The validity and reliability of the Turkish version of revised metacognitive awareness of reading strategies inventory

Öz

This study aims to adapt the revised Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory (MARSI- R) into Turkish. MARSI-R is a self-report instrument designed to assess students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies and perceived strategy use when reading school-related materials. 525 students (65% female, 35% male, Mage = 13 years old.) from multiple school types and degrees participated in this study. A stepwise validation procedure was used to translate and produce a Turkish version of the inventory. Evidence of structural and external aspects of validity for the inventory was collected. The 15-item inventory had a three-factor solution (global reading strategies, problem-solving strategies, and support reading strategies), as supported by confirmatory factor analysis. Turkish version scores were positively correlated with students' perceived reading ability, which provides evidence of MARSI-R's external validity. The coefficient of stability was calculated using data from 85 students who took the Turkish version of the MARSI-R twice in a five-week interval. The study’s overall results provided evidence of the reliability and validity of the inventory. According to the results presented in this study, the Turkish version of the inventory can be implemented to assess the students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies and perceived strategy use. The findings show that the adapted inventory can be used to obtain valid and reliable results for Turkish lower and upper secondary school students.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Metacognition
• Metacognitive awareness
• Reading comprehension
• Reading strategies
• Reliability and validity of Turkish version

References

1. Aghaie, R., & Zhang, L.J. (2012). Effects of explicit instruction in cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies on Iranian EFL students' reading performance and strategy transfer. Instructional Science, 40(6), 1063-1081. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9202-5
2. Alderson, C.J., & Alderson, J.C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511732935
3. Amini, D., Hosseini Anhari, M., & Ghasemzadeh, A. (2020). Modelling the relationship between metacognitive strategy awareness, self-regulation and reading proficiency of Iranian EFL learners, Cogent Education, 7(1), 1 17. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1787018
4. Bachman, L.F. & Palmer, A.S. (2010). Language assessment in practice: Developing language assessments and justifying their use in the real world. OUP.
5. Bagci, H., & Unveren, D. (2020). Investigation of the relationship between metacognitive awareness of reading strategies and self-efficacy perception in reading comprehension in mother-tongue: Sample of 8th graders. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 6(1), 83-98. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.6.1.83
6. Bagozzi, R.P., & Phillips, L.W. (1982). Representing and testing organizational theories: A holistic construal, Administrative Science Quarterly, 27 (September): 459-489. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392322
7. Brown, H.D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (Vol. 4). Longman.
8. Boyraz, S., & Altinsoy, E. (2017). Metacognitive awareness of reading strategies in EFL context. International Journal of Language Academy, 5(5), 159 167. https://doi.org/10.18033/ijla.3655

9. Devine, J. (1988). The relationship between general language competence and second language reading proficiency: Implications for teaching. Interactive approaches to second language reading, 260-277. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524513.024
10. Distefano, C., & Morgan, G.B. (2014). A comparison of diagonal weighted least squares robust estimation techniques for ordinal data. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21, 425- 438. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.915373
11. Do, H.M., & Phan, H.L.T. (2021). Metacognitive awareness of reading strategies on second language Vietnamese undergraduates. Arab World English Journal, 12(1) 90-112. https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol12no1.7
12. Encyclopædia Britannica, inc. (2023, March 28). Adolescence. Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved May 1, 2023, from https://www.britannica.com/science/adolescence
13. Erdoğan, T., & Yurdabakan, İ. (2018). Adaptation of metacognitive awareness of reading strategies inventory: Turkish higher education sample. Electronic Turkish Studies, 13(19), 669-680.
14. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi:10.1177/002224378101800104
15. Gallucci, M., & Jentschke, S. (2021). SEMLj: Jamovi SEM Analysis. [jamovi module].
16. Grabe, W.P., & Stoller, F.L. (2013). Teaching and researching: Reading. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315833743
17. Hair, J.F., Jr., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis with readings (4th ed.). Prentice-Hall.
18. Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to under parameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424-453. https://doi:10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424
19. Kolić-Vehovec, S., Bajšanski, I., & Zubković, B.R. (2010). Metacognition and reading comprehension: Age and gender differences. Trends and Prospects in Metacognition Research, 327-344. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6546-2_15
20. Köse, N., & Günes, F. (2021). Undergraduate students' use of metacognitive strategies while reading and the relationship between strategy use and reading comprehension skills. Journal of Education and Learning, 10(2), 99-108. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v10n2p99
21. Kusiak, M. (2013). Reading comprehension in Polish and English: Evidence from an introspective study. Jagiellonian University Press.
22. MacCallum, R.C., Widaman, K.F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological methods, 4(1), 84. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.1.84
23. Mallinckrodt, B., & Wang, C.-C. (2004). Quantitative methods for verifying semantic equivalence of translated research instruments: A Chinese version of the experiences in close relationships scale. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 51(3), 368–379. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.51.3.368
24. McNeish, D. (2018). Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here. Psychological Methods, 23(3), 412–433. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000144
25. Mokhtari, K., Dimitrov, D.M., & Reichard, C.A. (2018). Revising the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies inventory (MARSI) and testing for factorial invariance. Stud. Sec. Lang. Learn. Teach., 8, 219–246. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.2.3
26. Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C.A. (2002). Assessing students' metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.249
27. Mokhtari, K., & Sheorey, R. (2002). Measuring ESL students' awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Developmental Education, 25(3), 2-11.
28. Morin, A., Myers, N., & Lee, S. (2020). Modern factor analytic techniques: Bifactor models, exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) and bifactor-ESEM. In G. Tenenbaum, & R. C. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of Sport Psychology (4th Edition). Wiley.
29. Muthén, B.O. (1993). Goodness of fit with categorical and other nonnormal variables. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 205–243). Sage.
30. Ondé, D., Jiménez, V., Alvarado, J.M., & Gràcia, M. (2022). Analysis of the structural validity of the reduced version of metacognitive awareness of reading strategies inventory. Frontiers in psychology, 13, 894327. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.894327
31. Öztürk, E. (2012). The validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies inventory. Elementary Education Online, 11(2), 292-305.
32. Phakiti, A. (2008). Construct validation of Bachman and Palmer's (1996) strategic competence model over time in EFL reading tests. Language Testing, 25(2), 237-272. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532207086783
33. RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Towards an R&D program in reading comprehension. Report prepared for OERI.
34. Rosseel, Y. (2019). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
35. Sarıçoban, A., & Behjoo, B.M. (2017). Metacognitive awareness of Turkish EFL learners on reading strategies. The journal of Social Sciences Institute of Ataturk University, 21(1), 159-172.
36. Schumacher, R.E., & Lomax, R.G. (2010). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). Routledge Pub.
37. Soto C., Gutierrez de Blume A.P., Asún R., Jacovina M., Vásquez C. (2018). A deeper understanding of metacomprehension in reading: Development of a new multidimensional tool. Frontline Learning Research, 6(1), 31 52. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v6i1.328
38. Soto, C., Gutierrez de Blume, A.P., Rodríguez, M.F., Asún, R., Figueroa, M., & Serrano, M. (2019). Impact of bridging strategy and feeling of knowing judgments on reading comprehension using COMPRENDE: An educational technology. TechTrends, 63(5), 570-582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00383-5
39. Tabachnick, B.G., & Field, L.S. (1996). Using multivarete statistics. Harper Collins Publishers
40. Taber, K.S. (2018). The Use of cronbach's alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48, 1273-1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2
41. Tary, B., & Molnár, E.K. (2022). A MARSI-R kérdőív magyar adaptációja–olvasási stratégiák vizsgálata anya-és idegen nyelven egyetemi hallgatók körében. Iskolakultúra, 32(5), 57-75. https://doi.org/10.14232/ISKKULT.2022.5.57
42. Tamin, İ.B., & Büyükahıska, D. (2020). Reading strategy instruction on metacognitive awareness: the case of Turkish high school students. The reading matrix: An International Online Journal, 20(2), 85-97. https://www.readingmatrix.com/files/23-f957795j.pdf
43. Villanueva Aguilera, A.B. (2014). Strategy intervention to enhance reading comprehension of 15-year-old students in Mexico [Doctoral dissertation, University of York].
44. Von Eye, A., & Bogat, G.A. (2004). Testing the assumption of multivariate normality. Psychology Science, 46, 243-258.
45. Wall, K. (2008). Understanding metacognition through the use of pupil views templates: Pupil views of learning to learn. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3(1), 23-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2008.03.004
46. Wenden, A.L. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning1. Applied linguistics, 19(4), 515-537. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.4.515
47. Zhang, L., Zhang, L., & Liu. (2017). Metacognitive and cognitive strategy use in reading comprehension. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6325-1