Karşılıklı öğretimin anlama, dikkat, hızlı isimlendirme ve çalışma belleği üzerindeki etkisi

Abstract

Çalışmanın amacı, ilkokul dördüncü sınıfa devam eden papağan okuyucuları hızlı isimlendirme, sözel çalışma belleği ve dikkat becerileri açısından değerlendirmek ve karşılıklı öğretim yaklaşımının papağan okuyucuların okuduğunu anlama becerilerini geliştirmedeki etkisini incelemektir. Araştırmanın çalışma grubu 25 papağan okuyucu ve 21 bağımsız okuyucudan oluşmaktadır. Araştırmada kelime tanıma becerisinde serbest düzey, okuduğunu anlama becerisinde endişe düzeyinde olan ilkokul dördüncü sınıf öğrencileri papağan okuyucu olarak tanımlanmaktadır. Öte yandan hem kelime tanıma hem de okuduğunu anlama becerisinde serbest düzeyde olan öğrenciler ise bağımsız okuyucu olarak tanımlanmaktadır. Bulgulara göre, hızlı isimlendirme, sözel çalışma belleği ve dikkat becerisinde yaşanan güçlük papağan okuyucuların ortak özelliklerindendir. Öte yandan 12 hafta boyunca uygulanan karşılıklı öğretim yaklaşımı ile papağan okuyucuların okuduğunu anlama becerilerinde ciddi gelişimler sağlanmıştır. Bu doğrultuda karşılıklı öğretim yaklaşımının papağan okuyucuların yaşadıkları güçlükleri ortadan kaldırdığı yorumu yapılabilir.

Keywords

• Karşılıklı öğretim
• Okuduğunu anlama
• Papağan okuyucu

Effect of reciprocal teaching on comprehension, attention, rapid naming and working memory

Abstract

This study aims to evaluate word callers attending the fourth grade of primary school in terms of rapid naming, verbal working memory, and attention skills, and to examine the effect of the reciprocal teaching approach on the development of word callers' reading comprehension skills. The study group consisted of 25 word callers and 21 independent readers. Fourth-grade students who are at the independent level in word recognition skills and at the level of frustration in reading comprehension skills are defined as word callers. On the other hand, students who are at the independent level in both word recognition and reading comprehension skills are defined as independent readers. According to the findings, difficulties in rapid naming, verbal working memory and attention skills are common characteristics of word callers. On the other hand, with the reciprocal teaching approach applied for 12 weeks, significant improvements were achieved in the reading comprehension skills of word callers. In this direction, it can be interpreted that the reciprocal teaching approach eliminated the difficulties experienced by word callers.

Keywords

• Reading comprehension
• Reciprocal teaching
• Word caller

References

1. A’yun, Q., & Yunus, M. (2017). The efficacy of reciprocal teaching method in teaching reading comprehension to efl students. ELT Echo: The Journal of English Language Teaching in Foreign Language Context, 2(2), 134-146.
2. Akoğlu, G. (2011). Investigation of relationship between verbal working memory and syntax comprehension skills on children with developmental language disorders and typically developing children (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ankara University.
3. Akoğlu, G., & Acarlar, F. (2014). Investigation of Turkish Nonword Repetition List for 3-9 Years Children. Education and Science, 39(173), 13-24.
4. Aktaş, N. (2023). The effect of online reciprocal teaching on fourth grade primary school students’ reading comprehension skills and reading motivation. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2023.2192720
5. Akyol, H. (2003). Metinden anlam kurma [Making meaning from texts]. TÜBAR, XIII, 49-58.
6. Akyol, H. (2019). Programa uygun Türkçe öğretim yöntemleri [Turkish teaching methods suitable for the program] (9 ed.). Pegem.
7. Akyol, H., Yıldırım, K., Ateş, S., Çetinkaya, Ç., & Rasinski, T. V. (2014). Okumayı değerlendirme öğretmenler için kolay ve pratik bir yol [An easy and practical way for teachers to assess reading]. Pegem.
8. Albatool, A. M. A., & Moneus, A. M. A. (2023). Towards interactive teaching strategies in teaching English literature. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 13(8), 1912-1919. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1308.06

9. Applegate, M. D., Applegate, A. J., & Modla, V. B. (2009). “She’s my best reader; she just can’t comprehend”: Studying the relationship between fluency and comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 62(6), 512-521. http://doi.org/10.1598/RT.62.6.5
10. Araújo, S., Reis, A., Petersson, K. M., & 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
11. Arnell, K. M., Joanisse, M. F., Klein, R. M., Busseri, M. A., & Tannock, R. (2009). Decomposing the relation between rapid automatized naming (RAN) and reading ability. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(3), 173-184. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0015721
12. Aryadoust, V. (2020). A review of comprehension subskills: A scientometrics perspective. System, 88, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102180
13. Ateş, S. (2011). İlköğretim beşinci sınıf Türkçe dersi öğrenme-öğretme sürecinin anlama öğretimi açısından değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of fifth-grade Turkish course learning and teaching process in terms of comprehension instruction] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Gazi University, Graduate School of Educational Sciences.
14. Bhatti, M. T., & Shah, S. G. A. (2021). The effects of reciprocal teaching on perceived reading comprehension self-efficacy: Reflections of post-graduate students and their professor. Journal of Education & Social Sciences, 9(1), 42-53. https://doi.org/10.20547/jess0912109104
15. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2017). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı [Handbook of data analysis for social sciences] (23th ed.). Pegem.
16. Cain, K. (2006). Individual differences in children's memory and reading comprehension: An investigation of semantic and inhibitory deficits. Memory, 14(5), 553-569. http://doi.org/10.1080/09658210600624481
17. 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), 31-42. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.31
18. Carter, C. J. (1997). Why reciprocal teaching? Educational Leadership, 54(6), 64-68.
19. Ceylan, E., & Harputlu, L. (2015). Metacognition in reading comprehension. The Literacy Trek, 1(1), 28-36.
20. Couzens, L. S. (2013). Word calling in 3rd and 4th graders: Exploring student and teacher characteristics (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Nevada.
21. Çakıroğlu, O. (2020). Özel öğrenme güçlüğü olan çocukların özellikleri [Characteristics of children with specific learning disabilities]. In M. A. Melekoğlu & O. Çakıroğlu (Eds.), Özel öğrenme güçlüğü olan çocuklar [Children with specific learning disabilities] (7th ed., pp. 35-58). Vize.
22. Çelik, C., Erden, G., Özmen, S., & Hesapçıoğlu, S. T. (2018). Okuma becerisi ve özgül öğrenme güçlüğü belirtilerinin dikkat eksikliği hiperaktivite bozukluğunda değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of reading skills and Specific Learning Disability symptoms in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder]. Klinik Psikoloji Dergisi, 2(2), 65-76.
23. Decristan, J., Bertram, V., Reitenbach, V., Schneider, K. M., Köhler, C., & Rauch, D. P. (2022). Linguistically responsive reciprocal teaching in primary school: Effectiveness of an intervention study on students’ reading competence. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 11, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2022.2141757
24. DeJournett, R. R. (2017). Investigating the existence of word callers (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Tennessee.
25. Denckla, M. B. (1972). Color-naming defects in dyslexic boys. Cortex, 8(2), 164-176. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-9452(72)80016-9
26. Denckla, M. B., & Rudel, R. G. (1976a). Rapid 'automatized' naming (R.A.N.): Dyslexia differentiated from other learning disabilities. Neuropsychologia, 14(4), 471-479. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(76)90075-0
27. Denckla, M. B., & Rudel, R. G. (1976b). Rapid automatized naming of pictured objects, colors, letters, and numbers, by normal children. Cortex, 10(2), 186-202. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-9452(74)80009-2
28. Dew, T. P., Swanto, S., & Pang, V. (2021). Reciprocal teaching and reading comprehension: An integrative review. Journal of Educational Research & Indigenous Studies, 3(1), 1-12.
29. Durkin, D. (1981). Schools don't teach comprehension. Educational Leadership, 38(6), 453-454.
30. Dymock, S. (1993). Reading but not understanding. Journal of Reading, 37(2), 86-91.
31. Endeksa. (2023). Türkiye, Mersin, Yenişehir demografik veriler [Türkiye, Mersin, Yenişehir demographic data]. Retrieved 01.01.2023 from https://www.endeksa.com/tr/analiz/mersin/yenisehir/demografi
32. Ergül, C., & Demir, E. (2022). Anasınıfından dördüncü sınıfa kadar olan çocuklar için geliştirilmiş Hızlı İsimlendirme Testi'nin geçerlik ve güvenirliği [Validity and reliability of Rapid Naming Test for children from kindergarten to fourth grade]. Trakya Education Journal, 12(1), 176-192. https://doi.org/10.24315/tred.883688
33. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2001). Spss for windows step by step: A simple guide and reference 10.0 update (3rd ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
34. Georgiou, G. K., & Parrila, R. (2020). What mechanism underlies the rapid automatized naming–reading relation? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 194, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2020.104840
35. Grant, C. E. (2013). "I can read accurately but can't understand the text read": The effects of using a reading intervention on fifth-grade students' "word callers" reading comprehension achievement (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ball State University.
36. Güldenoğlu, B., & Kargın, T. (2012). Karşılıklı öğretim tekniğinin hafif derecede zihinsel engelli öğrencilerin okuduğunu anlama becerileri üzerindeki etkililiğinin incelenmesi [Investigating the effectiveness of reciprocal teaching technique on the reading comprehension skills of students with mild intellectual disabilities]. Ankara University Faculty of Educational Sciences Journal of Special Education, 13(1), 17-34.
37. Hamilton, C., & Shinn, M. R. (2003). Characteristics of word callers: An investigation of the accuracy of teachers' judgments of reading comprehension and oral reading skills. School Psychology Review, 32(2), 228-240. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2003.12086195
38. Hwang, W.-Y., Wu, T.-H., & Shadiev, R. (2023). Applications of reciprocal teaching in flipped classroom to facilitate high level of cognition for sustainable learning practices. Sustainability, 15, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075848
39. IBMCorp. (2016). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows. In (Version 24.0) Armonk.
40. Jensen, D. A., & Tuten, J. A. (2012). Successful reading assessments and interventions for struggling readers. Palgrave Macmillan.
41. Johnston, P., Allington, R. L., & Afflerbach, P. (1985). The congruence of classroom and remedial reading instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 85(4), 465-477.
42. Jones, M. W., Branigan, H. P., & Kelly, M. L. (2009). Dyslexic and nondyslexic reading fluency: Rapid automatized naming and the importance of continuous lists. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(3), 567-572. http://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.3.567
43. Kaftan Ayan, K., Arslan, Ü., Kul, S., & Yılmaz, N. (2018). İlkokul Türkçe ders kitabı 4 [Primary school Turkish textbook 4]. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı [Ministry of National Education].
44. Karaduman, B. D. (2004). Dikkat toplama eğitim programının ilköğretim 4. ve 5. sınıf öğrencilerinin dikkat toplama düzeyi, benlik algısı ve başarı düzeylerine etkisi [The Effect of attention training program on fourth and fifth grade primary school students attention, self concept and achievement levels] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ankara University.
45. Karaman, D., Türkbay, T., & Gökçe, F. S. (2006). Özgül öğrenme bozukluğu ve dikkat eksikliği hiperaktivite bozukluğu binişikliğinin bilişsel özellikleri [Cognitive profiles in special learning disorder comorbid with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder]. Çocuk ve Gençlik Ruh Sağlığı Dergisi [Journal of Child and Youth Mental Health], 13(2), 60-68.
46. Knight-Teague, K., Vanderwood, M. L., & Knight, E. (2014). Empirical investigation of word callers who are English learners. School Psychology Review, 43(1), 3-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2014.12087450
47. Kula, S. S. (2021). The effects of reciprocal teaching on the perceived reading comprehension self-efficacy of 2nd -grade pupils: Reflections of the pupils and their teacher. African Educational Research Journal, 9(3), 679-686. https://doi.org/10.30918/AERJ.93.21.102
48. Landerl, K., Castles, A., & 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
49. Lee, J. A. C., Lee, S., Yusoff, N. F. M., Ong, P. H., Nordin, Z. S., & Winskel, H. (2020). An early reading assessment battery for multilingual learners in Malaysia. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01700
50. Li, M., Kirby, J., & Georgiou, G. K. (2011). Rapid naming speed components and reading comprehension in bilingual children. Journal of Research in Reading, 34(1), 6-22. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01476.x
51. Lin, Y., Zhang, X., Huang, Q., Lv, L., Huang, A., Li, A., Wu, K., & Huang, Y. (2020). The prevalence of dyslexia in primary school children and their chinese literacy assessment in shantou, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(19), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17197140
52. Litt, D. (2010). Do children selected for reading recovery exhibit weaknesses in phonological awareness and rapid automatic naming? Literacy Teaching and Learning, 14(1&2), 89-102.
53. Lovett, M. W., Frijters, J. C., Steinbach, K. A., Sevcik, R. A., & Morris, R. D. (2021). Effective intervention for adolescents with reading disabilities: Combining reading and motivational remediation to improve outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113(4), 656–689. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000639
54. Mafarja, N., & Zulnaidi, H. (2022). Relationship between Critical thinking and academic self-concept: An experimental study of Reciprocal teaching strategy. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 45, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101113
55. Mayes, S. D., Calhoun, S. L., & Crowell, E. W. (2000). Learning disabilities and ADHD: Overlapping spectrum disorders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(5), 417-424. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219400033005
56. McWeeny, S., Choi, S., Choe, J., LaTourrette, A., Roberts, M. Y., & Norton, E. S. (2022). Rapid automatized naming (RAN) as a kindergarten predictor of future reading in English: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 57(4), 1187-1211. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.467
57. Meisinger, E. B., Bradley, B. A., Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Kuhn, M. R. (2010). Teachers’ perceptions of word callers and related literacy concepts. School Psychology Review, 39(1), 54-68. http://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2010.12087790
58. Meisinger, E. B., Bradley, B. A., Schwanenflugel, P. J., Kuhn, M. R., & Morris, R. D. (2009). Myth and reality of the word caller: The relation between teacher nominations and prevalence among elementary school children. School Psychology Quarterly, 24(3), 147-159. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0017191
59. Meyer, M. S., Wood, F. B., Hart, L. A., & Felton, R. H. (1998). Longitudinal course of rapid naming in disabled and nondisabled readers. Annals of Dyslexia, 48, 91-114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-998-0005-6
60. Miller, A. C., Keenan, J. M., Betjemann, R. S., Willcutt, E., Pennington, B. F., & Olson, R. K. (2013). Reading comprehension in children with ADHD: Cognitive underpinnings of the centrality deficit. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41(3), 473-483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-012-9686-8
61. Nation, K., Adams, J. W., Bowyer-Crane, C. A., & Snowling, M. J. (1999). Working memory deficits in poor comprehenders reflect underlying language impairments. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 73(2), 139-158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1999.2498
62. 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.
63. Neuhaus, G., Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., & Carlson, C. D. (2001). Measures of information processing in rapid automatized naming (RAN) and their relation to reading. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 78, 359-373. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.2000.2576
64. Norton, E. S., & Wolf, M. (2012). Rapid automatized naming (RAN) and reading fluency: Implications for understanding and treatment of reading disabilities. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 427-452. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100431
65. O’Brien, G., & Yeatman, J. D. (2020). Bridging sensory and language theories of dyslexia: Toward a multifactorial model. Developmental Science, 24, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.13039
66. Okkinga, M., Steensel, R. v., Gelderen, A. J. S. v., & Sleegers, P. J. C. (2018). Effects of reciprocal teaching on reading comprehension of low-achieving adolescents. The importance of specific teacher skills. Journal of Research in Reading, 41(1), 20-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12082
67. Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117-175.
68. Pan, D. J., & 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
69. Pressley, M., Wharton-McDonald, R., Mistretta-Hampston, J., & Echevarria, M. (1998). Literacy instruction in 10 fourth-grade classrooms in upstate New York. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2(2), 159-194.
70. Quirk, M., & Beem, S. (2012). Examining the relations between reading fluency and reading comprehension for English language learners. Psychology in the Schools, 49(6), 539-553. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21616
71. Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64(4), 479-530.
72. Rosston, K. J. (2008). Language and cognitive characteristics of spanish-speaking bilingual word callers (poor comprehenders) (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California.
73. Shankweiler, D., Lundquist, E., Katz, L., Stuebing, K. K., Fletcher, J. M., Brady, S., Fowler, A., Dreyer, L. G., Marchione, K. E., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (1999). Comprehension and decoding: Patterns of association in children with reading difficulties. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3(1), 69-94.
74. Sideridis, G. D., Simos, P., Mouzaki, A., & Stamovlasis, D. (2016). Efficient word reading: Automaticity of printrelated skills indexed by rapid automatized naming through cusp-catastrophe modeling. Scientific Studies of Reading, 20(1), 6-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2015.1103740
75. Solan, H. A., Shelley-Tremblay, J., Ficarra, A., Silverman, M., & Larson, S. (2003). Effect of attention therapy on reading comprehension. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(6), 556-563.
76. Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360-407. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.21.4.1
77. Stanovich, K. E. (1993). Romance and reality. The Reading Teacher, 47(4), 280-291.
78. Swanson, H. L., Howard, C. B., & Sáez, L. (2006). Do different components of working memory underlie different subgroups of reading disabilities? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(3), 252-269. http://doi.org/10.1177/00222194060390030501
79. Swanson, H. L., & Howell, M. (2001). Working memory, short-term memory, and speech rate as predictors of children's reading performance at different ages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(4), 720-734. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.4.720
80. Takala, M. (2006). The effects of reciprocal teaching on reading comprehension in mainstream and special (SLI) education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50(5), 559-576. http://doi.org/10.1080/00313830600953824
81. Torppa, M., Vasalampi, K., Eklund, K., Sulkunen, S., & Niemi, P. (2020). Reading comprehension difficulty is often distinct from difficulty in reading fluency and accompanied with problems in motivation and school well-being. Educational Psychology, 40(1), 62–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2019.1670334
82. Tracey, D. H., & Morrow, L. M. (2017). Okumaya genel bir bakış kuram ve modellere giriş [Lenses on reading an introduction to theories and Models] (H. Ülper, Ed. 2 ed.). Pegem.
83. Uçar Rasmussen, M., & Cora İnce, N. (2017). Özel öğrenme güçlüğü olan bireylere üstbilişsel okuduğunu anlama stratejilerinin öğretiminde sesli düşünme yönteminin etkililiği [The effectiveness of the think aloud method in the teaching of strategies metacognitive reading comprehension to individuals with learning difficulties]. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi [Abant Izzet Baysal University Journal of Faculty of Education], 17(4), 2180-2201.
84. Walczyk, J. J., & Griffith-Ross, D. A. (2007). How important is reading skill fluency for comprehension? The Reading Teacher, 60(6), 560-569. http://doi.org/10.1598/RT.60.6.6
85. Walker, M. M. (2002). Visual and lexical factors in naming speed by children with reading disorders. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 95, 1196-1198.
86. Warmington, M., & Hulme, C. (2012). Phoneme awareness, visual-verbal paired associate learning, and rapid automatized naming as predictors of individual differences in reading ability. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16(1), 45-62. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2010.534832
87. Wolf, M., & Denckla, M. B. (2005). The rapid automatized naming and rapid alternating stimulus tests. Pro-ED.
88. Yılmaz, Ş. S., & Yaşaroğlu, H. (2020). Öğrenme güçlüğü olan öğrencilerin okuma, sözcük bilgisi ve sözel bellek performanslarının incelenmesi [Investigating of reading, vocabulary knowledge and verbal memory performances of students with learning disabilities]. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi [Ankara University Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences], 53(2), 751-780. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.30964/auebfd.588849