Exploring the relationship among new literacies, reading, mathematics and science performance of Turkish students in PISA 2012

Serkan ARIKAN , Kasım Yıldırım, Evrim ERBILGIN


Turkish students on average had lower scores than OECD countries on mathematics, science, and reading at international assessment programs. As PISA measures the extent to which 15-year-old students are prepared to handle the challenges they may encounter in their future lives, and evaluates students’ ability to reflect and to apply their knowledge and experience to real-life situations, low scores on this assessment should be investigated carefully. Therefore, in this study we aimed to explore the relationships between new literacy skills, reading, mathematics, and science performance of Turkish students. The results showed that new literacy skills measured in PISA had two dimensional structure including at and outside of school new literacy skills. These new literacy skills were shown to predict reading performance significantly, at school negatively and outside of school positively. It was also shown that reading performance and new literacy skills were effective in the prediction of both mathematics and science performances.


PISA 2012, new literacies, reading performance, mathematics performance, science performance.

Paper Details

Paper Details
Topic Elementary Education
Pages 573 - 588
Issue IEJEE, Volume 8, Issue 4
Date of acceptance 14 March 2016
Read (times) 470
Downloaded (times) 278

Author(s) Details


Mugla Sitki Kocman University, Turkey

Kasım Yıldırım

Mugla Sitki Kocman University, Turkey


Mugla Sitki Kocman University, Turkey


Afshari, M., Bakar, K. A., Luan, W. S., Samah, B. A., & Fooi, F. S. (2009). Factors affecting teachers' use of information and communication technology. Online Submission, 2(1), 77-104.

Anne T. O., Krista, D. G., Timothy, J. N., & Peggy, A. E. (2010). Teacher value beliefs associated with using technology: Addressing professional and student needs. Computers & Education, 55, 1321-1335.

Armbruster, B. (1992). Science and reading. The Reading Teacher, 46(4), 346-347.

Baker , E . (Ed.). (2010). The new literacies: Multiple perspectives on research and practice. New York, NY: Guilford.

Bulfin, S., & North, S. (2007). Negotiating digital literacy practices across school and home: Case studies of young people in Australia. Language and Education, 21(3), 247-263.

Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., Tsai, C. C., & Tan, L. L. W. (2011). Modeling primary school pre-service teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) for meaningful learning with information and communication technology (ICT). Computers & Education, 57, 1184-1193.

Chase, Z., & Laufenberg, D. (2011). Embracing the squishiness of digital literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(7), 535-537.

Cicchetti, D. V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6, 284-290.

Coiro, J. (2003). Reading comprehension on the Internet: Expanding our understanding of reading comprehension to encompass new literacies. The Reading Teacher, 56(5), 458-464.

Coiro, J. (2009). Rethinking online reading assessment. Educational Leadership, 66(6), 59-63.

Coiro, J. (2011). Predicting reading comprehension on the internet contributions of offline reading skills, online reading skills, and prior knowledge. Journal of Literacy Research, 43(4), 352-392.

Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). “Multiliteracies”: New literacies, new learning. Pedagogies: An international journal, 4(3), 164-195.

Coppola, E. M. (2004). Powering up: Learning to teach well with technology. New York: Teachers College Press.

Cromley, J. (2009). Reading achievement and science proficiency: International comparisons from the programme on international student assessment. Reading Psychology, 30, 89-118.

Cüre, F., & Özdener, N. (2008). Öğretmenlerin bilgi ve iletişim teknolojileri (BİT) uygulama başarıları ve BİT’e yönelik tutumları. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 34, 41-53.

Çakır, R., & Yıldırım, S. (2009). What do computer teachers think about the factors affecting technology integration in schools. İlköğretim Online, 8(3), 952-964.

Demps, D. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2001). The relationship between eighth-grade reading scores and achievement on the Georgia High School Graduation Test. Research in the Schools, 8(2), 1-9.

Dreyer, C., & Nel, C. (2003). Teaching reading strategies and reading comprehension within a technology-enhanced learning environment. System, 31(3), 349-365.

Duru, A. & Koklu, O. (2011). Middle school students’ reading comprehension of mathematical texts and algebraic equations. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 42(4), 447-468.

Gallego, M, & Hollingsworth, S. (1992). Multiple literacies: Teachers’ evolving perceptions. Language Arts, 69(3), 206-213.

Geary, D.C., Hamson, C.O., & Hoard, M.K. (2000). Numerical and arithmetical cognition: A longitudinal study of process and concept deficits in children with learning disability. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 77, 236-263.

Goodfellow, R. (2004). Online literacies and learning: Operational, cultural and critical dimensions. Language and Education, 18(5), 379-399.

Göktaş, Y., Yıldırım, Z., & Yıldırım, S. (2008). Status of Ict in schools of teacher education: Deans’ views. Education and Science, 33(149), 30-50.

Grimm, K. (2008). Longitudinal associations between reading and mathematics achievement. Developmental Neuropsychology, 33(3), 419-420.

Grisham, D. L., & Wolsey, T. D. (2006). Recentering the middle school classroom as a vibrant learning community: Students, literacy and technology intersect. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49(8), 648-660.

Gülbahar, Y. (2008). Improving the technology integration skills of prospective teachers through practice: a case study. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 7(4), 71-81.

Henry, L. A. (2006). SEARCHing for an answer: The critical role of new literacies while reading on the Internet. The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 614-627.

Hobbs, R., & Tuzel, S. (2015). Teacher motivations for digital and media literacy: An examination of Turkish educators. British Journal of Technology, 46, 1-16.

Hu, L.T. & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives, Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118

Hull, G., & Schultz, K. (2001). Literacy and learning out of school: A review of theory and research. Review of Educational Research, 71(4), 575-611.

Ito, M., Antin, J., Finn, M., Law, A., Manion, A., Mitnick, S., ... & Horst, H. A. (2009). Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out: Kids living and learning with new media. MIT press.

Ito, M., Horst, H. A., Bittanti, M., Boyd, D., Herr-Stevenson, B., & Lange, P. (2008). White paper-Living and learning with new media: Summary of findings from the Digital Youth Project. Chicago: The John P. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.

Kayaduman, H., Sırakaya, M., & Seferoğlu, S. S. (2011). Eğitimde FATİH projesinin öğretmenlerin yeterlik durumları açısından incelenmesi. Akademik Bilişim, 11, 123-129.

Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (2009). Remix: The art and craft of endless hybridization. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(1), 22-33.

Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge.

Kuiper, E., & Volman, M. (2008). The Web as a source of information for students in K–12 education. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, & D. Leu (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 241-246). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kumar, D., & Bristor, V. (1999). Integrating Science and language arts through technology-based macrocontexts. Educational Review, 51(1), 41-53.

Lai, K. W., & Pratt, K. (2004). Information and communication technology (ICT) in secondary schools: the role of the computer coordinator. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(4), 461-475.

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2003). New literacies: Changing knowledge and classroom learning. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Leu, D.J. (2000). Literacy and technology: Deictic consequences for literacy education in an information age. In M.L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 743-770). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Leu, D.J. (2002). The new literacies: Research on reading instruction with the internet and other digital technologies. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Leu, D. J., Forzani, E., Rhoads, C., Maykel, C., Kennedy, C., & Timbrell, N. (2014). The new literacies of online research and comprehension: Rethinking the reading achievement gap. Reading Research Quarterly, 50(1), 37-59.

Leu, D. J., Gregory McVerry, J., Ian O'Byrne, W., Kiili, C., Zawilinski, L., Everett‐Cacopardo, H., Kenndy, C., & Forzani, E. (2011). The new literacies of online reading comprehension: Expanding the literacy and learning curriculum. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(1), 5-14.

Leu, D.J., Kinzer, C.K., Coiro, J., Castek, J., & Henry, L.A. (2013). New literacies: A dual level theory of the changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment. In D.E. Alvermann , N.J. Unrau & R.B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed. , pp. 1150-1181). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Lewis, C., & Fabos, B. (2005). Instant messaging, literacies, and social identities. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(4), 470-501.

Light, J.G., & DeFries, J.C. (1995). Comorbidity of reading and mathematics disabilities: Genetic and environmental etiologies. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 96-106.

López, O. S. (2010). The digital learning classroom: Improving English language learners’ academic success in mathematics and reading using interactive whiteboard technology. Computers & Education, 54(4), 901-915.

MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130-149.

Mason, L. H., & Hedin, L. (2011). Reading science text: Challenges for students with learning disabilities and considerations for teachers. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 26, 214-222.

Mills, K. A. (2010). A review of the “digital turn” in the new literacy studies. Review of Educational Research, 80(2), 246-271.

Muthen, B. O., & Muthen, L. K. (2012). Mplus (Version 7.1). California. Los Angeles.

OECD (2013a). PISA 2012 Results: What students know and can do—Student performance in mathematics, reading and science (Volume I). Paris: OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/9789264201118-en

OECD (2013b). PISA 2012 assessment and analytical framework: Mathematics, reading, science, problem solving and financial literacy. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/9789264190511-en

OECD (2014). PISA 2012 Technical Report, PISA. Paris, France: OECD Publishing

O’Reilly, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). The impact of science knowledge, reading skill, and reading strategy knowledge on more traditional “high-stakes” measures of high school students’ science achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 44(1), 161-196.

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, 187-219.

Rutkowski, L., Gonzalez, E., Joncas, M., & von Davier, M. (2010). International large-scale assessment data issues in secondary analysis and reporting. Educational Researcher, 39(2), 142-151.

Sahay, S., & Avgerou, C. (2002). Introducing the special issue on information and communication technologies in developing countries. The Information Society, 18(2), 73-76.

Schleicher, A., Zimmer, K., Evans, J., & Clements, N. (2009). PISA 2009 assessment framework : Key competencies in reading, mathematics and science. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Schmar-Dobler, E. (2003). Reading on the Internet: The link between literacy and technology. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 47(1), 80-85.

Selwyn, N., Potter, J., & Cranmer, S. (2009). Primary pupils' use of information and communication technologies at school and home. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(5), 919-932.

Street, B. (2003). What’s new in new literacy studies? Current Issues in Comparative Education, 5(2), 1-14.

Sutherland-Smith (2002). Weaving the literacy Web: Changes in reading from page to screen. The Reading Teacher, 55, 662-669.

Ullman, J. B. (2001). Structural equation modeling. In B. Tabachnick & L. S. Fidell (Eds.), Using multivariate statistics (4th ed., pp.653-771). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Usluel, Y. K., Mumcu, F. K., & Demiraslan, Y. (2007). Öğrenme-öğretme sürecinde bilgi ve iletişim teknolojileri: Öğretmenlerin entegrasyon süreci ve engelleriyle ilgili görüşleri. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 32, 164-178.

Warschauer, M., Knobel, M., & Stone, L. (2004). Technology and equity in schooling: Deconstructing the digital divide. Educational Policy, 18, 562-588.

Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 179-225.

Vilenius-Tuohimaa, P., Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J. (2008). The association between mathematical word problems and reading comprehension. Educational Psychology, 28(4), 409-426.

Yalın, H.İ., Karadeniz, Ş., & Şahin, S. (2007). Barriers to information and communication technologies integration into elementary schools in Turkey. Journal of Applied Sciences, 7(24), 4036-4039.

Yurdakul, I. K. (2011). Öğretmen adaylarının teknopedagojik eğitim yeterliklerinin bilgi ve iletişim teknolojilerini kullanımları açısından incelenmesi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 40, 397-408.

Related Papers