The Predictive Power of Reading Comprehension, Attitude Toward Sciences, Test Technique, And Science Subject Matter Knowledge In Predicting Pisa Scientific Literacy Test Total Score

Year 2022, Volume: 9 Issue: 6, 206 - 220, 01.11.2022

Yusuf Günaydın , Mustafa Başaran

https://doi.org/10.17275/per.22.136.9.6

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to identify to what extent that the reading comprehension, question types, attitude toward science, test method, and subject matter knowledge predict the PISA scientific literacy scores of the students. The study uses the method of correlational research, which is a type of quantitative research method. We reached out to 321 students who were randomly chosen using the method of cluster sampling. Five separate tests were used in the study: PISA 2015 science literacy test, 12 gap-filling exercises were asked to determine the students’ level of surface reading comprehension, Five open-ended questions were asked to determine the in-depth reading comprehension level of the students, 5-point Likert scale composed of 13 items was used to determine the students’ attitude toward sciences, 20 multiple-choice questions with 5 choices, regarding four units of the eighth-grade sciences curriculum and a 5-point Likert scale composed of 10 items was used to determine to what degree students use clues to guess the correct answer when solving multiple-choice tests. The research showed that the students’ PISA scientific literacy scores, and the scores that they got in the multiple-choice and open-ended questions of PISA scientific literacy test were strongly positively correlated with the independent variables of the research (surface reading comprehension, in-depth reading comprehension, scientific subject matter knowledge, attitude toward sciences, using test techniques).The independent variables of the research set forth the 43% of the variance of the PISA scientific literacy test total scores, 46% of the variance of the success score in open-ended questions, and 34% of the variance of the success score in multiple-choice questions. The research also reached the conclusion that the students performed much better in multiple-choice questions compared to the open-ended questions about the same text (situation/problem).

Keywords

PISA, scientific literacy, scientific literacy and reading comprehension, PISA test of scientific literacy question types

References

• Akyol, H. (2014). Turkish Teaching. Ankara: PegemA.
• Altınok, H. (2004). Teacher candidates’ evaluation of their teaching competencies. Hacettepe University Educational Faculty Journal, (26), 1-8.
• Aslanoğlu, A. E. (2007). Factors related to the reading comprehension skills of 4th grade students according to data of pirls 2001 turkey. (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). Ankara University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Ankara.
• Aydin, U. & Bulgan, G. (2017). Adaptation of children’s test anxiety scale to turkish. Elementary Education Online, 16(2), 887-899.
• Başaran, M. (2013-a). Reading fluency as an indicator of reading comprehension. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 13(4), 1303-0485.
• Başaran, M. (2013-b) Measurement of reading comprehension using meaning-based paragraphs with multiple-choice questions. Journal of Educational Sciences Research, 3(2),107-121.
• Bayat, N., Şekercioğlu, G. & Bakır, S. (2014). The relationship between reading comprehension and success in science. Education and Science, 39(176), 457-466.
• Bell, R. L. & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the Nature of Science and Decision Making on Science and Technology Based Issues. Science Education, 87(3), 352–377.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2016). Thoughts on exams - expert evaluation on the current situation on the assessment and evaluation system in turkey. Kalem Education and Human Sciences Journal, 6(2), 345-356.
• Cain, K., Oakhill, J. & 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.
• Camine, L. & Camine, D. (2004). The interaction of reading skills and science content knowledge when teaching struggling secondary students. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 20, 203–218.
• Craker, D. E. (2006). “Attitudes toward science of students enrolled in introductory level science courses at UW-La Crosse” UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research IX, 1-6.
• Creswell, J. W. (2011). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (3. Ed.). USA: Pearson Education Inc.
• Cunningham, R. T. & Turgut, M. F. (1996). Primary education science teaching. Ankara: MEGP.
• Çalışkan, M. (2008). The impact of school and student related factors on scientific literacy skills in the programme for international student assessment-PISA 2006. (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). Middle East Technical University. The Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Ankara.
• Ekici, S. & Yılmaz, B. (2013). An evaluation on fatih project. Turkish librarianship., 27(2), 317 – 339.
• Eraslan, A & Eraslan, A. (2009). Reasons behind the success of finland in pısa: lessons for turkey. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3(2), 283-248.
• Eryılmaz, S. & Uluyol, Ç. (2015) Evaluation of fatih project in the consideration of 21st century. Gazi University journal of Gazi Educational Faculty, 35(2), 209-229.
• German, P. J. (1988). Development of the attitude toward science in school assessment and its use to investigate the relationship between science achievement and attitude toward science in school. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(8), 689-703.
• Gijbels, D. & Dochy, F. (2006). Students’ assessment preferences and approaches to learning: Can formative assessment make a difference? Educational Studies, 32(4), 399-409.
• Grimm, K. J. (2008). Longitudinal associations between reading and mathematics achievement. Developmental Neuropsychology, 33(3), 410-426.
• Guthrie, J. T. & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Ed.), Handbook of reading research, V. 3. (403–422). Londra: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
• Hamurcu, H. (2002). Effective attitudes in science teaching. Journal of Educational Research. 8, 144-152.
• İskenderoğlu, T. & Baki, A. (2011). Classification of the Questions in an 8th Grade Mathematics Textbook with Respect to the Competency Levels of PISA. Education and Science, 36(161), 287-301.
• Kolıć-Vehovec, S., Bajšanskı, I., & Zubkovıć, B. R. (2011). The role of reading strategies in scientific text comprehension and academic achievement of university students. Review of Psychology, 18(2), 81- 90.
• Jenkins, J. R. & Pany, D. (1978). Standardized achievement tests: How useful for special education? Exceptional Children, 44, 448- 453.
• Karabay, E. (2013). Investigation of the predictive power of family and school characteristics for pisa reading skills, mathematics, and science literacy by years (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). Gazi University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Ankara.
• Katz, S. & Lautenschlager, G. J. (1994). Answering reading comprehension items without passages on the SAT-I, the ACT, and the GRE. Educational Assessment, 2 (4), 295-308.
• Kaya, V. H. & Doğan, A. (2017). Determination and comparison of Turkish student characteristics affecting science literacy in Turkey according to 100 PISA 2012. Research Journal of Business and Management (RJBM), 4(1), 34-51.
• Kilpatrick, J. (2001). Understanding mathematical literacy: the contribution of research. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47(1), 101-116.
• Korkmaz, F. (2012). Contribution of some factors to eighth grade students’ science achievement in turkey: TIMSS 2007. (Unpublished master thesis), Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
• Kozcu Çakır, N., Şenler, B. & Göçmen Taşkın, B. (2007). Primary education II. determining the attitudes of the level students towards science lesson. Turkish Journal of Educational Sciences, 5(4), 637-655.
• Lai, S. A., Benjamin, R. G., Schwanenflugel, P. J., &Kuhn, M. R. (2014). The longitudinal relationship between reading fluency and reading comprehension skills in secondgrade children. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 30(2), 116-138.
• Lerkkanen, M. K., Rasku-Puttonen, H., Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J. E. (2005). Mathematical performance predicts progress in reading comprehension among 7-year-olds. European journal of psychology of education, 20(2), 121-137.
• MEB (2010). PISA 2006 project national final report. Ankara: General Directorate of Education Research and Development.
• MEB (2013). PISA 2012 national preliminary report. Ankara: General Directorate of Innovation and Educational Technologies.
• MEB, (2018). Primary education institutions (Primary and Secondary Schools) science course (3,4,5,6,7 and 8th grades) curriculum. Ministry of National Education Board of Education and Discipline, Ankara.
• Millar, R. (2006). Twenty first century science: insights from the design and implementation of a scientific literacy approach in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(13), 1499-1521.
• National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. USA: National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
• Oakhill, J., Cain, K. & Elbro, C. (2015). Understanding and teaching reading comprehension: a handbook. New York: Routledge.
• Osborne, J. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049–1079.
• OECD. (2012). Education at a Glance 2012: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing.
• OECD. (2013a). PISA 2012 Results: Excellence Through Equity: Giving Every Student the Chance to Succeed (Volume II), PISA. OECD Publishing.
• OECD. (2013b). Education at a Glance 2013: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing.
• OECD. (2014b). Strengthening Resilience through Education and Skills: PISA Results.
• OECD (2019). PISA 2018 results volume I: What students know and can do. Paris: OECD Publishing.
• Papanastasiou, E. C.& Zembylas, M. (2004): Differential effects of science attitudes and science achievement in Australia, Cyprus, and the USA, International Journal of Science Education 26(3),259-280.
• Pape, S. J. (2004). Middle school children's problem-solving behavior: A cognitive analysis from a reading comprehension perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(3), 187-219.
• Paris, S. G., Carpenter, R. D., Paris, A. H. & Hamilton, E. E. (2005). Spurious and genuine correlates of children's reading comprehension. center for improvement of early reading achievement. S. G. Paris & S. A. Stahl (Ed.), Children's reading comprehension and assessment (131–160). Londra: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
• Passolunghi, M.C., & Pazzaglia, F. (2005). A comparison of updating processes in children good or poor in arithmetic word problem-solving. Learning and Individual Differences, 15(4), 257–269.
• Pellerin (2012). Improving mathematical reasoning and discourse through problem solving. University of South Florida St. Petersburg Student Research Journal, 2(1), 1-14.
• Sanger, M. J. (2000). Addressing student misconceptions concerning electron flow in aqueous solutions with instruction including computer animations and conceptual change strategies, Intermational Journal of Science Education, 22(5), 521-537.
• Snow, C. E. (2002). Reading for understanding: toward a research and development program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica: RAND.
• Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Pearson Education Inc.
• Taylor, S. E. (2011). The dynamic activity of reading. S. E. Taylor (Ed.). Exploring silent reading fluency: Its nature and development (pp. 3-37). Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.
• Usta, H. G. (2009). PISA 2006 Scientific literacy exam influencing factors of students in turkey according to the results (Unpublished Master Thesis). Ankara University, Ankara.
• Uyar Y. M. (2017). Content analysis of research papers in a journal in the field of curriculum and instruction: 2002-2015. Kastamonu Education Journal, 25(3) 1009-1024.
• Valencia, S. W. & Pearson, P. D. (1988). Principles for classroom comprehension assessment. Remedial & Special Education, 9(1), 26-35.