Journal of Education and Training Studies Vol. 5, No. 6; June 2017
49
“School A”. While choosing 2 departments from this school, since the school was in the category of school with “highest”
success, in the light of the opinions of its administrator, 2 departments with the highest success level among the 4
th
grades
at this school were included into the sampling. The names of the schools in the sampling and the 4
th
grade departments
weren’t given and instead, codes 1 and 2 were used. Because five different data gathering tools were applied on different
days, it was seen that some students didn’t attend one or more tests and so these students were excluded. Also, it was seen
that some classes had inclusive students and so these students were excluded as well.
As a result,
the sampling was
composed of 6 schools 12 departments and 279 4
th
grade students. Since the second problem of the research required
classifying students according to their high and low problem solving success, arithmetic mean of problem solving test was
determined to be 3.13. While students with a score ≥ 3.13 from problem solving test were coded as high success, those
with a score < 3.13 were coded as low success students. In this context, of the 279
students, 129 (46.74%) were in the high
success group while 150 (53.76%) were in the low success group in problem solving.
2.3 Data Gathering
Evaluating fluent reading skill: Fluent reading skill was evaluated in three dimensions: word recognition (accuracy)
dimension, automaticity (rate) dimension and prosody dimension. While evaluating word recognition and automaticity
dimensions, a reading text comprised of 182 words and called
“Ödül”, which had been used by Keskin (2012) to evaluate
fluent reading skills of 4
th
grade students, was used. Each student was made to read the
text and it was recorded to
determine word recognition levels of the students. Before reading, students were reminded that “it wasn’t a speed reading
contest; they were supposed to read as fast as possible but the main purpose was to comprehend the text”. Later, the video
recordings were analyzed using the Informal Reading Inventory developed by Harris and Sipay (1990) and adapted to
Turkish by Akyol (2006) and with a reference to the inventory, repetitions during reading, omissions, insertions, reversals,
substitutions and mispronunciations were regarded as reading errors.
In this context,
the number of words read
accurately and the total number of words (inaccurately read words included) read by each
student per minute were
found. According to Caldwell (2008) and Rasinski (2010), word recognition (reading accuracy)
percentage is found
using “the number of words read accurately per minute/total number of words read per minute x 100” formula.
Automaticity (reading rate) is obtained with the number of words read accurately per minute. With a reference to these
formulas, reading accuracy percentage and reading rate of each student were determined.
In order to evaluate the third dimension of
fluent reading, prosody, a reading text comprised of 150 words and called
Chia sẻ với bạn bè của bạn: