The Moderator Role of Gender and Socioeconomic Status in the Relationship Between Metacognitive Skills and Reading Scores

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 3, 82 - 97, 01.05.2022

İlhan Koyuncu , Metin Bulus , Tahsin Fırat

https://doi.org/10.17275/per.22.55.9.3

Cited By: 3

Öz

The aim of this study was to examine the moderator role of gender and socioeconomic status (SES) factors in the relationship between students' metacognitive skills and reading performance. The sample of the study was 6890 students in the age group of 15 years-old who participated in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) in 2018 from Turkey. 3396 of the participants (49.30%) were female and 3494 (50.70%) of them were male. Of the participants, 2273 (32.99%) were classified as low, 2273 (32.99%) as medium and 2344 (34.02%) as high socioeconomic level. Moderator effects were tested with the multi-group structural equation modelling approach. Results revealed that SES and gender moderated the relationship between metacognitive skills and reading when controlling for other variables. Female students scored lower than male students in low and medium SES group, however they scored higher in the high SES group even after controlling for metacognitive skills, liking reading, and self-concept of perception of competence and difficulty. This means gender differences in reading scores were largely driven by SES. Therefore, the effect of these two factors should be taken into consideration while working on metacognition and reading. Moreover, it was advised to integrate training of metacognitive strategies in school curriculum and encourage reading engagement in order to reduce the effect of those factors.

Anahtar Kelimeler

moderator effect, multi-group structural equation modeling, metacognition, reading achievement, PISA

Kaynakça

• Akyol, G., Sungur, S., & Tekkaya, C. (2010). The contribution of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use to students' science achievement. Educational Research and Evaluation, 16(1), 1-21.
• Anastasiou, D., & Griva, E. (2009). Awareness of reading strategy use and reading comprehension among poor and good readers. Elementary Education Online, 8(2), 283-297.
• Artelt, C., Schiefele, U. & Schneider, W. (2001). Predictors of reading. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 16(3), 363–383.
• Asparouhov,T. (2005). Sampling weights in latent variable modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 23, 411–434.
• Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2010). Resampling methods in Mplus for complex survey data. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(4), 535-569.
• Bembenutty, H. (2007). Self-regulation of learning and academic delay of gratification: Gender and ethnic differences among college students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18(4), 586–616.
• Best, R. M., Floyd, R. G., & Mcnamara, D. S. (2008). Differential competencies contributing to children's comprehension of narrative and expository texts. Reading Psychology, 29(2), 137-164.
• Bilican, S., & Yıldırım, Ö. (2014). The effects of approaches to learning on student's reflective and evaluative reading performance in Turkey: The results from PISA 2009. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 2437-2442.
• Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
• Calet, N., López‐Reyes, R., & Jiménez‐Fernández, G. (2020). Do reading comprehension assessment tests result in the same reading profile? A study of Spanish primary school children. Journal of Research in Reading, 43(1), 98-115.
• Callan, G. L., Marchant, G. J., Finch, W. H., & German, R. L. (2016). Metacognition, strategies, achievement, and demographics: Relationships across countries. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 16(5).
• Callan, G. L., Marchant, G. J., Finch, W. H., & Flegge, L. (2017). Student and school SES, gender, strategy use, and achievement. Psychology in the Schools, 54(9), 1106-1122.
• Chen F. F. (2008). What happens if we compare chopsticks with forks? The impact of making inappropriate comparisons in cross-cultural research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1005–1018.
• 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.
• Chiu, M. M., & McBride-Chang, C. (2006). Gender, context, and reading: A comparison of students in 43 countries. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(4), 331-362.
• Chuy, M., & Nitulescu, R. (2013). PISA 2009: Explaining the gender gap in reading through reading engagement and approaches to learning. Research paper. Toronto: Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC) and Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC).
• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Enders, C. K., & Mansolf, M. (2018). Assessing the fit of structural equation models with multiply imputed data. Psychological Methods, 23(1), 76–93.
• Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education (6th edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Froiland, J. M., & Oros, E. (2014). Intrinsic motivation, perceived competence and classroom engagement as longitudinal predictors of adolescent reading achievement. Educational Psychology, 34(2), 119-132.
• Geldhof, G. J., Preacher, K. J., & Zyphur, M. J. (2014). Reliability estimation in a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis framework. Psychological Methods, 19(1), 72–91.
• Gülleroğlu, D., Bilican, S., & Demirtaşlı, N. (2014). Türk öğrencilerinin PISA 2003-2006-2009 dönemlerindeki okuma becerilerini yordayan sosyoekonomik ve kültürel değişkenlerin araştırılması. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 47(2), 201-222.
• İnce, M., & Gözütok, F. D. (2018). Effect of parental education and home educational resources to student’ results of PISA reading skills test. İlköğretim Online, 17(2), 947- 958.
• Kendeou, P., Van Den Broek, P., Helder, A., & Karlsson, J. (2014). A cognitive view of reading comprehension: Implications for reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29(1), 10-16.
• Kim, W., Linan‐Thompson, S., & Misquitta, R. (2012). Critical factors in reading comprehension instruction for students with learning disabilities: A research synthesis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27(2), 66-78.
• Kolić-Vehovec, S., Rončević Zubković, B., & 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.
• Kotte, D., Lietz, P., & Lopez, M. M. (2005). Factors Influencing Reading Achievement in Germany and Spain: Evidence from PISA 2000. International Education Journal, 6(1), 113-124.
• Koyuncu, İ., & Fırat, T. (2020). Investigating Reading Literacy in PISA 2018 Assessment. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 13(2), 263-275. Lau, K. L., & Chan, D. W. (2003). Reading strategy use and motivation among Chinese good and poor readers in Hong Kong. Journal of Research in Reading, 26(2), 177-190.
• Lau, K. L., & Ho, E. S. C. (2016). Reading performance and self-regulated learning of Hong Kong students: What we learnt from PISA 2009. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(1), 159-171.
• Lim, H. J., & Jung, H. (2019). Factors related to digital reading achievement: A multi-level analysis using international large scale data. Computers & Education, 133, 82-93.
• Lynn, R., & Mikk, J. (2009). Sex differences in reading achievement. TRAMES: A Journal of the Humanities & Social Sciences, 13(63/58), 1, 3–13.
• Mak, S. K., Cheung, K. C., Soh, K., Sit, P. S., & Ieong, M. K. (2017). An examination of student-and across-level mediation mechanisms accounting for gender differences in reading performance: a multilevel analysis of reading engagement. Educational Psychology, 37(10), 1206-1221.
• Mansolf, M., Jorgensen, T. D., & Enders, C. K. (2020). A multiple imputation score test for model modification in structural equation models. Psychological Methods, 25(4), 393–411.
• Marks, G. N. (2008). Accounting for the gender gaps in student performance in reading and mathematics: Evidence from 31 countries. Oxford Review of Education, 34(1), 89-109.
• Michalsky, T., Mevarech, Z. R., & Haibi, L. (2009). Elementary school children reading scientific texts: Effects of metacognitive instruction. The Journal of Educational Research, 102(5), 363-376.
• Moll, K., Kunze, S., Neuhoff, N., Bruder, J., & Schulte-Körne, G. (2014). Specific learning disorder: Prevalence and gender differences. PLoS one, 9(7), e103537.
• Muthén, L.K. and Muthén, B.O. (1998-2012). Mplus user’s guide. Seventh Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
• OECD (2010). PISA 2009 results: learning to learn Student engagement, strategies and practices (Vol III) http://dx.doi.org/10.178/9789264083943.
• OECD (2019). PISA 2018 assessment and analytical framework. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b25efab8-en
• OECD (n.d.). PISA 2018 Technical Report. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/pisa2018technicalreport/
• Pressley, M. (2002). Metacognition and self-regulated comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 291–309). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
• Rajchert, J. M., Żułtak, T., & Smulczyk, M. (2014). Predicting reading literacy and its improvement in the Polish national extension of the PISA study: The role of intelligence, trait-and state-anxiety, socio-economic status and school-type. Learning and Individual Differences, 33, 1-11.
• Roeschl-Heils, A., Schneider, W., & van Kraayenoord, C. E. (2003). Reading, metacognition and motivation: A follow-up study of German students in grades 7 and 8. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 18(1), 75-86.
• Rogiers, A., Van Keer, H., & Merchie, E. (2020). The profile of the skilled reader: An investigation into the role of reading enjoyment and student characteristics. International Journal of Educational Research, 99, 101512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.101512
• Rutter, M., Caspi, A., Fergusson, D., Horwood, L. J., Goodman, R., Maughan, B., ... & Carroll, J. (2004). Sex differences in developmental reading disability: New findings from 4 epidemiological studies. Jama, 291(16), 2007-2012.
• Säälik, Ü. (2015). Reading performance, learning strategies, gender and school language as related issues–PISA 2009 findings in Finland and Estonia. International Journal of Teaching and Education, 3(2), 17-30.
• Säälik, Ü., Nissinen, K., & Malin, A. (2015). Learning strategies explaining differences in reading proficiency. Findings of Nordic and Baltic countries in PISA 2009. Learning and Individual Differences, 42, 36-43.
• Sencibaugh, J. (2007). Meta-analysis of reading comprehension interventions for students with learning disabilities: Strategies and implications. Reading Improvement, 44(1), 6-22.
• Shala, A., & Grajcevci, A. (2018). Kosovo’s low performance in PISA 2015: An explanation from a socioeconomic perspective. Educational Process: International Journal, 7(1), 48-59.
• Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among native and non-native readers. System, 29(4), 431–449.
• Sideridis, G. D., Mouzaki, A., Simos, P., & Protopapas, A. (2006). Classification of students with reading comprehension difficulties: The roles of motivation, affect, and psychopathology. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29(3), 159-180.
• Stapleton, L. M. (2008). Variance estimation using replication methods in structural equation modeling with complex sample data. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 15(2), 183-210.
• Solheim, O. J., & Lundetræ, K. (2018). Can test construction account for varying gender differences in international reading achievement tests of children, adolescents and young adults? A study based on Nordic results in PIRLS, PISA and PIAAC. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 25(1), 107-126.
• Torppa, M., Eklund, K., Sulkunen, S., Niemi, P., & Ahonen, T. (2018). Why do boys and girls perform differently on PISA Reading in Finland? The effects of reading fluency, achievement behaviour, leisure reading and homework activity. Journal of Research in Reading, 41(1), 122-139.
• Vázquez-Cano, E., la Calle-Cabrera, D., María, A., Hervás-Gómez, C., & López-Meneses, E. (2020). Socio-Family Context and Its Influence on Students' PISA Reading Performance Scores: Evidence from Three Countries in Three Continents. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 20(2), 50-62.
• Wu, J. Y. (2014). Gender differences in online reading engagement, metacognitive strategies, navigation skills and reading literacy. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(3), 252-271.
• Wu, J. Y., & Peng, Y. C. (2017). The modality effect on reading literacy: Perspectives from students’ online reading habits, cognitive and metacognitive strategies, and web navigation skills across regions. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(7), 859-876.
• van Bergen, E., Vasalampi, K., & Torppa, M. (2020). How are practice and performance related? Development of reading from age 5 to 15. Reading Research Quarterly. Advance online publication. doi:10.1002/rrq.309
• van den Broek, P., & Espin, C. A. (2012). Connecting cognitive theory and assessment: Measuring individual differences in reading comprehension. School Psychology Review, 41(3), 315-325.
• van Kraayenoord, C. E., & Schneider, W. E. (1999). Reading achievement, metacognition, reading self-concept and interest: A study of German students in grades 3 and 4. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14(3), 305-324.
• Vázquez-Cano, E., la Calle-Cabrera, D., María, A., Hervás-Gómez, C., & López-Meneses, E. (2020). Socio-Family Context and Its Influence on Students' PISA Reading Performance Scores: Evidence from Three Countries in Three Continents. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 20(2), 50-62.
• Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Scammacca, N. K., Metz, K., Murray, C. S., Roberts, G., & Danielson, L. (2013). Extensive reading interventions for students with reading difficulties after grade 3. Review of Educational Research, 83(2), 163-195.
• Wu, J. Y. (2014). Gender differences in online reading engagement, metacognitive strategies, navigation skills and reading literacy. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(3), 252-271.
• Yuan, K.-H., Yang-Wallentin, F., & Bentler, P. M. (2012). ML Versus MI for Missing Data with Violation of Distribution Conditions. Sociological Methods & Research, 41(4), 598–629.