PISA-PIRLS Task Force of IRA International Reading Association 18 th European Conference on Reading, Jönköping, Sweden August 6-9, 2013 How in the World.

PISA-PIRLS Task Force of IRAInternational Reading Association 18th European Conference on Reading, Jönköping, Sweden

August 6-9, 2013

How in the World do Children Read? Insights from PIRLS 2011

William G. Brozo, George Mason University, USAChristine Garbe, University of Cologne, GermanyGerry Shiel, St. Patrick's College, Dublin, IrelandSari Sulkunen, University of Jyväskylä, Finland

Renate Valtin, Humboldt University Berlin, Germany

Session Overview Bill Brozo – General Introduction and Speaker Introductions; Brief History of

PISA/PIRLS Task Force Renate Valtin – The Concepts Behind PIRLS 2011 and General International

Trends Sari Sulkunen – Issues of Equity Christine Garbe – Findings about Supportive Literate Environments in Families

and Early Education in PIRLS 2011 - Major Trends and New Developments; Implications for Instruction and Policy

Gerry Shiel – Findings Related to Reading Engagement Bill Brozo – Major Findings Related to Gender from PIRLS 2011 - Key findings

overall and relevant findings for the United States and other Task Force member countries; Implications for Instruction and Policy

Question/Answer Session

2

Brief History of PISA/PIRLS Task ForceWilliam G. Brozo

[email protected] Mason University, Virginia, USA

PISA/PIRLS Task Force In 2003, initiated by IDEC, the International Reading

Association Board of Directors requested that an International Task Force be convened to consider the PISA 2000 findings

Of particular interest to the board were the policy and practice implications of PISA and PIRLS

Original Task Force members in addition to me included Keith Topping of Scotland, Renate Valtin of Germany (chair), Maria Dionisio of Portugal, and Cathy Roller of IRA

4

PISA/PIRLS Task Force Generated reports and PowerPoint slide shows

available at the IRA website Given numerous presentations at national and

international conferences After a 2-3 year period of relative dormancy, the

Task Force was given new life in 2010 when the IRA Board of Directors authorized its reconstitution to coincide with findings from PISA 2009

5

PISA/PIRLS Task Force Task Force just finished its term as of February 2013 Task Force members include:

Gerry Shiel of Ireland; Christine Garbe and Renate Valtin of Germany; Sari Sulkunen of Finland; Ambigapathy Pandian of Malaysia

I had been serving as the chairperson of the Task Force since 2010

We have presented at the IRA annual convention in San Antonio and have an article pending with JAAL

6

The concepts behind PIRLS 2011 and general international trends

Renate Valtin [email protected]

(emerita) Humboldt University Berlin

http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2011/8

PIRLS – Progress in International Reading Literacy Study

9-year-old students, normally 4th grade Assessed reading comprehension for two major reading purposes

– literary & informational One-hour, paper-and-pencil literacy test Student questionnaire - individual, home & school factors Parent questionnaire – support & literary resources Teacher questionnaire – individual factors, instruction &

materials School principal questionnaire - organization of teaching &

learning

9

56 participant countries and regions PIRLS 2011

Teilnehmerzahlen weltweit:303758 Schülerinnen und Schüler, 263308 Eltern, 13998 Lehrkräfte und 10297 Schulen.

Teilnehmer mit Jahrgangsstufe 4

Teilnehmer mit Jahrgangsstufe 6

Teilnehmer mit Jahrgangsstufe 4 und 6

Benchmark-Teilnehmer Brozo2013 10

22 countries participating in PIRLS 2001, 2006 und 2011

Teilnehmer mit Jahrgangsstufe 4

Benchmark-Teilnehmer Brozo2013 11

Theoretical framework:Contexts for Developing Children’s Reading Literacy

12

Contexts:

Home environment support for reading achievement

School resources for teaching reading School climate (Schools emphasize academic success Schools with Discipline and Safety Problems) Teacher preparation Classroom instruction

13

PIRLS Framework of Reading Competence

Definition of Reading LiteracyReading literacy is defined as the ability to understand and use those written language forms required by society and/or valued by the individual. Young readers can construct meaning from a variety of texts. They read to learn, to participate in communities of readers in school and everyday life, and for enjoyment (Mullis et al., 2009, p. 11).

14

Dimensions of reading competence

1. Reading purposes • .. for literary experience• .. to acquire and use information

2. Reading processes Retrieval Inferencing Scale (teximmanent):• Retrieve explicitly-stated information • Make straightforward inferences

Interpreting, Integrating and Evaluating Scale (prior knowledge based):• Interpret and integrating ideas & information • Evaluate content, language & textual elements

3. Reading related attitudes and habits (students self reports)

15

PIRLS Test Framework

Framework Element Subscales

Purposes .. for literary experience (50%) Literary Experiences (50%)

.. to acquire and use information (50%) Acquire/Use Information (50%)

Processes Retrieve explicitly-stated information (20%)

Retrieve/Infer (50%Make straightforward inferences (30%)

Interpret and integrating ideas & information (30%)

Interpret/Evaluate (50%)Evaluate content, language & textual elements (20%)

Reading Purposes and Processes – Test items

Item Types 50% Multiple Choice; 50% Constructed Response

16

Overall Performance on PIRLS 2011 – international

comparison

Perzentile

5% 25% 75% 95%

Konfidenzintervalle (+/- 2 SE) um den Mittelwert

Kursiv gesetzt sind die Teilnehmer, für die von einer eingeschränkten Vergleichbarkeit der Ergebnisse ausgegangen werden muss.

1 =

2 =

3 =

4 = Sehr hoher Anteil an Schülerinnen und Schülern mit nicht skalierbaren Leistungswerten.

Nicht statistisch signifikant vom deutschen Mittelwert abweichende Staaten (p > .05).

Kompetenzstufe I II III IV V

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Teilnehmer

Russische FöderationFinnlandSingapurNordirlandUSADänemarkKroatienTaiwanIrlandEnglandKanada

NiederlandeTschechische RepublikSchwedenItalienDeutschlandIsrael*PortugalUngarnVG OECDSlowakei

VG EUBulgarienNeuseelandSlowenienÖsterreichLitauenAustralienPolenFrankreichSpanienInternationaler MittelwertNorwegenBelgien (Franz. Gem.)RumänienGeorgienMaltaTrinidad & TobagoAserbaidschanIranKolumbienVereinigte Arabische Emirate (VAE)Saudi-ArabienIndonesienKatarOmanMarokko

M

571568568567558556554553553552552548

546545542541541541541539538535

534532531530529528527526520513512507506502488477471462457448439430428425391310

(SE)

(2.3)(2.7)(1.9)(3.3)(2.4)(1.5)(1.7)(1.9)(1.9)(2.3)(2.6)(1.6)

(1.9)(2.2)(2.1)(2.2)(2.2)(2.7)(2.6)(2.9)(0.4)(2.8)

(0.5)(4.1)(1.9)(2.0)(2.0)(2.0)(2.2)(2.1)(2.6)(2.3)(0.4)(1.9)(2.9)(4.3)(3.1)(1.4)(3.8)(3.3)(2.8)(4.1)(2.2)(4.4)(4.2)(3.5)(2.8)(3.9)

SD

616664807673646067758269

54616566668666787069

7182887063668073686875616591769788688579

1019175

10599

105

(SE)

(1.3)(1.7)(1.0)(1.8)(1.3)(1.0)(0.9)(0.9)(1.2)(1.4)(1.4)(0.9)

(0.9)(1.4)(1.0)(1.3)(1.3)(2.1)(1.4)(2.1)(0.3)(1.9)

(0.3)(2.6)(1.2)(0.9)(1.0)(1.2)(1.3)(1.1)(1.3)(1.2)(0.2)(0.9)(1.6)(2.5)(1.7)(1.1)(1.5)(1.7)(1.5)(2.1)(1.2)(2.1)(2.2)(2.1)(1.5)(2.0)

1

1

1

1

Hongkong2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

Die nationale Zielpopulation entspricht nicht oder nicht ausschließlichder vierten Jahrgangsstufe.Der Ausschöpfungsgrad und/oder die Ausschlüsse von der nationalen Zielpopulation erfüllen nicht die internationalen Vorgaben. Teilnehmer mit sehr hohen Ausschlussquoten (> 20 %) sind mit einem * gekennzeichnet.Die Teilnahmequoten auf Schul- und/oder Schülerebene erreichen nichtdie internationalen Vorgaben.

17

Overall Performance on PIRLS 2011

Highest Achieving Countries Performance Among TF Countries

18

Performance at PIRLS 2011 Benchmarks19

Performance on Literary Texts (PIRLS 2011)20

Performance on Informational Texts (PIRLS 2011)21

Differences between informational and literary texts

Polen 531 (2.1) 519 (2.4) 12 (1.2)

Schweden 547 (2.4) 537 (2.4) 10 (1.1)Slowakei 540 (2.9) 530 (3.0) 9 (1.1)

Irland 557 (2.7) 549 (2.3) 8 (1.4)

Deutschland 545 (2.2) 538 (2.5) 7 (1.2)Ungarn 542 (2.8) 536 (3.0) 6 (0.8)Slowenien 532 (2.4) 528 (2.0) 5 (1.5)

VG OECD 540 (2.4) 536 (2.3) 4 (1.1)

Rumänien 504 (4.2) 500 (4.6) 4 (1.2)

VG EU 535 (2.6) 533 (2.6) 3 (1.1)

Finnland 568 (2.0) 568 (2.0) 1 (0.8)

Australien 527 (2.2) 528 (2.2) -1 (1.2)Bulgarien 532 (4.4) 533 (4.0) -1 (1.3)Internationaler Mittelwert 512 (2.8) 513 (2.8) -1 (1.2)

Russische Föderation 567 (2.7) 570 (2.7) -3 (1.2)

Portugal 538 (2.8) 544 (2.6) -6 (1.6)

Taiwan 542 (1.9) 565 (1.8) -24 (1.0)

Neuseeland 533 (2.3) 530 (2.0) 4 (1.4)1

Malta 470 (1.7) 485 (1.5) -14 (0.8)1

Kanada 553 (1.7) 545 (1.7) 8 (0.7)2

Österreich 533 (2.2) 526 (2.0) 7 (1.1)2

Spanien 516 (2.1) 512 (2.0) 4 (1.0)2

Kroatien 555 (1.9) 552 (1.6) 3 (0.7)2

Dänemark 555 (1.7) 553 (1.8) 2 (1.0)2

Frankreich 521 (2.6) 519 (2.6) 2 (0.7)2

Litauen 529 (1.8) 527 (2.0) 2 (0.8)2

Israel* 542 (2.7) 541 (2.6) 1 (0.8)2

Tschechische Republik 545 (2.1) 545 (2.0) 0 (1.1)2

Singapur 567 (3.5) 569 (3.3) -2 (0.9)2

Hongkong 565 (2.5) 578 (2.2) -13 (1.1)2

USA 563 (1.8) 553 (1.6) 10 (0.6)2 3

Nordirland 564 (2.7) 555 (2.6) 9 (1.7)3

Belgien (Franz. Gem.) 508 (2.9) 504 (3.2) 4 (1.4)2 3

Norwegen 508 (2.0) 505 (2.3) 3 (1.4)3

England 553 (2.8) 549 (2.6) 3 (0.9)1 3

Niederlande 545 (2.4) 547 (1.9) -3 (1.0)3

Italien 539 (2.0) 545 (2.0) -6 (0.8)3

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30

LesenTeilnehmerA DifferenzALesenliterarisches informierendes

Ml-Mi (SE)Mi (SE)Ml (SE)informierendenLesen

literarischen Lesen

Leistungen besser im

Kursiv gesetzt sind die Teilnehmer, für die von einer eingeschränkten Vergleichbarkeit der Ergebnisse ausgegangen werden muss.1= Die nationale Zielpopulation entspricht nicht oder nicht ausschließlich der vierten Jahrgangsstufe.2= Der Ausschöpfungsgrad und/oder die Ausschlüsse von der nationalen Zielpopulation entspricht nicht den internationalen Vorgaben. Teilnehmer mit sehr hohen Ausschlussquoten (> 20 %) sind mit einem * gekennzeichnet.3= Die Teilnahmequoten auf Schul- und/oder Schülerebene erreichen nicht die internationalen Vorgaben.A= Inkonsistenzen in den berichteten Differenzen sind im Rundungsverfahren begründet.

Statistisch signifikante Unterschiede

Kein statistisch signifikanter Unter-schied zum Differenzwert von Deutschland.

22

Differences in compre- hension processes - retrieving/inferencing- interpreting, integrating, evaluating

Deutschland 548 (2.3) 536 (2.2) 12 (0.5)

Slowenien 533 (1.9) 530 (2.2) 3 (0.8)

VG EU 535 (2.5) 533 (2.5) 3 (1.1)Schweden 543 (2.1) 540 (2.1) 2 (0.5)Internationaler Mittelwert 513 (2.7) 511 (2.8) 2 (1.1)Finnland 569 (2.0) 567 (1.8) 2 (0.7)

Polen 526 (2.1) 525 (2.1) 2 (1.4)VG OECD 539 (2.3) 538 (2.3) 1 (1.1)Bulgarien 532 (4.0) 532 (3.9) 0 (0.8)Slowakei 534 (2.9) 536 (2.7) -1 (1.1)Irland 552 (2.8) 553 (2.2) -1 (1.3)Australien 527 (2.6) 529 (2.2) -2 (1.2)Rumänien 500 (4.2) 503 (4.5) -3 (1.4)Portugal 539 (2.8) 542 (2.6) -3 (1.6)Taiwan 551 (1.8) 555 (1.9) -3 (0.8)

Ungarn 537 (2.8) 542 (2.7) -5 (0.7)

Russische Föderation 565 (2.7) 571 (2.6) -5 (0.7)

Malta 479 (1.9) 475 (1.8) 5 (1.8)1

Neuseeland 527 (2.0) 535 (1.9) -8 (1.0)1

Österreich 539 (2.3) 521 (2.0) 19 (1.3)2

Frankreich 528 (2.4) 512 (2.8) 16 (1.0)2

Spanien 516 (2.1) 510 (2.1) 6 (0.8)2

Tschechische Republik 548 (2.4) 544 (2.0) 4 (1.1)2

Dänemark 556 (1.9) 553 (1.5) 3 (0.9)2

Litauen 530 (1.9) 527 (2.0) 3 (0.8)2

Kroatien 554 (2.0) 552 (1.7) 2 (1.2)2

Israel* 538 (2.9) 543 (3.0) -5 (1.6)2

Singapur 565 (3.4) 570 (3.4) -5 (1.2)2

Kanada 543 (1.5) 554 (1.5) -10 (0.4)2

Hongkong 562 (2.0) 578 (2.4) -16 (0.7)2

Belgien (Franz. Gem.) 512 (2.9) 499 (3.2) 12 (0.9)2 3

Norwegen 511 (1.8) 502 (2.6) 10 (1.7)3

Niederlande 549 (2.2) 543 (2.0) 6 (0.7)3

Italien 539 (1.9) 544 (2.0) -4 (0.6)3

Nordirland 555 (2.5) 562 (2.5) -7 (0.9)3

England 546 (2.6) 555 (2.7) -10 (1.4)1 3

USA 549 (1.5) 563 (1.6) -13 (0.6)2 3

Teilnehmer textimmanenteVerstehens-leistungen

wissensbasierteVerstehens-leistungen DifferenzA

Mt-Mw (SE)

Leistungen besser beiwissensbasierten textimmanenten

Verstehensleistungen

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30

M (SE)M (SE)

Kursiv gesetzt sind die Teilnehmer, für die von einer eingeschränkten Vergleichbarkeit der Ergebnisse ausgegangen werden muss.1= Die nationale Zielpopulation entspricht nicht oder nicht ausschließlich der vierten Jahrgangsstufe.2= Der Ausschöpfungsgrad und/oder die Ausschlüsse von der nationalen Zielpopulation erfüllen nicht die internationalen Vorgaben.3= Die Teilnahmequoten auf Schul- und/oder Schülerebene erreichen nicht die internationalen Vorgaben. Teilnehmer mit sehr hohen Ausschlussquoten (> 20 %) sind mit einem * gekennzeichnet.A= Inkonsistenzen in den berichteten Differenzen sind im Rundungsverfahren begründet.

Statistisch signifikante Unterschiede (p < .05).

Kein statistisch signifikanter Unterschied zum Differenzwert von Deutschland (p > .05).

23

Bulgarien

-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

VeränderungB Leistungsvorsprung höher

IGLU 2001 IGLU 20112001 2011

Kursiv gesetzt sind die Teilnehmer, für die von einer eingeschränkten Vergleichbarkeit der Ergebnisse ausgegangen werden muss.1= Die nationale Zielpopulation entspricht nicht oder nicht ausschließlich der vierten Jahrgangsstufe.2= Der Ausschöpfungsgrad und/oder die Ausschlüsse von der nationalen Zielpopulation erfüllen nicht die internationalen Vorgaben.3= Die Teilnahmequoten auf Schul- und/oder Schülerebene erreichen nicht die internationalen Vorgaben.A= Die Ergebnisse von Israel werden auf Grund der nicht gegebenen Vergleichbarkeit zwischen den Studienzyklen 2001, 2006 und 2011 hier nicht berichtet.B= Inkonsistenzen in den berichteten Differenzen sind im Rundungsverfahren begründet.

Statistisch signifikante Unter-schiede (p < .05).

Overall Reading trends PIRLS 2001 and 2011

TeilnehmerA201120062001

3 2Hongkong

1 2 2 Russische Föderation

2 Singapur

1 1 Slowenien

Slowakei

2 3 2 3 2 3USA

3 3 3Norwegen

1 1 12Neuseeland

Deutschland

2 3Italien

1 2 3 1 1 3England

Ungarn

2 2Frankreich

3 3 3Niederlande

Rumänien

2 3 2 2Litauen

550

M01

528

528

528

502

518

542

499

529

539

541

553

543

525

554

512

543

561

(3.8)

(SE)

(3.1)

(4.4)

(5.2)

(2.0)

(2.8)

(3.8)

(2.9)

(3.6)

(1.9)

(2.4)

(3.4)

(2.2)

(2.4)

(2.5)

(4.6)

(2.6)

(2.2)

532

M11

571

568

567

530

535

556

507

531

541

541

552

539

520

546

502

528

542

(4.1)

(SE)

(2.3)

(2.7)

(3.3)

(2.0)

(2.8)

(1.5)

(1.9)

(1.9)

(2.2)

(2.2)

(2.6)

(2.9)

(2.6)

(1.9)

(4.3)

(2.0)

(2.1)

M11-M01

-19

43

40

39

29

17

14

8

2

2

1

-1

-4

-5

-8

-10

-15

-19

(5.6)

(SE)

(3.8)

(5.2)

(6.1)

(2.8)

(4.0)

(4.1)

(3.5)

(4.0)

(2.9)

(3.2)

(4.3)

(3.7)

(3.5)

(3.2)

(6.3)

(3.3)

(3.0)Schweden

2

24

-20 -10 10 200

VeränderungB Anteil

IGLU 2001 IGLU 20112001 2011TeilnehmerA201120062001

3 2Hongkong

1 2 2Russische Föderation

2 Singapur

1 1 Slowenien

Slowakei

2 3 2 3 2 3USA

3 3 3Norwegen

1 1 12Neuseeland

Deutschland

2 3Italien

1 2 3 1 1 3England

Ungarn

2 2Frankreich

3 3 3Niederlande

Rumänien

2 3 2 2Litauen

Schweden

2Bulgarien

Kursiv gesetzt sind die Teilnehmer, für die von einer eingeschränkten Vergleichbarkeit der Ergebnisse ausgegangen werden muss.1= Die nationale Zielpopulation entspricht nicht oder nicht ausschließlich der vierten Jahrgangsstufe.2= Der Ausschöpfungsgrad und/oder die Ausschlüsse von der nationalen Zielpopulation erfüllen nicht die internationalen Vorgaben.3= Die Teilnahmequoten auf Schul- und/oder Schülerebene erreichen nicht die internationalen Vorgaben.A= Die Ergebnisse von Israel werden auf Grund der nicht gegebenen Vergleichbarkeit zwischen den Studienzyklen 2001, 2006 und 2011 hier nicht berichtet.B= Inkonsistenzen in den berichteten Differenzen sind im Rundungsverfahren begründet.

Statistisch signifikante Unter-schiede (p < .05).

Pupils who do not read for pleasure outside school-comparison PIRLS 2001 and 2011

Δ 01

10

6

11

6

11

13

14

22

15

14

18

33

20

27

32

35

34

27

(SE)

(1.0)

(0.6)

(0.7)

(0.8)

(0.6)

(0.8)

(0.9)

(1.0)

(0.8)

(0.6)

(0.8)

(1.1)

(1.1)

(1.3)

(1.0)

(1.0)

(1.1)

(1.8)

Δ 11

12

7

13

7

11

12

12

20

13

11

11

26

10

13

18

19

17

9

(SE)

(0.9)

(0.4)

(0.7)

(0.4)

(0.7)

(0.9)

(0.9)

(1.3)

(0.9)

(0.6)

(0.7)

(0.7)

(0.5)

(0.9)

(0.5)

(1.0)

(0.8)

(1.0)

Δ 11- Δ 01

2

1

1

1

-1

-1

-2

-2

-2

-4

-7

-7

-10

-13

-14

-15

-16

-18

(SE)

(1.4)

(0.8)

(1.0)

(0.9)

(1.0)

(1.2)

(1.3)

(1.6)

(1.1)

(0.9)

(1.0)

(1.3)

(1.2)

(1.5)

(1.1)

(1.4)

(1.4)

(2.1)

25

Reading is important- latent correlations between PIRLS and TIMSS 26

Issues of equity

Sari [email protected]

University of Jyväskylä, FINLAND

Sari Sulkunen Researcher and lecturer at the Department of Languages at

the University of Jyväskylä, Finland Doctoral degree in Finnish language at the University of

Jyväskylä Thesis about text authenticity in international reading literacy

assessments (PISA) Researcher and reading expert in SIALS and PISA since 1997 National Research Coordinator in PIRLS 2011, Vice-NPM in

PIAAC Member in the High Level Group on Literacy (2011 – 2012) Area of expertise: reading literacy, comparative

educational research, authenticity in instruction and assessment

28

Principle of equity in educationConservative viewEqual access to education for allIndividuals have different amounts of talent

Liberal viewEqual opportunities to learn: no tracking or streaming Removing barriers so that the child‘s capacities can develop

Radical viewEqual learning outcomes: special support for low-performersSuccess and failure are attributed to the schoolcomprehensive and inclusive education

29

Equity in reading assessments as equitable distribution of results SD Percentiles Distribution of achievement on different levels

or benchmarks School differences Regional differences Language/ethnic group differences Gender differences Family resources/SES

30

Standard deviations of reading achievement in PIRLS 2011 31

Percentiles of reading achievement in PIRLS 2011

5th 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th 95th

Finland 458 485 528 571 611 647 668

Germany 425 455 499 544 586 623 646Ireland 417 452 506 555 603 643 665United States 428 458 510 560 607 648 671

Hong Kong 460 492 534 576 612 643 662

Russia 455 482 526 571 614 649 672Singapore 421 459 519 573 623 665 687

Denmark 438 468 514 559 599 632 652Sweden 426 457 502 545 585 622 643

32

School differences

In Finland, for example,between-school variance explains 2,8 % of the total variancebetween-class variance explains 11,5 %between-student variance explains 85,7 %

33

Regional differences and differences between language groups: example Finland

34

Socio-economic inequalities and reading

Hong Kong Russia Finland Canada Taiwan Northern-IrelandNetherlands Italy Portugal Denmark Ireland Croatia Sweden

Singapore Germany Israel Hungary

Norway Spain Australia New Zeeland Austria PolandFrance Bulgaria Belgium (French)Romania Lithuania

35

Reading score

Percentage of variance explained by socio-economic status (ISCED, occupation, number of books)

Wendt, Stubbe & Schwippert 2012. In IGLU 2011, p. 184, Fig. 6.5

Equal school resources? Schools with computers available for instruction

36

OECD about successful school systems:

Successful school systems are those that perform above average and show below-average socio-economic inequalities

They provide all students, regardless of their socio-economic backgrounds, with similar opportunities to learn.

Successful schools: comprehensive, require teachers and schools to embrace diverse student populations through personalised educational pathways

37

EU’s High Level Group on Literacyhttp://ec.europa.eu/education/literacy/index_en.htm

Vision for a literate Europe: ”All citizens of Europe shall be literate, so as to achieve their aspirations as individuals, family members, workers, and citizens.” (HLG 2012, p. 3)

”Europe needs to place greater emphasis on inclusion and fair access: participation coupled with quality, and bolstered by specialized support for everyone who needs it.” (p. 46)

Identified four literacy gaps to be addressed: Gender gap, socio-economic gap, migrant gap and digital gap

38

Supportive Literate Environments in Families and Early Education

Christine [email protected]

University of Cologne, Germany

Christine Garbe Professor of German Language and Literature at the

University of Cologne after many years at Leuphana University, Lueneburg

Coordinator of major Adolescent Literacy grant Projects in Europe – ADORE, BaCuLit

Initiator of an International ADOLESCENT LITERACY NETWORK: www.alinet.eu

Frequent author and presenter on topics related to PISA and adolescent literacy

40

PIRLS 2011 asked parents about: their education; their occupation the number of children’s books in the home.

The students were asked about: The number of books at homeThe availability of an Internet connection and “a room of their own”. (Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Foy, P., & Drucker, K.T. (2012): The PIRLS 2011 International Results in Reading, p. 110)

41

Which role do “home resources” play for successful literacy development of children?

How PIRLS 2011 defined “many / few / some resources” at home:

Many Resources: more than 100 books in the home, children having their own room and an Internet connection, more than 25 children’s books, at least one parent having completed university, and one with a professional occupation. Few Resources: 25 or fewer books in the home, neither own room nor Internet connection, 10 or fewer children’s books, neither parent having gone beyond upper secondary school, and neither having a business or professional occupation.

42

How did Family Resources correlate with student achievement among 4th graders? Examples:

43

Country Many resources (I)

Some res. (II) Few res. (III) Difference betw. I - II / I - III

Finland 595 pt / 33% 557 pt / 67% 0 % 38

Ireland 601 pt / 27% 542 pt / 71% 2 % 59

Germany 591 pt / 24% 538 pt / 75% 2 % 53

Hungary 601 pt / 21% 538 pt / 69% 464 pt / 11% 63 / 137

Romania 593 pt / 7% 518 pt / 67% 442 pt / 26% 75 / 151

Morocco - / 1% 343 pt / 46% 306 pt / 53% (37)

International Average

571 / 18% 510 / 73% 448 / 9% 61 / 123

In Finland, Germany and Ireland, the percentage of students with ‚low resources‘ was around or below 2 %.The US did not administer the Home Questionnaire.

Which Role do Families´ Resources and Parents´ Education play in Literacy Achievement of 4th Graders?

Conclusions:Research and international student assessments (like PISA and PIRLS) consistently show a strong positive relationship between students´ achievement in basic skills (reading literacy, math & science) and the socio-economic status (SES) of their families: High SES strongly correlates with high achievement and vice versa.Theoretical Background: Pierre Bourdieus theory of social disparities: Not only economic wealth counts, but also “cultural” and “social capital” matters!

44

Which Role do Families´ Resources and Parents´ Education play in Literacy Achievement of 4th Graders?

The problem: Children growing up in families with poor resources don´t have the same opportunities to shape a successful school career as children growing up in families with good resources. This leads to a vicious circle for poor families and a vir-tuous circle for privileged families: In general, higher levels of education can lead to careers in higher paying profes-sions, higher socioeconomic status, and more home resources, so that the next generation profits from better starting conditions as well. Result: The “Matthew-Effect”!

45

The “good news”: Every Family can support the early literacy development of its children!

Main Message confirmed by PIRLS 2011: Throughout a child’s development, the time devoted to literacy related activities remains essential to the acquisition of reading literacy skills! PIRLS 2011 asked parents how much they engage in 9 early (= pre-school) literacy activities with their childs: Read books to themTell storiesSing songsPlay with alphabet toysTalk about things they had doneTalk about what they had readPlay word gamesWrite letters or wordsRead aloud signs and labels.

46

The PIRLS 2011 Early Literacy Activities Scale:

Parents are often engaged: often doing 5 / at least sometimes doing 4 of these early literacy activities with their childParents are never / almost never engaged: (almost) never doing 5 / at least sometimes doing 4 of these activities Parents are sometimes engaged: all the rest!

47

How did Parents´ Early Literacy Activities correlate with student achievement among 4th graders? Examples:

48

Country Often engaged (I)

Some times engaged (II)

(Almost) never engaged (III)

Difference betw. I - II / I - III

Finland 583 / 27% 564 / 72% - / 1% 19 pt

Ireland 569 / 50% 542 / 49% - / 1% 27 pt

Germany 555 / 38% 543 / 61% - / 1% 12 pt

Romania 529 / 38% 494 / 54% 423 / 8% 35 / 106 pt

Morocco 321 / 17% 314 / 64% 302 / 19% 7 / 19 pt

Hong Kong 588 / 12% 571 / 80 560 / 8 17 / 28 pt

International Average

529 / 37% 506 / 60% 430 / 3% 23 / 99 pt

PIRLS 2011: Supportive Learning Environments Matters – Literacy Activities before Primary School

Conclusion: Literacy Engagement and Literacy Activities (here: of parents with their children) are very important factors for successful literacy development of children.

What research says:

“A large study in England recently found that a composite variable of seven home activities— being read to, going to the library, playing with numbers, painting and drawing, being taught letters, being taught numbers, and singing or reciting songs/ poems/rhymes—had greater predictive power for literacy and numeracy achievement than any other variables studied, including SES, parents’ education, and household income (Melhuish et al., 2008).”(Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Foy, P., & Drucker, K.T. (2012): The PIRLS 2011 International Results in Reading, p. 124)

49

More specific: The PIRLS 2011 “Parents Like Reading Scale”:

Items (examples): I enjoy reading (vs. I read only if I have to) / I like talking about what I read with other people / I like spend my spare time with reading…. / Frequency of Reading!

Parents like reading: agree a lot / read nearly daily Parents somewhat like reading: agree / disagree a little / read on a weekly or monthly basisParents do not like reading: disagree / almost never read in their leisure time.

50

How did “Parents Like Reading” correlate with student achievement among 4th graders? Examples:

51

Country Like reading (I) Somewhat like reading (II)

Do not like reading (III)

Difference betw. I - II / I - III

Finland 582 / 43% 562 / 48% 545 / 9% 20 / 37 pt

Ireland 571 / 48% 544 / 43% 524 / 9% 27 / 47 pt

Germany 570 / 37% 539 / 48% 518 / 15% 31 / 52 pt

Hungary 570 / 32% 534 / 55% 501 / 13% 36 / 69 pt

Romania 540 / 21% 503 / 61% 452 / 18% 37 / 88 pt

Morocco 353 / 18% 310 / 62 % 288 /20% 43 / 65 pt

International Average

535 / 32% 507 / 57% 487 / 11% 28 / 48 pt

PIRLS 2011: Supportive Learning Environments in reading performance in general: the target countries

52

“For most children, the home provides modeling and direct guidance in effective literacy practices. Young children who see adults and older children reading or using texts in different ways are learning to appreciate and use printed materials. […] Beyond modeling, parents or other caregivers can directly support reading development by expressing positive opinions about reading and literacy. Promoting reading as a valuable and meaningful activity can motivate children to read.”(Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Foy, P., & Drucker, K.T. (2012): The PIRLS 2011 International Results in Reading, p. 116)

PIRLS 2011: Supportive Learning Environments – Do Parents like Reading?

Policy & Practice Implications

The European High Level Expert Group on Literacy released their “Final Report” in September 2012, presenting a com-prehensive Action Programme for Europe: “Act now!”One of three pillows for fostering literacy is to create a “Literate Environment”: “A literate environment is one that acknowledges the importance of language and encourages and supports the literacy development of all, no matter what their age or background. It all starts with motivation. So the primary objective of a literate environment is to increase literacy motivation and engagement (…). This means cultivating a culture of reading, increasing the visibility and availability of reading materials and promoting reading in all its forms, through diverse materials, online and offline.” (p. 39)

53

Policy & Practice Implications

Recommendations from the HLEGL-Report:“No literacy approach can be successful without including a family dimension. This requires a shift in mindset and development of family programmes that should be conceived across generations, not just focused on one age-group.” (p. 39)“At all stages of childhood, parents play a central role in their children's literacy development. Children can also support parents' literacy growth. One of the key motivators driving adults to improve their literacy skills is the desire to be a better parent: to be able to read to their children, help them with homework, and serve as a literacy role model.” (p. 39)

54

Policy & Practice Implications

Recommendations from the HLEGL-Report:„The visibility and availability of books and other reading materials are key components of a reading culture at home, in schools and throughout society. Children growing up in homes with more books develop better reading skills, no matter what their social background. Schools should provide a wide range of reading materials that attracts boys and girls of all ages and interests.“ (p. 40)

55

New: EU-Literacy-Website:www.ec.europa.eu/education/literacy

56

Reading Engagement PIRLS 2011

Gerry [email protected]

St. Patrick‘s College, Dublin, Ireland

Gerry Shiel Research Fellow since 1997 at the Educational

Research Centre at St. Patrick’s College in Dublin Member, PISA Governing Board Received his doctorate in the psychology of reading

from the University of Texas at Austin Author of numerous research, policy, and practical

publications related to reading literacy

58

Many Perspectives on Engagement in PIRLS 2011

Instruction to Engage Students in Learning Students Engaged in Reading Lessons Instruction Limited by Students Lacking Prerequisite

Knowledge or Skills Instruction Limited by Students Suffering from Lack of

Nutrition or Sleep Instruction Limited by Disruptive or Uninterested

Students Students Like Reading Students as Motivated Readers Students as Confident Readers

59

Students Like Reading (PIRLS 2011)

Components Six Interest in Reading items

(e.g., I think reading is boring; I enjoy reading; I only read if I have to) [Level of agreement]

Two Reading Out of School items (I read for fun, I read things I choose for myself) [Frequency]

Example Items I enjoy reading- Agree a lot, agree a little, disagree a little, disagree a lot

I read for fun (out of school)- Every day or almost every day, Once or twice a week, Once or twice a month, Never or almost never

60

Students Like Reading (PIRLS 2011)

Students who ‘like reading’ achieve a score of at least 11 on the 6 agreement items (i.e., ‘agreeing a lot’ with three statements and ‘agreeing a little’ with 3); they also do both reading activities (I read for fun; I read things I choose myself) outside of school ‘everyday or almost everyday’.

Students who ‘do not like reading’ score below 8.2 on the 6 agreement items, agree a little with three of the six statements, and disagree a little with the other 3, and do both reading activities once or twice a month at least

All others fall into the ‘somewhat like reading’ category.

61

Students Like Reading – PIRLS 201162

Is Student’s Liking for Reading Associated with Reading Performance? 63

Are There Gender Differences Associated with Students Liking of Reading? (PIRLS 2011) 64

Association between Liking Reading and Achievement (IRL, PIRLS 2011) 65

Is Parents’ Enjoyment of Reading Associated with Children’s Liking of Reading?

Finland: Parents vs. Children

66

Scatterplot: Parents Like Reading vs. Students Like Reading – Finland, PIRLS 2011 67

Association between SES and Students’ Liking of Reading (FIN, IRL, GER, PIRLS 2011) 68

Students’ Motivation to Read (PIRLS 2011)

Index based on students’ level of agreement with 6 statements: I like to read things that make me think It is important to be a good reader My parents like it when I read I learn a lot from reading I need to read well for my future I like it when a book helps me imagine other worlds

69

Motivation to Read, by Country – PIRLS 201170

Gender Differences in Motivation to Reading (PIRLS 2011) 71

Confidence in Reading

Based on students’ levels of agreement with 7 statements – e.g.

I usually do well in reading Reading is easy for me If a book is interesting, I don’t care how hard it is to

read* My teacher tells me I am a good reader

72

Confidence in Reading, by Country – PIRLS 2011 73

Gender Differences in Confidence in Reading – PIRLS 2011 74

Correlations Among Reading Engagement Measures – (PIRLS 2011) 75

Multi-level Model (IRL, PIRLS 2011)76

Multi-level Model (IRL, PIRLS 2011) - Continued 77

Conclusions on Engagement

Importance of engagement in reading variable, and the need to promote children’s engagement in reading, improve their motivation to read, and increase their confidence as readers.

Need to recognise gender differences associated with motivational variables (Bill to address this)

Multi-level model (IRL)– Students’ enjoyment of reading explains performance in reading, even when other school and student-level variables are included in the model (but it’s not a causal model)

PIRLS 2016 – Transition to computer-based assessment. Need to explore ways of measuring children’s engagement with electronic and paper-based texts.

78

Major Findings Related to Gender From PIRLS 2011

William G. [email protected]

George Mason UniversityFairfax, Virginia USA

18th European Conference on Reading Jönköping , Sweden

7 August, 2013

Bill Brozo Professor of Literacy at George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia,

USA Degrees from the University of North Carolina and the University of

South Carolina Member of the International Reading Association’s PISA/PIRLS Task

Force since its inception in 2003 International project work in the Balkans and Europe (BaCuLit) and in

Oman; begun new work in Romania Member of UNESCO/Brookings Learning Metrics Task Force Scholarship focuses on issues of adolescent literacy and gender Author of numerous articles and books, including The Adolescent

Literacy Inventory (Pearson); RTI and the Adolescent Reader (TCP); To be a Boy, To be a Reader (IRA)

80

Overall Findings by Gender In nearly all of the countries and

benchmarking participants, girls outperformed boys

There has been little reduction in the reading

achievement gender gap over the decade Across all the countries and benchmarking

systems participating at the fourth grade, girls had a 16-point advantage, on average, compared to boys

Brozo2013

81

Overall Findings by Gender

Only five countries showed no significant difference: Colombia, Italy, France, Spain, and Israel

The reading achievement gender gap is larger for literary than for informational reading-In literary reading, girls had higher achievement than

boys in nearly every country and benchmarking participant

-In informational reading, girls and boys had fewer achievement differences

Brozo2013

82

Reading Achievement Gender Gap inPIRLS 2011, Fourth Grade

Girls International Average

Boys International Average

Difference

Overall Scale 520 504 *16pts

Literary Reading 522 502 *20pts

Informational Reading

519 507 *12pts

83

*Statistically significant difference in favor of girls

Overall Trends in Gendered Achievement on PIRLS In each successive assessment, PIRLS has consistently found that

fourth grade girls have much higher average reading achievement than boys in most countries

This pattern is consistent with a growing and longstanding body of research in the U.S. and elsewhere that has found girls have an advantage in reading at all grades (Brozo, 2011; Chudowsky, 2010; Lietz, 2006; Robinson & Lubienski, 2011)

PISA 2009 findings reconfirm that 15-year-old girls perform consistently better in reading than boys (OECD, 2010)

Gap appears to widen over time (e.g., from PIRLS to PISA)

84

Average Overall Reading Achievement by Gender on PIRLS 2011 for Task Force Members’ Countries

Country Average Scale Score - Girls Average Scale Score-Boys Difference

Germany 545 537 *8pts

United States 562 551 *11pts

Ireland 559 544 *15pts

Finland 578 558 *20pts

85

*Statistically significant difference in favor of girls

Gender Gap Comparison Between PISA 2009 and PIRLS 2011 for Task Force Members’ Countries

Female Male PISA 2009 Gender Gap

PIRLS 2011 Gender Gap

Gap Widens

United States

513 488 25 points 11 points 14 points

Ireland 515 476 39 15 24

Germany 518 478 40 8 32

Finland 563 508 55 20 35

90

Average Informational Reading Achievement by Gender for Task Force Members’ Countries

Girls Boys Difference

Finland 575 561 *14 points

Ireland 553 545 *8 points

United States 556 549 *7 points

Germany 540 536 4 points

87

*Statistically significant difference in favor of girls

Average Literary Reading Achievement by Genderfor Task Force Members’ Countries

Girls Boys Difference

Finland 582 556 *26 points

Ireland 569 546 *23 points

United States 570 555 *15 points

Germany 550 539 *11 points

88

*Statistically significant difference in favor of girls

Trends in Overall Reading Achievement by Gender for Germany over three PIRLS cycles

570

510

545551

545

533

544537

137

8

2001 2006 2011Germany

89

Boys

Girls

Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Fay, P., & Drucker, K. (2012). PIRLS 2011 international results in reading. Boston: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center.

Trends in Overall Reading Achievement by Gender for the United States over three PIRLS cycles

580

520

551545

562

533535

551

2001 2006 2011United States

90

18 10

11

Boys

Girls

Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Fay, P., & Drucker, K. (2012). PIRLS 2011 international results in reading. Boston: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center.

Policy & Practice Implications

Gender gap was less evident for informational reading -- ensure boys have rich and engaging reading experiences with informational text-- provide reading instruction around text

sets (topically/thematically related fiction and informational texts) to help boys build

reading skill with fiction

91

Policy & Practice Implications

Explore informational and fictional classics graphic novels and comics as bridge books for boys

Look closely at which boys are in greatest need of extra support (e.g., low-income, recent immigrant, etc) and target reading schemes to them

92

Policy & Practice Implications

Gender gap grows larger from PIRLS to PISA, so critical years between age 9 and age 15 should be given special consideration for literacy and language curriculum that helps boys integrate literacy into their burgeoning male identities

93

Policy & Practice Implications

Although Finland had one of the largest achievement disparities favoring girls, Finnish boys performed better than girls in most other countries

May be worthwhile to explore why Finnish boys do so well relative to boys in most other countries

94

Policy & Practice Implications

Although Germany had the smallest gender difference in achievement, boys in Germany did less well than boys from other Task Force members’ countries and German girls’ and boys’ achievement trended downward from PISA 2006

May still be worthwhile to look at any federal, state, and local initiatives in Germany that focus on boys’ reading achievement

95

ReferencesBrozo, W.G. (2010). To be a boy, to be a reader (2nd ed). Newark, DE: International Reading

Association.

Lietz, P. (2006). A meta-analysis of gender differences in reading achievement at the secondary school level. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 32(4), 317-344.

Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Fay, P., & Drucker, K. (2012). PIRLS 2011 international results in reading. Boston: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center.

OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 results: Learning to learn – Student engagement, strategies and practices (Volume III). Paris: Author.

Robinson, J.P., & Lubienski, S.T. (2011). The development of gender achievement gaps in mathematics and reading during elementary and middle schoolAmerican Educational Research Journal, 48(2), 268-302.

96

18th European Conference on Reading

Jönköping , Sweden7 August, 2013

Question/Answer Session