1 / 97

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

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

joy-reed
Télécharger la présentation

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

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PISA-PIRLS Task Force of IRAInternational Reading Association 18th European Conference on Reading, Jönköping, Sweden August 6-9, 2013 How in the World do Children Read? Insightsfrom 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

  2. Session Overview • Bill Brozo – General Introduction and Speaker Introductions; Brief History of PISA/PIRLS Task Force • Renate Valtin – The Concepts Behind PIRLS 2011 and General International Trends • Sari Sulkunen –Issues of Equity • Christine Garbe – Findings about Supportive Literate Environments in Families and Early Education in PIRLS 2011 - Major Trends and New Developments; Implications for Instruction and Policy • Gerry Shiel – Findings Related to Reading Engagement • Bill Brozo – Major Findings Related to Gender from PIRLS 2011 - Key findings overall and relevant findings for the United States and other Task Force member countries; Implications for Instruction and Policy • Question/Answer Session

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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. The concepts behind PIRLS 2011 and general international trends Renate Valtin renate.valtin@rz.hu-berlin.de (emerita) Humboldt University Berlin

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

  9. 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

  10. 56 participant countries and regions PIRLS 2011 Teilnehmer mit Jahrgangsstufe 4 Teilnehmer mit Jahrgangsstufe 6 Teilnehmer mit Jahrgangsstufe 4 und 6 Benchmark-Teilnehmer Teilnehmerzahlenweltweit: 303758 Schülerinnen und Schüler, 263308 Eltern, 13998 Lehrkräfte und 10297 Schulen. Brozo2013

  11. 22 countries participating in PIRLS 2001, 2006 und 2011 Teilnehmer mit Jahrgangsstufe 4 Brozo2013 Benchmark-Teilnehmer

  12. Theoretical framework:Contexts for Developing Children’s Reading Literacy

  13. 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

  14. 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).

  15. 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)

  16. PIRLS Test Framework Reading Purposes and Processes – Test items Item Types 50% Multiple Choice; 50% Constructed Response

  17. Overall Performance on PIRLS 2011 – international comparison Kompetenzstufe I II III IV V Teilnehmer M (SE) SD (SE) 2 Hongkong 61 571 (2.3) (1.3) Russische Föderation 568 (2.7) (1.7) 66 64 Finnland 568 (1.9) (1.0) 2 80 Singapur 567 (3.3) (1.8) 3 76 Nordirland 558 (2.4) (1.3) 2 3 USA 556 (1.5) (1.0) 73 2 64 Dänemark 554 (1.7) (0.9) 2 60 Kroatien 553 (1.9) (0.9) 67 Taiwan 553 (1.9) (1.2) 75 Irland 552 (2.3) (1.4) 1 3 82 England 552 (2.6) (1.4) 2 Kanada 548 (1.6) (0.9) 69 3 Niederlande 546 (1.9) (0.9) 54 2 61 Tschechische Republik 545 (2.2) (1.4) Schweden 542 (2.1) (1.0) 65 3 66 Italien 541 (2.2) (1.3) Deutschland 541 (2.2) (1.3) 66 2 86 Israel* 541 (2.7) (2.1) Portugal 541 (2.6) (1.4) 66 78 Ungarn 539 (2.9) (2.1) VG OECD 538 (0.4) (0.3) 70 69 Slowakei 535 (2.8) (1.9) 71 VG EU 534 (0.5) (0.3) Bulgarien 532 (4.1) (2.6) 82 1 88 Neuseeland 531 (1.9) (1.2) Slowenien 530 (2.0) (0.9) 70 2 63 Österreich 529 (2.0) (1.0) 2 Litauen 528 (2.0) (1.2) 66 80 Australien 527 (2.2) (1.3) Polen 526 (2.1) (1.1) 73 2 68 Frankreich 520 (2.6) (1.3) 2 Spanien 513 (2.3) (1.2) 68 75 Internationaler Mittelwert 512 (0.4) (0.2) 3 Norwegen 507 (1.9) (0.9) 61 Perzentile 2 3 65 Belgien (Franz. Gem.) 506 (2.9) (1.6) Rumänien 502 (4.3) (2.5) 91 5% 25% 75% 95% 2 76 Georgien 488 (3.1) (1.7) 1 Malta 477 (1.4) (1.1) 97 1 88 Trinidad & Tobago 471 (3.8) (1.5) 2 3 68 Aserbaidschan 462 (3.3) (1.7) Konfidenzintervalle (+/- 2 SE) um den Mittelwert 85 Iran 457 (2.8) (1.5) Kolumbien 448 (4.1) (2.1) 79 Nicht statistisch signifikant vom deutschen Mittelwert abweichende Staaten (p > .05). 101 Vereinigte Arabische Emirate (VAE) 439 (2.2) (1.2) Kursiv gesetzt sind die Teilnehmer, für die von einer eingeschränkten Vergleichbarkeit der Ergebnisse ausgegangen werden muss. 91 Saudi-Arabien 430 (4.4) (2.1) 75 Indonesien 428 (4.2) (2.2) Die nationale Zielpopulation entspricht nicht oder nicht ausschließlichder vierten Jahrgangsstufe. 1 = 2 Katar 425 (3.5) (2.1) 105 4 Oman 391 (2.8) (1.5) 99 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. 2 = 4 105 Marokko 310 (3.9) (2.0) Die Teilnahmequoten auf Schul- und/oder Schülerebene erreichen nicht die internationalen Vorgaben. 3 = 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 4 = Sehr hoher Anteil an Schülerinnen und Schülern mit nicht skalierbaren Leistungswerten.

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

  19. Performance at PIRLS 2011 Benchmarks

  20. Performance on Literary Texts (PIRLS 2011)

  21. Performance on Informational Texts (PIRLS 2011)

  22. Differences between informational and literary texts literarisches informierendes Leistungen besser im TeilnehmerA Lesen DifferenzA informierenden Lesen literarischen Lesen Lesen Mi (SE) Ml-Mi (SE) Ml (SE) Polen 531 (2.1) 519 (2.4) 12 (1.2) 2 3 USA 563 (1.8) 553 (1.6) 10 (0.6) Schweden 547 (2.4) 537 (2.4) 10 (1.1) Slowakei 540 (2.9) 530 (3.0) 9 (1.1) 3 Nordirland 564 (2.7) 555 (2.6) 9 (1.7) 2 Kanada 553 (1.7) 545 (1.7) 8 (0.7) Irland 557 (2.7) 549 (2.3) 8 (1.4) 2 Österreich 533 (2.2) 526 (2.0) 7 (1.1) Deutschland 545 (2.2) 538 (2.5) 7 (1.2) Ungarn 542 (2.8) 536 (3.0) 6 (0.8) Slowenien 532 (2.4) 528 (2.0) 5 (1.5) 1 Neuseeland 533 (2.3) 530 (2.0) 4 (1.4) 2 3 Belgien (Franz. Gem.) 508 (2.9) 504 (3.2) 4 (1.4) VG OECD 540 (2.4) 536 (2.3) 4 (1.1) Kein statistisch signifikanter Unter-schied zum Differenzwert von Deutschland. Rumänien 504 (4.2) 500 (4.6) 4 (1.2) 2 Spanien 516 (2.1) 512 (2.0) 4 (1.0) 2 Kroatien 555 (1.9) 552 (1.6) 3 (0.7) 3 Norwegen 508 (2.0) 505 (2.3) 3 (1.4) Statistisch signifikante Unterschiede 1 3 England 553 (2.8) 549 (2.6) 3 (0.9) VG EU 535 (2.6) 533 (2.6) 3 (1.1) 2 Dänemark 555 (1.7) 553 (1.8) 2 (1.0) 2 Frankreich 521 (2.6) 519 (2.6) 2 (0.7) 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. 2 Litauen 529 (1.8) 527 (2.0) 2 (0.8) Finnland 568 (2.0) 568 (2.0) 1 (0.8) 2 Israel* 542 (2.7) 541 (2.6) 1 (0.8) 2 Tschechische Republik 545 (2.1) 545 (2.0) 0 (1.1) Australien 527 (2.2) 528 (2.2) -1 (1.2) Bulgarien 532 (4.4) 533 (4.0) -1 (1.3) Internationaler Mittelwert 512 (2.8) 513 (2.8) -1 (1.2) 2 Singapur 567 (3.5) 569 (3.3) -2 (0.9) 3 Niederlande 545 (2.4) 547 (1.9) -3 (1.0) Russische Föderation 567 (2.7) 570 (2.7) -3 (1.2) 3 Italien 539 (2.0) 545 (2.0) -6 (0.8) Portugal 538 (2.8) 544 (2.6) -6 (1.6) 2 Hongkong 565 (2.5) 578 (2.2) -13 (1.1) 1 Malta 470 (1.7) 485 (1.5) -14 (0.8) Taiwan 542 (1.9) 565 (1.8) -24 (1.0) -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30

  23. Differences in compre- hension processes - retrieving/inferencing- interpreting, integrating, evaluating Teilnehmer textimmanente wissensbasierte Leistungen besser bei Verstehens- Verstehens- wissensbasierten textimmanenten DifferenzA leistungen leistungen Verstehensleistungen M (SE) M (SE) Mt-Mw (SE) 2 Österreich 539 (2.3) 521 (2.0) 19 (1.3) 2 Frankreich 528 (2.4) 512 (2.8) 16 (1.0) 2 3 Belgien (Franz. Gem.) 512 (2.9) 499 (3.2) 12 (0.9) Deutschland 548 (2.3) 536 (2.2) 12 (0.5) 3 Norwegen 511 (1.8) 502 (2.6) 10 (1.7) 2 Spanien 516 (2.1) 510 (2.1) 6 (0.8) 3 Niederlande 549 (2.2) 543 (2.0) 6 (0.7) 1 Malta 479 (1.9) 475 (1.8) 5 (1.8) 2 Tschechische Republik 548 (2.4) 544 (2.0) 4 (1.1) 2 Dänemark 556 (1.9) 553 (1.5) 3 (0.9) Slowenien 533 (1.9) 530 (2.2) 3 (0.8) 2 Litauen 530 (1.9) 527 (2.0) 3 (0.8) VG EU 535 (2.5) 533 (2.5) 3 (1.1) Schweden 543 (2.1) 540 (2.1) 2 (0.5) Internationaler Mittelwert 513 (2.7) 511 (2.8) 2 (1.1) Finnland 569 (2.0) 567 (1.8) 2 (0.7) 2 Kroatien 554 (2.0) 552 (1.7) 2 (1.2) Polen 526 (2.1) 525 (2.1) 2 (1.4) Kein statistisch signifikanter Unterschied zum Differenzwert von Deutschland (p > .05). VG OECD 539 (2.3) 538 (2.3) 1 (1.1) Bulgarien 532 (4.0) 532 (3.9) 0 (0.8) Slowakei 534 (2.9) 536 (2.7) -1 (1.1) Irland 552 (2.8) 553 (2.2) -1 (1.3) Australien 527 (2.6) 529 (2.2) -2 (1.2) Rumänien 500 (4.2) 503 (4.5) -3 (1.4) Statistisch signifikante Unterschiede (p < .05). Portugal 539 (2.8) 542 (2.6) -3 (1.6) Taiwan 551 (1.8) 555 (1.9) -3 (0.8) 3 Italien 539 (1.9) 544 (2.0) -4 (0.6) Ungarn 537 (2.8) 542 (2.7) -5 (0.7) 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. 2 Israel* 538 (2.9) 543 (3.0) -5 (1.6) 2 Singapur 565 (3.4) 570 (3.4) -5 (1.2) Russische Föderation 565 (2.7) 571 (2.6) -5 (0.7) 3 Nordirland 555 (2.5) 562 (2.5) -7 (0.9) 1 Neuseeland 527 (2.0) 535 (1.9) -8 (1.0) 1 3 England 546 (2.6) 555 (2.7) -10 (1.4) 2 Kanada 543 (1.5) 554 (1.5) -10 (0.4) 2 3 USA 549 (1.5) 563 (1.6) -13 (0.6) 2 Hongkong 562 (2.0) 578 (2.4) -16 (0.7) -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30

  24. Overall Reading trends PIRLS 2001 and 2011 Leistungsvorsprung höher 2001 2006 2011 TeilnehmerA 2001 2011 VeränderungB M01 (SE) M11 (SE) M11-M01 (SE) IGLU 2001 IGLU 2011 3 2 528 (3.1) 571 (2.3) 43 (3.8) Hongkong 1 2 2 528 (4.4) 568 (2.7) 40 (5.2) Russische Föderation 2 Singapur 528 (5.2) 567 (3.3) 39 (6.1) 502 (2.0) 530 (2.0) 29 (2.8) Slowenien 1 1 Slowakei 518 (2.8) 535 (2.8) 17 (4.0) 2 3 2 3 2 3 542 (3.8) 556 (1.5) 14 (4.1) USA 3 3 3 Norwegen 499 (2.9) 507 (1.9) 8 (3.5) 1 1 2 1 529 (3.6) 531 (1.9) 2 (4.0) Neuseeland Deutschland 539 (1.9) 541 (2.2) 2 (2.9) 2 3 541 (2.4) 541 (2.2) 1 (3.2) Italien Statistisch signifikante Unter-schiede (p < .05). 1 2 3 1 1 3 England 553 (3.4) 552 (2.6) -1 (4.3) 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. 543 (2.2) 539 (2.9) -4 (3.7) Ungarn 2 2 Frankreich 525 (2.4) 520 (2.6) -5 (3.5) 3 3 3 554 (2.5) 546 (1.9) -8 (3.2) Niederlande Rumänien 512 (4.6) 502 (4.3) -10 (6.3) 2 3 2 2 Litauen 543 (2.6) 528 (2.0) -15 (3.3) 561 (2.2) 542 (2.1) -19 (3.0) Schweden 2 Bulgarien 550 (3.8) 532 (4.1) -19 (5.6) -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50

  25. Pupils who do not read for pleasure outside school-comparison PIRLS 2001 and 2011 Anteil 2001 2006 2011 TeilnehmerA 2001 2011 VeränderungB Δ 01 (SE) Δ 11 (SE) Δ 11- Δ 01 (SE) IGLU 2001 IGLU 2011 2 1 2 10 (1.0) 12 (0.9) 2 (1.4) Russische Föderation 6 (0.6) 7 (0.4) 1 (0.8) 1 1 3 1 2 3 11 (0.7) 13 (0.7) 1 (1.0) England Schweden 6 (0.8) 7 (0.4) 1 (0.9) 2 2 2 3 11 (0.6) 11 (0.7) -1 (1.0) Ungarn Litauen 2 3 13 (0.8) 12 (0.9) -1 (1.2) Slowakei Hongkong 2 3 14 (0.9) 12 (0.9) -2 (1.3) Italien 22 (1.0) 20 (1.3) -2 (1.6) 2 2 15 (0.8) 13 (0.9) -2 (1.1) Frankreich 14 (0.6) 11 (0.6) -4 (0.9) 1 1 Slowenien 18 (0.8) 11 (0.7) -7 (1.0) Deutschland 1 1 2 1 33 (1.1) 26 (0.7) -7 (1.3) Statistisch signifikante Unter-schiede (p < .05). Neuseeland 3 3 3 20 (1.1) 10 (0.5) -10 (1.2) Norwegen 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. 27 (1.3) 13 (0.9) -13 (1.5) 2 Singapur 2 3 2 3 2 3 32 (1.0) 18 (0.5) -14 (1.1) USA 35 (1.0) 19 (1.0) -15 (1.4) 3 3 3 34 (1.1) 17 (0.8) -16 (1.4) Niederlande 27 (1.8) 9 (1.0) -18 (2.1) 2 Rumänien Bulgarien 0 -20 -10 10 20

  26. Reading is important- latent correlations between PIRLS and TIMSS

  27. Issuesofequity Sari Sulkunen sari.sulkunen@jyu.fi University ofJyväskylä, FINLAND

  28. 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

  29. Principle of equity in education Conservativeview • Equalaccesstoeducationfor all • Individualshave different amountsoftalent Liberal view • Equalopportunitiestolearn: notrackingorstreaming • Removingbarriers so thatthechild‘scapacitiescandevelop Radicalview • Equallearningoutcomes: specialsupportforlow-performers • Successandfailureareattributedtotheschool • comprehensiveandinclusiveeducation

  30. Equity in readingassessments as equitabledistribution 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

  31. Standard deviations of readingachievement in PIRLS 2011

  32. Percentiles of readingachievement in PIRLS 2011

  33. School differences In Finland, for example, • between-schoolvarianceexplains 2,8 % of the totalvariance • between-classvarianceexplains 11,5 % • between-studentvarianceexplains 85,7 %

  34. Regionaldifferences and differencesbetweenlanguagegroups: example Finland

  35. Socio-economicinequalities and reading Reading score Percentage of variance explained by socio-economic status (ISCED, occupation, number of books) Wendt, Stubbe & Schwippert 2012. In IGLU 2011, p. 184, Fig. 6.5

  36. Equalschoolresources? Schools with computersavailable for instruction

  37. OECD aboutsuccessfulschoolsystems: • 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

  38. EU’sHigh Level Group on Literacyhttp://ec.europa.eu/education/literacy/index_en.htm • Vision for a literate Europe: ”Allcitizens of Europeshallbeliterate, so as to achievetheiraspirations as individuals, familymembers, workers, and citizens.” (HLG 2012, p. 3) • ”Europe needs to placegreateremphasis on inclusion and fairaccess: participationcoupled with quality, and bolsteredbyspecializedsupport for everyonewhoneeds it.” (p. 46) • Identifiedfourliteracygaps to beaddressed: Gendergap, socio-economicgap, migrantgap and digitalgap

  39. Supportive Literate Environments in Familiesand Early Education Christine Garbe christine.garbe@uni-koeln.de University of Cologne, Germany

  40. 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

  41. Which role do “home resources” play for successful literacy development of children? PIRLS 2011 asked parentsabout: • theireducation; • theiroccupation • the number of children’s books in the home. The studentswere asked about: • The number of books at home • The availability of an Internet connection and “a roomof their own”. (Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Foy, P., & Drucker, K.T. (2012): The PIRLS 2011 International Results in Reading, p. 110)

  42. 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.

  43. How did Family Resources correlate with student achievement among 4th graders? Examples: In Finland, Germany andIreland, thepercentageofstudentswith ‚lowresources‘ was aroundorbelow 2 %. The US did not administerthe Home Questionnaire.

  44. Which Role do Families´ Resources and Parents´ Education play in Literacy Achievement of 4th Graders? Conclusions: Research and international student assessments (like PISA and PIRLS) consistently show a strong positive relationship between students´ achievement in basic skills (reading literacy, math & science) and the socio-economic status (SES) of their families: High SES strongly correlates with high achievement and vice versa. Theoretical Background: Pierre Bourdieus theory of social disparities: Not only economic wealth counts, but also “cultural” and “social capital” matters!

  45. Which Role do Families´ Resources and Parents´ Education play in Literacy Achievement of 4th Graders? The problem: Children growing up in families with poor resources don´t have the same opportunities to shape a successful school career as children growing up in families with good resources. This leads to a vicious circle for poor families and a vir-tuous circle for privileged families: In general, higher levels of education can lead to careers in higher paying profes-sions, higher socioeconomic status, and more home resources, so that the next generation profits from better starting conditions as well. Result: The “Matthew-Effect”!

  46. 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 essentialto 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.

  47. 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!

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

  49. PIRLS 2011: Supportive Learning Environments Matters – Literacy Activities before Primary School Conclusion: Literacy Engagementand 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)

  50. 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.

More Related