Author :
Abstract
İngilizce öğretmenleri, kütüphaneciler, araştırmacılar, yıllardır okurlar için uygun metinleri bulmayı araştırmışlardır. İkinci dil öğretiminde (L2), metin yazarları bu talebi karşılamak amacıyla metinleri sadeleştirmişlerdir. “Okunurluluk” terimi de buradan çıkmış olup, “kelimelerin ve cümlelerin okuma kolaylığı” olarak anlatılabilir (Hargis, et al. 1998). Bu araştırmanın amacı geleneksel okunurluluk formülleri (Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level), psikolojik ve bilişsel bir formül olan Coh-Metrix Second Language (L2) Reading Index yöntemi ve öğretmenlerin tahminlerinin bir internet sitesindeki düzeylendirilmiş metinlerinin seviyelerini ölçmekteki doğruluklarını karşılaştırmaktır. Bu amaçla sezgisel yolla kolaylaştırılmış metinlerden bir seçki kullanıldı (N30). Metinlerin Coh-Metrix okunurluluk derecesi, Flesch Reading Ease, ve Flesch-Kincaid Grade dereceleri Coh-Metrix internet aracıyla hesaplandı. Üç İngilizce öğretmeninden metinlerin seviyelerini tahmin etmeleri istendi. Coh-metrix Okunurluluk seviyesi, geleneksel formüller ve internet sitesindeki seviyeler SPSS ile analiz edildiğinde, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level ve internet sitesi seviyelerinde zayıf negatif korelasyon olduğu görüldü (-,39). Ek olarak, Flesch Reading Ease ve internet sitesi seviyelerinde zayıf negatif korelasyon bulundu (-,41). Coh-metrix Okunurluluk seviyesi ve internet sitesi seviyelerinde orta derecede negatif korelasyon (-63) olduğu tespit edildi ve Öğretmen1 ile Coh-metrix Okunurluluk seviyesi arasında güçlü pozitif korelasyon görüldü (,95). Okunurluluk formüllerinin, ikinci dil öğretmenlerine öğrencileri için okuma metinleri ve sınav metinleri seçme konusunda yardımcı olabileceği tespit edildi.
Keywords
Abstract
Teachers of English, librarians, researchers have been interested in finding the right text for the right reader for many years. In teaching Second Language (L2), text writers often try to fulfil the demand by simplifying the texts for the readers. The emerged term “readability” can be defined as “the ease of reading words and sentences” (Hargis, et al. 1998). The aim of this research was to compare the ways to find the right text for the right reader: traditional readability formulae (Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level), Coh-Metrix Second Language (L2) Reading Index, which is a readability formula based on psycholinguistic and cognitive models of reading’, and teachers’ estimation of grade levels by using leveled texts in a web site. In order to do this, a selection of texts from a corpus of intuitively simplified texts was used (N30). Coh-Metrix Readability levels, Flesch Reading Ease, and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Levels of the texts were calculated via Coh-Metrix Web Tool. Three teachers of English were asked to decide the levels of the texts. When the relationship between Coh-metrix Readability Level, traditional formulae and the texts levels in the website was analysed via SPSS, it was found that there was weak negative correlation between Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level and the texts levels in the website (-,39). Additionally, there was weak negative correlation between the texts levels in the website and Flesch Reading Ease scores(-,41). However, there was moderate negative correlation between Coh-metrix Readability levels and the texts levels in the website (-63), where Teacher1 and Coh-metrix Readability levels had very strong positive correlation (,95). It was identified that readability formulae can help L2 teachers when they select texts for their students for teaching and assessment purposes.
Keywords
- Bailin, A., & Grafstein, A. (2001). The linguistic assumptions underlying readability formulae: A critique. Language & Communication, 21(3), 285-301.
- Benjamin, R. G. (2012). Reconstructing readability: Recent developments and recommendations in the analysis of text difficulty. Educational Psychology Review, 24(1), 63-88.
- Burke, V., & Greenberg, D. (2010). Determining Readability: How to Select and Apply Easy-to-Use Readability Formulas to Assess the Difficulty of Adult Literacy Materials. Adult Basic Education and Literacy Journal, 4(1), 34-42.
- Crossley, S. A., Allen, D. B., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). Text Readability and Intuitive Simplification: A Comparison of Readability Formulae. Reading in a foreign language, 23(1), 84-101.
- Crossley, S. A., Greenfield, J., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Assessing text readability using cognitively based indices. Tesol Quarterly, 42(3), 475-493.
- Dale, E., & Chall, J. S. (1949). The concept of readability. Elementary English,26(1), 19- 26.
- Fulcher, G. (1997). Text difficulty and accessibility: Reading formulae and expert judgement. System, 25(4), 497-513.
- Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(2), 193-202.
- Hargis, G., A. K. Hernandez, P. Hughes, J. Ramaker, S. Rouiller, and E. Wilde. 1998. Developing quality technical information: A handbook for writers and editors. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
- Hiebert, E. H., & Pearson, P. D. (2010). An Examination of Current Text Difficulty Indices with Early Reading Texts. Reading Research Report# 10-01.Online Submission.
- Koda, K. (2005). Insights into second language reading: A cross-linguistic approach. Cambridge University Press.
- Rezaee, A. A., & Norouzi, M. H. (2011). Readability Formulas and Cohesive Markers in Reading Comprehension. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(8), 10051010.
- Urquhart, S., & Weir, C. J. (1998). Reading in a second language: Process, product and practice. New York: Longman.
- Wray, D., & Janan, D. (2013). Readability revisited? The implications of text complexity. The Curriculum Journal, 24(4), 553-562.
.jpg)