. Y. (1997). Beginning to read in Turkish: A phonologically transparent orthography. Applied Psycholinguistics, 18(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/S014271640000984X
30. Oney, B., & Goldman, S. R. (1984). Decoding and comprehension skills in Turkish and English: Effects of the regularity of grapheme-phoneme correspondences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 557–568. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.76.4.557
31. 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.
32. Raman, I. (2006). On the age-of-acquisition effects in word naming and orthographic transparency: Mapping specific or universal? Visual Cognition, 13(7-8), 1044–1053. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280500153200
33. Ramus, F., Pidgeon, E. & Frith, U. (2003). The relationship between motor control and phonology in dyslexic children. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 44(5), 712-722.
34. Roembke, T., Hazeltine, E., Reed, K. D. & McMurray, B. (2019). Automaticity of word recognition is a unique predictor of reading fluency in middle-school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(2), 314.
35. Seymour, P. H. K., Aro, M., & Erskine, J. M. (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 143-174. https://doi:10.1348/000712603321661859
36. Share, D. L. (2011). On the role of phonology in reading acquisition: The self-teaching hypothesis. In S. A. Brady, D. Braze, & C. A. Fowler (Eds.), Explaining individual differences in reading: Theory and evidence (pp. 45–68). Psychology Press.
37. Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2005). Dyslexia (specific reading disability). Biological Psychiatry, 57, 1301-1309. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.01.043
38. Spear-Swerling, L. (2006). Children's reading comprehension and oral reading fluency in easy text. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 19(2), 199–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-005-4114-x
39. Steensel, R., Oostdam, R., Gelderen, V. A., & Schooten ,V. A. (2016). The role of word decoding, vocabulary knowledge and metacognitive knowledge in monolingual and bilingual low achieving adolescents’ reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 39(3), 312 329.
40. Stevens, E. A., Walker, M. A., & Vaughn, S. (2017). The effects of reading fluency interventions on the reading fluency and reading comprehension performance of elementary students with learning disabilities: A synthesis of the research from 2001 to 2014. Journal of learning disabilities, 50(5), 576–590. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219416638028
41. Tunmer, W. E. (2008). Recent developments in reading intervention research: Introduction to the special issue. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21(4), 299–316.
42. Tunmer, W. E., & Chapman, J. W. (2012). Does set for variability mediate the influence of vocabulary knowledge on the development of word recognition skills? Scientific Studies of Reading, 16(2), 122–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2010.542527
43. Tunmer, W., & Greaney, K. (2010). Defining dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(3), 229–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219409345009
44. Tunmer, W. E., & Hoover, W. A. (2019). The cognitive foundations of learning to read: a framework for preventing and remediating reading difficulties. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 1–19. https://doi:10.1080/19404158.2019.16140
45. Turna, C. & Guldenoglu, B. (2019). Investigation of the relationship between phonological decoding and word reading speed and accuracy in developmental perspective. Education & Science, 44 (198), 413-433. https://doi:10.15390/EB.2019.7891
46. Vaknin-Nusbaum, V., Nevo, E., Brande, S., & Gambrell, L. (2019). Reading and writing motivation of third to sixth graders. Reading Psychology, 41(1), 44–70. https://doi:10.1080/02702711.2019.1674435
47. Walliman, N. (2017). Research methods: The basics. New York: Routledge.
48. Wolf, M., & Katzir-Cohen, T. (2001). Reading fluency and its intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 211–239. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532799XSSR0503_2
49. Yıldırım A, Şimşek H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. (9. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
50. Ziegler, J. C., Bertrand, D., Tóth, D., Csépe, V., Reis, A., Faísca, L., Saine, N., Lyytinen, H., Vaessen, A., & Blomert, L. (2010). Orthographic depth and its impact on universal predictors of reading: A cross-language investigation. Psychological Science, 21(4), 551–559. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610363406
51. Ziegler, J. C., & Goswami, U. (2005). Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: A psycholinguistic grain size theory. Psychological Bulletin, 131(1), 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.3