HKPISAHKPISA

Reading habit, reading attitude Reading habit, reading attitude and reading literacy performance and reading literacy performance

in Hong Kong and Finlandin Hong Kong and Finland

Presented byPresented byPaul Sze and Esther HoPaul Sze and Esther Ho

PISA International Conference, PISA International Conference,

Nov 21-22 2003, Hong KongNov 21-22 2003, Hong Kong

Structure of PresentationStructure of Presentation

Part One: To provide a profile of HK Part One: To provide a profile of HK students’ reading attitude and students’ reading attitude and reading habitsreading habits

Part Two: To further explore the Part Two: To further explore the relationship between students’ relationship between students’ reading habits and their reading reading habits and their reading performanceperformance

Profiling HK Students’ Profiling HK Students’ Reading Attitude and HabitsReading Attitude and Habits

Interest in Reading: How interested are Interest in Reading: How interested are our students in reading?our students in reading?

Reading self-concept: How do our Reading self-concept: How do our students perceive their literacy ability in students perceive their literacy ability in their L1? their L1?

Reading diversity: What types of Reading diversity: What types of materials do our students read? materials do our students read?

Reading engagement: How often do our Reading engagement: How often do our studentsstudents read? read? How keen are they about How keen are they about reading? reading?

A Profile of HK Students’ A Profile of HK Students’ Reading Attitude and HabitsReading Attitude and Habits

HK has the fourth highest index in HK has the fourth highest index in interest in readinginterest in reading among the among the PISA countries/regions. PISA countries/regions.

HK is second lowest in HK is second lowest in reading reading self-concept. self-concept.

HK is highest in HK is highest in reading diversityreading diversity. .

HK is third highest in HK is third highest in reading reading engagementengagement. .

How does HK’s reading How does HK’s reading profile compare with that profile compare with that

of the top-performing of the top-performing countries?countries?

Countries chosen for Countries chosen for comparisoncomparison

AustraliaAustralia

CanadaCanada

FinlandFinland

(Hong Kong)(Hong Kong)

IrelandIreland

JapanJapan

KoreaKorea

New ZealandNew Zealand

SwedenSweden

United KingdomUnited Kingdom

United StatesUnited States

Reading Interest (1)Reading Interest (1)

Fig.1: Interest in Reading

-0.02

0.19

0.33

0.04

-0.31

0.070.09

-0.06

0.02

-0.40

-0.30

-0.20

-0.10

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

AUSTRALIA CANADA FINLAND HONGKONG IRELAND JAPAN KOREA NEW ZEALAND SWEDEN UNITED KINGDOM UNITED STATES

N/A N/A

Reading Self-concept (2)Reading Self-concept (2)

Fig. 2: Self Concept (Verbal)

-0.03-0.06

-0.30

0.27

-0.35

-0.11

0.04

0.230.26

-0.40

-0.30

-0.20

-0.10

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

AUSTRALIA CANADA FINLAND HONGKONG IRELAND JAPAN KOREA NEW ZEALAND SWEDEN UNITED KINGDOM UNITED STATES

N/A N/A

Reading for Enjoyment (3)Reading for Enjoyment (3)

Fig. 3: Engagement in reading

-0.07

0.00

0.20

0.07

-0.07

0.09

0.02 0.01

-0.06

-0.09

-0.13-0.15

-0.10

-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

AUSTRALIA CANADA FINLAND HONGKONG IRELAND JAPAN KOREA NEW ZEALAND SWEDEN UNITED KINGDOM UNITED STATES

Reading Diversity (4)Reading Diversity (4)

Fig. 4: Reading diversity

0.06 0.06

0.580.62

-0.29

0.21

0.30

0.14

0.34

-0.04-0.07

-0.40

-0.30

-0.20

-0.10

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

AUSTRALIA CANADA FINLAND HONGKONG IRELAND JAPAN KOREA NEW ZEALAND SWEDEN UNITED KINGDOM UNITED STATES

Hong Kong in the Hong Kong in the Comparison GroupComparison Group

HK is highest in HK is highest in interest in readinginterest in reading

HK almost lowest in HK almost lowest in reading self-reading self-conceptconcept

HK highest in HK highest in reading diversityreading diversity

HK is third in HK is third in reading reading engagement(based on reading engagement(based on reading time, reading diversity and time, reading diversity and reading attitude)reading attitude)

Observation and QuestionObservation and Question

Compared with the top-performing Compared with the top-performing countries, HK’s students:countries, HK’s students:

are quite interested in reading;are quite interested in reading;

read a wide range of materials;read a wide range of materials;

do take time to read for enjoyment.do take time to read for enjoyment.

Why is it that at the same time, our Why is it that at the same time, our students’ students’ reading self-conceptreading self-concept is so is so low? low?

How does HK’s profile How does HK’s profile compare with that of compare with that of

Finland?Finland?

Reading Interest vs Performance (5)Reading Interest vs Performance (5)

Fig. 5: Interest in Reading vs Reading Performance in Hong Kong and Finland

504

520

528

549

506

527

563

587

460

480

500

520

540

560

580

600

1st Quartile 2nd Quartile 3rd Quartile 4th Quartile

Hong Kong

Finland

Reading Interest and Reading Interest and Reading PerformanceReading Performance

Reading performance grows Reading performance grows steadily with interest in steadily with interest in reading, both in HK and reading, both in HK and Finland.Finland.

The correlation is even The correlation is even greater in Finland. greater in Finland.

Reading Self-Concept vs Performance Reading Self-Concept vs Performance (6)(6)

Fig. 6: Verbal Self-concept vs Reading Performance in Hong Kong and Finland

513

522

534 532

507

538

568

583

460

480

500

520

540

560

580

600

1st Quartile 2nd Quartile 3rd Quartile 4th Quartile

Hong Kong

Finland

Self-concept and Self-concept and PerformancePerformance

There is a correlation There is a correlation between reading self-between reading self-concept and reading concept and reading performance.performance.

The correlation is even The correlation is even stronger in Finland.stronger in Finland.

Reading AttitudeReading Attitude

Students in both HK and Finland are Students in both HK and Finland are positive towards reading.positive towards reading.

But more students in HK (51%) read But more students in HK (51%) read only when they have to, than in only when they have to, than in Finland (26%)Finland (26%)

More students in HK read for More students in HK read for instrumental purposes (49%), than instrumental purposes (49%), than in Finland (35%)in Finland (35%)

Reading Engagement and Reading Engagement and Reading PerformanceReading Performance

In Hong Kong, little difference In Hong Kong, little difference between the less engaging between the less engaging groups; but performance groups; but performance increased greatly for the more increased greatly for the more engaging groups.engaging groups.

In Finland, clear relationship In Finland, clear relationship throughout. throughout.

Reading Performance and Other Reading Performance and Other

FactorsFactors Finland students spend more time Finland students spend more time reading each day than HK students do.reading each day than HK students do.

Students in Finland are surrounded by Students in Finland are surrounded by more books at home than HK students.more books at home than HK students.

In both HK and Finland, there is a In both HK and Finland, there is a significant correlation between reading significant correlation between reading performance and (1) reading diversity, performance and (1) reading diversity, (2) time spent on reading, and (3) (2) time spent on reading, and (3) number of books at home. number of books at home.

Gender gap in Reading Performance Gender gap in Reading Performance (15)(15)

Fig. 15: Distribution of high and low achievers by gender in Hong Kong and Finland

50

38

50

62

70

2930

71

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

High Achievers Low Achievers

Hong Kong Girls

Hong Kong Boys

Finland Girls

Finland Boys

Gender and Reading Gender and Reading PerformancePerformance

big gender gap among low big gender gap among low achievers in both HK and achievers in both HK and Finland.Finland.

Among high achievers, big Among high achievers, big gender gap in Finland, but gender gap in Finland, but little difference in HK. little difference in HK.

Hong Kong Finland

Student Characteristics

Occupation Status 42.34 50.59 Father Education Level 3.26 4.07 Mother Educational Level 3.07 4.22 Female 51% 52% Single Parent 9% 16% Number of Siblings 1.5 1.97 Immigrant 20% 2%

Background: Hong Kong vs Finland

Hong Kong Finland Reading Attitude

Reading for Enjoyment 0.08 0.21 Reading Diversity 0.64 0.61

Reading time for Enjoyment (per day) Don’t read 24% 22% Less than 30 minutes 35% 29% 30 minutes to 60 minutes 23% 26% 1 to 2 hours 11% 18% More than 2 hours 5% 4%

Reading Homework Time (per week) Less than 1 hour 36% 54% 1 to 3 hours 42% 29% More than 3 hours 12% 4%

Number of Books at home None 6% 1% 1 to 10 books 27% 7% 11 to 50 books 36% 23% 51 to 100 books 16% 24% 101 to 250 books 1% 24% 251 to 500 books 4% 14% More than 500 books 2% 6%

Reading Habit: Hong Kong vs Finland

Effects of Student Background and School Effects of Student Background and School Context Context

on Students’ Reading Literacy in Hong Kongon Students’ Reading Literacy in Hong Kong

Model 1 Coefficient SE

Adjusted School Mean 525.27 *** 3.20 Student Characteristics Occupational status 0.17 0.10 Father Education Level 0.96 0.93 Mother Educational Level 0.82 0.95 Female 10.80 *** 2.33 Single Parent 7.93 * 3.85 Number of Siblings -1.77 1.11 Immigrant -10.81 *** 2.89 School Level Contextual Factors School Mean parents’ occupational status -1.19 1.89 School Mean Father Education 19.68 15.91 School Mean Mother Education 40.02 * 16.95 Percentage of girls in school -0.10 0.15 Percentage of single parents in school -1.90 ** 0.59 Percentage of immigrants in schools -0.76 ** 0.29

Effect of Student Background in HK Effect of Student Background in HK (18)(18)

•Girls higher than boysGirls higher than boys

•Immigrant lower than local Immigrant lower than local

•Living with a single parent (mother only) Living with a single parent (mother only) higher than other family structure.higher than other family structure.

• Parents’ occupational status & education Parents’ occupational status & education no significant impact on readingno significant impact on reading

Model 1 Coefficient SE

Adjusted School Mean 547.88 *** 2.06 Student Characteristics Occupational Status 0.71 *** 0.10 Father Education Level 5.36 *** 1.13 Mother Educational Level 3.38 *** 0.97 Female 48.95 *** 2.57 Single Parent -11.40 *** 3.20 Number of Siblings -3.46 *** 1.03 Immigrant -30.88 ** 10.44 School Level Contextual Factors School Mean SES 0.33 0.72 School Mean Father Education -0.89 10.56 School Mean Mother Education -0.59 9.63 Percentage of girls in school -0.39 0.22 Percentage of single parents in school -0.40 0.33 Percentage of immigrants in schools -0.23 0.62

Effects of Student Background and School Effects of Student Background and School ContextContext

on Students’ Reading Literacy in Finland on Students’ Reading Literacy in Finland

Effects of Student Background in Effects of Student Background in Finland (19)Finland (19)

•All student background variables are All student background variables are significant. significant.

•Girls much better than boysGirls much better than boys

•+ association with Parents’ occupation and + association with Parents’ occupation and education. education.

•- association with Single-parent families - association with Single-parent families

•- association with number of siblings - association with number of siblings

•- association with immigrant students- association with immigrant students

Model 2

Coefficient SE Reading Attitude

Reading for Enjoyment 15.66 *** 1.86 Reading Diversity 3.19 ** 1.16

Reading time for Enjoyment (per day) Less than 30 minutes 10.23 *** 2.63 30 minutes to 60 minutes 9.19 ** 3.20 1 to 2 hours 4.58 4.33 More than 2 hours 2.23 5.44

Reading Homework Time (per week) Less than 1 hour 2.73 4.29 1 to 3 hours 10.12 * 4.45 More than 3 hours 7.72 5.34

Number of Books at home 1 to 10 books 8.68 5.07 11 to 50 books 11.94 * 4.98 51 to 100 books 16.54 ** 5.15 101 to 250 books 16.42 ** 6.07 251 to 500 books 8.32 6.79 More than 500 books 5.81 10.84

Effect of Reading Habit on Effect of Reading Habit on Students’ Reading Literacy in Hong KongStudents’ Reading Literacy in Hong Kong

Effects of Reading Habits in HK (21)Effects of Reading Habits in HK (21)

•Reading for Enjoyment is the most Reading for Enjoyment is the most significant factorsignificant factor

•Reading regularly (for example 30 to 60 Reading regularly (for example 30 to 60 minutes daily) for enjoyment is importantminutes daily) for enjoyment is important

•Reading homework (for example 1-3 hour Reading homework (for example 1-3 hour per week) has positive impact per week) has positive impact

•Number of books at home is important tooNumber of books at home is important too..

Model 2

Coefficient SE Reading Attitude

Reading for Enjoyment 28.09 *** 1.95 Reading Diversity 12.83 *** 1.46

Reading time for Enjoyment (per day) Less than 30 minutes 8.93 * 3.58 30 minutes to 60 minutes 7.77 * 3.88 1 to 2 hours -7.43 4.88 More than 2 hours -18.52 * 7.51

Reading Homework Time (per week) Less than 1 hour -2.67 3.70 1 to 3 hours -12.02 ** 4.13 More than 3 hours -24.36 ** 7.52

Number of Books at home 1 to 10 books -4.72 14.50 11 to 50 books 2.93 12.98 51 to 100 books -1.03 13.16 101 to 250 books 14.57 13.45 251 to 500 books 14.93 13.54 More than 500 books 10.82 14.11

Effect of Reading Habit on Effect of Reading Habit on Student’s Reading Literacy in FinlandStudent’s Reading Literacy in Finland

Effect of Reading Habits in Finland (22)Effect of Reading Habits in Finland (22)

•Enjoyment and Diversity in reading had Enjoyment and Diversity in reading had the strongest positive effect.the strongest positive effect.

•Reading regularly (30-60 min daily) has Reading regularly (30-60 min daily) has positive contribution. Why too much is not positive contribution. Why too much is not good in Finland?good in Finland?

•Reading homework had negative impact. Reading homework had negative impact. Why?Why?

•Number of Books at home is not important Number of Books at home is not important in Finland.in Finland.

Challenges for Hong Kong Challenges for Hong Kong (24)(24)

•High interest, high performance, but low self-High interest, high performance, but low self-concept. Why?concept. Why?

•Instrumental in their motivation to read. Instrumental in their motivation to read. emphasis on skills than enjoyment .emphasis on skills than enjoyment .

•What can we learn from Finland ?What can we learn from Finland ?