BOŞLUK TAMAMLAMA TESTİNİN OKUMA DÜZEYİNİ VE OKUNABİLİRLİĞİ ÖLÇMEDE KULLANILMASI

Öz

Bu araştırmada boşluk tamamlama testi kullanılarak altı, yedi ve sekizinci sınıf öğrencilerinin Sosyal Bilgiler ve Fen Bilgisi ders kitaplarından seçilen metinler üzerindeki okuma seviyelerinin belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Her beşinci kelime silinerek oluşturulan boşluk tamamlama testleri Ankara-ili Yenimahalle-ilçesinden seçilen ilköğretim okulu öğrencileri üzerinde uygulanmıştır. Uygulama sonucu, bu testin öğrenciler için zor olduğunu ve onların okuma düzeylerini ayrıştırmada başarısız olduğunu göstermiştir. Her altıncı kelimenin silinmesi şeklinde oluşturulan boşluk tamamlama testleri altıncı sınıf sosyal bilgiler ve sekizinci sınıf fen bilgisi öğrencileri üzerinde bir kez daha test edilmiş ve sonuçlar bu testin öğrencilerin okuma düzeylerini ayrıştırmada başarılı olduğunu göstermiştir. Toplamda 237 öğrenci boşluk tamamlama testlerini cevaplamıştır. Analiz sonuçları, öğrencilerin yarıdan fazlasının metinleri öğretim düzeyinde okuyabildiklerini yani metinleri okuyup anlayabilmek için öğretmenlerinin yardımına ihtiyaçları olduğunu göstermiştir. Anlamsız kelimelerle verilen cevapların ve boş bırakılan soruların yüzdesinin yüksek olması, öğrencilerin soruların doğru cevabını bulmak için cümlelerden elde edebilecekleri dil ipuçlarını kullanmadıklarını ve metinlerden anlam çıkarmada sorunlarla karşılaştıklarını göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Türkçe, boşluk tamamlama testi, okunabilirlik, okuma düzeyleri

USING CLOZE TEST TO MEASURE STUDENTS’ READING LEVELS AND READABILITY OF TEXTS

Öz

The purpose of this study is to determine students’ reading levels by using cloze test on selected social studies and science texts at the sixth, seventh, and eighth grades. Every fifth word deletion version of cloze test passages were conducted on elementary school students selected from district of Yenimahalle, Ankara. The results showed that this version of cloze tests was very difficult for the students and this version could not differentiated students’ reading abilities. Due to this reason, every sixth word deletion version of cloze tests was applied in sixth grade social studies and eighth grade science courses. As this result showed that the sixth word deletion version of cloze tests successfully differentiated students’ reading abilities, it was decided to use this version to evaluate students’ reading abilities and readabilities of selected texts. Totally, 237 students filled out the tests. The results showed that more than half of the students read the selected passages at their instructional level, which meant that they needed their teachers’ help to be able to read and comprehend the texts. The high percentage of nonsense words and blank answers indicated that students did not use language cues and had problems gaining meaning from the passages.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Turkish, cloze test, readability, reading levels

Kaynakça

1. Abanami, A. A. (1982). Readability analysis of the 11th and 12 grade earth science textbooks used in the public schools in Saudi Arabia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Houston.
2. Akyol, H. (2005). Türkçe ilkokuma yazma öğretimi (Dördüncü baskı). Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık.
3. Armbruster, B. B. (Baskıda). Matching readers and texts: The continuing quest. In D. Lapp, J. Flood, N. Farnan (Eds.), Content area reading and learning (3rd ed., pp.). New York: Erlbaum.
4. Baldwin, R. S., Leavell, A. G. (1992). When was the last time you read a textbook just for kicks?. In E. K. Dishner, T. W. Bean, J. E. Readence, D. W. Moore (Eds.), Reading in the content areas: Improving classroom instruction (3rd ed., pp. 106-111). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
5. Bickley, A. C., Ellington, B. J., Bickley, R. T. (1970). The cloze procedure: A conspectus. Journal of Reading Behavior, 2, 232-249.
6. Bormuth, J. (1963). Cloze as a measure of Readability. Proceedings of the International Reading Association, 131-134.
7. Briere. E. J., Clausing, G., Senko, D., Purcell, E. (1978). A look at cloze testing across languages and levels. The Modern Language Journal, 62, 23-26.
8. Chavkin, L. (1997). Readability and reading ease revisited: State-Adopted science textbooks. The Clearing House, 70, 151-154.

9. Chiang-Soong, B., Yager, R. E. (1993). Readability levels of the science textbooks most used in secondary schools. School Science and Mathematics, 93, 24-27.
10. De Landsheere, G. (1963). Pour une application des tests de lisibilite de Flesch a la language francaise [Application of the Flesch test for the language of French]. Le Travail Humain, 26, 141-154.
11. Fry, E. (1977). Elementary reading instruction. New York: McGraw-Hill.
12. Fry, E. (1996). Understanding the readability of content area texts. In D. Lapp, J. Flood, N. Farnan (Eds.), Content area reading and learning: Instructional strategies (pp. 39-46). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
13. Froese, V. (1971). Cloze readability versus the Dale-Chall formula. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED051975)
14. Harris-Sharples, S. H. (1983). A study of the match between student reading ability and textbook difficulty during classroom instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.
15. Kinder, D., Bursuck, B., Epstein, M. (1992). An evaluation of history textbooks. The Journal of Special Education, 25, 472-491.
16. Klare, G. R. (1974-1975). Assessing readability. Reading Research Quarterly, 10, 62-102.
17. Klare, G. R., Simaiko, H. W., Stolurow, L. M. (1972). The cloze procedure: A convenient readability test for training materials and translations. International Review of Applied Psychology, 21(2), 77-106.
18. Loangsitongsoog, S. (1983). A comparison of sixth grade Thai and American students on two forms of the cloze procedure: Regular cloze, synonymic cloze. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Florida State University.
19. Mariotti, A. S., Homan, S. P. (2001). Linking reading assessment to instruction: An application worktext for elementary classroom teachers (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20. McKenna, M. C., Robinson, R. D. (1997). Teaching through text: A content literacy approach to content area reading (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.
21. Oller, J. W., Bowen, D. J., Dien, T. T., Mason, V. W. (1972). Cloze tests in English, Thai, and Vietnamise: Native and non-native performance. Language Learning, 22, 1-13.
22. Rankin, E. F. (1958). An evaluation of the cloze procedure as a technique for measuring reading comprehension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Michigan.
23. Rankin, E. F., Culhane, J. W. (1969). Comparable cloze and multiple-choice comprehension test scores. Journal of Reading, 13, 193-198.
24. Ruddell, M. R. (2001). Teaching content reading and writing (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley & Sons.
25. Ruddell, M. R. (2005). Teaching content reading and writing (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
26. Sellars, G. B. (1987). A comparison of the readability of selected high school social studies, science, and literature textbooks. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Florida State University.
27. Shearer, A. P. (1982). A psycholinguistic comparison of second grade good readers and fourth grade good and poor readers on their oral reading miscues and standard and phoneme cloze responses. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida.
28. Shiba, S. A. (1957). A study of the measurement of readability- application of the cloze procedure to the Japanese language. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 28, 67-73, (Japanese text and English abstract).
29. Şenünver, G., Karabulut, E., Kesim, H. S., Turgut, R., Ercan, N., Küçükbaycan M., Uslu H., Akay, A. (2001). Seventh grade social studies (4th ed.). Istanbul: MONE.
30. Taylor, W. L. (1953). Cloze procedure: A new tool for measuring readability. Journalism Quarterly, 30, 415-433.
31. Taylor, W. L. (1956). Recent developments in the use of cloze procedure. Journalism Quarterly, 33, 42-48.
32. Taylor, W. L., Lee, K. W. (1954). KM readers lend hand to science: Cloze method works in written Korean and may serve as a tool for Korean language reform. Korean Messenger, 3, 4-5.
33. Thorndike, R. M., Cunningham, G. K., Thorndike, R. L., Hagen, E. P. (1991). Measurement and evaluation in psychology and education. New York: Macmillan.
34. Tyree, R. B., Fiore, T. A., Cook, R. A. (1994). Instructional materials for diverse learners: Features and considerations for textbook design. Remedial and Special Education, 15, 363-377.
35. Ulusoy, M. (2006). Readability approaches: Implications for Turkey. International Education Journal, 7(3), 323-332.
36. Vacca, R. T., Vacca, J. A. L. (2005). Content area reading: Literacy and learning across the curriculum (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
37. Wait, S. S. (1987). Textbook readability and the predictive value of the Dale-Chall, comprehensive assessment program, and cloze. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Florida State University.
38. Yıldırım, A. (1999). An assessment of high school history textbooks in Turkey: Teachers’ and students’ perceptions. Montreal, Quebec: Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No: ED432510).