THE CONSTRUCT «READING LITERACY»: AN ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN IN TERMS OF PSYCHOLOGY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31110/fmo2025.v40i1-03Keywords:
PISA, PIRLS, reading, understanding, psychometric, construct, operationalization, measurable indicatorsAbstract
Formulation of the Problem. Based on our observations, Ukrainian researchers, when studying the abstract concept
of «reading literacy», tend to focus exclusively on its dictionary definition, while ignoring the operational one. However,
the operational definition provides clarity and measurability
to this abstraction. In addition, In Ukrainian pedagogical journals, we did not find any publications that explain the existence of two approaches to assessment reading literacy levels – in the PIRLS and PISA studies. Given this omission, we posed the following questions: (1) How are reading literacy levels measured in PIRLS and PISA? (2) What factors influenced the creation of this abstraction?
Materials and Methods. As followers of the psychological theory of activity, we sought to answer the first question of our investigation from its perspective. To this end, we analyzed several framework documents from PIRLS and PISA published in different years, including PIRLS 2026 Assessment Frameworks (von Davier & Kennedy, 2024), Measuring Student Knowledge and Skills: The PISA 2000 (OECD, 2000), PISA 2009 Assessment Framework: Key Competencies in Reading, Mathematics, and Science (OECD, 2009), and PISA 2018 Assessment Analytical Framework (OECD, 2019). To answer the second question, we used the retrospective analysis of previous evaluative studies on students' reading achievements.
Results. It has been established that «reading literacy» is
a psychological construct designed to serve as a theoretical basis for developing reliable psychometric tests for measuring student achievement in reading. The logic of the operationalization of this construct has been clarified. In connection with the psychological theory of activity, its measurable indicators are intellectual operations that implement three key intellectual actions of reading activity: reviewing the text; understanding, and evaluating what has been read. In the PIRLS, the intensity of manifestation of four such operations is measured in PISA – seven. This is quite acceptable, given that the operational composition of the action depends on the conditions of its execution. The testing conditions for the PIRLS and PISA are different because their participants belong to various age groups. It has been revealed that the creation of the construct «reading literacy» was influenced by the researchers’ rethinking of the forms of manifestation of the construct «reading comprehension» – as a process and a product.
Conclusion. Following the logic of Alfred Korzybski's axiom,
«the map is not the territory,» we find it reasonable to state that reading literacy is not reading. Reading is a cognitive activity while reading literacy is merely a measure of proficiency in this activity. Given this distinction, the operational definitions of the construct «reading literacy,» proposed in PIRLS and PISA, can be considered as verified samples of cognitive operations, the mastering of which will help students to read consciously.
Downloads
References
Anastazi, A., & Urbina, C. (2005). Psihologicheskoe testirovanie (Psychological testing). Piter (in Russian).
Brjushinkin, V. (2001). Logika (Logics). Gardariki. (in Russian).
Vakulenko, T., Lomakovych, S., & Tereshchenko, V. (ukl.) (2017). PISA: chytatska hramotnist [PISA: Readng Liiteracy]. UTsOIaO (in Ukrainian).
Vojshvillo, E., & Degtjarjov, M. (2001). Logika [Logics]. VLADOS-PRESS (in Russian).
Hryshko, O. (n.d.). Chytatska hramotnist: poniattia, rivni, perevirka, vikovi normy i otsinky [Reading literacy: concept, levels, verification, age norms and assessments]. BigBro. URL: https://bigbro.com.ua/ (in Ukrainian).
Ivaniuk, I. (2004). Mizhnarodna prohrama PISA yak instrument zovnishnoho otsiniuvannia uchniv [The international PISA program as a tool for external student assessment]. Shliakh osvity – The path of education, 3, 16-21 (in Ukrainian).
KMU (2011). Postanova Kabinetu Ministriv Ukrainy vid 14.12.2011 № 1283 pro «Poriadok provedennia monitorynhu ta otsinky yakosti osvity» [Procedure for monitoring and assessing the quality of education]. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1283-2011-%D0%BF#Text. (in Ukrainian).
KMU (2023). Rozporiadzhennia Kabinetu Ministriv Ukrainy vid 3.03. 2023 r. № 190-r. Stratehiia rozvytku chytannia na period do 2032 roku «Chytannia yak zhyttieva stratehiia» [Strategy for the development of reading for the period until 2032 «Reading as a life strategy»]. URL: https://www.kmu.gov.ua/ (in Ukrainian).
Leont'ev, A. (2005). Dejatel'nost', soznanie, lichnost' [Activity, consciousness, personality]. Smysl (in Russian).
Lykhovyd, I. (2024). Chytatska hramotnist VS vminnia chytaty: iz chym naspravdi maiut trudnoshchi ukrainski pidlitky ta yak tsomu zaradyty [Reading literacy VS the ability to read: what Ukrainian teenagers really struggle with and how to improve it]. NUSh. URL: https://nus.org.ua/2024/02/15/chytatska-gramotnist-vs-vminnya-chytaty-iz-chym-naspravdi-mayut-trudnoshhi-ukrayinski-pidlitky-ta-yak-tsomu-zaradyty/. (in Ukrainian).
Tumina, L. (1998). Chtenie (Reading). V T. Ladyzhenskaja, & A. Mihal'skaja (Red.), Pedagogicheskoe rechevedenie. Slovar'-spravochnik [Pedagogical Speech Studies. Dictionary-reference]. (s. 281-283). Flinta, Nauka (in Russian).
Chepeleva, N. (2015). Tekst i chytach [Text and reader]. Vydavnytstvo Zhytomyrskoho derzhavnoho universytetu.
Betti, E. (2015). General Theory of Interpretation. CreateSpace.
Bhattacherjee, А. (2012). Social science research: Principles, methods, and practices. University of South Florida. URL: https://repository.out.ac.tz/504/1/Social_Science_Research-_Principles_Methods_and_Practices.pdf.
Bormuth, J. (1973-1974). Reading Literacy: Its Definition and Assessment. Reading Research Quarterly, 9/1, 7 66. https://doi.org/10.2307/747227.
Dehaene, S. (2009). Reading in the Brain: The New Science of How We Read. Penguin Group.
Dyke, J. (2021). Introduction to the special issue: mechanisms of variation in Reading comprehension: processes and products. Scientific Studies of Reading, 25(2), 93-103. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2021.1873347.
Elley, W. (1992). How in the world do students read? IEA Study of Reading Literacy. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
Farrell, L., Hunter, M., Davidson, M., & Osenga T. (n.d). The Simple View of Reading. Readingrockets. URL: https://www.readingrockets.org/topics/about-reading/articles/simple-view-reading.
Grigorenko, E. (2011). New psychometrics and evaluation of understanding of the read material. Psychological-Educational Studies, 3, 141353497.
Kaplan, D., & Kuger, S. (2016). The Methodology of PISA: Past, Present, and Future. In S. Kuger, E. Klieme, N. Jude, & D. Kaplan (eds), Assessing Contexts of Learning. An International Perspective (pp. 53-73). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45357-6.
OECD (2000). Measuring student knowledge and skills. The PISA 2000 Assessment of Reading, Mathematical and Scientific Literacy, OECD Publishing, URL: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org.
OECD (2009). PISA 2009. Assessment Framework. Key competencies in reading, mathematics and science, OECD Publishing, URL: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org.
OECD (2019). PISA 2018 Assessment and Analytical Framework, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b25efab8-en.
OECD (2021). The Assessment Frameworks for Cycle 2 of the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies. OECD Publishing, Parisю https://doi.org/10.1787/4bc2342d-en.
Pearson, P., & Hamm, D. (2005) The Assessment of Reading Comprehension: A Review of Practices- Past, Present, and Future. In S. Paris & S. Stahl (Eds.), Children's reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 13-69). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Scarborough, H. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In S. Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook for research in early literacy, 1, 97-110.
Strauss, V. (2014). Academics call for pause in PISA tests. The Washington Post, May 13. URL: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2014/05/13/academics-call-for-pause-in-pisa-tests/
Uher, J. (2021). Quantitative psychology under scrutiny: Measurement requires not result-dependent but traceable data generation. Personality and Individual Differences, 170, 110205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110205.
Von Davier, M., & Kennedy, A. (eds) (2024). PIRLS 2026 Assessment Frameworks. Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center. https://doi.org/10.6017/lse.tpisc.tr2103.kb4199.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Таяна Дєордіца, Раїса Гладушина, Марина Вороніна, Володимир Толмачов
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
- Authors grant the journal a right of the first publication of the work under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)that allows others freely to use (read, copy and print) submissions, search content and link to published articles, disseminate their full text and use them for any legitimate non-commercial purposes (i.e. educational or scientific) with the mandatory reference to the article’s authors and initial publication in this journal.
- Original published articles cannot be used by users (exept authors) for commercial purposes or distributed by third-party intermediary organizations for a fee.
