The Impact of Languages in the Lives of Secondary School Students on Reading Achievement: A PISA-Based Study

Öz

Reading is influenced by various factors throughout a person's lifetime, and it holds significant importance in the educational journey of secondary school students in Turkey. Understanding the variables that affect reading proficiency can contribute to a more efficient reading education process. This study aims to examine the impact of language-related variables on the reading skills of Turkish students, using data obtained from the 2018 PISA survey. The research adopts a correlational design and employs structural equation modeling (SEM) for data analysis. The findings reveal that the languages used have an influence on reading proficiency, although the direction of this influence varies across different variables, including language structure and languages spoken within and outside the family. Future studies incorporating qualitative data sets can provide further insights into these results. It is crucial for teachers to consider these variables in their instructional activities, both inside and outside the classroom.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• reading proficiency
• languages
• communication
• speech
• PISA

Ortaöğretimdeki Öğrencilerin Hayatındaki Dillerin Okuma Başarısına Etkisi: PISA Temelli Bir Araştırma

Öz

Okuma insanların hayatında yer alan çok sayıda değişkenin etkisi ile ömür boyu şekillenmektedir. Ortaöğretimdeki Türk çocuklarının eğitim hayatı için de ciddi yer tutmaktadır. Okuma becerisini etkileyen değişkenlerin ortaya çıkarılması ise bir yandan okumayı daha iyi anlamaya yardımcı olma bir yandan da okuma eğitimi sürecini daha verimli hâle getirmeye katkı sağlama potansiyeline sahiptir. Çalışmada PISA’nın 2018 yılında yapılan araştırmasından hareketle Türkiye evreninden elde edilen verilerle öğrencilerin hayatlarında kullandıkları dillere ait değişkenlerin okuma becerisi üzerindeki etkisi incelenecektir. Açıklama amaçlı korelasyonel araştırma olarak tasarlanan araştırmada yapısal eşitlik modellemesi (YEM) yürütülerek veriler bulgulaştırılmıştır. Araştırma sonuçları kullanılan dillerin okuma becerisi üzerinde etkili olduğunu göstermektedir. Bununla beraber kullanılan dilin etki yönü etkileşim kurulan kişilerden kullanılan dilin yapısına oradan aile içi ve dışında konuşulan dillere kadar geniş bir değişken evreninde farklılık göstermektedir. Gelecek çalışmalarda nitel veri setleri araştırma sonuçlarının daha derinlikli anlaşılmasına katkı sağlayabilir. Ayrıca sınıf içi ve dışında öğretmenler faaliyetleri için bu değişkenleri göz önünde bulundurmalıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• okuma becerisi
• diller
• iletişim
• konuşma
• PISA

Kaynakça

1. Akaike, H. (1998). Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. E. Parzen, K. Tanabe ve G. Kitagawa (Edt.), Selected papers of hirotugu akaike içinde (ss. 199-213). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-1694-0_15
2. Arıkan, S., van de Vijver, F. J., and Yağmur, K. (2017). PISA mathematics and reading performance differences of mainstream European and Turkish immigrant students. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 29(3), 229-246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-017-9260-6
3. Ark, T. K. (2015). Ordinal generalizability theory using an underlying latent variable framework [Doktora Tezi]. The University of British Columbia.
4. Ashiabi, G. S., and O’Neal, K. K. (2015). Child social development in context: An examination of some propositions in Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory. SAGE Open, 5(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015590840
5. Barrett, P. (2007). Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 815-824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.018
6. Berens, M. S., Kovelman, I., and Petitto, L. A. (2013). Should bilingual children learn reading in two languages at the same time or in sequence? Bilingual Research Journal, 36(1), 35-60. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2013.779618
7. Bircan, T., and Sunata, U. (2015). Educational assessment of Syrian refugees in Turkey. Migration Letters, 12(3), 226-237. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=477065
8. Brantmeier, C. (2006). The effects of language of assessment and L2 reading performance on advanced readers’ recall. The Reading Matrix, 6(1), 1-17.

9. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32(7), 513-531. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513
10. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). Contexts of child rearing: Problems and prospects. American Psychologist, 34(10), 844-850. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.844
11. Brozo, W. G., Shiel, G., and Topping, K. (2007). Engagement in reading: Lessons learned from three PISA countries. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51(4), 304-315.
12. Cevahir, E. (2020). SPSS ile nicel veri analizi rehberi. Kibele Yayınları.
13. Cho, G. (2000). The role of heritage language in social interactions and relationships: Reflections from a language minority group. Bilingual Research Journal, 24(4), 369-384. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2000.10162773
14. Crown, W. H. (2010). Thereʼs a reason they call them dummy variables: A note on the use of structural equation techniques in comparative effectiveness research. Pharmacoeconomics, 28(10), 947-955. https://doi.org/10.2165/11537750-000000000-00000
15. Cummins, J. (2001). Bilingual children’s mother tongue: Why is it important for education. Sprogforum, 7(19), 15-20.
16. Cummins, J. (2009). Multilingualism in the English-language classroom: Pedagogical considerations. TESOL Quarterly, 43(2), 317-321. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2009.tb00171.x
17. Curdt-Christiansen, X. L., and Lanza, E. (2018). Language management in multilingual families: Efforts, measures and challenges. Multilingua, 37(2), 123-130. https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2017-0132
18. Demir, İ. (2020). SPSS ile istatistik rehberi. Efe Akademi.
19. Droop, M., and Verhoeven, L. (1998). Background knowledge, linguistic complexity, and second-language reading comprehension. Journal of Literacy Research, 30(2), 253-271. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862969809547998
20. Ergüt, S. E. (2021). Türkçe ve Türk kültürü dersi alan yurt dışındaki iki dilli Türk çocuklarının miras dil konuşma kaygılarının incelenmesi [Yüksek Lisans Tezi]. Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi.
21. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3. bs). Sage Publications.
22. Finch, W. H. (2010). Imputation methods for missing categorical questionnaire data: A comparison of approaches. Journal of Data Science, 8(3), 361-378. https://doi.org/10.6339/JDS.2010.08(3).612
23. Fox, J. D. (2003). From products to process: An ecological approach to bias detection. International Journal of Testing, 3(1), 21-47. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327574IJT0301_2
24. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., and Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (7. bs). McGraw-Hill.
25. Garfinkel, A., and Tabor, K. E. (1991). Elementary school foreign languages and English reading achievement: A new view of the relationship. Foreign Language Annals, 24(5), 375-382. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1991.tb00483.x
26. Garson, G. D. (2015). Missing values analysis and data imputation. Statistical Associates Publishing.
27. Gottardo, A., and Mueller, J. (2009). Are first and second language factors related in predicting second-language reading comprehension? A study of Spanish-speaking children acquiring English as a second language from first to second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(2), 330-344. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014320
28. Göktentürk, T. (2021). DIF analysis of the PISA reading test according to the ecological model: The example of Turkey [Doctoral Dissertation]. Yıldız Technical University.
29. Göktentürk, T., Sağlam, M. H., and Zumbo, B. D. (2023). New lens in assessment and evaluation of Turkish language with Zumbo’s critical view of item responding. RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, 33, 223-245. https://doi.org/10.29000/rumelide.1285296
30. Gündüz, B. (2015). Üniversite 1. sınıf öğrencilerinin kitap okuma alışkanlıkları ve eleştirel okuma becerileri üzerine bir durum çalışması [Yüksek Lisans Tezi]. Bilkent Üniversitesi.
31. Hancock, G. R., and Mueller, R. O. (2006). Structural equation modeling: A second course. Information Age Publishing.
32. Hirschberg, J., and Lye, J. (2001). The interpretation of multiple dummy variable coefficients: An application to industry effects in wage equations. Applied Economics Letters, 8(11), 701-707. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504850110042187
33. Hopkins, K. D., and Weeks, D. L. (1990). Tests for normality and measures of skewness and kurtosis: Their place in research reporting. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 50(4), 717-729. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164490504001
34. Hopp, H., and Schmid, M. S. (2013). Perceived foreign accent in first language attrition and second language acquisition: The impact of age of acquisition and bilingualism. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34(2), 361-394. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716411000737
35. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
36. Kecskes, I., and Papp, T. (2000). Foreign language and mother tongue. Psychology Press.
37. Khajavy, G. H. (2021). Modeling the relations between foreign language engagement, emotions, grit and reading achievement. P. Hiver, A. H. Al-Hoorie, ve S. Mercer (Edt.), Student engagement in the language classroom içinde (ss. 241-259). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/HIVER3606
38. Kim, M., Crossley, S. A., and Kim, B. K. (2022). Second language reading and writing in relation to first language, vocabulary knowledge, and learning backgrounds. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25(6), 1992-2005. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1838434
39. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. The Guilford Pres.
40. Kondo Brown, K. (2005). Differences in language skills: Heritage language learner subgroups and foreign language learners. The Modern Language Journal, 89(4), 563-581. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2005.00330.x
41. Leonard, J. (2011). Using Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory to understand community partnerships: A historical case study of one urban high school. Urban Education, 46(5), 987-1010. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085911400337
42. Lohndal, T., Rothman, J., Kupisch, T., and Westergaard, M. (2019). Heritage language acquisition: What it reveals and why it is important for formal linguistic theories. Language and Linguistics Compass, 13(12), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12357
43. McAuliffe, M., and Khadria, B. (Edt.). (2019). World migration report 2020. International Organization for Migration (IOM).
44. McNamara, T. (2007). Language testing: A question of context. J. Fox, M. Wesche, D. Bayliss, L. Cheng, C. E. Turner, and C. Doe (Edt.), Language testing reconsidered içinde (ss. 131-138). University of Ottawa Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1ckpccf
45. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2018). Ortaöğretim Türk dili ve edebiyatı dersi (9, 10, 11 ve 12. Sınıflar) öğretim programı. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı.
46. MoNE. (2019). PISA 2018 Türkiye ön raporu. Ministry of National Education.
47. Montrul, S. A. (2012). Is the heritage language like a second language? EUROSLA Yearbook, 12(1), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1075/eurosla.12.03mon
48. Muthén, B. (1984). A general structural equation model with dichotomous, ordered categorical, and continuous latent variable indicators. Psychometrika, 49(1), 115-132. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294210 OECD. (2018). PISA 2018 technical report. OECD Publishing.
49. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/pisa2018technicalreport/PISA2018%20TecReport-Ch-04-Sample-Design.pdf
50. OECD. (2019a). PISA 2018 results (Volume I): What students know and can do. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en
51. OECD. (2019b). PISA 2018 results (Volume II): Where all students can succeed. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b5fd1b8f-en
52. Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. Routledge.
53. Otwinowska, A., Meir, N., Ringblom, N., Karpava, S., and La Morgia, F. (2021). Language and literacy transmission in heritage language: Evidence from Russian-speaking families in Cyprus, Ireland, Israel and Sweden. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 42(4), 357-382. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2019.1695807
54. Oxford, R., and Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables affecting choice of language learning strategies by university students. The Modern Language Journal, 73(3), 291-300.
55. Rose, N., von Davier, M., and Xu, X. (2010). Modeling nonignorable missing data with item response theory (IRT) (ss. i-53). Educational Testing Service. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.2333-8504.2010.tb02218.x
56. Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
57. Saglam, M. H., Göktentürk, T., Demir, I., and Yazıcı, E. (2023). Environmental factors for the advancement of teachers’ self-efficacy in professional development. Journal of Intelligence, 11(2), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11020028
58. Schleicher, A. (2018). PISA 2018 insights and interpretations. OECD Publishing.
59. Shek, D. T., and Yu, L. (2014). Confirmatory factor analysis using AMOS: A demonstration. International Journal on Disability and Human Development, 13(2), 191-204. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijdhd-2014-0305
60. Shrive, F. M., Stuart, H., Quan, H., and Ghali, W. A. (2006). Dealing with missing data in a multi-question depression scale: A comparison of imputation methods. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 6(1), 57. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-6-57
61. Soh, K. (2014). Test language effect in international achievement comparisons: An example from PISA 2009. Cogent Education, 1(1), 955247. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2014.955247
62. T.C. İçişleri Bakanlığı Göç İdaresi Genel Müdürlüğü. (2022, Ocak). Geçici koruma. https://www.goc.gov.tr/gecici-koruma5638
63. Tse, L. (2001). Heritage language literacy: A study of US biliterates. Language Culture and Curriculum, 14(3), 256-268. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908310108666627
64. Xiao, Y., and Wong, K. F. (2014). Exploring heritage language anxiety: A study of Chinese heritage language learners. The Modern Language Journal, 98(2), 589-611. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12085
65. Zhang, D., and Koda, K. (2011). Home literacy environment and word knowledge development: A study of young learners of Chinese as a heritage language. Bilingual Research Journal, 34(1), 4-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2011.568591
66. Zhang, D., and Slaughter-Defoe, D. T. (2009). Language attitudes and heritage language maintenance among Chinese immigrant families in the USA. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 22(2), 77-93. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908310902935940
67. Zumbo, B. D. (2007). Three generations of DIF analyses: Considering where it has been, where it is now, and where it is going. Language Assessment Quarterly, 4(2), 223-233. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434300701375832
68. Zumbo, B. D. (2017). Trending away from routine procedures, toward an ecologically informed In Vivo view of validation practices. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 15(3-4), 137-139.
69. Zumbo, B. D., Liu, Y., Wu, A. D., Shear, B. R., Olvera Astivia, O. L., and Ark, T. K. (2015). A methodology for Zumbo’s third generation DIF analyses and the ecology of item responding. Language Assessment Quarterly, 12(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2014.972559