An Examination of Reading Comprehension Skills of Readers with and without Reading Disabilities by Text Genre and Question Type

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to compare the text and question comprehension abilities of readers with and without reading disabilities. In this direction, the study included 40 good readers (GR), 40 poor readers (PR), and 40 learning disabilities (LD) in the 2nd grade, 60 GR, 60 PR, and 53 LD in the 4th grade. The participants answered the reading comprehension questions for two narrative and two expository texts that were grade-level suitable. The average overall reading comprehension ratings obtained from both text categories were used for analyses. In addition, the responses of the participants on literal, reorganization, inference, prediction, and evaluation questions were recorded independently, and the influence of having or not having reading difficulties was evaluated. Consequently, narrative texts were simpler for each group to comprehend than expository texts, and the presence of a learning disability had a substantial impact on the comprehension of the text genres. In addition, when the performances of the participants in the question types were analyzed, it was determined that the “literal” questions had the highest rate of correct responses, whereas the rate of correct responses to the questions that each group had to answer using in-text information and experience was extremely low. In addition, it was revealed that readers with learning disabilities achieved lower results on all question types than good and poor readers. The findings are discussed on the basis of the literature.

Keywords

• Reading
• Reading Disability
• Reading Comprehension
• Text genre
• Question Type

Okuma Güçlüğü Olan ve Olmayan Okuyucuların Okuduğunu Anlama Becerilerinin Metin ve Soru Türüne Özelinde İncelenmesi

Öz

Bu çalışmada okuma güçlüğü olan ve olmayan okuyucuların okuduğunu anlama becerilerinin metin ve soru türü özelinde incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Bu doğrultuda 2. sınıflarda 40 iyi, 40 zayıf ve 40 öğrenme güçlüğü, 4. sınıflarda 60 iyi, 60 zayıf ve 53 öğrenme güçlüğü olan okuyucu araştırmaya dahil edilmiştir. Çalışmaya katılan okuyucular sınıf düzeyine uygun iki öyküleyici ve iki bilgi veren metne ait okuduğunu anlama sorularına cevap vermişlerdir. Analizler her iki metin türünden elde edilen toplam okuduğunu anlama puanlarının ortalaması üzerinden yürütülmüştür. Ayrıca katılımcıların bilgi, düzenleme, çıkarım, tahmin ve değerlendirme türünde sorulara verdikleri tepkiler de ayrı ayrı kaydedilerek okuma güçlüğü olma ve olmama durumlarının soru türleri üzerindeki etkisi incelenmiştir. Elde edilen sonuçlara bakıldığında öyküleyici metinlerin bilgi veren metinlere göre her grup tarafından daha kolay anlaşıldığı, öğrenme güçlüğü olma durumunun metin türlerinin anlaşılması üzerinde önemli bir etkisi olduğu görülmüştür. Ayrıca, katılımcıların soru türlerinde sergilemiş oldukları performanslara bakıldığında, bilgi soruları doğru cevaplanma oranı en yüksek sorular olurken, her grubun metin içi bilgileri ve deneyimlerini kullanarak cevaplamaları gereken soruların doğru cevaplanma oranının çok düşük olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Buna ek olarak öğrenme güçlüğü olan okuyucuların tüm soru türlerinde iyi ve zayıf okuyuculardan daha düşük sonuçlar elde ettiği görülmüştür. Bulgular alanyazın temelinde tartışılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• okuma
• okuma güçlüğü
• okuduğunu anlama
• metin türü
• soru türü

Kaynakça

1. Akyol, H. (2001). İlköğretim okulları 5. sınıf Türkçe kitaplarındaki okuma metinleriyle ilgili soruların analizi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 26(26), 169-178.
2. Akyol, H., Yıldırım, K., Seyit, A., & Çetinkaya, Ç. (2013). Anlamaya Yönelik Nasıl Sorular Soruyoruz?. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(1), 41-56.
3. Alatlı, R., Güldenoğlu, İ., & Kargin, 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. Educatıon and Scıence, 47(211), 273-295. http://dx.doi.org/10.15390/EB.2022.11080
4. Algül, Ö. ve Bozkurt, B. Ü. (2021). Okuduğunu anlama sürecinde çıkarım becerisine ilişkin belirlemeler. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 53, 175- 204 doi: 10.9779/pauefd.787770.
5. 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
6. Başaran, M., & Akyol, H. (2009). İlköğretim beşinci sınıfa devam eden öğrencilerin hikâye unsurlarına ilişkin beklentileri. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (4), 226-251.
7. Barnes, M. A., Ahmed, Y., Barth, A., & Francis, D. J. (2015). The relation of knowledge-text integration processes and reading comprehension in 7th-to 12th-grade students. Scientific Studies of Reading, 19(4), 253-272. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2015.1022650
8. Baştuğ, M. & Keskin, H. K. (2011). Bilgi verici metin yapıları öğretiminin okuduğunu anlamaya etkisi. Education Sciences, 6(4), 2598-2610.

9. Baydık, B., & Seçkin, Ş. (2012). An examination of reading skills of students with reading difficulties in informative and narrative texts. In International Journal of Arts & Sciences (IJAS) Conference for Academic Disciplines, Florence, Italy.
10. Beers, S. F., & Nagy, W. E. (2011). Writing development in four genres from grades three to seven: Syntactic complexity and genre differentiation. Reading and Writing, 24(2), 183-202. doi: 10.1007/s11145-010-9264-9
11. Berman, R. A., & Katzenberger, I. (2004). Form and function in introducing narrative and expository texts: A developmental perspective. Discourse Processes, 38(1), 57-94. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp3801_3
12. Best, R. M., Floyd, R. G., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Differential competencies contributing to children's comprehension of narrative and expository texts. Reading psychology, 29(2), 137-164. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710801963951
13. Brandão, A. C. P., & Oakhill, J. (2005). “How do you know this answer?”–Children’s use of text data and general knowledge in story comprehension. Reading and Writing, 18(7), 687-713. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-005-5600-x
14. 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(1), 31. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.31
15. Carr, S. C., & Thompson, B. (1996). The effects of prior knowledge and schema activation strategies on the inferential reading comprehension of children with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 19(1), 48-61. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511053
16. Catts, H. W., Hogan, T. P., & Adlof, S. M. (2005). Developmental changes in reading and reading disabilities. In The connections between language and reading disabilities (pp. 38-51). Psychology Press.
17. Ceylan, M., & Baydık, B. (2018). Examination of reading skills of students who are poor readers in different text genres. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 13(2), 178-191. https://doi.org/10.18844/cjes.v13i2.3119
18. Cirino, P. T., Miciak, J., Ahmed, Y., Barnes, M. A., Taylor, W. P., & Gerst, E. H. (2019). Executive function: Association with multiple reading skills. Reading and Writing, 32(7), 1819-1846. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9923-9
19. Collins, A. A., Compton, D. L., Lindström, E. R., & Gilbert, J. K. (2020). Performance variations across reading comprehension assessments: Examining the unique contributions of text, activity, and reader. Reading and Writing, 33(3), 605-634. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09972-5
20. Clinton, V., Taylor, T., Bajpayee, S., Davison, M. L., Carlson, S. E., & Seipel, B. (2020). Inferential comprehension differences between narrative and expository texts: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reading and Writing, 33(9), 2223-2248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10044-2
21. Crais, E. R., & Chapman, R. S. (1987). Story recall and inferencing skills in language/learning-disabled and nondisabled children. Journal of speech and hearing disorders, 52(1), 50-55. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshd.5201.50
22. Cutting, L. E., Materek, A., Cole, C. A., Levine, T. M., & Mahone, E. M. (2009). Effects of fluency, oral language, and executive function on reading comprehension performance. Annals of dyslexia, 59(1), 34-54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-009-0022-0
23. Day, R. R., & Park, J. S. (2005). Developing Reading Comprehension Questions. Reading in a foreign language, 17(1), 60-73.
24. Diakidoy, I. A. 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(1), 55-80. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710590910584
25. Diakidoy, I. A. N., Mouskounti, T., & Ioannides, C. (2011). Comprehension and learning from refutation and expository texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(1), 22-38. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.46.1.2
26. Denton, C. A., Enos, M., York, M. J., Francis, D. J., Barnes, M. A., Kulesz, P. A., Fletcher, J. M.& Carter, S. (2015). Text‐processing differences in adolescent adequate and poor comprehenders reading accessible and challenging narrative and informational text. Reading Research Quarterly, 50(4), 393-416. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.105
27. Duke, N. K. (2000). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in first grade. Reading research quarterly, 35(2), 202-224. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.35.2.1
28. Eason, S. H., Goldberg, L. F., Young, K. M., Geist, M. C., & Cutting, L. E. (2012). Reader–text interactions: How differential text and question types influence cognitive skills needed for reading comprehension. Journal of educational psychology, 104(3), 515. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027182
29. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage.
30. Francis, D. J., Kulesz, P. A., & Benoit, J. S. (2018). Extending the simple view of reading to account for variation within readers and across texts: The complete view of reading (CVR i). Remedial and special education, 39(5), 274-288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518772904
31. Gajria, M., Jitendra, A. K., Sood, S., & Sacks, G. (2007). Improving comprehension of expository text in students with LD: A research synthesis. Journal of learning disabilities, 40(3), 210-225. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194070400030301
32. 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
33. Gardner, D. (2004). Vocabulary input through extensive reading: A comparison of words found in children's narrative and expository reading materials. Applied linguistics, 25(1), 1-37. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.1.1
34. Geiger, J. F., & Millis, K. K. (2004). Assessing the impact of reading goals and text structures on comprehension. Reading Psychology, 25(2), 93-110. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710490435637
35. Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of educational research, 71(2), 279-320. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543071002279
36. Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and special education, 7(1), 6-10. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104
37. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Louwerse, M. M. (2003). What do readers need to learn in order to process coherence relations in narrative and expository text. Rethinking reading comprehension, 82, 98.
38. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers, 36(2), 193-202. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195564
39. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Kulikowich, J. M. (2011). Coh-Metrix: Providing multilevel analyses of text characteristics. Educational researcher, 40(5), 223-234. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11413260
40. Gustafson, S. (2001). Cognitive abilities and print exposure in surface and phonological types of reading disability. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(4), 351-375. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532799XSSR0504_03
41. Hall, C., & Barnes, M. A. (2017). Inference instruction to support reading comprehension for elementary students with learning disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 52(5), 279-286. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451216676799
42. Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and writing, 2(2), 127-160. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00401799
43. Hulme, C., & Snowling, M. J. (2016). Reading disorders and dyslexia. Current opinion in pediatrics, 28(6), 731-735. doi: 10.1097/MOP.0000000000000411
44. İleri, Z., Öztürk, E., Horzum, M. B. (2013). Ekrandan okumanın 5. sınıf öğrencilerinin bilgilendirici ve öyküleyici metin türünde okuduğunu anlama düzeylerine etkisi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 13(4), 2263-2276.
45. Katzir, T., Kim, Y., Wolf, M., O’Brien, B., Kennedy, B., Lovett, M., & Morris, R. (2006). Reading fluency: The whole is more than the parts. Annals of dyslexia, 56(1), 51-82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-006-0003-5
46. Kendeou, P., Savage, R., & Van den Broek, P. (2009). Revisiting the simple view of reading. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(2), 353-370. https://doi.org/10.1348/978185408X369020
47. Kim, Y. S. G. (2016). Direct and mediated effects of language and cognitive skills on comprehension of oral narrative texts (listening comprehension) for children. Journal of experimental child psychology, 141, 101-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.08.003
48. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: a construction-integration model. Psychological review, 95(2), 163-182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163
49. Kneepkens, L. J., & Zwaan, R. A. (1994). Emotion and cognition in literary understanding. Poetics, 23, 125-138.
50. Kocaarslan, M., & Yamaç, A. (2018). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin Türkçe dersi sınavlarında sordukları metne dayalı anlama sorularının incelenmesi. Trakya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(2), 431-448. https://doi.org/10.24315/trkefd.356769
51. Kudret, Z. B., & Baydık, B. (2016). Başarılı ve başarısız dördüncü sınıf okuyucularının okuduğunu anlama ve özetleme becerileri. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi, 17(03), 317-346. https://doi.org/10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.268558
52. Kuhn, M. R., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (2007). Fluency in the Classroom. Guilford Publications.
53. Lorch, R. F. (2015). What about expository text? In E. J. O’Brien, A. E. Cook, & R. F. Lorch (Eds.), Inferences during reading (pp. 348–361). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
54. Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2003). A definition of dyslexia. Annals of dyslexia, 53(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-003-0001-9
55. Mar, R. A., Li, J., Nguyen, A. T., & Ta, C. P. (2021). Memory and comprehension of narrative versus expository texts: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 28(3), 732-749. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01853-1
56. McNamara, D. S., Ozuru, Y., & Floyd, R. G. (2011). Comprehension challenges in the fourth grade: The roles of text cohesion, text genre, and readers' prior knowledge. International electronic journal of elementary education, 4(1), 229-257.
57. McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., & Louwerse, M. M. (2012). Sources of text difficulty: Across genres and grades. Measuring up: Advances in how we assess reading ability, 89-116.
58. Medina, A. L., & Pilonieta, P. (2006). Once upon a Time: Comprehending Narrative Text. In J. S. Schumm (Ed.), Reading assessment and instruction for all learners (pp. 222–261). Guilford Press.
59. Meyer, B. J., & Freedle, R. O. (1984). Effects of discourse type on recall. American Educational Research Journal, 21(1), 121-143. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312021001121
60. Meyer, B. J., & Poon, L. W. (2001). Effects of structure strategy training and signaling on recall of text. Journal of educational psychology, 93(1), 141.
61. Miller, S. D., & Smith, D. E. (1989). Relations among oral reading, silent reading and listening comprehension of students at differing competency levels. Literacy Research and Instruction, 29(2), 73-84. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388079009558006
62. Oakhill, J. V., & Cain, K. (2012). The precursors of reading ability in young readers: Evidence from a four-year longitudinal study. Scientific studies of reading, 16(2), 91-121. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2010.529219
63. Perfetti, C. A., & Hogaboam, T. (1975). Relationship between single word decoding and reading comprehension skill. Journal of educational psychology, 67(4), 461. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077013
64. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-011-0059-8
65. Raphael, T. E., Winograd, P., & Pearson, P. D. (1980). Strategies children use when answering questions. In Perspectives on reading research and instruction. Washington, DC: National Reading Conference (pp. 56-63).
66. Raphael, T. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1985). Increasing students’ awareness of sources of information for answering questions. American Educational Research Journal, 22(2), 217-235. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312022002217
67. Raphael, T. E., & Wonnacott, C. A. (1985). Heightening fourth-grade students' sensitivity to sources of information for answering comprehension questions. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(3), 282-296. https://doi.org/10.2307/748019
68. Robinson, M. F., Meisinger, E. B., & Joyner, R. E. (2019). The influence of oral versus silent reading on reading comprehension in students with reading disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 42(2), 105-116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948718806665
69. Quinn, J. M., Wagner, R. K., Petscher, Y., Roberts, G., Menzel, A. J., & Schatschneider, C. (2020). Differential codevelopment of vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension for students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of educational psychology, 112(3), 608. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000382
70. Ricketts, J., Nation, K., & Bishop, D. V. (2007). Vocabulary is important for some, but not all reading skills. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(3), 235-257. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430701344306
71. Samuelstuen, M. S., & Bråten, I. (2005). Decoding, knowledge, and strategies in comprehension of expository text. Scandinavian journal of psychology, 46(2), 107-117. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2005.00441.x
72. Sénéchal, M., Ouellette, G., & Rodney, D. (2006). The misunderstood giant: On the predictive role of early vocabulary to future reading. Handbook of early literacy research, 2, 173-182.
73. Sezgin, Z. Ç., & Özilhan, Y. G. G. (2019). 1.-8. sınıf Türkçe ders kitaplarındaki metne dayalı anlama sorularının incelenmesi. Ana Dili Eğitimi Dergisi, 7(2), 353-367. https://doi.org/10.16916/aded.530191
74. Shaywitz, S. (2003). Overcoming dyslexia: A new and complete science-based program for reading problems at any level. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
75. Snow, C. E. (2010). Academic language and the challenge of reading for learning about science. Science, 328(5977), 450–452. DOI: 10.1126/science.1182597
76. Snowling, M. (1998). Dyslexia as a phonological deficit: Evidence and implications. Child Psychology and Psychiatry Review, 3(1), 4-11. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-3588.00201
77. Spencer, M., Richmond, M. C., & Cutting, L. E. (2020). Considering the role of executive function in reading comprehension: A structural equation modeling approach. Scientific Studies of Reading, 24(3), 179-199. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2019.1643868
78. Şahin, A. (2013). The Effect of Text Types on Reading Comprehension. Online Submission, 3(2), 57-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.13054/mije.13.27.3.2
79. Taboada, A., Tonks, S. M., Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (2009). Effects of motivational and cognitive variables on reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 22(1), 85-106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-008-9133-y
80. Tannenbaum, K. R., Torgesen, J. K., & Wagner, R. K. (2006). Relationships between word knowledge and reading comprehension in third-grade children. Scientific studies of reading, 10(4), 381-398. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr1004_3
81. Temizkan, M. (2008). Bilişsel okuma stratejilerinin Türkçe derslerinde bilgiye dayalı metinleri okuduğunu anlama üzerindeki etkisi. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28(2), 129-148.
82. Tokgöz, S., & Işık, A. D. (2020). KWL (ne biliyorum? ne öğrenmek istiyorum? ne öğrendim?) stratejisinin ilkokul 3. sınıf öğrencilerinin okuduğunu anlama başarılarına etkisi. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 18(1), 57-84. https://doi.org/10.37217/tebd.655873
83. Vatansever Bayraktar, H. (2015). Ses temelli cümle yöntemi ile okuma yazma öğrenen öğrencilerin farklı metin türlerine göre okuduğunu anlama başarılarının incelenmesi. Journal of International Social Research, 8(40), 595-612.
84. Williams, J. P. (1993). Comprehension of students with and without learning disabilities: Identification of narrative themes and idiosyncratic text representations. Journal of educational psychology, 85(4), 631. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.4.631
85. Wu, Y., Barquero, L. A., Pickren, S. E., Barber, A. T., & Cutting, L. E. (2020). The relationship between cognitive skills and reading comprehension of narrative and expository texts: A longitudinal study from Grade 1 to Grade 4. Learning and individual differences, 80, 101848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101848
86. Yıldırım, K., Yıldız, M., Ateş, S., & Rasinski, T. (2010). Fifth-Grade Turkish Elementary School Students' Listening and Reading Comprehension Levels with Regard to Text Types. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 10(3), 1879-1891.
87. Yıldırım, K., Yıldız, M., & Ateş, S. (2011). Kelime bilgisi okuduğunu anlamanın anlamlı bir yordayıcısı mıdır ve yordama gücü metin türlerine göre farklılaşmakta mıdır?. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 11(3), 1531-1547.