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 do Children Read? Insights from PIRLS 2011 William G. Brozo, George Mason University, USA Christine Garbe, University of Cologne, Germany Gerry Shiel, St. Patrick's College, Dublin, Ireland Sari 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 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 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 Force William G. Brozo George 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

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 (emerita) Humboldt University Berlin

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: Schülerinnen und Schüler, Eltern, Lehrkräfte und Schulen. Teilnehmer mit Jahrgangsstufe 4 Teilnehmer mit Jahrgangsstufe 6 Teilnehmer mit Jahrgangsstufe 4 und 6 Benchmark-Teilnehmer Brozo201310

22 countries participating in PIRLS 2001, 2006 und 2011 Teilnehmer mit Jahrgangsstufe 4 Benchmark-Teilnehmer Brozo201311

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 Literacy Reading 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). Framework ElementFramework Element SubscalesSubscales Purposes Purposes.. for literary experience (50%).. for literary experience (50%) Literary Experiences (50%)Literary Experiences (50%).. to acquire and use information (50%).. to acquire and use information (50%) Acquire/Use Information (50%)Acquire/Use Information (50%) ProcessesProcesses Retrieve explicitly-stated information (20%)Retrieve explicitly-stated information (20%) Retrieve/Infer (50%Retrieve/Infer (50% Make straightforward inferences (30%) Make straightforward inferences (30%) Interpret and integrating ideas & information (30%)Interpret and integrating ideas & information (30%) Interpret/Evaluate (50%)Interpret/Evaluate (50%) Evaluate content, language & textual elements (20%)Evaluate content, language & textual elements (20%) 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 ElementSubscales Purposes.. for literary experience (50%)Literary Experiences (50%).. to acquire and use information (50%)Acquire/Use Information (50%) ProcessesRetrieve 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 IIIIIIIVV Teilnehmer Russische Föderation Finnland Singapur Nordirland USAUSA Dänemark Kroatien Taiwan Irland England Kanada Niederlande Tschechische Republik Schweden Italien Deutschland Israel* Portugal Ungarn VG OECD Slowakei VG EU Bulgarien Neuseeland Slowenien Österreich Litauen Australien Polen Frankreich Spanien Internationaler Mittelwert Norwegen Belgien (Franz. Gem.) Rumänien Georgien Malta Trinidad & Tobago Aserbaidschan Iran Kolumbien Vereinigte Arabische Emirate (VAE) Saudi-Arabien Indonesien Katar Oman Marokko M (SE) (2.3) (2.7) (1.9) (3.3) (2.4) (1.5) (1.7) (1.9) (2.3) (2.6) (1.6) (1.9) (2.2) (2.1) (2.2) (2.7) (2.6) (2.9) (0.4) (2.8) (0.5) (4.1) (1.9) (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 (SE) (1.3) (1.7) (1.0) (1.8) (1.3) (1.0) (0.9) (1.2) (1.4) (0.9) (1.4) (1.0) (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) Hongkong Die nationale Zielpopulation entspricht nicht oder nicht ausschließlich der 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 nicht die internationalen Vorgaben. 17

Overall Performance on PIRLS 2011 Highest Achieving Countries Performance Among TF Countries 18

Performance at PIRLS 2011 Benchmarks 19

Performance on Literary Texts (PIRLS 2011) 20

Performance on Informational Texts (PIRLS 2011) 21

Differences between informational and literary texts Polen531(2.1)519(2.4)12(1.2) Schweden547(2.4)537(2.4)10(1.1) Slowakei540(2.9)530(3.0)9(1.1) Irland557(2.7)549(2.3)8(1.4) Deutschland545(2.2)538(2.5)7(1.2) Ungarn542(2.8)536(3.0)6(0.8) Slowenien532(2.4)528(2.0)5(1.5) VG OECD540(2.4)536(2.3)4(1.1) Rumänien504(4.2)500(4.6)4(1.2) VG EU535(2.6)533(2.6)3(1.1) Finnland568(2.0)568(2.0)1(0.8) Australien527(2.2)528(2.2)(1.2) Bulgarien532(4.4)533(4.0)(1.3) Internationaler Mittelwert512(2.8)513(2.8)(1.2) Russische Föderation567(2.7)570(2.7)-3(1.2) Portugal538(2.8)544(2.6)-6(1.6) Taiwan542(1.9)565(1.8)-24(1.0) Neuseeland533(2.3)530(2.0)4(1.4) 1 Malta470(1.7)485(1.5)-14(0.8) 1 Kanada553(1.7)545(1.7)8(0.7) 2 Österreich533(2.2)526(2.0)7(1.1) 2 Spanien516(2.1)512(2.0)4(1.0) 2 Kroatien555(1.9)552(1.6)3(0.7) 2 Dänemark555(1.7)553(1.8)2(1.0) 2 Frankreich521(2.6)519(2.6)2(0.7) 2 Litauen529(1.8)527(2.0)2(0.8) 2 Israel*542(2.7)541(2.6)1(0.8) 2 Tschechische Republik545(2.1)545(2.0)0(1.1) 2 Singapur567(3.5)569(3.3)-2(0.9) 2 Hongkong565(2.5)578(2.2)-13(1.1) 2 USA563(1.8)553(1.6)10(0.6) 23 Nordirland564(2.7)555(2.6)9(1.7) 3 Belgien (Franz. Gem.)508(2.9)504(3.2)4(1.4) 23 Norwegen508(2.0)505(2.3)3(1.4) 3 England553(2.8)549(2.6)3(0.9) 13 Niederlande545(2.4)547(1.9)-3(1.0) 3 Italien539(2.0)545(2.0)-6(0.8) LesenTeilnehmer A Differenz A Lesen literarischesinformierendes M l -M i (SE)MiMi MlMl informierenden Lesen 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 Deutschland548(2.3)536(2.2)12(0.5) Slowenien533(1.9)530(2.2)3(0.8) VG EU535(2.5)533(2.5)3(1.1) Schweden543(2.1)540(2.1)2(0.5) Internationaler Mittelwert513(2.7)511(2.8)2(1.1) Finnland569(2.0)567(1.8)2(0.7) Polen526(2.1)525(2.1)2(1.4) VG OECD539(2.3)538(2.3)1(1.1) Bulgarien532(4.0)532(3.9)0(0.8) Slowakei534(2.9)536(2.7)(1.1) Irland552(2.8)553(2.2)(1.3) Australien527(2.6)529(2.2)-2(1.2) Rumänien500(4.2)503(4.5)-3(1.4) Portugal539(2.8)542(2.6)-3(1.6) Taiwan551(1.8)555(1.9)-3(0.8) Ungarn537(2.8)542(2.7)-5(0.7) Russische Föderation565(2.7)571(2.6)-5(0.7) Malta479(1.9)475(1.8)5 1 Neuseeland527(2.0)535(1.9)-8(1.0) 1 Österreich539(2.3)521(2.0)19(1.3) 2 Frankreich528(2.4)512(2.8)16(1.0) 2 Spanien516(2.1)510(2.1)6(0.8) 2 Tschechische Republik548(2.4)544(2.0)4(1.1) 2 Dänemark556(1.9)553(1.5)3(0.9) 2 Litauen530(1.9)527(2.0)3(0.8) 2 Kroatien554(2.0)552(1.7)2(1.2) 2 Israel*538(2.9)543(3.0)-5(1.6) 2 Singapur565(3.4)570(3.4)-5(1.2) 2 Kanada543(1.5)554(1.5)-10(0.4) 2 Hongkong562(2.0)578(2.4)-16(0.7) 2 Belgien (Franz. Gem.)512(2.9)499(3.2)12(0.9) 23 Norwegen511(1.8)502(2.6)10(1.7) 3 Niederlande549(2.2)543(2.0)6(0.7) 3 Italien539(1.9)544(2.0)-4(0.6) 3 Nordirland555(2.5)562(2.5)-7(0.9) 3 England546(2.6)555(2.7)-10(1.4) 13 USA549(1.5)563(1.6)-13(0.6) 23 Teilnehmertextimmanente Verstehens- leistungen wissensbasierte Verstehens- leistungen Differenz A M t -M w (SE) Leistungen besser bei wissensbasiertentextimmanenten Verstehensleistungen M(SE)M 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 Veränderung B Leistungsvorsprung höher IGLU 2001IGLU 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 Teilnehmer A Hongkong 122 Russische Föderation 2 Singapur 11 Slowenien Slowakei USA 333 Norwegen 1112 Neuseeland Deutschland 23 Italien England Ungarn 22 Frankreich 333 Niederlande Rumänien 2322 Litauen 550 M (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 M (4.1) (SE) (2.3) (2.7) (3.3) (2.0) (2.8) (1.5) (1.9) (2.2) (2.6) (2.9) (2.6) (1.9) (4.3) (2.0) (2.1) M 11 -M (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

Veränderung B Anteil IGLU 2001IGLU Teilnehmer A Hongkong 12 2 Russische Föderation 2 Singapur 1 1 Slowenien Slowakei USA 3 33 Norwegen 1112 Neuseeland Deutschland 23 Italien England Ungarn 2 2 Frankreich 3 33 Niederlande Rumänien Litauen Schweden 2 Bulgarien 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 (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) (1.3) (1.0) (1.1) (1.8) Δ (SE) (0.9) (0.4) (0.7) (0.4) (0.7) (0.9) (1.3) (0.9) (0.6) (0.7) (0.5) (0.9) (0.5) (1.0) (0.8) (1.0) Δ 11 - Δ (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) (2.1) 25

Reading is important- latent correlations between PIRLS and TIMSS 26

Issues of equity Sari Sulkunen 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 education Conservative view  Equal access to education for all  Individuals have different amounts of talent Liberal view  Equal opportunities to learn: no tracking or streaming  Removing barriers so that the child‘s capacities can develop Radical view  Equal learning outcomes: special support for low- performers  Success and failure are attributed to the school  comprehensive 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

Percentiles of reading achievement in PIRLS th10th25th50th75th90th95th Finland Germany Ireland United States Hong Kong Russia Singapore Denmark Sweden

School differences In Finland, for example,  between-school variance explains 2,8 % of the total variance  between-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-Ireland Netherlands Italy Portugal Denmark Ireland Croatia Sweden Singapore Germany Israel Hungary Norway Spain AustraliaNew Zeeland Austria Poland France Bulgaria Belgium (French) Romania Lithuania 35 Reading scoreReading score Percentage of variance explained by socio-economic status (ISCED, occupation, number of books) Wendt, Stubbe & Schwippert 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 Literacy  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 Garbe 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:  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 home  The 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 4 th graders? Examples: 43 CountryMany resources (I) Some res. (II)Few res. (III)Difference betw. I - II / I - III Finland595 pt / 33%557 pt / 67%0 % 38 Ireland601 pt / 27%542 pt / 71%2 % 59 Germany591 pt / 24%538 pt / 75% 2 % 53 Hungary601 pt / 21%538 pt / 69%464 pt / 11% 63 / 137 Romania593 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 4 th 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 4 th 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 them  Tell stories  Sing songs  Play with alphabet toys  Talk about things they had done  Talk about what they had read  Play word games  Write letters or words  Read 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 child Parents 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 4 th graders? Examples: 48 CountryOften engaged (I) Some times engaged (II) (Almost) never engaged (III) Difference betw. I - II / I - III Finland583 / 27%564 / 72% - / 1% 19 pt Ireland569 / 50%542 / 49% - / 1% 27 pt Germany 555 / 38%543 / 61% - / 1% 12 pt Romania529 / 38%494 / 54% 423 / 8% 35 / 106 pt Morocco321 / 17%314 / 64%302 / 19% 7 / 19 pt Hong Kong588 / 12%571 / / 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 basis Parents do not like reading: disagree / almost never read in their leisure time. 50

How did “Parents Like Reading” correlate with student achievement among 4 th graders? Examples: 51 CountryLike reading (I)Somewhat like reading (II) Do not like reading (III) Difference betw. I - II / I - III Finland582 / 43%562 / 48%545 / 9% 20 / 37 pt Ireland571 / 48%544 / 43%524 / 9% 27 / 47 pt Germany 570 / 37%539 / 48%518 / 15% 31 / 52 pt Hungary570 / 32%534 / 55% 501 / 13% 36 / 69 pt Romania540 / 21%503 / 61%452 / 18% 37 / 88 pt Morocco353 / 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: 56

Reading Engagement PIRLS 2011 Gerry Shiel 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

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

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

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

Gender Differences in Confidence in Reading – PIRLS

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. Brozo George Mason University Fairfax, Virginia USA 18 th 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 Brozo

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 Brozo

Reading Achievement Gender Gap in PIRLS 2011, Fourth Grade Girls International Average Boys International Average Difference Overall Scale520504*16pts Literary Reading522502*20pts Informational Reading *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 CountryAverage Scale Score - GirlsAverage Scale Score-BoysDifference Germany545537*8pts United States562551*11pts Ireland559544*15pts Finland578558*20pts 85 *Statistically significant difference in favor of girls

Gender Gap Comparison Between PISA 2009 and PIRLS 2011 for Task Force Members’ Countries FemaleMalePISA 2009 Gender Gap PIRLS 2011 Gender Gap Gap Widens United States points11 points14 points Ireland Germany Finland

Average Informational Reading Achievement by Gender for Task Force Members’ Countries GirlsBoysDifference Finland575561*14 points Ireland553545*8 points United States556549*7 points Germany points 87 *Statistically significant difference in favor of girls

Average Literary Reading Achievement by Gender for Task Force Members’ Countries GirlsBoysDifference Finland582556*26 points Ireland569546*23 points United States570555*15 points Germany550539*11 points 88 *Statistically significant difference in favor of girls

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

References Brozo, W.G. (2010). To be a boy, to be a reader (2 nd 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), 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 school American Educational Research Journal, 48(2),

18 th European Conference on Reading Jönköping, Sweden 7 August, 2013 Question/Answer Session