1. PISA-PIRLS-Taskforce of IRA 17th European Conference on Reading 01-08-2011 (Mons, Belgium) Key Findings on PISA 2009: Implications for Literacy Policy and Practice William G. Brozo George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA Christine Garbe University of Cologne, Germany Gerry Shiel St. Patrick's College, Dublin, Ireland

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

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

4. Bill Brozo Professor of Literacy at George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA Degrees from the University of North Carolina and the University of South Carolina Member of PISA/PIRLS Task Force since its inception in 2003 Involved in international projects in the Balkans and Europe and most recently in Oman Scholarship focuses on issues of adolescent literacy Author of numerous books and articles on literacyjust published: The Adolescent Literacy Inventory (Pearson) & RTI and the Adolescent Reader (TCP/IRA) 4

5. Christine Garbe Professor of German Language and Literature at the University of Cologne after many years at Leuphana University, Lueneburg Coordinator of major Adolescent Literacy grant Projects in Europe – ADORE, BaCuLit Initiator of an International ADOLESCENT LITERACY NETWORK: www.alinet.euwww.alinet.eu Frequent author and presenter on topics related to PISA and adolescent literacy 5

6. Gerry Shiel Research Fellow since 1997 at the Educational Research Centre at St. Patricks 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

7. PISA/PIRLS Task Force In 2003, The International Reading Association Board of Directors requested that an International Task Force be convened to consider the PISA 2000 findings Of particular interest to the board were the policy and practice implications of PISA Original Task Force members in addition to me included Keith Topping of Scotland, Renate Valtin of Germany, Maria Dionisio of Portugal, and Cathy Roller of IRA 7

8. PISA/PIRLS Task Force Generated reports and PowerPoint slide shows available at the IRA website Given numerous presentations at national and international conferences After a 2-3 year period of relative dormancy, the Task Force was given new life in 2010 when the IRA Board of Directors authorized its reconstitution to coincide with findings from PISA 2009 8

9. 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

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

11. PISA Definition of Reading Engagement 11 Reading Engagement Attitudes toward reading for enjoyment Time spent reading for enjoyment Diversity of reading (traditional & online texts)

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

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

14. Attitudes toward Reading for Enjoyment and 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

15. Attitudes toward Reading for Enjoyment and 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

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

17. Time spent reading for enjoyment and 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

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

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

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

21. Diversity of reading and reading proficiency Compared to students who do not read fiction for enjoyment, reading fiction for a students 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

31. READING LITERACY: RACE 31 Race/EthnicityScoreP <.05 U.S. Average500 OECD Average493 White525 X Asian541 X Black441 X Hispanic466 X Shanghai-China556 X Republic of Korea539 X Finland536 X Hong Kong China533 X Singapore526 X

32. READING LITERACY: SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXTS 32 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*

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

34. Implications for Instruction and Policy Reading 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

35. Implications for Instruction and Policy Reading 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

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

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

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

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

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

41. Questions and Answers 41

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

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

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

45. 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 gaps Central 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, Greece East 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

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

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

48. 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

49. 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: CountryMean scoreBoysGirlsDifference Finland536 pt508 pt563 pt- 55 Korea539 pt523 pt558 pt- 35 Poland500 pt476 pt525 pt- 50 Chile449 pt439 pt461 pt- 22 Peru370 pt359 pt381 pt- 22

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

51. 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

52. Trends in gender differences in reading perfor-mance (PISA 2000-2009): The gap is growing! 52

53. 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): CountryDifferenceCountryDifference Albania- 70Czech Republic- 55 Bulgaria- 70Finland- 57 Croatia- 63Greece- 53 Lithuania- 63Poland- 56

54. 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: CountryDifferenceCountryDifference Jordan- 63New Zealand- 44 Bulgaria- 58Finland- 54 Albania- 57Sweden- 46 Lithuania- 63Slovenia- 47

55. 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

56. 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 Germany12,624,0 United States13,621,5 Ireland11,323,2 Romania30,450,7 Finland3,212,9 Shanghai-China1,56,6 Colombia45,049,5 Peru59,869,7 Panama59,071,6 Kyrgyztan78,288,5 Azerbaijan67,877,5

57. 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

58. 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

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

60. IV Using diverse reading materials, OECD-Average (several times a month or several times a week) 60

61. 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

62. 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

63. V Comparison of gender gaps in digital and print reading 63 Note: OECD average-16 print reading: 38 score points ; OECD average-16 digital reading: 24 score points

64. Questions and answers What could be done to engage boys with reading? 64

65. Thank you very much for your attention! Further information and contact: www.alinet.eu Prof. Dr. Christine Garbe Institut für Deutsche Sprache und Literatur II Universität zu Köln / Germany Christine.garbe@uni-koeln.de

66. Backup (for discussion) : Gender and reading Explanatory approaches: Where do these differences come from? 66

67. 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

68. 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

69. 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 competencies Quelle: Charlton & Neumann 1992, S. 90

70. 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

71. 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 childrens books and in the books for young readers which are offered to them at home, in the kindergarten and at school. 71

72. 2. Sociocultural developments: changes in the range of media The range of media has been widening for 50 years now: Printed media (childrens 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

73. 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

74. 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

75. 3. Schools / educational agents privilege the gender- specific interests and media preferences of girls 75 1Girls 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 1Boys prefer: Suspense and action Heroes who must prove themselves in adventures and battles, and who must meet challenges Stories about journeys and heroes

76. 3. Schools / educational agents privilege the gender- specific interests and media preferences of girls 76 2Girls 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 2Boys 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

77. 3. Schools / educational agents privilege the gender- specific interests and media preferences of girls 77 3Girls prefer stories with internal action (relationships, psychology). 4Gilrs rather read with empathy and get emotionally involved. 3Boys prefer stories with external action (fighting obstacles or enemies, mastering challenges). 4Boys 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.

78. 3. Schools / educational agents privilege the gender- specific interests and media preferences of girls 78 5Girls prefer to read literally, honest, realistic and identifikatorisch 5Boys like humour, jokes, parody and all forms of funny exaggerations; these are possibilities to keep some distance to the fictional worlds.

79. References for Backup Charlton, M.; Neumann-Braun, K. (1992): Medienkindheit - Medienjugend. Eine Einführung in die aktuelle kommunikationswissenschaftliche Forschung. München: Quint­essenz 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

80. Electronic Reading and Reading Strategies – New Facets of PISA Gerry Shiel gerry.shiel@erc.ie St. Patricks College, Dublin, Ireland

81. 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

82. PISA 2009 Results: PISA On Line www.oecd.pisa.org 82

83. 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

84. 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

85. Processes in Digital Reading 85 Print Reading Strategies Digital Reading Strategies

86. Electronic Reading Participants 86

87. Electronic Texts: 87

88. IWANTTOHELP - 1 88

89. IWANTTOHELP 2A 89

90. IWANTTOHELP 2B 90

91. IWANTTOHELP -3 91

92. IWANTTOHELP - 4 92

93. Smell – 1 93

94. Smell – 1 (contd) 94

95. Smell – 1 (contd) 95

96. 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

97. Distribution of Score Points, by Text Format 97

98. Distribution of Score Points by Aspect 98

100. Proficiency Levels on Digital Literacy 100

101. Proficiency Levels - Digital Reading 101

102. Digital vs. Print: Ireland & OECD Average (Percents of Students) 102 PRINT READINGDIGITAL READING OECDIRELANDOECDIRELAND Level 5+8788 Level 421222324 Level 329313033 Level 224 2223 Below Level 21917 12

103. 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

104. Navigation and Digital Reading Performance – Correlations Across OECD Countries 104

105. 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

106. Reading and Learning Strategies in PISA 2009 www.pisa.oecd.org 106

107. 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 100 Memorisation, 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 100 Memorisation, Elaboration and Control strategies scaled to OECD mean of 0, std. of 1

108. 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

109. Understand & Remember Items 109

110. Summarizing Processes Items 110

111. Use of Reading Strategies (OECD Average – Performance by Quarter) 111 Index of Summarising Index of Understanding & Remembering

112. Differences in Awareness of Reading Strategies Across Countries 112

113. Gender & Use of Reading Strategies (OECD Averages) 113

114. Effects of Strategy Usage on Print Reading Performance 114

115. Print Reading Strategies - Caveats PISA is a descriptive study – hence, cant 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

116. 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

117. PISA-PIRLS-Taskforce of IRA 17th European Conference on Reading 01-08-2011 (Mons, Belgium) Question/Answer Session