International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 1554-5210

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2021, Vol. 17(1) 376-391

An Investigation of the Mediating Role of Various Variables in the Effect of Both Gender and Economic, Social and Cultural Status on Reading Literacy

Esin Yılmaz Koğar

pp. 376 - 391   |  DOI:   |  Manu. Number: MANU-2006-17-0005

Published online: February 01, 2021  |   Number of Views: 66  |  Number of Download: 366


The present study was based on the Turkish sample in PISA 2009 and PISA 2018. To investigate the effect of both gender and economic, social and cultural status index on reading literacy, the causal mediation effect was utilized in order to test the mediating role of the following variables: enjoyment of reading, the metacognitive strategy of summarizing, and the metacognitive strategy of reading and comprehension. With respect to the effect of the variable of gender on reading literacy, it was revealed in the present research study that all the variables utilized in the study had a statistically significant partial mediating role in the variable of enjoyment of reading, which was the strongest mediator variable. As for the effect of the economic, social and cultural status on reading literacy, it was revealed that there were statistically significant variables that played a mediating role; however, as these variables contributed very little to the explained variance, these variables were concluded to have no mediating role.

Keywords: Causal Mediation Analyses, Direct Effect, Indirect Effect, Reading Literacy

How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Kogar, E.Y. (2021). An Investigation of the Mediating Role of Various Variables in the Effect of Both Gender and Economic, Social and Cultural Status on Reading Literacy . International Journal of Progressive Education, 17(1), 376-391. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2021.329.24

Kogar, E. (2021). An Investigation of the Mediating Role of Various Variables in the Effect of Both Gender and Economic, Social and Cultural Status on Reading Literacy . International Journal of Progressive Education, 17(1), pp. 376-391.

Chicago 16th edition
Kogar, Esin Yilmaz (2021). "An Investigation of the Mediating Role of Various Variables in the Effect of Both Gender and Economic, Social and Cultural Status on Reading Literacy ". International Journal of Progressive Education 17 (1):376-391. doi:10.29329/ijpe.2021.329.24.

  1. Artelt, C., Schiefele, U., & Schneider, W. (2001). Predictors of reading literacy. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 16(3), 363-383.  [Google Scholar]
  2. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.  [Google Scholar]
  3. Brozo, W. G., Sulkunen, S., Shiel, G., Garbe, C., Pandian, A., & Valtin, R. (2014). Reading, gender, and engagement: Lessons from five PISA countries. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57(7), 584-593.  [Google Scholar]
  4. 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.  [Google Scholar]
  5. Chiu, M. M., & McBride-Chang, C. (2006). Gender, context, and reading: A comparison of students in 43 countries. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 331–362.  [Google Scholar]
  6. Clark, C. & Foster, A. (2005). Children’s and young people’s reading habits and preferences: The who, what, why, where and when. London: National Literacy Trust.  [Google Scholar]
  7. Clark, C. & Rumbold, K. (2006). Reading for pleasure: A research overview. National Literacy Trust. [Google Scholar]
  8. Contractor, C. B. (2016). PISA 2018 reading literacy framework. First Meeting of the PISA 2018 National Project Managers.  [Google Scholar]
  9. De Jong, P. F., & Leseman, P. P. (2001). Lasting effects of home literacy on reading achievement in school. Journal of School Psychology, 39(5), 389-414.  [Google Scholar]
  10. Eryaman, M. Y. (2007). Examining the characteristics of literacy practices in a technology-rich sixth grade classroom. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology (TOJET) 6(2), 26-41. [Google Scholar]
  11. Guthrie, J. T. & Wigfield, A. (2000).Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. Kamil & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 403-422). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  12. Hawes, C. A., & Plourde, L. A. (2005). Parental involvement and its influence on the reading achievement of 6th grade students. Reading Improvement, 42(1), 47-58. [Google Scholar]
  13. Imai, K., Keele L., & Yamamoto, T. (2010). Identication, inference, and sensitivity analysis for causal mediation effects. Statistical Science, 25(1), 51-71. [Google Scholar]
  14. Keele, L., Tingley, D., & Yamamoto, T. (2015). Identifying mechanisms behind policy interventions via causal mediation analysis. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 34(4), 937-963.  [Google Scholar]
  15. Klecker, B.M. (2006). The gender gap in NAEP fourth-, eighth-, and twelfth-grade reading scores across years. Reading Improvement, 43(1), 50-56.  [Google Scholar]
  16. Laukaityte, I., & Wiberg, M. (2017). Using plausible values in secondary analysis in large-scale assessments. Communications in statistics-Theory and Methods, 46(22), 11341-11357.  [Google Scholar]
  17. Linnakyla, P., Malin, A., & Taube, K. (2004). Factors behind low reading literacy achievement. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 48(3), 231-249.  [Google Scholar]
  18. MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation analysis. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 58, 593-614.  [Google Scholar]
  19. Ministry of National Education (2010). PISA 2009 ulusal ön raporu. Ankara: MEB-Eğitimi Araştırma ve Geliştirme Dairesi Başkanlığı.   [Google Scholar]
  20. Ministry of National Education (2019). PISA 2018 ulusal ön raporu. Ankara: MEB.  [Google Scholar]
  21. Mullis, I. V. S., Kennedy, A. M., Martin, M. O., & Sainsbury, M. (2006). Assessment framework and specifications (2nd Ed.). Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College.  [Google Scholar]
  22. Muszyński, M., & Jakubowski, M. (2015a). Learning strategies and reading performance: PISA 2009 results for Poland. EDUKACJA Quarterly, 3(134), 5-25.  [Google Scholar]
  23. Neff, L. (2015). The relationship between reading enjoyment, gender, socioeconomic status, and reading outcomes in PISA 2009. Doctor of Education (EdD). Paper 54.  [Google Scholar]
  24. Netten, A., Droop, M., & Verhoeven, L. (2011). Predictors of reading literacy for first and second language learners. Reading and Writing, 24(4), 413-425.  [Google Scholar]
  25. OECD. (2002). PISA 2000 Technical report. Paris, France: OECD Publising. [Google Scholar]
  26. OECD.  (2004). PISA learning for tomorrow's world: First results from PISA 2003. Paris, France: OECD Publising. [Google Scholar]
  27. OECD. (2010a). PISA 2009 results: learning to learn: student engagement, strategies and practices (Vol. III). Paris, France: OECD Publising.  [Google Scholar]
  28. OECD. (2010b). PISA 2009 results: What students know and can do: Student performance in reading, mathematics and science (Volume I). Paris: OECD Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  29. OECD. (2010c). PISA 2009 results: Overcoming social background: Equity in learning opportunities and outcomes (Volume II). Paris: OECD Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  30. OECD. (2011).PISA results: Students online: Digital Technologies and performance (Volume VI). Paris: OECD Publication. [Google Scholar]
  31. OECD. (2012). PISA 2009 technical report. Paris: OECD Publishing.  [Google Scholar]
  32. OECD. (2019a). PISA 2018 results (Volume I): What students know and can do. Paris: OECD Publishing.  [Google Scholar]
  33. OECD. (2019b). PISA 2018 Results (Volume II): Where all students can succeed. Paris: OECD Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  34. Perkins, R., Moran, G., Shiel, G., & Cosgrove, J. (2011). Reading literacy in PISA 2009: A guide for teachers. Dublin: Educational Research Centre.  [Google Scholar]
  35. Petscher, Y. (2009). A meta-analysis of the relationship between student attitudes towards reading and achievement in reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 33(4), 335-355.  [Google Scholar]
  36. Phakiti, A. (2006). Modeling cognitive and metacognitive strategies and their relationships to EFL reading test performance. Melbourne Papers in Language Testing, 1, 53-96. [Google Scholar]
  37. Schiefele, U. (2009). Situational and individual interest. In K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation in school (pp. 197-223), Taylor Francis, New York. [Google Scholar]
  38. Schulz, W. (2005). Measuring the socio-economic background of students and ıts effect on achievement on PISA 2000 and PISA 2003. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA, April 7–11, 2006.  [Google Scholar]
  39. Shiel, G. (2006). The PISA assessment of reading literacy. The Irish Journal of Education, 37, 79-100.  [Google Scholar]
  40. Smith, M. C. (1995). Reading practices, reading skills, and cognitive growth in adulthood. Journal of Adult Development, 2(4), 241-256. [Google Scholar]
  41. Stoet, G. & Geary, D. C. (2013). Sex differences in mathematics and reading achievement are inversely related: Within-and across-nation assessment of 10 years of PISA data. PloS one, 8(3), 1-10. [Google Scholar]
  42. Rucker, D. D., Preacher, K. J., Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2011). Mediation analysis in social psychology: Current practices and new recommendations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(6), 359-371. [Google Scholar]
  43. Tingley, D., Yamamoto, T., Hirose, K., Keele, L., & Imai, K. (2014). Mediation: R package for causal mediation analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 59(5), 1-38.  [Google Scholar]
  44. Thomson, S., De Bortoli, L., & Buckley, S. (2013). PISA 2012: How Australia measures up: The PISA 2012 assessment of students’ mathematical, scientific and reading literacy. ACER: Australian Council for Educational Research. [Google Scholar]
  45. 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.  [Google Scholar]
  46. VanderWeele, T. J. (2011). Causal mediation analysis with survival data. Epidemiology, 22(4), 582.  [Google Scholar]
  47. Walters, G. D. (2011). Criminal thinking as a mediator of the mental illness–prison violence relationship: A path analytic study and causal mediation analysis. Psychological Services, 8(3), 189.  [Google Scholar]
  48. Zhang, Z., Zheng, C., Kim, C., Van Poucke, S., Lin, S., & Lan, P. (2016). Causal mediation analysis in the context of clinical research. Ann Transl Med, 4(21), 425.  [Google Scholar]