挪威PIRLS 2016和ePIRLS 2016在测试模式、文本和项目格式水平上的性别差异

Katrin Schulz-Heidorf, Hildegunn Støle
{"title":"挪威PIRLS 2016和ePIRLS 2016在测试模式、文本和项目格式水平上的性别差异","authors":"Katrin Schulz-Heidorf, Hildegunn Støle","doi":"10.23865/NJLR.V4.1270","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Gender differences in reading are a common finding in international assessments with girls usually outperforming boys. This article investigates such gender differences by looking at test modes(paper-based versus digital assessments), reading purpose (literary versus informational), text features (associations between reading scores and how much students like a text) and item formatcharacteristics (multiple choice versus constructed response items). All analyses are based on dataof Norwegian fifth-grade students (n = 3610) from the most recent cycle of the Progress in International Reading Literacy Survey (PIRLS and ePIRLS) 2016. The results point towards a generalmode effect between the paper-based and digital assessment for constructed response items. Thiseffect seems to be less strong in boys, indicating that boys may be motivated to type responses on akeyboard as opposed to writing with a pen on paper. For text features, we found that boys might bedisengaged from reading when the text shows female characteristics such as a female protagonist,leading to boys’ lack of interest and, subsequently, to lower scores. The results are discussed in thelight of the test design of PIRLS and ePIRLS.","PeriodicalId":315285,"journal":{"name":"Nordic Journal of Literacy Research","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Gender differences in Norwegian PIRLS 2016 and ePIRLS 2016 results at test mode, text and item format level\",\"authors\":\"Katrin Schulz-Heidorf, Hildegunn Støle\",\"doi\":\"10.23865/NJLR.V4.1270\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Gender differences in reading are a common finding in international assessments with girls usually outperforming boys. This article investigates such gender differences by looking at test modes(paper-based versus digital assessments), reading purpose (literary versus informational), text features (associations between reading scores and how much students like a text) and item formatcharacteristics (multiple choice versus constructed response items). All analyses are based on dataof Norwegian fifth-grade students (n = 3610) from the most recent cycle of the Progress in International Reading Literacy Survey (PIRLS and ePIRLS) 2016. The results point towards a generalmode effect between the paper-based and digital assessment for constructed response items. Thiseffect seems to be less strong in boys, indicating that boys may be motivated to type responses on akeyboard as opposed to writing with a pen on paper. For text features, we found that boys might bedisengaged from reading when the text shows female characteristics such as a female protagonist,leading to boys’ lack of interest and, subsequently, to lower scores. The results are discussed in thelight of the test design of PIRLS and ePIRLS.\",\"PeriodicalId\":315285,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nordic Journal of Literacy Research\",\"volume\":\"38 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-12-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nordic Journal of Literacy Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.23865/NJLR.V4.1270\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nordic Journal of Literacy Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23865/NJLR.V4.1270","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

阅读方面的性别差异在国际评估中是一个普遍的发现,女孩通常表现优于男孩。本文通过考察测试模式(纸质与数字评估)、阅读目的(文学与信息)、文本特征(阅读分数与学生对文本的喜爱程度之间的关联)和项目格式特征(选择题与构建题)来研究这种性别差异。所有的分析都基于挪威五年级学生(n = 3610)的数据,这些数据来自2016年国际阅读素养进展调查(PIRLS和ePIRLS)的最新周期。结果表明,对于构建的反应项目,基于纸张的评估和数字评估之间存在一般模式效应。这种影响在男孩身上似乎不那么强烈,这表明男孩可能更倾向于在键盘上打字,而不是在纸上写字。对于文本特征,我们发现,当文本显示女性特征(如女性主角)时,男孩可能会从阅读中脱离出来,导致男孩缺乏兴趣,随后得分较低。并结合PIRLS和ePIRLS的试验设计对结果进行了讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Gender differences in Norwegian PIRLS 2016 and ePIRLS 2016 results at test mode, text and item format level
Gender differences in reading are a common finding in international assessments with girls usually outperforming boys. This article investigates such gender differences by looking at test modes(paper-based versus digital assessments), reading purpose (literary versus informational), text features (associations between reading scores and how much students like a text) and item formatcharacteristics (multiple choice versus constructed response items). All analyses are based on dataof Norwegian fifth-grade students (n = 3610) from the most recent cycle of the Progress in International Reading Literacy Survey (PIRLS and ePIRLS) 2016. The results point towards a generalmode effect between the paper-based and digital assessment for constructed response items. Thiseffect seems to be less strong in boys, indicating that boys may be motivated to type responses on akeyboard as opposed to writing with a pen on paper. For text features, we found that boys might bedisengaged from reading when the text shows female characteristics such as a female protagonist,leading to boys’ lack of interest and, subsequently, to lower scores. The results are discussed in thelight of the test design of PIRLS and ePIRLS.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信