World Beaters or Underachievers

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Individual, Home, and Community Factors PISA/PIRLS Task Force International Reading Association January 2005.
Advertisements

International Reading Association
PISA OECD Programme for International Student Assessment Learning trends Maciej Jakubowski 10 February 2011 Learning Trends Changes in student performance.
1 OECD Mean, OECD Average and Computation of Standard Errors on Differences Guide to the PISA Data Analysis ManualPISA Data Analysis Manual.
Mark D. Reckase Michigan State University The Evaluation of Teachers and Schools Using the Educator Response Function (ERF)
What can we learn from the international PISA study about improving reading at age 15? February 2011.
24 July 2014 PISA 2012 Financial Literacy results – New Zealand in an international context.
INFERENTIAL STATISTICS. Descriptive statistics is used simply to describe what's going on in the data. Inferential statistics helps us reach conclusions.
1. Canadian Results PISA PISA 2012 by the numbers 3.
Secondary Teaching in US Math 490 INDEX TIMSS Liping Ma’s book.
Mark DeCandia Kentucky NAEP State Coordinator
Introduction to GREAT for ELs Office of Student Assessment Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (608)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2009 Results Stuart Kerachsky Deputy Commissioner December 7, 2010.
PIAAC results tell a story about the systemic nature of the skills deficit among U.S. adults. Overview of U.S. Results: Focus on Numeracy.
Validation of the Assessment and Comparability to the PISA Framework Hao Ren and Joanna Tomkowicz McGraw-Hill Education CTB.
HKPISA Reading habit, reading attitude and reading literacy performance in Hong Kong and Finland Presented by Paul Sze and Esther Ho PISA International.
International Outcomes of Learning in Mathematics and Problem Solving: PISA 2003 Results from the U.S. Perspective Commissioner Robert Lerner National.
PISA: Behind the headlines and past the rankings Sue Thomson Director, Educational Monitoring and Research, ACER National Project Manager PISA National.
PISA2009 Results: our 21st century learners at age 15 6 December 2010 Maree Telford PISA 2009 National Project Manager.
The PDST is funded by the Department of Education and Skills under the National Development Plan, Overview for Parents and the difference they.
Overview of U.S. Results: Focus on Literacy PIAAC results tell a story about the systemic nature of the skills deficit among U.S. adults.
Colorado Growth Model Basics October Colorado Growth Model Welcome Agenda: ◦ Index cards for questions ◦ Overview of basic ideas within growth model.
2007 by The Education Trust, Inc. Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2006 Prepared by the Education Trust December 2007.
PISA AND THE OECD TEST FOR SCHOOLS International benchmarking for schools and school districts Atlanta, October 2, 2014 Tue Halgreen Directorate for Education.
Assessing assessment: the role of student effort in comparative studies Ray Adams Jayne Butler.
Telling the Successes of Public Education July, 2014.
Understanding The PLAN. What Do My Scores Mean?  Your scores range between 1 and 32.  The PLAN takes the number of correct responses on each test and.
PISA International Conference. Reading Performance of Hong Kong’s 15-Year-Old Students in PISA.
Introduction to GREAT for ELs Office of Student Assessment Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (608)
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Jack O’Connell, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Results of the 2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress.
The Nation’s Report Card: Geography National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
Jack Buckley Commissioner National Center for Education Statistics May 4, 2011.
Melbourne Education Research Institute 1 Education: an international perspective Barry McGaw Director University of Melbourne Education Research Institute.
County-level M-STEP Data Mathematics From the Golden Package.
CINS Community Meeting: Data Dig January 2016 APS Research & Evaluation John Keltz & Rubye Sullivan.
Technology and Literacy 2 April Learning Intentions To be able to explain the literacy profile of NZ students To identify the subject specific demands.
Scale Scoring A Revised Format for Provincial Assessment Reports.
© The Center for Public Education, 2009 What the international PIRLS test reveals about teaching second language learners A study of 4 th grade readers.
Girls and Physics Chris Meyer York Mills C. I.
Inferential Statistics Assoc. Prof. Dr. Şehnaz Şahinkarakaş.
PISA Seminar An option to learn from other countries’ educational systems Tallinn, April 2012 What are possible reasons for Canadian success in PISA Group.
1 Perspectives on the Achievements of Irish 15-Year-Olds in the OECD PISA Assessment
1 Main achievement outcomes continued.... Performance on mathematics and reading (minor domains) in PISA 2006, including performance by gender Performance.
Factors associated with achievement in PISA 2006 Why? Why? –Establishing links –Identifying things we can change –Valuable data in its own right E.g. bullying,
1 Gender and PISA Mathematics: Irish Results in Context SEAN CLOSE and GERRY SHIEL Educational Research Centre, St. Patrick’s College, Dublin, Ireland.
1 PISA 2006 Main achievement outcomes and factors associated with performance on science Eemer Eivers, Gerry Shiel & Rachel Cunningham Educational Research.
ACCESS for ELLs Score Changes
PISA 2015 results in England
John Jerrim UCL Institute of Education
What is PIAAC?.
A First Look at the 2015 Program for International Student Assessment Financial Literacy Results Peggy G. Carr, Ph.D. Acting Commissioner Institute of.
Graduations, Dropouts and Mobility Rates McKinney-Vento
Inferential Statistics
Programme for International Student Assessment
What are we learning from PISA and TIMSS?
PISA 2009 – New Approaches to Assessing Reading Literacy
PISA 2015 Excellence and Equity in Education Peter Adams
Rita Hvistendahl og Astrid Roe
OECD Strategic Education Governance A perspective for Scotland
Workshop 2S (Secondary)
Jenny Bradshaw NCETM National CPD Conference 23rd March 2011
Key Findings of the OECD Policy Review of Migrant Education and
Academic Report 2007/2008 AYP.
Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2009 Results
Closing The Achievement Gap Task Force
Between-school Variance in Achievement
ACT ASPIRE UNDERSTANDING
Five things you probably don’t know from PISA….
Education Policy Leadership Conference March 14, 2008
InferentIal StatIstIcs
Presentation transcript:

Gerry Shiel gerry.shiel@erc.ie World Beaters or Underachievers? The Performance of High Achievers and Struggling Readers in Ireland Gerry Shiel gerry.shiel@erc.ie

Overview Why a concern with high achievers and struggling readers? PISA’s benchmarks for high and low achievers: Proficiency levels and percentile ranks The performance of PISA students on the Junior Certificate Examination – should we be concerned? What models of reading proficiency tell us about high- and low-achievers Towards research and policy for the future.

PISA Framework for Reading Literacy (2003)

Sample Texts / Tasks The Gift (continuous, narrative) Labour Force (non-continuous, schematic)

Proficiency Levels

PISA Reading Achievement Scale / Proficiency Levels

How Our ‘Struggling’ Readers Performed (2003) Fewer students in Ireland were at or below proficiency Level 1 (11.0% compared to an OECD average of 19.1%). [Level 2 has been interpreted as a ‘basic minimum’ by the OECD] But. . . Just 5.7% of students in Finland are at or below Level 1 Score of Irish students in Ireland at the 10th percentile (401.3) is significantly higher than the corresponding OECD average score at the same marker (360.8)

How Our Higher-Achieving Readers Performed (2003) More students in Ireland performed at Levels 4 and 5 (35.5% compared to OECD average of 29.6%) But. . . Scores of Irish students at the 90th and 95th percentile ranks (622 and 647) were not significantly different from the corresponding OECD country average scores (617 and 646 respectively)

How Our Higher-Achieving Readers Performed (2000 vs. 2003) Significant decline in achievement at 75th, 90th and 95th percentile ranks But. . . decline at these markers also observed in Canada, Denmark, Hong-Kong China, Russian Federation Questions over linking / equating procedures Fewer Irish students at Level 5 in 2003 (9.3%) than in 2000 (14.3%)

JC English and PISA Performance – Junior Certificate Performance Scale Mean Scores Comparison involved students who took JC English in 2002 or 2003 (93.9% of the PISA cohort in Ireland). Junior Certificate Performance Scale places students’ English scores on a scale of 1-12, with a higher Grade A worth 12, and a Foundation Grade F worth 1 point

PISA Mean Score by JCPS Level

PISA Proficiency Cross-Tabulated with JC English Level (2000 and 2003)

School-level Variables and Reading (Model-based) 19.8% of variance in achievement due to school-level variables Two variables at the school level in the final model: Disciplinary climate in mathematics classes (not associated with SES); and SES (Percent JCE Fee Waiver) No interactions between school-level and student-level variables Attitude to reading/interest in reading not included

Contribution of School-level Variables to Scores

Student-Level Variables and Reading Achievement Gender: Female 21.5 (vs. male) Lone parent: dual = 13.3 points (vs. lone) No. of siblings: four+ = – 19.3 (vs one) Home educational resources: low = – 14.5 (vs. high) Absence: 3+ days = – 35.3 (vs. no days)

Student Socio-economic Status and Reading Achievement

Number of Books in the Home: Contributions to Fitted Scores

Discussion Topics Are proficiency levels a useful way of reporting on performance in reading? Why are our ‘lower-achieving’ pupils holding their own in reading literacy? Is this an artefact of the low proportion of non-national students in the system here? Or do structural aspects of the educational system explain this?

More Discussion Topics Should pupils with very low reading proficiency ‘pass’ Junior Certificate English? Why are our higher-achieving readers under-performing? Why are our highest-achieving students doing less well in 2003 than in 2000? Do we provide adequate instructional activities to challenge our highest achievers?