PISA 2009 International survey of reading literacy for

Скачать презентацию PISA 2009 International survey of reading literacy for

dc2d6c40c76e943cc1ab7a99fdd7ce4d.ppt

Количество слайдов: 113

PISA 2009. International survey of reading literacy for 15 years old Several slides were used from PPT presentation “What Students know and can do” by Andreas Schleicher. 7 December 2010. www. oecd. org In Kyrgyzstan PISA 2009 survey was undertaken by the CEATM under the order by Ministry of Education and Science of the Kyrgyz Republic within the WB-financed Rural Education Project Programme for International Student Assessment

What PISA is? PISA is an international comparative survey of functional literacy for 15 years old. Which is executed by: • Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) • Consortium comprising the world’s leading international testing organizations jointly with the national testing centers 2

PISA 2009 Partner countries OECD countries Austria, Australia, Belgium, Great Britain, Hungary, Germany, Greece, Denmark, Israel, Ireland, Spain, Island, Italy, Canada, Luxemburg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zeeland, Norway, Poland, Portuguese, Slovakia, Slovenia, USA, Turkey, Finland, France, Czech Republic, Chili, Switzerland, Sweden, Estonia, South Korea, Japan. Azerbaijan, Albania, Argentina, Bulgaria, Brazil, Shanghai (China), Hong Kong, Dubai (UAE), Indonesia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Qatar, Columbia, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Lichtenstein, Macao (China), Panama, Peru, Russian Federation, Rumania, Serbia, Singapore, Thailand, Chinese Taipei, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, Croatia, Tunis, Montenegro.

PISA countries World Economy 1998 2009 2000 2001 2006 2003 87% 86% 85% 83% 81% 77% 4 OECD (2007), PISA 2006 – Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World Background: http: //www. oecd. org/dataoecd/60/1/39727764. ppt

What PISA is? • The assessment takes place in three-yearly cycles. First survey was undertaken in 1998. • Study areas: - reading literacy (2000), - mathematics literacy (2003), - science literacy (2006), - reading literacy (2009). 5

PISA goal is… …to assist various economies in… …teaching their students to overcome the rapidly changing world… …getting them ready to professions required by the modern society… …training them to use modern technologies… …giving them problem-solving skills… 6

PISA goal is… • To show the countries possible educational achievements • To support various governments in drafting modern education policy goals based achieved • To compare the world education progress and country’s achievements • To share their practical experience in education policy area 7

How the demand for skills has changed Mean task input as percentiles of the 1960 task distribution Economy-wide measures of routine and non-routine task input (US) Andreas Schleicher What Students know and can do. 7 December 2010. www. oecd. org (Levy and Murnane) The dilemma of schools: The skills that are easiest to teach and test are also the ones that are easiest to digitise, automate and outsource

Countries that joined PISA in 2009: • • Albania Shanghai (China) Kazakhstan Panama Peru Trinidad and Tobago Dubai (UAE) Singapore 9

Why the survey results are reliable? Everyone using survey results should be confident that the data reflect the actual situation in education sector On this reason Consortium controls the quality of survey administration following the developed quality standards 10

Why the survey results are reliable? • Sampling (65 countries, about 450 thousands students) • Keeping cultural balance in test items • Identical testing tools • Thorough control over translation • Administering Field Trial • Involving 4 independent experts to analyze open questions and etc. • Measuring student’s efforts spent to make test 11

What PISA assesses • PISA assesses functional literacy acquired by boys and girls and their readiness for independent life in society. 12

Functional literacy • Is the scope of knowledge and skills that enable a human being to act successfully and adopt to modern conditions, and his capability to a lifelong learning • Modern definition of functional literacy is as follows - knowledge and skills necessary for a human being to become self realized in the modern society. 13

What’s new about PISA 2009? • Electronic Reading Assessment of e-texts reading literacy (20 countries only) • More detailed assessment of reading literacy for students with different readiness level (7 levels instead of 5) • Special focus to education progress (comparing 2000 and 2009 results) • New personnel student information (attitude towards reading, usage of library resources and notions about learning strategies) 14

PISA 2009 • PISA 2009 paid special attention to reading literacy • More than two thirds of the testing time was dedicated to it 15

PISA 2009 in Kyrgyzstan Карта RDesign©. http: //www. Go. Kyrgyz stan. net 16

PISA 2009 in Kyrgyzstan • 4986 15 -years old from 173 secondary education institutes: • 116 rural education institutes; • 30 educational institutes from oblast centers and small cities; • 28 education institutes from Bishkek city. • All country’s regions were included into the sampling • Testing languages: Kyrgyz, Russian, Uzbek 17

PISA 2009 in Kyrgyzstan • The 2006 was the first time when the Kyrgyz Republic took part in the survey • The Kyrgyz Republic was one of the first Central Asian countries to take part in the survey 18

PISA 2009 in Kyrgyzstan • In Kyrgyzstan the survey was conducted by the Center for Education Assessment and Teaching Methods (CEATM) • The work was undertaken under the order by Ministry of Education and Science of the Kyrgyz Republic within the WB-financed Rural Education Project 19

What Kyrgyzstan needs this for? • The goal is to assess literacy level of Kyrgyzstan students and, therefore, effectiveness of the education system of Kyrgyzstan with those of other countries’ education systems in both highly developed country and lowly progressing ones 20

What Kyrgyzstan needs this for? • Search for the most successful education approaches used in the world practice • Track changes in literacy level of the Kyrgyzstan students • Assess factors effecting learning outcomes and effectiveness • Elaborate recommendations and strategies to reform 21 Kyrgyzstan’s education system

PISA assessment tools Testing • Multiple-choice questions • Open-constructed response • Short response • Closed constructed response • The text lengthened 2 hours 22

PISA assessment tools Questioning • Questions to student about learning process, family, personnel interests and etc. • Questions to school administrations where PISA survey was administered 23

Reporting results from PISA 2009 24 «Мыслитель» (фр. Le Penseur) — одна из самых известных скульптур Огюста Родена, созданная в период от 1880 до 1882. Image from: http: //www. museum. ru/alb/image. asp? 26801

Kyrgyzstan in PISA 2009 Just like in 2006, the average score demonstrated by Kyrgyzstan is the lowest among all survey targeted countries in all three subject areas: • reading literacy; • mathematic literacy; • scientific literacy. 25

PISA standards • The minimum international standard is considered to be level 2 out of 6 levels available in science literacy and mathematics literacy scale, while reading literacy scale anticipates 7 maximum levels of performance. • It considers that students achieving level 2 starts to successfully demonstrate skills which let them effectively act in any vitally important situations. 26

In Kyrgyzstan the following percentage of students DID NOT achieve the minimum international standard: • 83, 2% of students in reading literacy; • 86, 6% of students in mathematic literacy; • 82% of students in scientific literacy. 27

What the difference in student scores means? • 73 points correspond to 1 literacy level according to the PISA literacy scale (except for levels 5 and 6) • Based on PISA’s definition, a 39 point disparity means 1 academic year in the PISA literacy scale. • Average scores of 90% of countries varies between levels 2 and 3. 28

How valuable is the difference is students’ scoring • For example, difference between Kyrgyzstan and the highest ranked participant (Shanghai-China) in reading literacy area makes 242 points • In Kyrgyzstan the scores vary from 155 (the weakest performers’ group) and the strongest performers proficient at 483 which means that the difference reports 328 points 29

A Profile of Student Performance in Reading 30

PISA 2009 defines reading literacy as " understanding, using, reflecting on and engaging with written texts, in order to achieve one's goals, to develop one's knowledge and potential, and to participate in society. " 31

PISA. International comparative survey of reading literacy for 15 years old. Main Survey. May-April 2009. Results by participant countries in reading literacy. Percent of students per each scale level of Reading Literacy. 32 Continue on the next slide

The PISA reading literacy assessment is built on three major characteristics : • Texts • Aspects • Situations These three characteristics were used to build reading scale and subscale 34

Basic characteristics of text structure for the reading literacy Texts TEXTS What kind of text must students read? In what form does the text appear? Electronic Text format Paper Text type Continuous texts Non-continuous texts Mixed texts Multiple texts Descriptive Narration Exposition Argumentation 35

Basic characteristics of text structure for the reading literacy ASPECTS Aspects What is the reader’s purpose and approach to the text? Access and retrieve information Integrate and interpret Reflect and evaluate 36

Basic characteristics of text structure for the reading literacy SITUATION: What is the intended use of the text, from the author’s point of view? Personal Public Occupational Educational 37

How proficient are students in reading? Students at Level 5 can handle texts that are unfamiliar in either form or Tasks at Level 3 require students to locate, and in some cases % content. They can find information in such texts, demonstrate detailed recognise the relationship between, several pieces of information that understanding, and infer which information is relevant to the task. They are must meet multiple conditions. Interpretative tasks at this level require also able to critically evaluate such texts and build hypotheses about them, the reader to integrate several parts of a text in order to identify a main drawing on specialised knowledge and accommodating concepts that may idea, understand a relationship or construe the meaning of a word or be contrary to expectations. phrase. Reflective tasks at this level may require connections, comparisons, and explanations, or they may require the reader to evaluate a feature of the text. Tasks at Level 6 require students to make multiple inferences, comparisons and contrasts that are both detailed and precise. They Tasks at Level 4 that involve retrieving information require the reader require demonstration of a full and detailed understanding of one or more to locate and organise several pieces of embedded information. Some texts and may involve integrating information from more than one text. tasks at this level require interpreting the meaning of nuances of Tasks may require the reader to deal with unfamiliar ideas, in the language in a section of text by taking into account the text as a whole. presence of prominent competing information, and to generate abstract Some tasks at Level 2 require students to locate one or more pieces of Other interpretative tasks require understanding and applying categories for interpretations. Reflect and evaluate tasks may require the information, which may need to be inferred and may need to meet categories in an unfamiliar context. Reflective tasks at this level reader to hypothesise about or critically evaluate a complex text on an several conditions. Others require recognising the main idea in a text, require readers to use formal or public knowledge to hypothesise unfamiliar topic, taking into account multiple criteria or perspectives, and understanding relationships, or construing meaning within a limited part Tasks at Level 1 a require students to locate one or about or critically evaluate a text. Readers must demonstrate an Tasks at Level 1 b require students to locate a applying sophisticated understandings from beyond the text. of the text when the information is not prominent and the reader must more independent pieces of explicitly stated accurate understanding of long or complex texts whose content or single piece of explicitly stated information in a make low level inferences. information; to recognise the main theme or form may be unfamiliar. prominent position in a short, syntactically simple author’s purpose in a text about a familiar topic, or text with a familiar context and text type, such as a to make a simple connection between information narrative or a simple list. There is minimal in the text and common, everyday knowledge competing information. Andreas Schleicher What Students know and can do. 7 December 2010. www. oecd. org

Kyrgyzstan. Results in reading literacy • 16, 8% of Kyrgyzstan students aged 15 can perform reading literacy tasks at the second level of complexity and above. • Only few students can demonstrate high performance results (0, 1%) (levels 5 -6) • The Kyrgyzstan’s mean score in reading literacy is 314 points or level 1 b 40

Kyrgyzstan: Percent of students who answered right: 40. 0 Percent of students who MISSED the item: 18. 9

Kyrgyzstan: Percent of students who answered right: 22. 1 Percent of students who MISSED the item: 35. 0

Levels of Reading Literacy OECD Kyrgyzstan Level 6 Level 5 Level 4 Level 3 Level 2 Level 1 а Level 1 b Below level 1 b Russia Azerbaijan Kazakhstan 0 % 0. 8% 6. 8% 20. 7% 0. 3% 0 % 0. 1 % 2. 8 % 0. 4 % 1. 0 % 28. 9% 4. 2 % 24. 0% 11. 5% 11. 1 % 26. 8 % 31. 6 % 0. 5 % 5. 3 % 21. 5% 3. 7 % 13. 1 % 24. 1 % Минимальный стандарт 13, 1% 4. 6% 1. 1% 23. 8 % 29. 7% 29. 8% 19 % 6. 8 % 1. 6 % 36. 9% 26. 1 % 9. 7 % 30. 7 % 20. 4 % 7. 5 % 43 OECD (2007), PISA 2006 – Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World, Table 2. 1 a

Kyrgyz student performance in various reading areas Continuous texts -21 Non-continuous texts +5 Reflect and evaluate -14 Access and retrieve information -15 Integration and interpretation +13 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 Kyrgyzstan’s mean score in reading literacy scale: 314 15 44

Kyrgyz student performance in various reading areas • It is much harder for Kyrgyzstan students to execute the tasks related to info access and retrieving as well as thinking and evaluation. • Tasks on Integration and interpretation were executed a bit better • But nevertheless Kyrgyzstan held the very last position in the ranking list amongst 65 participants with regard to no single reading aspect 45

Gender gap between boys and girls in reading literacy • Girls demonstrate much higher reading literacy results then boys do in any countries. • But the gap in some countries is much stronger then in others • In Finland the greatest difference between scores by boys and girls makes 55 points while in Columbia it equates to only 9 points. In Kyrgyzstan: • Score gap between boys and girls makes 53 points • 19, 1% of girls and 41, 1% of boys demonstrate low performance results below level 1 b • 21, 8% of girls and 11, 5% of boys are scored at level 2 and above. 46

Kyrgyzstan. % of boys and girls per each reading literacy level 45 41. 1 40 35 29. 2 30 30. 1 29 25 20 19. 1 18. 2 boys girls 14. 7 15 8. 2 10 5 5. 5 2. 7 0. 61. 4 0 0. 2 0 0 0 below Level 1 b Level 1 а Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 47

Science literacy 48

PISA. International comparative survey of reading literacy for 15 years old. Main Survey. May-April 2009. Results by participant countries in science literacy. Percent of students per each scale level of Science Literacy. 49 Continue on the next slide

Science literacy • About 18% of Kyrgyzstan students aged 15 can perform the science literacy tasks (level 2 and above) • About 82% of students did not achieve the minimum international standard • Only a few can demonstrate high performance results (level 5, 6) • Kyrgyzstan’s mean score in science literacy is 330 points (below level 1) 51

52 Percent of Kyrgyzstan students that above the difficulty of item : 12. 9

OECD and CIS countries students who achieved minimum standard and above in science literacy 90. 0 82. 1 82. 0 78. 0 80. 0 70. 0 55. 4 60. 0 50. 0 44. 6 40. 0 30. 0 20. 0 17. 9 22. 0 18. 0 10. 0 OECD Russia Below minimum standard Kazakhstan Azerbaijan Kyrgyzstan Minimum standard and above 53

Gender gap between boys and girls in science literacy • On the whole, gender gap between boys and girls is insufficient in science literacy. • In Jordan girls are greater than boys for 35 points • In Columbia boys are greater than girls for 21 points • • In Kyrgyzstan the mean score of girls are greater than boys for 22 points 54

Kyrgyzstan. % of boys and girls per each science literacy level 70. 0 60. 0 50. 0 % юноши boys 57. 9 48. 2 % девушки girls 40. 0 31. 6 30. 0 26. 4 20. 0 15. 2 11. 2 10. 0 3. 8 4. 2 0. 6 0. 8 0. 0 уровень 4 уровень 5 уровень 6 0. 0 ниже уровня 1 уровень 1 а уровень 2 уровень 3 55

Mathematics literacy 56

PISA. International comparative survey of reading literacy for 15 years old. Main Survey. May-April 2009. Results by participant countries in mathematics literacy. Percent of students per each scale level of Mathematics Literacy. 57 Continue on the next slide

Mathematic literacy • About 13, 4% of Kyrgyzstan students aged 15 can perform the mathematic literacy tasks (level 2 and above) • About 86, 6% of students did not achieve the minimum international standard • Only a few can demonstrate high performance results (level 5, 6) • Kyrgyzstan’s mean score in mathematics literacy is 331 points (below level 1) 59

60 Percent of Kyrgyzstan students that above the difficulty of item : 1. 6

OECD and CIS countries students who achieved minimum standard and above in mathematics literacy 100. 0 86. 6 90. 0 78. 2 80. 0 71. 4 70. 0 54. 7 60. 0 45. 3 50. 0 59. 1 40. 9 40. 0 30. 0 28. 6 21. 8 20. 0 13. 4 10. 0 OECD Russia Below minimum standard Azerbaijan Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Minimum standard and above 61

Gender gap between boys and girls in mathematics literacy • On the whole, boys in any OECD country demonstrate higher math scores then girls. The gap makes 12 points. • In Columbia and Lichtenstein gender gap between boys and girls reported 32 and 24 points accordingly. • In Qatar, Lithuania Albania, Trinidad and Tobago girls are greater than boys in math literacy from 5 to 11 points. • In Kyrgyzstan girls also are greater than boys for 6 points 62

Kyrgyzstan. % of boys and girls per each mathematics literacy level 70. 0 65. 7 64. 1 60. 0 % юноши boys 50. 0 40. 0 % девушки girls 30. 0 20. 7 22. 7 20. 0 9. 3 9. 4 10. 0 3. 4 3. 1 0. 8 0. 7 0. 1 0. 0 уровень 4 уровень 5 уровень 6 0. 0 ниже уровня 1 уровень 1 а уровень 2 уровень 3 63

Factors effecting student performance What explains gaps and dispersions in student performance? 64

You results could have been a bit higher in case you… (Some factors that effect student performance) • were a girl, • had better socio-economic background, • visited private school and/or • visited the school with students with more encouraging socio-economic background, • were enrolled into a 1 -year pre-school preparation program, • were possessed of stronger and effective learning strategy, • had positive attitude to reading, • willingly read various materials for at least half an hour a day, • visited a school with Russian language of instruction in Bishkek Total: 484 +53 scores +40 scores +103 scores +62 scores +47 scores +87 scores +24 scores +15 scores +53 scores

… Your literacy score could be higher then the mean score in top performing countries (approximately 484 scores) and higher then the scores of: • boys, • students with bad socio-economic background • students with no prior experience with pre-school preparation class • students from schools with no effective learning strategy • those who have no positive attitude to reading • students who visit a far distance rural state-run school. 66

Factors explaining low performance of Kyrgyz students • Low GDP level • Poor costs allocated per one student • Relationship between school performance and schools’ socio-economic background • Lack of teaching staff • Lack of teaching and learning resources • Few students with pre-primary preparation • Students are not aware of effective learning strategies • Access to education materials at home • and etc. 67

GDP Level • Students representing countries with higher GDP are used to having better literacy results • GDP level explains a 6% performance gap between students from different countries • Kyrgyzstan has the lowest real gross domestic product among all PISA countries – USD 1994 (as per 2007). 68

GDP level • But it does not mean that is impossible to reach high performance with a low GDP • For example, in Shanghai-China GDP makes only USD 5430, which is much lower then relevant results in most PISA 2009 countries • Nevertheless, Shanghai-China is ranked first country in all three surveyed subject areas, this is, reading, mathematics and science literacy 69

Per capita education costs for 6 -15 years old • There is a positive correlation between a per capita expenses and demonstrated literacy results • As a rule, the greater are per capita student expenses, the bigger are the average literacy results • Per capita student expenses explains a 9% performance gap between students from different countries 70

Per capita education costs for 6 -15 years old • In Kyrgyzstan capitation expenses per one students aged 6 -15 make USD 3000 • This is the least amount among all surveyed countries that provided the data (41 countries) 71

Per capita education costs for 6 -15 years old • In other countries similar capitation expenses vary from USD 106 000 in USA to USD 12 700 in Turkey. • In Russian Federation capitation expenses make USD 17 500. No other CIS country provided required data. 72

Per capita education costs for 6 -15 years old • But the country should not necessarily have the lowest literacy results if its expenses are not the greatest ones • For example, Estonia and Poland where capitation expenses reach USD 40 thousands demonstrated great literacy results almost similar to those by USA and Norway who spent USD 100 thousands per each student 73

Socio, economic and cultural student indices • Social, economic and cultural aspects are the strongest that effect student performance results Components of social, economic and cultural indices: • Occupational status of parents, educational level of parents with regard to schooling period; • Home educational resources relevant for culture • Items measuring the existence of educational resources at home including a desk and a quiet place to study • Computer that students can use for schoolwork, educational software, books to help with students’ school work, technical reference books and a dictionary • Dishwasher, tape-recorder, DVD player, cell phone (s), TV 74 set (s), computer(s), car (s), etc.

Socio, economic and cultural student indices • In all countries, children from families with better socio and economic background usually receive high PISA scores • In Kyrgyzstan, socio-economic gap explains almost a 14, 5% differences in student scores • In case socio-economic status of students increases for 1 index, one can forecast a 40 point increase in student performance 75

Socio, economic factors at country level • Countries, where students have higher socio-economic status, usually demonstrate higher reading literacy results • But in Kyrgyzstan and Shanghai with almost similar socio -economic status of students, Shanghai showed the highest scores, while Kyrgyzstan was the last one 76

Socio, economic factors at country level 77

Family structure • In the absolute majority of families students from twoparent families usually demonstrate higher literacy results then the ones from incomplete families. In Estonia, Kazakhstan, Peru, Croatia children from incomplete families show higher literacy results • In Kyrgyzstan the mean literacy score by children from incomplete families is 9 points higher then the one by students from two-parent families 78

Impact of school intake index over literacy results • Direct relationship between socio-economic status of most students and literacy level • In case socio-economic status of school increases for 1 index, one can forecast a 62 average point increase in student performance. This means that schools where enrolled students have better socio-economic background show better higher performance results • As majority of Kyrgyz students have poor socioeconomic status, enrollment of selected welfare students increases and strengthens education inequity and worsens the overall country’s literacy level 80

Pre-primary school preparation • Students who have a prior experience of visiting a pre-school preparation class for more then one year usually show higher performance results at the age 15 then those with no prior experience 81

Pre-primary school preparation • In OECD countries, the average difference between students who have a prior experience of visiting a preschool preparation class for more then one year usually show higher performance results (54 points) then those with no prior experience • In Kyrgyzstan the difference between these two groups makes 72 points 82

Pre-primary school preparation More then one year Kyrgyzstan A year and least Russia OECD 83

Attitude to reading • All countries where students noted their personnel desire in reading showed much higher literacy results then in those countries where students do not enjoy reading • IN OECD countries possible changes in scores that might have occurred due to “enjoying reading” index gives 39 additional points or 1 year of studies. Moreover the gap between students who enjoy reading and those who do not reaches almost 1, 5 of studies on reading literacy scale. • In Kyrgyzstan and Azerbaijan possible changes in scores that might have occurred due to “enjoying reading” index gives 24 -23 additional points accordingly. In Russian this index reaches 49 points, while in Kazakhstan it has no statistical significance. • The total score difference between students with personnel desire in reading and those who do not enjoy reading have the following values: 88 points in Russia; 43 points in Kyrgyzstan; 29 points in Azerbaijan and 10 points in Kazakhstan which the smallest difference 84

Attitude to reading • On the average, much more students in Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan noted that they read for pleasure then those in OECD countries • For example, in Russia and OECD countries 21, 4% and 37, 4% accordingly noted that they never read for pleasure, while only 11, 7% of students in Kyrgyzstan and 7, 2% in Kazakhstan gave similar answers • Also only 4, 5% of students in OECD countries and 6, 9% of students in Russia answered that they read for more then 2 hours a day, while in Kyrgyzstan 14, 5% of students noted that they for more then 2 hours a day and this is the highest value among all PISA countries except for Azerbaijan where almost 15, 2% answered in this way 85

Attitude to reading • In 36 countries, students who enjoy reading for more then 30 minutes a day received 30 additional points more then students who do not enjoy reading at all • Nevertheless in Kyrgyzstan the gap between students who enjoy reading for more then 30 minutes and those who do not enjoy reading at all makes only 15 points • Thus, in Kyrgyzstan dependence between the time that students spent for reading for more then 30 minutes a day and those who never read for pleasure, is much poor as compared with other PISA countries 86

Attitude to reading • As “reading for pleasure” index is tightly connected with literacy scores, students’ interest to reading in the school and beyond should be stimulated • It is important to encourage a child to reading every day for pleasure • Everyday reading during 30 minutes is enough to give a significant impact over literacy scores 87

Attitude to reading • Students who read a scope of various materials also have higher reading literacy results • Reading of books, novels, magazines and journals influences the score • In Kyrgyzstan students who read magazines and journals regularly received 26 additional points in reading literacy scale 88

Knowledge of learning strategies • Students that apply strategies to understand remember the information, as well as summarise information strategies received mush higher scores then those that know no strategies and do not apply them in practice 89

Strategies to understand remember Most effective: • After I read the text I discuss it with other people • I underline most important text parts • I generalize the text in my own words Less effective: • I focus on text parts that are easier to understand • I briefly look through the text two times • I read the text aloud to some other person 90

Strategies to summarise information Most effective • I thoroughly check if the key text elements are represented in the text summary • I briefly look through the text underlining key elements and rewrite them with my own world as a summary Less effective: • I write a summary of each paragraph and check is all paragraph is included into the summary as it is critical to insert content of each paragraph • Prior to drafting a summary I reread the text as many times as possible Least effective: • I carefully rewrite as many sentences as possible 91

Knowledge of learning strategies • OECD students that apply most effective strategies for remembering and understanding the facts received 70 additional points in literacy scale as compared with students who do not apply this strategies in practice. This score difference correspond to 1 level in reading literacy scale • In Kyrgyzstan and the Russian Federation this gap makes 87 points and 91 points in Kazakhstan 92

Knowledge of learning strategies • Kyrgyz students are less aware of learning strategies then the others • In Kyrgyzstan and Azerbaijan index for remembering and understanding is the least among all PISA countries and makes -0, 69. In the Russian Federation and Kazakhstan reported -0, 11 and -0, 33 accordingly • In Shanghai which showed the highest reading literacy results, remembering and understanding index reached 0, 14 93

Knowledge of learning strategies % students who use effective learning strategies Kazakhstan Казахстан Azerbaijan Азербайджан 46 54 42 Russia Россия 58 57 Kyrgyzstan Кыргызстан 37 OECD ОЭСР 20 Superficial поверхностные 63 27 73 0 Thoughtful вдумчивые 43 40 60 80 100 Thoughtful students are those who use effective learning strategies Superficial students are those who don’t know what learning strategies are most effective 94

Kyrgyzstan. Impact of student questioners’ indices over reading literacy expressed in terms of regression numeric parameter 95

School administration characteristics 96

Selection and breakdown of students • Relatively high rate of grade repetition • Distribution of students by different education programmes up to age 15 • Transferring of students to another schools based on low performance results, behavior problems and to meet their specific education needs • Practice of students’ distribution by their abilities by all subjects… …. not only effect negatively on the average level of literacy but strengthens the impact of the family’s social and economic factor on literacy performance. 97

School autonomy in the area of curriculum development and assessment • Higher literacy level is commonly observed in those education systems where schools are granted a significant autonomy in drafting curriculums and executing assessment. Impact of social and economic factors in these systems is eased • It becomes true just in case national standards are available 98

School autonomy in the area of curriculum development and assessment • All CIS countries that took part in PISA assessment demonstrated weaker level of autonomy in learning process planning then the others OECD countries. • Most dependent in the area of school learning planning is Kazakhstan with the index -0, 98 and the most independent is Kyrgyzstan with the index -0, 25 • Index volume in Russia and Azerbaijan makes -0, 36 and -0, 64 accordingly 99

Assessment • Even if take into account the per capita income, those countries where national examinations are as a rule usually have higher literacy results • Students received 19 additional points to their literacy scores in schools using mandatory national exams then those from schools that do not apply national exam system • In 18 participant countries where school administration post student performance results in public access usually have higher literacy scores that school with restricted access to performance-related information. • After we take into account all socio-economic factors, we will have only 5 countries left. But Kyrgyzstan is still among them 100

Teaching staff • Teaching salaries directly effect the overall literacy level in the country • In case countries have equal teachers’ remunerations, below average results will be achieved by the school that invests into the teachers’ salaries, not fullness of classes 101

Teaching staff • When comparing answer sheets by school administrators from CIS countries it is obvious that in Kyrgyzstan teachers’ shortage is the most critical among all and reports 0, 90 • In Russia corresponding figure makes 0, 13, in Kazakhstan – 0, 47. In Azerbaijan shortage of teaching staff is close to an average among OECD countries and makes -0, 02 102

Material resources • No correlation is observed between availability of extra educational resources and literacy scores • But it does not mean that these resources have no impact on the literacy level • It might be caused by the reason that there is no great variety in equipping all OECD schools • We are confident that schools lacking adequate teaching staff, shortage of textbooks and other infrastructure problems are more likely to get the lowest literacy results 103

Material resources • As of 2006, material resources shortage index was the highest among all participating countries and reported -1, 72 • In other CIS countries is also a bit material resources shortage index then the OECD countries’ average • In Kazakhstan index valued -0, 76, in Russia and Azerbaijan it made -0, 63 and -0, 58 accordingly • In Kyrgyzstan the material resources shortage index is relatively high throughout the country. CIS countries have single schools equipped much better then those from OECD countries (material resources index is almost one level higher then in standard OECD country ) 104

Material resources • It is meant that school performance does not depend on material resources provision, while in Kyrgyzstan impact of material resources is much higher then the one by school administration characteristics • Before we take into account socio-economic factors, literacy score will mostly depend on educational resources, school administration, assessment system and student enrollment and distribution system last of all. 105

Values of factors effecting Kyrgyz performance Educational resources (teaching staff, school material resources etc. ) Assessment system (national exams and publication of performance results) Administration (autonomy in drafting curriculum) Enrollment and distribution of students (grade repetition, transferring to another school) regardless of socio-economic factor with regard to socio-economic factor % deviation percentage that could be explained due to this factors 106

Kyrgyzstan. Comparing PISA 2006 and 2009 results • An absolutely similar assessment approach in PISA is used once in 9 years only • That is why the only true comparison of PISA results could be made in the years 2015, when PISA comes back to assess science literacy 107

Kyrgyzstan. Comparing PISA 2006 and 2009 results • Regardless to the fact that just like in 2006 Kyrgyzstan took the last place among all ranked counties, one could observe slight positive changes as compared with 2006 • Both mean values and the number of students achieving the minimum literacy standard has increased 108

Kyrgyzstan. Comparing PISA 2006 and 2009 mean scores 340 330 330 322 320 313 311 310 300 290 285 280 270 260 Reading literacy грамотность чтения 2006 Science literacy Mathematics literacy математическая грамотность естественнонаучная грамотность 2009 109

Kyrgyzstan. Comparing PISA 2006 and 2009 Percentage of students who achieved the minimum literacy standard in reading 110

Kyrgyzstan. Comparing PISA 2006 and 2009 Percentage of students who achieved the minimum literacy standard in mathematics 111

Kyrgyzstan. Comparing PISA 2006 and 2009 Percentage of students who achieved the minimum literacy standard in science 112

Thank you for your attention! Sources: 1. OECD (2010), PISA 2009 Results: What Students Know and Can Do – Student Performance in Reading, Mathematics and Science (Volume I). http: //dx. doi. org/10. 1787/9789264091450 -en 2. OECD (2010), PISA 2009 Results: Overcoming Social Background – Equity in Learning Opportunities and Outcomes (Volume II). http: //dx. doi. org/10. 1787/9789264091504 -en 3. OECD (2010), PISA 2009 Results: Learning to Learn – Student Engagement, Strategies and Practices (Volume III. )http: //dx. doi. org/10. 1787/9789264083943 -en 4. OECD (2010), PISA 2009 Results: What Makes a School Successful? – Resources, Policies and Practices (Volume IV). http: //dx. doi. org/10. 1787/9789264091559 -en 5. PISA Data Analysis Manual: SPSS® SECOND EDITION. www. sourceoecd. org/education/9789264056268 6. OECD Database. http: //pisa 2009. acer. edu. au/ 7. PISA 2009. Evaluating systems to improve education. Presentation. Andreas Schleicher. Special advisor to the Secretary-General on Education Policy. Head of the Indicators and Analysis Division, EDU Some photos used in presentation were extracted from Microsoft Office Clipart online and should not be associated with PISA survey www. testing. kg 113