PISA-PIRLS-Taskforce of IRA 17th European Conference on Reading 01-08-2011 (Mons, Belgium )

1. PISA-PIRLS-Taskforce of IRA17th European Conference on Reading 01-08-2011 (Mons, Belgium) Key Findings on PISA 2009: Implications for Literacy Policy and Practice William G. Brozo George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA Christine Garbe University of Cologne, Germany Gerry Shiel St. Patrick's College, Dublin, Ireland

2. Symposium Overview • Bill Brozo – General Introduction and Speaker Introductions; Brief History of PISA/PIRLS Task Force • Bill Brozo – Patterns of Reading Engagement on PISA 2009 Key findings overall and for the United States ; Implications for Instruction and Policy • Christine Garbe – Patterns of Gendered Literacy on PISA 2009 Major Trends and New Developments; Implications for Instruction and Policy • Gerry Shiel – Electronic Reading and Reading Strategies: New Facets of PISA New Developments with Implications for Instruction and Policy • Question/Answer Session

3. General Introduction and SpeakerIntroductions; Brief History of PISA/PIRLS Task Force William G. Brozo wbrozo@gmu.edu George Mason University, Virginia, USA

4. 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 PISA/PIRLS Task Force since its inception in 2003 • Involved in international projects in the Balkans and Europe and most recently in Oman • Scholarship focuses on issues of adolescent literacy • Author of numerous books and articles on literacy—just published: The Adolescent Literacy Inventory (Pearson) & RTI and the Adolescent Reader (TCP/IRA)

5. 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

6. Gerry Shiel • Research Fellow since 1997 at the Educational Research Centre at St. Patrick’s College in Dublin • Consultant to OECD on Cycles II, III, and IV of PISA, including PISA 2009 • 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

7. PISA/PIRLS Task Force • In 2003, 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 • Original Task Force members in addition to me included Keith Topping of Scotland, Renate Valtin of Germany, Maria Dionisio of Portugal, and Cathy Roller of IRA

8. 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

9. PISA/PIRLS Task Force • Current Task Force members include: Gerry Shiel of Ireland; Christine Garbe of Germany; Sari Sulkunen of Finland; AmbyPandian of Malaysia • I serve as the chairperson of the Task Force

10. Patterns of Reading Engagement on PISA 2009 William G. Brozo wbrozo@gmu.edu George Mason University, Virginia, USA

11. PISA Definition of Reading Engagement

12. Caveat: Engagement Indicators as Self-Reports • Most of the indicators of engagement-in-reading activities are based on students’ self-reports • Such measures can have a degree of measurement error because students are asked to assess their level of engagement in reading activities retrospectively and can exaggerate or diminish their actual levels of engagement

13. Attitudes toward Reading for Enjoymentand Reading Proficiency The index of enjoyment of reading activities was derived from students’ level of agreement with the following statements: (1) I read only if I have to (2) reading is one of my favorite hobbies (3) I like talking about books with other people (4) I find it hard to finish books (5) I feel happy if I receive a book as a present (6) for me, reading is a waste of time (7) I enjoy going to a bookstore or a library (8) I read only to get information that I need (9) I cannot sit still and read for more than a few minutes (10) I like to express my opinions about books I have read (11) I like to exchange books with my friends

14. Attitudes toward Reading for Enjoymentand Reading Proficiency • In all countries, students who reported they enjoy reading the most perform significantly better than students who enjoy reading the least • Across OECD countries, 37% of students report that they do not read for enjoyment at all • In all countries, boys are less likely than girls to say that they read for enjoyment

15. Attitudes toward Reading for Enjoymentand Reading Proficiency • 52% boys 73% of girls read for enjoyment on average across OECD countries • Belgium, for illustration, is below the OECD average of 63% of students who read for enjoyment; as is the United States

16. Time spent reading for enjoymentand reading proficiency The PISA scale: • do not read for enjoyment • read for up to 30 minutes per day for enjoyment • spend between half an hour and one hour daily reading for enjoyment • spend between one and two hours for enjoyment • spend more than two hours per day reading for enjoyment

17. Time spent reading for enjoymentand reading proficiency • Overall, more time spent reading for enjoyment relates to increasingly higher levels of reading proficiency • In most countries, the difference associated with at least some daily reading for enjoyment is far greater than the difference associated with increasing amounts of time spent reading

18. Change in the percentage of boys and girls who read for enjoyment between 2000 and 2009

19. Diversity of reading and reading proficiency • From 2000 to 2009 the only text source that students read more for enjoyment is comic books—all others decreased (fiction, non-fiction, magazines, newspapers)

20. Diversity of reading and reading proficiency • Reading long and complex texts appears to be associated with how well both students and adults read • Students were asked to indicate how often they read magazines, comic books, fiction (novels, narratives, stories), non-fiction and newspapers, because they want to. • An online reading component included questions about using emails, chatting online, using online sources, etc. • Students could indicate that they read each source“Never or almost never”, “A few times a year”, “About once a month”, “Several times a month” and “Several times a week”

21. Diversity of reading and reading proficiency • Compared to students who do not read fiction for enjoyment, reading fiction for a student’s own enjoyment was positively associated with higher performance • Reading comic books was associated with little improvement in reading proficiency in some countries, and with lower overall reading performance in other countries

22. Diversity of reading and reading proficiency • Fifteen-year-olds who reported reading non-fiction for their own enjoyment at least several times a month generally have higher reading scores than students who do not • The difference associated with reading non-fiction, however, appears to be lower than the difference observed for fiction

23. Diversity of reading and reading proficiency • Reading magazines and newspapers for enjoyment on a regular basis is also associated with higher reading scores • Similar to non-fiction books, the difference between reading these materials frequently and not reading or reading them only sporadically is smaller than in the case of fiction

24. Diversity of reading and reading proficiency • Students who reported reading fiction and who may also have reported reading other material, except for comic books, were the students who achieved the highest scores on the reading scale

25. Diversity of reading and reading proficiency • Engaging extensively in online reading/activity was associated with generally higher reading proficiency • Activities include e-mailing, chatting on line, reading news on line, using an online dictionary or encyclopedia, participating in online group discussions and searching for information online • This finding may be due to these students: - benefitting from accessing several types of online material - already being more proficient readers than students who do little online reading - having technology and internet access in the home and other advantages that support higher reading proficiency

26. Reading Engagement and Reading Proficiency for U.S. Students • The pattern for U.S. 15-year-olds is similar to the pattern for all students on PISA • Higher reading engagement, as demonstrated by time spent reading and attitudes toward reading, is related to higher achievement

27. Reading Engagement and Reading Proficiency for U.S. Students • Students who do not read for enjoyment had a score of 467 while those who read one, two, or more hours per day had scores from 541-544 • Students who strongly agree with the statement “I read only if I have to” had a score of 459, while those who strongly disagree had a score of 552 • For students who view reading as a favorite hobby, their score was 562, while those who do not had a score of 466

28. Comic Book Reading and Reading Proficiency:U.S. Students • The pattern for U.S. students is similar to the pattern for all students on PISA • The more students read fiction the higher their reading proficiency scores -Never or almost never - 451 -A few times a year - 492 -About once a month - 499 -Several times a month - 522 -Several times a week – 546

29. Comic Book Reading and Reading Proficiency: U.S. Students • The pattern for U.S. students is similar to the pattern for all students on PISA • Increasing levels of comic book reading are associated with lower reading proficiency -Never or almost never - 504 -A few times a year - 504 -About once a month - 486 -Several times a month - 490 -Several times a week - 485

30. Overall Achievement for U.S. Adolescents • 15-year-olds in the United States had a slightly but not significantly lower score in 2009 (500) compared with 2000 (504) • Up slightly but not significantly from 2003 (495)

31. READING LITERACY: RACE

32. READING LITERACY: SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXTS

33. READING LITERACY: FINDINGS RELATED TO GENDER FOR U.S. STUDENTS • Girls outperformed boys in reading literacy in the United States as in every participating country • In 2000 the disparity between girls and boys in the U.S. was 28 points; in 2009, there was a 25 point difference in overall achievement favoring girls • Girls overall achievement was 518 in 2000 and 513 in 2009 compared with boys 490 in 2000 and 488 in 2009

34. Implications for Instruction and PolicyReading Engagement • In virtually every country participating in PISA 2009, the more students enjoy reading and the more engaged they become in reading for enjoyment – both off and on line – the higher their reading proficiency • Among different reading media, reading fiction showed the strongest association with reading performance • There was also a positive association between reading online and reading proficiency with traditional print media

35. Implications for Instruction and PolicyReading Engagement • Boys and socio-economically disadvantaged students tend to be less engaged in reading than girls and socio-economically advantaged students • Differences in levels of engagement in reading account for about one-third of socioeconomic differences in reading performance, and over two-thirds of gender differences • Students from lower SES with high levels of reading engagement have better proficiency scores than students with low levels of engagement and higher SES

36. Reading Performance and Socio-Economic Background by Level of Reading Engagement for Students on PISA 2000

37. Reading Engagement and SES • Reading for enjoyment increases with higher levels of SES • Students from the bottom quarter of the PISA SES scale read for enjoyment least; while students from the top quarter read for enjoyment the most • On average across OECD countries, 72% of socio-economically advantaged students reported reading for enjoyment daily while only 56% of disadvantaged students reported doing the same

38. Reading Engagement and SES • Students from the bottom quarter on the PISA SES scale make the biggest achievement gains, as compared with 2nd and 3rd quarter SES groups, if they enjoy reading as much as socially advantaged students—their proficiency score increases nearly 20 points

39. Implications for Instruction and Policy Reading Engagement • Elevate Self-Efficacy • Engender Interest in New Reading • Connect Outside with Inside School Literacies • Make an Abundance of Interesting Texts Available • Expand Student Choices and Options

40. Implications for Instruction and Policy Engagement and Gender • More attention needs to be given to declining reading achievement and motivation among boys, particularly for boys of color • Texts and instructional practices will need to be culturally responsive and orchestrated in ways that capture boys’ imaginations, sustain their attention, and build competency • Boys competencies with non-continuous and alternatively formatted text may serve as bridge to academic literacy

41. Questions and Answers

42. Patterns of Gendered Literacy in PISA 2009 Christine Garbe christine.garbe@uni-koeln.de University of Cologne, Germany

43. Table of contents I Gender differences in reading performance in general II Gender differencesrelated to different aspects of reading (texts and tasks) III Gender differences at lowlevels of reading proficiency – somepatterns IV How to close the gender gap: reading engagement and use of strategies V Gender differences in digital literacy.

44. What kind of data does PISA 2009 provide? Three Samples: 1. The Complete Sample: 65 states and regions • E.g.: HongKong-China, Macao-China, Chinese Taipeh, Shanghai-China, Dubai etc. 2. The OECD Sample: 34 OECD-MemberStates • E.g. Chile, United States, Korea, Japan, Turkey, Slovenia 3. The European Sample: 27 EU-MemberStates • E.g. Finland, Estonia, Romania, Germany, Portugal, Hungary The average performance is indicated in relation to the OECD-Sample!

45. PISA 2009: Gender differences in reading performance in general Main Results: Gender reading achievementgap in the OECD-countries: 39 PISA score points= roughlyoneyear of schooling! Different patternsin different groups of countries: • Northern and Eastern European Countries tend to haveabove-average gender gaps • Central and Western / Southern European Countries show gender differences in reading assessmentclose to the OECD average: e.g. Portugal, Ireland, Germany, France, Austria, or above: Italy, Greece • East Asian Countries / regions score slightlybelow the OECD average • Latin American Countries haverelativelysmall gender gapsthoughbigdifferences in reading performanceamongeachother (cf. Chile vs. Peru).

46. PISA 2009: Gender differences in reading performance in general (OECD)

47. PISA 2009: Gender differences in reading performance in general (groups of countries) 47 Score point difference Northern European Countries Western European Countries Eastern European Countries OECD average 39 score points

48. PISA 2009: Gender differences in reading performance in general (groups of countries) Score point difference East Asien Countries / regions Latin American Countries OECD average 39 score points

49. PISA 2009: Gender differences in reading performance – some patterns In eachcountry group the countrywith the highest or second highestmeanoverall is also the countrywith the widest gender gap. This means: „In these countries, girls are disproportionatelycontributing to the country´s high reading proficiency. Strategies to improveboys´ reading proficiencywouldhave an accentuatedeffect on overallachievement.“ (PISA 2009 Results, Vol. I, p. 55) Exception: Latin American Countries. Examples:

50. PISA 2009: How proficient are girls and boys in reading? (OECD-Average) % %