Eesti keele riiklike tasemetööde tekstimõistmisülesannete analüüs
Abstract
Teksti mõistmine on protsess, mis eeldab madalama ja kõrgema tasandi oskuste rakendamist. Selles artiklis analüüsitakse 2013.–2015. aastal tehtud 6. klassi eesti keele riiklike tasemetööde ülesandeid, et selgitada välja, millistel tekstimõistmistasanditel hinnatakse õpilaste oskusi. Analüüsist selgub, et ülesannetes keskenduti peamiselt õpilaste faktiteadmiste kontrollimisele. Seejuures olid 2014. ja 2015. aasta tasemetööd koostatud nii, et üle poole kõikidest ülesannetest (2014. a 76%; 2015. a 57%) mõõtsid õpilaste sõnasõnalist tekstimõistmist. 2013. aasta tasemetöös oli nende ülesannete osakaal 43%. Kolme aasta tasemetööde võrdluses eristus ainult üks ülesanne (2013. aastal), milles õpilane pidi rakendama teksti hindamisel taustteadmisi. Uurimusest ilmneb, et tasemetööde tekstimõistmisülesanded ei ole piisavalt mitmekesised, et hinnata õpilaste eri tasandite oskusi. Kui tasemetööd koosnevad valdavalt faktiteadmisi kontrollivatest ülesannetest, mis nõuavad õpilaselt lihtsate järelduste tegemist, siis keskenduvad ka õpetajad lugemistundides eelkõige madalama tasandi oskuste arendamisele ja õpilaste kõrgeima tasandi oskuste kujundamine jääb tagaplaanile. Kuna kõrgemal tasandil tekstimõistmine on üks peamisi oskusi edukaks toimetulekuks akadeemilises ja igapäevaelus, tuleks õppeprotsessis sellele rohkem tähelepanu pöörata.
"Analysis of the comprehension tasks of national standardised tests of Estonian language"
Text comprehension is a complex process where low- and high-level skills are likely to interact. In this article the comprehension tasks of national standardised tests of Estonian language for Grade 6 in 2013–2015 are analysed to detect levels of text comprehension in standardised tests. We found that the comprehension tasks in standardised tests are mostly focused on factual knowledge. Furthermore, 76% of questions in the national standardised test in 2014 and 57.1% in 2015 consisted of tasks which measured children’s ability to recall the details from the read or heard text. In 2013, such tasks comprised 42.9% of the national standardised test. We found only one task (in 2013) which demanded the highest skills – implementing pre-knowledge into the evaluation process. Thus, the tasks used in standardised test are not wide-ranging enough to determine students’ skills at different levels of text comprehension. As long as national standardised tests consist mostly of tasks that require readers’ memory, teachers also concentrate mainly on supporting students’ lower-level text comprehension skills. Therefore, there may not be enough attention devoted to developing the students’ high-level skills. As text comprehension at higher level is one of the most important competences students must acquire for successful academic and lifelong growth, teachers should concentrate more on supporting these skills.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Angosto, Alberto; Sánchez, Patricia; Álvarez, Maria; Cuevas, Irene; León, Jose Antonio 2013. Evidence for top-down processing in reading comprehension of children. – Psicologia Educativa, 19 (2), 83–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1135-755X(13)70014-9
Applegate, Mary DeKonty; Quinn, Kathleen Benson; Applegate, Anthony J. 2002. Levels of thinking required by comprehension questions in informal reading inventories. – The Reading Teacher, 56 (2), 174–180.
Babic, Dragica Pavlovic; Baucal, Aleksandar 2011. The big improvement in PISA 2009 reading achievements in Serbia: Improvement of the quality of education or something else? – CEPS Journal: Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 1 (3), 53–74.
Basabara, Deni; Yovanoff, Paul; Alonzo, Julie; Tindal, Gerald 2013. Examining the structure of reading comprehension: Do literal, inferential, and evaluative comprehension truly exist? – Reading and Writing, 26 (3), 349–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9372-9
Broek, Paul van den; Espin, Christine A. 2012. Connecting cognitive theory and assessment: Measuring individual differences in reading comprehension. – School Psychology Review, 41 (3), 315–325.
Bursuck, William D.; Damer, Mary 2011. Teaching Reading to Students Who are at Risk or Have Disabilities. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle, NJ: Pearson.
Butcher, Kirsten R.; Kintsch, Walter 2012. Text comprehension and discourse processing. – I. B. Weiner, A. F. Healy, R. W. Proctor (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology. 2nd ed. Somerset, NJ: Wiley, 578–605. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118133880.hop204021
Carretti, Barbara; Cornoldi, Cesare; De Beni, Rossana; Romanò, Marta 2005. Updating in working memory: A comparison of good and poor comprehenders. – Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 91 (1), 45–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2005.01.005
Hogan, Tiffany; Bridges, Mindy Sittner; Justice, Laura M.; Cain, Kate 2011. Increasing higher level language skills to improve reading comprehension. – Focus on Exceptional Children, 44, 1–20.
Kibui, Agnes Wanja 2012. Reading and Comprehension in the African Context: A Cognitive Enquiry. Limuru, KEN: Zapf Chancery Publishers Africa Ltd, 13–71.
Kostons, Danny; Werf, Greetje van der 2015. The effects of activating prior topic and metacognitive knowledge on text comprehension scores. – British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85 (3), 264–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12069
Margutti, Piera; Drew, Paul 2014. Positive evaluation of student answers in classroom instruction. – Language and Education, 28 (5), 436–458. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2014.898650
Mayer, Richard E. 2002. Traditional versus meaningful learning. – Theory into Practice, 41 (4), 226–232. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_4
Mercer, Neil 2008. The seeds of time: Why classroom dialogue needs a temporal analysis. – The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17 (1), 33–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508400701793182
Mercer, Neil 2013. The social brain, language, and goal-directed collective thinking: A social conception of cognition and its implications for understanding how we think, teach, and learn. – Educational Psychologist, 48 (3), 148–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.804394
Mercer, Neil; Dawes, Lyn 2014. The study of talk between teachers and students, from the 1970s until the 2010s. – Oxford Review of Education, 40 (4), 430–445.
NAEP Govering 2008. Reading Framework for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington: U. S. Department of Education.
Nation, Kate; Cocksey, Joanne; Taylor, Jo S. H.; Bishop, Dorothy V. M. 2010. A longitudinal investigation of early reading and language skills in children with poor reading comprehension. – Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51 (9), 1031–1039. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02254.x
Nystrand, Martin; Wu, Lawrence L.; Gamoran, Adam; Zeiser, Susie; Long, Daniel A. 2003. Questions in time: Investigating the structure and dynamics of unfolding classroom discourse. – Discourse Processes, 35 (2), 135–198. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950DP3502_3
Oakhill, Jane; Yuill, Nicola 1996. Higher order factors in comprehension disability: Processes and remediation. – C. Cornoldi, J. V. Oakhill (Eds.), Reading Comprehension Difficulties. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 69–92.
OECD 2008. Lugemisoskus. PISA 2009 raamdokument. Tallinn: REKK.
Pianta, Robert C.; Hamre, Bridget K. 2009. Conceptualization, measurement, and improvement of classroom processes: Standardized observation can leverage capacity. – Educational Researcher, 38 (2), 109–119. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09332374
Pintrich, Paul R. 2002. The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. – Theory Into Practice, 41 (4), 219–225. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_3
Põhikooli riiklik õppekava 2011. Vabariigi Valitsuse 06. jaanuari 2011. a määrus nr 1. https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/114012011001?leiaKehtiv (15.9.2016).
Ryan, Gery W.; Bernard, H. Russell 2000. Data management and analysis methods. – N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 769–802
Tire, Gunda; Puksand, Helin; Henno, Imbi; Lepmann, Tiit 2010. PISA 2009 – Eesti tulemused. Tallinn: Innove. http://hdl.handle.net/10062/40802
Thompson, Paul 2008. Learning through extended talk. – Language and Education, 22 (3), 241–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780802152507
Roe, Betty; Smith, H. Smith; Burns, Paul C. 2012. Teaching Reading in Today’s Elementary Schools. 11th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Schroeder, Sascha 2011. What readers have to do: Effects of students’ verbal ability and reading time component on comprehension with and without text availability. – Journal of Educational Psychology, 103 (4), 877–896. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023731
Sencibaugh, Joseph M.; Sencibaugh, Angela M. 2011. The effects of questioning the author on the reading comprehension of middle school students. – Reading Improvement, 85–92.
Uibu, Krista; Padrik, Maarika; Tenjes, Silvi 2016. Klassiõpetajate keele- ja suhtluseeskuju hindamine emakeeletunnis struktureeritud vaatluse teel. [Evaluation of primary school teachers' exemplar-based linguistic communication based on structured observation.] – Eesti Haridusteaduste Ajakiri, 4 (1), 226−257. https://doi.org/10.12697/eha.2016.4.1.08
Võgotski, Lev 2014. Mõtlemine ja kõne. [Thinking and Speech.] Tartu: Ilmamaa.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5128/ERYa13.05
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2017 Triinu Kärbla, Krista Uibu, Mairi Männamaa
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
ISSN 1736-2563 (print)
ISSN 2228-0677 (online)
DOI 10.5128/ERYa.1736-2563