Üst Bilişsel Okuma Stratejileri Bilgisi, Okuma Zevki ve Okur Benlik Algısının PISA 2018 Okuma Başarısına Etkisi: Ülkeler Arası Bir Karşılaştırma

Öz

Bu çalışma, üst bilişsel okuma stratejileri bilgisi, okur benlik algısı ve okuma zevkinin PISA 2018 okuma performansını nasıl yordadığını ülkeler arası karşılaştırmalı bir bakış açısıyla ele almayı hedeflemektedir. Yordayıcı korelasyonel desenin kullanıldığı bu araştırmada, PISA 2018 verileri kullanılmıştır. PISA 2018 okuma becerileri puanı manidar bir şekilde OECD ortalamasının altında (Türkiye, Bosna Hersek ve Ürdün) ve üstünde olan (Amerika Birleşik Devletleri, Finlandiya ve Japonya) üçer ülke rastgele seçilerek çalışma grubu oluşturulmuştur. PISA 2018 çalışmasına Amerika Birleşik Devletleri 4838, Finlandiya 5649, Japonya 6109, Türkiye 6890, Bosna Hersek 6480 ve Ürdün 8963 öğrenci ile katılmıştır. Araştırmanın verileri çoklu regresyon analizi ile değerlendirilmiştir. Verilerin analizinde IDB Analyzer programı kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın sonuçları, üst bilişsel okuma stratejileri bilgisi, okur benlik algısı ve okuma zevkinin bütün ülkelerde öğrencilerin okuma performansını yordadığını göstermektedir. Açıklanan toplam varyans oranı Finlandiya için %44, Japonya için %41, Amerika Birleşik Devletleri için %37, Türkiye için %26, Bosna Hersek için %25 ve Ürdün için %19’dur. Türkiye dâhil birçok ülke için güvenirliği değerlendirme stratejisine yönelik üst bilişsel bilgiler regresyon yükü en fazla olan üst bilişsel yordayıcı olmuştur. En anlamlı motivasyonel yordayıcı çoğu ülke için okur yeterlik algısı iken Türkiye için zorluk algısı olmuştur. Araştırmanın sonuçları yordayıcı değişkenlerin etkisinin ülkelerin eğitim sistemlerinden etkilendiğini göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• PISA 2018
• okur benlik algısı
• üst bilişsel okuma stratejileri bilgisi
• okuma zevki
• okuma başarısı

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışmada “Yükseköğretim Kurumları Bilimsel Araştırma ve Yayın Etiği Yönergesi” kapsamında belirtilen kurallara uyulmuş, “Bilimsel Araştırma ve Yayın Etiğine Aykırı Eylemler” başlığı altında belirtilen eylemlerden kaçınılmıştır. Bu çalışmada PISA verileri kullanılmıştır. PISA verileri halka açık olup etik izin gerektirmemektedir.

The Effects of Metacognitive Reading Strategies Knowledge, Reading Enjoyment and Reader Self-Perception on PISA 2018 Reading Achievement: A Cross-Country Comparison

Öz

This study examines how metacognitive reading strategy knowledge, reader self-perception, and reading enjoyment predict PISA 2018 reading performance from a cross-country comparative perspective. PISA 2018 data were used in this study in which predictive correlational design was used. Three countries with PISA 2018 reading literacy scores significantly below (Turkey, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Jordan) and above (United States, Finland, and Japan) the OECD average were randomly selected to form the study group. The United States of America 4838, Finland 5649, Japan 6109, Turkey 6890, Bosnia and Herzegovina 6480 and Jordan 8963 students participated in PISA 2018. The data of the study were analysed by multiple regression analysis. The IEA IDB (International Database Analyzer) software was used to analyzed the data. The results of the study show that knowledge of metacognitive reading strategies, reader self-perception and reading enjoyment predict students' reading performance in all countries. The total variance explained was 44% for Finland, 41% for Japan, 37% for the United States, 26% for Turkey, 25% for Bosnia and Herzegovina, and 19% for Jordan. For most countries, including Turkey, metacognitive knowledge for the strategy of assessing reliability was the metacognitive predictor with the highest regression load. The most significant motivational predictor was perception of reading proficiency for most countries, while it was perception of difficulty for Turkey. The results of the study show that the effect of the predictor variables is affected by the educational systems of the countries.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• PISA 2018
• reader self-perception
• metacognitive knowledge of reading strategies
• reading enjoyment
• reading achievement

Etik Beyan

In this study, the rules specified within the scope of "Higher Education Institutions Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Directive" were followed, and the actions specified under the title of "Actions Contrary to Scientific Research and Publication Ethics" were avoided. PISA data were used in this study. PISA data are available to the public and researchers and do not require ethical permission.

Kaynakça

1. Acar-Erdol, T. ve Akin-Arikan, Ç. (2022). Gender gap in reading achievement: the mediating role of metacognitive strategies and reading-related attitudes. Social Psychology of Education, 25(2), 537-566. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-022-09692-9
2. Aktaş, N. ve Ergül, E. (2023). The relationship between primary school students’ reader self-perception and reading comprehension skills. Anadolu Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(3), 609-627.
3. Aricak, O. T., Guldal, H. ve Erdogan, I. (2023). Which noncognitive features provide more information about reading performance? A data-mining approach to big educational data. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 17. https://doi.org/10.1177/18344909231164025
4. Artelt, C. ve Schneider, W. (2015). Cross-country generalizability of the role of metacognitive knowledge in students’ strategy use and reading competence. Teachers College Record, 117(1), 1–32. http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=17695 Basaran, M. (2013). Reading fluency as an indicator of reading comprehension. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 13(4), 2287-2290.
5. Baştuğ, M., ve Akyol, H. (2012). Akıcı okuma becerilerinin okuduğunu anlamayı yordama düzeyi.  Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi, 5(4), 394-411.
6. Bong, M., ve Skaalvik, E. M. (2003). Academic self-concept and self-efficacy: How different are they really?. Educational Psychology Review, 15, 1-40.
7. Borkowski, J.G., Turner, L.A. (1990). Transsituational characteristics of metacognition. In Schneider, W., Weinert, F.E. (Eds), Interactions among aptitudes, strategies, and knowledge in cognitive performance. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3268-1_13 Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. A., Karadeniz, Ş. ve Demirel, F. (2013). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (14. Baskı). Pegem Akademi.
8. Cain, K., Oakhill, J., ve Bryant, P. (2004). Children's reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 31-42. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.31

9. Callan, G. L., Marchant, G. J., Finch, W. H., ve Flegge, L. (2017). Student and school SES, gender, strategy use, and achievement. Psychology in the Schools, 54(9), 1106–1122. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22049 Chapman, J. W., ve Tunmer, W. E. (1995). Development of young children’s reading self-concepts: An examination of emerging subcomponents and their relationship with reading achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(1), 154–167. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.87.1.154
10. Chuy, M., ve Nitulescu, R. (2013). PISA 2009: Explaining the gender gap in reading through reading engagement and approaches to learning. Council of Ministers of Education Canada.
11. Conradi Smith, K., ve Jang, B. G. (2022). The relationship between a reader's self-concept and achievement: Which aspect matters the most and for whom?. Reading ve Writing Quarterly, 38(5), 454-468. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2021.1972881
12. Conradi, K., Jang, B. G., ve McKenna, M. C. (2014). Motivation terminology in reading research: A conceptual review. Educational Psychol Review, 26(1), 127-164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-013-9245-z
13. Cunningham, A. E., ve Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 934-943. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0012-1649.33.6.934 Cunningham, A. E., ve Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 934943.
14. De Naeghel, J., Van Keer, H., Vansteenkiste, M., ve Rosseel, Y. (2012). The relation between elementary students’ recreational and academic reading motivation, reading frequency, engagement, and comprehension: A self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 1006–1021. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027800
15. Erdoğan, Ö. (2021). PISA 2018 okuma becerileri alt testinin değişen madde fonksiyonu açısından farklı yöntemlerle incelenmesi [Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi]. Gazi Üniversitesi.
16. Esmer, B. ve Ulusoy, M. (2021). Postmodern metinlerden okuduğunu anlama doğrudan ve dolaylı ilişkiler modeli. Ana Dili Eğitimi Dergisi, 9(4), 1242-1263.
17. Fırat, T., ve Koyuncu, İ. (2023). The influence of student-level factors on reading literacy: A comprehensive Study. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi [Journal of Theoretical Educational Science], 16(4), 843-867. http://doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.1299077
18. Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231–235). Lawrence Erlbaum.
19. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and metacognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.
20. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., ve Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). McGrawHill Education.
21. Gambrell, L. B., Palmer, B. M., Codling, R. M., ve Mazzoni, S. A. (1996). Assessing motivation to read. The Reading Teacher, 49(7), 518–533. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.49.7.2
22. Geng, S. N., Lu, Y. Q., ve Shu, H. (2023). Cross-cultural generalizability of expectancy-value theory in reading: A multilevel analysis across 80 societies. Current Psychology, 42, 18943–18958. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03014-0
23. Guthrie, J. T., Coddington, C. S., ve Wigfield, A. (2009). Profiles of reading motivation among African American and Caucasian students. Journal of Literacy Research, 41(3), 317-353. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862960903129196
24. Guthrie, J. T., McRae, A., ve Klauda, S. L. (2007). Contributions of concept-oriented reading instruction to knowledge about interventions for motivations in reading. Educational Psychologist, 42(4), 237-250. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701621087
25. Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., ve You, W. (2012). Instructional contexts for engagement and achievement in reading. In Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 601–634). Springer.
26. Ho, E. S. C., ve Lau, K. L. (2018). Reading engagement and reading literacy performance: Effective policy and practices at home and in school. Journal of Research in Reading, 41(4), 657-679. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12246 Karasar, N. (2013). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi (25. Baskı). Nobel.
27. Katzir, T., Lesaux, N. K., ve Kim, Y.-S. (2009). The role of reading self-concept and home literacy practices in fourth grade reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 22(3), 261–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9112-8
28. Kendeou, P., ve van den Broek, P. (2007). The effect of prior knowledge and text structure on comprehension processes during reading of scienctific text. Memory ve Cognition, 35(7), 1567-1577. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193491
29. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163-182.
30. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge University.
31. Klauda, S. L., ve Guthrie, J. T. (2015). Comparing relations of motivation, engagement, and achievement among struggling and advanced adolescent readers. Reading and Writing, 28(2), 239–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-014-9523-2 Kolić-Vehovec, S., Rončević Zubković, B., ve Pahljina-Reinić, R. (2014). Development of metacognitive knowledge of reading strategies and attitudes toward reading in early adolescence: The effect on reading comprehension. Psihologijske Teme, 23(1), 77-98.
32. Koyuncu, İ., ve Fırat, T. (2020). Investigating reading literacy in PISA 2018 assessment. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 13(2), 263-275.
33. Kurnaz, H. (2018). Bilgilendirici metinlerde okuduğunu anlamayı etkileyen faktörler [Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi]. Malatya.
34. Kurnaz, H. (2019) Okuma iç motivasyonu ölçeği: geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 20(1), 234-250. https://doi.org/10.29299/kefad.2018.20.01.008
35. Lafontaine, D., Dupont, V., Jaegers, D., ve Schillings, P. (2019). Self-concept in reading: Factor structure, cross-cultural invariance and relationships with reading achievement in an international context (PIRLS 2011). Studies in Educational Evaluation, 60, 78-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.11.005
36. Lafontaine, D., Jude, N. ve Leck, J. (2022). Validating a scale measuring metacognitive knowledge about digital reading. Mesure et évaluation en éducation, 45(spécial), 63–94. https://doi.org/10.7202/1108759ar
37. Lau, K.-L. (2009). Reading motivation, perceptions of reading instruction and reading amount: A comparison of junior and senior secondary school students in Hong Kong. Journal of Research in Reading, 32, 366–382. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01400.x
38. Linnakyla, P., Malin, A., ve Taube, K. (2004) Factors behind low reading literacy achievement, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 48(3), 231-249. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830410001695718 Livingston, J. A. (2003). Metacognition: An overview. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED474273.pdf
39. Locher, F. M., Becker, S., Schiefer, I., ve Pfost, M. (2021). Mechanisms mediating the relation between reading self-concept and reading comprehension. European Journal of Psychology Of Education, 36(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-020- 00463-8
40. Marsh, H. W., ve Shavelson, R. (1985). Self-concept: Its multifaceted, hierarchical structure. Educational Psychologist, 20(3), 107-123. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2003_1
41. Memis, A., ve Bozkurt, M. (2013). The relationship of reading comprehension success with metacognitive awareness, motivation, and reading levels of fifth grade students. Educational Research and Reviews, 8(15), 1242-1246. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2013.1544
42. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB). (2019). PISA 2018 Türkiye ön raporu. (MEB Eğitim Analiz ve Değerlendirme Raporları Serisi No: 10). http://pisa.meb.gov.tr/eski%20dosyalar/wpcontent/uploads/2020/01/PISA_2018_Turkiye_On_Raporu.pdf
43. Miyamoto, A., Pfost, M., ve 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2019.1602836
44. Mokhtari, K., ve Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students' metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.249
45. Neuenhaus, N., Artelt, C., Lingel, K., ve Schneider, W. (2011). Fifth graders metacognitive knowledge: general or domain-specific?. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 26(2), 163-178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-010-0040-7
46. OECD (2019a). PISA 2018 Assessment and analytical framework. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b25efab8-en
47. OECD (2019b). PISA 2018 results (Volume I): What students know and can do. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en
48. OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 results: Learning to learn: Student engagement, strategies and practices (Volume III). OECD.
49. Öksüz, H. İ., ve Akyol, H. (2023). Ön bilgi, sözel çalışma belleği ve dikkat becerilerinin okuduğunu anlama becerilerine etkisi. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 9(3), 893-907. https://doi.org/10.31592/aeusbed.1362041
50. Ötken, Ş. (2019). PISA uygulamalarında okuma-matematik-fen okuryazarlığı puanlarındaki değişimin çok değişkenli-çok düzeyli model ile incelenmesi [Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi.
51. Özbay, M., Bağcı, H., ve Uyar, Y. (2008). Türkçe öğretmeni adaylarının okuma alışkanlığına yönelik tutumlarının çeşitli değişkenlere göre değerlendirilmesi. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(15), 117-136.
52. Özerbaş, M. A., ve Safi, B. N. (2022). İngiltere, Japonya, Norveç, Finlandiya, Singapur, Rusya ve Türk eğitim sistemlerinin karşılaştırmalı olarak incelenmesi. Manas Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 11(1), 63-80. https://doi.org/10.33206/mjss.991068
53. Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., ve Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 293–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(83)90018-8
54. Park, Y. (2011). How motivational constructs interact to predict elementary students' reading performance: Examples from attitudes and self-concept in reading. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(4), 347-358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.02.009
55. Pressley, M., Johnson, C.J., Symons, S., McGoldrick, J.A., ve Kurita, J.A. (1989). Strategies that improve children’s memory and comprehension of text. The Elementary School Journal, 90, 3–32.
56. Retelsdorf, J., Köller, O., ve Möller, J. (2014). Reading achievement and reading self-concept–Testing the reciprocal effects model. Learning and Instruction, 29, 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.07.004
57. Schiefele, U., Schaffner, E., Möller, J., and Wigfield, A. (2012). Dimensions of reading motivation and their relation to reading behavior and competence. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(4), 427-463. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.030
58. Schneider, W. (2015). Memory development from early childhood through emerging adulthood. Springer.
59. Schneider, W., ve Löffler, E. (2016). The development of metacognitive knowledge in children and adolescents. In J. Dunlosky, & S. K. Tauber (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of metamemory (pp. 491–518). Oxford University.
60. Schraw, G., ve Dennison, R. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460–475. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1994.1033
61. Schraw, G., ve Moshman, D. (1995). Metacognitive theories. Educational Psychology review, 7, 351-371. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02212307 Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J., ve Stanton, G. C. (1976). Self-concept: Validation of construct interpretations. Review of Educational Research, 46(3), 407-441. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170010
62. Suna, H. E., Ozer, M., Sensoy, S., Gur, B.S., Gelbal, S., ve Askar, P. Türkiye’de akademik başarının belirleyicileri. Journal of Economy Culture and Society, 64, 143-162. https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS2021-934211
63. Sutter, C. C., ve Campbell, L. O. (2022). The Role of Academic Self-Determined Reading Motivation, Reading Self-Concept, Home Reading Environment, and Student Reading Behavior in Reading Achievement among American Indian and Hispanic Students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 102093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2022.102093
64. Tabachnick, B. G., ve Fidell, L. S. (2015). Çok değişkenli istatistiklerin kullanımı (Çev. Ed. M. Baloğlu). Nobel.
65. Taboada, A., Tonks, S. M., Wigfield, A., ve Guthrie, J. T. (2009). Effects of motivational and cognitive variables on reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 22(1), 85–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-008-9133-y
66. Tibken, C., Richter, T., von der Linden, N., Schmiedeler, S., ve Schneider, W. (2022). The role of metacognitive competences in the development of school achievement among gifted adolescents. Child Development, 93, 117– 133. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13640
67. Trautwein, U., ve Möller, J. (2016). Self-concept: Determinants and consequences of academic self-concept in school contexts. In A. A. Lipnevich, F. Preckel, & R. D. Roberts (Eds.), Psychosocial skills and school systems in the 21st century: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 187–214). Springer International/Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28606-8_8
68. van den Broek, P., ve Helder, A. (2017). Cognitive processes in discourse comprehension: Passive processes, reader-initiated processes, and evolving mental representations. Discourse Processes, 54(5-6), 360-372. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2017.1306677
69. Wang, J. H. Y., ve Guthrie, J. T. (2004). Modeling the effects of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, amount of reading, and past reading achievement on text comprehension between US and Chinese students. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(2), 162–186. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.39.2.2
70. Wigfield, A., ve Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children’s motivation for reading to the amount and breadth or their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 420–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.3.420
71. Yıldırım, K., Yıldız, M. ve Ateş, S. (2011). Kelime bilgisi okuduğunu anlamanın anlamlı bir yordayıcısı mıdır ve yordama gücü metin türlerine göre farklılaşmakta mıdır? Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 11(3), 1531-1547.
72. Yıldırım, Ö.(2017). Okul ortamlarının okuduğunu anlama performansı üzerinde etkisinin ülkeler arası incelenmesi. Journal of Human Sciences, 14(4), 4453-4463. https://doi.org/10.14687/jhs.v14i4.5034
73. Yıldız, M., ve Akyol, H. (2011). İlköğretim 5. sınıf öğrencilerinin okuduğunu anlama, okuma motivasyonu ve okuma alışkanlıkları arasındaki ilişki. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 31(3), 793-815.
74. Zhou, J., He, J., ve Lafontaine, D. (2020). Cross-cultural comparability and validity of metacognitive knowledge in reading in PISA 2009: a comparison of two scoring methods. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy ve Practice, 27(6), 635-654. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2020.1828820