**4. Discussion**

In the current study, we aimed to explore the validity of the KAPS model in the Turkish language context with Turkish elementary students by determining the direct relationships between fluency, background knowledge, and strategy usage as they contribute to comprehension. All contributors to comprehension, except for background knowledge, were found to be components of the model for reading comprehension.

A successful comprehension process requires the reader to make meaning. Previous research has shown that comprehension requires readers to employ prior knowledge and integrate it into text processing [20]. Additionally, comprehension occurs when readers connect their prior knowledge to the text, make connections between different parts of the text, and make connections between known and unknown information [11]. While previous research has shown that there are profound positive relations between prior knowledge and reading comprehension [21,22,26], the results sugges<sup>t</sup> that, in a more complex model of comprehension, there was no significant relationship between reading background knowledge and reading comprehension. Students' ackground did not contribute significantly to the prediction of reading comprehension in the path analysis model. This result was not consistent with the previous research findings. In as much as previous research has verified the importance of background knowledge, the lack of a significant contribution of this variable in the current study may have been due to the use of an assessment of background knowledge that insufficiently assessed students' knowledge. Future research of models of reading in Turkish need to consider more robust measures of students' background knowledge.

The other result of the present study suggests a strong relation between reading strategy use, fluency, and comprehension. Fluent and proficient readers know how to and when to use reading comprehension strategies when they read. In other words, fluent readers are able to effectively use reading strategies during reading. This enables them to monitor reading comprehension processes [48,49]. The students' scores of strategy use made statistically significant and substantial contributions to reading compression. This result was consistent with the previous research [10,31,50]. Mariotti [10] has found that vocabulary

and strategy use were significant components of reading comprehension. Moreover, Seipel et al. [31] reported that proficient readers are better in strategy use compared to poor readers. Additionally, Reed and Lynn [44] found that using comprehension strategies such as making inferences from the text to be read had significant e ffects on reading comprehension.

The results of this study a ffirm the significance of fluency (including both automaticity in word recognition and prosody) as a significant variablein proficient reading and reading comprehension [9,18,51–55] in Turkish fourth grade students. As such, continued instruction in reading fluency, automaticity, and prosody, for Turkish students beyond third grade is warranted. Additionally, instruction in the application of specific comprehension strategies can also be recommended. Comprehension is not a passive task, and the use of comprehension strategies ensures that readers will actively monitor and process meaning as they read. Thus, comprehension strategies, especially the ones tested in the present study, and reading fluency (automaticity and prosody) need to be given priority for literacy instruction for Turkish elementary students, at least through Grade 4, and perhaps beyond for struggling readers. In conclusion, while the current study could not validate the complete hypothesized KAPS model of reading comprehension in Turkish language, it adds to the accumulating evidence of the importance of reading fluency and comprehension strategies for proficient reading, especially among upper elementary school students.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, K.Y. and T.R.; methodology, K.Y. and D.K.; software, K.Y.; validation, S.Y., F.C.C., and T.R.; formal analysis, K.Y. and D.K.; investigation, K.Y. and D.K.; resources, K.Y. and D.K.; data curation, K.Y., D.K., S.A., and F.C.C.; writing—original draft preparation, K.Y., T.R., S.A., and F.C.C.; writing—review and editing, K.Y. and T.R.; supervision, T.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** No external funding was received for this research.

**Acknowledgments:** We would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the time and e ffort devoted by reviewers to improving the quality of this manuscript.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.
