Direct and Indirect Effects of Learning Strategies and Reading Enjoyment on PISA 2009 Reading Performance

Ezel TAVŞANCIL, (Ankara University, Faculty of Educational Science, Ankara, Turkey)
Özen YILDIRIM, (Pamukkale University, Faculty of Education, Denizli, TURKEY)
Safiye BİLİCAN DEMİR (Kocaeli Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi, Kocaeli, Türkiye)
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research
1 0
Yıl: 2019 Cilt: 19 Sayı: 82 Sayfa Aralığı: 169 - 190 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.14689/ejer.2019.82.9 İndeks Tarihi: 03-10-2019

Direct and Indirect Effects of Learning Strategies and Reading Enjoyment on PISA 2009 Reading Performance

Öz:
Purpose: The aim of the study was to investigate the extent students’ learning strategies and reading enjoyment variables predicted PISA 2009 reading achievement, and to examine whether reading enjoyment had a mediator effect in the relationship between reading achievement and learning strategies. Methods: In this correlational study, Turkey PISA 2009 reading comprehension cognitive test and student questionnaires were used for data collection. Learning strategies and reading pleasure which was related to students' reading comprehension achievement were identified as predictive variables and index values of these variables were used. The data were analysed using hierarchical linear models (HLM).Findings: The results of the HLM analysis showed that the students who used control strategies more frequently had higher reading scores. Memorization was negatively associated with reading literacy and the elaboration strategies had no effect on achievement. Reading enjoyment was identified as a variable that improved students' reading performance. It was found out that control and elaboration strategies directly affected student's reading enjoyment whereas memorisation did not have such a direct effect. The results related to the indirect effect between variables showed that reading enjoyment had a partial mediator effect for the control strategy and had a full mediating effect for elaboration. Implications for Research and Practice: Teachers are encouraged to use deep learning strategies instead of surface learning strategies. Teachers can inform their students about what deep learning strategies are, why they are more effective than others, and how to use them. The think aloud technique can be used to show how this strategy can be used in daily life.
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Eğitim, Eğitim Araştırmaları
Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Antonacci, P. A. (2000). Reading in the zone of proaximal development: Mediating literacy development in beginner readers though guided reading. Reading Horizons, 41(1), 19-33. Retrieved February 24, 2019, from https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://sch olar.google.com.tr/&httpsredir=1&article=1194&context=reading_horizons
  • Artelt, C., Baumert, J.,Julius-McElvany, N., & Peschar, J. (2003). Learners for Life. Student Approaches to Learning. Results from PISA 2000. Retrieved April 14, 2019, from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED480899.pdf
  • Baker, L. & Brown, A. (1984). Meta cognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research. New York: Longman.
  • Baker, L., Dreher, M.J. & Guthrie, J.T. (2000). Engaging young readers: Promoting achievement and motivation. New York: Guilford Publishing.
  • Beishuizen, J. J., & E. T. Stoutjesdijk, E. T. (1999). Study strategies in a computer assisted study environment. Learning and Instruction, 9(3), 281–301. Doi: 10.1016/S0959-4752(98)00027-9
  • Bortoli, L. D., & Cresswell, J. (2004). Australia’s indigenous students in PISA 2000: Results from an international study. ACER Research Monograph No 59. Retrieved March 10, 2019 from https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=in digenou _education
  • Carretti, B., Caldarola, N., Tencati, Ch., & Cornoldi, C. (2014). Improving reading comprehension in reading and listening settings: the effect of two training programmes focusing on metacognition and working memory. The British Psychological Society, 84(Pt. 2), 194–210. Doi: 10.1111/bjep.12022
  • Carroll, L., & Leander, S. (2001). Improving student motivation through theuse of active learning strategies.Masters of arts action research Project, Saint Xavier University and Skylights Field-Based Masters Program, Eric Identifier:ED455961.
  • Chiu, M. M., Chow, B. W-Y., & McBride-Chang, C. (2007). Universals and specifics in learning strategies: Explaining adolescent mathematics, science, and reading achievement across 34 countries. Learning and Individual Differences, 17(4), 344-365. Doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2007.03.007
  • Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159. Doi: 10.1037/0033 2909.112.1.155
  • Czuchry, M., & Dansereau, D. F. (1998). The generation and recall of personally relevant information. Journal of Experimental Education, 66, 293–315. Doi: 10.1080/00220979809601403
  • Duncan G.J., Dowsett C.J., Claessens, A, Magnuson, K., Huston, A. C., Klebanov, P., Pagani, L., Feinstein, L., Engel, M., Brooks-Gunn, J., Sexton, H., Duckworth
  • Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science, 14(1), 4–58. Doi:10.1177/1529100612453266
  • EARGED (2010). Uluslararası Öğrenci Değerlendirme Programı PISA 2009 Ulusal Ön Raporu [PISA 2009 National Preliminary Report]. Retrieved May 20, 2019 from http://pisa.meb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/PISA-2009-Ulusal-On-Rapor.pdf
  • Guthrie, J. T, Schafer, W D., & Huang, C. (2001). Benefits of opportunity to read and balanced instruction on the NAEP. Journal of Educational Research, 94, 145-162. Doi: 10.1080/00220670109599912
  • Green,M.C.,Kass,S.,Carrey,J.,Herzig,B.,Feeney,R., & Sabini,S.(2008). Transportation across media: Repeated exposure to print and film. MediaPsychol. 11, 512- 539. Doi:10.1080/15213260802492000
  • Hacker, D. J. (1998). Definitions and empirical foundations. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky and A. C. Graesser (eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 1-20). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
  • Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: Disposition, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 53(4), 449 455. Doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449
  • Ho, I. (1998). Relationships between motivationattitude, effort, English proficiency, and social cultural educational factors and Taiwan and technological university institute students’ English learning strategy use, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Auburn University, Alabama.
  • Holden, J. (2004). Creative Reading. London: Demos.
  • Huffman, L. E., & Spires, H. A. (1992). Effects of explicit instruction in notetaking on sixth graders’ lecture comprehension and attitudes toward note taking, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the North Carolina Association for Research in Education, ChapelHill, NC.
  • Iwai, Y. (2011). The effects of metacognitive reading strategies: pedagogical implications for EFL/ESL teachers. The Reading Matrix, 11(2), 150– 159. Retrieved January 15, 2019 from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/85f6/c512258e86ee797f2d0973d8b123d4a 1d9b4.df
  • Juel, C. (1988).Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 437-447. Doi: 10.1037/0022 0663.80.4.437.
  • Kang, D. H. (1997). Assessing Korean middle school students’ language learning strategies in input-poor environments. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 413 778). Retrieved January 10, 2019, from http:// files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED413778.pdf
  • Keller, J. J. (1990). Strategy Games: Developing positive attitudes and perseverance toward problem solving with fourth graders (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED323013).
  • Kember, D., Biggs, J., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2004). Examining the multidimensionality of approaches to learning through the development of a revised version of the Learning Process Questionnaire. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 261–280. Doi: 10.1348/000709904773839879
  • Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 3rd Edition, New York City, The Guilford Press.
  • Koda, K. (2005). Insights into second language reading: A cross-linguistic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Kraayenoord, C. E. van (2010). The role of metacognition in reading comprehension. In H. P. Trolldenier, W. Lenhard and P. Marx (eds.), Brennpunkte der Gedächntisforschung (pp. 277- 304). Gottingen: Hogrefe.
  • Krull, J. L., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2001). Multilevel modeling of individual and group level mediated effects. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 249-277. Doi: 10.1207/S15327906MBR3602_06
  • Li, J., & Chun, C. K. W. (2012). Effects of learning strategies on student reading literacy performance. The Reading Matrix, 12(1), 30–37. Retrieved March 10, 2019, from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d39f/9864620a80030cf1d19f4dd912b5318 bb404. df
  • Loranger, A. L. (1994). The study strategies of successful and unsuccessful high school students. Journal of Reading Behavior, 26 (4), 347-360. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10862969409547858
  • Lyon, R. (1997). Statement before the Committee on Education and Workforce. U.S. House of Representatives. Retrieved January 9, 2019, from http://mirror.apa.org/ppo-OLD/lyon.html.
  • Mayer, R. E. (2008). Learning and instruction (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
  • McDaniel, M. A., Howard, D. C., & Einstein, G. O. (2009). The read-recite-review study strategy. Psychological Science, 20(1), 516–522. Doi: 10.1111/j.1467- 9280.2009.02325.x
  • McInerney, D. M. (2011). Culture and self-regulation in educational contexts. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 442- 464). New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Meyer, J. H. F. (2000). The modeling of “dissonant”study orchestration in higher education. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15(1), 5–18. Doi:10.1007/BF03173163
  • Mol,S.E., & Bus, A. G. (2011).To read or not to read: A meta-analysis of print exposure from infancy to early adulthood. Psychol.Bull. 137, 267–296. Doi: 10.1037/a0021890
  • Mol, S. E., & Jolles, J. (2014). Reading enjoyment amongst non-leisure readers can affect achievement in secondary school. Front.Psychol, 5, 1214. Doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01214
  • Muszynski, M., & Jakubowski, M. (2015). Learning strategies and reading performance: PISA 2009 results for Poland. Edukacja, 3(134), 5-25.
  • OECD (2002). Reading for change: Performance and engagement across countries. Results from PISA 2000. New York: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
  • OECD (2010). PISA 2009 results. Learning to learn: student engagement, strategies and practices. Paris: OECD Publishing.
  • OECD (2012). PISA 2009 technical report. Paris, France: OECD Publications.
  • Oatley, K.(2012).The cognitive science of fiction. Wiley Interdiscip.Rev.Cogn.Sci. 3, 425-430. Doi:10.1002/wcs.1185
  • Ortlieb, E. (2013). Using anticipatory reading guides to improve elementary students’comprehension. International Journal of Instruction, 6(2), 145–162. Retrieved January 10, 2019, from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1085407.pdf
  • Oxford, R. L. (1990). Styles, strategies, and aptitude: connections for language learning. In T. S. Parry and C. W. Stansfield (eds.), Language aptitude reconsidered (pp. 67-125). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall Regents.
  • Oxford, R. L. (2003). Language learning styles and strategies: An overview. Learning Styles and Strategies. Oxford, GALA. pp. 1-25.
  • Phakiti, A. (2006). Modeling cognitive and metacognitive strategies and their relationships to EFL reading test performance. Melbourne Papers in Language
  • Testing, 1, 53 95. Retrieved March 12, 2019, from http:// sydney.edu.au/education_social_work/research/publications/resources/p hakiti.pdf
  • Pitts, M. M. (1983). Comprehension monitoring: definition and practice. Journal of Reading, 26(6), 516–523. Retrieved March 16, 2019, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/40031758
  • Politzer, R. L., & McGroarty, M. (1985). An exploratory study of learning behaviors and their relationship to gains in linguistic and communicative competence. TESOL Quarterly, 19,103-123. Doi: 10.2307/3586774
  • Pressley, M., & Harris, K. R. (2017). Cognitive strategies ınstruction: From basic research to classroom instruction. Journal of Education, 189(1-2), 77-94. Doi:10.1177/0022057409189001206
  • Rao, N., & Moely, B. E. (2000). Motivational beliefs, study strategies and mathematics attainment in high- and low-achieving Chinese secondary school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 287-316. Doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1003
  • Raudenbush, S.W., & Bryk, A.S. (2002). Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  • Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, S., Cheong, Y. F., & Congdon, R. (2004). HLM6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
  • Schutz, P. A, Drogoz, L.M.,Vhite,V.E., & Distefano, C. (1998). Prior knowledge, attitude, and strategy use in a introduction to statistics course. Learning & Individual Differences, 10 (4), 291-308. Doi: 10.1016/S1041-6080(99)80124-1
  • Snijders, T., & Bosker, R. (2012) Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. 2nd Edition, London, Sage Publications.
  • Sobel, Michael E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models". Sociological Methodology. 13, 290– 312. Doi:10.2307/270723
  • Vermunt, J. D., & Vermetten, Y. J. (2004). Patterns in student learning: Relationships between learning strategies, conceptions of learning, and learning orientations. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 359–384. Doi: 10.1007/s10648-004-0005-y
  • Ward, W., & Rosetta, R. (2001). The effectiveness of instruction in using reading comprehension strategies with eleventh grade social studies students. Unpublished master thesis, The University of Mississippi.
  • Wen, Q. F., & Wang, L. F. (2004). Challenging the effectiveness of L2 learning strategy studies. Foreign language World, 2, 2-7.
  • Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R.E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies .Handbook of research on teaching.Ed: M.C.Wittock. New York: MacmillanCompany
  • Weibel,D.,Wissmath,B., & Mast,F.W.(2011).Influence of menta limagery on spatial presence and enjoyment assessed in different types of media. Cyberpsychol. Behav.Soc.Netw. 14, 607–612. Doi:10.1089/cyber.2010.0287
  • Wilkinson, I. A. G. & Son, E. H. (2011). A dialogic turn in research on learning and teaching to comprehend. In M.L. Kamil. P.B. Rosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Volume IV (pp. 359-387). New York: Routledge.
  • Yildirim (2012). Determination of factors relating reading comprehension achievement with hierarchical linear models (PISA 2009 comparison of the Netherlands, Korea and Turkey). (Doctoral dissertation, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey) Retrieved January 18, 2019, from http://acikarsiv.ankara.edu.tr/browse/24723/
  • Yip, M. C. W. (2007). Differences between high and low academic-achieving university students in learning and study strategies: a Hong Kong study. Educational Psychology, 27(1), 597–606. Doi:10.1080/01443410701309126
  • Zasacka, Z., & Bulkowski, K. (2017). Reading engagement and school achievement of lower secondary school students. Edukacja, 2, 78-99. Doi:141. 10.24131/3724.170205.
  • Zhang, Z., Zyphur, M. J., & Preacher, K. J. (2009). Testing multilevel mediation using hierarchical linear models: Problems and solutions. Organizational Research Methods, 12(4), 695-719. Doi: 10.1177/1094428108327450
APA TAVŞANCIL E, Yildirim O, BİLİCAN DEMİR S (2019). Direct and Indirect Effects of Learning Strategies and Reading Enjoyment on PISA 2009 Reading Performance. , 169 - 190. 10.14689/ejer.2019.82.9
Chicago TAVŞANCIL Ezel,Yildirim Ozen,BİLİCAN DEMİR Safiye Direct and Indirect Effects of Learning Strategies and Reading Enjoyment on PISA 2009 Reading Performance. (2019): 169 - 190. 10.14689/ejer.2019.82.9
MLA TAVŞANCIL Ezel,Yildirim Ozen,BİLİCAN DEMİR Safiye Direct and Indirect Effects of Learning Strategies and Reading Enjoyment on PISA 2009 Reading Performance. , 2019, ss.169 - 190. 10.14689/ejer.2019.82.9
AMA TAVŞANCIL E,Yildirim O,BİLİCAN DEMİR S Direct and Indirect Effects of Learning Strategies and Reading Enjoyment on PISA 2009 Reading Performance. . 2019; 169 - 190. 10.14689/ejer.2019.82.9
Vancouver TAVŞANCIL E,Yildirim O,BİLİCAN DEMİR S Direct and Indirect Effects of Learning Strategies and Reading Enjoyment on PISA 2009 Reading Performance. . 2019; 169 - 190. 10.14689/ejer.2019.82.9
IEEE TAVŞANCIL E,Yildirim O,BİLİCAN DEMİR S "Direct and Indirect Effects of Learning Strategies and Reading Enjoyment on PISA 2009 Reading Performance." , ss.169 - 190, 2019. 10.14689/ejer.2019.82.9
ISNAD TAVŞANCIL, Ezel vd. "Direct and Indirect Effects of Learning Strategies and Reading Enjoyment on PISA 2009 Reading Performance". (2019), 169-190. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2019.82.9
APA TAVŞANCIL E, Yildirim O, BİLİCAN DEMİR S (2019). Direct and Indirect Effects of Learning Strategies and Reading Enjoyment on PISA 2009 Reading Performance. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 19(82), 169 - 190. 10.14689/ejer.2019.82.9
Chicago TAVŞANCIL Ezel,Yildirim Ozen,BİLİCAN DEMİR Safiye Direct and Indirect Effects of Learning Strategies and Reading Enjoyment on PISA 2009 Reading Performance. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 19, no.82 (2019): 169 - 190. 10.14689/ejer.2019.82.9
MLA TAVŞANCIL Ezel,Yildirim Ozen,BİLİCAN DEMİR Safiye Direct and Indirect Effects of Learning Strategies and Reading Enjoyment on PISA 2009 Reading Performance. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, vol.19, no.82, 2019, ss.169 - 190. 10.14689/ejer.2019.82.9
AMA TAVŞANCIL E,Yildirim O,BİLİCAN DEMİR S Direct and Indirect Effects of Learning Strategies and Reading Enjoyment on PISA 2009 Reading Performance. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research. 2019; 19(82): 169 - 190. 10.14689/ejer.2019.82.9
Vancouver TAVŞANCIL E,Yildirim O,BİLİCAN DEMİR S Direct and Indirect Effects of Learning Strategies and Reading Enjoyment on PISA 2009 Reading Performance. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research. 2019; 19(82): 169 - 190. 10.14689/ejer.2019.82.9
IEEE TAVŞANCIL E,Yildirim O,BİLİCAN DEMİR S "Direct and Indirect Effects of Learning Strategies and Reading Enjoyment on PISA 2009 Reading Performance." Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 19, ss.169 - 190, 2019. 10.14689/ejer.2019.82.9
ISNAD TAVŞANCIL, Ezel vd. "Direct and Indirect Effects of Learning Strategies and Reading Enjoyment on PISA 2009 Reading Performance". Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 19/82 (2019), 169-190. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2019.82.9
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
23-04-2024 8:57

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları