Skill Education in Turkish Language Teaching: Gradual Release of Responsibility Model (Pages: 231 - 242)
Author :
Abstract
Skill education is one of the most challenging areas for teachers in the Turkish course. Moreover, curricula prepared for this course, including the current one, cannot provide sufficient guidance to the teachers for skill education. In a programmed instructional process, teachers need to know their students and the content they are going to teach. And to this end, it is necessary to assess students’ understanding of the content regularly and to design the lessons purposefully in a way to allow transfer of responsibility for the lesson from teacher to students. This is the only way to form purposeful classroom structures where the learning occurs.
Keywords
Abstract
Skill education is one of the most challenging areas for teachers in the Turkish course. Moreover, curricula prepared for this course, including the current one, cannot provide sufficient guidance to the teachers for skill education. In a programmed instructional process, teachers need to know their students and the content they are going to teach. And to this end, it is necessary to assess students’ understanding of the content regularly and to design the lessons purposefully in a way to allow transfer of responsibility for the lesson from teacher to students. This is the only way to form purposeful classroom structures where the learning occurs.
Keywords
- Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P. D. & Paris, S. (2008). Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61, 364-373. http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RT.61.5.1
- Alexander, P. A. & Fox, E. (2013). A historical perspective on reading research and practice, redux. In D. E. Alverman, N. J. Unrau & R. B. Ruddel (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading, (6th edition), (pp. 3-46). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
- Bandura, A. (1965). Influence of models’ reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 589–595. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0022070
- Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. E. (2006). Reading next—A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
- Buehl, D. (2009). Classroom strategies for interactive learning (3rd ed.). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
- Coleman, M. R., & Gallagher, J. J. (1995). Middle schools and their impact on talent development. Middle School Journal, 26, 47–56.
- Duke, N., & Pearson, P.D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A. Farstrup & J. Sameuls (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction, 3rd ed. (pp. 205-242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
- Durkin, D. (1978-79). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 14, 481-533. http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.14.4.2
- Durkin, D. (1981). Reading comprehension instruction in five basal reader series. Reading Research Quarterly, 16(4), 515-544. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/747314
- Durrell, D. D. (1949). The development of comprehension and interpretation. In N. B. Henry & A. I. Gates (Eds.), Reading in the elementary school (pp. 193-204). Chicago: National Society for Studies in Education.
- Fisher, D., & Frey, R. (2008). Better learning through structured teaching: A framework for the gradual release of responsibility. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
- Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2000). What we know about effective instructional practices for English language learners. Exceptional Children, 66, 454–470.
- Graves, M. F., & Fitzgerald, J. (2003). Scaffolding reading experiences for multilingual classrooms. In G. G. García (Ed.), English learners: Reaching the highest level of English literacy (pp. 96–124). Newark, DE:
- Hacker, D. J., & Tenent, A. (2002). Implementing reciprocal teaching in the classroom: Overcoming obstacles and making modifications. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 699-718. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.4.699
- Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2007). Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension for understanding and engagement. Portlan, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
- Palincsar, A. M., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension- monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 117-175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1
- Paris, S. G., Cross, D. R., & Lipson, M. Y. (1984). Informed strategies for learning: A program to improve children's reading awareness and comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(6), 1239-1252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.76.6.1239
- Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8 (3). 293-316. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(83)90018-8
- Pearson, P. D. (2004). The reading wars. Educational Policy, 18(1). 216-252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0895904803260041
- Pearson, P. D. (2007). An endangered species act for literacy education. Journal of Literacy Research, 39, 145– 162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10862960701331878
- Pearson, P. D. (2000). Reading, in the 20th century. In T. Good (Ed.), American education: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 152-208). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983a). The gradual release of responsibility model of instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 112–123.
- Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983b). The instruction of reading comprehension, National Institute of Education, Washington, DC. October 1983. TECHNICAL REPORT, retrieved https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/17939/ctrstreadtechrepv01983i00297_opt.pdf?seq uence=1
- Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: Norton.
- Pressley, M., Almasi, J., Schuder, T., Bergman, J., Hite, S., El-Dinary, P.B., & Brown, R. (1994). Transactional instruction of comprehension strategies: The Montgomery County, Maryland, SAIL Program. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 10, 5-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1057356940100102
- Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66, 181-221.
- Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding. Towards an R&D Program in Reading Comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corp.
- Stevens, R. J., & Slavin, R. E. (1995). Effects of a cooperative learning approach in reading and writing on academically handicapped and nonhandicapped students. Elementary School Journal, 95, 241–262.
- Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
- Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
- Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring and problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x