التفاصيل البيبلوغرافية
| العنوان: |
ŠEŠTOS KLASĖS MOKINIŲ TEKSTO SUPRATIMO GEBĖJIMŲ VERTINIMAS. (Lithuanian) |
| Alternate Title: |
EVALUATION OF TEXT COMPREHENSION ABILITIES IN STUDENTS IN SCHOOL YEAR 6. (English) |
| المؤلفون: |
Melienė, Rita, Griniūtė, Singrida |
| المصدر: |
Special Education; 2007, Issue 2, p132-144, 13p, 6 Charts, 5 Graphs |
| مصطلحات موضوعية: |
SCHOOL attendance, SPECIAL education, EDUCATION of people with disabilities, MOTOR ability in children, PSYCHOLOGY of movement, MOTOR learning, LEARNING problems, COMMUNICATIVE disorders, SPEECH therapy |
| Abstract (English): |
Text comprehension is a multiple construct embracing individual intellectual and problem solving features (Glazer, 1992); that is why designing a reliable instrument for the evaluation of text comprehension is a complex task. Reading skills is one of the most important constituent parts of academic success at school - students who haven"t formed good reading skills in primary school experience difficulties in learning various subjects in lower and upper high school (Marston, Dongil, Diment, Rogers, 1995). In looking for education methods to meet the needs of a heterogeneous classroom, efficient reading teaching/learning strategies, evaluation methods of the current changes and their validity becomes a pressing problem. With regard to this problem, the research aim was formulated: to design a text comprehension test for students of Year 6 of the mainstream school, to reveal text comprehension peculiarities of low achieving students and children with special educational needs (SEN). To achieve the aim, 505 mainstream school students of Years 5 to 7 were tested during a few test validation stages. While construing the survey, the method of a semi-structured interview was also used: 16 students and 7 experts (academics, teachers with a qualification not lower than teacher-methodologist of the Lithuanian language) were surveyed. The procedure and consistency of the text comprehension test. After consulting the experts (academics and experienced teachers) the text was selected, on the basis of which the questions reflecting the levels of text comprehension were formulated: 1. Literal understanding of the facts of the text. 2. An ability to make simple conclusions, to link information presented in the text. 3. An ability to arrive at complex conclusions: to generalise the whole text, to see the 'moral', to connect it with one's own experience and values (to comprehend the context) (according to Herber, 1978; Rosenshine, 1980; Almonaitienė, Steponavičiūtė, 2000). Test validation procedure consisted of several stages, followed by the preparation of the test consisting of 3 scales, measuring the ability of sixth-formers to understand and remember the facts of the text, to link facts and arrive at simple conclusions, to generalise the whole text and to understand the main idea. On the last stage of the research, 233 mainstream school students (out of the total 505) were surveyed. The overview of the common tendencies of the answers to the test questions shows that questions that required linking the facts of the text and making simple conclusions were answered best of all. Questions requiring understanding and remembering the facts of the text were answered worse, while those which demanded generalising and arriving at complex conclusions were the worst. It turned out that the mark for the Lithuanian language is linked with a more elementary understanding of the text (an ability to understand and remember facts of the text, to link them, to make conclusions, etc.) - students with better marks answered questions of this level better; however, more complicated questions, such as generalisation of the whole text, seeing implications, evaluation of the actions of the characters and their motives, etc. were answered in a similar way by all the students independent of their achievements. Generalising the peculiarities of text comprehension of students with SEN on the scales measuring different text comprehension dimensions it can be stated that these students lag behind their peers in terms of remembering and understanding the facts directly presented in the text and ability to link facts, to generalise and make simple conclusions. While answering the questions requiring generalisation of the whole text, the differences between the students with SEN and their peers are not statistically significant.… [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Abstract (Lithuanian): |
Straipsnyje pristatoma teksto supratimo vertinimo problema, teorinė struktūra, testo konstravimo ir patikimumo vertinimo procedūra. Analizuojama, kaip skirtingi mokymosi pasiekimai ir specialieji ugdymosi poreikiai siejasi su mokinių gebėjimu suprasti ir įsiminti tekste pateikiamą informaciją, sieti teksto faktus, daryti tuo pagrindu nesudėtingas išvadas, apibendrinti visą kūrinį ir pagrindinę mintį. Tyrimas parodė, kad aukštesniais mokymosi pasiekimais pasižymintys mokiniai geriau supranta tekste pateikiamą informaciją, negu prasčiau besimokantys ar specialiųjų ugdymosi poreikių turintys jų bendraamžiai, tačiau gebėjimas suprasti gilesnes potekstes, įžvelgti kūrinio „moralą‟ menkai priklauso nuo mokinio gabumų ir lietuvių kalbos mokymosi pasiekimų. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|
Copyright of Special Education is the property of Special Education and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| قاعدة البيانات: |
Supplemental Index |
