-

Öz

The study aimed to determine fifth grade elementary school students` skills of finding main idea from an expository text and opinions about main idea. With the questionnaire form, the students` opinions about relations between main idea and topic of text, concept of main idea, main idea and strategies, and main idea and monitoring whether or not it is correct was obtained. Additionally, the expository text was given to the students and asked them to find out main idea from the text. The study results showed that the students had a variety of views concerning concept of main idea, they were not exactly aware of difference between text topic and main idea, they believed that repeated readings are the best way to find out main idea from text and check whether or not it is correct. Also, they stated that the problem about finding main idea is caused by text readability and difficulty of comprehending text. The other important finding of the study revealed that the students in the research could not succeed in finding main idea from the text given

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Reading, comprehension, main idea

Anlam Kurmanın Zor ve Önemli Bir Becerisi: Ana Fikir

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı ilköğretim beşinci sınıf öğrencilerinin ana fikir bulma becerilerini incelemektir. Bu bağlamda öncelikle ana fikir bulma becerisiyle ilgili olarak ana fikir, ana fikir-konu, ana fikir-yardımcı stratejiler ve ana fikir-ulaşılan fikrin doğruluğunun gözden geçirilmesi konularına ilişkin katılımcıların görüşleri alınmıştır. Ayrıca çalışma grubuna bir bilgi verici metin verilerek ana fikrini belirlemeleri istenmiştir. Sonuçta katılımcıların ana fikir kavramına ilişkin farklı düşüncelere sahip oldukları, ana fikir ve konu arasında tam olarak ayrım yapamadıkları, metnin tekrar tekrar okunmasının ana fikrin belirlenmesi ve doğruluğunun kontrolünde temel uygulama olduğu, ana fikrin belirlenmesinde yaşanan güçlüklerin ise çoğunlukla metnin anlaşılamamasından kaynaklandığı ve öğrencilerin ana fikri belirlemede büyük ölçüde başarısız oldukları görülmüştür.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Okuma, anlama, ana fikir

Kaynakça

1. Akyol, H. (2011). Yeni programa uygun Türkçe öğretim yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
2. Akyol, H. (2009). Türkçe ilk okuma yazma öğretimi. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
3. Akyol, H., Ateş, S., & Yıldırım, K. (2008, Mayıs). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin
4. kullandıkları okuma stratejileri ve bu stratejileri tercih nedenleri. Bu
5. bilimsel çalışma VII. Ulusal Sınıf Öğretmenliği Eğitimi Sempozyumu’nda
6. sunulmuştur, Çanakkale.
7. Anderson, D. (2006). In or out: Surprises in reading comprehension instruction.
8. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41, 175-179.

9. Anderson, P. L., Hoffman, J. V., & Duffy, G. G. (2000). Teaching teachers to teach
10. reading: paradigm shifts, persistent problems, and challenges. In M. L.
11. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, and R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of
12. reading research (pp. 719-742). Mahwah, NY: Longman.
13. Applegate, A. J., & Applegate, M. D. (2004). The Peter effect: Reading habits and attitudes of preservice teachers. The Reading Teacher, 57, 554-563.
14. Armbruster, B. B., & Nagy, W. E. (1992). Vocabulary in content area lessons. The Reading Teacher. 45, 550-551.
15. Aulls, M. W. (1986). Actively teaching main idea skills. In J. Boumann (Ed.),
16. Teaching Main Idea Comprehension (pp. 96-129). International Reading
17. Association, Newark, Delaware.
18. Bakken, J. P., & Whedon, C. K. (2002). Teaching text structure to improve reading comprehension. Intervention in School and Clinic, 37, 229-233.
19. Bakken, J. P., Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1997). Reading comprehension
20. of expository science material and students with learning disabilities. Journal
21. of Special Education, 31, 300-324.
22. Binbaşıoğlu, C. (2004). İlkokuma ve yazma öğretimi. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
23. Boynton, A., & Blevins, W. (1999). 5 keys to reading nonfiction. Instructor, 13, 4-6
24. Brand-Gruwel, S., Aarnoutse, C. A. J., & Van Den Bos, K.P. (1998). Improving text comprehension strategies in reading and listening settings. Learning and Instruction, 8, 63-81.
25. Bransford, J. D., Burns, M. S., Delclos, V. R., & Vye, N. J. (1986). Teaching thinking: Evaluating evaluations and broadening the data base. Educational Leadership, 44, 68-40.
26. Broek, P., Lynch, S. J., & Landis, C. E. (2003). The development of comprehension of main ideas in narratives: evidence from the selection of titles. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 707-718.
27. Brown, A. L, & Campione, J. C. (1977). Memory strategies in learning: Training children to study strategically (Technical Report No. 22). Urbana, IL: University of IllionisIllinois, Center for the Study of Reading
28. Brown, A.L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1982). Inducing strategic learning from test by means of informed, self-controlled trainigtraining. Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities, 2, 1-17
29. Burke, L. A., Williams, J. M., & Skinner, D. (2007). Teachers’ perceptions of thinking skills in the primary curriculum. Teaching in Education, 77, 1-13.
30. Cerdán, R., Vidal-Abarca, E., Martínez, T., Gilabert, R., & Gil, L. (2009). Impact of question-answering tasks on search processes and reading comprehension. Learning and Instruction. 19, 13-27.
31. Ching, L. C. (2002). Strategy and self-regulation instruction as contributors to improving students’ cognitive model in an ESL program. English fofor Specific Purposes, 21, 261-289
32. Crowe, D.E. (2007). Reading Comprehension Instruction in the Middle Grades for Students with Learning and Behavior Problems. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Graduate Faculty of Auburn University, U.S.A.
33. Çakıcı, D., & Altunay, U. (2006). Ön örgütleyiciler ve öğretimde kullanımları. Kastamonu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 14, 11-20.
34. Davey, B., & McBride, S. (1986). Generating self-questions after reading: A comprehension assist for elementary students. Journal of Educational Research, 80, 43-46.
35. Demirel, Ö. (1998). İlköğretim okullarında Türkçe öğretimi. İstanbul: Milli Eğitim Basımevi.
36. Diakidoy, I. N., Stylianou, P., Karefillidou, C., & Papageorgiou, P. (2005). The relationship between listening and reading comprehension of different types of text at increasing grade levels. Reading Psychology, 26, 55-80.
37. Duffelmeyer, F. A., & Duffelmeyer, B. B. (1991). Topic and main idea: Clearing up the confusion. The Reading Teacher, 45, 252-253.
38. Durkin, D. (1978-79). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 14, 481-533.
39. Durkin, D. (1989). Teaching them to read (fifth edition). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
40. Eilers, L. H., & Pinkley, C. (2006). Metacognitive strategies help students to comprehend all text. Reading Improvement, 43, 13-29.
41. Erkan, G. A. (1999). Dört temel dil becerisi üzerine. Dil Dergisi, 76, 50-63.
42. Gadway, C. J. (1973). Main ideas and organization. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED079688)
43. Göçer, A. (2007). Türkçe ve sınıf öğretmenleriyle öğretmen adayları için Türkçe öğretimi. Ankara: Öncü Kitap.
44. Göğüş, B. (1978). Orta dereceli okullarda Türkçe ve yazın eğitimi. Ankara: Kadıoğlu Matbaası.
45. Graesser, A., GoldıngGolding, J. M., & Long, D. L. (1991). Narrative representation and comprehension. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds). Handbook of Reading Research, (Vol. 2). New York: Longman.
46. Güleryüz, H. (2002). Türkçe ilkokuma yazma öğretimi kuram ve uygulamaları. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
47. Güneyli, A. (2003). Metin türlerine göre okuduğunu anlama becerisinin sınanması. Yayımlanmamış yüksek Lisans tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Türkçenin Eğitimi ve Öğretimi Anabilim Dalı, Ankara. .
48. Hall, L. A. (2004). Comprehending expository text: Promising strategies for struggling readers and students with reading disabilities?. Reading Research and Instruction, 44 (2), 75-95
49. Harris, A. J., & Sipay, E. R. (1990). How to increase reading ability: a guide to developmental and remedial methods. New York: Longman., New York.
50. Hinds, P. S., Scandrett-Hibden, S., & McAulay, L. (1990). Further assessment of a
51. method to estimate reliability and validity of qualitative research findings.
52. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 15, 430-435.
53. Jitendra, A. K., Chard, D., Hoppes, M. K., Renouf, K., & Gardill, M. C. (2001). An Evaluation of main idea strategy instruction in four commercial reading programs: Implications for students with learning problems. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 17, 53-73
54. Jitendra, A. K., Cole, L. C., Hoppes, M. K., & Wilson, B. (1998) Effects of a direct instruction main idea summarization program and self-monitoring on reading comprehension of middle school students with learning disabilities. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 14, 379-396.
55. Jitendra, A. K., Hoppes, M. K., & Xin, Y. P. (2000). Enhancing main ıdeaidea comprehension for students with learning problems: The role of a summarization strategy and self-monitoring ınstructioninstruction, The Journal of Special Education, 30, 127-139.
56. Johnson, D. D., & Barrett, T. C. (1981). Prose comprehension: A descriptive analysis of instructional practices. In C. M. Santa & B.L. Hayes (Eds.) Children’s Prose Comprehension: Research and Practice (pp. 72-102). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
57. Jones, L. K. (2005). The effect of applying active reading study strategies to varying text lenghtslengths on the lower-level comprehension of developmental reading students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of HousonHouston. U.S.A.
58. Kavcar, C., Oğuzkan, F., & Sever, S. (1998). Türkçe öğretimi-Türkçe ve sınıf öğretmenleri için. Ankara: Engin Yayınevi.
59. Keskinkılıç, K. (2002). İlkokuma yazma öğretimi. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
60. Kuş, E. (2006). Sosyal bilimlerde bilgisayar destekli nitel veri analizi. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
61. Lehto, E. J., & Anttila, M. (2003). Listening comprehension in primary level grades two, four and six. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47, 133- 143.
62. Manset-Williamson, G., Dunn, M., Hinshaw, R., & Nelson, J. M. (2008). The impact of self-questioning strategy use on the text-reader assisted comprehension of students with reading disabilities. International Journal of Special Education, 23, 123-135.
63. Marcell, B. (2007). Traffic Light Reading: Fostering the Independent Usage of Comprehension Strategies with Informational Text. The Reading Teacher., 60, 778-781.
64. Marsha, F., & Camahalan, G. (2006). Effects of a metacognitive reading program on the reading achievement and metacognitive strategies of students with cases of dyslexia. Reading Improvement, 43, 77-93.
65. McCurdy, B. L., & Shapiro, E. S. (1992). A compraisoncomparison of teacher-, peer-, and self-monitoring eitheighth curriculum-based measurement in reading among students with learning disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 26, 162-180.
66. McKeown, R. G., & Gentilucci, J. L. (2007). Think-aAloud strategy: Metacognitive development and monitoring comprehension in the middle school second- language classroom. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51, 136-147.
67. Miller, M., & Turner, T. (1987, April). Formats for assessing students’ self- assessment abilities. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Council for Exceptional Children, April 20-24, Chicago.
68. Moely, B. E., & Stewart, K. J. (1982, August). Children’s ability to self-monitor information acquisition. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, August 23-27, Washington.
69. Öz, F. (2006). Uygulamalı Türkçe öğretimi. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
70. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension fostering and comprehension – monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175.
71. Pardo, L. S. (2004). What every teacher needs to know about comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 58, 272-280.
72. Paris, S. G., & Jacobs, J. E. (1984). The benefits of informed instruction for children’s reading awareness and comprehension. Child Development, 55, 83- 93.
73. Pilten, G. (2007). Ana fikir bulma stratejisi öğretiminin ana fikir bulma ve okuduğunu anlamaya etkisi. Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
74. Roberts, P., & Priest, H. (2006). Reliability and Validity in Research. Nursing
75. Standard, 20, 41-45.
76. Ruşen, M. (1995). Hızlı okuyarak anlama ve seçmeli okuma yöntemleri. İstanbul: Alfa Yayınları.
77. Schunk, D. H. (1993). Strategy fading and progress feedback: Effects on self- efficacy and comprehension among students receiving remedial reading services. The Journal of Special Education, 27, 257-276.
78. Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2007).Influencing children’s self-efficacy and self-regulation of reading and writing through modellingmodeling. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23, 7-25.
79. Schwartz, R.M. (1997). Self-monitoring in beginning reading. The Reading Teacher, 51 (1), 40-48.
80. Seale, C. (2001). Qualitative methods: Validity and reliability. European Journal of
81. Cancer Care, 10, 131-136
82. Sever, S. (2004). Türkçe öğretimi ve tam öğrenme. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
83. Singer, M., Harkness, D., & Stewart, S. T. (1997). Constructing inferences in expository text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 24, 199-228.
84. Sjostrom, C. L., & Hare, V. C. (1984). Teaching high school students to identify main ideas in expository text. Journal of Educational Research, 78, 114-118
85. Spiegel, G., Vickers, L., & Viviano, J. (1999). Improving reading comprehension. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED433496)An action research Project submitted to the graduate faculty of the school of education in partial fulfillment of the requirements fort he degree of master of arts in teaching and leadership.
86. Stevens, R. J., Slavin, R. E., & Farnish, A. M. (1989). The efffectseffects of cooperative learning and direct instruction in reading comprehension strategies on main idea identification. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED328902)
87. Taylor, B. M., Peterson, D. S., Pearson, P. D., & Rodriguez, M. D. (2002). Looking inside classrooms: Reflecting on the “how” as well as the “what” in effective reading instruction. The Reading Teacher, 56, 270-279.
88. Taylor, B., Pearson, D., Clark, K., and Walpole, S. (2000). Beating the odds in teaching all children to read (Report#2-006). East Lansing, MI: Center for Improving Early Reading Achievement.
89. Tayşi, E. K. (2007). İlköğretim beşinci ve sekizinci sınıf öğrencilerinin hikaye ve deneme türü metinlerindeki okuduğunu anlama becerilerinin karşılaştırılması (Kütahya ili örneği). Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
90. Temizyürek, F. (2008). Farklı türlerdeki metinlerin ilköğretim 8. sınıflarda okuduğunu anlamaya etkisi. Eğitim Araştırmaları, 30, 141-152.
91. Ünalan, Ş. (1999). Yeni gelişmeler ışığında Türkçe öğretimi. Ankara: Gazi Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Basımevi.
92. Vanleuvan, P., & Wang, M. C. (1997). An analysis of students’ self-monitoring in first-and second-grade classrooms. The Journal of Educational Research, 90, 132-143.
93. Wall, S. M. (1982). Effects of systematic self-monitoring and self-monitoring and self-reinforcement in children’s management of test performances. The Journal of Psychology, 111, 129-136
94. Weaver, C. A., & Kintsch, W. (1991). Expository text. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, and P.D. Pearson (Eds), Handbook of reading research, (pp. 230- 244). White Plains, NY: Longman.
95. Yangın, B. (1999). İlköğretimde Türkçe öğretimi. Ankara: MEB Yayınları.
96. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2005). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri.
97. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
98. Yıldız, M. (2008, Mayıs). İlköğretim beşinci sınıf öğrencilerinin dinlediğini anlama düzeylerinin metin türleri bakımından karşılaştırılması. Bu bilimsel çalışma VII. Ulusal Sınıf Öğretmenliği Eğitimi Sempozyumu’nda sunulmuştur, Çanakkale. (2-3-4 Mayıs), 704-707.