See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at



tải về 434.01 Kb.
Chế độ xem pdf
trang5/13
Chuyển đổi dữ liệu22.09.2022
Kích434.01 Kb.
#53268
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   13
The Effect of Reading Comprehension and Problem So (1)

4
th
 sub-population 
Level: Lowest
Total:3 schools (%11.53) 
Sampling: 1 school 
275.45 
342.39 
3
rd
 sub-population 
Level: Low
Total:13 schools (%50.00) 
Sampling: 3 schools 
2
nd
 sub-population 
Level: High
Total: 

schools 
(%19.23) 
Sampling: 1 school 
1
st
 sub-population 
Level: Highest
Total: 5 schools (%19.23) 
Sampling: 1 school 
308.92 
+1 
-1 

Mean= 308.92 
S.D.=33.47 


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 

tải về 434.01 Kb.

Chia sẻ với bạn bè của bạn:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   13




Cơ sở dữ liệu được bảo vệ bởi bản quyền ©hocday.com 2022
được sử dụng cho việc quản lý

    Quê hương