Measuring Literacy Skills of Primary Education Students: A Systematic Review

Öz

This study aimed to conduct a comprehensive and systematic examination of the literature at the national and international levels on the assessment of literacy skills among primary school students. This study analysed 46 articles, 15 national and 31 international, published in national and international journals between 2014 and 2024. The research results indicated that most national and international studies use quantitative methodologies and work with large sample groups. Scale development studies included Likert-type scales and multiple-choice item designs, and psychometric data on the validity and reliability of the measurement tools were reported. It was determined that scale development studies represent the majority of national studies. International studies diverge from national studies with respect to methodology, sample selection, and the variety of alternative measurement techniques employed. In light of the findings of this research, the identified gap in this field should be addressed by enriching national studies on the measurement of literacy skills in terms of methods, sample characteristics, and alternative measurement approaches.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• literacy skills
• measurement
• primary education
• systematic review
• validity and reliability.

İlköğretim Öğrencilerinin Okuryazarlık Becerilerinin Ölçülmesi: Sistematik İnceleme

Öz

Bu araştırmada, ilköğretim öğrencilerinin okuryazarlık becerilerinin ölçülmesine ilişkin ulusal ve uluslararası literatürü sistematik olarak incelemek amaçlanmıştır. 10 yıllık bilgi birikimine odaklanan bu çalışmada, 2014 ile 2024 yılları arasında okuryazarlık becerilerinin ölçülmesi ile ilgili ulusal ve uluslararası dergilerde yayınlanan ve ölçütlerimizi karşılayan 15 ulusal ve 31 uluslararası olmak üzere toplam 46 makale incelenmiştir. Araştırma sonuçları, ulusal ve uluslararası çalışmaların çoğunda nicel metodolojiler kullanıldığını, büyük örneklem gruplarıyla çalışıldığını, ölçek geliştirme çalışmalarının Likert tipi ölçek ile çoktan seçmeli madde tasarımları içerdiğini, ölçme araçlarının geçerlilik ile güvenirliğine ilişkin psikometrik verilerin raporlandığını göstermiştir. Ulusal alandaki çalışmalarda ölçek geliştirme çalışmalarının çoğunlukta olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Uluslararası alandaki çalışmaların yöntem, örneklem ve alternatif ölçme yaklaşımlarının çeşitliliği bakımından ulusal alandaki çalışmalardan farklılaştığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Araştırma sonuçlarından hareketle okuryazarlık becerilerinin ölçülmesi ile ilgili özellikle ulusal alandaki çalışmaların yöntem, örneklem özellikleri, alternatif ölçme yaklaşımları gibi açılardan zenginleştirilerek bu alandaki açığın doldurulması önerilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• geçerlilik ve güvenirlik
• okuryazarlık becerileri
• ölçme
• ilköğretim
• sistematik inceleme

Kaynakça

1. Aagaard, T., & Lund, A. (2013). Mind the gap: Divergent objects of assessment in technology-rich learning environments. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 8(4), 225-243.
2. Agormedah, E. K., Quansah, F., Ankomah, F., Hagan Jr, J. E., Srem-Sai, M., Abieraba, R. S. K., ... & Schack, T. (2022). Assessing the validity of digital health literacy instrument for secondary school students in Ghana: The polychoric factor analytic approach. Frontiers in Digital Health, 4, 968806.
3. Akarsu, M., Güllü, M., ve Doğar, Y. (2024). Fiziksel okuryazarlık değerlendirme envanterinin geliştirilmesi. İnönü Üniversitesi Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 11(2), 45-58.
4. Akaydın, Ş., ve Çeçen, M. A. (2015). Okuma becerisiyle ilgili makaleler üzerine bir içerik analizi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 40(178).
5. Akitsu, Y., & Ishihara, K. N. (2019). Energy literacy assessment: A comparative study of lower secondary school students in Thailand and Japan. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 5(2), 183-201.
6. Aksoy, B., ve Kaplan, M., (2018). Türkiye’de harita okuryazarlığı becerisi ile ilgili yapılan tezlerin incelenmesi. USBES 7 (pp.1050-1075). Kırşehir, Türkiye
7. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.
8. Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M. (2009). 21St century skills and competences for new millennium learners in OECD countries. OECD education working papers, no. 41. OECD Publishing (NJ1).

9. Avinç, E., & Doğan, F. (2024). Digital literacy scale: Validity and reliability study with the rasch model. Education and Information Technologies, 1-47.
10. Aydemir, Z., Sakız, G., ve Doğan, M. C. (2019). İlkokul düzeyinde dijital okuryazarlık becerileri rubriğinin geliştirilmesi. Millî Eğitim, 48(1), 617-638.
11. Baji, F., & Bigdeli, Z. (2016). Adapting and normalizing the 6th grade version of the Tool for Real-Time Assessment of Information Literacy Skills (TRAILS) among the Iranian 6th grade students. Pakistan Journal of Information Management & Libraries, (17), 137.
12. Baltikian, M., Kärkkäinen, S., & Kukkonen, J. (2024). Assessment of scientific literacy levels among secondary school students in Lebanon: Exploring gender-based differences. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 20(3), em2407.
13. Baypınar, K., ve Tarım, K. (2019). Ortaokul matematik okuryazarlık öz-yeterlik ölçeği geliştirilmesi: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması [The development of mathematical literacy self-efficacy scale for middle school: A reliability and validity study]. Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 48(1), 878-909.
14. Beach, R., & O’Brien, D. (2017). Significant literacy research informing English language arts instruction. In Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (pp. xii-29). Routledge.
15. Berkay, F., ve Hazar, E. İlkokul döneminde dijital okuryazarlık: Ölçek geliştirme ve uygulama. Eğitim ve İnsani Bilimler Dergisi: Teori ve Uygulama, 15(29), 29-48.
16. Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., & Rumble, M. (2010). Draft white paper 1: Defining 21st century skills. Available online also at: http://cms. education. gov. il/NR/rdonlyres/19B97225-84B1-4259-B423 4698E1E8171A/115804/defining21stcenturyskills.pdf.
17. Bolaños, F., & Salinas, Á. (2021). Secondary vocational education students’ expressed experiences of and approaches to information interaction activities within digital environments: A Phenomenographic study. Education and Information Technologies, 26, 1955-1975.
18. Burnham, J. F. (2006). Scopus database: a review. Biomedical digital libraries, 3, 1-8.
19. Cacicio, S., Cote, P., & Bigger, K. (2023). Investing in multiple literacies for individual and collective empowerment. https://allinliteracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Investing-in-Multiple-Literacies-for-Individual-and-Collective-Empowerment.pdf.
20. Chang, F. C., Miao, N. F., Lee, C. M., Chen, P. H., Chiu, C. H., & Lee, S. C. (2016). The association of media exposure and media literacy with adolescent alcohol and tobacco use. Journal of Health Psychology, 21(4), 513-525.
21. Chen, H., Liu, F., Wen, Y., Ling, L., & Gu, X. (2021). Compilation and application of the scale of sustainable knowledge sharing willingness in virtual academic community during the times of the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19). Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 627833.
22. Chen, M., Zhou, C., Meng, C., & Wu, D. (2019). How to promote Chinese primary and secondary school teachers to use ICT to develop high-quality teaching activities. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67, 1593-1611.
23. Chou, A. K., Liao, C. H., & Chen, D. R. (2023). Measuring adolescent health literacy in Taiwan: validation of the health literacy assessment scale for adolescents. BMC Public Health, 23(1), 2409.
24. Christensen, K. S., Hjorth, M., Iversen, O. S., & Smith, R. C. (2019). Understanding design literacy in middle-school education: Assessing students’ stances towards inquiry. International journal of technology and design education, 29, 633-654.
25. Covello, S., & Lei, J. (2010). A review of digital literacy assessment instruments. Syracuse University, 1, 31.
26. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (2021). CASP (Systematic Review) Checklist. https:// casp- uk. net/casp- tools- check lists/
27. Çelikten, L. (2024). İlkokul 4. sınıf öğrencilerinin finansal tutum ve davranışları ile duygusal zekâları arasındaki İlişki: Finansal okuryazarlığın duygusal yönü. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(1), 190-213.
28. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., ve Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2014). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları. Pegem Akademi.
29. Dawson, S., & Siemens, G. (2014). Analytics to literacies: The development of a learning analytics framework for multiliteracies assessment. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(4), 284-305.
30. Dere, İ., & Ateş, Y. (2023). Studies on literacy skills in social studies education: A systematic literature review (1996-2020). Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 67(3), 360-376.
31. Dinçer, S. (2017). Ortaokul öğrencilerinin bilgisayar okuryazarlık düzeylerinin belirlenmesi ve ölçme–değerlendirme araçlarının yapısı. İlköğretim Online, 16(3), 1329-1342.
32. Doustmohammadian, A., Omidvar, N., Keshavarz-Mohammadi, N., Abdollahi, M., Amini, M., & Eini-Zinab, H. (2017). Developing and validating a scale to measure Food and Nutrition Literacy (FNLIT) in elementary school children in Iran. PloS one, 12(6), e0179196.
33. Efe, H. A., ve Efe, R. (2022). Ortaokul öğrencilerine yönelik biyoçeşitlilik okuryazarlık değerlendirme aracı uyarlama çalışması. Journal of Computer and Education Research, 10(20), 672-692.
34. Elshater, A., & Abusaada, H. (2022). Developing process for selecting research techniques in urban planning and urban design with a PRISMA-Compliant Review. Social Sciences, 11(10), 471.
35. Farida, F., Alamsyah, Y. A., & Suherman, S. (2023). Assessment in educational context: the case of environmental literacy, digital literacy, and its relation to mathematical thinking skill. Revista de Educación a Distancia, 76, 23.
36. Fırat, E. A., Çavuş, E., Gürbüz, G. T., & Öztürk, S. (2021). Biotechnology Literacy Inventory: Development, Validity and Reliability. Kastamonu Education Journal, 29(1), 25-36.
37. Fischer, S. M., Dadaczynski, K., Sudeck, G., Rathmann, K., Paakkari, O., Paakkari, L., & Bilz, L. (2022). Measuring health literacy in childhood and adolescence with the scale Health Literacy in School-Aged Children–German version. Diagnostica.
38. Fives, H., Huebner, W., Birnbaum, A. S., & Nicolich, M. (2014). Developing a measure of scientific literacy for middle school students. Science Education, 98(4), 549-580.
39. Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy. Reading the word and the world. Massachusetts: Bergin and Garvey.
40. Gaffney, J. S., & Anderson, R. C. (2000). Trends in reading research in the United States: Changing intellectual currents over three decades. In Handbook of reading research (pp. 53-74). Routledge.
41. Greenhow, C., & Robelia, B. (2009). Old communication, new literacies: Social network sites as social learning resources. Journal of computer-mediated communication, 14(4), 1130-1161.
42. Guo, Q., Qiao, C., & Ibrahim, B. (2022). The mechanism of influence between ICT and students’ science literacy: a hierarchical and structural equation modelling study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 31(2), 272-288.
43. Guo, Q., Wu, D., Zhu, S., & Yang, H. H. (2024). Using a Digital Game to Assess Middle School Students’ Information Literacy: An Evidence-Centered Game Design Approach. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 1-19.
44. Gurak, L. J. (2001). Cyberliteracy: Navigating the internet with awareness. London: Yale University Press
45. Gül, Ş., ve Sözbilir, M. (2015). Fen ve matematik eğitimi alanında gerçekleştirilen ölçek geliştirme araştırmalarına yönelik tematik içerik analizi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 40(178) , 85-102..
46. Günteke, B. N., ve Aladağ, S. (2023). İlkokul 4. sınıf öğrencilerinin politik okuryazarlık ve sosyal katılım becerileri arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Disiplinlerarası Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(15), 303-324.
47. Gray K, Waycott J, Clerehan R, Hamilton, M; Richardon, J; Sheard, J & Thompson, C. (2012) Worth it? Findings from a study of how academics assess students’ Web 2.0 activities. Research in Learning Technology 20, 1–15.
48. Haçat, S. O., ve Demir, F. B. (2019). Eğitim alanında okuryazarlık üzerine yapılan lisansüstü tezlerin analizi (Analysis of postgraduate theses on literacy in the field of education). Journal of Anatolian Cultural Research (JANCR), 3(2), 116-145.
49. Haddon, L., Cino, D., Doyle, M. A., Livingstone, S., Mascheroni, G., & Stoilova, M. (2020). Children’s and young people’s digital skills: a systematic evidence review. ySKILLS-Youth Skills, (A), 1-152.
50. Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2013). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. Pearson.
51. Hambleton, R., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Sage Publications, Inc.
52. Harris, T. L. (1995). The literacy dictionary: The vocabulary of reading and writing. International Reading Association.
53. Haugen, A. L. H., Riiser, K., Esser-Noethlichs, M., & Hatlevik, O. E. (2022). Developing indicators to measure critical health literacy in the context of Norwegian lower secondary schools. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(5), 3116.
54. Higgins, J. P. (2008). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0. 1. The Cochrane Collaboration. http://www. cochrane-handbook. org.
55. Hobbs, R. (2017). Measuring the digital and media literacy competencies of children and teens. In Cognitive development in digital contexts (pp. 253-274). Academic Press.
56. Hobbs, R., Moen, M., Tang, R., & Steager, P. (2022). Measuring the implementation of media literacy statewide: A validation study. Educational Media International, 59(3), 189-208.
57. Hsu, H. P., Wenting, Z., & Hughes, J. E. (2019). Developing elementary students’ digital literacy through augmented reality creation: Insights from a longitudinal analysis of questionnaires, interviews, and projects. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(6), 1400-1435.
58. Huijser, H. (2006). Refocusing multiliteracies for the net generation. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 2(1), 22-34.
59. Jean de Dieu, H., & Zhou, K. (2021). Physical literacy assessment tools: a systematic literature review for why, what, who, and how. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(15), 7954.
60. Johnston, P., & Costello, P. (2005). Principles for literacy assessment. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(2), 256-267.
61. Kalantzis, M., Cope, B., & Harvey, A. (2003). Assessing multiliteracies and the new basics. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 10(1), 15-26.
62. Kamil, M. L., Borman, G. D., Dole, J., Kral, C. C., Salinger, T., & Torgesen, J. (2008). Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices. National center for education evaluation and regional assistance, institute of education sciences
63. Ketonen, L., Nieminen, P., & Hähkiöniemi, M. (2020). The development of secondary students’ feedback literacy: Peer assessment as an intervention. The Journal of Educational Research, 113(6), 407-417.
64. Kim, H. S., Kim, S., Na, W., & Lee, W. J. (2021). Extending computational thinking into information and communication technology literacy measurement: Gender and grade issues. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 21(1), 1-25.
65. Kirch, S. A. (2007). Re/Production of science process skills and a scientific ethos in an early childhood classroom. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 2(4), 785-845.
66. Krenz, L., Grauduszus, M., Klaudius, M., Stolz, I., Wessely, S., & Joisten, C. (2022). Development of a German Physical Literacy Assessment for Children in the Context of Health Promotion—An Explorative Approach. Children, 9(12), 1908.
67. Kulak Kartal, S., ve Mor Dirlik, E. (2016). Geçerlik kavramının tarihsel gelişimi ve güvenirlikte en çok tercih edilen yöntem: Cronbach alfa katsayısı. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 16(4), 1865-1879.
68. Kunisch, S., Denyer, D., Bartunek, J. M., Menz, M., & Cardinal, L. B. (2023). Review research as scientific inquiry. Organizational Research Methods, 26(1), 3-45.
69. Kurt, A. A., Orhan, D., Yaman, F., Solak, M. Ş., ve Türkan, F. (2014). Bilgi ve iletişim teknolojileri ışığında Türkiye’de yapılan okuryazarlık çalışmalarındaki eğilim. Eğitim Teknolojileri Araştırma Dergisi, 5 (2), 1-21.
70. Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2003). New literacies: Changing knowledge and classroom learning. Open University Press.
71. Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., Castek, J., & Henry, L. A. (2018). New literacies: A dual-level theory of the changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment. In Theoretical models and processes of literacy (pp. 319-346). Routledge.
72. Li, J., Bai, J., Zhu, S., & Yang, H. H. (2024). Game-Based Assessment of Students’ Digital Literacy Using Evidence-Centered Game Design. Electronics, 13(2), 385.
73. Li, W., Kang, S., & Shao, Y. (2023). Development of the reading literacy questionnaire for EFL learners at primary schools. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1154076.
74. Lin, Y. L., Wu, L. Y., Tsai, L. T., & Chang, C. C. (2020). The beginning of marine sustainability: preliminary results of measuring students’ marine knowledge and ocean literacy. Sustainability, 12(17), 7115.
75. Liu, T., Su, X., Li, N., Sun, J., Ma, G., & Zhu, W. (2021). Development and validation of a food and nutrition literacy questionnaire for Chinese school-age children. PLoS One, 16(1), e0244197.
76. MacPhee, D. A., & Whitecotton, E. J. (2011). Bringing the “social” back to social studies: Literacy strategies as tools for understanding history. The Social Studies, 102(6), 263-267.
77. Maden, S., Maden, A., & Banaz, E. (2017). A content-analysis regarding postgraduate theses prepared on media literacy. International Journal of Languages’ Education and Teaching, 5(1), 588-605.
78. Martinez-Yarza, N., Santibáñez, R., & Solabarrieta, J. (2023). A systematic review of instruments measuring social and emotional skills in school-aged children and adolescents. Child Indicators Research, 16(4), 1475-1502.
79. MEB (2024). Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli Öğretim Programları Ortak Metni, https://tymm.meb.gov.tr/ortak-metin erişilmiştir.
80. Merrell, K. W., & Gueldner, B. A. (2010). Preventive interventions for students with internalizing disorders: Effective strategies for promoting mental health in schools. Interventions for achievement and behavior problems in a three-tier model including RTI, 799-824.
81. Mikulecky, L., & Diehl, W. (1980). Job Literacy: A Study of Literacy Demands, Attitudes, and Strategies in a Cross-Section of Occupations.
82. Mikulecky, L. (1982). Job literacy: The relationship between school preparation and workplace actuality. Reading research quarterly, 400-419.
83. Miller, C. (2016). TRAILS: tool for real-time assessment of information literacy skills. The Charleston Advisor, 17(3), 43-48.
84. Min, B., Alam, F., Zhao, W., & Tao, J. (2024). Crafting a framework: a Delphi method approach to formulating a maker literacy assessment model for primary school students in China. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 1-11.
85. Miranda, P., Isaias, P., & Pifano, S. (2018). Digital literacy in higher education: A survey on students’ self-assessment. In Learning and Collaboration Technologies. Learning and Teaching: 5th International Conference, LCT 2018, Held as Part of HCI International 2018, Las Vegas, NV, USA, July 15-20, 2018, Proceedings, Part II 5 (pp. 71-87). Springer International Publishing.
86. Misquitta, R., & Ghosh, A. (2023). FABLe: A mobile application to assess and build foundational literacy skills for all children, including children with disabilities in India. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 70(4), 575-587.
87. Mkandawire, S. B. (2018). Literacy versus language: Exploring their similarities and differences. Journal of Lexicography and Terminology, 2(1), 37–55.
88. Moeller, S., Joseph, A., Lau, J., & Carbo, T. (2011, November). Towards media and information literacy indicators. In Background document of the UNESCO Expert Meeting (Bangkok, Thailand, 4-6 November 2010). Nordisk samarbeid. (2020). Nordboerne skal bli bedretil å håndtere desinformasjon. Norden.org.https://www.norden.org/no/nyhet/nordboerne-skalbli-bedre-til-handtere desinformasjon.
89. Mohamed Shaffril, H. A., Samsuddin, S. F., & Abu Samah, A. (2021). The ABC of systematic literature review: the basic methodological guidance for beginners. Quality ve Quantity, 55, 1319-1346.
90. Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., ...& Stewart, L. A. (2016). Ítems de referencia para publicar Protocolos de Revisiones Sistemáticas y Metaanálisis: Declaración PRISMA-P 2015. Revista Española de Nutrición Humana y Dietética, 20(2), 148-160.
91. Mujib, M., Mardiyah, M., & Suhermen, S. (2023). Development and psychometric properties of a questionnaire on environmental literacy in Indonesian secondary school. Revista Fuentes, 25 (3), 267-282.
92. Negarandeh, R., Sarkhani, N., & Heydari, M. (2024). Evaluation of cross‐cultural adaptation and validation of the Persian version of the health literacy for school‐aged children scale: Methodological study. Health Science Reports, 7(2), e1876.
93. Nordisk S. (2020). Nordboerne skal bli bedre til å håndtere desinformasjon. Norden.org. https://www.norden.org/no/nyhet/nordboerne-skalbli-bedre-til-handtere-desinformasjon
94. Oakleaf, M. (2008). Dangers and opportunities: a conceptual map of information literacy assessment approaches. portal: Libraries and the Academy, 8(3), 233-253.
95. Ormshaw, M. J., Paakkari, L. T., & Kannas, L. K. (2013). Measuring child and adolescent health literacy: a systematic review of literature. Health Education, 113(5), 433-455.
96. Örnek, G. T., ve Yel, S. (2024). Çocuklar (8-9 yaş) için çevre okuryazarlığı aracı geliştirilmesi (ÇİÇOA): Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, (60), 1225-1258.
97. Öztürk, N. B., Eroğlu, M. G., ve Kelecioğlu, H. (2015). Eğitim alanında yapılan ölçek uyarlama makalelerinin incelenmesi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 40(178)
98. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., ... & Moher, D. (2021). Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: development of the PRISMA 2020 statement. Journal of ClinicalEepidemiology, 134, 103-112.
99. Peterson, T. V., Karp, D. R., Aguilar, V. C., & Davila, G. W. (2010). Validation of a global pelvic floor symptom bother questionnaire. International urogynecology journal, 21, 1129-1135.
100. Porter, B. (2005). The art of digital storytelling. Revista Discovery Education. www. unitedstreaming. com.
101. Rosman, T., Mayer, A. K., & Krampen, G. (2015). Combining self-assessments and achievement tests in information literacy assessment: empirical results and recommendations for practice. Assessment ve Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(5), 740-754.
102. Rusch, T., Lowry, P. B., Mair, P., & Treiblmaier, H. (2016). Breaking free from the limitations of classical test theory: Developing and measuring information systems scales using item response theory. Information ve Management, 54(2), 189–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.im.2016.06.005.
103. Sağlamgöncü, A. (2023). Sosyal bilgiler eğitiminde okuryazarlık: lisansüstü eğitimde gerçekleştirilen okuryazarlık araştırmaları. Ordu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi, 13(1), 253-276.
104. Siddiq, F., Hatlevik, O. E., Olsen, R. V., Throndsen, I., & Scherer, R. (2016). Taking a future perspective by learning from the past–A systematic review of assessment instruments that aim to measure primary and secondary school students’ ICT literacy. Educational Research Review, 19, 58-84.
105. Sijtsma, K. (2009). Reliability beyond theory and into practice. Psychometrika, 74, 169-173.
106. Sjtsma, K. (2009). On the use, the miuse, and the very limited usefulness on Cronbach’s alpha. Psychomterika, 74(1), 107-120.
107. Silseth, K., & Gilje O (2017) Multimodal composition and assessment: A sociocultural perspective. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 26: 26–42.
108. Skouge, J. R., & Rao, K. (2009). Digital storytelling in teacher education: Creating transformations through narrative. Educational Perspectives, 42, 54-60.
109. Snow, C. E. (2002). Facilitating language development promotes literacy learning. In Effective Early Childhood Education (pp. 151-172). Routledge.
110. Soyoof, A., Reynolds, B. L., Neumann, M., Scull, J., Tour, E., & McLay, K. (2024). The impact of parent mediation on young children’s home digital literacy practices and learning: A narrative review. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 40(1), 65-88.
111. Stoneman-Bell, S., &Yankwitt, I. (2017, December). Investing in Quality: A Blueprint for Adult Literacy Programs and Funders. Literacy Assistance Center. https:// www.lacnyc.org/investing-in-quality.html
112. Stordy, P. (2015). Taxonomy of literacies. Journal of Documentation, 71(3), 456-476.
113. Sur, E. (2022). Okuryazarlık kavramı ve Türkiye’deki okuryazarlık araştırmaları üzerine bir inceleme. Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 4(2), 445-467.
114. Şahin, F., ve Ateş, S. (2018). Ortaokul öğrencilerine yönelik bilimsel okuryazarlık ölçeği adaptasyon çalışması. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 38(3), 1173-1205.
115. Şimsek, E., & Şimsek, A. (2013). New literacies for digital citizenship. Contemporary Educational Technology, 4(2), 126-137.
116. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
117. Taş, H., Yolcu, O., ve Altunsöz, I. H. (2024). Ulusal alanyazında yayınlanan bedensel okuryazarlık çalışmalarına bir bakış. Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 35(2), 102-117.
118. Taşar, B., ve Sakarya, S. (2022). Çocukların reklam okuryazarlığı ölçeği’nin geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education Research, 8(2), 184-197.
119. Turp, H. H., ve Gençdoğan, B. (2022). İlkokulda duygusal okuryazarlık ölçeği için geçerlik ve gü venirlik çalışması. Uluslararası Türkçe Edebiyat Kültür Eğitim (TEKE) Dergisi, 11(4), 1807-1820.
120. UNESCO (2005, June 10-12). Aspects of literacy assessment. Topics and issues from the UNESCO expert meeting. Paris.
121. Warschauer, M. (2009). Digital literacy studies: Progress and prospects. The future of literacy studies, 123-140.
122. White, S., & Dillow, S. (2005). Key Concepts and Features of the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NCES 2006-471). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/NAAL/PDF/2006471_1.PDF
123. Wu, D., Zhou, C., Li, Y., & Chen, M. (2022). Factors associated with teachers’ competence to develop students’ information literacy: A multilevel approach. Computers and Education, 176, 104360.
124. Yelman, E., İnal, V., ve Beşel, F. (2023). Vergi okuryazarlığına yönelik ampirik çalışmalar: Sistematik bir literatür taraması. Sakarya İktisat Dergisi, 12(4), 539-565.
125. Yıldız, M., ve Ürey, M. (2024). Beşinci sınıf öğrencilerinin enerji okuryazarlığı düzeylerinin belirlenmesine yönelik bir ölçme aracının geliştirilmesi. E-International Journal of Educational Research, 15(1).
126. Yılmaz, E., Aladağ, S., ve Kaya, G. (2022). Çocuklar için finansal okuryazarlık ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışmaları. Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Education, 6(3), 100-111.
127. Zimmerman, B. J. (1995). Self-efficacy and educational development. In Bandura, A. (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 202-231). Cambridge University Press.