The Influence of Student-Level Factors on Reading Literacy: A Comprehensive Study

Öz

The aim of the present study was to examine the factor affecting reading performance of the students in a broad sense. The sample was comprised of a total of 752076 students who participated in PISA studies from OECD member countries during the years of 2000 (n = 159095), 2009 (n = 298454) and 2018 (n = 294527) in which reading literacy was the major domain of interest. The causal relationships were examined by using a series of multiple linear regressions by using IDB Analyzer software which creates syntaxes that replicate the analysis 80 times for each plausible value and calculate the average values by taking into account the student weights as suggested in the PISA manuals. The results revealed that enjoyment of reading (at 91%, 100%, and 56% of countries in 2000, 2009, and 2018, respectively), and index of economic, social, and cultural status (at 81%, 91%, and 91% of countries in 2000, 2009, and 2018, respectively) were ranked among the most significant variables that predict reading literacy in all three PISA cycles. While metacognition was not included in 2000, it was among the most important variables (at 100% of countries) in 2009 and 2018.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• metacognition
• OECD countries
• reading performance
• reading enjoyment.
• index of economic social and cultural status

Kaynakça

1. Adkins, D., & Brendler, B. M. (2015). Libraries and reading motivation: A review of the Programme for International Student Assessment reading results. IFLA Journal, 41(2), 129-139.
2. Allen, L. A. (2006). Metacognition and reading: Strategies for struggling readers (Master's Thesis). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.1440263)
3. Anastasiou, D., & Griva, E. (2009). Awareness of reading strategy use and reading comprehension among poor and good readers. İlköğretim Online, 8(2), 283-297.
4. Arikan, S., van de Vijver, F. J., & Yagmur, K. (2017). PISA mathematics and reading performance differences of mainstream European and Turkish immigrant students. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 29(3), 229-246.
5. Arrington, C. N., Kulesz, P. A., Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., & Barnes, M. A. (2014). The contribution of attentional control and working memory to reading comprehension and decoding. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(5), 325-346.
6. Artelt, C., Schiefele, U., & Schneider, W. (2001). Predictors of reading literacy. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 16(3), 363-383.
7. Azzolini, D., Schnell, P., & Palmer, J. R. (2012). Educational achievement gaps between immigrant and native students in two "new" immigration countries: Italy and Spain in comparison. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 643(1), 46-77.
8. Baker, L. (2002). Metacognition in comprehension instruction. In C.C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Researchbased best practices (pp. 77–95). New York: Guilford.

9. Bender, W. N. (2002). Differentiating instruction for students with learning disabilities. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Corwin Press.
10. Berberoğlu, G., & Kalender, İ. (2005). Öğrenci başarısını yıllara, okul türlerine, bölgelere göre incelenmesi: ÖSS ve PISA analizi. Eğitim Bilimleri ve Uygulama, 22(4), 21-35.
11. Bloom, B. S. (1974). Time and learning. American Psychologist, 29, 682-688.
12. Boerma, I. E., Mol, S. E., & Jolles, J. (2017). The role of home literacy environment, mentalizing, expressive verbal ability, and print exposure in third and fourth graders' reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 21(3), 179-193.
13. Brozo, W. G., Shiel, G., & Topping, K. (2007). Engagement in reading: Lessons learned from three PISA countries. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51(4), 304-315.
14. Cheema, J. R. (2018). Adolescents' enjoyment of reading as a predictor of reading achievement: New evidence from a cross‐country survey. Journal of Research in Reading, 41, 149-162.
15. Chen, Q., Kong, Y., Gao, W., & Mo, L. (2018). Effects of socioeconomic status, parent-child relationship, and learning motivation on reading habit. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1297. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01297
16. Chiu, M. M., & McBride-Chang, C. (2006). Gender, context, and reading: A comparison of students in 43 countries. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(4), 331-362.
17. Cummins, C., Stewart, M. T., & Block, C. C. (2005). Teaching several metacognitive strategies together increases students' independent metacognition. In S. Isreal, C. Block, K. Bauserman, & K. Kinnucan- Welsch (Eds.), Metacognition in literacy learning: Theory, assessment, instruction, and Professional development (pp. 227–296). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
18. Çoban, Ö. (2020). Relationships between students' socioeconomic status, parental support, students' hindering, teachers' hindering and students' literacy scores: PISA 2018. World Journal of Education, 10(4), 45-59.
19. Eklund, K., Torppa, M., Sulkunen, S., Niemi, P., & Ahonen, T. (2018). Early cognitive predictors of PISA Reading in children with and without family risk for dyslexia. Learning and Individual Differences, 64, 94–103.
20. Elleman, A. M., Lindo, E. J., Morphy, P., & Compton, D. L. (2009). The impact of vocabulary instruction on passage-level comprehension of school-age children: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2(1), 1-44.
21. Erdoğan, E., & Güvendir, M. A. (2019). Uluslararası öğrenci değerlendirme programında öğrencilerin sosyoekonomik özellikleri ile okuma becerileri arasındaki ilişki. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 20, 493-523.
22. Ergül, C., Akoğlu, G., Akçamuş, M. Ç. Ö., Demir, E., Tülü, B. K., & Kudret, Z. B. (2020). Longitudinal results on phonological awareness and reading performance of turkish-speaking children by socioeconomic status. Eğitim ve Bilim. 1-20.
23. Ferrer, E., Shaywitz, B. A., Holahan, J. M., Marchione, K. E., Michaels, R., & Shaywitz, S. E. (2015). Achievement gap in reading is present as early as first grade and persists through adolescence. The Journal of Pediatrics, 167(5), 1121-1125.
24. Fisher, C. W., Berliner, D. C., Filby, N. N., Marliave, R., Cahen, L. S., & Dishaw, M. M. (1981). Teaching behaviors, academic learning time, and student achievement: An overview. The Journal of Classroom Interaction, 17(1), 2-15.
25. Firat, T. (2019). Effects of the TWA strategy instruction on reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities. Educational Research Quarterly, 43(2), 24-54.
26. Fırat, T. (2020). Öğrenme güçlüğü olan öğrenciler için sınıf yönetimi. In A. Bildiren & B. Akyol (Eds.), Özel eğitimde bütünleştirilmiş sınıf yönetimi (pp. 89–119). Pegem Akademi.
27. Fırat, T., & Ergül, C. (2020). 3D strateji öğretiminin öğrenme güçlüğü olan öğrencilerin bilişsel ve üstbilişsel stratejileri kazanmalarına etkisi. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 28(3), 1390-1406.
28. Fırat, T., & Koçak, D. (2019). Başarılı okuyucular ile öğrenme güçlüğü olan öğrencilerin metni anlamak için kullandıkları bilişsel ve üstbilişsel stratejiler. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 27(2), 669-681.
29. Fırat, T., & Koyuncu, İ. (2023). Examining metacognitive strategy preferences of students at different reading proficiency levels. International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies, 10(1), 224-240.
30. Gottfried, A. W., Schlackman, J., Gottfried, A. E., & Boutin-Martinez, A. S. (2015). Parental provision of early literacy environment as related to reading and educational outcomes across the academic lifespan. Parenting, 15(1), 24-38.
31. Guo, S., Li, L., & Zhang, D. (2018). A multi-level analysis of the effects of disciplinary climate strength on student reading performance. Asia Pacific Education Review, 19(1), 1-15.
32. Guthrie, J. T., Hoa, A. L. W., Wigfield, A., Tonks, S. M., Humenick, N. M., & Littles, E. (2007). Reading motivation and reading comprehension growth in the later elementary years. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 282–313.
33. Güldenoğlu, B., Kargin, T., & Miller, P. (2013). Okuma güçlüğü olan ve olmayan öğrencilerin cümle anlama becerilerinin incelenmesi. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 30(76), 82.
34. Gülleroğlu, D., Bilican, S., & Demirtaşlı, N. (2014). Türk öğrencilerinin PISA 2003-2006-2009 dönemlerindeki okuma becerilerini yordayan sosyoekonomik ve kültürel değişkenlerin araştırılması. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 47(2), 201-222.
35. Griffin, E. A., & Morrison, F. J. (1997). The unique contribution of home literacy environment to differences in early literacy skills. Early Child Development and Care, 127(1), 233-243.
36. Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (1999). How motivation fits into a science of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3(3), 199-205.
37. Hulme, C., Nash, H. M., Gooch, D., Lervåg, A., & Snowling, M. J. (2015). The foundations of literacy development in children at familial risk of dyslexia. Psychological Science, 26(12), 1877-1886.
38. İnce, M., & Gözütok, F. D. (2018). Effect of parental education and home educational resources to student' results of PISA reading skills test. İlköğretim Online, 17(2), 947- 958.
39. Johann, V., Könen, T., & Karbach, J. (2020). The unique contribution of working memory, inhibition, cognitive flexibility, and intelligence to reading comprehension and reading speed. Child Neuropsychology, 26(3), 324-344.
40. Kendeou, P., & van den Broek, P. (2007). The effects of prior knowledge and text structure on comprehension processes during reading of scientific texts. Memory and Cognition, 35(7), 1567-1577.
41. Kır, G. (2016). Differences between school types in reading related factors based on 2009 cycle of PISA (Doctoral dissertation). Bilkent University.
42. Kidron, Y., & Lindsay, J. (2014). The effects of increased learning time on student academic and nonacademic outcomes: Findings from a meta-analytic review (REL 2014–015). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Appalachia. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.
43. Klauda, S. L., & Guthrie, J.T. (2008). Relationships of three components of reading fluency to reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2), 310–321.
44. Kotte, D., Lietz, P., & Lopez, M. M. (2005). Factors Influencing Reading Achievement in Germany and Spain: Evidence from PISA 2000. International Education Journal, 6(1), 113-124.
45. Koyuncu, I., Bulus, M., & Firat, T. (2022). The moderator role of gender and socioeconomic status in the relationship between metacognitive skills and reading scores. Participatory Educational Research, 9(3), 82-97.
46. Kuruyer, H. G., & Özsoy, G. (2015). İyi ve zayıf okuyucuların üstbilişsel okuma becerilerinin incelenmesi: Bir durum çalışması. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 24(2), 771-788.
47. Lau, K. L., & Chan, D. W. (2003). Reading strategy use and motivation among Chinese good and poor readers in Hong Kong. Journal of Research in Reading, 26(2), 177-190.
48. Lau, K. L., & Ho, E. S. C. (2016). Reading performance and self-regulated learning of Hong Kong students: What we learnt from PISA 2009. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(1), 159-171.
49. Lavy, V. (2015). Do differences in schools' instruction time explain international achievement gaps? Evidence from developed and developing countries. The Economic Journal, 125(588), F397–F424. doi:10.1111/ecoj.12233.
50. Logan, S., & Johnston, R. (2009). Gender differences in reading ability and attitudes: Examining where these differences lie. Journal of Research in Reading, 32(2), 199-214.
51. Ma, X. (2003). Measuring up: Academic performance of Canadian immigrant children in reading, mathematics, and science. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 4(4), 541-576.
52. Manu, M., Torppa, M., Eklund, K., Poikkeus, A. M., Lerkkanen, M. K., & Niemi, P. (2021). Kindergarten pre-reading skills predict Grade 9 reading comprehension (PISA Reading) but fail to explain gender difference. Reading and Writing, 34(3), 753-771.
53. McArthur, G. M., Filardi, N., Francis, D. A., Boyes, M. E., & Badcock, N. A. (2020). Self-concept in poor readers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PeerJ, 8, e8772.
54. Memisevic, H., & Cehic, I. (2022). The Importance of Metacognitive Strategies in Reading Literacy—Results of the PISA Testing in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 21(2), 116-124.
55. Miyamoto, A., Pfost, M., & Artelt, C. (2019). The relationship between intrinsic motivation and reading comprehension: Mediating effects of reading amount and metacognitive knowledge of strategy use. Scientific Studies of Reading, 23(6), 445-460.
56. Ning, B., Van Damme, J., Van Den Noortgate, W., Yang, X., & Gielen, S. (2015). The influence of classroom disciplinary climate of schools on reading achievement: A cross-country comparative study. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 26(4), 586-611.
57. OECD. (1999). Measuring student knowledge and skills: A new framework for assessment. OECD Publishing.
58. OECD. (2009). PISA 2009 assessment framework: Key competencies in reading, mathematics and science. Paris: OECD Publishing.
59. OECD. (2012). PISA 2009 technical report. Paris: OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264167872-en
60. OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 assessment and analytical framework. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b25efab8-en
61. OECD. (n.d.). PISA 2018 Technical Report. Retrieved November 20, 2019, from https://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/pisa2018technicalreport/
62. Orellana, P., Melo, C., Baldwin, P., De Julio, S., & Pezoa, J. (2020). The relationship between motivation to read and reading comprehension in chilean elementary students. Reading and Writing, 33, 2437–2458.
63. Ozuru, Y., Dempsey, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts. Learning and Instruction, 19(3), 228-242.
64. Ozernov‐Palchik, O., Norton, E. S., Sideridis, G., Beach, S. D., Wolf, M., Gabrieli, J. D., & Gaab, N. (2017). Longitudinal stability of pre‐reading skill profiles of kindergarten children: implications for early screening and theories of reading. Developmental Science, 20(5), e12471.
65. Park, H. (2008). Home literacy environments and children's reading performance: A comparative study of 25 countries. Educational Research and Evaluation, 14(6), 489-505.
66. Park, J. H., & Sakong, B. H. (2014). Effects of the library use factor on reading achievement, reading attitude and behavioral factors of PISA 2009. Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science, 48(3), 169-191.
67. Parker, P., Sanders, T., Anders, J., Sahdra, B., Shure, N., Jerrim, J., & Cull, N. (2021). Does school average achievement explain the effect of socioeconomic status on math and reading interest? A test of the Information Distortion Model. Learning and Instruction, 73, 101432.
68. Pyle, N., Vasquez, A. C., Lignugaris/Kraft, B., Gillam, S. L., Reutzel, D. R., Olszewski, A., ... & Pyle, D. (2017). Effects of expository text structure interventions on comprehension: A meta‐analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 52(4), 469-501.
69. Quinn, J. M., Wagner, R. K., Petscher, Y., Roberts, G., Menzel, A. J., & Schatschneider, C. (2020). Differential codevelopment of vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension for students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(3), 608–627.
70. Rajchert, J. M., Żułtak, T., & Smulczyk, M. (2014). Predicting reading literacy and its improvement in the Polish national extension of the PISA study: The role of intelligence, trait-and state-anxiety, socioeconomic status and school-type. Learning and Individual Differences, 33, 1-11.
71. Ray, A., & Margaret, W. (Eds.). (2003). PISA 2000 technical report. Paris: OECD Publishing.
72. Roeschl-Heils, A., Schneider, W., & van Kraayenoord, C. E. (2003). Reading, metacognition and motivation: A follow-up study of German students in grades 7 and 8. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 18(1), 75-86.
73. Rogiers, A., Keer, H. V., & Merchie, E. (2020). The profile of the skilled reader: An investigation into the role of reading enjoyment and student characteristics. International Journal of Educational Research, 99, 101512.
74. Schiefele, U., Schaffner, E., Möller, J., & Wigfield, A. (2012). Dimensions of reading motivation and their relation to reading behavior and competence. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 427–463.
75. Sénéchal, M., & LeFevre, J. A. (2002). Parental involvement in the development of children's reading skill: A five‐year longitudinal study. Child Development, 73(2), 445-460.
76. Sénéchal, M., & LeFevre, J. A. (2014). Continuity and change in the home literacy environment as predictors of growth in vocabulary and reading. Child Development, 85(4), 1552-1568.
77. Shala, A., & Grajcevci, A. (2018). Kosovo's low performance in PISA 2015: An explanation from a socioeconomic perspective. Educational Process: International Journal, 7(1), 48-59.
78. Silinskas, G., Torppa, M., Lerkkanen, M. K., & Nurmi, J. E. (2020). The home literacy model in a highly transparent orthography. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 31(1), 80-101.
79. Sikora, J., Evans, M. D. R., & Kelley, J. (2019). Scholarly culture: How books in adolescence enhance adult literacy, numeracy and technology skills in 31 societies. Social Science Research, 77, 1-15.
80. Soto, C., de Blume, A. P. G., Jacovina, M., McNamara, D., Benson, N., Riffo, B., & Kruk, R. (2019). Reading comprehension and metacognition: The importance of inferential skills. Cogent Education, 6(1), 1565067.
81. Stanovich, K. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–407.
82. Suggate, S., Schaughency, E., McAnally, H., & Reese, E. (2018). From infancy to adolescence: The longitudinal links between vocabulary, early literacy skills, oral narrative, and reading comprehension. Cognitive Development, 47, 82-95.
83. Swanson, H. L. (1999). Reading research for students with ld: A meta-analysis of intervention outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 504-532.
84. Taboada, A., Tonks, S. M., Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (2009). Effects of motivational and cognitive variables on reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 22(1), 85–106.
85. Tavsancil, E., Yildirim, O., & Bilican Demir, S. (2019). Direct and ındirect effects of learning strategies and reading enjoyment on PISA 2009 reading performance. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 82, 169-189.
86. Torppa, M., Lyytinen, P., Erskine, J., Eklund, K., & Lyytinen, H. (2010). Language development, literacy skills, and predictive connections to reading in Finnish children with and without familial risk for dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(4), 308-321.
87. Torppa, M., Vasalampi, K., Eklund, K., Sulkunen, S., & Niemi, P. (2020). Reading comprehension difficulty is often distinct from difficulty in reading fluency and accompanied with problems in motivation and school well-being. Educational Psychology, 40(1), 62-81.
88. Troyer, M., Kim, J. S., Hale, E., Wantchekon, K. A., & Armstrong, C. (2019). Relations among intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation, reading amount, and comprehension: a conceptual replication. Reading and Writing, 32(5), 1197-1218.
89. Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. 3, pp. 403–422). New York, NY: Routledge.
90. Williams, J. P., & Atkins, J. G. (2009). The role of metacognition in teaching reading comprehension to primary students. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of Metacognition in Education (pp. 26-43). New York, NY: Routledge.
91. Woessmann, L. (2003). Schooling resources, educational institutions and student performance: The international evidence. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 65, 117–170.
92. Vázquez-Cano, E., la Calle-Cabrera, D., María, A., Hervás-Gómez, C., & López-Meneses, E. (2020). Socio-Family context and its influence on students' PISA reading performance scores: Evidence from three countries in three continents. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 20(2), 50-62.
93. Valenzuela, J. P., Vera, G. G., & Sotomayor, C. (2015). The role of reading engagement in improving national achievement: An analysis of Chile's 2000–2009 PISA results. International Journal of Educational Development, 40, 28-39.
94. van Bergen, E., Vasalampi, K., & Torppa, M. (2021). How are practice and performance related? Development of reading from age 5 to 15. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(3), 415-434.
95. Zagoto, I. (2020). Academic self-concept on reading comprehension. Journal Education and Development, 8(2), 545-545.