International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education 2022, Vol. 9, Special Issue, 162–178 https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.1132980 Published at https://ijate.net/ https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ijate Research Article Click here for the Turkish version of this article. The role of teacher support and in-class teaching practices on reading performance: Evidence from PISA 2018 outcomes for Türkiye B. Umit Bozkurt 1,* 1 Bolu Abant Izzet Baysal University, Faculty of Education, Department of Turkish Language Education, Bolu, Türkiye ARTICLE HISTORY Received: Jun. 20, 2022 Revised: Oct. 3, 2022 Accepted: Oct. 11, 2022 Keywords: PISA 2018, Reading performance, Teacher support, Feedback, Stimulation, In-class teaching practices . Abstract: The study deals with the variation of Turkish students' reading comprehension performance according to perceived teacher support and reading activities in the classroom. This study, which is grounded on the data drawn from the PISA 2018 database, investigates the relationship between certain variables. In the analyses performed on the PISA IDE server, the PISA 2018 reading literacy general averages of Türkiye were associated with the identified variables, and the differences in the averages were examined. As a result, perceived teacher support, teacher's adaptation of the course, and stimulation of reading engagement have a positive relationship with reading comprehension; however, it was found out that the frequency of receiving feedback had a negative relationship with reading performance. In addition, the general reading average of the students who reported that they had not performed activities such as summarizing, comparing the content of the text with their own experiences, comparing the text they have read with other texts written on similar topics, and writing about the text that has been read was much higher than those who reported that they had performed these activities. These results have strengthened the conclusion that teachers give feedback to poor readers more frequently. On the other hand, it is possible that good readers may find the learning activities in the course inadequate. In summary, reading comprehension performance is positively or negatively affected by teacher support, adaptive instruction, feedback, and engagement in reading activities in the classroom. 1. INTRODUCTION Reading comprehension is a skill that develops in the process, includes various stages, and deepens with different layers. The monitoring-based guidance of teachers makes this process effective and efficient. In addition to its cognitive multilayeredness, the reading process can reach an effective level with pre-reading, reading and post-reading activities inside and out-side the classroom. Kutlu et al. (2019) point out that reading comprehension is a multi-dimensional process that is affected by the characteristics of the individual, the text and the context. It also consists of many subcomponents and emphasizes that the ways to be followed for the evaluation *Corresponding Author: B. Umit BOZKURT  umitbozkurt@gmail.com  Bolu Izzet Baysal University, Faculty of Education, Department of Turkish Language Education, Türkiye e-ISSN: 2148-7456 /© IJATE 2022 162 Int. J. Assess. Tools Educ., Vol. 9, Special Issue, (2022) pp. 162–178 of this skill should be versatile and comprehensive. An effective reading process should be built on a supportive classroom climate in which the teacher monitors the student and gives feedback, motivation, and encouragement. An important dimension of the in-class studies is assessment activities aimed at monitoring the student's development, strengths, and weaknesses. It is known that the assessment affects the academic success of the student not only with its cognitive dimensions but also with its affective dimensions. Students' interactions with their teachers play an important role in their learning and attitude. As Federici and Skaalvik (2014) point out, students need to feel that their teachers care about them and their success in order to fully participate in learning activities and perform at their best. The work of Klem and Connell (2004) and Wang and Holcombe (2010) also show that teacher support is important for student engagement and that students' perceptions for the school environment affect their academic achievement directly or indirectly. Teachers support their students by encouraging, motivating, listening helping them, and providing them with the necessary resources of knowledge and materials. Teacher support is conceptualized in the literature with various contents. Briefly, it is framed as 'information, instruments, feelings or evaluation support for the student. Malecki and Demaray (2003) explain that most of the classifications used can fit into the following common framework: informational support is to give suggestions in a specific area; instrumental support is to provide the necessary resources. While emotional support is to inspire confidence, interest or empathy, appraisal support is the giving evaluative feedback to each student. Providing feedback is an important part of teacher support (Sukhram & Monda-Amaya, 2017). Teacher support can also be classified in two types as emotional support (empathy, sincerity, encouragement, interest, etc.) within the classroom and instrument support (for instance, teachers help students to solve a problem or accomplish a difficult task). Instrument support includes students' perceptions of resources and practical help. These may include teachers' questioning, clarification, correction, elaboration, and modelling behaviours that contribute to comprehension, problem solving, or skill development (Federici & Skaalvik, 2014). Various studies reveal that emotional support from teachers is associated with students' positive emotions, attitudes, and behaviours such as class participation, effort, low anxiety levels, and high internal motivation (Federici & Skaalvik, 2014; Guess & McCane-Bowling, 2016; Lee, 2012; Ruzek et al., 2016; Sakiz, Pape, & Hoy, 2012). Instrumental support is in the form of concrete and practical assistance that has a strong and direct relationship with students' low level of anxiety, effort, and internal motivation (Federici & Skaalvik, 2014). Supportive teacher-student relationships are significantly associated with student engagement (Lee, 2012). When teachers are more emotionally supportive, there is an increase in students’ behavioural engagement and motivation (Ruzek et al., 2016). Sakiz, Pape and Hoy (2012) indicated that the emotional support that students perceive encourages academic self-efficacy and academic effort. Guess and McCane-Bowling (2016) argue that supportive teachers create students who are more satisfied with their lives. Lei, Cui, and Chiu (2018) who conducted a meta-analysis (effect size, 121) of 65 studies found that teacher support was significantly associated with students' academic emotions (emotional experiences such as fun, hopelessness, boredom, anxiety, and anger, which can affect learning outcomes). They also reported that these relationships could be treated as positive and negative connections. Studies also highlight the link between teacher support and students' academic success. The supportive teacher-student relationship influences student achievement, both directly and indirectly, with a greater sense of commitment to school (Hughes et al., 2008; Klem & Connell, 2004; Lee, 2012; Reyes et al., 2012; Wang & Holcombe, 2010). Malecki and Demaray (2003) found out that perceived emotional support from teachers was the important and only predictor of students' social skills and academic competence. In addition, Dolapçıoğlu (2019) 163 Bozkurt pointed out that students' relationship levels with their teachers were higher in the courses they were successful in. When the subject is customized in the context of reading ability, the relationship of teacher support on reading performance stands out. It is important to note that the teacher-student relationship (Lee, 2012) and teacher support perceived by students (Ma, Luo, & Xiao, 2021; Ma, Xiao, & Hau, 2022), have an impact on reading skills. The teacher's instructional activities in the classroom are another variable that has an impact on reading comprehension. These activities include encouraging students with questions, giving feedback, relating the text to the preliminary experiences, establishing in-text and out-of-text relationships, making intertextual comparisons, writing, and summarizing. These are effective in maintaining engagement in reading. The stimulation of reading engagement refers to supporting students' motivation and providing them with opportunities (Afflerbach & Harrison, 2017; Merga, 2020). Participation/dedication in reading is vital for reading performance (Lee et al., 2021). Lei, Wen, Li, Kong, Chen, and Li (2019) concluded that teacher support through metacognitive strategies improved reading comprehension. Gambrell (1996) also emphasizes the critical role of the teacher in creating a classroom culture that encourages reading motivation. In Türkiye, the interest shown in the role of the teacher in students' reading performance is little if any. However, the reasons why Turkish students' reading comprehension levels are far below expectations in international and national student monitoring programs should be investigated from various aspects. Approximately 67% of the 4th and 8th-grade students in the field of Turkish language in the ABIDE (Monitoring and Evaluation of Academic Skills) project (2018) were in the intermediate and below levels (Parlak, 2019; Yıldırım and Ozgurluk, 2019). A similar situation was observed in the central examinations carried out to be placed in secondary education schools. In 2022 and 2021, the average number of correct answers of students in the Turkish language test was 9 out of 20, and the number of correct answers for 63% of students was between 0 and 10. In 2020, there was an average of 7 correct answers in the Turkish language test (MEB, 2020; 2021; 2022). The PISA 2015 and 2018 results also showed that there were some fundamental problems in reading comprehension. The reading literacy average of 15-year-old Turkish students was below the OECD average, and more than half of the students were at the second level or below (OECD, 2016; 2019). With the data of large-scale monitoring projects such as PISA, PIRLS, or ABIDE, significant inferences on the depths of the education system can be obtained. In studies carried out in Türkiye, reading comprehension achievement was widely examined in relation to the number of read books, the educational background of parents, and socio-economic level. Although the relationship between reading performance and the role of the teacher and in-class activities was clearly shown in the literature, this issue has not been sufficiently emphasized as a part of the classroom teaching and evaluation process. Within the scope of PISA 2018, the classroom climate, the teacher's initiatives, behaviours, and the effect of classroom teaching practices on reading performance were discussed in detail in the language courses. The change in categories such as teacher enthusiasm, teacher support, and teacher behaviour from the point of view of the students was examined in general terms in terms of countries. In this study, teacher support, teacher feedback, adaptive instruction, teacher stimulation of reading engagement, and in-class reading activities were discussed in regard to Turkish students' reading performance in PISA 2018. In this respect, it is foreseen that significant inferences can be made for the development of reading in the Turkish education system from the results of the study. 164 Int. J. Assess. Tools Educ., Vol. 9, Special Issue, (2022) pp. 162–178 2. METHOD 2.1. The Database and Sample This study has a sectional design that examines the relationship between student reading achievement and certain variables in PISA 2018 dataset. The reading scale and student survey data of Türkiye sample were taken from PISA 2018 database (https://pisadataexplorer.oecd.or g/ide/idepisa/) by analyzing the relationship of the variables to be investigated. Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS) was used to determine the Türkiye sample of the PISA 2018 project. Accordingly, 186 schools representing 12 regions and 6890 students participated in the study with stratified sampling. 44% of the 15-year-old students representing Türkiye are educated in Anatolian High Schools, 31% in Vocational and Technical Anatolian High Schools and 14% in Anatolian Imam-Hatip High Schools. 0.3% of the students are at the secondary school level. 49.6% of the sample of Türkiye is female and 50.4% is male. 2.2. Data Analysis In the process, through the data analysis tool offered by OECD, our analyses that provided the basis of this research have been carried out, and reports were generated from PISA datasets. In the secondary analyses conducted on the server, Türkiye's PISA 2018 reading ability scale: Overall Reading, the following variables reported by the students were correlated: Teacher support, emotional support, feedback, adaptive instruction, teacher stimulating of reading engagement, and in-class reading activities in Turkish/Turkish Language and Literature course. Adaptive instruction is inferred from students’ responses to the question of ST212; teacher feedback was obtained using students’ responses to ST104 that a trend question; teachers’ stimulation of reading engagement was obtained based on a trend question (ST152) from PISA 2009; teacher support was inferred from students’ responses to ST100; and teacher-directed instruction was gathered from ST102. The details of other variables can be seen in Table 1. Table 1. List of categories and items numbers. Categories of analysis Teacher support Student-teacher relations (reported by students) Teacher feedback Teacher-directed instruction Engagement in reading activities Teaching practices in Turkish language course Classroom instruction in reading-teacher Teachers’ stimulation of reading strategies engagement Teacher emotional support Self-related cognition related to learning Adaptive instruction PISA ITEMS ID ST100 ST104 ST102 ST153 ST152 ST211 ST212 The screenshot of the system enabling secondary analysis at PISA 2018 database was presented in Figure 1. In the analysis, it was determined whether there was a significant difference between the variables in terms of average reading scores. The p values were presented in the tables. 165 Bozkurt Figure 1. PISA IDE data analysis tool. 3. RESULTS In addition to reading performance in PISA 2018, the results obtained from the data collected for the 'classroom climate perceived by the students' in Turkish/Turkish Language and Literature courses were discussed under the subheadings of teacher support (help and emotional support), feedback, adaptive instruction, the stimulation of reading engagement, and in-class reading practices. 3.1. Teacher Support, Feedback, Adaptive Instruction, and Reading Performance According to the perception of receiving help as an indicator of teacher support, the average overall reading score of the Türkiye sample varies. In the Turkish/Turkish Language and Literature course, the average reading score of the students who stated, "Teacher helps students with their learning" and those who have a negative perception of help were different. Table 2. Help perception and reading performance. Every lesson (468) Most lessons (472) Most lessons (472) Diff = 4 (3.0) p-value = 0.2072 Some lessons (452) Diff = 16 (4.6) p-value = 0.0005 Diff = 20 (4.1) p-value = 0.0000 Never or hardly ever (452) Diff = 15 (9.1) p-value = 0.0897 Diff = 19 (8.2) p-value = 0.0190 Some lessons (452) Diff = 1 (7.9) p-value = 0.9445 As can be seen in Table 2, the average reading score of students who reported that the teacher helped in "most lessons" was considerably higher than those who reported that the teacher "sometimes" helped or "never" helped. A similar situation was with regard to additional assistance. According to the answers given to the question "The teacher gives extra help when students need it", Türkiye's general reading scale average scores varied. 166 Int. J. Assess. Tools Educ., Vol. 9, Special Issue, (2022) pp. 162–178 Table 3. Perception of extra help and reading performance. Every lesson (466) Most lessons (475) Most lessons (475) Diff = 9 (2.8) p-value = 0.0017 Some lessons (459) Diff = 7 (3.3) p-value = 0.0244 Diff = 16 (3.7) p-value = 0.0000 Never or hardly ever (451) Diff = 15 (6.3) p-value = 0.0178 Diff = 24 (6.6) p-value = 0.0003 Some lessons (459) Diff = 7 (5.5) p-value = 0.1785 As can be seen in Table 3, there is a significant difference between the reading comprehension performance of the students who reported that the teacher gives extra help in every or most lessons and the students who stated that they hardly helped. The average reading score of students who report that the teacher helped in "most lessons" is considerably higher than students who reported that the teacher "sometimes" helped or "never" helped. In other words, when the perception of receiving help is positive, reading performance is also high. When we look at the relationship the students establish with the teacher, which is the emotional support, it is seen that there is a difference in reading performance. The resulting difference points to a complex situation (see Table 4). Table 4. Teacher listening to and paying attention to students’ views. Strongly disagree (448) Disagree (472) Disagree (472) Diff = 24 (4.8) p-value = 0.0000 Agree (468) Diff = 20 (4.7) p-value = 0.0000 Diff = -3 (3.5) p-value = 0.3225 Strongly agree (470) Diff = 23 (5.2) p-value = 0.0000 Diff = 1 (4.6) p-value = 0.8169 Agree (468) Diff = 2 (3.5) p-value = 0.4945 There is a significant difference between the reading success of the students who stated that, "I strongly disagree" with the statement "The teacher listened to and paid attention to my views on how to do things" and those who stated, "I do not agree", "I agree" and "I totally agree", and this difference is statistically significant. A similar situation is seen with students who reported that, “The teacher made me feel confident in my ability to do well in the course”. Table 5. Ensuring that the teacher has confidence in the students’ abilities. Strongly disagree (446) Disagree (481) Disagree (481) Diff = 35 (4.2) p-value = 0.0000 Agree (469) Diff = 23 (4.3) p-value = 0.0000 Diff = 12 (2.8) p-value = 0.0000 Strongly agree (458) Diff = 13 (5.4) p-value = 0.0193 Diff = 22 (4.8) p-value = 0.0000 Agree (469) Diff = 10 (4.4) p-value = 0.0190 As can be understood from Table 5, the big difference, here, is poor reading performance, especially among students who firmly stated that "the teacher does not listen to their views’ and 167 Bozkurt "the teacher doesn’t enable them to feel confident" in class. However, student responses do not indicate a linear development. The feedback perception of the students in the Turkish/Turkish Language and Literature course is also seen to be related to the average scores of the general reading scale (see Table 6). Table 6. Feedback: Powerful aspects. Never or almost never (468) Some lessons (459) Many lessons (474) Some lessons (459) Diff = 9 (2.9) p-value = 0.0016 Many lessons (474) Diff = 6 (4.5) p-value = 0.1959 Diff = 15 (3.5) p-value = 0.0000 (Almost) every lesson (468) Diff = 0 (5.4) p-value = 0.9671 Diff = 9 (4.6) p-value = 0.0575 Diff = 6 (3.8) p-value = 0.1146 The reading score of the students who thought that they receive feedback on their good aspects in "most courses" is significantly higher than the those who thought that they receive feedback on their good aspects in "some courses". The scores of the students who thought that they had never received any feedback have not changed compared to those who thought that they had received some feedback in each lesson. An inverse relationship emerged between students who reported receiving feedback from the teacher on how to improve themselves and students who reported that they did not. Table 7. Feedback: Aspects that could be improved. Never or almost never (473) Some lessons (467) Many lessons (466) Some lessons (467) Diff = 6 (3.1) p-value = 0.0458 Many lessons (466) Diff = 8 (4.9) p-value = 0.1218 Diff = 1 (3.4) p-value = 0.7072 (Almost) every lesson (459) Diff = 14 (4.7) p-value = 0.0033 Diff = 8 (3.6) p-value = 0.0366 Diff = 6 (3.8) p-value = 0.0953 As can be seen in Table 7, students with a negative perception of feedback on the aspects that could be improved have a higher average reading score than students with positive feedback. It should be noted that as the perception regarding the rate of reporting feedback decreases, so does the reading performance score. The same situation was also revealed in the perception of feedback about which areas students can still improve themselves (see Table 8). Table 8. Feedback: Areas for improvement. Never or almost never (482) Some lessons (462) Many lessons (461) Some lessons (462) Diff = 19 (3.0) p-value = 0.0000 Many lessons (461) Diff = 21 (4.9) p-value = 0.0000 Diff = 1 (3.6) p-value = 0.6986 (Almost) every lesson (459) Diff = 22 (4.6) p-value = 0.0000 Diff = 3 (3.7) p-value = 0.3849 Diff = 2 (3.9) p-value = 0.6368 It is understood that students' reading performance varies according to the perception of positive or negative feedback. As reading performance improves, the frequency of receiving feedback 168 Int. J. Assess. Tools Educ., Vol. 9, Special Issue, (2022) pp. 162–178 decreases. This suggests that feedback expectations of students who are successful in reading are also high. On the other hand, there is a high probability that teachers give feedback to poor readers more frequently. Reading comprehension performance shows a linear relationship with the teacher's adaptation of the instruction according to the level and needs. Table 9. The teachers’ adaptation of the instruction to the needs and level of the class. Never or almost never (442) Some lessons (452) Many lessons (475) Some lessons (452) Diff = 9 (5.4) p-value = 0.0836 Many lessons (475) Diff = 33 (5.2) p-value = 0.0000 Diff = 24 (2.8) p-value = 0.0000 (Almost) every lesson (483) Diff = 41 (6.5) p-value = 0.0000 Diff = 31 (4.1) p-value = 0.0000 Diff = 8 (3.0) p-value = 0.0094 As can be seen in Table 9, the average reading score of students who stated that "almost every lesson" was organized according to the level and need of the class was much higher than the students who thought that the lesson was "almost never" adapted to the class, and the difference was significant. From the students' point of view, individual assistance to students who had difficulties in the course made a significant difference in reading scores. The reading performance of the students who reported that they were helped when they had difficulty in “almost every lesson” was higher than the others. In terms of performance level, there were students reporting that they were "almost never" helped or "sometimes" helped when they had difficulties. This can be seen from Table 10. Table 10. Helping the student who is struggling individually. Never or almost never (461) Some lessons (461) Many lessons (469) Some lessons (461) Diff = 1 (4.2) p-value = 0.8608 Many lessons (469) Diff = 9 (5.1) p-value = 0.0957 Diff = 8 (3.4) p-value = 0.0230 (Almost) every lesson (474) Diff = 13 (4.9) p-value = 0.0064 Diff = 13 (3.4) p-value = 0.0003 Diff = 5 (3.5) p-value = 0.1746 3.1. Teachers’ Stimulation of Reading Engagement, Classroom Reading Practices and Reading Performance Teachers' stimulation of reading engagement is significant in reading performance. The average reading score seems linear, as the teacher stimulates the student to explain his or her views on the text read in the lesson. The difference that arises in this regard is also very remarkable. Table 11. Stimulate: Express opinion. Never or hardly ever (442) Some lessons (451) Most lessons (480) Some lessons (451) Diff = 9 (4.7) p-value = 0.0464 Most lessons (480) Diff = 38 (5.5) p-value = 0.0000 Diff = 28 (3.4) p-value = 0.0000 All lessons (483) Diff = 41 (5.6) p-value = 0.0000 Diff = 32 (3.6) p-value = 0.0000 169 Diff = 3 (3.6) p-value = 0.3745 Bozkurt As can be seen in Table 11, students who reported that they were not encouraged to express their own opinions have a significantly lower reading average. Students who stated that they were encouraged to express their views on “every course or most courses” had higher reading performance. Stimulating students to associate the read text with their own experiences also affects their reading comprehension performance (see Table 12). Table 12. Stimulate: Relate to lives. Never or hardly ever (465) Some lessons (461) Most lessons (471) Some lessons (461) Diff = 4 (3.2) p-value = 0.2478 Most lessons (471) Diff = 6 (3.6) p-value = 0.0843 Diff = 10 (3.1) p-value = 0.0014 All lessons (474) Diff = 9 (4.7) p-value = 0.0476 Diff = 13 (3.7) p-value = 0.0006 Diff = 3 (4.0) p-value = 0.4556 Motivating the participation in the course with questions also increases the level of reading comprehension (see Table 13). Table 13. Strategies: Motivating questions. Never or hardly ever (464) Some lessons (462) Some lessons (462) Diff = -1 (4.8) p-value = 0.7609 Most lessons (469) Diff = 5 (5.1) p-value = 0.3037 Diff = 7 (2.9) p-value = 0.0191 All lessons (470) Diff = 7 (5.8) p-value = 0.2453 Diff = 8 (3.7) p-value = 0.0256 Most lessons (469) Diff = 1 (3.1) p-value = 0.6379 In the Turkish/Turkish Language and Literature course, as the frequency of motivating the student's participation in the course with questions increases, the level of reading comprehension also increases. There is a significant difference between the general reading scores of the students who stated that they were motivated by questions in "some courses" and those who stated that they were motivated in "all courses." The reading average scores of Turkish students participating in PISA 2018 differ according to how the teacher evaluates their in-class practices in reading activities. There is a big difference between the reading scale scores of the students who stated, "the teacher makes a short summary of the previous lesson at the beginning of the lesson" and the students who had negative opinions on this subject, and this difference indicates an inverse relationship (see Table 14). Table 14. Teacher giving a summary of the previous lesson at the beginning of the lesson. Every lesson (449) Most lessons (467) Most lessons (467) Diff = 18 (3.2) p-value = 0.0000 Some lessons (476) Diff = 28 (3.3) p-value = 0.0000 Diff = 9 (2.6) p-value = 0.0003 Diff = 43 (6.9) p-value = 0.0000 Diff = 25 (5.7) p-value = 0.0000 Never or hardly ever (492) 170 Some lessons (476) Diff = 16 (5.9) p-value = 0.0082 Int. J. Assess. Tools Educ., Vol. 9, Special Issue, (2022) pp. 162–178 There is a 43-point difference between the students who reported that the teacher “every lesson” made a short summary of the previous lesson at the beginning of the Turkish/Turkish Language lesson and the students who reported that this practice was never made. What is remarkable is that the reading performance score increases as the frequency of teacher reports concerning the summary of the lesson decreases. This may indicate that the expectations of students with high reading performance have not been met. From another point of view, the positive perceptions of students with poor reading performance suggest that their awareness of classroom activities is poor. Positive and negative responses to activities related to reading a book or a chapter result in different appearances in reading performance. The average reading score of the students who reported that the summary of the book or book chapter read in the course was written is lower than the students who reported that the summary activity was not done. This difference is high and significant. This can be seen in Table 15. Table 15. Summarizing. No (489) Yes (458) Diff = 31 (4.3) p-value = 0.0000 As with the summarization activity, small group discussion also indicates an inverse relationship. In the Türkiye sample, the average reading score of the students who reported that small group discussions were held with students reading the same book was lower than the students who reported that they did not, and this difference was significantly higher (see in Table 16). Table 16. Small group discussion with students reading the same text. No (476) Yes (455) Diff = 22 (2.8) p-value = 0.0000 The same situation is seen in the activity of comparing the content of the text read with their own experiences. The reading score of students who reported that this activity was not done was significantly higher than the students who stated that it was done (see in Table 17). Table 17. Comparing the content of the text with their own experiences. No (482) Yes (453) Diff = 29 (2.9) p-value = 0.0000 In addition, the reading performance of the students who reported that the text read in the courses was compared with other texts written on similar topics is lower and statistically significant This can be seen in Table 18. Table 18. Comparison with other texts on similar topics. No (481) Yes (455) Diff = 26 (2.6) p-value = 0.0000 171 Bozkurt The average reading score of students who gave a positive opinion about the writing that was done on the text that was read was considerably lower than that of students who gave a negative opinion, and this difference is significant. the values can be seen in Table 19. Table 19. Writing a text related to the text being read. No (476) Yes (458) Diff = 19 (2.9) p-value = 0.0000 As can be seen, the average overall reading score of the students who reported that the activities of summarizing the text, comparing their own experiences with the content of the text, comparing the text with other texts on similar topics, and writing were not done are much higher than those students who reported that these activities were done. This may be due to the fact that good readers find the teacher's activities inadequate in the lesson, or it may be due to the poor readers' inability to correctly define the activities in the classroom. 4. DISCUSSION Based on the PISA 2018 data, this study focuses on the role of teacher support, feedback and teaching practices in Turkish/Turkish Language and Literature courses on reading comprehension performance in the Türkiye sample. According to the findings obtained from PISA 2018, there is a significant difference between the average reading score of students whose perception of the help from the teacher is positive and those who are negative in the Turkish/Turkish Language and Literature course. The average reading score of students whose perception of receiving help from the teacher is positive is considerably higher than the others. Accordingly, when the perception of help from the teacher is positive, reading performance is also high. Karip (2020) also evaluated the findings in Türkiye in general and found out that students' reading performance scores increased as the teacher support increased. Across OECD, students who reported receiving more teacher support scored lower in reading. For example, participants in schools where teachers often show interest in each student's learning scored an average of 479, while students in schools where teachers report little interest in each student's learning scored an average of 491 (OECD, 2019). When the relationship that the students establish with the teacher is examined, namely the emotional support, it is seen that there is a significant difference in reading performance. There is a remarkable difference between the students who stated (x̄ =448) that the teacher "absolutely did not listen" to the students' opinions about how to do something and the reading performance of the other students. The same is true for the students who "strongly disagree" that their teacher builds a sense of confidence that they can succeed. The big difference, here, stands out as poor reading performance, especially for students who firmly state that the teacher does not listen to their opinions and "don't make them feel confident" in class. However, student responses do not indicate a linear development. Karip (2020), in his study, reported that while 64% of students in Türkiye stated that their teacher created a sense of confidence in them that they could succeed; 62% of students thought that the teacher listened to their own views on how to do something. These findings show that the emotional support provided by teachers according to students' statements in Türkiye remains at a lower level than the OECD average. MeşeSoytürk (2020) investigated teacher support including emotional support and found out that the highest impact on the reading skills of 15-year-old students studying in Türkiye was positively related to the classroom discipline, family support, reading competence perceptions, feeling of a sense of belonging to the school, respectively, and negatively related to teacher support. Karaman (2022) examined the relationship between teacher behavior and reading performance 172 Int. J. Assess. Tools Educ., Vol. 9, Special Issue, (2022) pp. 162–178 in PISA 2018 and found that the students who felt supported by their teachers showed higher performance in reading literacy. The feedback perception of the students in the Turkish/Turkish Language and Literature course was also seen to be related to the average scores of the general reading scale. Students who think they have received feedback on their good attributes in "most subjects" have a reading score significantly higher than those who think they have received feedback on their good attributes in "some lessons". There is a negative relationship between students who reported that they received feedback from the teacher on how to improve themselves and those who reported that they did not. Students with a negative perception of feedback for the purpose of improvement had higher average reading scores than students with positive feedback. The same situation arose in the perception of feedback given so that students could improve themselves. As reading performance increased, the frequency of those stating that he or she received feedback decreased. This suggests that students who were successful in reading also have high feedback expectations. It is also possible that teachers give more frequent feedback to poor readers. Karaman (2022) stated that the teacher feedback was negatively associated with reading performance. Safari (2020) found that teachers in countries above the OECD average often provide feedback and better reading materials to their students than teachers in countries below the average. This result also explains the negative relationship seen in Türkiye. Göçer and Şentürk (2019) pointed out that Turkish teachers used descriptive, process-based, and written feedback less than giving evaluative and verbal feedback for the whole class, and that Turkish language teachers had consensus on the importance of giving feedback in the text processing operation, and they had problems with when, how and which type of feedback could be given to which skill area. Karip (2020) stated that approximately one-fifth of students in Türkiye could not receive feedback from their teachers about their strengths, and how they could improve their performance and weaknesses which they could improve themselves. When the PISA 2018 results are evaluated in terms of the participating countries in general, it is seen that only from 10% to 15% of the students received feedback. In OECD economics specifically, less than 10% of students reported receiving feedback on their strengths "every or almost every lesson", and more importantly, many students reported that they received feedback "never or almost never" (OECD, 2019). Adaptive instruction is another variable associated with reading comprehension. Reading comprehension performance shows a linear development as the teacher adapts the lesson according to the level and needs. The average reading score of the students who stated that "almost every lesson (x̄=483)" is organized according to the level and needs of the class is much higher than the students who think that the lesson is "almost never (x̄=442)" adapted to students, and the difference is significant. From the students' point of view, individual assistance to the students who had difficulties in the lesson also made a significant difference in the reading scores. Students who report to have been helped when they had difficulty in "almost every lesson" have higher reading performance than others. In terms of performance level, students who report to have been “almost never" helped or "sometimes" helped when they have difficulties are at the bottom. Karaman (2022) found out that the adaptation of instruction showed a positively significant relationship with reading literacy in Türkiye. Adapting the course requires expert knowledge. Vaughn (2019) found that teachers who made adaptation to the specific needs of their students could change their teaching according to the individual situation and the students they worked with. Houtveen et al. (1999) found that adapting the instruction during the initial reading process provided more successful reading results. Qian and Lau (2022) also found out that adaptive instruction was associated with reading performance. Teachers' stimulation of reading engagement has been monitored since PISA 2009. According to the findings, the encouragement of teacher to express opinions and associating the content 173 Bozkurt with their schemata in classroom reading practices and motivating student participation with questions are important parameters in reading performance. For example, the average reading score develops linearly when the teacher encourages the student to express his or her views on the text they have read in the lesson. The average reading score of the students who stated that they were not encouraged to express their opinions was significantly lower. Encouraging students to relate the text they have read to their own lives also affects reading comprehension performance. In addition, as the frequency of motivating the student's participation in the lesson with questions increases in the Turkish / Turkish Language and Literature course, the level of reading comprehension also increases. Based on the PISA 2018 findings, Qian and Lau (2022) showed that teacher encouragement was positively related to reading performance at both student and school levels. Guthrie et al. (2006) identified that stimulating tasks in reading increased interest, internal motivation, and reading comprehension. Studies show that teachers have a critical role in promoting motivation to read intrinsically (e.g., De Naeghel et al., 2014; Gambrell, 1996; Guthrie, McRae, & Klauda, 2007). Verdegaal (2021) suggests that the decline in the Netherlands' PISA reading performance is related to reading motivation. Finally, there is a 43-point difference between the students who reported that they “never or almost never” wrote a short summary of the previous lesson at the beginning of the lesson and those who reported that this practice was done “every lesson.” As the frequency of the teacher's reporting of summarizing the lesson decreased, the reading performance score increased. The average reading score of students who reported that there were no summarizing the text, comparing their own experiences with the content of the text, comparing the text with other texts on similar topics, and writing activities related the text was much higher than the students who reported that these activities were carried out. The average score of the students who pointed out that they summarized the text they read in the course (72%) was 458, while the average score of those who reported that they did not summarize the text (27%) was 489. There is a 22-point difference between the average of students who reported that small group discussions "was done" (45%) and students who reported that, "it was not done" (53%), and the difference is significant. There was also a 29-point difference in the statements for comparing the text to their own experience (yes= 52%, no=46). Intertext comparison (yes= 53%, no=45) and text-related writing (yes= 49%, no=49) show a 26-point difference in favor of those who reported negatively. It can be thought that the expectations of the good readers may not be met by the teacher, and that the awareness of the poor readers about the classroom activities is weak. From another point of view, the quality of in-class reading activities can be discussed. In the literature, the opinion that summarizing, criticizing, and evaluating the text affects reading performance is dominant. Kutlu et al. (2011) pointed out that the probability of predicting whether the reading comprehension was successful or not was influenced by the variable that the teacher had them write a summary about the texts they read. Dilidüzgün (2013) identified that the frequency of teachers' summary studies was limited to the summary studies in the book (97%). In addition, 31% of the teachers argued that the ability to summarize was not taught, and 47% argued that it was partially taught. Erdağı-Toksun (2017) pointed out that 4 out of 15 teachers had their students write a summary during reading-comprehension activities. In the project conducted by Kutlu et al. (2019), there was an increase in teachers' initiatives and behaviors such as giving feedback to students about reading comprehension, encouraging for discussion, encouraging them to express their opinions, making them associate it with their own experiences, writing something about what they read and summarizing what they read. The present study has identified that teacher-related variables play crucial roles in students’ reading achievement. Reading comprehension performance is positively or negatively associated with teacher support, teacher’s adaptive instruction, teacher feedback, engagement in reading activities and in-class teaching practices. In order to increase reading performance, it can be recommended to focus on the teacher's behavior in the classroom. 174 Int. J. Assess. Tools Educ., Vol. 9, Special Issue, (2022) pp. 162–178 4.1. Limitations The study does not include a comparison with the data of the countries in Türkiye's economic bracket; it has limitations in terms of not addressing the differences that may occur in terms of gender, school type, reading habits and socio-economic variables. Declaration of Conflicting Interests and Ethics The authors declare no conflict of interest. This research study complies with research publishing ethics. The scientific and legal responsibility for manuscripts published in IJATE belongs to the author. Orcid B. Umit BOZKURT https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2532-9104 REFERENCES Afflerbach, P., & Harrison, C. (2017). What is engagement, how is it different from motivation, and how can I promote it? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 61(2), 217-220. http s://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.679 De Naeghel, J., Valcke, M., De Meyer, I., Warlop, N., Van Braak, J., & Van Keer, H. (2014). The role of teacher behavior in adolescents’ intrinsic reading motivation. Reading and Writing, 27(9), 1547-1565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-014-9506-3 Dilidüzgün, Ş. (2013). Ortaokul Türkçe derslerinde oku(ma)dan özet yaz(ma)ya [From reading to summary writing in secondary school Turkish lessons]. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 46(2), 47-68. https://shorturl.at/bFO57 Dolapçıoğlu, S. (2019). Teacher support for a classroom setting that promotes thinking skills: an analysis on the level of academic achievement of middle school students. Cukurova University Faculty of Education Journal, 48(2), 1429-1454. https://doi.org/10.14812/cu fej.557616 Erdağı-Toksun, S. (2017). Türkçe öğretmenlerinin okuma stratejileri bilişsel farkındalık becer ilerini kullanma düzeylerine ilişkin görüşleri [The views of Turkish teachers on the level of using their cognitive awareness skills of reading strategies]. e-Kafkas Journal of Educational Research, 4(2), 10-18. https://doi.org/10.30900/kafkasegt.310416 Fraser, B.J. (1998). Classroom environment instruments: Development, validity and applicati ons. Learning Environments Research, 1, 7-34. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:10099325147 31 Federici, R.A., & Skaalvik, E.M. (2014). Students' perceptions of emotional and instrumental teacher support: Relations with motivational and emotional responses. International Education Studies, 7(1), 21-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ies.v7n1p21 Gambrell, L.B. (1996). Creating classroom cultures that foster reading motivation. Reading Teacher, 50, 14-25. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20201703?seq=1 Göçer, A., & Şentürk, R. (2019). Türkçe öğretmenlerinin metin işleme sürecinde kullandiklari geribildirim türlerine yönelik bir araştirma [A research on the feedback species of the Turkish teachers used in the process of text processing]. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 31, 40-92. https://doi.org/10.14520/adyusbd.461313 Guess, P., & McCane-Bowling, S. (2016). Teacher support and life satisfaction: An investigat ion with urban, middle school students. Education and Urban Society, 48(1), 30-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013124513514604 Guthrie, J.T., McRae, A., & Klauda, S.L. (2007). Contributions of concept-oriented reading instruction to knowledge about interventions for motivations in reading. Educational Psychologist, 42, 237–250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520701621087 Guthrie J.T., Wigfield, A., Humenick, N.M., Perencevich, K.C., Taboada, A., & Barbosa, P. (2006). Influences of stimulating tasks on reading motivation and comprehension. The 175 Bozkurt Journal of Educational Research, 99(4), 232-246. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOER.99.4. 232-246 Houtveen, A.A.M., Booij, N., de Jong, R., & van de Grift, W.J.C.M. (1999). Adaptive instruct ion and pupil achievement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 10(2), 172192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1076/sesi.10.2.172.3508 Hughes, J.N., Luo, W., Kwok, O.M., & Loyd, L.K. (2008). Teacher-student support, effortful engagement, and achievement: A 3-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psy chology, 100(1), 1-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.1 Karaman, P. (2022). Examining non-cognitive factors predicting reading achievement in Türk iye: Evidence from PISA 2018. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Res earch, 9(3), 450-459. https://doi.org/10.33200/ijcer.927884 Karip, E. (2020). PISA’da okuma performansı ve öğrencilerin okul yaşamı [Reading perform ance and students' school life in PISA]. TEDMEM. http://shorturl.at/elpCS Klem, M.A., & Connell, J.P. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 262-273. http://dx.doi.or g/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2004.tb08283.x Kutlu, Ö., Yıldırım, Ö., Bilican, S., & Kumandaş, H. (2011). İlköğretim 5. sınıf öğrencilerinin okuduğunu anlamada başarılı olup-olmama durumlarının kestirilmesinde etkili olan değ işkenlerin incelenmesi [Investigation of factors that affect 5th graders’ success in readin g comprehension]. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psycholo gy, 2(1), 132-139. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/epod/issue/5806/77235 Kutlu, Ö., Özyeter, N.T., Alpayar, Ç., & Kula-Kartal, S. (2019). Okuduğunu anlama becerisinin ölçülmesi ve değerlendirilmesi [Measurement and assessment of reading comprehension skills]. Ankara Üniversitesi Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Uygulama ve Araştırma Merkezi. Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi. http://shorturl.at/orIQX Lee, J. (2012). The effects of the teacher–student relationship and academic press on student engagement and academic performance. International Journal of Educational Research, 53, 330-340. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.IJER.2012.04.006 Lee, Y., Jang, B.G., & Conradi Smith, K. (2021). A systematic review of reading engagement research: What do we mean, what do we know, and where do we need to go? Reading Psychology, 42(5), 540-576. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2021.1888359 Lei, H., Cui, Y., & Chiu, M.M. (2018). The relationship between teacher support and students' academic emotions: A meta-analysis. Frontiers Psychology, 8, 1-12. https://doi.org/10. 3389/fpsyg.2017.02288 Lei, Y., Wen, Z., Li, J., Kong, Y., Chen, Q., & Li, S. (2019). Teacher support, reading strategy and reading literacy: A two-level mediation model. Best Evid Chin Edu, 2(1), 157-170. https://doi.org/10.15354/bece.19.ar1036 Ma, L., Luo, H., & Xiao, L. (2021). Perceived teacher support, self-concept, enjoyment and achievement in reading: A multilevel mediation model based on PISA 2018. Learning and Individual Differences, 85, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101947 Ma, L., Xiao, L., & Hau, K.T. (2022). Teacher feedback, disciplinary climate, student selfconcept, and reading achievement: A multilevel moderated mediation model. Learning and Instruction, 79, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101602 Malecki, C.K., & Demaray, M.K. (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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/scpq.1 8.3.231.22576 Ministry of National Education. (2022). 2022 ortaöğretim kurumlarına ilişkin merkezi sınav [2022 central examination for secondary education institutions]. The Series of Educatio n, Analysis, and Evaluation Reports, Ministry of National Education, Türkiye. 176 Int. J. Assess. Tools Educ., Vol. 9, Special Issue, (2022) pp. 162–178 Ministry of National Education. (2021). 2021 ortaöğretim kurumlarına ilişkin merkezi sınav [2021 central examination for secondary education institutions]. The Series of Educatio n, Analysis, and Evaluation Reports, 16. Ministry of National Education, Türkiye. Ministry of National Education. (2020). 2020 ortaöğretim kurumlarına ilişkin merkezi sınav [ 2020 central examination for secondary education institutions]. The Series of Education, Analysis, and Evaluation Reports, 12. Ministry of National Education, Türkiye. Merga, M.K. (2020). Fallen through the cracks: Teachers’ perceptions of barriers faced by str uggling literacy learners in secondary school. English in Education, 54(4), 371-395. http ://dx.doi.org/10.1080/04250494.2019.1672502 Meşe-Soytürk, M. (2020). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri ve 2018 PISA verileri ile örnek bir uygula ma [Structural equation models and a case study using 2018 PISA] [Master's dissertation, Yildiz Technical University]. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2016). PISA 2015 results (volume I): Excellence and equity in education. OECD Publishing. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019). PISA 2018 results (volume I): What students know and can do. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754en Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019). PISA 2018 results (volume III): What school life means for students’ lives. PISA OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/ 10.1787/acd78851-en Qian, Q., & Lau, K.L. (2022). The effects of achievement goals and perceived reading instruct ion on Chinese student reading performance: Evidence from PISA 2018. Journal of Research in Reading, 45(1), 137-156. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12388 Parlak, B. (prepared by) (2019). Akademik becerilerin izlenmesi ve değerlendirilmesi (Monito ring and assessing of academic skills Project 2018 report for 4th grades). Ministry of National Education General Directorate of Measurement, Assessment, and Examination Services, Türkiye. Reyes, M.R., Brackett, M.A., Rivers, S.E., White, M., & Salovey, P. (2012). Classroom emoti onal climate, student engagement, and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 700-712. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027268 Ruzek, E.E.A., Hafen, C.A., Allen, J.P., Gregory, A., Mikami, A.Y., & Pianta, R.C. (2016). H ow teacher emotional support motivates students: The mediating roles of perceived peer relatedness, autonomy support, and competence. Learning and Instruction, 42, 95-103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.LEARNINSTRUC.2016.01.004 Safari, N.F.N. (2020). Students' perception of teacher guidance on reading learning based on results of PISA 2018. Indonesian Journal of Educational Assessment, 3(1), 32-41. https: //doi.org/10.26499/ijea.v3i1.56 Sakiz, G., Pape, S., & Hoy, A. (2012). Does perceived teacher affective support matter for mi ddle school students in mathematics classrooms? Journal of School Psychology, 50(2), 235-255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.JSP.2011.10.005 Sukhram, D., & Monda-Amaya, L.E. (2017). The effects of oral repeated reading with and wi thout corrective feedback on middle school struggling readers. British Journal of Special Education, 44(1), 95-111. http://dx.doi.org/95-111. 10.1111/1467-8578.12162 Vaughn, M. (2019). Adaptive teaching during reading ınstruction: A multi-case study. Reading Psychology, 40(1), 1-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2018.1481478 Verdegaal, A.L. (2021). The Dutch decline in PISA reading performance explained: Exploring ICT-use, reading motivation, reading frequency, and reading strategies [Master's disser tation, University of Twente]. https://purl.utwente.nl/essays/86741 Wang, M., & Holcombe, R. (2010). Adolescents’ perceptions of school environment, engage ment, and academic achievement in middle school. American Educational Research Jou rnal, 47(3), 633-662. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831209361209 177 Bozkurt Yıldırım, A., & Özgürlük, B. (prepared by) (2019). Akademik becerilerin izlenmesi ve değerle ndirilmesi (Monitoring and assessing of academic skills project-2018 report for 8th grades). Ministry of National Education General Directorate of Measurement, Assessm ent, and Examination Services, Türkiye. 178