International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12
line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 11, Issue 8 (August 2024), Pages: 1-18

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

Modeling cognitive and non-cognitive factors that influence students' reading achievement in Saudi Arabia: A structural equation modeling analysis of PISA (2018)

 Author(s): 

 Ayah Ahmed Naji *, Bothinah Altaf, Abeer Alkhouli

 Affiliation(s):

 Department of Statistics, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

 Full text

  Full Text - PDF

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2293-415X

 Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2024.08.001

 Abstract

Reading is essential at all educational levels. This study explores factors influencing reading achievement among Saudi students, using structural equation modeling (SEM) based on PISA 2018 data. It examines whether students' perceptions of teacher support enhance reading skills by promoting self-efficacy and a sense of belonging. Results show that perceived teacher support does not directly affect reading interest (p-value = 0.868). However, self-efficacy and a sense of belonging fully mediate the relationship between teacher support and reading interest. Positive correlations were found between teacher support, self-efficacy, a sense of belonging, and reading ability (p-value = 0.001). This research offers insights into Saudi Arabia's educational context and can inform future studies in similar educational systems.

 © 2024 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords

 Reading achievement, Structural equation modeling, Teacher support, Self-efficacy, Sense of belonging

 Article history

 Received 5 February 2024, Received in revised form 4 July 2024, Accepted 20 July 2024

 Acknowledgment 

No Acknowledgment.

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Ethical considerations

This study utilized anonymized, publicly available data from PISA 2018, which complies with ethical standards. No direct data collection from participants was involved, and confidentiality was maintained throughout the analysis.

 Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 Citation:

 Naji AA, Altaf B, and Alkhouli A (2024). Modeling cognitive and non-cognitive factors that influence students' reading achievement in Saudi Arabia: A structural equation modeling analysis of PISA (2018). International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 11(8): 1-18

 Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

 Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5 Fig. 6 

 Tables

 Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 13 Table 14 Table 15 

----------------------------------------------   

 References (67)

  1. Abdillah MH, Tentama F, Widiana HS, and Zurqoni Z (2023). Self-regulation, self-evaluation, and self-efficacy: How does its impact on employability? International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE), 12(3): 1165-1173. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v12i3.25076   [Google Scholar]
  2. Albayrak Sari A (2015). Using structural equation modeling to investigate students’ reading comprehension skills. Elementary Education Online, 14(2): 511–521. https://doi.org/10.17051/io.2015.32986   [Google Scholar]
  3. Alzubi EM and Attiat MM (2021). Language teacher practices predicting students' reading self-efficacy: Jordanian students' participation in PISA 2018. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 16(6): 3213-3231. https://doi.org/10.18844/cjes.v16i6.6542   [Google Scholar]
  4. Asabuwa Ngwabebhoh F, Saha N, Nguyen HT, Brodnjak UV, Saha T, Lengalova A, and Saha P (2020). Preparation and characterization of nonwoven fibrous biocomposites for footwear components. Polymers, 12(12): 3016. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym12123016   [Google Scholar] PMid:33339454 PMCid:PMC7766918
  5. Awang Z, Afthanorhan A, and Asri MAM (2015). Parametric and non-parametric approach in structural equation modeling (SEM): The application of bootstrapping. Modern Applied Science, 9(9): 58-67. https://doi.org/10.5539/mas.v9n9p58   [Google Scholar]
  6. Banat SM and Pierewan AC (2019). Reading literacy and metacognitive strategy for predicting academic achievement. Litera, 18(3): 485-497. https://doi.org/10.21831/ltr.v18i3.24806   [Google Scholar]
  7. Brown TA (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Publications, New York, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  8. Bulut O, Delen E, and Kaya F (2012). An SEM model based on PISA 2009 in Turkey: How does the use of technology and self-regulation activities predict reading scores? Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 64: 564-573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.066   [Google Scholar]
  9. Chang YC and Bangsri A (2020). Thai students' perceived teacher support on their reading ability: Mediating effects of self-efficacy and sense of school belonging. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 6(2): 435-445. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.6.2.435   [Google Scholar]
  10. Cheung GW and Rensvold RB (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2): 233-255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5   [Google Scholar]
  11. Chuang YT, Huang TH, Lin SY, and Chen BC (2022). The influence of motivation, self-efficacy, and fear of failure on the career adaptability of vocational school students: Moderated by meaning in life. Frontiers in Psychology, 13: 958334. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.958334   [Google Scholar] PMid:36211846 PMCid:PMC9534183
  12. Civelek ME (2018). Essentials of structural equation modeling. Lulu Press, Lincoln, USA. https://doi.org/10.13014/K2SJ1HR5   [Google Scholar]
  13. Collier J (2020). Applied structural equation modeling using AMOS: Basic to advanced techniques. Routledge, Oxfordshire, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003018414   [Google Scholar]
  14. Crockett SA (2012). A five-step guide to conducting SEM analysis in counseling research. Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation, 3(1): 30-47. https://doi.org/10.1177/2150137811434142   [Google Scholar]
  15. Dadandı PU and Dadandı İ (2022). The relationships among teachers’ behaviours that encourage students’ reading engagement, reading enjoyment, reading self-efficacy and reading success. Participatory Educational Research, 9(3): 98-110. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.22.56.9.3   [Google Scholar]
  16. Fauzan A, Triyono MB, Hardiyanta RAP, Daryono RW, and Arifah S (2023). The effect of internship and work motivation on students' work readiness in vocational education: PLS-SEM approach. Journal of Innovation in Educational and Cultural Research, 4(1): 26-34. https://doi.org/10.46843/jiecr.v4i1.413   [Google Scholar]
  17. Fereydouni F, Hajian‐Tilaki K, Meftah N, and Chehrazi M (2022). A path causal model in the association between self‐efficacy and self‐care with quality of life in patients with type 2 diabetes: An application of the structural equation model. Health Science Reports, 5(2): e534. https://doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.534   [Google Scholar] PMid:35308413 PMCid:PMC8907749
  18. Finch WH (2013). Exploratory factor analysis. In: Sass DA, Schmitt TA, and Teo T (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative methods for educational research: 167-186. Brill Sense, Leiden, Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-404-8_8   [Google Scholar]
  19. Gazeloglu C and Greenacre ZA (2020). Comparison of weighted least squares and robust estimation in structural equation modeling of ordinal categorical data with larger sample sizes. Cumhuriyet Science Journal, 41(1): 193-211. https://doi.org/10.17776/csj.648054   [Google Scholar]
  20. Guilherme DR, Pequeno PACL, Baccaro FB, Franklin E, dos Santos Neto CR, and Souza JLP (2022). Direct and indirect effects of geographic and environmental factors on ant beta diversity across Amazon basin. Oecologia, 198: 193-203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-021-05083-7   [Google Scholar] PMid:34853902
  21. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE, and Tatham RL (2006). Multivariate data analysis. 6th Edition, Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  22. Heinen I, Bullinger M, and Kocalevent RD (2017). Perceived stress in first year medical students-associations with personal resources and emotional distress. BMC Medical Education, 17: 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0841-8   [Google Scholar] PMid:28056972 PMCid:PMC5216588
  23. Holzer J, Korlat S, Pelikan E, Schober B, Spiel C, and Lüftenegger M (2024). The role of parental self-efficacy regarding parental support for early adolescents’ coping, self-regulated learning, learning self-efficacy and positive emotions. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 44(2): 171-197. https://doi.org/10.1177/02724316231162306   [Google Scholar]
  24. Huang J, Tang Y, He W, and Li Q (2019). Singapore’s school excellence model and student learning: Evidence from PISA 2012 and TALIS 2013. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 39(1): 96-112. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2019.1575185   [Google Scholar]
  25. Hurtado S and Carter DF (1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of the campus racial climate on Latino college students' sense of belonging. Sociology of Education, 70(4): 324-345. https://doi.org/10.2307/2673270   [Google Scholar]
  26. Iacobucci D (2009). Everything you always wanted to know about SEM (structural equations modeling) but were afraid to ask. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(4): 673-680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2009.09.002   [Google Scholar]
  27. Johansson S and Myrberg E (2019). Teacher specialization and student perceived instructional quality: What are the relationships to student reading achievement? Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 31(2): 177-200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-019-09297-5   [Google Scholar]
  28. Johnson DW and Johnson RT (1983). Social interdependence and perceived academic and personal support in the classroom. The Journal of Social Psychology, 120(1): 77-82. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1983.9712012   [Google Scholar]
  29. Jungert T and Rosander M (2010). Self-efficacy and strategies to influence the study environment. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(6): 647-659. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2010.522080   [Google Scholar]
  30. Karakaya-Ozyer K and Aksu-Dunya B (2018). A review of structural equation modeling applications in Turkish educational science literature, 2010-2015. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 4(1): 279-291. https://doi.org/10.21890/ijres.383177   [Google Scholar]
  31. Kline RB (2015). Principles and practices of structural equation modelling. Guilford Publications, New York, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  32. Koyuncu İ, Bulus M, and Fırat T (2022). The moderator role of gender and socioeconomic status in the relationship between metacognitive skills and reading scores. Participatory Educational Research, 9(3): 82-97. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.22.55.9.3   [Google Scholar]
  33. Krüger N and Formichella MM (2019). Les compétences non cognitives agissent-elles comme médiatrices dans le processus d'enseignement et d'apprentissage? Evidence pour l'Argentine. Cuadernos de Economía, 38(77): 493-521. https://doi.org/10.15446/cuad.econ.v38n77.68582   [Google Scholar]
  34. Kusurkar RA, Ten Cate TJ, Vos CMP, Westers P, and Croiset G (2013). How motivation affects academic performance: A structural equation modelling analysis. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 18: 57-69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-012-9354-3   [Google Scholar] PMid:22354335 PMCid:PMC3569579
  35. Lam SF, Wong BP, Yang H, and Liu Y (2012). Understanding student engagement with a contextual model. In: Christenson S, Reschly A, and Wylie C (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement: 403-419. Springer, Boston, USA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_19   [Google Scholar]
  36. Lei H, Cui Y, and Chiu MM (2018). The relationship between teacher support and students' academic emotions: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 8: 2288. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02288   [Google Scholar] PMid:29403405 PMCid:PMC5786576
  37. Lezhnina O and Kismihók G (2022). Combining statistical and machine learning methods to explore German students’ attitudes towards ICT in PISA. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 45(2): 180-199. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2021.1963226   [Google Scholar]
  38. Li SD (2011). Testing mediation using multiple regression and structural equation modeling analyses in secondary data. Evaluation Review, 35(3): 240-268. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X11412069   [Google Scholar] PMid:21917711
  39. Liu F (2010). Reading abilities and strategies: A short introduction. International Education Studies, 3(3): 153-157. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v3n3p153   [Google Scholar]
  40. Liu H and Li X (2023). Unravelling students’ perceived EFL teacher support. System, 115: 103048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2023.103048   [Google Scholar]
  41. MacCallum RC and Austin JT (2000). Applications of structural equation modeling in psychological research. Annual Review of Psychology, 51(1): 201-226. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.201   [Google Scholar] PMid:10751970
  42. Malecki CK and Demaray MK (2003). What type of support do they need? Investigating student adjustment as related to emotional, informational, appraisal, and instrumental support. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(3): 231-252. https://doi.org/10.1521/scpq.18.3.231.22576   [Google Scholar]
  43. Markus S (2019). The programme for international student. OECD Publishing, Paris, France.   [Google Scholar]
  44. Marsh HW, Morin AJ, Parker PD, and Kaur G (2014). Exploratory structural equation modeling: An integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annual review of Clinical Psychology, 10: 85-110. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153700   [Google Scholar] PMid:24313568
  45. McCoach DB (2003). SEM isn't just the schoolwide enrichment model anymore: Structural equation modeling (SEM) in gifted education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27(1): 36-61. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235320302700104   [Google Scholar]
  46. Mo J (2020). PISA 2018 results: Are students smart about money? OECD Publishing, Paris, France.   [Google Scholar]
  47. Mohd Dzin NH and Lay YF (2021). Validity and reliability of adapted self-efficacy scales in Malaysian context using PLS-SEM approach. Education Sciences, 11(11): 676. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11110676   [Google Scholar]
  48. Mora-Ruano JG, Schurig M, and Wittmann E (2021). Instructional leadership as a vehicle for teacher collaboration and student achievement: What the German PISA 2015 sample tells us. Frontiers in Education, 6: 582773. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.582773   [Google Scholar]
  49. Moreira-Fontán E, García-Señorán M, Conde-Rodríguez Á, and González A (2019). Teachers' ICT-related self-efficacy, job resources, and positive emotions: Their structural relations with autonomous motivation and work engagement. Computers and Education, 134: 63-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.02.007   [Google Scholar]
  50. Navarro-Mateu D, Alonso-Larza L, Gómez-Domínguez MT, Prado-Gascó V, and Valero-Moreno S (2020). I’m not good for anything and that’s why I’m stressed: Analysis of the effect of self-efficacy and emotional intelligence on student stress using SEM and QCA. Frontiers in Psychology, 11: 504792. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00295   [Google Scholar] PMid:32231608 PMCid:PMC7082421
  51. OECD (2019a). Education in Saudi Arabia. OECD Publishing, Paris, France.   [Google Scholar]
  52. OECD (2019b). PISA 2018 results: What school life means for students’ lives. OECD Publishing. Paris, France.   [Google Scholar]
  53. OECD (2019c). PISA 2018 results. Volume II, OECD Publishing. Paris, France.   [Google Scholar]
  54. Özüdoğru M (2022). A structural equation modelling in distance education teacher training classroom environments. Education and Information Technologies, 27(4): 5103-5127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10825-4   [Google Scholar]
  55. Pamularsih N (2022). The effects of school climate on students’ reading achievement. Social Sciences and Humanities Open, 6(1): 100375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2022.100375   [Google Scholar]
  56. Pongutta S, Suphanchaimat R, Patcharanarumol W, and Tangcharoensathien V (2019). Lessons from the Thai health promotion foundation. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 97(3): 213. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.18.220277   [Google Scholar] PMid:30992634 PMCid:PMC6453312
  57. Putnick DL and Bornstein MH (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41: 71-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004   [Google Scholar] PMid:27942093 PMCid:PMC5145197
  58. Saksiriphol D and Kunchune P (2023). Development of picture storytelling books to enhance morality and word reading ability of special needs students in Thailand. International Journal of Instruction, 16(3): 245-260. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2023.16314a   [Google Scholar]
  59. Schreiber JB (2008). Core reporting practices in structural equation modeling. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 4(2): 83-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2007.04.003   [Google Scholar] PMid:18555963
  60. Schreiber JB, Nora A, Stage FK, Barlow EA, and King J (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(6): 323-338. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338   [Google Scholar]
  61. Thompson B (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C., USA. https://doi.org/10.1037/10694-000   [Google Scholar]
  62. Tian J, Zhang M, Zhou H, and Wu J (2021). College satisfaction, sense of achievement, student happiness and sense of belonging of freshmen in Chinese private colleges: Mediation effect of emotion regulation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(22): 11736. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182211736   [Google Scholar] PMid:34831492 PMCid:PMC8620960
  63. Toropova A, Myrberg E, and Johansson S (2021). Teacher job satisfaction: The importance of school working conditions and teacher characteristics. Educational Review, 73(1): 71-97. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2019.1705247   [Google Scholar]
  64. Uysal S (2015). Factors affecting the mathematics achievement of Turkish students in PISA 2012. Educational Research and Reviews, 10(12): 1670-1678. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2014.2067   [Google Scholar]
  65. Williams B, Onsman A, and Brown T (2010). Exploratory factor analysis: A five-step guide for novices. Australasian Journal of Paramedicine, 8: 1-13. https://doi.org/10.33151/ajp.8.3.93   [Google Scholar]
  66. Xue X, Qiao J, Li Y, Zhang Q, Wang Y, Wang J, and Xu C (2023). Relationship between work engagement and healthy work environment among Chinese ICU nurses: The mediating role of psychological capital. Nursing Open, 10(9): 6248-6257. https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.1866   [Google Scholar] PMid:37340687 PMCid:PMC10416072
  67. Zhao RB and Chang YC (2019). Students' family support, peer relationships, and learning motivation and teachers fairness have an influence on the victims of bullying in middle school of Hong Kong. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 5(1): 97-107. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.5.1.111   [Google Scholar]