PEN Academic Publishing   |  ISSN: 1554-5210

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2020, Vol. 16(3) 253-269

Testing the Bidirectional Relationship Between Reading and Writing Skills

Ozen Yıldırım, Safiye Bilican Demir & Ömer Kutlu

pp. 253 - 269   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2020.248.19   |  Manu. Number: MANU-1912-20-0002.R2

Published online: June 05, 2020  |   Number of Views: 43  |  Number of Download: 129


Abstract

Reading and writing have an essential place in the social life of individuals as well as in school learning. In this study, the bidirectional relationships between reading and writing skills were examined after gender and socioeconomic level of students were controlled. The participants of this research are 5th grade 240 students from ten primary schools in four different districts of Ankara in Turkey. A text has been chosen to evaluate students’ comprehension and writing skills and a test that includes questions related to the text has been developed. In order to evaluate the reading and writing skills of the students, the analytic and holistic rubrics were used. Hierarchical multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to reveal the bidirectional relationship between reading and writing skills. Results indicate that reading and writing skills are important predictors of each other and support the possibility of a bidirectional relationship between the two. One possible explanation of this is that reading and writing skill influence each other. Researchers, practitioners, and parents may need to target both reading and writing skill to best help poor readers become proficient.

Keywords: Language Skills, Reading, Writing, Bidirectional Relationships, Hierarchical Multiple Regression


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Yildirim, O., Demir, S.B. & Kutlu, O. (2020). Testing the Bidirectional Relationship Between Reading and Writing Skills . International Journal of Progressive Education, 16(3), 253-269. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2020.248.19

Harvard
Yildirim, O., Demir, S. and Kutlu, O. (2020). Testing the Bidirectional Relationship Between Reading and Writing Skills . International Journal of Progressive Education, 16(3), pp. 253-269.

Chicago 16th edition
Yildirim, Ozen, Safiye Bilican Demir and Omer Kutlu (2020). "Testing the Bidirectional Relationship Between Reading and Writing Skills ". International Journal of Progressive Education 16 (3):253-269. doi:10.29329/ijpe.2020.248.19.

References
  1. Abbott, R. D., Berninger, V. W., & Fayol, M. (2010). Longitudinal relationships of levels of language in writing and between writing and reading in grades 1 to 7. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 281–298. doi:10.1037/a0019318. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  2. Araújo, L., & Costa, P. (2015). Home book reading and reading achievement in EU countries: The Progress in International Reading Literacy Study 2011 (PIRLS), Educational Research and Evaluation, 21 (5), 422-438. doi: 10.1080/13803611.2015.1111803 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  3. Ateşman, E. (1997). Türkçede okunabilirliğin ölçülmesi. DilDergisi, 58, 71- 74. [Google Scholar]
  4. Ateş, S., Çetinkaya, Ç.,& Yıldırım, K. (2014). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin yazma güçlükleri hakkındaki görüşleri. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 6(2), 475-493.Doi: 10.15345/iojes.2014.02.018.  [Google Scholar]
  5. Beck, I., & McKeown, M. (1991). Conditions of vocabularyacquisition. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, &P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp.789–814). New York, NY: Longman. [Google Scholar]
  6. Beck, I., Perfetti, C., & McKeown, M. (1982). Effects of long-term vocabulary instruction on lexical access andreading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 506–521. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.74.4.506 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  7. Belet, Ş.D. & Yaşar, Ş. (2007). Öğrenme stratejilerinin okuduğunu anlama ve yazma becerileri ile Türkçe dersine ait tutumlara etkisi. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama, 3(1), 69-86. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bilican-Demir & Yıldırım (2019). Yazılı anlatım becerilerinin değerlendirilmesi için dereceli puanlama anahtarı geliştirme çalışması. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 47 () , 457-473 . Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/pauefd/issue/48574/588565 [Google Scholar]
  9. Breakspear, S. (2012). The policy impact of PISA: An exploration of the normativeeffects of international benchmarking in school system performance. OECDEducation Working Papers, 71. Retrieved from http://www.eunec.eu/sites/www.eunec.eu/files/attachment/files/5k9fdfqffr28.pdf [Google Scholar]
  10. Broer, N. A., Aarnoutse, C. A. J., Kieviet, F. K., & Van Leeuwe, J. F. J. (2002). The effect of instructing the structural aspect of texts. Educational Studies, 28(3), 213-237. [Google Scholar]
  11. Camarata, S., & Woodcock, R. (2006). Sex differences in processing speed: Developmental effects in males and females.Intelligence, 34, 231–252. [Google Scholar]
  12. Cavkaytar, S. (2010). İlköğretimde yazılı anlatım becerilerinin geliştirilmesinde yazma süreci modelinden yararlanma. Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 3(10), 133-139. Retrieved from http://www.sosyalarastirmalar.com/cilt3/sayi10pdf/cavkaytar_serap.pdf.  [Google Scholar]
  13. Cheng, J., & Matthews, J. (2016). The relationship between three measures of L2 vocabulary knowledge and L2 listening and reading. Language Testing, 35(1),3-25. doi:10.1177/0265532216676851  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  14. Cheema, R.J., & Galluzzo, G. (2013). Analyzingthe gender gap in math achievement: evidence from a large-scale US sample.Research in Education, 90(1), 98-112. doi: 10.7227/RIE.90.1.7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  15. Çaycı, B.,&Demir, M. K. (2006). Okuma ve anlama sorunu olan öğrenciler üzerine karşılaştırmalı bir çalışma. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 4(4), 437-456 [Google Scholar]
  16. Çetin, M.E. (2012). İlköğretim sekizinci sınıf öğrencilerinin yazılı anlatım becerilerinin farklı değişkenler açısından değerlendirilmesi. Turkish Studies- International Periodical For The Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 7(1), 727-743. [Google Scholar]
  17. Çetinkaya, G. (2010). Türkçe metinlerin okunabilirlik düzeylerinin tanımlanması ve sınıflandırılması (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Ankara Üniversitesi, Ankara, Türkiye. [Google Scholar]
  18. Durgun, E. & Önder, İ. (2019). The relationship of science achievement with reading comprehension, graphic reading, problem-solving skills in middle school seventh-grade students. Journal of Individual Differences in Education 1(1), https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/jide/issue/45463/560395  [Google Scholar]
  19. Eryaman, M. Y. (2008). Writing, method and hermeneutics: Towards an existential pedagogy. Elementary Education Online, 7(1), 2-14. [Google Scholar]
  20. Fitzgerald, J. (1992). Towards knowledge in writing: Illustrations from revision studies. New York: Springer-Verlag. [Google Scholar]
  21. Fitzgerald, J., & Shanahan, T. (2000) Reading and writing relations and their development. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 39-50. doi: 10.1207/S15326985EP3501_5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  22. Frölich, M. (2008). Parametric and nonparametric regression in the presence of endogenous control variables. International Statistical Review, 76(2), 214-227. doi:10.1111/j.1751-5823.2008.00045.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  23. Hall, S.S., Maltby, J., Filik, R.,& Kevin B. Paterson (2014). Key skills for science learning: The importance of text cohesion and reading ability. Educational Psychology, 36 (2), 191-215. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2014.926313  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  24. Hughes, A. (1990). Testing for language teachers. (2nd Ed.). Great Britain: Bell and Bain Ltd. [Google Scholar]
  25. Göçer, A. (2014). Yazma eğitimi. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  26. Grimm, K. J. (2008). Longitudinal associations between reading and mathematics. Developmental Neuropsychology, 33, doi.org/10.1080/87565640801982486 [Google Scholar]
  27. Göktaş, Ö.,&Gürbüztürk, O. (2012). Okuduğunu anlama becerisinin ilköğretim ikinci kademe matematik dersindeki akademik başarıya etkisi. Uluslararası Eğitim Programları ve Öğretim Çalışmaları Dergisi (IJOCIS), 4(2), 52-66. [Google Scholar]
  28. Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 99, 445–476. [Google Scholar]
  29. Gülleroğlu, D., Bilican-Demir, S.,& Demirtaşlı, N. (2014). Türk öğrencilerinin PISA 2003-2006-2009 dönemlerindeki okuma becerilerini yordayan sosyo ekonomik ve kültürel değişkenlerin araştırılması. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 47(2), 201-222.  [Google Scholar]
  30. Karaman, K. (2010). Küreselleşme ve eğitim. Journal of World of Turks, 2(3), 131–144. [Google Scholar]
  31. Jian, Y.C. (2016). Fourth graders' cognitive processes and learning strategies for reading illustrated biology texts: Eye movement measurements. Reading Research Quarterly, 51(1), 93-109. doi: 10.1002/rrq.125 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  32. Juriati, D. E., Ariyanti, A., & Fitriana, R. (2018). The correlation between reading comprehension and writing ability in descriptive text. Southeast Asian Journal of Islamic Education, 1(1), 01-14. [Google Scholar]
  33. Jones, S. M., & Myhill, D. A. (2007). Discourses of difference? Examining gender difference in linguistic characteristics of writing. Canadian Journal of Education, 30, 456e482. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20466646. [Google Scholar]
  34. Loh, E. K. Y., & Krashen, S., (2015). Patterns in PIRLS performance: The importance of liking to read. Asian Journal of Education and e-Learning, 3(1), 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  35. Karatay, H.,& Kartallıoğlu, N. (2016). Yabancı dil olarak türkçe öğrenme tutumu ile dil becerileri edimi arasındaki ilişki. AİBÜ Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 16 (4), 203-213. [Google Scholar]
  36. Kavcar, C., Oğuzkan, F., & Sever, S. (2002) Türkçe öğretimi: Türkçe ve sınıf öğretmenleri için. Ankara: EnginYayınevi. [Google Scholar]
  37. Kutlu, Ö., Doğan, C. D.,& Karakaya. İ. (2017). Ölçme ve değerlendirme: Performansa ve portfolyoya dayalı durum belirleme. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  38. Lan, Y., Hung, C., & Hsu, H. (2011). Effects of guided writing strategies on students’ writing attitudes based on media richness theory. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(4), 148-164. [Google Scholar]
  39. Lau, K.T. (2018). Hong Kong senior secondary students’ reading motivation and classical Chinese reading comprehension, Reading and Writing, 32, 4, 963-982. doi: 10.1007/s11145-018-9897-7. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  40. Lundetræ, K. (2011). Does parental educational level predict drop-out from upper secondary school for 16- to 24-year-olds when basic skills are accounted for? A cross country comparison. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 55, 625-637. doi:10.1080/00313831.2011.555925 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  41. Maltepe, S. & Gültekin, H. (2017). Bir zihin haritası tekniğinin ortaokul öğrencilerinin okuduğunu anlama ve yazma becerilerine etkisi. HAYEF: Journal of Education, 14(2), 79-92. [Google Scholar]
  42. MoNE. (2019). İlk öğretim türkçe dersi öğretim programı (ilkokul ve ortaokul, 1-8.sınıflar). Retrieved from http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/Dosyalar/20195716392253-02-T%C3%BCrk%C3%A7e%20%C3%96%C4%9Fretim%20Program%C4%B1%202019.pdf [Google Scholar]
  43. Memiş, M. (2019). Türkçeyi ikinci dil olarak öğrenenlerin okuduğunu anlama yeterliklerinin eşdeğerliği. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 38 (1), 253-265. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/omuefd/issue/46119/521301 [Google Scholar]
  44. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Kennedy, A. M., Trong, K. L. & Sainsbury, M. (2009). PIRLS 2011 Assessment Frameworks. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College [Google Scholar]
  45. Mullis, I.V.S., Martin M.O., Foy, P., & Drucker, K.T. (2012). PIRLS 2011 international results in reading. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Educa¬tion, Boston College. [Google Scholar]
  46. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Hooper, M. (2017). PIRLS 2016 International Results in Reading. Retrieved from Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center Retrieved from http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2016/international-results/ [Google Scholar]
  47. OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 results: What students know and can do - Student performance in reading, mathematics and science (Vol. I). Paris: OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/9789264091450-en [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  48. Puglisi, M. L., Hulme, C., Hamilton, L. G., & Snowling, M. J. (2017). The home literacy environment is a correlate, but perhaps not a cause, of variations in children’s language and literacy development. Scientific Studies of Reading, 21(6), 498–514. doi:10.1080/10888438.2017.1346 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  49. Children’s Language and Literacy Development, Scientific Studies of Reading, 21(6), 498-514. doi:10.1080/10888438.2017.1346660 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  50. Pratt, J. W. (1987). Dividing the indivisible: Using simple symmetry to partition variance explained. In T. Pukkila and S. Puntanen (eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference in Statistics (pp. 245-260). Tampere, Finland: University of Tampere. [Google Scholar]
  51. Preece, J., & Levy, R. (2018). Understanding the barriers and motivations to shared reading with young children: The role of enjoyment and feedback. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 146879841877921. doi:10.1177/1468798418779216 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  52. Reilly, D., Neumann, D. L., & Andrews, G. (2019). Gender differences in reading and writing achievement: Evidence from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). American Psychologist, 74(4), 445–458. doi:10.1037/amp0000356 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  53. Raimes, A. (1983). Techniques in teaching writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  54. Santa, C., Hoien, T (1999).An assessment of early steps: A program for early intervention of reading problems. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(1), 54-79. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.34.1.4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  55. Sever, S. (1998). Dil ve iletişim: Etkili yazılı ve sözlü anlatım. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 31, 51-66. [Google Scholar]
  56. Sever, S. (2004). Türkçe öğretimi ve tam öğrenme. (4. baskı). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  57. Shanahan, T., & Lomax, R. (1988). A developmental comparison of three theoretical models of the reading-writing relationship. Research in the Teaching of English, 22,196-212. [Google Scholar]
  58. Shanahan, T. (1984). Nature of the reading–writing relation: An exploratory multivariate analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(3), 466–477. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.76.3.466 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  59. Schoonen, R. (2019). Are reading and writing building on the same skills? The relationship between reading and writing in L1 and EFL. Reading and Writing, 32(3), 511-533. doi: 10.1007/s11145-018-9874-1.  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  60. Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analyticreview of research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3) 417-453. doi:10.3102/00346543075003417 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  61. Schwerdt, G., &Simon Wiederhol, S. (2019). A macroeconomic analysis of literacy and economic performance. Retrieved from http://www.dataangel.ca/docs/A%20Macroeconomic%20Analysis%20of%20Literacy_February2019.pdf [Google Scholar]
  62. Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 420–428. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  63. 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), 107-12. [Google Scholar]
  64. Scheiber, C., Reynolds, M. R., Hajovsky, D. B., & Kaufman, A. S. (2015). Gender differences in achievement ina large, nationally representative sample of children and adolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 52, 335–348. doi:10.1002/pits.21827 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  65. Steensel, R., Oostdam, R.,& Gelderen, A. (2019). Affirming and undermining motivations for reading and associations with reading comprehension, age and gender, Journal of Research in Reading, 42 (3-4), 504-522. doi: 10.1080/0969594X.2016.1239612 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  66. Straw, S.B.,&Schreiner, R. (1982). The effect of sentence manipulation on subsequent measures of reading and listening comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 17(3), 339-352 [Google Scholar]
  67. Stæhr, L. S. (2008) Vocabulary size and the skills of listening, reading and writing, The Language Learning Journal, 36(2), 139-152. doi: 10.1080/09571730802389975 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  68. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidel, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Massachusetts: Allyn & Bacon, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  69. TEDMEM. (2016). OECD yetişkin becerileri araştırması: Türkiye ile ilgili sonuçlar. Ankara: Türk Eğitim Derneği Yayınları. Retrieved from https://tedmem.org/yayin/oecd-yetiskin-becerileri-arastirmasi-turkiye-ile-ilgili-sonuclar [Google Scholar]
  70. Tok, R., &Erdoğan, O. (2017). İlkokul 2., 3. Ve 4. Sınıf öğrencilerinin yazma becerilerinin incelenmesi, YYÜ Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (YYU Journal Of Education Faculty), 14(1), 1003-1024. doi: 10.23891/efdyyu.2017.37  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  71. Ulu, M., Tertemiz, N., & Peker, M . (2016). Okuduğunu anlama ve problem çözme stratejileri eğitiminin ilköğretim 5. Sınıf öğrencilerinin rutin olmayan problem çözme başarısına etkisi. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 18 (2),303-340. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/akusosbil/issue/31333/341932 [Google Scholar]
  72. Ungan, S. (2007). Yazma becerisinin geliştirilmesi ve önemi. Erciyes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 23, 461-472. Retrieved from http://sbedergi.erciyes.edu.tr/sayi_23/sayi_23.htm [Google Scholar]
  73. Wilkinson, I. A. G.,& Son, E. H. (2011). A dialogic turn in research on learning and teaching tocomprehend. In M.L. Kamil. P.B. Rosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Volume IV (pp. 359-387). New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  74. Willcutt, E. G., Petrill, S. A., Wu, S., Boada, R., DeFries, J. C., &Olson, R. K.(2013). Comorbidity between reading disability and math disability: concurrent psychopathology, functional impairment, and neuropsychological functioning. J. Learn. Disabil. 46, 500-516. doi: 10.1177/0022219413477476 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  75. Koo T. K. & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine,15(2), 155-163. [Google Scholar]
  76. Yıldırım, Ö. (2012). Okuduğunu anlama başarısıyla ilişkili faktörlerin aşamalı doğrusal modellemeyle belirlenmesi (PISA 2009 Hollanda, Kore ve Türkiye karşılaştırması). Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi, Ankara. [Google Scholar]