Learning strategies and reading performance: PISA 2009 results for Poland

• Authors: Marek Muszyński , Maciej Jakubowski
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Reading is often central to educational research since its mastery is usually considered a prerequisite and vital to wider study. Reading gaps, however, are frequently reported, not only between countries, but also nationally, (e.g., between boys and girls or students with different socio-economic backgrounds). This paper focuses on effective learning strategies that can help narrow those gaps. For new insight into the effectiveness of various reading strategies, the PISA 2009 data for Poland were analysed. The intention was to study association between different strategies and reading performance and its relation to gender, socio-economic background and reading achievement level. Using linear regression and quantile regression models, some strategies, e.g. summarising, were identified as more effective and others were even counter-productive, e.g. memorisation. The observed effects varied between performance levels and according to gender, especially for strategies negatively associated with performance. This evidence suggests that although some strategies may be of equal benefit to all learners, others are potentially harmful to certain groups of students.

Keywords

EN

education; cognitive psychology; metacognitive strategies; PISA data; reading

• Publisher: Instytut Badań Edukacyjnych
• Journal: Edukacja
• Year: 2015
• Issue: 3(134)
• Pages: 5–25

Dates

published

2015-09-30

Contributors

author

Marek Muszyński

• Educational Research Institute

author

Maciej Jakubowski

• Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw

References

• Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Alvermann, D. and Earle, J. (2003). Comprehension instruction. In A. P. Sweet and C. Snow (eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 12–30). New York: Guilford.
• Aunola, K., Leskinen, E., Onatsu-Arvilommi, T. and Nurmi, J. E. (2002), Three methods for studying developmental change: a case of reading skills and self-concept. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(3), 343–364.
• Baker, L. and Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson (ed.), Handbook of Reading research (pp. 353–394). New York: Longman.
• Barry, A. L. (2002). Reading strategies teachers say they use. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 46(2), 132–141.
• Becker, M., McElvany, N. and Kortenbruck, M. (2010). Intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation as predictors of reading comprehension: a longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 773–785.
• Beishuizen, J. J. and Stoutjesdijk, E. T. (1999). Study strategies in a computer assisted study environment. Learning and Instruction, 9(3), 281–301.
• Cain, K., Oakhill, J., Barnes, M. A. and Bryant, P. E. (2001). Comprehension skill, inference making and their relation to knowledge. Memory and Cognition, 29(6), 850–859.
• Callender, A. A. and McDaniel, M. A. (2009). The limited benefits of rereading educational texts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1), 30–41.
• Cantrell, S. C., Almasi J. F., Carter, J. C., Rintamaa, M. and Madden, A. (2010). The impact of a strategy-based intervention on the comprehension and strategy use of struggling adolescent readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 257–280.
• Carlisle, J. F., Cortina, K. S. and Zeng, J. (2010). Reading achievement in reading first schools in Michigan. Journal of Literacy Research, 42(1), 49–70.
• Carretti, B., Caldarola, N., Tencati, Ch. and 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.
• Chiu, M. M., Chow, B. W-Y. and 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.
• Clark, R. M. (1988). Parents as providers of linguistic and social capital. Educational Horizons, 66(2), 93–95.
• Coulter, G. (2004). Using one-to-one tutoring and proven reading strategies to improve reading performance with adjudicated youth. Journal of Correctional Education, 55(4), 321–333.
• Cummins, J. (1983). Policy report: language & literacy learning in bilingual instruction. Ontario: Southwest Educational Laboratory.
• Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J. and Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science, 14(1), 4–58.
• Elosúa, M. R., García-Madruga, J. A., Vila, J. O., Gómez-Veiga, I. and Gil, L. (2013). Improving reading comprehension: from metacognitive intervention on strategies to the intervention on working memory executive processes. Universitas Psychologica, 12(5), 1425–1438.
• Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231–235). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
• Flavell, J. and Wellman, T. (1977). Metamemory. In R. Kail and J. Hagen (eds.), Perspectives on the development of memory and cognition. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
• Gagné, E. D., Yekovich, C. W. and Yekovich, F. R. (1993). The cognitive psychology of schooling learning. New York: HarperCollins College Publishers.
• Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P. and Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: a review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71(2), 279–320.
• 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. (2000). Sex differences in cognitive abilities (3rd ed.). London: Erlbaum.
• Honigsfeld, A. and Dunn, R. (2003). High school male and female learning-style similarities and differences in diverse nations. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(4), 195–206.
• Hu, L. T. and Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.
• Isaacs, C. and Carroll, W. (1999). Strategies for basic-facts instruction. Teaching Children in Mathematics, 5(9), 1–17.
• Iwai, Y. (2011). The effects of metacognitive reading strategies: pedagogical implications for EFL/ESL teachers. The Reading Matrix, 11(2), 150–159.
• Jakubowski, M. and Pokropek, A. (2013). PISATOOLS: Stata module to facilitate analysis of the data from the PISA OECD study. In Statistical Software Components S457754. Retrieved from http://econpapers.repec.org/software/bocbocode/s457754.htm
• James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology (vol. 1). New York: Holt.
• Jones, M. G. and Wheatley, J. (1990). Gender differences in teacher-student interactions in science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(9), 861–874.
• Kamil, M. L., Pearson, P. D., Moje, E. B. and Afflerbach, P. P. (eds.). (2011). Handbook of reading research (vol. IV). New York: Routledge.
• 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 from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED413778.pdf
• Karpicke, J. D. and Grimaldi, P. J. (2012). Retrieval-based learning: a perspective for enhancing meaningful learning. Educational Psychology Review, 24, 401–418.
• Karpicke, J. D., Butler, A. C. and Roediger, H. L. (2009). Metacognitive strategies in student learning: do students practice retrieval when they study on their own? Memory, 17(4), 471–479.
• Keskin, H. K. (2013). Impacts of reading metacognitive strategies and reading attitudes on school success. International Journal of Academic Research, 5(5), 312–317.
• Koenker, R. and Hallock, K. (2001). Quantile regression. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(4), 143–156.
• Koriat, A. (2007). Metacognition and consciousness. In P. D. Zelazo, M. Moscovitch and E. Thompson (eds.), Cambridge handbook of consciousness (pp. 289–325). New York: 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). Göttingen: Hogrefe
• Kraayenoord, C. E. van and Schneider, W. (1999). Reading achievement, metacognition, reading self-concept and interest: a study of German students in Grades 3 and 4. European Journal of Psychology, 14(3), 305–324.
• Lau, W. W. F. and Yuen, A. H. K. (2010). Gender differences in learning styles: nurturing a gender and style sensitive computer science classroom. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(7), 1090–1103.
• Li, J. and Chun, C. K. W. (2012). Effects of learning strategies on student reading literacy performance. The Reading Matrix, 12(1), 30–37.
• Logan, S. and Johnston, R. (2010). Investigating gender differences in reading. Educational Review, 62(2), 175–187.
• Mayer, R. E. (2008). Learning and instruction (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
• McDaniel, M. A., Howard, D. C. and Einstein, G. O. (2009). The read-recite-review study strategy. Psychological Science, 20(1), 516–522.
• McDaniel, M. A., Roediger, H. L. and McDermott, K. B. (2007). Generalizing test-enhanced learning from the laboratory to the classroom. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(2), 200–206.
• McKoon, G. and Ratcliff, R. (1992). Inference during reading. Psychological Review, 99(3), 440–466.
• Meyer, J. H. F. (2000). The modeling of “dissonant” study orchestration in higher education. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15(1), 5–18.
• Muniz-Swicegood, M. (1994). The effects of metacognitive reading strategy training on the reading performance and student reading analysis strategies of third grade bilingual students. Bilingual Research Journal, 18(1–2), 83–97.
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2010). PISA 2009 results. Learning to learn: student engagement, strategies and practices. Paris: OECD Publishing.
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2012). PISA 2009 Technical Report. Paris: OECD Publishing.
• Ortlieb, E. (2013). Using anticipatory reading guides to improve elementary students’ comprehension. International Journal of Instruction, 6(2), 145–162.
• 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.
• Paternoster, R., Brame, R., Mazerolle, P. and Piquero, A. (1998). Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology, 36(4), 859–866.
• 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 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.
• Pressley, M. and Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: the nature of constructively responsive reading. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
• Pressley, M., Goodchild, F., Fleet, F., Zajchowski, R. and Evans, E. D. (1989). The challenges of classroom strategy instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 89(3), 301–342.
• Roediger, H. L. and Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255.
• Scharlach, T. (2008). START comprehending: students and teachers actively reading text. The Reading Teacher, 62(1), 20–31.
• Severiens, S. E. and Ten Dam, G. T. M. (1997). Gender and gender identity differences in learning styles. Educational Psychology, 17(1–2), 79–93.
• Spoerer, N., Brunstein, J. C. and Kieschke, U. (2009). Improving students’ reading comprehension skills: effects of strategy instruction and reciprocal teaching. Learning and Instruction, 19(3), 272–286.
• Thiede, K. W. and Anderson, M. C. M. (2003). Summarizing can improve metacomprehension accuracy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(2), 129–160.
• Thonis, E. (1983). The English-Spanish connection. Hillsdale: Santillana.
• Vermunt, J. D. (1996). Metacognitive, cognitive and affective aspects of learning styles and strategies: a phenomenographic analysis. Higher Education, 31(1), 25–50.
• Vermunt, J. D. and 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.
• Warm, T. A. (1985). Weighted maximum likelihood estimation of ability item response theory with tests of finite length. Technical Report CGI-TR-85-08. Oklahoma City: U.S. Coast Guard Institute.
• Weinstein, Y., McDermott, K. B. and Roediger, H. K. (2010). A comparison of study strategies for passages: rereading, answering questions and generating questions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16(3), 308–316.

Notes

http://www.edukacja.ibe.edu.pl/images/numery/2015/3-1-muszynski-jakubowski-learning-strategies-and-reading-performance.pdf

Identifiers

ISSN

0239-6858