Differentiation in School Types in Turkey Evaluation of PISA 2018 Based on Reading Skill Levels

Sanem Şehribanoğlu

doi:10.15869/itobiad.1544751

TR EN

Abstract

Türkiye’de Okul Türlerindeki Farklılaşmanın PISA 2018 Okuma Beceri Düzeylerine Göre Değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

Türk eğitim sisteminde farklı eğitim anlayışlarına ve niteliklerine sahip okul türleri arasındaki farklılıkların incelendiği bu çalışmada, PISA 2018 Türkiye örnekleminde okuma beceri düzeyleri dikkate alınarak yüksek ve düşük okuma becerisine göre sınıflandırma gruplarını etkileyen değişkenler temel alınmıştır. Bu çalışmada, EDM kapsamındaki öznitelik seçim yöntemlerinden biri olan Boruta algoritması yardımıyla, Türkiye'de PISA sınavına giren farklı müfredatlara sahip altı okul türü dikkate alınarak öğrencilerin okuma becerilerini etkileyen önemli değişkenlerin belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. PISA sonuçlarına göre fen liseleri, genel PISA başarısı ve matematik, fen ve okuma alanlarında diğer okul türlerine göre daha yüksek bir başarı düzeyine sahiptir. PISA sınav sonuçlarına göre eğitim çıktılarındaki farklılıklar bu çalışmayla daha da belirginleşmiştir.. Eğitim eşitsizliği ortaya çıkarılmış ve okullar arasındaki farklılıklara dikkat çekilmiştir. Mesleki Teknik Anadolu liseleri ülkenin donanımlı ara eleman ihtiyacını karşılayan ve ülkenin ekonomik gelişiminde önemli bir yere sahiptir. Bu nedenle öğrencilerin dezavantajlı durumlarının giderilmesi müfredatlarında bir revizyona gidilmesinin iyi olacağı düşünülmektedir. Ebeveynlerin bazıları çocuklarının dini eğitim almaları için Anadolu imam hatip liselerini tercih etme eğilimindeyken bu okullar çocukların gelecekteki mesleki beklentilerini karşılamamaktadır. Bu ailelere inançlı bireyler olmak düşüncesi ile mesleki beklenti arasındaki farkın net olarak anlatılmasının özellikle gençlerin gelecekleri açısından daha faydalı olacağı düşünülmektedir. Sosyoekonomik durumun performans üzerinde etkili olduğu ancak meta bilişsel strateji eğitimleri alan öğrencilerde bu yetersizliklerin ortadan kalktığı belirlenmiştir.

Keywords

PISA 2018, Okuma Becerisi, Okul Türleri, Öznitelik Seçimi, Boruta

Differentiation in School Types in Turkey Evaluation of PISA 2018 Based on Reading Skill Levels

Abstract

This study examines the differences between school types with varying educational cultures and qualities within the Turkish education system. It is based on variables affecting the classification of groups according to high and low reading skills, with consideration of reading skill levels in the PISA 2018 Turkey sample. In this study, with the help of the Boruta algorithm, one of the feature selection methods within the scope of Educational Data Mining, the objective was to determine the important variables that affect student reading skills by considering six types of school with different curriculum that take the PISA exam in Turkey. The results of the PISA indicate that science high schools demonstrate a higher level of success than other school types in terms of overall PISA success, as well as in the domains of mathematics, science and reading.The disparities in educational outcomeshave become more pronounced as a consequence of this study. The study brought to light the existence of educational inequality and drew attention to the discrepancies between different educational institutions. Vocational and Technical Anatolian high schools play an instrumental role in meeting the country's need for well-trained intermediate personnel, thus contributing to the country's economic development. It is therefore proposed that the curriculum be revised with a view to eliminate the disadvantages faced by students. While some parents opt for Anatolian Imam Hatip high schools in order to provide their children with religious education, these schools are not aligned with the future professional aspirations of their pupils. It is thought that elucidating the distinction between the notion of being a devout individual and the professional expectations of the future workforce would prove more beneficial, particularly in terms of the long-term prospects of the younger generation. It has been established that socioeconomic status exerts an influence on performance; However, these deficiencies are eradicated in students who receive metacognitive strategy training.

Keywords

PISA 2018, Reading Skill, School Types, Feature Selection, Boruta

References

Amiama-Espaillat, C., & Mayor-Ruiz, C. (2017). Lectura digital en la competencia lectora: La influencia en la Generación Z de la República Dominicana. Comunicar. Media Education Research Journal, 15(52), 105–113. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3916/C52-2017-10
Anand, N., Sehgal, R., Anand, S., & Kaushik, A. (2021). Feature selection on educational data using Boruta algorithm. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Studies, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1504/IJCISTUDIES.2021.113826
Antzaka, A., Lallier, M., Meyer, S., Diard, J., Carreiras, M., & Valdois, S. (2017). Enhancing reading performance through action video games: the role of visual attention span. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 14563. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-15119-9
Areepattamannil, S., & Santos, I. M. (2019). Adolescent students’ perceived information and communication technology (ICT) competence and autonomy: Examining links to dispositions toward science in 42 countries. Computers in Human Behavior, 98, 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.04.005
Asif, R., Merceron, A., Ali, S. A., & Haider, N. G. (2017). Analyzing undergraduate students’ performance using educational data mining. Computers & Education, 113, 117–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.05.007
Asiloğulları, A. (2020). The Evaluation of The Relationship Between High School Student’s Life-Long Learning Tendencies and Questioning The Meaning and The Purpose of The Life Behaviour [Bartın University]. https://acikerisim.bartin.edu.tr/bitstream/handle/11772/6474/Azize Asioğulları .pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Aslam, N. M., Khan, I. U., Alamri, L. H., & Almuslim, R. S. (2021). An Improved Early Student’s Academic Performance Prediction Using Deep Learning. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 16(12), 108. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v16i12.20699
Atli, A., & Gür, S. H. (2019). High Schools Students’ Career Choices and Factors Affecting Their Choices. Turkish Psychological Counseling and Guidance Association, 2(1), 32–53. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/750893
Avvisati, F. (2020). The measure of socio-economic status in PISA: a review and some suggested improvements. Large-scale Assessments in Education, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-020-00086-x
Bölükbaş, S., & Gür, B. S. (2020). Tracking and inequality: The results from Turkey. International Journal of Educational Development, 78, 102262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2020.102262 Çağlayan, E. (2021). Analysis of Studies Conducted on Education for Disadvantaged Groups and Romani Citizens in Turkey. Journal of Roma Language and Culture Research Institute, 2(1), 1–15. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/raedergisi/issue/62748/905175

Çelik, K., & Yurdakul, A. (2020). Investigation of PISA 2015 Reading Ability Achievement of Turkish Students in Terms of Student and School Level Variables. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 7(1), 30–42. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.589280
CGOIK (2018). On Birinci Kalkınma Planı (2019-2023) Çocuk Çalışma Grubu Raporu. https://www.sbb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Cocuk_ve_GenclikOzelIhtisasKomisyonuCocukCalismaGrubuRaporu.pdf
Chmielewski, A. K., Dumont, H., & Trautwein, U. (2013). Tracking Effects Depend on Tracking Type. American Educational Research Journal, 50(5), 925–957. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831213489843 Choi, S., & Lee, S. W. (2020). Enhancing Teacher Self-Efficacy in Multicultural Classrooms and School Climate: The Role of Professional Development in Multicultural Education in the United States and South Korea. AERA Open, 6(4), 233285842097357. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420973574
Chung, H., Park, S., Kim, J.-I., & Kim, A. (2021). Exploring Variables Affecting Adolescents’ Reading Literacy and Life Satisfaction: PISA 2018 International Comparison of Korea and Finland. Journal of Curriculum and Evaluation, 24(1). https://doi.org/10.29221/jce.2021.24.1.123
Çolakoğlu, M. H. (2018). Teachers’ Views and Recommendations About PISA 2015 Results. Journal of Research in Informal Environments, 3(1), 46–66. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/jrinen/issue/39907/373468
Çoşkun, K. (2020). Piety and Social Values: An Empiric Study on Imam Hatip High School Students (The Sample of Ankara). Turkish Journal of Religious Studies, 20(1), 213–240. http://marife.org/tr/download/article-file/1094993
Dalane, K., & Marcotte, D. E. (2022). The Segregation of Students by Income in Public Schools. Educational Researcher, 51(4), 245–254. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X221081853
Demir, M. F., & Baloğlu, N. (2020). Relationship Between Metacognition Skills and Academic Procrastination Behaviors of the High School Students. Ahi Evran University Institute of Social Sciences Journal Institute, 6(1), 242–259. https://doi.org/10.31592/aeusbed.640030
Depren, S. K., & Depren, Ö. (2021). Cross-Cultural Comparisons of the Factors Influencing the High Reading Achievement in Turkey and China: Evidence from PISA 2018. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00584-8
Dong, X., & Hu, J. (2019). An Exploration of Impact Factors Influencing Students’ Reading Literacy in Singapore with Machine Learning Approaches. International Journal of English Linguistics, 9(5). https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v9n5p52
Dubbeld, A., de Hoog, N., den Brok, P., & de Laat, M. (2019). Teachers’ multicultural attitudes and perceptions of school policy and school climate in relation to burnout. Intercultural Education, 30(6), 599–617. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2018.1538042
Emdadi, A., & Eslahchi, C. (2021). Auto-HMM-LMF: feature selection based method for prediction of drug response via autoencoder and hidden Markov model. BMC Bioinformatics, 22(1), 22–33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12859-021-03974-3
Erdoğan, E., & Acar Güvendir, M. (2019). The Relationship Between Students Socioeconomic Attributes and Their Reading Skills in Programme for International Student Assessment. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 20, 1–31. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/686572
ERG, (2019). PISA 2018 ne diyor? ERG. https://www.egitimreformugirisimi.org/pisa-2018-ne-diyor/
Ertem, H. Y. (2021). Examination of Turkey’s PISA 2018 reading literacy scores within student-level and school-level variables. Participatory Educational Research, 8(1), 248–264. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.21.14.8.1
Fetler, M. E. (1991). Pitfalls of Using SAT Results to Compare Schools. American Educational Research Journal, 28(2), 481–491. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312028002481
Fırat, T., & Koyuncu, İ. (2020). Investigating Reading Literacy in PISA 2018 Assessment. lnternational Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 13(2), 263–275. https://doi.org/10.26822/iejee.2021.189
Florence, F. O., Adesola, O. A., Hameed, B. A., & Adewumi, O. M. (2017). A Survey on the Reading Habits among Colleges of Education Students in the Information Age. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(8), 106–110.
Gamazo, A., & Martínez-Abad, F. (2020). An Exploration of Factors Linked to Academic Performance in PISA 2018 Through Data Mining Techniques. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.575167
Gubbels, J., Swart, N. M., & Groen, M. A. (2020). Everything in moderation: ICT and reading performance of Dutch 15-year-olds. Large-scale Assessments in Education, 8(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-020-0079-0
Güloğlu, F., & Özay Köse, E. (2020). The Analysis of Multiple Intelligence Types of Social Sciences and Science High School Students in Terms of Different Variables. İInonu University Journal of the Graduate School of Education, 7(13), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.29129/inujgse.570417
Guyon, I., & Elisseef, A. (2003). An Introduction to Variable and Feature Selection. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3, 1157–1182. https://www.jmlr.org/papers/volume3/guyon03a/guyon03a.pdf
Guyon, I., & Elisseef, A. (2006). An Introduction to Feature Extraction. Içinde I. Guyon, S. Gunn, M. Nikravesh, & L. A. Zadeh (Ed.), Feature Extraction (ss. 1–25). Springer.
Hu, J., & Yu, R. (2021). The effects of ICT-based social media on adolescents’ digital reading performance: A longitudinal study of PISA 2009, PISA 2012, PISA 2015 and PISA 2018. Computers & Education, 175, 104342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104342
Hu, X., Gong, Y., Lai, C., & Leung, F. K. S. (2018). The relationship between ICT and student literacy in mathematics, reading, and science across 44 countries: A multilevel analysis. Computers & Education, 125, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.021
Kamar, K. Y. (2020). Relationship between Reading Habits and Students’ Academic Performances of Secondary Schools in Sokoto State, Nigeria. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 4(2), 242–245.
Karatay, H., Külah, E., & Kaya, S. (2020). Methods, techniques and models for developing reading habit. Research in Reading and Writing Instruction, 8(1), 89–107. https://doi.org/10.35233/oyea.707967
Kasap, Y., Doğan, N., & Koçak, C. (2021). Determining Variables That Predict Reading Comprehension Success by Data Mining in PISA 2018. Manisa Celal Bayar University Journal of Social Sciences, 19(4), 241–258. https://doi.org/10.18026/cbayarsos.959609
Kaunang, F. J., & Rotikan, R. (2018, Ekim). Students’ Academic Performance Prediction using Data Mining. 2018 Third International Conference on Informatics and Computing (ICIC). https://doi.org/10.1109/IAC.2018.8780547
Koğar, E. Y. (2021). An Investigation of the Mediating Role of Various Variables in the Effect of Both Gender and Economic, Social and Cultural Status on Reading Literacy. International Journal of Progressive Education, 17(1), 376–391. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2021.329.24
Kong, Y., Seo, Y. S., & Zhai, L. (2022). ICT and Digital Reading Achievement: A Cross-national Comparison using PISA 2018 Data. International Journal of Educational Research, 111, 101912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2021.101912
Kösterelioğlu, İ., Çelen, Ü., Kösterelioğlu, M. A., & Ahıska, R. (2019). Success purpose tendencies of high school students. Journal of Human Sciences, 16(2), 662–678. https://doi.org/10.14687/jhs.v16i2.5603
Kursa, M. B., & Rudnicki, W. R. (2010). Feature Selection with the Boruta Package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(11). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i11
Lan, Y.-C., Lo, Y.-L., & Hsu, Y.-S. (2014). The Effects of Meta-Cognitive Instruction on Students’ Reading Comprehension in Computerized Reading Contexts: A Quantitative Meta-Analysis. Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 186–202.
Li, Z., & Qiu, Z. (2018). How does family background affect children’s educational achievement? Evidence from Contemporary China. The Journal of Chinese Sociology, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40711-018-0083-8
Liu, H., Cao, H., Song, E., Ma, G., Xu, X., Jin, R., Jin, Y., & Hung, C. C. (2019). A cascaded dual-pathway residual network for lung nodule segmentation in CT images. Physica Medica, 63(December 2018), 112–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2019.06.003
Ma, Y., & Qin, X. (2021). Measurement invariance of information, communication and technology (ICT) engagement and its relationship with student academic literacy: Evidence from PISA 2018. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.100982
Mani, K., & Kalpana, P. (2017). An Exploratory Analysis between the Feature Selection Algorithms IGMBD and IGChiMerge. International Journal of Information Technology and Computer Science, 9(7), 61–68. https://doi.org/10.5815/ijitcs.2017.07.07
Marks, G. N., & O’Connell, M. (2021). Inadequacies in the SES–Achievement model: Evidence from PISA and other studies. Review of Education, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3293
Marôco, J. (2021). What makes a good reader? Worldwide insights from PIRLS 2016. Reading and Writing, 34(1), 231–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10068-8
MEB. (2015). Introduction of Schools Affiliated to the General Directorate of Secondary Education. http://ogm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2015_05/07092423_ogmokultanitim.pdf
MEB. (2018a). Mutlu Çocuklar Güçlü Türkiye 2023 Eğitim Vizyonu. https://2023vizyonu.meb.gov.tr/doc/2023_EGITIM_VIZYONU.pdf
MEB. (2018b). Secondary Education Institutions Weekly Course Schedule. https://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2018_02/21173451_ort_ogrtm_hdc_2018.pdf
Mehmood, A., On, B.-W., Lee, I., & Choi, G. (2017). Prognosis Essay Scoring and Article Relevancy Using Multi-Text Features and Machine Learning. Symmetry, 9(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym9010011
MERAM (2017). Types of Secondary Education Institutions. https://meramram.meb.k12.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/42/26/175064/dosyalar/2017_02/15104831_lsetrler.pdf
Mushtaq, S., Soroya, S. H., & Mahmood, K. (2020). Reading habits of generation Z students in Pakistan: Is it time to re-examine school library services? Information Development, 026666692096564. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666920965642
Navarro-Martinez, O., & Peña-Acuña, B. (2022). Technology Usage and Academic Performance in the Pisa 2018 Report. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 11(1), 130. https://doi.org/10.7821/naer.2022.1.735
OECD. (2016). PISA 2018 Draft Analytical Frameworks. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/PISA-2018-draft-frameworks.pdf
OECD. (2019a). PISA 2018 Assessment and Analytical Framework. Içinde OECD iLibrary. OECD.
OECD. (2019b). PISA Database. OECD. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/
OECD. (2021a). Country Note for Germany: 21st Readers. Içinde 21st-century readers: Developing literacy skills in a digital world. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/PISA2018_Reading_GERMANY.pdf
OECD. (2021b). 21st-Century Readers. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/a83d84cb-en
Oriogu, C. D., Subair, R. E., Oriogu-Ogbuiyi, D. C., & Ogbuiyi, S. U. (2017). Effect of Reading Habits on the Academic Performance of Students: A Case Study of the Students of Afe Babalola University, Ado-Ekiti, Ekiti State. Teacher Education and Curriculum Studies, 2(5), 74. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.tecs.20170205.13
Özbey Demir, Ö. (2020). What Do PISA Results Say About Education Inequality in Turkey? Critical Reviews in Educational Sciences, 1(2), 85–98. https://doi.org/10.22596/cresjournal.0102.85.98
Özdemir, Ş., & Karateke, T. (2018). Students’ Reasons for Preferring Imam Preachers Schools (The Sample Of Elazığ). Ondokuz Mayıs University Review of the Faculty of Divinity, 45, 5–33. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/604133
Özdemir, S., & Şerbetçi, H. N. (2018). Elementary School Fourth Graders’ Attitudes toward Reading (Bartin Sample). Elementary Education Online, 17(4), 2110–2123. https://doi.org/i 10.17051/ilkonline.2019.506973
Özer, M. (2020a). The Paradigm Shift in Vocational Education and Training in Turkey. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 40(2), 357–384. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/1255073
Özer, M. (2020b). What Does PISA Tell Us About Performance of Education Systems? Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 9(2), 217–228. https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.697153
Özer, M., & Perc, M. (2020). Dreams and realities of school tracking and vocational education. Palgrave Communications, 6(1), 34. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-0409-4
Öztürk, Z., & Göksoy, S. (2022). Vocational and Technical Anatolian High School Students’ Opinions for School Alienation and Their Attitudes for Vocational Education. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 51(234), 1357–1380. https://doi.org/10.37669 milliegitim.852826
Pejic, A., & Molcer, P. S. (2019). Predicting the Outcome of a PISA Problem Solving Task Using Strategic Behavior Data. 2019 10th IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Infocommunications (CogInfoCom), 313–318. https://doi.org/10.1109/CogInfoCom47531.2019.9089942
Qu, J., Ren, K., & Shi, X. (2021). Binary Grey Wolf Optimization-Regularized Extreme Learning Machine Wrapper Coupled with the Boruta Algorithm for Monthly Streamflow Forecasting. Water Resources Management, 35(3), 1029–1045. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-021-02770-1
Reyhanlıoğlu, Ç., & Tiryaki, İ. (2021). An Overview of the Assessment and Evaluation Practices Carried Out In Turkey. Uluslararası Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 9(16), 70–93. https://doi.org/10.46778/goputeb.766689
Schiepe-Tiska, A. (2019). School Tracks as Differential Learning Environments Moderate the Relationship Between Teaching Quality and Multidimensional Learning Goals in Mathematics. Frontiers in Education, 4, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00004
Sciffer, M. G., Perry, L. B., & McConney, A. (2022). Does school socioeconomic composition matter more in some countries than others, and if so, why? Comparative Education, 58(1), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2021.2013045
Severa, M., & Ceylan, E. (2021). What is school for? Understanding Structural Inequalities through the Experiences of High School Students. Başkent University Journal of Education, 8(1), 196–206.
Sevilla, M. P., & Polesel, J. (2022). Vocational education and social inequalities in within- and between-school curriculum tracking. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 52(4), 581–599. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2020.1798214
Shrestha, S., & Pokharel, M. (2021). Educational data mining in moodle data. International Journal of Informatics and Communication Technology (IJ-ICT), 10(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijict.v10i1.pp9-18
Sikora, J., & Pokropek, A. (2006). Gendered Career Expectations of Students. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5kghw6891gms-en
Son, Y., Hyunjeong, P., & Park, M. (2020). Random Forest Analysis of Factors Influencing the Students’ Reading Literacy Levels: Using PISA 2018 Korea Data. Asian Journal of Education, 21(1–4), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.15753/aje.2020.03.21.1.191
Srijamdee, K., & Pholphirul, P. (2020). Does ICT familiarity always help promote educational outcomes? Empirical evidence from PISA-Thailand. Education and Information Technologies, 25(4), 2933–2970. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10089-z
Strello, A., Strietholt, R., Steinmann, I., & Siepmann, C. (2021). Early tracking and different types of inequalities in achievement: difference-in-differences evidence from 20 years of large-scale assessments. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 33(1), 139–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-020-09346-4
Suna, H. E., Tanberkan, H., Gür, B. S., Perc, M., & Özer, M. (2020). Socioeconomic Status and School Type as Predictors of Academic Achievement. Journal of Economy Culture and Society, 61(1), 41–64. https://doi.org/10.26650/jecs2020-0034
Tat, O., Koyuncu, İ., & Gelbal, S. (2019). The Influence of Using Plausible Values and Survey Weights on Multiple Regression and Hierarchical Linear Model Parameters. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, 235–248. https://doi.org/10.21031/epod.486999
TEDMEM. (2020). 2019 Eğitim Değerlendirme Raporu (Emin Karip (ed.)). TEDMEM. https://tedmem.org/storage/publications/February2023/f2JxDgyafag6BquTgyYr.pdf
Tse, S. K., Xiao, X., & Lam, W. (2013). The influences of gender, reading ability, independent reading, and context on reading attitude. Written Language & Literacy, 16(2), 241–271. https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.16.2.05tse
Uğuz, E., Şahin, S., & Yılmaz, R. (2021). The Use of Educational Data Mining in the Evaluation of PISA 2018 Scores of Science. Journal of Information and Communication Technologies. https://doi.org/10.53694/bited.887425
Vázquez-Cano, E., Gómez-Galán, J., Infante-Moro, A., & López-Meneses, E. (2020). Incidence of a Non-Sustainability Use of Technology on Students’ Reading Performance in Pisa. Sustainability, 12(2), 749. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020749
Xu, X., Gu, H., Wang, Y., Wang, J., & Qin, P. (2019). Autoencoder Based Feature Selection Method for Classification of Anticancer Drug Response. Frontiers in Genetics, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2019.00233
Yan, K., & Zhang, D. (2015). Feature selection and analysis on correlated gas sensor data with recursive feature elimination. Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical, 212, 353–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.snb.2015.02.025
Yazıcı, T., & Kartal, O. Y. (2020). Investigation of High School Students’ Approaches to Learning. Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli University Journal of ISS, 10(2), 625–641. https://doi.org/10.30783/nevsosbilen.783211
Yonca, Z. D. (2018). Factors Affecting Finland’s Success in PISA and Comparison with Turkey. Uluslararası Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 14(5), 136–146. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/563495

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Turkish and Social Sciences Education (Diğer), Educational Sociology

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Sanem Şehribanoğlu ^*
0000-0002-3099-7599
Türkiye

Early Pub Date

December 16, 2025

Publication Date

December 31, 2025

Submission Date

September 6, 2024

Acceptance Date

November 18, 2025

Published in Issue

Year 2025 Volume: 14 Number: 5

DOI

https://doi.org/10.15869/itobiad.1544751

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA22AD96MW

APA

Şehribanoğlu, S. (2025). Differentiation in School Types in Turkey Evaluation of PISA 2018 Based on Reading Skill Levels. İnsan Ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 14(5), 2058-2086. https://doi.org/10.15869/itobiad.1544751

AMA

1.Şehribanoğlu S. Differentiation in School Types in Turkey Evaluation of PISA 2018 Based on Reading Skill Levels. itobiad. 2025;14(5):2058-2086. doi:10.15869/itobiad.1544751

Chicago

Şehribanoğlu, Sanem. 2025. “Differentiation in School Types in Turkey Evaluation of PISA 2018 Based on Reading Skill Levels”. İnsan Ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi 14 (5): 2058-86. https://doi.org/10.15869/itobiad.1544751.

EndNote

Şehribanoğlu S (December 1, 2025) Differentiation in School Types in Turkey Evaluation of PISA 2018 Based on Reading Skill Levels. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi 14 5 2058–2086.

IEEE

[1]S. Şehribanoğlu, “Differentiation in School Types in Turkey Evaluation of PISA 2018 Based on Reading Skill Levels”, itobiad, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 2058–2086, Dec. 2025, doi: 10.15869/itobiad.1544751.

ISNAD

Şehribanoğlu, Sanem. “Differentiation in School Types in Turkey Evaluation of PISA 2018 Based on Reading Skill Levels”. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi 14/5 (December 1, 2025): 2058-2086. https://doi.org/10.15869/itobiad.1544751.

JAMA

1.Şehribanoğlu S. Differentiation in School Types in Turkey Evaluation of PISA 2018 Based on Reading Skill Levels. itobiad. 2025;14:2058–2086.

MLA

Şehribanoğlu, Sanem. “Differentiation in School Types in Turkey Evaluation of PISA 2018 Based on Reading Skill Levels”. İnsan Ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, vol. 14, no. 5, Dec. 2025, pp. 2058-86, doi:10.15869/itobiad.1544751.

Vancouver

1.Sanem Şehribanoğlu. Differentiation in School Types in Turkey Evaluation of PISA 2018 Based on Reading Skill Levels. itobiad. 2025 Dec. 1;14(5):2058-86. doi:10.15869/itobiad.1544751

Journal of the Human and Social Science Researches is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY NC).

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Türkiye’de Okul Türlerindeki Farklılaşmanın PISA 2018 Okuma Beceri Düzeylerine Göre Değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

Keywords

Differentiation in School Types in Turkey Evaluation of PISA 2018 Based on Reading Skill Levels

Abstract

Keywords

References

Details

Primary Language

Subjects

Journal Section

Authors

Early Pub Date

Publication Date

Submission Date

Acceptance Date

Published in Issue

DOI

IZ

Cite