1. 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.

2. Literacy How did we do compared to other countries? 2 Japan Finland Netherlands Australia Sweden Norway Estonia Flanders-Belgium Slovak Rep. Germany France Czech Rep. Canada Italy Spain U.K. Denmark United States Ireland Poland Cyprus Austria Japan Finland Flanders-Belgium Netherlands Sweden Norway Denmark Slovak Rep. Czech Rep. Austria Estonia Germany Australia Canada Cyprus Korea, Rep. of U.K. Poland Ireland France United States Italy Spain Japan Finland Australia Sweden Norway Netherlands Austria Denmark Czech Rep. Korea, Rep. of Germany Canada Slovak Rep. Flanders-Belgium U.K. Estonia United States Ireland Poland Italy Spain Cyprus France Numeracy PS-TRE The U.S. ranked lower than most other countries in all three domains. The US ranked better in Literacy than in Numeracy or Problem Solving in technology-rich environments.

3. 3 Scores on literacy ranged from 296 (Japan) to 250 (Italy) U.S. scores were: Lower than in 12 countries Not significantly different than in 5 countries Higher than in 5 countries The U.S. average literacy score (270) was lower than the international average (273) Literacy Japan Finland Netherlands Australia Sweden Norway Estonia Flanders-Belgium Slovak Rep. Germany France Czech Rep. Canada Italy Spain U.K. Denmark United States Ireland Poland Cyprus Austria Korea, Rep. of

4. The U.S. average is low because a higher proportion of U.S. adults are at the lowest levels (level 1 and below level 1) of literacy. 4

5. These descriptions of the PIAAC Proficiency Levels for Literacy define what adults can do at each level. 5 Locate single piece of information in familiar texts. Read relatively short digital, print or mixed texts to locate single text. Make matches between text and information that may require low level para- phrasing and drawing low- level inferences. Identify, interpret, or evaluate one or more pieces of information and often require varying levels of inference. Perform multiple-step operations to integrate, interpret, or synthesize information from complex texts, and may require complex inferences. Integrate information across multiple, dense texts; construct syntheses, ideas or points of view; or evaluate evidence based arguments. Below Level 1 (0-175) Level 1 (176-225) Level 2 (226-275) Level 3 (276-325) Level 4 (326-375) Level 5 (376-500)

6. The U.S. average numeracy score (253) was also lower than the international average (269). 6 Numeracy scores ranged from 288 (Japan) to 246 (Spain) U.S. scores were: Lower than in 18 countries Not significantly different than in 2 countries Higher than in 2 countries Japan Finland Flanders-Belgium Netherlands Sweden Norway Denmark Slovak Rep. Czech Rep. Austria Estonia Germany Australia Canada Cyprus Korea, Rep. of U.K. Poland Ireland France United States Italy Spain Numeracy

7. An even higher proportion of U.S. adults are at the lowest levels (level 1 and below level 1) of numeracy.

8. These descriptions of the PIAAC Proficiency Levels for Numeracy define what adults can do at each level. 8 Perform basic tasks: counting, arithmetic operations with whole numbers. Perform one- step tasks: count; sort; arithmetic operations; understanding simple percent (ex. 50%). Perform 2 or more calculations, simple measurement; spatial representation; estimation; and interpret simple tables, graphs. Understand & work with mathematical patterns, proportions, basic statistics expressed in verbal or numerical form. Perform analysis, complex reasoning, statistics and chance; spatial relationships; and communica- ting well- reasoned explanations for answers. Understand complex abstract mathema- tical and statistical ideas, embedded in complex texts, draw inferences; arguments or models; justify, reflect on solutions or choices. Below Level 1 (0- 175) Level 1 (176-225) Level 2 (226-275) Level 3 (276-325) Level 4 (326-375) Level 5 (376-500)

9. The U.S. average score in digital problem solving* (277) was also lower than the international average (283). 9 Italy, Spain, Cyprus and France did not include this domain in their assessment Scores ranged from 294 (Japan) to 275 (Poland) U.S. scores were: Lower than in 14 countries Not significantly different than in 4 other countries Higher than no other country (Italy, Spain, Cyprus and France did not participate ) * Officially problem solving in technology-rich environments (PS-TRE) Japan Finland Australia Sweden Norway Netherlands Austria Denmark Czech Rep. Korea, Rep. of Germany Canada Slovak Rep. Flanders-Belgium U.K. Estonia United States Ireland Poland Italy Spain Cyprus France PS-TRE

10. A higher proportion of U.S. adults are also at the lowest levels of digital problem solving.

11. 11 Tasks are well- defined involving use of only one function within a generic interface. Tasks require little or no navigation, and only a few steps to access information for solving the problem. There are few monitoring demands. Tasks require some navigation across pages and applications for solving the problem. Evaluating the relevance, some integration and inferential reasoning may be needed. Task may involve multiple steps and operators, navigation across pages and applications. There are typically high monitoring demands, and evaluation of relevance and reliability of information. Below Level 1 (0-240) Level 1 (241-290) Level 2 (291-340) Level 3 (341-500) These descriptions of the PIAAC proficiency levels for digital problem solving define what adults can do at each level.

12. More Results for Literacy You can continue with this slide presentation to see more results for literacy for the whole population or Move on to one of the Key Populations and Issues Modules here.

13. More Results for Literacy

14. The U.S. average literacy score in 2012 is not significantly different from 2003, but both are lower than the average score in 1994. 14 *p <.05. Average score is significantly different from PIAAC.

15. The least educated U.S. adults scored below the international average in literacy. 15 *p <.05. U.S. average score is significantly different from PIAAC international average.

16. Employed adults in the U.S. had lower average literacy scores than their peers internationally 16 *p <.05. U.S. average score is significantly different from PIAAC international average.

17. U.S. adults who are Black and Hispanic had lower average scores in literacy than White adults. 17 *p <.05. Average score is significantly different from White average.

18. Only the oldest U.S. adults outperformed the international average in literacy. *p <.05. U.S. average score is significantly different from PIAAC international average.

19. 19 The gaps in literacy scores by educational attainment and occupational skill level are larger in the U.S. than the international average.

20. 20 The gaps in literacy scores by parental education and nativity status are larger in the U.S. than the international average.

21. The gaps in literacy scores in the U.S. are similar to the international average by gender, smaller by age, and larger by health status. 21

22. When we think about the future of the U.S. workforce, these results raise concern: while U.S. 55-65 year olds scored higher in literacy than their peers in many countries, our young people are not moving ahead as fast as those in Germany, France, Finland and Korea.

23. Slide Modules you can add to your presentation:  Sample Tasks  Education and Skills Online  More PIAAC Resources  Modules focused on Specific Populations and Issues.