pisa-pirls-taskforce of ira 17th european conference on reading 01-08-2011 (mons, belgium) key...
TRANSCRIPT
PISA-PIRLS-Taskforce of IRA17th European Conference on
Reading 01-08-2011 (Mons, Belgium)
Key Findings on PISA 2009: Implications for Literacy Policy and
PracticeWilliam G. Brozo
George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USAChristine Garbe
University of Cologne, GermanyGerry Shiel
St. Patrick's College, Dublin, Ireland
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
2
General Introduction and Speaker Introductions;
Brief History of PISA/PIRLS Task ForceWilliam G. Brozo
[email protected] Mason University, Virginia, USA
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)
4
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
5
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
6
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
7
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
8
PISA/PIRLS Task Force Current Task Force members include:
Gerry Shiel of Ireland; Christine Garbe of Germany; Sari Sulkunen of Finland; Amby Pandian of Malaysia
I serve as the chairperson of the Task Force
9
Patterns of Reading Engagement on PISA 2009
William G. [email protected]
George Mason University, Virginia, USA
PISA Definition of Reading Engagement11
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
12
Attitudes toward Reading for Enjoymentand Reading ProficiencyThe 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
13
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
14
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
15
Time spent reading for enjoymentand reading proficiencyThe 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
16
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
17
Change in the percentage of boys and girls who read for enjoyment between 2000 and 2009 18
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)
19
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”
20
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
21
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
22
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
23
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
24
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
25
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
26
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
27
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
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
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
29
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)
30
READING LITERACY: RACE31
Race/Ethnicity Score P < .05
U.S. Average 500
OECD Average 493
White 525 X
Asian 541 X
Black 441 X
Hispanic 466 X
Shanghai-China 556 X
Republic of Korea 539 X
Finland 536 X
Hong Kong China 533 X
Singapore 526 X
READING LITERACY: SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXTS32
Percentage of Students Eligible for Free and Reduced-Price Lunch Score
U.S. Average 500
OECD Average 493
Less than 10 percent 551*
10 – 29.9 percent 527*
25 – 49.9 percent 502
50 – 74.9 percent 471*
75 percent or more 446*
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
33
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
34
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
35
Reading Performance and Socio-Economic Background by Level of Reading Engagement for Students on PISA 2000
36
400
420
440
460
480
500
520
540
560
580
600
Low Medium High
Low SES Med. SES High SES
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
37
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
38
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
39
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
40
Questions and Answers
41
Patterns of Gendered Literacy in PISA 2009
Christine [email protected]
University of Cologne, Germany
Table of contents
I Gender differences in reading performance in generalII Gender differences related to different aspects of
reading (texts and tasks)III Gender differences at low levels of reading proficiency
– some patternsIV How to close the gender gap: reading engagement and
use of strategiesV Gender differences in digital literacy.
43
What kind of data does PISA 2009 provide?
Three Samples:
1. The Complete Sample: 65 states and regionsE.g.: Hong Kong-China, Macao-China, Chinese Taipeh, Shanghai-China, Dubai etc.
2. The OECD Sample: 34 OECD-Member StatesE.g. Chile, United States, Korea, Japan, Turkey, Slovenia
3. The European Sample: 27 EU-Member StatesE.g. Finland, Estonia, Romania, Germany, Portugal, Hungary
The average performance is indicated in relation to the OECD-Sample!
44
PISA 2009: Gender differences in reading performance in general
Main Results: Gender reading achievement gap in the OECD-countries: 39 PISA score points = roughly one year of schooling!
Different patterns in different groups of countries: Northern and Eastern European Countries tend to have above-average gender gapsCentral and Western / Southern European Countries show gender differences in reading assessment close to the OECD average: e.g. Portugal, Ireland, Germany, France, Austria, or above: Italy, GreeceEast Asian Countries / regions score slightly below the OECD average Latin American Countries have relatively small gender gaps though big differences in reading performance among each other (cf. Chile vs. Peru).
45
PISA 2009: Gender differences in reading performance in general (OECD) 46
47
PISA 2009: Gender differences in reading performance in general (groups of countries)
Northern European Countries
Eastern European Countries
Score point difference
Western European Countries
47
PISA 2009: Gender differences in reading performance in general (groups of countries)
48
Latin American Countries East Asien Countries / regions
OECD average 39 score points
Score point difference
PISA 2009: Gender differences in reading performance – some patterns
49
In each country group the country with the highest or second highest mean overall is also the country with the widest gender gap. This means: „In these countries, girls are disproportionately contributing to the country´s high reading proficiency. Strategies to improve boys´ reading proficiency would have an accentuated effect on overall achievement.“ (PISA 2009 Results, Vol. I, p. 55) Exception: Latin American Countries. Examples:
Country Mean score Boys Girls Difference
Finland 536 pt 508 pt 563 pt - 55
Korea 539 pt 523 pt 558 pt - 35
Poland 500 pt 476 pt 525 pt - 50
Chile 449 pt 439 pt 461 pt - 22
Peru 370 pt 359 pt 381 pt - 22
PISA 2009: How proficient are girls and boys in reading? (OECD-Average)
50
%%
PISA 2009: How proficient are girls and boys in reading? (OECD-Average)
„The most common highest proficiency level for both boys and girls is Level 3 (Boys: 27 %, girls: 30,9 %), but whereas almost as many boys are at Level 2 as at Level 3 (26,0 %), for girls, Level 4 is the second most common level attained (24,7 %).“ (Vol. I, p. 58)
Half of the boys (51 %) fail to reach Level 3, but only one third of the girls (34 %): Level 3 „is associated with being able to perform the kinds of tasks that are commonly demanded of young and older adults in their everyday lives. This represents a major difference in the capabilities of boys and girls at age 15.“ (Ibid.)
51
Trends in gender differences in reading perfor-mance (PISA 2000-2009): The gap is growing!
52
52
II Gender differences related to different aspects of reading
53
1) Aspect „access and retrieve“ information from reading: OECD average 40 score points
2) Aspect „integrate and interpret“ information from reading: OECD average 36 score points
3) Aspect „reflect and evaluate“ information from reading: OECD average 44 points
Some countries where girls strongly outperform boys in the 3rd aspect (reflect and evaluate information“ (Vol I, Table 1.2.12):
Country Difference Country Difference
Albania - 70 Czech Republic - 55
Bulgaria - 70 Finland - 57
Croatia - 63 Greece - 53
Lithuania - 63 Poland - 56
II Gender differences related to different kinds of texts
54
The average performance in reading continuous and non-continuous texts is almost identical (493 / 494 score points). But there are remarkable gender differences in the text format subscales: Girls perform consistently better on the continuous text subscale (OECD average: 42 score points), whereas the gap between boys and girls narrows on the non-continuous text subscale (average: 36 pt). Nevertheless, in this domain, too, girls perform better. Some countries with big performance gaps in non-continuous texts:
Country Difference Country Difference
Jordan - 63 New Zealand - 44
Bulgaria - 58 Finland - 54
Albania - 57 Sweden - 46
Lithuania - 63 Slovenia - 47
III Gender differences at low levels of reading proficiency – some patterns
Pattern No. 1: In general, boys are overrepresented in the low levels of reading proficiency. Across OECD countries, only about half as many girls as boys perform below Level 2, e.g.: Germany, United States, Ireland.
Pattern No. 2: The two countries / economies with the widest gender gap at low levels of performance are two of the highest overall performing countries: Finland and Shanghai-China. Here the ratio between girls and boys below Level 2 is 1:4.
Pattern No. 3: In countries with generally low levels of perfomance in reading, the proportions of girls and boys performing below Level 2 tend to be similar: Here the ratio between girls and boys below Level 2 is 4:5. Examples: Colombia, Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaijan, Peru and Panama. In these countries´ efforts to develop reading proficiency, boys and girls need to receive equal attention.
55
III Gender differences at low levels of reading proficiency – Examples:
56
Percentage of girls / boys who perform below Level 2:
Country / Region % Girls below Level 2 % Boys below Level 2
Germany 12,6 24,0
United States 13,6 21,5
Ireland 11,3 23,2
Romania 30,4 50,7
Finland 3,2 12,9
Shanghai-China 1,5 6,6
Colombia 45,0 49,5
Peru 59,8 69,7
Panama 59,0 71,6
Kyrgyztan 78,2 88,5
Azerbaijan 67,8 77,5
Education Benchmark in Europe: Reducing the rate of low achievers in reading
Benchmark No. 2: „By 2010 the share of low achievers in reading should decrease by 20 % (to 17 %). By 2020 the share of low achievers in reading, maths and science should be less than 15 %.“ (Council of the European Union)
Trends: In the EU (comparable data available for 18 countries) performance improved from 21,3 % low performers in reading in 2000 to 20 % (girls: 13,3 %, boys: 26,6 %) in 2009.Conclusion: In order to achieve the European Education Benchmark on Reading you need to improve the reading proficiency of boys! In most European countries, Girls achieve the goal already.
57
IV How to close the gender gap: Enhancing reading engagement and the use of reading strategies among boys
„The individual-level factor most susceptible to change is student engagement in reading activities.“ (Eurydice: Teaching Reading in Europe, 2011, p. 27)„Differences in the level of engagement in reading and the use of reading comprehension strategies largely explain gender and socio-economic differences in reading performance. Therefore, when boys enjoy reading, read diverse material and adopt reading comprehension strategies, they can attain a higher level of performance in reading than girls. (…) However, 15 year-olds read for enjoyment less in 2009 than they did in 2000, and as this decline was more pronounced amongst boys, it threatens to widen the gender gap even further.“ (Eurydice 2011, p. 27)
58
IV Change in the percentage of boys and girls who read for enjoyment between 2000 and 2009
59
59
OECD average for 26 countries: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United States
IV Using diverse reading materials, OECD-Average (“several times a month” or “several times a week”)
60
60
IV Gender differences in the use of reading comprehension strategies
“Girls generally reported making greater use of both memorisation and especially control strategies than boys […] On the other hand, boys tended to report making greater use of elaboration strategies, although gender differences are generally small (effect size below 0.2), and in as many as eight OECD countries and 12 partner countries and economies, girls are just as likely as boys to use elaboration strategies.” (PISA 2009, Results, Vol. III, p. 82)
61
V Gender differences in digital and print reading
“While countries vary in their performance in digital and print reading, one pattern emerges clearly: the gender gap is narrower in digital reading proficiency than it is in print reading proficiency. On average across the 16 participating OECD countries, the gap narrowed by 14 points, and it shrunk to some degree in every participating country and economy. These results suggest that it might be possible to harness boys’ relatively strong performance in digital reading and use it to improve their overall proficiency as readers.” (PISA 2009, Results, Vol. VI, p. 86)
62
V Comparison of gender gaps in digital and print reading
63
63Note: OECD average-16 print reading: 38 score points ; OECD average-16 digital reading: 24 score points
Questions and answers
What could be done to engage boys with reading?
64
Thank you very much for your attention!
Further information and contact:www.alinet.eu
Prof. Dr. Christine GarbeInstitut für Deutsche Sprache und Literatur IIUniversität zu Köln / [email protected]
Backup (for discussion) : Gender and reading
Explanatory approaches:
Where do these differences come from?
66
Foreword: Sex and Gender
• gender means social attribution-patterns and social practices, which transform (biological) sex into (social) gender
• gender differences are only to a very small extent based on biological – that is „natural“ – facts (sex), but are essentially constructed by cultural patterns of attribution and gender-specific socialization
This means we have to be very careful with all kinds of generalization!
67
Gender and reading: five long term stable differences (German research context)
1. reading quantity and frequency: girls read more frequently and longer than boys
2. reading material and preferences: girls read other books, magazines and internet-texts than boys
3. ways and modalities of reading: girls read differently from boys
4. reading enjoyment and inclination: reading means more to girls than to boys, they like reading better and get more satisfaction out of reading than boys
5. reading competency: according to PISA & PIRLS girls read better, especially when working on demanding tasks
(nach Philipp & Garbe 2007)
68
Contemporary sociocultural developments
69
social context
helpers in interaction
(family, peers, social institutions, e.g.school)
cultural system of meaning
range of media
individual
structure of needs and cognitive competenciesQuelle: Charlton &
Neumann 1992, S. 90
1. Sociocultural developments: „feminization“ of education
• changing social context of reading socialization: ongoing „feminization“ of education to the middle of childhood
• „Helpers in interaction“, who accompany the children in the process of acquiring the written language, are nowadays till the end of childhood nearly without exception female.
• Reading appears to be (without our being conscious of it) a ‚female media practice‘.
• All this leads to conflicts of the boys with the demands of the male gender-role in late childhood and adolescence.
70
1. Sociocultural developments: „feminization“ of education
• In addition, mothers, kindergarten educators, and female teachers often decide to read texts with the children which answer to ‚female‘ interests and so, inadvertently, grant privileges to the girls.
• Result: Boys do not find adequate heroes and role models in the children‘s books and in the books for young readers which are offered to them at home, in the kindergarten and at school.
71
2. Sociocultural developments: changes in the range of media
The range of media has been widening for 50 years now:
• Printed media (children‘s books, books for young readers etc.)
• Aural media (records, audio-cassettes, CDs, MP3)• audio-visual media (films, TV, Video, DVD) • digital media (particularly computer games)
hypothesis: boys replace books by computer games (media-substitution), girls supplement books with computer games (media- supplementation). They go on reading books.
72
2. Why are boys fascinated by computer games?
a) Specific gratifications of computer games:• „power and control“ as decisive motives for
playing computer games• Computer games „offer experiences of
achievement in areas of performance and with contents which the player can choose; and he can control the degrees of difficulty in the games. The games also strengthen the confidence of the player to survive against competitors in his reality, and they make him think he can set up the ‚kingdom of his own life‘.“ (J. Fritz 1997)
73
2. Why are boys fascinated by computer games?
b) Restoration of weakened masculinity:
• The contents of computer games match ideally with the traits of the traditional male gender role which prescribes being active and strong, attacking, conquering, and struggling for existence.
• Computer games seem particularly fit for the imaginary repair or (in the first place) the imaginary constitution of a masculinity challenged by social developments in the 20th century.
74
3. Schools / educational agents privilege the gender-specific interests and media preferences of girls
75
1 Girls prefer:• Stories about
relationships, animals and love
• Stories where human destiny is in the centre of attention
• In the widest sense psychological stories or „human-interest-stories“
1 Boys prefer:• Suspense and action• Heroes who must prove
themselves in adventures and battles, and who must meet challenges
• Stories about journeys and heroes
3. Schools / educational agents privilege the gender-specific interests and media preferences of girls
76
2 Girls prefer topics referring
• to their own life• to their particular
situation• to their social
environment
this means: they rather like realistic stories or stories about special problems
2 Boys prefer topics referring
• to other and foreign worlds:
this means: they rather like stories about exotic lands, distant times, with improbable scenarios, or with a historical background, they like Fantasy, and Science Fiction
3. Schools / educational agents privilege the gender-specific interests and media preferences of girls
77
3 Girls prefer stories with internal action (relationships, psychology).
4 Gilrs rather read with empathy and get emotionally involved.
3 Boys prefer stories with external action (fighting obstacles or enemies, mastering challenges).
4 Boys rather like to read about facts, they like to keep a certain emotional distance to their reading material, or they like to immerge into strange, phantastic, and exotic worlds.
3. Schools / educational agents privilege the gender-specific interests and media preferences of girls
78
5 Girls prefer to read literally, honest, realistic and „identifikatorisch“
5 Boys like humour, jokes, parody and all forms of funny exaggerations; these are possibilities to keep some distance to the fictional worlds.
References for Backup• Charlton, M.; Neumann-Braun, K. (1992): Medienkindheit - Medienjugend. Eine Einführung in die
aktuelle kommunikationswissenschaftliche Forschung. München: Quint essenz 1992
• Fritz, J. (1997): „Macht, Herrschaft und Kontrolle im Computerspiel.“ In: Fehr, Wolfgang; Fritz, Jürgen (Hg.): Handbuch Medien: Computerspiele. Theorie, Forschung, Praxis. Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, S. 183-196
• Garbe, C. (2007): Lesen – Sozialisation – Geschlecht. Geschlechterdifferenzierende Leseforschung und –förderung. In: Bertschi-Kaufmann, A. (Hg.): Lesekompetenz – Leseleistung – Leseförderung. Grundlagen, Modelle und Materialien. Zug: Klett und Balmer; Seelze: Friedrich Kallmeyer, S. 66-82
• Garbe, C. (2008): „Echte Kerle lesen nicht!?“ – Was eine erfolgreiche Leseförderung für Jungen beachten muss. In: Matzner & Tischner, S. 301-315
• Garbe, Christine; Holle, Karl; Weinhold, Swantje (Eds.) (2010): Teaching Struggling Adolescent Readers in European Countries. Key Elements of Good Practice. Frankfurt/M. u.a.: Peter Lang
• Gender und Lesen (2007): Bundesministerium für Unterricht, Kunst und Kultur Österreich (Hg.): Gender und Lesen. Geschlechtersensible Leseförderung: Daten, Hintergründe und Förderungsansätze. Wien 2007 (Autorin: M. Böck)
• Matzner, Michael; Tischner, Wolfgang (Hrsg.) (2008): Handbuch Jungen-Pädagogik. Weinheim, Basel: Beltz
• Philipp, M.; Garbe, C. (2007): Lesen und Geschlecht – empirisch beobachtbare Achsen der Differenz. In: Bertschi-Kaufmann 2007 (CD-ROM)
79
Electronic Reading and Reading Strategies – New Facets of PISA
Gerry [email protected]
St. Patrick‘s College, Dublin, Ireland
What is digital literacy / electronic reading in PISA?
A new assessment in a simulated on-line environment, that was administered to a subsample of students taking the paper-and-pen test in 2009
Results launched by the OECD in June 2011 19 Countries participated – 16 of which were OECD
member states. Provides a blueprint for how PISA may evolve in the
future.
81
Processes in Reading Digital Texts
Search for phrases Scan heterogeneous links Use navigation devices (i.e., assess the relevance of
verbal expressions, understand the hierarchical structure of information in menu trees)
Accumulate of information across multiple passages.
‘Reading complex visual texts relies on visuo-spatial abilities as much as on language processing abilities’ (Pazzaglia et al., 2008)
83
Processes in Digital & Print Texts
Locate key pieces of information Interpret nuances of language Integrate different elements of the text Draw on prior knowledge of textual and linguistic
structures and features Make judgements about the cogency of an
argument or the appropriateness of the style Reflect on relationships between text content and
his/her own experience or knowledge of the world
84
Processes in Digital Reading 85
Print Reading Strategies
Digital Reading Strategies
Electronic Reading Participants86
Electronic Texts:87
IWANTTOHELP - 188
IWANTTOHELP 2A89
IWANTTOHELP 2B90
IWANTTOHELP -3 91
IWANTTOHELP - 4 92
Smell – 1 93
Smell – 1 (contd)94
Smell – 1 (contd) 95
Feature of the Assessment of Electronic Reading
Seven units; 21 multiple-choice questions + 8 that required a written response or specific set of actions (e.g., writing and sending an email; filling in an online job application)
40 minute assessment completed by up to 15 students per school
Performance reported in terms of mean scores (OECD average = 500) and proficiency levels
96
Distribution of Score Points, by Text Format 97
Distribution of Score Points by Aspect98
Proficiency Levels on Digital Literacy 100
Proficiency Levels - Digital Reading101
Digital vs. Print: Ireland & OECD Average (Percents of Students)
102
PRINT READING DIGITAL READING
OECD IRELAND OECD IRELAND
Level 5+ 8 7 8 8
Level 4 21 22 23 24
Level 3 29 31 30 33
Level 2 24 24 22 23
Below Level 2 19 17 17 12
Gender Differences in Digital Literacy
OECD average = 24 points Difference in favour of females in all but
Colombia Difference varies by country – greatest in New
Zealand (40), Norway (35), Ireland (31) Differences smaller, on average, than for print
reading (OECD average = 39)
103
Navigation and Digital Reading Performance – Correlations Across OECD Countries
104
Some Implications – Digital Reading
Importance of print reading skills for digital reading (Warschauer, 2007: digital media make traditional literacy skills (decoding, vocabulary, etc.) more valuable than ever.
Importance of supporting students to learn skills that are unique to digital reading
Leu et al. (2008): online comprehension is defined not only by the purpose, task and context, but also by a process of self-directed text construction (a type of digital metacognitive knowledge).
Dalton et al., JLR, 2011: We need to scaffold digital text for diverse learners
105
Assessment of Reading Strategies in PISA 2009 107
• Understanding and remembering• Summarising• Memorisation strategies (also 2000)• Elaboration strategies (also 2000)• Control strategies (also 2000)
U & R, Summarising scaled to OECD mean of 500 and std. of 100Memorisation, Elaboration and Control strategies scaled to OECD mean of 0, std. of 1
U & R, Summarising scaled to OECD mean of 500 and std. of 100Memorisation, Elaboration and Control strategies scaled to OECD mean of 0, std. of 1
Rand Reading Study Group (2000) – 8 factors that impede comprehension
word recognition and fluency vocabulary and linguistic knowledge, including oral
language skills and an awareness of language structures; non-linguistic abilities and processes (attention,
visualization, inferencing, reasoning, critical analysis, working memory, etc.);
engagement and motivation; an understanding of the purposes and goals of reading
(with different goals leading to different types of processing);
discourse knowledge; domain knowledge; cognitive and metacognitive strategies.
108
Understand & Remember Items109
Summarizing Processes Items110
Use of Reading Strategies (OECD Average – Performance by Quarter)
111
Index of Summarising Index of Understanding & Remembering
Differences in Awareness of Reading Strategies Across Countries 112
Gender & Use of Reading Strategies (OECD Averages)113
Effects of Strategy Usage on Print Reading Performance 114
Print Reading Strategies - Caveats
PISA is a descriptive study – hence, can’t draw causal inferences about relationships of awareness of U & R, Summarisation and Control Strategies and reading performance.
Awareness of strategies does not imply actual use of the strategies in real-life learning situations. PISA measure functions as a proxy.
Awareness & use of strategies associated with other factors (e.g., gender, socioeconomic status).
115
Print Reading Strategies – Implications
Direct, explicit instruction in reading comprehension strategies (e.g., NICHHD, 2000)
Effectiveness of multiple-strategy instruction (e.g., Reciprocal Teaching, Students Achieving Independent Learning (SAIL), Collaborative Strategic Reading)
Rand Reading Study Group (2002): mental imagery, knowledge activation (activating prior knowledge), mnemonics, expository pattern identification.
Slavin et al. (2008) – research supported programmes incorporating methods to teach students to use specific strategies such as paraphrasing, summarising and prediction to improve reading comprehension
116
PISA-PIRLS-Taskforce of IRA17th European Conference on
Reading 01-08-2011 (Mons, Belgium)
Question/Answer Session