Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

2016 PIRLS Sonuçlarına Göre Dördüncü Sınıf Öğrencilerin Okuduğunu Anlama Becerilerinin Bazı Değişkenler Açısından Karşılaştırılması

Year 2021, Volume: 2 Issue: 2, 16 - 29, 27.09.2021
https://doi.org/10.55661/jnate.952221

Abstract

Hayat boyu öğrenme, insanın doğa ve toplum hakkında bilgi sahibi olması kendini geliştirmeye devam etmenin temel yoludur. Toplumun gelişimine uyum sağlamada bireylerin bilgilerini yeni bilgilerle yapılandırma, derinleştirme ve daha da zenginleştirme için öncelikle hayat boyu öğrenme becerisine sahip olması gerekmektedir. Hayat boyu öğrenme becerisinin standartları arasında olan okuduğunu anlama becerisi, diğer becerileri geliştirmenin temeli olarak kabul edilmektedir. Araştırmanın amacı, İskandinav ve Asya ülkelerinin anne-baba, öğretmen ve okul özelliklerine göre okuduğunu anlama becerilerini karşılaştırılarak literatüre katkı sağlamaktır. Bu amaçla araştırma nitel olarak yürütülmüştür. Veri toplama tekniği olarak doküman analizinden yararlanılmıştır. Araştırmada örneklem olarak İskandinav ülkeleri olarak İrlanda, Finlandiya, Norveç, İsveç ve Danimarka; Asya ülkeleri olarak Singapur, Çin, Kuveyt, Bahreyn ve Katar belirlenmiştir. Bu ülkelere yönelik 2016 PIRLS okuduğunu anlama başarı puanları; evdeki kaynak sayısı, sosyoekonomik durum, öğretmenlerin eğitim düzeyi ile öğretim süreleri değişkenleri incelenerek ülkeler arasında karşılaştırma yapılmıştır. İskandinav ülkelerinden olan Finlandiya’ ya ilişkin bulgular incelendiğinde öğretmen eğitim düzeyi bakımından lisansüstü eğitim alan öğretmenlerin oranı %96; evdeki kaynak sayısı bakımından en yüksek grupta olan öğrencilerin oranının %37; yıllık öğretim sürelerinin oranının %26; sosyoekonomik düzey bakımından üst grupta yer alanlarının oranının %42 olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Uluslararası TIMSS ve PISA sınavlarında başarılarıyla öne çıkan Finlandiya’nın başarısının şans olmadığı 2016 PIRLS sonuçlarıyla ortaya konmaktadır. Bu alanda çalışan araştırmacıların okuduğunu anlama becerisini ölçen PISA ve PIRLS sınav verilerini farklı değişkenler açısından incelemeleri önerilir.

References

  • Aksoy, T. & Link, C. R. (2000). A panel analysis of student mathematics achievement in the US in the 1990s: Does increasing the amount of time in learning activities affect math achievement? Economics of Education Review, 19, 261-277.
  • Baker, D. P., Goesling, B., & Letendre, G. K. (2002). Socioeconomic status, school quality, and national economic development: A cross-national analysis of the “Heyneman-Loxley effect” on mathematics and science achievement. Comparative Education Review, 46(3), 291–312.
  • Betts, J. R. & Morell, D. (1999). The determinants of undergraduate grade point average. The relative importance of family background, high school resources, and peer group effects. Journal of Human Resources, 34, 268-293.
  • Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan.
  • Dorn, L. J., & Soffos, C. (2005). Teaching for deep comprehension: A reading workshop approach. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
  • Dorn, L. J., & Soffos, C. (2012). Interventions that work: A comprehensive intervention model for preventing reading failure in grades K-3. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
  • Duke, N. K., & Carlisle, J. (2011). The development of comprehension. In M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. Birr Moje, & P. P. Afferbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. IV, pp. 198–228). New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Strachan, S. L., & Billman, A. K. (2011). Essential elements of fostering and teaching reading comprehension. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (4th ed., pp. 51–93). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
  • Erbe, B. (2000). Correlates of School achievement in Chicago elementary schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
  • Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.
  • Gilson, J. E. (1999). Single-gender education versus coeducation for girls: A study of mathematics achievement and attitudes toward mathematics of middle-school students. American Educational Research Association. Montreal: Quebec Publications.
  • Hall, K. & Harding, A. (2003). A systematic review of effective literacy teaching in the 4 to 14 age range of mainstream schooling. In Research Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education.
  • Heyneman, S. P., & Loxley, W. A. (1982). Influences on academic achievement across high and low income countries: A re-analysis of IEA data. Sociology of Education, 55(1), 13.
  • Hussein, B. (2012). Analysis of the real situation of teaching reading comprehension to first year students at the department of English language and literature at Al- Zaytoonah Private University of Jordan. Asian Social Science, 8(4), 237-251. Retrieved from http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ass/article/view/15982/10754
  • Jones, I. & White, C. S. (2000). Family composition, parental involvement, and young children’s academic achievement. Early Child Development and Care, 161, 71-82.
  • Kaplan, D. S., Liu, X. & Kaplan, H. B. (2001). Influence of parents’ self-feelings and expectations on children’s academic performance. Journal of Educational Research, 94, 360-370.
  • Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
  • Larson, J. C. (2000). The role of teacher background and preparation in students’ algebra success. Research Report. Rockville, MD: Montgomery County Public Schools.
  • Linnakyla, P., Malin, A. & Taube, K. (2004). Factors behind low reading literacy achievement. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research. 48(3), 231-249.
  • Mullis, I.V.S., Kennedy, A.M., Martin, M.O. & Sainsbury, M. (2006). PIRLS 2006 Assessment framework and specifications. (2nd edn). Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS.
  • 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. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
  • Özcan, C. ve Gücüm, B. (2020). Fen Eğitiminde Dünya Ölçeğinde Bazı Ülkelerin Karşılaştırması. Turkish Journal of Educational Studies, 7 (2), 208-225. DOI: 10.33907/turkjes.637960
  • Park, H. (2008). Home literacy environments and children’s reading performance: A comparative study of 25 countries. Educational Research and Evaluation, 14(6), 489–505.
  • Park, J. Y. (2012). A different kind of reading instruction: Using visualizing to bridge reading comprehension and critical literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(7), 629-640. doi:10.1002/JAAL.00074
  • Pinnell, G. S., & Scharer, P. L. (2003). Teaching for comprehension in reading: Grades K-2. New York, NY: Scholastic Professional Books.
  • Topping, K. & Ferguson, N. (2005). Effective literacy teaching behaviours. Journal of Research in Reading, 28(2), 125–143.
Year 2021, Volume: 2 Issue: 2, 16 - 29, 27.09.2021
https://doi.org/10.55661/jnate.952221

Abstract

References

  • Aksoy, T. & Link, C. R. (2000). A panel analysis of student mathematics achievement in the US in the 1990s: Does increasing the amount of time in learning activities affect math achievement? Economics of Education Review, 19, 261-277.
  • Baker, D. P., Goesling, B., & Letendre, G. K. (2002). Socioeconomic status, school quality, and national economic development: A cross-national analysis of the “Heyneman-Loxley effect” on mathematics and science achievement. Comparative Education Review, 46(3), 291–312.
  • Betts, J. R. & Morell, D. (1999). The determinants of undergraduate grade point average. The relative importance of family background, high school resources, and peer group effects. Journal of Human Resources, 34, 268-293.
  • Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan.
  • Dorn, L. J., & Soffos, C. (2005). Teaching for deep comprehension: A reading workshop approach. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
  • Dorn, L. J., & Soffos, C. (2012). Interventions that work: A comprehensive intervention model for preventing reading failure in grades K-3. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
  • Duke, N. K., & Carlisle, J. (2011). The development of comprehension. In M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. Birr Moje, & P. P. Afferbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. IV, pp. 198–228). New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Strachan, S. L., & Billman, A. K. (2011). Essential elements of fostering and teaching reading comprehension. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (4th ed., pp. 51–93). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
  • Erbe, B. (2000). Correlates of School achievement in Chicago elementary schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
  • Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.
  • Gilson, J. E. (1999). Single-gender education versus coeducation for girls: A study of mathematics achievement and attitudes toward mathematics of middle-school students. American Educational Research Association. Montreal: Quebec Publications.
  • Hall, K. & Harding, A. (2003). A systematic review of effective literacy teaching in the 4 to 14 age range of mainstream schooling. In Research Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education.
  • Heyneman, S. P., & Loxley, W. A. (1982). Influences on academic achievement across high and low income countries: A re-analysis of IEA data. Sociology of Education, 55(1), 13.
  • Hussein, B. (2012). Analysis of the real situation of teaching reading comprehension to first year students at the department of English language and literature at Al- Zaytoonah Private University of Jordan. Asian Social Science, 8(4), 237-251. Retrieved from http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ass/article/view/15982/10754
  • Jones, I. & White, C. S. (2000). Family composition, parental involvement, and young children’s academic achievement. Early Child Development and Care, 161, 71-82.
  • Kaplan, D. S., Liu, X. & Kaplan, H. B. (2001). Influence of parents’ self-feelings and expectations on children’s academic performance. Journal of Educational Research, 94, 360-370.
  • Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
  • Larson, J. C. (2000). The role of teacher background and preparation in students’ algebra success. Research Report. Rockville, MD: Montgomery County Public Schools.
  • Linnakyla, P., Malin, A. & Taube, K. (2004). Factors behind low reading literacy achievement. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research. 48(3), 231-249.
  • Mullis, I.V.S., Kennedy, A.M., Martin, M.O. & Sainsbury, M. (2006). PIRLS 2006 Assessment framework and specifications. (2nd edn). Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS.
  • 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. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
  • Özcan, C. ve Gücüm, B. (2020). Fen Eğitiminde Dünya Ölçeğinde Bazı Ülkelerin Karşılaştırması. Turkish Journal of Educational Studies, 7 (2), 208-225. DOI: 10.33907/turkjes.637960
  • Park, H. (2008). Home literacy environments and children’s reading performance: A comparative study of 25 countries. Educational Research and Evaluation, 14(6), 489–505.
  • Park, J. Y. (2012). A different kind of reading instruction: Using visualizing to bridge reading comprehension and critical literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(7), 629-640. doi:10.1002/JAAL.00074
  • Pinnell, G. S., & Scharer, P. L. (2003). Teaching for comprehension in reading: Grades K-2. New York, NY: Scholastic Professional Books.
  • Topping, K. & Ferguson, N. (2005). Effective literacy teaching behaviours. Journal of Research in Reading, 28(2), 125–143.
There are 26 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Other Fields of Education
Journal Section Research Articles
Authors

Cansu Özcan 0000-0003-1377-4948

Yrd.doç.dr.berna Gücüm 0000-0002-8421-705X

Publication Date September 27, 2021
Acceptance Date August 6, 2021
Published in Issue Year 2021 Volume: 2 Issue: 2

Cite

APA Özcan, C., & Gücüm, Y. (2021). 2016 PIRLS Sonuçlarına Göre Dördüncü Sınıf Öğrencilerin Okuduğunu Anlama Becerilerinin Bazı Değişkenler Açısından Karşılaştırılması. Öğretmen Eğitimi Ve Öğretim, 2(2), 16-29. https://doi.org/10.55661/jnate.952221