Explaining the Difference between PISA 2009 Results in Reading for Finland and Estonia
Author(s):
Jaan Mikk (presenting / submitting)
Conference:
ECER 2012
Network:
09. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement
Format:
Paper

Session Information

09 SES 03 A, Findings from International Comparative Achievement Studies: Relationships in Reading Performance (I)

Parallel Paper Session

Time:
2012-09-18
17:15-18:45
Room:
FCT - Aula 11
Chair:
Ina Mullis

Contribution

Finland was the best in Europe in the PISA 2009 reading test and third in the entire PISA sample of countries. Estonia was thirteenth among the 65 countries and fifth in Europe (OECD, 2010a). Estonia and Finland are neighbours; we belong to the same language group. What should we do to achieve results in PISA that are as good as Finland’s?

Jouni Välijärvi et al. (2007) and Jarkko Hautamäki et al. (2008) explain the Finnish success in terms of the high standing that education in general and the teaching profession in particular has in Finnish society and the egalitarian nature of the school system in Finland. For example, on average there are ten applicants per place for teacher training at Finnish universities, 97% of the variability in PISA results occurs within schools, there are free hot lunches for all students in school and so on.

Pasi Sahlberg (2011) compared Finnish education with education in the USA. He points out that Finnish teachers teach less, pupils study less and student achievement costs less than in the USA. Sahlberg recommends moving from standardisation to personalisation, from competition to collaboration, and from control to trust.

Comparing Finnish and Danish PISA results, Frans Ørsted Andersen (2010) found that Danish schools would benefit from the use of teacher assistants in lessons, from inclusive classroom practices, and free school meals for all pupils.

Motivation is one of the most important factors of success in learning. Basl (2011) studied interest in natural sciences careers in four European countries. He found that the impact of school on the future educational trajectories was strong in all countries studied, but the role of family was negligible. Kjærnsli and Lie (2011) also studied student preferences in science careers. They organised PISA 2006 countries into nine groups according to cognitive and affective measures. Finland and Estonia were in different groups.

PISA volumes (OECD, 2010a; OECD, 2010c; OECD, 2010d) include valuable information about the contribution of different variables in PISA test results. For example, a one-unit increase in ESCS relates to a 29-point increase in reading in Estonia and a 31-point increase in Finland (OECD, 2010b, Table II, 3. 2). The effects are studied in groups of PISA variables, for example, teacher-student relations, reading enjoyment and so on. Overall analysis of the most important variables is not given.

The aim of this study is to find the differences in the impact of the most important variables contributing to the PISA 2009 results in reading for Finland and Estonia. The ideas above serve as a starting point for identifying contributing factors. The hypothesis is that Estonia falls behind Finland in some important PISA variables.

Method

The data for this analysis will be taken from the PISA International Database (2010) and from four PISA volumes (OECD, 2010a; OECD, 2010c; OECD, 2010d). Approximately 470 000 students participated in the PISA study. The students were representative of 15-year-olds in the 65 participating countries. Data analysis will be carried out in several stages. 1. PISA volumes and research literature will be studied to identify factors that contribute to PISA results within the participating countries. Factors at country level may differ from those within countries, and therefore, research literature and correlation analysis at the country level may provide additional information. 2. To identify important factors contributing to PISA 2009 results in reading, a regression model of PISA 2009 reading results at country level will be constructed, and the values for factors in Finland and Estonia will be compared. 3. Multilevel regression models for Finland and Estonia will be constructed and compared. This will help identify the relative importance of different factors in these countries. 4. A multilevel model of PISA 2009 reading results will be created to obtain final information about factors contributing to PISA results in Finland and Estonia.

Expected Outcomes

Preliminary analysis of the data was carried out at country level. In previous research, it became clear that evaluative variables can be understood differently in different cultures. For this reason, the analysis was carried out in three groups of countries: all 65 PISA countries, OECD countries only and 31 western countries. The correlation between the index of teacher-student relations and PISA reading results was -.48 for all 65 PISA countries, -.18 for OECD countries and .16 for the 31 western countries. There were similar correlations with the index for the enjoyment of reading. There was a very high positive correlation (.71) between the reading test and the index of summarising in all PISA countries. The latter and some objective variables were included into a regression analysis, which revealed significant predictors of reading results: the index of summarizing, PISA ESCS and between school variance. Estonian students were better at summarizing while Finnish students achieved higher results due to their higher ESCS and lower between school variance. Further analysis using additional variables and at two levels is expected to highlight additional important differences in the predictors of PISA reading results in Finland and Estonia. Acknowledgement: the research was supported by ESF

References

Andersen, F. Ø., (2010). Danish and Finnish PISA results in a comparative, qualitative perspective: How can the stable and distinct differences between the Danish and Finnish PISA results be explained? Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 22(2), 159-175. Basl, J., (2011). Effect of School on Interest in Natural Sciences: A comparison of the Czech Republic, Germany, Finland, and Norway based on PISA 2006 Sciences: A comparison of the Czech Republic, Germany, Finland, and Norway based on PISA 2006. International Journal of Science Education, 33(1),145–157. Hautamäki, J., Harjunen, E., Hautamäki, A., Karjalainen, T., Kupiainen, S., Laaksonen, S., Lavonen, J., Pehkonen, E., Rantanen, P., Scheinin, P. (2008). PISA06 Finland. Analysis, reflections and explanations. Helsinki: Helsinki University Print. Kjærnsli, M., Lie, S., (2011). Students’ Preference for Science Careers: International comparisons based on PISA 2006. International Journal of Science Education, 33(1) 121–144. OECD (2010a). PISA 2009 Results: What Students Know and Can Do – Student Performance in Reading, Mathematics and Science (Volume I). http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264091450-en OECD (2010b). PISA 2009 Results: Overcoming Social Background – Equity in Learning Opportunities and Outcomes (Volume II). http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264091504-en OECD (2010c). PISA 2009 Results: Learning to Learn – Student Engagement, Strategies and Practices (Volume III). http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264083943-en OECD (2010d). PISA 2009 Results: What Makes a School Successful? – Resources, Policies and Practices (Volume IV). http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264091559-en The PISA International Database (2010). http://pisa2009.acer.edu.au/ Sahlberg, P. (2011). What can the United States learn from the educational system in Finland. Presentation in San Diego CA, 9 August 2011. http://www.pasisahlberg.com/downloads/FinnFest_2011_edu_seminar_keynote.pdf Välijärvi, J., Kupari, P., Linnakylä, P., Reinikainen, P., Sulkunen, S., Törnroos, J., Arffman, I. (2007). The Finnish success in PISA – and some reasons behind it 2 PISA 2003. http://ktl.jyu.fi/ktl/english/publications

Author Information

Jaan Mikk (presenting / submitting)
University of Tartu
Department of Education
Tartu

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
  • Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
  • Search for authors and in the respective field.
  • For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.