Examining Difficulties of Students with Hearing Impairments in Reading Comprehension According to Teacher Opinions

Öz

The aim of this study is to examine the problems faced by hearing impaired students in their reading comprehension skills based on teachers’ opinions. In this study, which was carried out with the qualitative research method, the data were obtained from semi-structured interviews. The participants were 10 classroom teachers working at Ankara Kemal Yurtbilir Hearing Impaired Primary School, and the data were analyzed using the inductive method. A total of 7 themes were determined from the findings. According to the research findings, reading comprehension skill is considered as an extremely important skill by all participants in the participation of students in educational process, academic success and participation in social life. Teachers stated that hearing impaired students do not have sufficient vocabulary, and they are insufficient in their suffix knowledge and usage. In addition, the participants stated that hearing impaired students experienced problems especially in the comprehension dimension of reading. All the teachers interviewed stated that the training program used was not prepared for students with hearing impairment, and that they needed a separate curriculum fort the hearing impaired. Training well-equipped personnel and providing educational materials are among the other notable expectations and suggestions.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Reading
• Reading comprehension
• Individual with hearing impairment.

İşitme Engelli Öğrencilerin Okuduğunu Anlama Becerisinde Yaşadıkları Sorunların Öğretmen Görüşlerine Dayalı Olarak İncelenmesi

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı, işitme engeli bulunan öğrencilerin okuduğunu anlama becerisinde karşılaştıkları sorunların öğretmen görüşlerine dayalı olarak incelenmesidir. Nitel araştırma yöntemi ile yürütülen bu çalışmada veriler, yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmelerden elde edilmiştir. Katılımcılar Ankara Kemal Yurtbilir İşitme Engelliler İlkokulu’nda görev yapan 10 sınıf öğretmeni olup veriler tümevarım yöntemi kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Elde edilen bulgulardan toplam 7 adet tema belirlenmiştir. Elde edilen araştırma bulgularına göre okuduğunu anlama becerisi öğrencilerin eğitim öğretim süreçlerine katılımlarında, akademik başarılarında ve toplumsal hayata katılımlarında tüm katılımcılar tarafından son derece önemli bir beceri olarak düşünülmektedir. Öğretmenler işitme engelli öğrencilerin yeterli sözcük dağarcığına sahip olmadıklarını, ek bilgisinde ve kullanımında yetersiz olduklarını ifade etmişlerdir. Ayrıca katılımcılar işitme engelli öğrencilerin okumanın özellikle anlama boyutunda sorunlar yaşadıklarını belirtmişlerdir. Görüşme yapılan bütün öğretmenler kullanılan eğitim programının işitme engelli öğrenciler gözetilerek hazırlanmadığını, işitme engelliler için hazırlanacak ayrı bir eğitim programına gereksinim duyduklarını ifade etmişlerdir. Donanımlı personel yetiştirilmesi ve eğitim materyallerinin sağlanması ise dikkat çeken diğer beklenti ve önerilerdendir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Okuma
• Okuduğunu anlama
• İşitme engelli birey

Kaynakça

1. Allen, T. E. (1986). Patterns of academic achievement among hearing impaired students: 1974 and 1983. In A. N. Schildroth, & M. A. Karchmer (Eds.), Deaf children in America. College-Hill.
2. Allington, R. L., & Cunningham, P. M. (2007). Schools that work. Where all children read and write (2nd e Ed.).
3. Amadieu, F., Tricot, A., & Mariné, C. (2010). Interaction between prior knowledge and concept-map structure on hypertext comprehension, coherence of reading orders and disorientation. Interacting with Computers, 22(2), 88–97.
4. Batu, E. S. (2000). Kaynaştırma, destek hizmetler ve kaynaştırmaya hazırlık etkinlikleri. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi, 2(04).
5. Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K.(1992). Qualitative research for education (2nd Ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
6. Center for Assessment and Demographic Studies. (1993). Data from the 1992-93 annual survey of hearing impaired children and youth. Gallaudet University.
7. Chamberlain, C., & Mayberry, R. I. (2000). Theorizing about the relation between ASL and reading. In C. Chamberlain, J. P. Morford, & R. I. Mayberry (Eds.), Language acquisition by eye. Erlbaum. Conrad, R. (1979). The deaf school child. Harper & Row.
8. Cunningham, P. M., & Allington, R. L. (2007). Classrooms that work: They can all read and write (4th Ed.).Allyn and Bacon.

9. Deal, R. E., & Thornton, R. B. (1985). An explanatory investigation of the comprehension of English through Sign English (Siglish) and Seeing Essential English (SEE-sub-1). Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 16, 267–279.
10. Dyer, A., MacSweeney, M., Szczerbinski, M., & Campbell, R. (2003). Predictors of reading delay in deaf adolescents: The relative contributions of rapid automatized naming speed and phonemic awareness and decoding. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 8, 215–229
11. Fisher, D.; Sax, C.; Rodifer, K. Ve Pumpian, I. (1999). Teachers’ perspectives of curriculum and climate changes: benefits of inclusive education. Jorurnal for a Just & Caring Education, 5 (3), 256–263.
12. Fisher, D.; Sax, C.; Rodifer, K. Ve Pumpian, I. (1999). Teachers’ perspectives of curriculum and climate changes: benefits of inclusive education. Journal for a Just & Caring Education, 5 (3), 256–263.
13. Frankel, R. M., & Devers, K. J. (2000). Study design in qualitative research--1: Developing questions and assessing resource needs. Education for health, 13(2), 251.
14. Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (1998). Real world use of scientific concepts: Integrating situated cognition with explicit instruction. Exceptional Children, 65(1), 23–35.
15. Girgin, C. (1997). Türkçe konuşan doğal işitsel sözel yöntemle eğitim gören işitme engelli kız çocukların konuşma anlaşılırlığı ile süre ve perde özellikleri ilişkisi [Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi]. Anadolu Üniversitesi.
16. Girgin, Ü. (1987). Doğal-işitsel-sözel yöntemle eğitim gören işitme engelli çocuklarda okuma-anlama davranışlarının incelenmesi [Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi]. Anadolu Üniversitesi.
17. Goodman A. (1965). Reference zero levelsfor puretone audiometers. ASHA, 7,262-3.
18. Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10.
19. Güldenoğlu, B. (2012). İşiten ve işitme engelli okuyucuların sözcük işlemleme ve okuduğunu anlama becerilerinin karşılaştırmalı olarak incelenmesi [Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi]. Ankara Üniversitesi.
20. Güldenoğlu, B., Kargın, T., Miller, P. (2012). İyi ve zayıf okuyucuların sözcük işlemleme ve okuduğunu anlama becerilerinin karşılaştırmalı olarak incelenmesi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, Güz, 2807–2828.
21. Gürgür, H. (2001). İşitme engelliler ilköğretim okulunda (I. kademede) uygulanan eğitim programına ilişkin öğretmen görüşleri [Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi]. Ankara Üniversitesi.
22. Güzel Özmen, R. (1998). Alt özel sınıflardaki öğrencilerin sesli okudukları öyküyü anlama becerilerini kazanmalarında doğrudan öğretim yöntemiyle sunulan bireyselleştirilmiş okuduğunu anlama materyalinin etkililiği [Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi] Gazi Üniversitesia.
23. Hall, J. W., & Mueller, H. G. (1997). Audiology desk reference. Singular Pub. Groups.
24. Harris, M. & Beech, J. R. (1995). Reading development in prelingually deaf children. In K. E. Nelson, & Z. Reger (Eds.), Children’s language (Vol. 8, pp. 181-202). Erlbaum.
25. Hiebert, P. G. (2009). The gospel in human contexts: Anthropological explorations for contemporary missions. Baker Academic.
26. Holt, J. A. (1993). Stanford Achievement Test – 8th edition: Reading comprehension subgroup results. American Annals of the Deaf, 138, 172-175.
27. Isaacson, S. (1996). Simple ways to assess deaf or hard of hearing student’s writing skills. Volta Review, 98(1), 183-199.
28. Jackson, D. W., Paul, P. V., & Smith, J. C. (1997). Prior knowledge and reading comprehension ability of deaf adolescents. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education,2, 172-184.
29. Kargın, T. (2004). Kaynaştırma: Tanımı, gelişimi ve ilkeleri. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi, 5(2), 1-13.
30. Kargın, T., Guldenoglu, I. B., Miller, P., Hauser, P., Rathmann, C., Kubus, O., & Superegon, E. (2011). Differences in word processing skills of deaf and hearing individuals reading in different orthographies. Journal of Development and Physical Disabilities.
31. Kendeou, P., & Van Den Broek, P. (2007). The effects of prior knowledge and text structure on comprehension processes during reading of scientific texts. Memory & cognition, 35(7), 1567-1577.
32. Kluwin, T. N., & Moores, D. F. (1985). The effects of integration on the mathematics achievement of hearing impaired adolescents. Exceptional children, 52(2), 153-160.
33. Kvale, S. (1996). The 1,000-page question. Qualitative inquiry, 2(3), 275-284.
34. Lytle, R. R., & Rovins, M. R. (1997). Reforming deaf education: A paradigm shift from how to teach to what to teach. American Annals of the Deaf, 7–15.
35. Marschark, M., & Harris, M. (2013). Success and failure in learning to read: The special case (?) of deaf children. In Reading comprehension difficulties (pp. 279-300). Routledge.
36. McGarvey, B., Morgan, V., Marriott, S., & Abbott, L. (1996). Differentiation and its problems: The views of primary teachers and curriculum support staff in Northern Ireland. Educational Studies, 22(1), 69-82.
37. McQuarrie, L., & Parrila, R. (2009). Phonological representations in deaf children: Rethinking the “functional equivalence” hypothesis. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 1, 137–154.
38. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2006). Özel eğitim hizmetleri yönetmeliği. TC Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı, Tebliğler Dergisi, 63(2509), 1–37.
39. Miller, P. (1997). The effect of communication mode on the development of phonemic awareness in prelingually deaf students. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 40, 1151–1163.
40. Miller, P. (2000). Syntactic and semantic processing in deaf and hearing readers. American Annals of the Deaf, 145, 436–448.
41. Miller, P. (2001). Communication mode and the information processing capacity of Hebrew readers with prelingually acquired deafness. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 13, 83–96.
42. Miller, P. (2002a). Another look at the STM capacity of prelingually deafened individuals and its relation to reading comprehension. American Annals of the Deaf, 147, 56–70.
43. Miller, P. (2004a). The importance of vowel diacritics for reading in Hebrew: What can be learned from readers with prelingual deafness? Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 17, 593–615.
44. Miller, P. (2005a). Changes in the processing of letters, written words, and pseudo-homophones: A comparison of fifth graders and university students. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 164, 407–434.
45. Miller, P. (2006a). What the processing of real words and pseudo-homophones tell about the development of orthographic knowledge in prelingually deafened individuals. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 11, 21–38.
46. Miller, P. (2006b). What the visual word recognition skills of prelingually deafened readers tell about their reading comprehension problems. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 18, 91–121.
47. Miller, P. (2009). The nature and efficiency of the word reading strategies of prelingually deafened, orally raised students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 14, 344–361.
48. Miller, P. (2010a). Phonological, orthographic, and syntactic awareness and their relation to reading comprehension in prelingually deaf individuals: What can we learn from skilled readers? Journal of Development and Physical Disabilities, 22, 549–561.
49. Moates, L. C. (2000). Speech top rint: Language essentials for teachers. Brookes.
50. Nielsen, D. C., & Leutke-Stahlman, B. (2002). Phonological awareness: One key to the reading proficiency of deaf children. American Annals of the Deaf, 147, 11–19.
51. Padden, C., & Hanson, V. L. (2000). Search for the missing link: The development of skilled reading in deaf children. In K. Emmorey, & H. Lane (Eds.), The signs of language revisited (pp. 435–447). Erlbaum.
52. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. SAGE Publications Inc.
53. Perfetti, C. A., & Sandak, R. (2000). Reading optimally builds on spoken language: Implications for deaf readers. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5, 32–50.
54. Pfeiffer, H. (1997). Warum wir uns für die gebeardensprache entscheiden haben. Das Zeichen, 11(41), 391–395.
55. Picard, C. J. (2001). Handbook for personel serving students who are deaf or hard hearing. Louisiana Department of Education. www.doe.state.la.us\lde\uploads\965.pdf
56. Pressley, M. (1992). What do children know about minds?. PsycCRITIQUES, 37(5).
57. Roberts, A. J. (2000). Factors influencing behavioural problems in preschool deaf children. Academic Press.
58. Sarıkaya, E. (2011). İşitme engelli çocukların öğretmenlerinin işitme engelli çocukların okuma yazma öğrenmelerine ilişkin görüş ve önerileri [Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi]. Anadolu Üniversitesi.
59. Schirmer, B. R. (2000). Psychological, social and educational dimensions of deafness. Allyn and Bacon.
60. Sterne, A., & Goswami, U. (2000). Phonological awareness of syllables, rhymes, and phonemes in deaf children. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 41(5), 609–625.
61. Stratkötter, A. (2000, June). Die" Forschungsstelle Qualitative Methoden" an der Heinrich Heine-Universität Düsseldorf: Ansätze zu einer sozialwissenschaftlich angeregten Psychotherapieforschung. In Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung (Online-Journal) (Vol. 1, No. 2).
62. Tarchi, C. (2010). Reading comprehension of informative texts in secondary school: A focus on direct and indirect effects of reader's prior knowledge. Learning and Individual differences, 20(5), 415–420.
63. Tassel-Baska, J., Leonhard, P., Glenn, C., Poland, D, Brown, E., & Johnson, D. (1999). Curriculum review as catalyst for gifted education reform at the secondary level. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 10 (4), 473–481.
64. Transler, C., & Reitsma, P. (2005). Phonological coding in reading of deaf children: Pseudohomophone effects in lexical decision. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 23(4), 525–542.
65. Traxler, C. (2000). The Stanford Achievement Test (9th ed.): National norming and performance standards for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Journal of Deaf Study and Deaf Education, 5, 337–345.
66. Tunmer, W. E. (2008). Recent developments in reading intervention research: Introduction to the special issue. Reading and Writing, 21(4), 299–316.
67. Tüfekçioğlu, U. (1992). Kaynaştırmadaki işitme engelli çocuklar: Eskişehir ilindeki normal okullarda eğitim gören işitme engelli öğrencilerin durumu. Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayınları.
68. Tüfekçioğlu, U. (2007). Çocuklarda işitme kaybının etkileri. U. Tüfekçioğlu (Ed.), İşitme, konuşma ve görme sorunu olan çocukların eğitimi içinde (ss. 1–45). Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayınları.
69. Türnüklü, A. (2000). Eğitimbilim araştırmalarında etkin olarak kullanılabilecek nitel bir araştırma tekniği: Görüşme. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 24(24), 543–559.
70. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin Yayınları.
71. Yurkowski, P., & Ewoldt, C. (1986). A case for the semantic processing of the deareader. American Annals of the Deaf, 131, 243–247.