Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

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

Year 2019, Volume: 19 Issue: 82, 169 - 190, 31.07.2019

Abstract

Purpose: 
The aim of the study w
as to investigate the extent students’
learning strategies and reading enjoyment variables predicte
d 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 w
ere 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 h
ad
higher reading scores.
Memorization was negatively associated with reading
literacy and
the elaboration strategies had no effect on achievement. Reading
enjoyment w
as identified as a variable that improved students' reading performance. It was found out that control and
elaboration strategies directly affecte
d student's reading enjoyment
whereas memorisation d
id
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.




References

  • 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://scholar.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=indigenou _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 motivation\attitude, 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/c512258e86ee797f2d0973d8b123d4a1d9b4.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/9864620a80030cf1d19f4dd912b5318bb404. 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/phakiti.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

Okumaktan Zevk Alma ve Öğrenme Stratejilerinin PISA 2009 Okuma Performansı Üzerindeki Doğrudan ve Dolaylı Etkilerinin İncelenmesi

Year 2019, Volume: 19 Issue: 82, 169 - 190, 31.07.2019

Abstract

Problem
durumu
:
Gelişen ve sürekli rekabetin yaşandığı dünyamızda, okuduğunu anlayan bireyler
yetiştirmek önemlidir. Bireyin kişisel, sosyal ve ekonomik olarak kendinin
geliştirebilmesi için okuma önemli bir role sahiptir. Bireylerin okuduğunu
anlama sürecinde, ilişki kurma, karşılaştırma yapma, kanıt sunma, genelleme
yapma, çıkarımda bulunma ya da olayları yordama gibi daha karmaşık düşünme
süreçlerini kullanmaları gerekmektedir.
  Bu
da akademik başarıyı destekleyen bir faktördür. Bu bakımdan öğrencilerin
okuduğunu anlama performansı bakımından durumlarının değerlendirilmesi, bu
beceriyi geliştirmek üzere yapılacak uygulamalara yön vermesi açısından bu
beceriyle doğrudan ya da dolaylı olarak ilişkili faktörlerin belirlenmesi
giderek daha önemli hale gelmektedir. Son yıllarda okuma becerisinin
geliştirilmesi için öğrencinin kullandığı stratejiler ve metodlar üzerinde
ağırlıklı olarak durulmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, öğrencilerin okuma performansı
ile ilişkisini belirlemek üzere metabilişsel stratejiler (kontrol, ezberleme ve
detaylandırma) ele alınmıştır. Ayrıca, bu iki değişken arasındaki ilişkide
okumaktan zevk almanın olası aracı etkisi de incelenmiştir.

Araştırmanın
amacı
: Bu
çalışmanın amacı, öğrencilerin kullandıkları öğrenme stratejileri ve okumaktan
zevk alma değişkenlerinin öğrencilerin PISA 2009 okuma başarılarını ne derece
yordadığı ve okuma başarısı ile öğrenme stratejileri arasındaki ilişkide
okumaktan zevk alma değişkeninin aracı etkisinin olup olmadığının
incelenmesidir.

Araştırmanın
Yöntemi
: İlişkisel
tarama modelindeki bu araştırmada örneklemi, PISA 2009 uygulamasına katılan 170
okuldan

4996 Türk öğrenci oluşturmaktadır. Verilerin
düzenlenmesinden sonra analizler 4648 öğrenci ve 169 okul üzerinden
yürütülmüştür. Araştırmada
, Türkiye PISA 2009
okuduğunu anlama bilişsel alan testi ve öğrenci anketinden toplanan veriler
kullanılmıştır. İlgili veriler OECD’nin resmi web sayfasından
elde edilmiştir. Öğrencilerin
okuduğunu anlama başarısı ile ilişkili olduğu düşünülen “öğrenme stratejileri
ve okumaktan zevk alma” yordayıcı değişken olarak; öğrenme stratejiler olarak
tanımlanan kontrol, hatırlama ve detaylandırma stratejileri içsel değişkenler,
okumaktan zevk alma ise aracı değişken olarak belirlenmiştir. Kurulan model
yoluyla okuma başarısı üzerinde öğrenme stratejilerinin dolaylı etkisi
incelenmiştir. Ölçeklerin geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışmaları PISA 2009 teknik
raporunda ayrıntılarıyla raporlanmıştır.
Araştırmada PISA örnekleme yaklaşımının hiyerarşik yapısı dikkate
alınarak HLM’ye dayalı analizler yapılmıştır.

Araştırmanın Bulguları: Öğrenme stratejilerinin okuma performansı
üzerindeki doğrudan etkileri test edilmiş,
kontrol stratejisi ve
hatırlama stratejisi kullanma sıklığının öğrencilerin okuma performansını
yordamada anlamlı bir değişken olduğunu (p<0.01), detaylandırma stratejisi
kullanımının ise anlamlı bir yordayıcısı olmadığı belirlenmiştir (p>0.01).
Kontrol ve detaylandırma stratejilerini kullanım sıklığı, öğrencilerin
okumaktan zevk almasını anlamlı bir şekilde yordamakta (p<0.01); ancak
hatırlama stratejisini kullanım sıklığı öğrencilerin okumaktan zevk almasını
anlamlı olarak yordamamaktadır (p>0.01). Bu bakımdan hatırlama stratejisinin
okuma başarısı üzerinde dolaylı etkisi olmadığı belirlenmiştir. Okumaktan zevk
alma değişkeninin aracı etkileri test edildiğinde ise kontrol stratejisi,
hatırlama stratejisi ve okumaktan zevk alma stratejisinin okuma performansının
anlamlı olarak yordamış (p<0.01); detaylandırma stratejisi ise bu modelde de
anlamlı bir yordayıcı olmamıştır (p>0.01). Okumaktan zevk alma değişkeninin
aracı etkisiyle, kontrol ve detaylandırma stratejilerinin okuma puanları
üzerindeki etkisi incelenmiş; bu iki stratejinin kullanım sıklığının okumaktan
zevk alma değişkeni üzerinden öğrencilerin okuma performansını anlamlı olarak
yordadığı görülmüştür
  (p<0.01).









Araştırmanın
Sonuç ve Önerileri
: Okuma sırasında kontrol
stratejilerini daha sık kullanan öğrencilerin okuma puanlarının daha yüksek
olduğu belirlenmiştir. Öğrencilerin ilgili metinleri anlamak üzere daha üst
düzey öğrenme stratejileri kullanmaları onların okuma puanlarını artıran bir
faktör olmaktadır.
Hatırlama
stratejisinin okuduğunu anlama başarısı ile negatif yönlü bir ilişkisi
bulunmuştur. Bu durum ezberleme ağırlıklı strateji kullanımının, farklı
becerileri bir arada içeren okuma sürecini desteklemediğini işaret etmektedir.
Beklenilenin aksine bu araştırmada d
etaylandırma stratejisinin okuma
başarısı üzerinde doğrudan bir etkisi bulunmamıştır. Okumaktan zevk alma,
öğrencilerin okuma performansını artıran bir değişken olarak belirlenmiştir. Bu
durum, daha iyi okuyucuların, okuduklarından zevk aldığını, gönüllülükle
okumaya devam ettiklerini ve ayrıca okul performanslarını arttırma eğiliminde
olduğunu göstermektedir. İlgili modelde öğrenme stratejilerinin okumaktan zevk
alma değişkeni üzerindeki doğrudan etkileri incelenmiş; kontrol ve
detaylandırma stratejilerini kullanma sıklığının öğrencinin okumaktan zevk
almasını doğrudan etkilediği, hatırlama stratejisinin ise öğrencinin okumaktan
zevk almasını doğrudan etkilemediği görülmüştür. Bu durum, öğrenmeye yönelik
üst düzey stratejileri daha sıklıkla kullanan öğrencilerin, okumaktan daha çok zevk
aldığını göstermektedir. Değişkenler arasındaki dolaylı etkiyi gösteren
sonuçlar incelendiğinde, okumaktan zevk alma kontrol stratejisi değişkeni için
kısmi aracı etkiye sahipken, detaylandırma stratejisi için tam aracı bir etkiye
sahip olmuştur. Sonuç olarak, bu araştırma üst düzey beceri içeren öğrenme
stratejilerini kullanan öğrencilerin okumaktan daha çok zevk aldığını ve bu
öğrencilerin okuduğunu anlama konusunda daha başarılı olduğunu göstermektedir.
Araştırma sonuçları, üst düzey beceri içeren öğrenme stratejilerini kullanan
öğrencilerin okumaktan daha çok zevk aldığını ve bu öğrencilerin okuduğunu
anlama konusunda daha başarılı olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu durumda,
öğrencilerin okumaktan zevk almalarını sağlayacak farklı öğretim materyalleri
ve etkinliklerin öğretmenler tarafından kullanılması, öğrencilerin okuma
sırasında üst düzey becerilerini geliştirmelerini ve kullanmalarını sağlayacak
öğretim ortamlarının oluşturulması ve bu becerilerin nasıl kullanılacağının
öğretilmesine yönelik etkinliklerine öğretim programlarında yer verilmesi
önerilmektedir. Okul dışında ise, aileler öğrencilerin ilgisini çekebilecek
farklı türde kitaplar edinerek okumayı çocuklar için daha zevkli hale
getirebilir. Aileler, çocukların okunan metne ilişkin var olan bilgilerini
kullanarak,
  yorum yapma ve yeniden anlam
verme gibi becerilerini kullanmalarına yönelik birlikte etkinlikler yapabilir.

References

  • 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://scholar.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=indigenou _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 motivation\attitude, 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/c512258e86ee797f2d0973d8b123d4a1d9b4.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/9864620a80030cf1d19f4dd912b5318bb404. 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/phakiti.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
There are 67 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Ezel Tavsancıl

Ozen Yıldırım This is me

Safiye Bılıcan Demır

Publication Date July 31, 2019
Published in Issue Year 2019 Volume: 19 Issue: 82

Cite

APA Tavsancıl, E., Yıldırım, O., & Bılıcan Demır, 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.
AMA Tavsancıl E, Yıldırım O, Bılıcan Demır S. Direct and Indirect Effects of Learning Strategies and Reading Enjoyment on PISA 2009 Reading Performance. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research. July 2019;19(82):169-190.
Chicago Tavsancıl, Ezel, Ozen Yıldırım, and Safiye Bılıcan Demır. “Direct and Indirect Effects of Learning Strategies and Reading Enjoyment on PISA 2009 Reading Performance”. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 19, no. 82 (July 2019): 169-90.
EndNote Tavsancıl E, Yıldırım O, Bılıcan Demır S (July 1, 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.
IEEE E. Tavsancıl, O. Yıldırım, and S. Bılıcan Demır, “Direct and Indirect Effects of Learning Strategies and Reading Enjoyment on PISA 2009 Reading Performance”, Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, vol. 19, no. 82, pp. 169–190, 2019.
ISNAD Tavsancıl, Ezel et al. “Direct and Indirect Effects of Learning Strategies and Reading Enjoyment on PISA 2009 Reading Performance”. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 19/82 (July 2019), 169-190.
JAMA Tavsancıl E, Yıldırım O, Bılıcan Demır S. Direct and Indirect Effects of Learning Strategies and Reading Enjoyment on PISA 2009 Reading Performance. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research. 2019;19:169–190.
MLA Tavsancıl, Ezel et al. “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, pp. 169-90.
Vancouver Tavsancıl E, Yıldırım O, Bılıcan Demır S. Direct and Indirect Effects of Learning Strategies and Reading Enjoyment on PISA 2009 Reading Performance. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research. 2019;19(82):169-90.