This paper analyses further the reading skills of Czech students based on the data of PISA 2009 and 2012, and using the unique data from Czech Longitudinal Study in Education (CLoSE) where we have measuredthe reading skills of 12-years-old students (6^thgraders). The overall results of the Czech students in international reading assessments (PISA and PIRLS) reveal average or below average results in international comparison. However of more interest is the profile of the students reading performance in relation to various reading subscales, which shows that Czech students do especially poorly in the reflect and evaluate reading subscale (OECD 2010). Reflecting and evaluatinginvolves drawing upon knowledge, ideas or attitudes beyond the text in order to relate the information provided within the text to one’s own conceptual and experiential frames of reference. (Kirsh, 2001; OECD, 2009). 

The theoretical framework is given by theory of text comprehension (Kintsch, 1974; Kintsch & VanDijk, 1978; Clifton & Duffy, 2001) and developmental psychology (Piaget & Inhelder, 1969).

Our research thus aims to provide more reach understanding of the Czech students’ performance in reading, with special emphasis on their ability to reflect and evaluate the texts. We aim to answer the following research questions. How do students in Grade 6 score in PISA reading items compared to 9^thgrade students? What are the solutions to the open items of Grade 6 students? How the ability to solve an individual items in CLoSE 6 reading assessments correlate to scores of the same students on PIRLS 2011 reading tests (overall as well as results at various subscales)? What are the types of solutions provided by students to individual items?

Anderson, J. (1994). Content and Text Analysis. In Husén, T.; Postlewaite, T.N. (Eds.) The International Encyclopedia of Education. 2nd edition. Pergamon, pp. 1074-1079. Armbruster, B.B.; Anderson, T.H. (1996). Textbook Analysis. In De Corte, E.; Weinert, F.E. (Eds.) International Encyclopedia of Developmental and Instructional Psychology. Oxford: Pergamon, pp. 78-81. Clifton, C.; Duffy, S.A. (2001). Sentence and Text Comprehension: Roles of Linguistic Structure. Annual Reviews In Psychology, , vol. 52, pp. 167-196. Eco, U. (1984). The Role of The Reader: Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Kintsch, W. The Representation of Meaning in Memory. New Jersey: LEA, 1974. Kintsch, W.; Van Dijk, T.A. Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, vol. 85, 1978, No. 5, pp. 363-394. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Kirsch, I. and P. B. Mosenthal (1990), Exploring document literacy: Variables underlying the performance of young adults. ReadingResearch Quarterly, 25(1), pp. 5-30. Kirsch, I. (2001), The International Adult Literacy Survey: Understanding What Was Measured, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. OECD (2009).PISA 2009. Assessment framework. Key competencies in reading, mathematics and science. PISA: OECD Publishing. OECD (2010).PISA 2009 Results: What Students Know a Can Do. Student Performance in Mathematics, Reading and Science. PISA: OECD Publishing. Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. (1969). The Psychology of the Child. New York: Basic Books.