Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
net/publication/334375376
CITATIONS READS
0 85
7 authors, including:
26 PUBLICATIONS 206 CITATIONS
Mugla Üniversitesi
78 PUBLICATIONS 387 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Öğretmen Kimliği, Motivasyon, Öz Yeterlilik, Ait Olma ve Sosyal Destek Değişkenleri Arasındaki İlişkiler: Bir Yapısal Eşitlilik Modelleme Çalışması View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Huzeyfe Bilge on 10 July 2019.
Mustafa Yildiz, Pinar Kanik Uysal, Huzeyfe Bilge, Alissa Patricia Wolters,
Yavuz Saka, Kasim Yildirim & Timothy Rasinski
To cite this article: Mustafa Yildiz, Pinar Kanik Uysal, Huzeyfe Bilge, Alissa Patricia Wolters,
Yavuz Saka, Kasim Yildirim & Timothy Rasinski (2019): Relationships between Turkish Eighth-
Grade Students’ Oral Reading Efficacy, Reading Comprehension and Achievement Scores on a
High-Stakes Achievement Test, Reading Psychology, DOI: 10.1080/02702711.2018.1555363
MUSTAFA YILDIZ
Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey
HUZEYFE BILGE
Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey
YAVUZ SAKA
Bulent Ecevit University, Zonguldak, Turkey
KASIM YILDIRIM
Mugla Sitki Kocman University, Mugla, Turkey
TIMOTHY RASINSKI
Kent State University, Kent, Ohio
The present study aimed to explore the relation between students’ oral reading
efficacy, reading comprehension, and academic performance on a nationwide
high school placement exam (TEOG). The students were selected from a pub-
lic middle school. The students’ oral reading efficacy, comprehension, and
TEOG achievement scores were obtained to figure out the relations between
them. The students’ TEOG results were obtained from the school administra-
tion. The findings revealed that there were statistically significant relations
between oral reading efficacy, reading comprehension and TEOG
1
2 M. Yildiz et al.
Research Questions
Method
Participants
Measures
Reading Comprehension
TEOG Scores
Procedure
Findings
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Speed –
2. Accuracy 0.80 –
3. Comprehension 0.39 0.37 –
4. Language arts 0.52 0.59 0.65 –
5. Mathematics 0.28 0.31 0.42 0.68 –
6. Science 0.44 0.47 0.53 0.73 0.78 –
7. English 0.37 0.33 0.62 0.64 0.60 0.67 –
8. History 0.63 0.60 0.59 0.78 0.58 0.68 0.59 –
9. Religion 0.46 0.55 0.56 0.72 0.51 0.53 0.50 0.58 –
10. TEOG 0.54 0.57 0.66 0.90 0.83 0.88 0.81 0.84 0.74
Predicted Predictors B SE B b R2
Language arts Speed 0.01 0.11 0.01 0.57
Accuracy 1.44 0.40 0.41
Comprehension 0.62 0.09 0.51
Mathematics Speed 0.01 0.17 0.01 0.21
Accuracy 0.76 0.61 0.19
Comprehension 0.49 0.14 0.36
Science Speed 0.06 0.14 0.06 0.37
Accuracy 1.05 0.52 0.28
Comprehension 0.54 0.12 0.41
English Speed 0.16 0.16 0.14 0.39
Accuracy 0.17 0.60 0.04
Comprehension 0.81 0.14 0.53
History Speed 0.33 0.13 0.31 0.55
Accuracy 0.84 0.47 0.21
Comprehension 0.56 0.11 0.40
Religion Speed 0.04 0.11 0.05 0.45
Accuracy 1.40 0.42 0.44
Comprehension 0.47 0.10 0.42
Overall TEOG Speed 0.46 0.59 0.09 0.57
Accuracy 5.96 2.19 0.31
Comprehension 3.42 0.50 0.51
Discussion
this is the first study to measure the relation between reading effi-
cacy, reading comprehension, and the subjects English (as a for-
eign language), history and religion. This study found that these
subjects were also significantly predicted by reading comprehen-
sion. In addition, accuracy significantly predicted students’ lan-
guage arts, science, religion, and overall TEOG scores. Reading
comprehension and accuracy explained 57% of the variation in
the overall exam scores (similar findings to Ceren & Deniz,
2015). On the other hand, speed only significantly predicted stu-
dent’s History scores. These findings were surprising for unique
relation was expected between English, due to its opaque alpha-
bet (Patel, Snowling, & de Jong, 2004) in contrast to Turkish’s
transparent (Oney & Durgunoglu, 1997), and the other subjects.
However, since speed and accuracy were measured in Turkish,
and not in English, this could have contributed to these findings.
In all subjects, the general lack of relationship between
reading efficacy (speed and accuracy), in predicting exam
scores may be due to multiple factors, such as the reading
development stage of the students and the transparency of the
Turkish orthography. For example, relevant literature provides
varying evidence regarding efficacy and academic performance
relations and the impact of oral reading efficacy on students’
test performances (Basaran, 2013; Hunley, Davies, & Miller,
2013; Nunez, 2009; Yilmaz, 2011), but this could be due to the
fact that these studies measure students in different phases of
reading development in languages with different levels of lan-
guage opacity. According to Chall (1983), eighth-grade stu-
dents at the end of the year would be expected to be between
the third and fourth stage of reading development. This would
suggest that all students, in general, have well-developed, auto-
matic decoding skills and that, therefore, their abilities in read-
ing efficacy and reading comprehension may be less related,
and that general reading comprehension skills would be more
important for their automaticity scores are no longer develop-
ing. This was supported by the weak-to-moderate correlations
found between reading comprehension and speed (r ¼ 0.39)
and accuracy (r ¼ 0.37) and the stronger overall correlations
between reading comprehension and TEOG scores (range
r ¼ 0.42–0.66; average r ¼ 0.58) compared to TEOG scores and
12 M. Yildiz et al.
Conclusion
NOTE
Funding
References
Armbruster, B. B., Lehr, F., & Osborn, J. (2001). The research building blocks for
teaching children to read: Put reading first: Kindergarten through grade 3. Jessup,
MD: National Institute for Literacy.
Ates, M. (2008). Ilkogretim ikinci kademe ogrencilerinin okudugunu anlama duzeyleri
ile Turkce dersine karsi tutumlari ve akademik basarilari arasindaki iliski [The
relationship 2nd grade elementary school students’ reading comprehension, attitudes
towards Turkish language arts, and academic achievements] (Unpublished doc-
toral dissertation). Selcuk University, Konya.
Ballard, K., & Bates, A. (2008). Making a connection between student achieve-
ment, teacher accountability, and quality classroom instruction. The
Qualitative Report, 13(4), 560–580.
Barksdale-Ladd, M. A., & Thomas, K. F. (2000). What’s at stake in high-stakes
testing: Teachers and parents speak out. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(5),
384–397. doi:10.1177/0022487100051005006
Basaran, M. (2013). Reading fluency as an indicator of reading comprehen-
sion. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 13(4), 2287–2290.
Bastug, M. (2012). Ilkogretim I. kademe ogrencilerinin akici okuma becerilerinin cesi-
tli degiskenler acisindan incelenemesi [Examination of elementary school students’
reading fluency skills according to different variables] (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). Gazi University, Ankara.
Bastug, M. (2014). The structural relationship of reading attitude, reading
comprehension and academic achievement. International Journal of Social
Sciences & Education, 4(4), 931–946.
Bastug, M., & Akyol, H. (2010). Akici okuma becerilerinin okudugunu anla-
mayi yordama duzeyi [The level of prediction of reading comprehension
by fluent reading skills]. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 5(4),
394–411.
Bastug, M., & Keskin, H. K. (2012). Akici okuma becerileri ile anlama duzey-
leri arasindaki iliski (Basit ve Cikarimsal) [The relationship between fluent
reading skills and comprehension level (literal and inferential). KEFAD,
13(3), 227–244.
Beal, C. R., Adams, N. M., & Cohen, P. R. (2010). Reading proficiency and
mathematics problem solving by high school English language learners.
Urban Education, 45(1), 58–74. doi:10.1177/0042085909352143
Bigozzi, L., Tarchi, C., Vagnoli, L., Valente, E., & Pinto, G. (2017). Reading
fluency as a predictor of school outcomes across grades 4–9. Frontiers in
Psychology, 8, 200.
Bj€
orn, P. M., Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2016). Primary school text compre-
hension predicts mathematical word problem-solving skills in secondary
school. Educational Psychology, 36(2), 326–377.
Buck, J., & Torgesen, J. (2003). The relationship between performance on a
measure of oral reading fluency and performance on the Florida
Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCRR Tech. Rep. No. 1). Tallahassee,
FL: Florida Center for Reading Research. Retrieved from www.fcrr.org/
Technical Reports/TechnicalReport1.pdf
18 M. Yildiz et al.
Ceren, D., & Deniz, K. (2015). TEOG Sinavi sorularinin okuma becerisiyle cozule-
bilme duzeyi [The level of solving questions of transition from primary to
secondary education (TPSE) test by reading skill]s. Journal of Mother Tongue
Education, 3(2), 92–109.
Cetinkaya, G., Ulper, H., & Yagmur, K. (2015). Ogrencilerin dogru ve akici
sessiz sozcuk okuma becerileriyle kavrama basarilari arasindaki ilisiki
[Relationship between students’ accurate and fluent silent word reading
skills and their comprehension]. Elementary Education Online, 14(3),
993–1004.
Chall, J. S. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Cimbricz, S. (2002). State-mandated testing and teachers’ beliefs and practice.
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(2), 2–22. doi:10.14507/epaa.v10n2.2002
Cimmiyotti, C. B. (2013). Impact of reading ability on academic performance at the
primary level (Unpublished master’s thesis). Dominican University,
Columbus, OH.
Cizek, G. J. (2001). More unintended consequences of high-stakes testing.
Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 20(4), 19–27. doi:10.1111/
j.1745-3992.2001.tb00072.x
Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., & Petrella, J. N. (2004). Effective reading com-
prehension instruction: Examining child x instruction interactions. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 96(4), 682–698. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.4.682
Denton, C. A., Barth, A. E., Fletcher, J. M., Wexler, J., Vaughn, S., Cirino,
P. T., … Francis, D. J. (2011). The relations among oral and silent reading
fluency and comprehension in middle school: Implications for identifica-
tion and instruction of students with reading difficulties. Scientific Studies of
Reading, 15(2), 109–135. doi:10.1080/10888431003623546
Doupone-Horvat, M. (2004, May). Reading achievement and school perform-
ance. Paper presented at the 1st IEA International Research Conference,
Lefkosia, Cyprus.
Durkin, D. (1978). What classroom observations reveal about reading compre-
hension instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 14(4), 481–533. doi:
10.1598/RRQ.14.4.2
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading flu-
ency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and
historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 239–256. doi:10.1207/
S1532799XSSR0503_3
Grimm, K. J. (2008). Longitudinal associations between reading and mathem-
atics achievement. Developmental Neuropsychology, 33(3), 410–426. doi:
10.1080/87565640801982486
Guldenoglu, I. B., Kargin, T., & Miller, P. (2012). Comparing the word proc-
essing and reading comprehension of skilled and less skilled readers.
Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 12(4), 2822–2828.
Hayes, J., & Flowers, L. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing. In
L. W Gregg & E. R Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp.
3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hengeveld, K., & Leufkens, S. (2018). Transparent and non-transparent lan-
guages. Folia Linguistica, 52(1), 139–175. doi:10.1515/flin-2018-0003
Relationship between oral reading efficacy, reading comprehension, and achievement 19
Rasinski, T., Samuels, S. J., Hiebert, E., Petscher, Y., & Feller, K. (2011). The
relationship between a silent reading fluency instructional protocol on stu-
dents' reading comprehension and achievement in an urban school set-
ting. Reading Psychology, 32(1), 75–97. doi:10.1080/02702710903346873
Ratliff, C. H. (2007). The relationship between reading and science achievement of
fifth grade students as measured by the Texas assessment of knowledge and skills
test. Houston, TX: University of Houston.
Riedel, B. W. (2007). The relation between DIBELS, reading comprehension,
and vocabulary in urban first-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly,
42(4), 546–567. doi:10.1598/RRQ.42.4.5
Roehrig, A. D., Petscher, Y., Nettles, S. M., Hudson, R. F., & Torgesen, J. K.
(2008). Accuracy of the DIBELS oral reading fluency measure for predict-
ing third grade reading comprehension outcomes. Journal of School
Psychology, 46(3), 343–366. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2007.06.006
Rotberg, I. (2006). Assessment around the world. Educational Leadership,
64(3), 58–63.
Sever, S. (2000). Turkce ogretimi ve tam ogrenme [Turkish language arts teaching
and mastery learning]. Ankara: Ani.
Uccelli, P., & Phillips Galloway, E. (2017). Academic language across content
areas: Lessons from an innovative assessment and from students’ reflec-
tions about language. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 60(4), 395–404.
doi:10.1002/jaal.553
Vilenius-Tuohimaa, P. M., Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2008). The association
between mathematical word problems and reading comprehension.
Educational Psychology, 28(4), 409–426. doi:10.1080/01443410701708228
Vilger, M. P. (2008). Reading fluency: A bridge from decoding to comprehension
research brief. Ottawa: Outoskills.
Yildiz, M., Yildirim, K., & Ates, S. (2009). Pupil modeling of the legibility of
class teachers’ board writing. Journal of Human Sciences, 6(2), 75–88.
Yildiz, M. (2013). The role of the reading motivation, reading fluency and
reading comprehension on Turkish 5th graders’ academic achievement.
Turkish Studies, 8(4), 1461–1478.
Yilmaz, M. (2011). Ilk€_ ogretim 4. sinif ogrencilerinin okudugunu anlama sev-
iyeleri ile Turkce, matematik, sosyal bilgiler ve fen ve teknoloji derslerin-
deki basarilari arasındaki iliskinin belirlenmesi [Determining among to
correlation of 4th grade students’ success in Turkish, maths, social sciences
and technology lessons of reading comprehension levels]. Dumlupinar
University Journal of Social Sciences, 29(29), 9–13.
Zutell, J., & Rasinski, T. V. (1991). Training teachers to attend to their stu-
dents’ oral reading fluency. Theory into Practice, 30(3), 211–217. doi:
10.1080/00405849109543502