EXPRESSIONS OF SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS
3. RESULTS and EXPLICATION
This section of the research includes the results and their explication.
Reading comprehension
achievement test
Number of items 30
P ( Difficulty index) 0,65 T-value for top and bottom
27 % (Discrimination)
25,082 (p<0,05) Kuder Richarson 20 (KR-20) 0,75
INTE 2015
Table 2. Results of Independent T-Test Analysis Showing the Relationship between Good and Poor Readers’
Scores on “Comprehension Test and Cohesion Level”
As it is seen in Table 2, the difference between cohesion and achievement test scores of good and poor readers is significant in favour of good readers (p<0.05).
Table 3. Results of Independent T-Test Analysis Showing the Relationship between Good and Poor Readers’
Scores on “Comprehension Test and Their Coherence Errors”
As seen in Table 3, an evaluation of coherence elements regarding errors of conjunction, reference, lexical coherence and ellipsis in written expressions of good and poor readers indicate a significant difference in favour of good readers.
Tablo 4. Correlation between Comprehension Test, Cohesion Levels, and Coherence Errors of Good and Poor Readers
Achievement
Test Cohesion Reference Error
Lexical Coherence Error
Ellipsis Error
Conjunction Error Achievement
Test
R 1 ,754** -,471** -,497** -,437** -,532**
P ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Cohesion R ,754** 1 -,385** -,343** -,302** -,489**
P -,471** ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Reference Error
R ,000 -,385** 1 ,423** ,538** ,293**
P ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,001
Lexical
Coherence Error
R -,497** -,343** ,423** 1 ,366** ,307**
P ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Ellipsis Error R -,437** -,302** ,538** ,366** 1 ,327**
p ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000
Conjunction Error
R -,532** -,489** ,293** ,307** ,327** 1
p ,000 ,000 ,001 ,000 ,000
n= 131 * p < .05; ** p < .01
Reader
Category N X Ss T p
Achievement Test
Poor 67 13,1045 3,84603
19,679 ,000 Good 64 24,1406 2,36286
Cohesion Poor 67 8,0896 2,80006
11,782 ,000 Good 64 15,4531 4,23863
Reader
Category N X Ss T p
Achievement Test Poor 67 13,1045 3,84603
19,679 ,000 Good 64 24,1406 2,36286
Substitution Error Poor 67 ,0149 ,12217
,977 ,330
Good 64 ,0000 ,00000
Conjunction Error Poor 67 1,3881 1,44553
6,582 ,000
Good 64 ,1406 ,46691
Reference Error Poor 67 1,4328 1,72525
5,660 ,000
Good 64 ,1719 ,45616
Lexical
Coherence Error
Poor 67 1,6269 1,56511
6,809 ,000
Good 64 ,2188 ,54827
Ellipsis Error Poor 67 1,8806 1,49263
7,671 ,000
Good 64 ,3438 ,59678
INTE 2015
As seen in Table 4, there is a positive and highly significant relationship (r =754, p<.01) between the achievement test scores and cohesion levels as shown by Pearson Correlation Analysis carried out to determine whether there is a relationship between good and poor readers’ test scores for comprehension and cohesion. Accordingly, the higher scores students get on the reading comprehension test, the higher scores they get from the evaluation of textual cohesion. As for the evaluation of coherence errors done by good and poor readers, there is a negative and moderate relationship between their achievement test scores and errors of reference and ellipsis but there is a negatively high relationship between their achievement test scores and errors of conjunction and lexical cohesion.
According to this, the higher scores students get on the reading comprehension test, the less errors of coherence they do in written expression.
CONCLUSION, DISCUSSION AND SUGGESTION
Results indicate a significant difference between reading comprehension levels and cohesion skills in written expression works of the good and poor readers selected from 8-grade elementary students. This result is in the same vein with Mcgee and Richelss’ (1990) argument that readers and writers share common processes related to cohesion such as planning, organising, and aligning in reading and writing activities.
According to the evalution of coherence elements used by good and poor readers in their written expressions, a significant difference was observed in favour of good readers in terms of conjunction, reference, lexical coherence, and elliptical expression. Good readers are more successful in using those coherence elements when compared to poor ones. Abbot and Bringeer (1993) also enunciate a considerable relationship between one’s level of reading skill and the quality of his/her text.
A positively high and significant relationship was observed between the achievement test scores and cohesion levels of good and poor readers. According to this, the higher scores students get on the achievement test, the higher scores they get from the evaluation of textual cohesion. The evaluation of coherence errors done by good and poor readers show a negative and moderate relationship between their achievement test scores and errors of reference and elliptical expression but there is a negatively high relationship between their achievement test scores and errors of conjunction and lexical cohesion. Accordingly, the higher scores students get on the reading comprehension test, the less errors of coherence they do in written expression.
Results of this resarch indicate that good readers use coherence instruments more successfully and constitute a better cohesion in their written expression than poor readers do. An increase in students’ scores of achievement test for reading comprehension considerably correlates with an increase in their scores of coherence and cohesion.
The results of a study by Cox and Shanan (1990) support the results of this research. According to the researchers, knowledge of coherence is connected with improving children’s reading and writing ability. Good readers use simple and complicated functions of coherence in their reading and writing activities more successfully than poor readers do.
In a study aiming to measure the relationship between reading and writing, Eckhoff (1983) states that the features of texts students read are similar to the features of texts they write. The texts written by students who read high- level texts are more detailed, more competent in terms of using linguistic structures, and have a more complex linguistic form than those of students who read low-level texts (Eckhoff, 1983). According to Ahmed (2011), the effect of reading on writing skill is more than that of writing on reading; therefore, changes in students’ writing skills can account for the status of their reading skills.
Pointing out the association between writing and reading, Clay (2001) states that writing can help children learn reading. Palmer (2010) also asserts a relationship between not only writing and reading comprehension but also fluency in writing and reading comprehension.
Based on these results of the present research, following suggestions are made:
Coherence not only denotes to what extent a thought is in harmony with other thoughts within a text but also is a model of facilitation for readers in order to associate their thoughts (Lightman et al., 2007). Coherence is important both for the reader to derive a meaning from text and for the author to form an easily understandable text (quoted in Cox and Shanahan, 1990). Therefore, more practices of coherence should be included in curriculam.
Since reading is an interactive and communicative activity, the epicenter of a learning environment should be a sort of place where children and adults share a text, make acquaintance with the author behind that text, and inquire about the thoughts and linguistic choices of its author (Anderson, 1990). How authors set textual connections and associate their thoughts to each other should be demonstrated on texts. Children should be made able to evaluate texts with the criteria of coherence and cohesion. High- and poor-quality texts in terms of coherence should be presented to them and which elements of coherence make those texts high- and poor-quality should be taught practically.
INTE 2015
Findings of text linguistics should be used while selecting texts for coursebooks. Studies supporting this suggestion are available in the relevant literature.
By way of reading and writing, students reinforce the interrelationship between comprehension and text organisation (Zainal and Husin, 2011). Hence, students should be guided to engage themselves more in reading and writing and to see the relationships between these two skills.
Lexical coherence is an important part of reading comprehension and contributes to the formation of semantic continuity (Ebrahimpourtaher and Eissaei, 2013). More works should be put forth to enrich vocabulary in order to make students able to comprehend the connections pertaining to lexical coherence (synonym, superordinate, antonym, tenor, using words from the same concept area) and able to create lexically coherent texts observing those relationships.
Students should be made aware of textual coherence and cohesion while reading and writing. Especially those who are not good at reading comprehension should make more time for reading. They should be enhanced with more knowledge and experience on how relations of coherence and cohesion are established in texts through comparisons between different genres of texts.
In getting children acquire a writing skill, highly coherent and cohesive texts can be introduced as a model until their writing skills effloresce.
REFERENCES
Abbott, R., & Berninger, V. W. (1993). Structural equation modeling of relationships amongdevelopmental skills and writing skills in primary- and intermediate-grade writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 478-508.
Ahmed, Yusra, (2011). Developmental relations between reading and writing at the word, sentence and text levels: a latent change score analysis. Unpublished Master Thesis. Florida State University College of Arts and Science, Florida.
Anderson, E. (1990). The implications of recent research on cohesion for teacher education in reading.
Unpublished PhD. Dissertation Open University, United Kingdom.
Ayata Şenöz, C. (2005). Metin dil bilim ve Türkçe. İstanbul: Multilingual Yayınları.
Aydın, M. (2007). Dil bilim el kitabı (2. Baskı). İstanbul: 3 F Yayınevi.
Aytaş, G. (2008). Çağdaş gelişmeler ışığında şiir tahlilleri. Ankara: Akçağ.
Bridge, C.A. .& Winogard, P. N. (1982). Readers’ awareness of cohesive relationships during cloze comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, XIV, 3, 299-312.
Can, R. (2012). Ortaöğretim öğrencilerinin yazılı anlatımlarında paragraf düzeyinde bağdaşıklık ve tutarlılık.
Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Gazi Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
Clay, M. (2001). Change over time in children’s literacy development. Portsmouth, NH: Heineman.
Cox, B. E., Shanahan, T., & Sulzby, E. (1990). Good and poor elementary readers' use of cohesion in writing.
Reading Research Quarterly, 25,1, 47-65.
Cox, B.E. (1987). Cohesion and content organization in thenarrative and expository writing of children (Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, 1986). Dissertation Abstracts International (University Microfilm No. DAO 58785).
De Beaugrande, R., & Dressier, W. (1981). Introduction to text linguistics. London: Longman.
Eckhoff, B. (1983). How Reading Affects Children's Writing. Language Arts, 60(6), 607- 616.
Ebrahimpourtaher, A. & Eissaei, S. (2013). Awareness of lexical cohesive devices in text and reading comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research & Technology; 4, 2, 63.
Fitzgerald, Jill & Shanahan, Timothy (2000). Readingand writing relations and their development. Educational Psychologist 35.1: 39–50.
Halliday M.A.K. & Hassan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. NewYork: Longman Group UK Limited.
Kalaycı, Ş. (2009). SPSS uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri. Ankara: Asil Yayınevi.
Karasar, Niyazi. (2009). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. Nobel Yayıncılık : Ankara.
Lightman E. J., McCarthy, P., M., Dufty, D. F., & McNamara, D.S. (2007). Cohesion and structural organization in high school texts. Flairs Conference, AAAI Press, 235-240.
McGee, L.M. & Richgels, D.J. (1990) Learning from Text Using Reading and Writing, in: T. Shanahan (ed.) Reading and Writing Together: New Perspectives for the Classroom (Norwood, MA,Christopher- Gordon).
Onursal, İ. (2003). Türkçe Metinlerde Bağdaşıklık ve Tutarlılık, A. Kıran, E.Korkut, S. Ağıldere. (Editörler).
Günümüz Dil bilim Çalışmaları. Ankara. Multilingual Yayınları, ss. 121-133.
Özçelik, D. A. (2010). Ölçme ve değerlendirme. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
INTE 2015
Palmer, M.L. (2010). The relationship between reading fluency, writing fluency, and reading comprehension in suburban third-grade students. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, San Diego State University, San Diego.
Parvaz, M. H., & Nodushan, M. A. (2006). The effect of text cohesion on reading comprehension. Available on line at: http:// Karens'linguistic issues.com Rivers, W. M. (1968). Teaching Foreign Language Skills.
(2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Shanahan, T. (1984). The Nature of the Reading-Writing Relation: An Exploratory Multivariate Analysis.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(3), 466-477.
Toklu, M.O. (2009). Dil bilime Giriş. Ankara: Akçağ Yayıncılık.
Zainal, Z., & Husin, S.H.B.M. (2011). A study on the effects of reading on writing performance among faculty of civil engineering students. [Online] Available:http://eprints.utm.my/11872/1/A Study On The Effects Of Reading On Writing Performance Among Faculty Of Civil Engineering Students. pdf