İyi ve Zayıf Okuyucuların Üstbilişsel Okuma Becerilerinin İncelenmesi: Bir Durum Çalışması

Yıl 2016, Cilt: 24 Sayı: 2, 771 - 788, 15.07.2016

Hayriye Gül Kuruyer Gökhan Özsoy

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı iyi ve zayıf okuyucuların okuma sırasında gösterdikleri üstbilişsel okuma becerilerini incelemektir. Araştırmada, öğrencilerin üstbilişsel okuma becerilerini incelemek amacıyla durum çalışması kullanılmıştır. Bu araştırma 2012 yılında Aksaray ilinde sekiz dördüncü sınıf öğrencisiyle yürütülmüştür. Katılımcıların üstbilişsel okuma becerilerine ilişkin veriler, Ekwall/Shanker okuma envanteri, kontrol listesi ve gözlem yoluyla elde edilmiştir. Verilerin analizi için alan notları düzenlenmiş, kontrol listesinde yer alan bilgiler ve gözlem kayıtları ile elde edilen veriler incelenerek, kodlanmış, özetlenmiş ve yorumlanmıştır. Araştırmanın sonucunda, okuma düzeylerine göre üstbilişsel okuma becerilerinin farklılaştığı görülmüştür. Bu sonuç doğrultusunda, küçük yaşlarda çocukların okumaya ilişkin birçok strateji kullandığını ancak bunların farkında olmadığı kanısına varılabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Okuma, üstbilişsel okuma becerileri, üstbiliş

Investigation of Metacognitive Reading Skills of Good and Poor Readers: A Case Study

Öz

The purpose of the present study is to investigate the metacognitive reading skills demonstrated by good and poor readers while reading. In the study, case study method was employed to investigate the metacognitive reading skills. The present study was conducted with 8 fourth grade students from the city of Aksaray in 2012. The data related to metacognitive reading skills of the participants were collected through Ekwall/ Shanker Reading Inventory, check list and observations. For the analysis of the data, the notes were organized, encoded, summarized and interpreted by analyzing the information in the check list and observation records. At the end of the study, it was found that metacognitive reading skills vary depending on reading levels. In light of this finding, it was concluded that young children use many reading strategies unconsciously as they are not aware of them.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Reading, metacognitive reading skills, metacognition

Kaynakça

• Afflerbach, P. (1990). The influence of prior knowledge on expert readers a main idea construction strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 31–46.
• Akyol, H. (2005). Türkçe ilk okuma yazma öğretimi. Ankara: Pegem A.
• Akyol, H. (2006). Türkçe ilk okuma yazma öğretimi. Ankara: Kök Yayıncılık.
• Allen K., D. & Hancock, T., E. (2008). Reading comprehension improvement with individualized cognitive profiles and metacognition. Literacy Research and Instruction, 47 (2), 124-139, DOI: 10.1080/19388070801938320.
• Bogdan, R. C. & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: an introduction to theories and methods (4th. Ed.) New York: Pearson Education Group, (pp. 110-120).
• Brown, A.L. (1980). Metacognitive development and reading. In R.J. Spiro, B. Bruce, W. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erbaum.
• Brown, A.L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, selfregulation, and other even more myste- rious mechanisms, In Weinert, F.E. Kluwe, R.H. (eds.) Metacognition, motivation and unders- tanding, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Bråten, I., Amundsen, A., & Samuelstuen, S. M. (2010). Poor Readers- Good Learns: A Study of Dyslexic Readers Learning with and without Text. Reading ve Writing, 26, 166-187.
• Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. (2006). Profiles of children specific reading comprehension difficulties. Bri- tish Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 683-696.
• Cook, D. M. (1989). Meta-cognitive behaviours of good and poor readers. Strategic learning in the content areas. Madison, WI; Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction.
• Coutinho, S. A. (2007). The relationship between goals, metacognition and academic success. Edu- cate~, 7(1), 39–47.
• Çakıroğlu, A. (2007). Üstbiliş. Türkiye Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 11(2)- 21-27.
• Çakıroğlu, A. & Ataman, A. (2008). Üstbilişsel strateji öğretiminin okuduğunu anlama Başarı düzeyi düşük öğrencilerde erişi artırımına etkisi. Sakarya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 16, 1-13
• Cohen, L., Manion , L., & Marison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. (6th Edition). New- york: Routhledge.
• Dermitzaki, I., Andreou, G., & Paraskeva, V. (2008). High and low reading comprehension achie- vers’ strategic behaviors and their relation to performance in a reading comprehension situation. Reading Psychology, 29, 471-492.
• Desoete, A. (2008). Multi-method assessment of metacognitive skills in elementary school children: How you test is what you get. Metacognition and Learning, DOI: 10.1007/s11409-008-9026-0.
• Desoete, A. & Ozsoy, G. (2009). Metacognition, more than the lognes monster?. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 2(1), 1–6.
• Desoete, A., Roeyers, H., & De Clercq, A. (2003). Can off-line metacognition enhance Mathemati- cal problem solving? Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 188- 200.
• Duffy, G. G. (2009). Explaining Reading: A Resource for Teaching Concepts, Skills, and Strategies. (Second Edition). The Guilford Press: Newyork.
• Forrest, P. D. L., & Waller, T. G. (1984). Cognition, metacognition and reading, New York: Sprin- ger-Verlag.
• Fuentes, P. (1998). Reading comprehension in mathematics, the clearing house: A Journal of Educa- tional Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 72, (2), 81-88 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00098659809599602
• Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading comprehension: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239–256.
• Gelen, İ. (2003). Bilişsel farkındalık stratejilerinin Türkçe dersine ilişkin tutum, okuduğunu anla- ma ve kalıcılığa etkisi. Yayımlanmamış. Doktora Tezi. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
• Guthrie, J., & Wigfield, A. (1999). How motivation fits into a science of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 199–205.
• Güneş, F. (2003). Okuma-yazma öğretiminde cümlenin önemi. TÜBAR, 13, 38-48. http://www. tubar.com.tr/TUBAR%20DOSYA/pdf/2003BAHAR/4firdevs%20gunes.pdf adresinden 29.05.2013 tarihinde indirilmiştir.
• Güneş, F. (2012). Türkçe öğretimi yaklaşım ve modeller. Ankara: Pegem A.
• Hacker, D. J., & Dunlosky, J. (2003). Not All metacognition is created equal. New Directions For Teaching And Learning, 95, 73-79.
• Holton, D. & Clarke, D. (2006). Scaffolding and metacognition. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology. 37, (2), 127-143. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/00207390500285818
• Houtveen, T., & van de Grift, W. (2007). Reading instruction for struggling learners. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 12(4), 405-424.
• Huitt, W. (1997). Metacognition. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University.
• Juliebö, M., Malicky, G. V., & Norman, C. (1998). Metacognition of young readers in an early intervention programme. Journal of Research in Reading, 21, 24-35.
• Kamhi, A. & Catts, H. (2008). The language basis of reading: implications of classification and treatment of children with reading disabilities. In Bulter, K.ve Silliman, E. (Eds.) Speaking, Reading, and Wri- ting in Children with Language and Learning Disabilities: New Paradigms in Research and Practice.
• Karakelle, S., & Saraç, S. (2007). Çocuklar için üst bilişsel farkındalık ölçeği (ÜBFÖ-Ç) A ve B formla- rı: geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 10(20), 87-103. http://www.turkpsiko- lojiyazilari.com/PDF/TPY/20/87-103.pdf adresinden 27.11.2013 tarihinde indirilmiştir.
• Karakelle, S., & Saraç, S. (2010). Üst biliş hakkında bir gözden geçirme: üst biliş çalışmaları mı yoksa üst bilişsel yaklaşım mı?. Türk Psikoloji Yayınları, 13(26), 45-60. http://oubs.iu.edu.tr/ doc/2508.pdf adresinden 25.11.2014 tarihinde indirilmiştir.
• Karakelle, S., & Saraç, S. (2012). On-line and off-line assessment of metacognition. International Elect- ronic Journal of Elementary Education, 2012, 4(2), 301-315. http://www.iejee.com/4_2_2012/IE- JEE_4_2_Sarac_Karakelle_301_315.pdf adresinden 27.11.2013 tarhinde indirilmiştir.
• Kuzgun, Y., & Deryakulu, D. (2006). Bireysel farklılıklar ve eğitime yansımaları. İçinde eğitimde bireysel farklılıklar. (Editör: Kuzgun, Y., ve Deryakulu, D.). Ankara: Nobel.
• Maki, R. H., & McGuire, M. J. (2002). Metacognition for text: findings and implications for ins- truction. In T. Perfect & B. Schwarz (Eds.), Applied metacognition (pp. 39–67). New York: Cambridge University Press.
• McGeown, S., P., Norgate, R., ve Warhurst, A. (2012). Exploring intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation among very good and very poor readers. Educational Research, 54,(3), 309-322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2012.710089
• Meichenbaum, D., Burland, S., Gruson, L., & Cameron, R. (1985). Metacognitive assessment, In S. Yussen (Ed.), The growth of reflection in children, (s.3-30), Toronto: Academic Press.
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook-qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
• Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (2005). İlkögretim Türkçe dersi (1-5. Sınıflar) öğretim programı ve kılavuzu. Ankara: MEB.
• Mokhtari, K. & Reichard, A., C. (2002). Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology. 94(2), 249-259.
• Morse, J. M., M. Barrett, M. Mayan, K. Olson, & J. Spiers. (2002). Verification strategies for es- tablishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 1(2), 13–22.
• NCREL (1995). Strategic teaching and reading project guidebook. NCREL (North Central Regio- nal Educational Laboratory).
• Oakhill, J., & Cain, K. (2007). Introduction to comprehension development. In J. Oakhill and K. Cain, Children’s comprehension problems in oral and written language. (pp. 1-40). New York: Guilford Press.
• Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle ve Heinle.
• Özsoy, G. (2008). Üstbiliş. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 6(4), 713-740.
• Özsoy, G., & Ataman, A. (2009). The effect of metacognitive strategy training on mathematical prob- lem solving achievement. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 1 (2), 67-82). http://www.iejee.com/1_2_2009/ozsoy_ataman.pdf adresinden 03.12.2013 tarihinde indirilmiştir.
• Özsoy, G. & Kuruyer H. G. (2012). Bilmenin illüzyonu: matematiksel problem çözme ve test kalib- rasyonu, Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 32(2), 229-238.
• Paris, S. G., & Jacobs, J. E. (1984). The benefits of informed instruction for children’s reading awareness and comprehension skills. Child Development, 55, 2083–2093.
• Paris, S. G. & Myers, M. (1981) Comprehension monitoring, memory, and study strategies of good and poor readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 13, 5-22.
• Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 545–561). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: the nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Randi, J., Grigorenko, R., & Sternberg, J., R. (2008). Revisiting definitions of reading compre- hension: just what is reading comprehension anyway?. In metacognition in literacy learning theory, assessment, instruction, and professional development. (Edt:. Israel, S. E., Block, C. C., Bauserman, K., L. Kinnucan-Welsch, K.). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
• Schunk, D. H., (2009). Learning theories: an educational perspective. (5th. Ed.) (Çev. Muzaffer Şahin). Ankara: Nobel.
• Senemoğlu, N. (2001). Kuramdan uygulamaya gelişim ve öğrenme. Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi.
• Schraw, G. & Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. EducationalPsychology Review 7(4), 351–371.
• Snow, C. E. (2002). Reading for understanding toward an RveD program in reading comprehensi- on, Pittsburg: RAND.
• Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy.
• Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly 2, 360-406.
• Swanson, B., B. (1988). Strategic preferences of good and poor beginning readers. Reading Hori- zons, Summer, 255-262.
• Sweet, A. P. & Snow, C. (2002). Reconceptualizing reading comprehension. In C. C. Block, L. B. Gambrell, M. Pressley (Eds.), Improving comprehension instruction (pp. 17-53). San Francis- co, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Yıldırım, K. (2010). İş birlikli öğrenme yönteminin okumaya ilişkin bazı değişkenler üzerindeki et- kisi ve yönteme ilişkin öğrenci-veli görüşleri. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Gazi Üniversitesi, Gazi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.