-

Öz

Students, starting with the secondary school, are exposed to more learning materials as a necessity of school syllabus. Learning in the scholl process is mostly based upon texts and reading skills. Native language classes at each stage of schooling aim students to gain reading skills, reading habit and a taste for reading. These classes also prepare students for being qualified comprehenders in terms of learning, coping with examinations and studying effectively in their long school life. The purpose of this study was to develop a measuring scale to determine the students? metacognitive levels related to their planning, arranging and assessing of reading needed to comprehend, to criticise and evaluate in reading an academic text. Firstly, reading strategies that students might use in their reading comprehension were determined by making use of sources and experts? views related to the subject, then these strategies was converted to Likert type scale. After a test application, items which didn?t work up regularly were corrected. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted in order to determine the validity and reliability of the scale over the data obtained from 381 secondary school, 466 high school and 491 university students. A three dimensional measuring scale for students and teachers of 32 items totally - 9 items for planning reading, 14 for arranging reading and 9 for evaluating reading- was prepared.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Reading Strategies; Reading Comprehension; Metacognition; Rubric

Okuma Stratejileri Bilişsel Farkındalik Ölçeği

Öz

Glköğretimin ikinci kademesinden itibaren öğrenciler, öğretim programlarının bir gereği olarak daha fazla öğrenme materyali ile karGılaGırlar. Okul dönemi öğrenmeleri daha çok metinlere ve okuma becerisine dayanır. Öğretim sürecinin her aGamasında yer alan ana dili dersleri, öğrencilerin okuma becerisi, beğenisi ve alıGkanlığı edinmelerini amaçlar. Ayrıca, eğitim yaGamlarında bilinçli bir çaba gerektiren öğrenme, sınavlarla baG etme, verimli ders çalıGma gibi konularda donanımlı kavrayıcılar olarak yetiGmelerini sağlar. Bu çalıGmada, öğrencilerin akademik okumalarında herhangi bir metni kavramak, eleGtirmek ve değerlendirmek için gerekli olan okuma sürecini planlama, düzenleme ve değerlendirme ile ilgili biliGsel farkındalık düzeylerini belirleyen bir ölçme aracı geliGtirilmiGtir. Konuyla ilgili kaynaklar ve uzman görüGlerinden yararlanılarak öğrencilerin okuduğunu kavrama sürecinde kullanabilecekleri okuma stratejileri belirlenmiG, sonra bu stratejiler Likert tipi bir ölçeğe dönüGtürülmüGtür. Ön uygulama yapıldıktan sonra ölçeğin çalıGmayan maddeleri düzeltilmiG, geçerlik ve güvenirliğini tespit etmek için ilköğretimde 381, orta öğretimde 466 ve üniversite 491öğrenciden elde edilen veriler üzerinde doğrulayıcı faktör analizi yapılmıGtır. Öğrenci ve öğretmenlere üç boyutlu – okumayı planlama 9, düzenleme 14 ve değerlendirme 9 olmak üzere toplam 32 maddelik - bir ölçme ve değerlendirme aracı sunulmuGtur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Okuma Stratejileri; Okuduğunu Kavrama; BiliGsel Farkındalık; Ölçek.

Kaynakça

1. Alexander, Patricia. A., and Jetton, Tamara. L. (2000). “Learning From Text: A Multidimensional and Developmental Perspective”. In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, and R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (3): 285–310. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
2. Baker, Linda and Brown, Ann L. (1984). “Metacognitive Skills and Reading”. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, and P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (2): 353– 394. White Plains, NY: Longman.
3. Bloom, Benjamin (1979). İnsan Nitelikleri ve Okulda Öğrenme, (Haz. Durmuş Ali Özçelik). İstanbul: Millî Eğitim Basımevi.
4. Brown, Ann L.; Armbruster, Bonnie B., and Baker, Linda (1986). “The role of metacognition in reading and studying”. In J. Orasanu (Ed.), Reading comprehension: From research to practice: (49–75). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
5. Brown, Timothy A. (2006). Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. New York: The Guilford Press.
6. Büyüköztürk, Şener (2007). Sosyal Bilimler için Veri Analizi El Kitabı. İstatistiki Araştırma Deseni SPSS Uygulamaları ve Yorum. (8. Baskı), Ankara: PegemA Yayıncılık.
7. Clark, Lee Anna ve David Watson (1995). “Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development”. Psychological Assessment, 7(3): 309-319.
8. Diken, R.Bahar (1993). A Case Study of Six EFL Freshman Readers:Owerview of Metacognitive Ability in Reading,Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Ankara: Bilkent University, The Institute of Economics and Social Sciences.

9. Field, Andy (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS. (2. Baskı). London: Sage Publications Ltd.
10. Flavell, John H. (1979). “Metacognition and Cognitive Monitoring: A New Area of Cognitive– Developmental Inquiry”. American Psychologist, (34): 906–911.
11. Garner, Ruth (1988). Metacognition and Reading Comprehension (2nd.ed). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
12. Garner, Ruth (1994). “Metacognition and executive control”. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, and H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (4th ed.). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
13. Garner, Ruth, and Reis, Ron (1981). “Monitoring and Resolving Comprehension Obstacles: An Investigation of Spontaneous Lookbacks Among Uppergrade Good and Poor Comprehenders”. Reading Research Quarterly, (16): 569–582.
14. Gelen, İsmail (2003). Bilişsel Farkındalık Stratejilerinin Türkçe Dersine İlişkin Tutum, Okuduğunu Anlama ve Kalıcılığa Etkisi. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Adana: Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
15. Göğüş, Beşir (1978). Orta Dereceli Okullarımızda Türkçe ve Yazın Eğitimi. Ankara: Kadıoğlu Matbaası.
16. Güral, Melike Melek (2000). The Role of Teaching Cognitive and Metacognitive Strategies in Developing Reading Comprehension Skills of Foreign Language Larners Unpublished M. A. Thesis, Ankara: Hacettepe University, The Institute of Social Sciences.
17. Harrington, Donna (2009). Confirmatory Factor Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
18. Jacobs, Janis E., and Paris, Scott G. (1987). “Children‟s Metacognition About Reading: Issues in Definition, Measurement, and Instruction”. Educational Psychologist, (22): 255–278.
19. Joseph, Nancy (2003). “Metacognition in the Classroom: Examining Theory and Practice”, Pedagogy, (3), (1):109-113.
20. Jöreskog, Karl ve Dag Sörbom. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command Language. Illinios: Scientific Sotware International Inc.
21. Karatay, Halit (2007). İlköğretim Türkçe Öğretmeni Adaylarının Okuduğunu Anlama Becerileri Üzerine Alan Araştırması. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Ankara: Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
22. Kıroğlu, M.Kasım (2002). Anlamlı Gruplandırma Stratejisinin Okuduğunu Anlamaya Etkisi, Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
23. Kline, Rex B. (2005). Principles and practice of Structural Equations Modeling. New York: Guilford.
24. Mannning, Brenda H. ve Payne, Beverly D. (1996). Self-talk for Teacher and Student: Metacognition Strategies for Personal and Classroom Use, USA: Allyn and Bacon Pub.
25. Markman, Ellen M. (1979). “Realizing That You Don‟t Understand: Elementary School Children‟s Awareness of Inconsistencies”. Child Development, (50): 634–655.
26. McLain, K. Victoria Mayer; Gridley, Betty E., and McIntosh, David (1991). “Value of a Scale Used to Measure Metacognitive Reading Processes”. Journal of Educational Research, (85): 81–87.
27. Meyers, Lawrence S., Glenn C. Gamst ve Anthony J. Guarino (2006). Applied Multivariate Research. Design and Interpretation. California: Sage Publication inc.
28. Miholic, Vincent (1994). “An Inventory to Pique Students‟ Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies”. Journal of Reading, (38): 84–86.
29. Mokhtari, Kouider, and Reichard, Carla. A. (2002). “Assessing Students‟ Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies”. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94 (2): 249-259. American Psychological Association, Inc.
30. Noar, Seth M. (2003). “The role of structural equation modeling in scale development. Structural Equation Modeling”. A Multidisciplinary Journal, 10 (4): 622-647.
31. Oxford, Rebecca (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
32. Palincsar, Annemaria Sullivan ve Klenk, Laura (1992). “Fosterring Literacy Learning in Supportive Contexts”. Journal of Learning Disabilities (25), (4): 211-225.
33. Paris, Scott G., and Jacobs, Janis E. (1984). “The Benefits of Informed Instruction for Children‟s Reading Awareness and Comprehension Skills”. Child Development, (55): 2083–2093.
34. Paris, Scott G., and Winograd, Peter (1990). “How Metacognition Can Promote Academic Learning and Instruction”. In B. F. Jones and L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of Thinking and Cognitive Instruction (15-51). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
35. Paris, Scott G.; Lipson, Marjorie Y., and Wixon, Karen K. (1994). “Becoming a Strategic Reader”. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, and H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and Processes of Reading (4th ed.) Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
36. Pereira-Laird, Joyce A., and Deane, Frank P. (1997). “Development and Validation of a Self- report Measure of Reading Strategy Use”. Reading Psychology: An International Journal, (18): 185–235.
37. Pressley, Michael (2000). “What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of?” In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. Pearson, and R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, (3): 545–561.
38. Pressley, Michael, and Afflerbach, Peter (1995). Verbal Protocols of Reading: The Nature of Constructively Responsive Reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
39. Raines-Eudy, Ruth (2000). “Using structural equation modeling to test for differential realibility and validity: An empirical demonstration”. Structural Equation Modeling, 7(1):, 124-141.
40. Raykov, Tenko ve George A. Marcoulides (2006). A first course in structural equation modeling. (2. Baskı). New Jersey: Lawrance Erlbaum Ass.
41. Romainville, Marc (1994). “Awareness of cognitive strategies: the relationship between university students‟ metacognition and their performance”. Studies in Higher Education, (19), (3): 359-367.
42. Schmitt, Maribeth Cassidy (1990). “A Questionnaire to Measure Children‟s Awareness of Strategic Reading Processes”. The Reading Teacher, (43): 454–461.
43. Schumacker, Randall E., ve Richard G. Lomax (2004). A Beginner's Guide to Structural Equation Modeling. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass.
44. Snow, Catherine E.; Burns, M. Susan, and Griffin, Peg (1998). Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
45. Tabachnick, Barbara G. ve Linda S. Fidell. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics. (5. baskı). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
46. Tunçman, Nurcan (1994), Effects of Training Preparatory School of Efl Students at Middle East Technical University in A Metacognitive Strategy for Reading Academic Texts, Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Ankara: Bilkent University, The Institute of Humanities and Letters,
47. Türkçe Sözlük (1998). Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları.
48. Türkçe Sözlük. (1995). Ankara: MEB. Yayınları.
49. Vaidya, Sheila R. (1999). “Metacognitive Learning Strategies for Students With Learning Disabilities”. Education, (120), (1):186-190.
50. Wade, Suzanne W.; Trathen, Woodrow., and Schraw, Gregory. (1990). “An Analysis of Spontaneous Study Strategies”. Reading Research Quarterly, (25): 147–166.
51. Wagner, Richard K., ve Sternberg, Robert J. (1987). “Executive Control in Reading Comprehension”. In B. K. Britton & S. M. Glyn (Eds.), Executive Control Processes In Reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1–21.
52. Worthington, Roger L. ve Tiffany A. Whittaker (2006). “Scale development research: A content Analysis and recommendations for best practices”. The Counseling Psychologist, 34: 806-838.