PISA 2006: Reading Literacy - How ready are our 15-year-olds for tomorrow’s world?
Publication Details
This report describes New Zealand's results for reading literacy in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2006, which covers 57 countries. It expands on information already released in international and national reports in December 2007. In 2006, reading literacy was a minor focus in PISA. This report also includes information on New Zealand results from 2000 and 2003.
Author(s): Nicola Marshall, Robyn Caygill & Steve May
Date Published: September 2008
Quick Links
Appendix 1..
Appendix 2..
Appendix 3..
Appendix 4..
Appendices
Appendix 1: List of countries participating in PISA 2006 and structure of the PISA assessment cycle
Table A.1: Countries participating in PISA 2006
| Argentina * | Australia | Austria |
| Azerbaijan * | Belgium | Brazil * |
| Bulgaria * | Canada | Chile * |
| Colombia * | Croatia * | Czech Republic |
| Denmark | Estonia * | Finland |
| France | Germany | Greece |
| Hong Kong-China* | Hungary | Iceland |
| Indonesia * | Ireland | Israel * |
| Italy | Japan | Jordan * |
| Korea | Kyrgyzstan * | Latvia * |
| Liechtenstein * | Lithuania * | Luxembourg |
| Macao-China* | Mexico | Montenegro * |
| The Netherlands | New Zealand | Norway |
| Poland | Portugal | Qatar * |
| Romania * | Russian Federation * | Serbia * |
| Slovak Republic | Slovenia * | Spain |
| Sweden | Switzerland | Chinese Taipei * |
| Thailand * | Tunisia * | Turkey |
| United Kingdom | United States | Uruguay * |
Note: * denotes non-OECD countries.
Table A.2: Structure of PISA assessment cycle
| Year | Reading literacy | Mathematical literacy | Scientific literacy |
| 2000 Total item pool | Major domain 270 minutes | Minor domain 60 minutes | Minor domain 60 minutes |
| 2003 Total item pool | Minor domain 60 minutes | Major domain 210 minutes* | Minor domain 60 minutes |
| 2006 Total item pool | Minor domain 60 minutes | Minor domain 120 minutes | Major domain 210 minutes |
Note: Each student is assessed on a selection of items from each domain, for a total of 120 minutes.
* In 2003 a separate problem-solving assessment area was included, which was allocated 60 minutes of the total testing time.
Appendix 2: Ethnicity and language spoken at home
Table A.3: Proportions of each ethnic grouping by the language spoken at home
| Language grouping | Proportion of students in each ethnic grouping | ||||
| Pākehā | Māori | Pasifika | Asian | Other | |
| English | 69% | 18% | 6% | 5% | 1% |
| Other language | 8% | 1% | 17% | 66% | 8% |
Note: Percentages represent the proportions of each ethnic grouping within each language category.
Appendix 3: Full detail of PISA reading literacy proficiency levels
| Level | Lower score limit | What students can typically do |
| 5 | 625.6 | Locate and possibly sequence or combine multiple pieces of deeply embedded information, some of which may be outside the main body of the text. Infer which information in the text is relevant to the task. Deal with highly plausible and/or extensive competing information. Either construe the meaning of nuanced language or demonstrate a full and detailed understanding of a text. Critically evaluate or hypothesise, drawing on specialised knowledge. Deal with concepts that are contrary to expectations and draw on a deep understanding of long or complex texts. In continuous texts students can analyse texts whose discourse structure is not obvious or clearly marked, in order to discern the relationship of specific parts of the text to its implicit theme or intention. In non-continuous texts, students can identify patterns among many pieces of information presented in a display which may be long and detailed, sometimes by referring to information external to the display. The reader may need to realise independently that a full understanding of the section of text requires reference to a separate part of the same document, such as a footnote. |
| 4 | 552.9 | Locate and possibly sequence or combine multiple pieces of embedded information, each of which may need to meet multiple criteria, in a text with familiar context or form. Infer which information in the text is relevant to the task. Use a high level of text-based inference to understand and apply categories in an unfamiliar context, and to construe the meaning of a section of text by taking into account the text as a whole. Deal with ambiguities, ideas that are contrary to expectation and ideas that are negatively worded. Use formal or public knowledge to hypothesise about or critically evaluate a text. Show accurate understanding of long or complex texts. In continuous texts students can follow linguistic or thematic links over several paragraphs, often in the absence of clear discourse markers, in order to locate, interpret or evaluate embedded information or to infer psychological or metaphysical meaning. In non-continuous texts students can scan a long, detailed text in order to find relevant information, often with little or no assistance from organisers such as labels or special formatting, to locate several pieces of information to be compared or combined. |
| 3 | 480.2 | Locate, and in some cases recognise, the relationship between pieces of information, each of which may need to meet multiple criteria. Deal with prominent competing information. Integrate several parts of a text in order to identify a main idea, understand a relationship or construe the meaning of a word or phrase. Compare, contrast or categorise taking many criteria into account. Deal with competing information. Make connections or comparisons, give explanations, or evaluate a feature of text. Demonstrate a detailed understanding of the text in relation to familiar, everyday knowledge, or draw on less common knowledge. In continuous texts students can use conventions of text organisation, where present, and follow implicit or explicit logical links such as cause and effect relationships across sentences or paragraphs in order to locate, interpret or evaluate information. In non-continuous texts students can consider one display in the light of a second, separate documents or displays, possibly in a different format, or combine several pieces of spatial, verbal and numeric information in a graph or map to draw conclusions about the information represented. |
| 2 | 407.5 | Locate one or more pieces of information, each of which may be required to meet multiple criteria. Deal with competing information. Identify the main idea in a text, understand relationships, form or apply simple categories, or construe meaning within a limited part of the text when the information is not prominent and low-level inferences are required. Make a comparison or connections between the text and outside knowledge, or explain a feature of the text by drawing on personal experience and attitudes. In continuous texts students can follow logical and linguistic connections within a paragraph in order to locate or interpret information; or synthesise information across texts or parts of a text in order to infer the author’s purpose. In non-continuous texts students demonstrate a grasp of the underlying structure of a visual display such as a simple tree diagram or table, or combine two pieces of information from a graph or table. |
| 1 | 334.8 | Locate one or more independent pieces of explicitly stated information, typically meeting a single criterion, with little or no competing information in the text. Recognise the main theme or author’s purpose in a text about a familiar topic, when the required information in the text is prominent. Make a simple connection between information in the text and common, everyday knowledge. In continuous texts students can use redundancy, paragraph headings or common print conventions to form an impression of the main idea of the text, or to locate information stated explicitly within a short section of text. In non-continuous texts students can focus on discrete pieces of information, usually within a single display such as a simple map, a line graph or a bar graph that presents only a small amount of information in a straightforward way, and in which most of the verbal text is limited to a small number of words or phrases. |
Appendix 4: Sample questions from PISA 2006
Figure A.1: Sample reading item, Level 5 and Level 3
This sample test question yields responses at two different levels of difficulty. The full-credit response, which requires the student to combine information from the footnote or title with the main tree diagram, is rated at Level 5 with a score of 631. The partial credit response, which only requires the student to locate the information in the tree diagram, is rated at Level 3 with a score of 485.
| Situation: | Reading for education |
| Text format: | Non-continuous |
| Aspect: | Retrieving information |
| Difficulty: | 631, 485 |
| Full credit: | Code 2: Indicates that the number in the tree diagram AND the ‘000s’ in the title/footnote have been integrated: 949,900. Allow approximations 949,000 and 950,000 in figures or words. Also accept 900,000 or one million (in words or figures) with qualifier. |
| Partial credit: | Code 1: Indicates that number in tree diagram has been located, but that the ‘000s’ in the title/footnote has not been correctly integrated. Answers 949.9 in words or figures. Allow approximations comparable to those for Code 2. |
| Country – PISA 2000 | Percent correct – Level 5 | Percent correct – Level 3 |
| Finland | 42 | 37 |
| Hong Kong-China | 29 | 33 |
| Korea | 13 | 26 |
| New Zealand | 36 | 39 |
| Australia | 35 | 42 |
| United Kingdom | 28 | 50 |
| United States | 23 | 51 |
| OECD average | 28 | 37 |
Figure A.2: Sample reading item, Level 4
| Situation: | Reading for public use |
| Text format: | Continuous |
| Aspect: | Reflecting on and evaluating the content of a text |
| Difficulty: | 581 |
| Full credit: | Explains opinion with reference to the style or form of one or both letters. Refers to criteria such as style of writing, structure of argument, cogency of argument, tone, register used, strategies for persuading audience. Terms like ‘better arguments’ must be substantiated. |
| Country – PISA 2000 | Percent correct – Level 4 |
| Finland | 53 |
| Hong Kong-China | 59 |
| Korea | 48 |
| New Zealand | 53 |
| Australia | 49 |
| United Kingdom | 57 |
| United States | 44 |
| OECD average | 45 |
Figure A.3: Sample reading item, Level 1
| Situation: | Reading for education |
| Text format: | Continuous |
| Aspect: | Developing an interpretation |
| Difficulty: | 356 |
| Full credit: | D |
| Country – PISA 2000 | Percent correct – Level 1 |
| Finland | 91 |
| Hong Kong-China | 90 |
| Korea | 85 |
| New Zealand | 88 |
| Australia | 88 |
| United Kingdom | 83 |
| United States | 77 |
| OECD average | 85 |
Downloads / Links
Sections
Contact Us
For more publication-related information, please email: information.officer@minedu.govt.nz
Search Publications
Copyright © Education Counts 2011 | Contact information.officer@minedu.govt.nz for enquiries.