Sınıf Öğretmenlerinin Okuma Becerisini Oluşturan Bilişsel Bileşenlere Yönelik Farkındalıklarının Artırılması: Bir Karma Yöntem Eylem Araştırması

Öz

Çalışmanın amacı sınıf öğretmenlerinin okumayı oluşturan bilişsel becerilere yönelik farkındalıklarını artırmak ve farkındalıklarının sınıf içi öğretme ortamına yansımalarını ortaya koymaktır. Çalışma, karma yöntem eylem araştırması olarak desenlenmiş ve yürütülmüştür. Çalışmanın keşfetme aşamasında öğretmenlerin okumayı oluşturan bilişsel becerilere yönelik farkındalıkları odak grup görüşmeleri yoluyla ortaya çıkarılmıştır.  Ardından öğretmenlerin okumaya ilişkin bilgilerinin yetersizliğinden hareketle bir müdahale eğitim programı oluşturulmuştur. Çalışmanın değerlendirme aşamasında uygulanan müdahale eğitiminin etkililiği tespit edilmiştir. Araştırmanın izleme aşamasında ise eğitim programı ve takip çalışmalarının sınıf içi öğretim ortamına yansıması yine odak grup görüşmeleri yoluyla ortaya konulmuştur. Çalışmanın keşfetme aşaması katılımcılarını 14 gönüllü sınıf öğretmeni oluşturmuştur. Değerlendirme aşaması katılımcılarını eğitim programına katılan 30 gönüllü sınıf öğretmeni oluştururken izleme aşaması katılımcılarını eğitim programına katılan öğretmenlerden 12 gönüllü sınıf öğretmeni oluşturmuştur. Çalışmada veri toplama aracı olarak araştırmacılar tarafından geliştirilen bilgi testi ve görüşme formları kullanılmıştır. Çalışmanın keşfetme ve izleme aşamalarından elde edilen veriler içerik analizi yöntemiyle çözümlenmiştir. Değerlendirme aşamasından elde edilen verilerin analizinde betimsel istatistiklerin yanında eşli gruplar t-testinden yararlanılmıştır. Araştırmada, sınıf öğretmenlerinin okumayı oluşturan bilişsel bileşenlere ilişkin bilgi eksiklikleri ortaya konulmuş, gerçekleştirilen müdahale eğitimiyle bu eksiklikler giderilmiş ve müdahale eğitimi yoluyla elde ettikleri bilgileri sınıf içi öğretim ortamına yansıttıkları görülmüştür.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Öğretmen
• Öğretmen bilgisi
• Okuma
• Bilişsel beceriler
• Okuma becerisi

Increasing Elementary School Classroom Teachers' Awareness of the Cognitive Components of Reading Skill: A Mixed Methods Action Research

Öz

The research aimed to increase classroom teachers' awareness of the cognitive skills that constitute reading and to reveal the reflections of their awareness on the classroom teaching environment.The study was designed and conducted as mixed method action research. In the discovery phase of the study, teachers' awareness of the cognitive skills that constitute reading were revealed through focus group interviews. Then, based on teachers' insufficient knowledge of reading, an intervention training program was created. The effectiveness of the intervention training applied during the evaluation phase of the study was determined. In the monitoring phase of the research, the reflection of the training program and follow-up studies on the classroom teaching environment was revealed through focus group interviews. The participants of the discovery phase of the study were 15 volunteer classroom teachers. While the participants of the evaluation phase were 30 volunteer classroom teachers participating in the training program, the participants of the monitoring phase were 12 volunteer classroom teachers participating in the training program. Knowledge test and interview forms developed by the researchers were used as data collection tools in the study. The data obtained from the discovery and monitoring phases of the study were analyzed using the content analysis method. In addition to descriptive statistics, t-test for related samples was used in the analysis of the data obtained from the evaluation phase.In the research, classroom teachers' lack of knowledge regarding the cognitive components that constitute reading were revealed, these deficiencies were eliminated with the intervention training, and it was observed that they mostly reflected the knowledge they gained through the intervention training into the classroom teaching environment.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Teacher
• Teacher knowledge
• Reading
• Cognitive skills
• Reading skills

Kaynakça

1. Aaron, P. G., Joshi, R. M., Gooden, R. ve Bentum, K. E. (2008). Diagnosis and treatment of reading disabilities based on the component model of reading: An alternative to the discrepancy model of LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(1), 67-84. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940731083
2. Abbott, R. D., Berninger, V. W. ve Fayol, M. (2010). Longitudinal relationships of levels of language in writing and between writing and reading in grades 1 to 7. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 281. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019318
3. Adlof, S. M., Catts, H. W. ve Little, T. D. (2006). Should the simple view of reading include a fluency component?. Reading and Writing, 19(9), 933-958. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-006- 9024-z
4. Ahmed, Y., Francis, D. J., York, M., Fletcher, J. M., Barnes, M. ve Kulesz, P. (2016). Validation of the direct and inferential mediation (DIME) model of reading comprehension in grades 7 through 12. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 44(1), 68-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.02.002
5. Akyol, H., Yıldırım, K., Seyit, A. ve Çetinkaya, Ç. (2013). Anlamaya Yönelik Nasıl Sorular Soruyoruz?. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(1), 41-56.
6. Anmarkrud, Ø. ve Bråten, I. (2012). Naturally-occurring comprehension strategies instruction in 9thgrade language arts classrooms. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 56(6), 591–623. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2011.621134
7. Araújo, S., Reis, A., Petersson, K. M. ve Faísca, L. (2015). Rapid automatized naming and reading performance: a meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(3), 868 –883. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000006
8. Aro, M. ve Björn, P. M. (2016). Preservice and inservice teachers’ knowledge of language constructs in Finland. Annals of Dyslexia, 66(1), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11881-015-0118-7

9. Babayiğit, S. ve Stainthorp, R. (2010). Component processes of early reading, spelling, and narrative writing skills in Turkish: A longitudinal study. Reading and Writing, 23(5), 539-568. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9173-y
10. Babayiğit, S. ve Stainthorp, R. (2011). Modeling the relationships between cognitive–linguistic skills and literacy skills: New insights from a transparent orthography. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 169. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021671
11. Babayiğit, S. ve Stainthorp, R. (2014). Correlates of early reading comprehension skills: A componential analysis. Educational Psychology, 34(2), 185-207. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2013.785045
12. Babayiğit, S., Roulstone, S. ve Wren, Y. (2021). Linguistic comprehension and narrative skills predict reading ability: A 9‐year longitudinal study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 148-168. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12353
13. Balcı, E. (2019). Disleksi hakkında öğretmen görüşleri ve karşılaştıkları sorunlar. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 20(1), 162-179. https://doi.org/10.12984/egeefd.453922
14. Barron, E. R., Rupley, W. H., Paige, D., Nichols, W. D., Nichols, J. ve Lumbreras, R. (2018). Middle school teachers’ knowledge and use of comprehension strategies in discipline instruction. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 17(10), 1–17. https://doi.org/10. 26803/ijlter.17.10.1
15. Berry, B., Daughtrey, A. ve Wieder, A. (2010). Preparing to lead an effective classroom: the role of teacher training and professional development programs. Center for Teaching Quality.
16. Binks-Cantrell, E., Washburn, E. K., Joshi, R. M. ve Hougen, M. (2012). Peter effect in the preparation of reading teachers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16(6), 526-536. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2011.601434
17. Brady, S., Gillis, M., Smith, T., Lavalette, M., Liss-Bronstein, L., Lowe, E., North, W., Russo, E. ve Wilder, T. D. (2009). First grade teachers’ knowledge of phonological awareness and code concepts: Examining gains from an intensive form of professional development and corresponding teacher attitudes. Reading and Writing, 22(4), 425-455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9166-x
18. Brownell, M., Kiely, M. T., Haager, D., Boardman, A., Corbett, N., Algina, J., Dingle, M. P. ve Urbach, J. (2017). Literacy learning cohorts: Content-focused approach to improving special education teachers’ reading instruction. Exceptional Children, 83(2), 143–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402916671517
19. Buckingham, J. (2020). Six reasons to use the science of reading in schools. The Reading League Journal, 1(1), 13-17.
20. Carlisle, J. F., Kelcey, B., Rowan, B. ve Phelps, G. (2011). Teachers’ knowledge about early reading: Effects on students’ gains in reading achievement. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4(4), 289–321. https://doi. org/10.1080/19345747.2010.539297
21. Catts, H. W., Hogan, T. P. ve, & Adlof, S. M. (2005). Developmental changes in reading and reading disabilities. H. W. Catts ve A. Kamhi (Ed.), The connections between language and reading disabilities içinde (s. 25–40). Erlbaum.
22. Cesur, B. ve Şahin, A. E. (2024). İlkokul Öğrencilerinin Okuma Becerilerini Geliştirmeye Yönelik Sınıf Öğretmenlerinin Sahip Olması Gereken Yeterlikler: Bir Delphi Çalışması. Ana Dili Egitim Dergisi, 12(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.16916/aded.1293068
23. Chall, J. S. (1967). Learning to Read: The great debate. McGraw Hill.
24. Chall, J. S. (1999). Commentary: Some thoughts on reading research: Revisiting the first-grade studies. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(1), 8-10.
25. Chiu, M. M., McBride-Chang, C. ve Lin, D. (2012). Ecological, psychological, and cognitive components of reading difficulties: Testing the component model of reading in fourth graders across 38 countries. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(5), 391-405. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221941143124
26. Clark, S. K., Helfrich, S. R. ve Hatch, L. (2017). Examining preservice teacher content and pedagogical content knowledge needed to teach reading in elementary school. Journal of Research in Reading, 40(3), 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12057
27. Cohen, R. A., Mather, N., Schneider, D. A. ve White, J. M. (2017). A comparison of schools: Teacher knowledge of explicit code-based reading instruction. Reading and Writing, 30(4), 653–690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9694-0
28. Cordingley, P., Higgins, S., Greany, T., Buckler, N., Coles-Jordan, D., Crisp, B., Saunders, L. ve Coe, R. (2015). Developing great teaching: Lessons from the international reviews into effective professional development. Teacher Development Trust.
29. Cromley, J. G., Snyder-Hogan, L. E. ve Luciw-Dubas, U. A. (2010). Reading comprehension of scientific text: A domain-specific test of the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 687. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019452
30. Cromley, J.G. ve Azevedo, R. (2007). Testing and refining the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 311–325. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.311
31. Cunningham, A. E., Perry, K. E., Stanovich, K. E. ve Stanovich, P. J. (2004). Disciplinary knowledge of K-3 teachers and their knowledge calibration in the domain of early literacy. Annals of Dyslexia, 54(1), 139–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-004-0007-y
32. De Graff, A. J. ve Torgesen, J. K. (2005). Measuring alphabetic reading skills in a group: New alternatives. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 30(3), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/073724770503000301
33. de Jager, B., Reezigt, G. J. ve Creemers, B. P. (2002). The effects of teacher training on new instructional behaviour in reading comprehension. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(7), 831-842. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00046-X
34. Demirtaş, Ç. P. ve Ergül, C. (2019). Düşük okuma başarısı gösteren çocuklarda okuma, sesbilgisel farkındalık, hızlı isimlendirme ve çalışma belleği becerilerinin incelenmesi. Ankara University Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences (JFES), 53(1), 209-240. https://doi.org/10.30964/auebfd.479111
35. DeMonte, J. (2013). High-quality professional development for teachers: Supporting teacher training to improve student learning. Center for American Progress.
36. Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38 (3), 181–199. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08331140.
37. Desimone, L. M. (2011). A primer on effective professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(6), 68-71. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171109200616
38. Desrochers, A., Manolitsis, G., Gaudreau, P. ve Georgiou, G. (2018). Early contribution of morphological awareness to literacy skills across languages varying in orthographic consistency. Reading and Writing, 31(8), 1695-1719. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9772-y
39. Didion, L., Toste, J. R. ve Filderman, M. J. (2020). Teacher professional development and student reading achievement: A meta-analytic review of the effects. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 13(1), 29-66. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2019.1670884
40. Duke, N. K. ve Cartwright, K. B. (2021). The science of reading progresses: Communicating advances beyond the simple view of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(1), 25-44. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.411
41. Durgunoğlu, A. Y. ve Öney, B. (1999). A cross-linguistic comparison of phonological awareness and word recognition. Reading and Writing, 11(4), 281-299. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008093232622
42. Ergül, C., Akoglu, G., Ökcün Akçamuş, M. Ç., Kılıç Tülü, B., Bahap Kudret, Z. ve Demir, E., (2022). The Contribution of Working Memory to Reading Fluency and Reading Comprehension Performance: Longitudinal Results. Education and Science, 47(211), 249-271. https://doi.org/10.15390/eb.2022.10701
43. Filderman, M. J., Austin, C. R., Boucher, A. N., O’Donnell, K. ve Swanson, E. A. (2022). A meta-analysis of the effects of reading comprehension interventions on the reading comprehension outcomes of struggling readers in third through 12th grades. Exceptional Children, 88(2), 163-184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402921105086
44. Florit, E. ve Cain, K. (2011). The simple view of reading: Is it valid for different types of alphabetic orthographies?. Educational Psychology Review, 23(4), 553-576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9175-6
45. Florit, E., Roch, M. ve Levorato, M. C. (2014). Listening text comprehension in preschoolers: A longitudinal study on the role of semantic components. Reading and Writing, 27(5), 793-817. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-013-9464-1
46. Foorman, B. R., Petscher, Y. ve Herrera, S. (2018). Unique and common effects of decoding and language factors in predicting reading comprehension in grades 1–10. Learning and Individual Differences, 63(3), 12-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.02.011
47. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F. ve Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038004915
48. Georgiou, G. K. ve Parrila, R. (2020). What mechanism underlies the rapid automatized naming–reading relation?. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 194(6), 104840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2020.104840
49. Gök, S. ve Yıldırım, K. (2022). Akıcı okuma. Doğan, B. (ed.) Okuma öğretimi içinde (1. baskı, s. 107-152). Eğiten Kitap
50. Gök, S. ve Yıldırım, K. (2023). Sınıf Öğretmenlerinin Okumayı Oluşturan Bilişsel Bileşenlere İlişkin Farkındalıkları. Bayterek Uluslararası Akademik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 6(2), 441-493. https://doi.org/10.48174/buaad.1367976
51. Goldfeld, S., Snow, P., Eadie, P., Munro, J., Gold, L., Orsini, F., Connell, J., Stark, H., Watts, A. ve Shingles, B. (2021). Teacher knowledge of oral language and literacy constructs: Results of a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of a professional learning intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 25(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2020.1714629
52. Gough, P. B. ve Tumner W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6-10.
53. Güldenoğlu, B., Kargin, T. ve Ergül, C. (2016). Sesbilgisel farkındalık becerilerinin okuma ve okuduğunu anlama üzerindeki etkisi: Boylamsal bir çalışma. İlköğretim Online, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.17051/io.2016.25973
54. Güldenoğlu, B., Kargın, T., Gengeç, H. ve Gürbüz, M. (2019). Okuma sürecinde dil temelli becerilerin önemi: dil–okuma ilişkisine yönelik bulgular. Turkish Journal of Special Education Research and Practice, 1(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.37233/TRSPED.2009.0101
55. Hall, C., Solari, E. J., Hayes, L., Dahl-Leonard, K., DeCoster, J., Kehoe, K. F., Conner, C. L., Henry, A. R., Demchak, A., Richmond, C. L. ve Vargas, I. (2023). Validation of an instrument for assessing elementary-grade educators’ knowledge to teach reading. Reading and Writing, 36(4), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-023-10456-w
56. Hao, M., Fang, X., Sun, Z. ve Liu, Y. (2022). The Extended Simple View of Reading in Adult Learners of Chinese as a Second Language. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 846967. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.846967
57. Høien‐Tengesdal, I. (2010). Is the simple view of reading too simple?. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 54(5), 451-469. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2010.508914
58. Hoover, W. A. ve Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 2(2), 127-160.
59. Hoover, W. A. ve Tunmer, W. E. (2022). The primacy of science in communicating advances in the science of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 57(2), 399-408. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.446
60. Hotchkiss, E. (2023). Understanding effective literacy instruction for primary grade teachers. School of Education and Leadership Student Capstone Projects. 913. https://digitalcommons.hamline.edu/hse_cp/913
61. Hudson, A. K. (2023). Upper elementary teachers' knowledge of reading comprehension, classroom practice, and student's performance in reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 58(3), 351-360. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.491
62. Hudson, A. K., Moore, K. A., Han, B., Wee Koh, P., Binks-Cantrell, E. ve Malatesha Joshi, R. (2021). Elementary teachers’ knowledge of foundational literacy skills: A critical piece of the puzzle in the science of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(1), 287-315. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.408
63. Ivankova, N. V. (2015). Mixed methods applications in action research: From methods to community action. Sage.
64. Ivankova, N. ve, & Wingo, N. (2018). Applying mixed methods in action research: Methodological potentials and advantages. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(7), 978-997.
65. Jakobson, K., Soodla, P. ve Aro, M. (2022). General and special education teachers’ knowledge about reading comprehension processes and instructional practices. Reading and Writing, 35(9), 2229-2256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10280-8
66. Joshi, R. M. ve Aaron, P. G. (2000). The component model of reading: Simple view of reading made a little more complex. Reading Psychology, 21(2), 85–97.
67. Joshi, R. M., Tao, S., Aaron, P. G. ve Quiroz, B. (2012). Cognitive component of componential model of reading applied to different orthographies. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(5), 480– 486. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0022219411432690
68. Kargın, T., Güldenoğlu, B. ve Ergül, C. (2017). Dinlediğini anlama becerisinin okuduğunu anlama üzerindeki yordayıcılığının incelenmesi. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 25(6), 2369-2384.
69. Kehoe, K. F. ve, & McGinty, A. S. (2023). Exploring teachers' reading knowledge, beliefs and instructional practice. Journal of Research in Reading, 47(1), 63-82. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12440
70. 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(1), 101-120. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.08.003
71. Kim, Y. S. G. (2017). Why the simple view of reading is not simplistic: Unpacking component skills of reading using a direct and indirect effect model of reading (DIER). Scientific Studies of Reading, 21(4), 310-333. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/10888438.2017.1291643
72. Kim, Y. S. G. (2023). Oral discourse skills: Dimensionality of comprehension and retell of narrative and expository texts, and the relations of language and cognitive skills to identified dimensions. Child Development, 94(5), 246-263.
73. Kim, Y. S. G. ve, & Wagner, R. K. (2015). Text (oral) reading fluency as a construct in reading development: An investigation of its mediating role for children from grades 1 to 4. Scientific Studies of Reading, 19(3), 224-242. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2015.1007375
74. Kim, Y. S. ve Phillips, B. (2014). Cognitive correlates of listening comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 49(3), 269-281. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.74
75. Kim, Y. S. ve Snow, C. (2021). The Science of Reading Is Incomplete without the Science of Teaching Reading. The Reading League Journal, 1(1), 1-9.
76. Kim, Y.-S., Apel, K. ve Al Otaiba, S. (2013). The relation of linguistic awareness and vocabulary to word reading and spelling for first-grade students participating in response to intervention. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44(4), 337-347. https://doi:10.1044/0161-1461
77. Kocaarslan, M. (2022). The relationships between oral reading fluency, sustained attention, working memory, and text comprehension in the third‐grade students. Psychology in the Schools, 59(4), 744-764. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22641
78. Korkmaz, Y. Y., Babür, N. ve Haznedar, B. (2020). The role of phonological knowledge and rapid naming in the development of spelling and reading in Turkish. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 16(2), 757-774. https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.759293
79. Kucan, L., Hapgood, S. ve Sullivan Palincsar, A. (2011). Teachers’ specialized knowledge for supporting student comprehension in text-based discussions. The Elementary School Journal, 112(1), 61-82. https://doi.org/10.1086/660689
80. Kuzucu-Örge, S. (2018). Differentiating poor and good readers in second grade: Cognitive and linguistic variables [Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi]. Boğaziçi Üniversitesi.
81. Kvale, S. (1996). The 1,000-page question. Qualitative Inquiry, 2(3), 275-284.
82. LaBerge, D. ve Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive psychology, 6(2), 293-323.
83. Lammert, C., Allen, K., Van Wig, A. ve Worthen, B. (2022). Teacher educator and in-service teachers’ self-efficacy and professional literacy knowledge in the context of the science of reading era. The Teacher Educator, 57(4), 343-364. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2022.2034199
84. Landerl, K., Castles, A. ve Parrila, R. (2022). Cognitive precursors of reading: A cross-linguistic perspective. Scientific Studies of Reading, 26(2), 111-124. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2021.1983820
85. Lincoln, Y. S. ve Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
86. Liu, S. ve Phelps, G. (2020). Does teacher learning last? Understanding how much teachers retain their knowledge after professional development. Journal of Teacher Education, 71(5), 537-550. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487119886290
87. Luneta, K. (2012). Designing continuous professional development programmes for teachers: A literature review. Africa Education Review, 9(2), 360-379. https://doi.org/10.1080/18146627.2012.722395
88. McCutchen, D., Abbott, R. D., Green, L. B., Beretvas, S. N., Cox, S., Potter, N. S., Quiroga, T. ve Gray, A. L. (2002). Beginning literacy: Links among teacher knowledge, teacher practice, and student learning. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(1), 69-86. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940203500106
89. McLeskey, J. ve Waldron, N. L. (2002). School change and inclusive schools: Lessons learned from practice. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(1), 65-72. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170208400114
90. Megherbi, H., Seigneuric, A. ve Ehrlich, M. F. (2006). Reading comprehension in French 1st and 2nd grade children: Contribution of decoding and language comprehension. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 21, 135-147. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173573
91. Melby-Lervåg, M., Lyster, S. ve Hulme, C. (2012). Phonological skills and their role in learning to read: a meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 322-352 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026744
92. Miller, J. W. ve Ellsworth, R. (1985). The evaluation of a two-year program to improve teacher effectiveness in reading instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 85(4), 485-495.
93. Moats, L. C. ve Foorman, B. R. (2003). Measuring teachers’ content knowledge of language and reading. Annals of Dyslexia, 53(1), 23-45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-003-0003-7
94. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
95. Öksüz, H. İ. ve Akyol, H. (2023). Ön bilgi, okuma hataları ve kelime tanıma becerilerinin okuduğunu anlamaya etkisi. Ana Dili Eğitimi Dergisi, 11(2), 269-282. https://doi.org/ 10.16916/aded.1210693
96. Öney, B. ve Durgunoğlu, A. Y. (1997). Beginning to read in Turkish: A phonologically transparent orthography. Applied Psycholinguistics, 18(1), 1-15.
97. Özata, H. ve Haznedar, B. (2018). İlköğretim ikinci sınıfta akıcı sözcük okuma ve okuduğunu anlamayı etkileyen faktörler. Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Eğitim Dergisi, 35(2), 1-34.
98. Pan, D. J. ve Lin, D. (2023). Cognitive–linguistic skills explain Chinese reading comprehension within and beyond the simple view of reading in Hong Kong kindergarteners. Language Learning, 73(1), 126-160. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12515
99. Patton, M. Q. (2018). Nitel araştırma ve değerlendirme yöntemleri (Çev. Bütün, M ve S. B. Demir). Pegem Akademi.
100. Piasta, S. B., Connor, C. M., Fishman, B. J. ve Morrison, F. J. (2009). Teachers' knowledge of literacy concepts, classroom practices, and student reading growth. Scientific Studies of Reading, 13(3), 224-248. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430902851364
101. Plano Clark, V. ve, & Ivankova, N. (2016). Mixed methods research: A guide to the field. Sage
102. Podhajski, B., Mather, N., Nathan, J. ve Sammons, J. (2009). Professional development in scientifically based reading instruction: Teacher knowledge and reading outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(5), 403-417. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219409338737
103. Popova, A., Evans, D. K. ve Arancibia, V. (2016). Training teachers on the job: What works and how to measure it. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper (7834).
104. Reid Lyon, G. ve Weiser, B. (2009). Teacher knowledge, instructional expertise, and the development of reading proficiency. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(5), 475-480. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219409338741
105. Roch, M. ve Levorato, M. C. (2009). Simple view of reading in Down's syndrome: The role of listening comprehension and reading skills. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 44(2), 206-223. https://doi.org/10.1080/13682820802012061
106. Sailors, M. ve Price, L. R. (2010). Professional development that supports the teaching of cognitive reading strategy instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 110(3), 301–322. https://doi:org/10.1086/648980
107. Saldana, J. (2019). Nitel araştırmalar için kodlama el kitabı (Çev. A. Tüfekçi ve N. Şad). Pegem.
108. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
109. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
110. Shulman, L. S. ve, & Shulman, J. H. (2004). How and what teachers learn: A shifting perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(2), 257-271. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027032000148298
111. Sims, S., Fletcher-Wood, H., O’Mara-Eves, A., Cottingham, S., Stansfield, C., Goodrich, J., Van Herwegen, J. ve Anders, J. (2023). Effective teacher professional development: new theory and a meta-analytic test. Review of Educational Research, 0(0), 1-42. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543231217480
112. Smith, C. ve Gillespie, M. (2023). Research on professional development and teacher change: Implications for adult basic education. Review of Adult Learning and Literacy içinde (s. 205-244). Routledge.
113. Spear-¬Swerling, L. ve Cheesman, E. (2012). Teachers’ knowledge base for implementing response-¬to--intervention models in reading. Reading and Writing, 25(7), 1691–1723. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-011-¬9338-¬3
114. Spencer, M., Richmond, M. C. ve 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
115. Stark, H. L., Snow, P., Eadie, P. ve Goldfeld, S. (2016). Language and reading instruction in early years’ classrooms: The knowledge and self-rated ability of Australian teachers. Annals of Dyslexia, 66(1), 28–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-015-0112-0
116. Strasser, K. ve Río, F. D. (2014). The role of comprehension monitoring, theory of mind, and vocabulary depth in predicting story comprehension and recall of kindergarten children. Reading Research Quarterly, 49(2), 169-187.
117. Tilstra, J., McMaster, K., Van den Broek, P., Kendeou, P. ve, & Rapp, D. (2009). Simple but complex: Components of the simple view of reading across grade levels. Journal of Research in Reading, 32(4), 383-401. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01401.x
118. Torppa, M., Georgiou, G. K., Lerkkanen, M. K., Niemi, P., Poikkeus, A. M. ve Nurmi, J. E. (2016). Examining the simple view of reading in a transparent orthography: A longitudinal study from kindergarten to grade 3. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 62(2), 179-206. https://doi.org/10.13110/merrpalmquar1982.62.2.0179
119. Tournaki, E., Lyublinskaya, I. ve, & Carolan, B. (2011). An ongoing professional development program and its impact on teacher effectiveness. The Teacher Educator, 46(4), 299-315. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2011.604711
120. Treiman, R., Hulslander, J., Olson, R. K., Willcutt, E. G., Byrne, B. ve Kessler, B. (2019). The unique role of early spelling in the prediction of later literacy performance. Scientific Studies of Reading, 23(5), 437-444. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2019.1573242
121. Tunmer, W. E. ve Hoover, W. A. (2019). The cognitive foundations of learning to read: A framework for preventing and remediating reading difficulties. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 24(1), 75-93. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404158.2019.1614081
122. Van Keer, H. ve Verhaeghe, J. P. (2005). Comparing two teacher development programs for innovating reading comprehension instruction with regard to teachers’ experiences and student outcomes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 543-562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.03.002
123. van Kuijk, M. F., Deunk, M. I., Bosker, R. J. ve Ritzema, E. S. (2016). Goals, data use, and instruction: The effect of a teacher professional development program on reading achievement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 27(2), 135-156. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2015.1026268
124. Verhagen, W., Aarnoutse, C. ve Van Leeuwe, J. (2008). Phonological awareness and naming speed in the prediction of Dutch children's word recognition. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12(4), 301-324. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430802132030
125. Verloop, N., Van Driel, J. ve Meijer, P. (2001). Teacher knowledge and the knowledge base of teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 35(5), 441-461. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(02)00003-4
126. Yıldırım, K., Çetinkaya, Ç. ve Ateş, S. (2013). Akıcı okumaya yönelik öğretmen bilgisi. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 10(22), 263-281.
127. Yildirim, K., Cetinkaya, F. C., Ates, S., Kaya, D. ve Rasinski, T. (2020). Testing the KAPS model of reading comprehension in a Turkish elementary school context from low socioeconomic background. Education Sciences, 10(4), 90. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10040090
128. Yıldırım, K., Rasinski, T. ve Kaya, D. (2017). Fluency and comprehension of expository texts in Turkish students in grades four through eight. Egitim ve Bilim, 42(192), 87-98. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2017.7318