Okuduğunu Anlama Öğretiminin Tarihsel Arka Planı

Öz

Kuramsal nitelikteki bu çalışmanın amacı, farklı eğitim kuramları, yaklaşımları ve modellerine göre okuduğunu anlama öğretiminin nasıl ele alındığını ve dönüştüğünü tarihsel bir çerçeve içinde konumlandırmaktır. Çalışmada okuduğunu anlama öğretimi üç dönemde ele alınmıştır: davranışçı ekolün belirleyici olduğu 1975 öncesi dönem; bilişsel yaklaşımın, bilgi işleme kuramının ve sosyo-kültürel yaklaşımın etkili olduğu 1975-1990 yılları arasındaki dönem ve son olarak literatür kuramı, okur-tepki teorisi ve kültürel teorinin öne çıktığı 1990 sonrası dönem. Böyle bir tarihsel bakışın konuyla ilgili okuma vizyonunu genişletmeye, günümüzdeki uygulama ve araştırmaların köklerinin geçmişe uzanan bir miras olduğunu görebilmeye ve de okuduğunu anlama öğretimindeki güncel sorunların analizine farklı boyutlardan yaklaşılmasına katkı sağlayacağı düşünülmektedir. Çalışma sonucunda okuduğunu anlama öğretiminin tarihsel süreçte sırasıyla fizyolojik, psikolojik ve sosyolojik olana doğru evrilen bir süreç izlediği görülmüştür. Çalışmanın temel önerisi araştırmacıların okuduğunu anlama öğretimine ilişkin kuram ve modelleri birbirinden ayırarak ve basitleştirerek değil, aksine bütünleştirerek ve her bir kuram ve modelin anlama öğretimine kendi perspektifi ile katkı sunduğunu bilerek araştırmalar yapmalarıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Okuduğunu Anlama
• Okuduğunu Anlama Stratejileri
• Okuduğunu Anlama Öğretimi
• Tarihsel Bakış

Historical Background of Reading Comprehension Instruction

Öz

The aim of this theoretical study is to situate how reading comprehension instruction has been handled and transformed based on different educational theories, approaches and models within a historical framework. In the study, reading comprehension instruction is examined in three periods which are the pre-1975 period in which the behaviorist theory was dominant; the period between 1975 and 1990 in which the cognitive approach, information processing theory and socio-cultural approach were effective; and finally the post-1990 period in which literature theory, reader-response theory and cultural theory were prominent. It is considered that such a historical perspective will contribute to expand the vision of reading on the subject, to see that the roots of current practices and research are a heritage dating back to the past, and to approach the analysis of current problems in reading comprehension instruction from different dimensions. As a result of the study, it was seen that reading comprehension instruction followed a process evolving towards the physiological, psychological and sociological one, respectively, in the historical process. The main recommendation of the study is that researchers should conduct research not by separating and simplifying the theories and models of reading comprehension instruction, but by integrating them and knowing that each theory and model contribute to comprehension instruction from their own perspectives.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Reading Comprehension
• Reading Comprehension Strategies
• Reading Comprehension Instruction
• Historical Overview

Kaynakça

1. Aktaş, E. & Bayram, B. (2018). Türkçe öğretiminde okuduğunu anlama stratejilerinin kullanımı üzerine bir inceleme. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 22(3), 1401–1414.
2. Akyol, H. (2005). Türkçe ilkokuma yazma öğretimi. Ankara: Gündüz Eğitim.
3. Akyol, H. (2007). Okuma. A. Kırkkılıç & H. Akyol (Ed.), İlköğretimde Tükçe öğretimi içinde (s. 15–48). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
4. Akyol, H. (2015). Türkçe ilk okuma yazma öğretimi. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
5. Akyol, H. (2018). Türkçe ilk okuma yazma öğretimi. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
6. Akyol, H. (2019). Programa uygun Türkçe öğretim yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
7. Akyol, H. & Şahin, A. (Ed.). (2019). Türkçe öğretimi: Öğretmen adayları ve öğretmenler için. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
8. Alexander, P. A. (1998). Knowledge and literacy: A transgenerational perspective. T. Shanahan & F. V. Rodríguez-Brown (Ed.), The forty-seventh yearbook of the National Reading Conference içinde (s. 22–43). Chicago: National Reading Conference.

9. Alexander, P. A. & Fox, E. (2013). A historical perspective on reading research and practice, redux. D. E. Alvermann, N. J. Unrau & R. B. Ruddell (Ed.), Theoretical models and processes of reading içinde (s. 3–46). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association.
10. Alexander, P. A., Graham, S. & Harris, K. R. (1998). A perspective on strategy research: Progress and prospects. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 129–154.
11. Allen, S. (2003). An analytic comparison of three models of reading strategy instruction. IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 41(4), 319–338. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2003.015
12. Almasi, J. F. & Fullerton, S. K. (2012). Teaching strategic process in reading (2. b.). New York: Guilford.
13. Alvermann, D. E., Smith, L. C. & Readence, J. E. (1985). Prior knowledge activation and the comprehension of compatible and incompatible text. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(4), 420–436. https://doi.org/10.2307/747852
14. Alvermann, D. E., Unrau, N. J. & Ruddell, R. B. (2013). Theoretical models and processes of reading. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association.
15. Anderson, R. C. (1977). The notion of schemata and the educational enterprise: General discussion of the conference. R. Anderson, R. Spiro & M. Montague (Ed.), Schooling and the acquisitioning of knowledge içinde (s. 415-432). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
16. Anderson, R. C., Pichert, J. W. & Shirey, L. L. (1983). Effects of the reader’s schema at different points in time. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(2), 271–279. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.75.2.271
17. Anmarkrud, Ø. & Bråten, I. (2012). Naturally-occurring comprehension strategies instruction in 9th-grade language arts classrooms. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 56(6), 591–623. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2011.621134
18. Asselin, M. (2002). Comprehension instruction: Directions from research. Teacher Librarians, 29, 55–57.
19. Ateş, S. (2011). İlköğretim beşinci sınıf Türkçe dersi öğrenme-öğretme sürecinin anlama öğretimi açısından değerlendirilmesi. (Doktora tezi). https://tez.yok.gov.tr sayfasından erişilmiştir.
20. Baars, B. J. (1986). The cognitive revolution in psychology. New York: Guilford.
21. Baker, L. & Beall, L. C. (2009). Metacognitive processes and reading comprehension. S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Ed.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension içinde (s. 373–388). New York: Routledge.
22. Baker, L. & Brown, A. L. (2002). Metacognitive skills and reading. P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil & P. B. Mosenthal (Ed.), Handbook of reading research içinde (s. 353–394). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23. Baştuğ, M., Hiğde, A., Çam, E., Örs, E. & Efe, P. (2019). Okuduğunu anlama becerilerini geliştirme: Stratejiler, teknikler, uygulamalar. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
24. Baydık, B. (2011). Okuma güçlüğü olan öğrencilerin üstbilişsel okuma stratejilerini kullanımı ve öğretmenlerinin okuduğunu anlama öğretim uygulamalarının incelenmesi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 36(162), 301–319.
25. Blair, T. R., Rupley, W. H. & Nichols, W. D. (2007). The effective teacher of reading: Considering the “what” and “how” of instruction. The Reading Teacher, 60(5), 432–438. https://doi.org/10.1598/rt.60.5.3
26. Block, C. C. & Lacina, J. (2009). Comprehension instruction in kindergarten through grade three. S. Israel & G. Duffy (Ed.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension içinde (s. 494–509). New York: Routledge.
27. Block, C. C., Parris, S. R., Reed, K. L., Whiteley, C. S. & Cleveland, M. D. (2009). Instructional approaches that significantly increase reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(2), 262–281. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014319
28. Block, C. C. & Pressley, M. (2007). Best practices in teaching comprehension. L. B. Gambrell, L. M. Morrow & M. Pressley (Ed.), Best practices in literacy instruction içinde (s. 220–242). New York: Guilford.
29. Bormuth, J. R. (1966). Readability: A new approach. Reading Research Quarterly, 1(3), 79–132.
30. Bormuth, J. R., Manning, J. C., Carr, J. W. & Pearson, P. D. (1970). Children’s comprehension of between-and within-sentence syntactic structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 61(5), 349–357.
31. Bransford, J. D. & Franks, J. J. (1971). The abstraction of linguistic ideas. Cognitive Psychology, 2(4), 331–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(71)90019-3
32. Brown, R. (2008). The road not yet taken: A transactional strategies approach to comprehension instruction. The Reading Teacher, 61(7), 538–547. https://doi.org/10.1598/rt.61.7.3
33. Campbell, J. B. (2011). Take it out of class: Exploring virtual literature circles. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(8), 557–567.
34. Carnine, D. W., Silbert, J., Kame’enui, E. J. & Tarver, S. G. (2004). Direct reading instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
35. Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
36. Chomsky, N. (1998). On language: Chomsky’s classic works language and responsibility and reflections on language. New York: New.
37. Chomsky, N. (2002). On nature and language. New York: Cambridge University.
38. Clark, K. F. & Graves, M. F. (2005). Scaffolding students’ comprehension of text. The Reading Teacher, 58(6), 570–580. https://doi.org/10.1598/rt.58.6.6
39. Davis, F. B. (1942). Two new measures of reading ability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 33(5), 365–372.
40. Deitcher, H. (2007). We were as dreamers: The impact of the communal milieu on the place of Hebrew in Diaspora Jewish education. The Hebrew Language in the Era of Globalization, 31(1), 105–114.
41. Dewitz, P., Jones, J. & Leahy, S. (2009). Comprehension strategy instruction in core reading programs. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(2), 102–126. https://doi.org/10.1598/rrq.44.2.1
42. Doğan, B. (2002). Strateji öğretiminin işbirlikçi ve geleneksel sınıflarda okuduğunu anlama becerileri, güdü ve hatırda tutma üzerindeki etkileri. (Doktora Tezi). https://tez.yok.gov.tr sayfasından erişilmiştir.
43. Dole, J. (2000). Explicit and implicit instruction in comprehension. B. M. Taylor, M. F. Graves & P. van den Broek (Ed.), Reading for meaning: Fostering comprehension in the middle grades içinde (s. 52–69). New York: Teachers College.
44. Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. C. Doughty & J. Williams (Ed.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition içinde (s. 197–261). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.
45. Duffy, G. G. (2009). Explaining reading: A resource for teaching concepts, skills, and strategies. New York: Guilford.
46. Duffy, G. G. & Roehler, L. R. (1987). Teaching reading skills as strategies. The Reading Teacher, 40(4), 414–418.
47. Duke, N. K. & Martin, N. M. (2015). Best practices in informational text comprehension instruction. L. B. Gambrell & L. M. Morrow (Ed.), Best practices in literacy instruction içinde (s. 234–249). New York: Guilford.
48. Duke, N. K. & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. A. Farstrup & J. Samuels (Ed.), What research has to say about reading instruction içinde (s. 205–242). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association.
49. Durkin, D. (1990). Comprehension Instruction in Current Basal Reader Series. (Teknik Rapor No. 521). Illinois: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. https://documents.pub/document/comprehension-instruction-in-current-basal-reader-series.html?page=3 sayfasından erişilmiştir.
50. Fagan, W. T. (1971). Transformations and comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 25(2), 169–172.
51. Farahani, M. V., Rezai, O. & Masoomzadeh, M. (2019). Teaching implicit vs explicit reading comprehension skills and translation performance of Iranian undergraduate students: An experimental comparative study. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 11(4), 844–862. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-12-2018-0262
52. Fountas, I. & Pinnell, G. (1996). Guided reading: Good first teaching for all children. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
53. Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
54. Gelen, İ. (2003). Bilişsel farkındalık stratejilerinin Türkçe dersine ilişkin tutum, okuduğunu anlama ve kalıcılığa etkisi. (Doktora Tezi). https://tez.yok.gov.tr sayfasından erişilmiştir.
55. Goodman, Y. M. & Goodman, K. S. (2013). To err is human: Learning about language processes by analyzing miscues. D. E. Alverman, N. J. Unrau & R. B. Ruddell (Ed.), Theoretical models and processes of literacy içinde (s. 525–557). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association.
56. Harste, J. C., Burke, C. & Woodward, V. (1984). Language stories and literacy lessons. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
57. Israel, S. E., Block, C. C., Bauserman, K. L. & Kinnucan-Welsch, K. (2008). Metacognition in literacy learning: Theory, assessment, instruction, and professional development. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
58. Jacobucci, L., Richert, J., Ronan, S. & Tanis, A. (2002). Improving reading comprehension by predicting, monitoring comprehension, remediation, and personal response strategies. (Yüksek Lisans Tezi). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED473054.pdf sayfasından erişilmiştir.
59. Kamil, M. L., Pearson, P. D., Moje, E. B. & Afflerbach, P. (2011). Handbook of reading research (4. b.). New York & London: Routledge.
60. Karolides, N. J. (1997). Reader response in elementary classrooms. New York: Routledge.
61. Lapp, D. & Fisher, D. (2009). Essential readings on comprehension. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association.
62. Lipson, M. Y. (1983). The influence of religious affiliation on children’s memory for text information. Reading Research Quarterly, 18(4), 448–457. https://doi.org/10.2307/747379
63. Lysynchuk, L. M., Pressley, M., D’Ailly, H., Smith, M. & Cake, H. (1989). A methodological analysis of experimental studies of comprehension strategy instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 24(4), 458. https://doi.org/10.2307/747607
64. May, F. B. & Rizzardi, L. (2002). Reading as communication. USA: Prentice Hall.
65. McKnight, K., S. (2013). The elementary teacher’s big book of graphic organizers. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
66. McNamara, D. S., Floyd, R. G., Best, R. & Louwerse, M. (2004). World knowledge driving young readers’ comprehension difficulties. International Conference of the Learning Sciences’da sunulmuş bildiri, Los Angeles.
67. Mehrpour, M., Zamaniyan, M., Sadighi, F. & Hadipourfard, E. (2022). The use of explicit and implicit instructions in teaching reading strategies and their impacts on EFL learners’ reading comprehension. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 6(5), 1851–1864.
68. Miller, D. (2006). Reading with meaning: Teaching comprehension in the primary grades. Portland, Maine: Stenhouse.
69. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2019). PISA 2018 Türkiye Ön Raporu. Ankara: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı.
70. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the sub-groups. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119705116.ch10
71. Olifant, T., Cekiso, M., Boakye, N. & Madikiza, N. (2020). Investigating reading comprehension strategies used by teachers during English first additional language reading instruction. Journal for Language Teaching, 54(2), 71–93. https://doi.org/10.4314/jlt.v54i2.4
72. Oxford, R. L., Crookall, D., Cohen, A., Lavine, R., Nyikos, M. & Sutter, W. (1990). Strategy training for language learners: Six situational case studies and a training model. Foreign Language Annals, 22, 197–216.
73. Özdemir, Y. (2017). “Okumadan önce, okuma esnasında, okumadan sonra düşün” stratejisinin okuduğunu anlama becerisine etkisi. (Doktora Tezi). https://tez.yok.gov.tr sayfasından erişilmiştir.
74. Palinscar, A. S. & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0102
75. Pangestu, A. P., Hidayah, J. & Apriani, E. (2021). The impacts of explicit and implicit instructions of English connectors on EFL students’ reading comprehension. Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching, 7(1), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.29300/ling.v7i1.4305
76. Paris, S., Cross, D. & Lipson, M. (1984). Informed strategies for learning: A program to improve children’s reading awareness and comprehension. Psychology, Journal of Educational, 76, 1239–1252.
77. Paris, S. C., Lipson, M. Y. & Wixson, K. K. (1994). Becoming a strategic reader. R. Rudell, M. R. Rudell & H. Singer (Ed.), Theoretical models and processes of reading içinde (4. b., s. 788–810). Newark, DA: International Reading Association.
78. Parris, S. R. & Headley, K. (2015). Metacognition in comprehension instruction: New direction (3. b.). New York & London: The Guilford.
79. Pearson, P. D. (1974-75). The effects of grammatical complexity on children’s comprehension, recall, and conception of certain semantic relations. International Reading Association, 10(2), 155–192.
80. Pearson, P. D. (2009). The roots of reading comprehension instruction. S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Ed.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension içinde (s. 3–32). New York: Routledge.
81. Pearson, P. D. & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 317–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(83)90019-X
82. Pearson, P. D. & Stephens, D. (1994). Learning from literacy: A 30-year journey. R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell & H. Singer (Ed.), Theoretical models and processes of reading içinde (s. 22–42). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
83. Pesa, N. & Somers, S. (2007). Improving reading comprehension through application and transfer of reading strategies. Chicago, Illinois: Saint Xavier University & Pearson Achievement Solutions.
84. Pressley, M. (2002). Metacognition and self regulated comprehension. A. F. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Ed.), What research has to say about reading instruction içinde (s. 502–537). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association.
85. Pressley, M., El-Dinary, P. B., Gaskins, I., Schuder, T., Bergman, J. L., Almasi, J. & Brown, R. (1992). Beyond direct explanation: Transactional instruction of reading comprehension strategies. The University of Chicago Press Journals, 92(5), 513–555.
86. Raphael, T. E., George, M., Weber, C. M. & Nies, A. (2009). Approaches to teaching reading comprehension. S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Ed.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (s. 449–469). New York: Routledge.
87. Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of literary work. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University.
88. Rosenblatt, L. M. (1982). The literary transaction: Evocation and response. Theory into Practice, 21(4), 268–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405848209543018
89. Rosenblatt, L. M. (1983). Literature as exploration (4. b.). New York: Modern Language Association.
90. Rosenblatt, L. M. (2013). The transactional theory of reading and writing. D. E. Alverman, N. J. Unrau & R. B. Ruddell (Ed.), Theoretical models and processes of literacy içinde (s. 923–956). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association.
91. Rosenshine, B., Meister, C. & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 181–221. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1170607?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents sayfasından erişilmiştir.
92. Ruiz, Y. (2015). Improving reading comprehension through the use of interactive reading strategies: A quantitative study. (Doktora Tezi). https://www.proquest.com/docview/1706285755?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true sayfasından erişilmiştir.
93. Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. J. T. Guthrie (Ed.), Comprehension in teaching içinde (s. 3–26). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
94. Sanders, S. (2020). Using the self-regulated strategy development framework to teach reading comprehension strategies to elementary students with disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 43(1), 57–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43494-020-00009-z
95. Sarasti, I. A. (2007). The effects of reciprocal teaching comprehension-monitoring strategy on 3rd grade students’ reading comprehension. (Doktora Tezi). https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/ metadc3919/m2/1/high_res_d/dissertation.pdf sayfasından erişilmiştir.
96. Smagorinsky, P. (2001). If meaning is constructed, what is it made from? Toward a cultural theory of reading. Review of Educational Research, 71(1), 133–169.
97. Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Towards a R&D program in reading comprehension. Washington, DC: RAND Reading Study Group.
98. Taki, Y. (2017). Effects of explicit and implicit strategy instruction on reading strategies. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/230512753.pdf sayfasından erişilmiştir.
99. Temizkan, M. (2009). Metin türlerine göre okuma eğitimi. Ankara: Nobel.
100. Tracey, D. H. & Morrow, L. M. (2017). Lenses on reading (H. Ülper, Çev. Ed.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
101. Türkben, T. (2019). Etkin bir okuma becerisi öğretim modelini temel alan izlence: Etkileşimsel okuma modeli. Journal of World of Turks, 11(1), 141–163.
102. Ülper, H. (2021). Okuma ve anlamlandırma becerilerinin kazandırılması. Ankara: Nobel.
103. Vacca, R. T. & Vacca, J. L. (1983). Two less than fortunate consequences of reading research in the 1970’s. Reading Research Quarterly, 18(4), 382–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/747374
104. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. London & Cambridge: Harvard University.
105. Watson, S. M. R., Gable, R. A., Gear, S. B. & Hughes, K. C. (2012). Evidence-based strategies for improving the reading comprehension of secondary students: Implications for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 27(2), 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2012.00353.x
106. Yılmaz, M. (2011). İlköğretim 4. sınıf öğrencilerinin okuduğunu anlama seviyeleri ile Türkçe, matematik, sosyal bilgiler ve fen ve teknoloji derslerindeki basarıları arasındaki ilişkinin belirlenmesi. Dumlupınar Üniveristesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 29, 9–14.