Journal of Education and Training Studies Vol. 5, No. 6; June 2017
45
2005; Rasinski, 2004) and fluent reading levels of students is measured upon these constituents (Keskin and Baştuğ, 2012;
Başaran; 2013).
Faultless articulation of the words in a text is defined as word recognition (reading accuracy) (Başaran, 2013, Akyol,
2006). Logan (1997) referred to the importance of repetitive reading to increase word recognition level and stated that a
student who meets a word /she previously read difficultly later can read it more easily; in other words, s/he recognizes the
word. In the studies of Ehri and McCormick (1998), Hudson, Lane and Pullen (2005), it was determined that word
recognition (reading accuracy) level affects automaticity (reading rate).
Automaticity is defined as recognition of each word in the text read and following the constructed meaning mentally by
comprehending the text fast and sleekly (Stahl
and Kuhn, 2002). It was stated that when automaticity and word
recognition aren’t achieved, syllabication, pausing, turnabouts and falsely-read words during reading will hinder forming
comprehension units. It was determined that when comprehension units aren’t formed, it will be difficult to form a
relation both between the sentence constituents themselves and between the sentences (Kuhn et al 2010). It was also
seen that individuals who haven’t been able to get word recognition (accuracy) and automaticity (reading rate) skills
spend most of their cognitive energy during reading on accurate articulation and thus might put the main objective of
reading, that is comprehension process, on the back burner (Vilger, 2008; Rasinski, 2004; Samuels, 1979).
In order to focus attention on comprehension while reading, students are supposed to have acquired word recognition and
automaticity skills, but this is not enough because students are also supposed to have acquired the last constituent of fluent
reading skill, which is prosodic reading. Prosody can be defined as reading the text by paying attention to intonation,
stress and punctuation and adjusting volume with reference to the meaning in the text (Zutel and Rasinski, 1991; Kuhn
and Stahl, 2003). According to Schwanenflugel, Hamilton, Kuhn, Wisenbaker, and Stahl (2004), prosody is what gives
meaning to reading because prosody can only be felt when meaningful reading is achieved.
It was found in the studies of Jenkins and Jewell (1993), Tuohimaaa, Aunola and Nurmi (2007) Yıldız (2013), Baştuğ and
Keskin (2012), Başaran (2013) that the relation between fluent reading and comprehension of 4
th
grade students.
According to Akyol (2006), whatever its definition is, reading is done to comprehend and this objective is divided into
two: comprehending explicit expressions in a text (literal comprehension) and configuring the meaning from the implicit
messages in a text (making an inference) (Baştuğ and Keskin, 2012; Başaran, 2013; Yıldırım, 2012; Fabrikant, Siekierski
and Williams, 1999)
According to Kintsch (1988), literal comprehension process consists of two steps: making out the apparent meaning and
making out the text-based meaning. While comprehension of the words and phrases in a text lets us see that the apparent
meaning has been grasped, a case, person, place, information or a fact given explicitly in the text should be remembered to
grasp text-based meaning. In a way, text-based comprehension lets us find answers for WH-questions (e.g. who, what,
where, when, how) in the text. Kintsch stated that because students won’t know the meaning of some words or phrases if
apparent meaning hasn’t
been revealed, text-based meaning cannot be grasped either. On the other hand, in a study
conducted by Perkins, Allen and Hafner (1983), it was found that only perception of the explicit information in a text isn’t
enough for comprehension, but rather, the implicit message the author is trying to convey through the text should also be
perceived. In order to reveal this message, it is thought that inferential comprehension should occur (Perkins et al., 1983;
Mcgee and Johnson, 2003.)
Inferential comprehension aims to establish empathy between the character in the text and the reader and to determine
why the event in the text is being told, what its effects are on the reader, what the motives of the main character in the text
are, what the main idea the author is trying to convey in the text is and the cause and effect relations between the events
(Kneene and Zimmermann, 1997). Kintsch (1988) expresses inferential comprehension as a situational model and states
that establishing a situational model during comprehension will activate the background information of the reader about
the event and thus richer information units will be reached which are inclined to real life and whose connection with the
background information has been established. It is stated that the main purpose in reading a text is thought to be inferential
comprehension (Wh-questions) but literal comprehension is a prerequisite for inferential comprehension to occur (Allen,
1985; Kinsch, 1988; Suk, 1997; Vacca, Vacca, Gove, Burkey, Lenhart, McKeon, 2006).
Kispal (2008) defined the skill to make an inference as using two or more explicit data in a text to reach the third datum
not given explicitly in the text whereas Presley (2000) defined it as revealing the mental models staying in the background
of the information in the text. Chikalanga (1992) and Zwiers (2004) stated that the propositions in the text and priori
knowledge of the reader should be integrated in order to actualize the skill to make an inference. Kispal (2008),
Chikalanga (1992), Zwiers (2004), Presley (2000) and Kintsch (1988) stated that an individual who made an inference
during reading comprehension was at the same time reasoning. The role of reasoning during problem solving was defined
as reaching a solution by integrating every proposition in the problem text in a logical consistency (Leighton and
Sternberg, 2004). With reference
to the definitions above, significant resemblances are seen between inferential
Journal of Education and Training Studies Vol. 5, No. 6; June 2017
46
comprehension during reading comprehension and reasoning skill during problem solving. Background information
should be activated other information should be reached with reference to the explicit information in the text both in
inferential comprehension during reading comprehension and in reasoning during problem solving. Literature shows that
a positive relation exists between problem solving and reasoning skills (Barbey and Barsalou, 2009; Çelik and Özdemir,
2011; Çetin and Ertekin, 2011; Umay, 2003; Yurt and Sünbül, 2014).
According to Fuentes (1998), good solvers make use of operational webs they construct
in their mind while forming
meaning and thus they can relate the events in the problem text and follow the flow of events throughly. It was seen in
studies conducted by Prakitipong and Nakamura (2006), Wijaya et al. (2014), Kroll and Miller (1993), Tertemiz (1994)
that comprehension levels of students with higher problem solving success is high, but there isn’t a big difference between
students with high and low problem solving success in terms of possessing the basic skills of mathematics.
In the studies conducted by Panasuk and Beyranevand (2010), Moreno and Mayer (1999), Hegarty, Mayer and Mog
(1995), success of students who used word-based and action-based solving was analyzed. In word-based strategies, such
key words in the problem sentence as
“more, less, times” are chosen and the operations are decided upon these key words
(e.g.: if “more” is wanted,
addition, if “less” is wanted subtraction, if “times” is stated multiplication is done). It is
accepted in action-based interpretation that rather than the words, the plot and the relation between the events are analyzed
and the whole problem text is focused on. At the end of the study, it was seen that students with action-based interpretation
were more successful than those with word-based interpretation.
According to Hegarty, Mayer and Green (1992), students with high problem solving success spend most of their time to
understand and plan whereas students with low problem solving success spend most of their time to problem do
calculation. As a result of a study conducted by Verschaffel and DeCorte (1993), it was seen that students with higher
success spent 67% of their time interpreting sentences and 33% analyzing the numbers while students with lower success
spend 43% of their time interpreting words and 57% analyzing the numbers. This finding was interpreted as the fact that
sentence-focused solutions were more effective than number and word-focused solutions.
In a study conducted by Hite (2009), it was tried to enhance problem solving skills of elementary school 5
th
grade
students by providing reading comprehension education. At the end of the study, it was seen that the number of correct
answers of the students who had reading comprehension difficulties rose. In an experimental study conducted by Ulu
(2011), it was observed that elementary school 5
th
grade students’ problem solving success rose as a result of a 22-hour
reading comprehension education without problem solving activities.
Chia sẻ với bạn bè của bạn: