Print and Digital Reading in PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) 2009: Comparison and Contrast

• In Event: Perspectives on PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) Reading

Abstract

PISA was administered for the fourth time in 2009. Since in each administration, one of reading, maths or science is chosen as the major domain, the 2009 survey marked the first time that a domain (in this case, reading) was revisited as the major focus of the assessment. This allowed a full review of the framework for reading literacy and the inclusion of new elements to reflect the way that reading has changed since 2000 (OECD, 2009). One such change is the increasing prevalence of digital texts. Over two billion people – nearly one-third of the world’s population – are now reading on line (International Telecommunications Union, 2009). The assessment of digital reading in the PISA 2009 cycle, undertaken by 19 of the 67 countries and economies administering PISA 2009, represented the first large scale international assessment of digital reading.
PISA’s digital reading assessment is an assessment of reading in a digital environment, as opposed to a computer-delivered assessment of reading in the print medium. While many of the skills needed to read a digital text are similar to those needed to read a print text, differences between the print and electronic environment require readers to develop new skills. The nature, form and blurred boundaries of digital texts mean that readers typically construct their own path within a text – more so than in printed texts, which have a physical order and physical boundaries. Digital texts also offer different opportunities for readers to engage with the text by directly influencing the content (for example by responding to an email message or adding a comment to a blog).
This paper focuses on a comparison of PISA 2009 reading outcomes in Australia and Hong Kong-China, two high-performing participants in both print and digital reading. However, Australian students performed better in digital reading than print reading, while in Hong Kong-China the results were reversed (OECD, 2011). To make the comparison, information from the PISA 2009 assessments of print and digital reading, the student background questionnaire and the ICT familiarity questionnaire are drawn upon.
The explanation for differences in reading performances does not seem to lie in differential access to computers: in both Australia and Hong Kong-China, students had higher than average access to computers both at school and at home. However, there are differences in the kinds of activities that students perform on line. Students from Hong Kong-China more frequently engage in online activities aimed at searching for information than Australian students. The relationship between information searching activities and performance in digital reading, though, is stronger for Australian students than students from Hong Kong-China. There are also differences in students’ navigation behaviour during digital reading. For example, students in Hong-Kong China tend to visit a greater number of pages when completing a task than do Australian students.
To purpose of this investigation is describe similarities and differences in these two participants’ performance and behaviour as readers, and thereby to better understand the constituents of proficiency in print and digital reading.

Author

• Juliette F. Mendelovits, Australian Council for Educational Research