Advertisement

International Review of Education

, Volume 64, Issue 1, pp 85–110 | Cite as

Literacy skills gaps: A cross-level analysis on international and intergenerational variations

  • Suehye Kim
Original Paper

Abstract

The global agenda for sustainable development has centred lifelong learning on UNESCO’s Education 2030 Framework for Action. The study described in this article aimed to examine international and intergenerational variations in literacy skills gaps within the context of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). For this purpose, the author examined the trend of literacy gaps in different countries using multilevel and multisource data from the OECD’s Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) and UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning survey data from the third edition of the Global Report on Adult Learning and Education (GRALE III). In this article, particular attention is paid to exploring the specific effects of education systems on literacy skills gaps among different age groups. Key findings of this study indicate substantial intergenerational literacy gaps within countries as well as different patterns of literacy gaps across countries. Young generations generally outscore older adults in literacy skills, but feature bigger gaps when examined by gender and social origin. In addition, this study finds an interesting tendency for young generations to benefit from a system of Recognition, Validation and Accreditation (RVA) in closing literacy gaps by formal schooling at country level. This implies the potential of an RVA system for tackling educational inequality in initial schooling. The article concludes with suggestions for integrating literacy skills as a foundation of lifelong learning into national RVA frameworks and mechanisms at system level.

Keywords

literacy skills gap Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) Global Report on Adult Learning and Education (GRALE) cross-level analysis 

Résumé

Écarts d’alphabétisation: analyse multi-niveaux sur les variations internationales et intergénérationnelles – Le programme mondial de développement durable a placé l’apprentissage tout au long de la vie au centre du Cadre d’action Éducation 2030 de l’UNESCO. L’un des buts de l’étude présentée dans cet article consistait à examiner les variations internationales et intergénérationnelles dans les écarts d’alphabétisation par rapport aux Objectifs de développement durable (ODD) énoncés par les Nations Unies. À cette fin, l’auteure a exploré la tendance aux écarts d’alphabétisation dans divers pays, à partir de données multi-niveaux et multi-sources issues du Programme pour l’évaluation internationale des compétences des adultes (PEICA) de l’OCDE ainsi que des données d’enquête de l’Institut de l’UNESCO pour l’apprentissage tout au long de la vie pour la troisième édition du Rapport mondial sur l’apprentissage et l’éducation des adultes (GRALE III). Dans cet article, l’auteure porte une attention particulière aux effets spécifiques des systèmes éducatifs sur les écarts d’alphabétisation entre différents groupes d’âge. Les principaux résultats de cette étude indiquent d’importants écarts entre les générations à l’intérieur des pays ainsi que différents schémas entre les pays pour ces écarts d’alphabétisation. Les jeunes générations possèdent globalement des compétences lettrées supérieures aux adultes plus âgés, mais présentent des écarts plus marqués s’ils sont examinés en fonction du sexe ou de l’origine sociale. Cette étude établit en outre la tendance favorable pour les jeunes générations à tirer profit d’un système de reconnaissance, validation et accréditation (RVA), qui comble au niveau national les écarts d’alphabétisation survenus lors de la scolarité formelle. Ce qui implique qu’un système RVA ait le potentiel pour combattre les inégalités éducatives apparues au cours de la scolarité de base. L’article conclut sur des suggestions pour incorporer l’alphabétisation en tant que fondement de l’apprentissage tout au long de la vie dans les cadres nationaux de RVA et dans les mécanismes au niveau systémique.

References

  1. Bates, D. M. (2010). lme4: Mixed-effects modeling with R. [R-Forge platform URL http://lme4.r-forge.r-project.org/book/; online resource]. Retrieved 11 March 2016 from http://lme4.r-forge.r-project.org/lMMwR/lrgprt.pdf.
  2. Benavot, A. (2015). Literacy in the 21st century: Towards a dynamic nexus of social relations. International Review of Education, 61(3), 273–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benavot, A., & Braslavsky, C. (2007). School knowledge in comparative and historical perspective: Changing curricula in primary and secondary education. CERC Studies in Comparative Education series, vol. 18. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Chabbott, C. (2003). Constructing education for development: International organizations and education for all. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Desjardins, R. (2003). Determinants of literacy proficiency: A lifelong-lifewide learning perspective. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(3), 205–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Desjardins, R., & Rubenson, K. (2013). Participation patterns in adult education: The role of institutions and public policy frameworks in resolving coordination problems. European Journal of Education, 48(2), 262–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hamilton, M. (2001). Privileged literacies: Policy, institutional process and the life of the IALS. Language and Education, 15(2–3), 178–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hamilton, M. (2012). Literacy and the politics of representation. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Hamilton, M., Maddox, B., & Addey, C. (2015). Literacy as numbers: Researching the politics and practices of international literacy assessment regimes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hanemann, U. (2015). Lifelong literacy: Some trends and issues in conceptualising and operationalising literacy from a lifelong learning perspective. International Review of Education, 61(3), 295–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hanushek, E. A., & Woessmann, L. (2010). The economics of international differences in educational achievement. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hanushek, E. A., Schwerdt, G., Wiederhold, S., & Woessmann, L. (2013). Returns to skills around the world: Evidence from PIAAC. NBER Working Paper No. 19762. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). Retrieved 7 November 2017 from http://www.nber.org/papers/w19762.pdf.
  13. Heisz, A., & Oikawa, C. (2017, April). The longitudinal and international study of adults: A Canadian PIAAC-Longitudinal. Paper presented on 5 April at the International Conference on PIAAC and PIAAC-Longitudinal in Mannheim, Germany.Google Scholar
  14. Lam, W. S. E., & Warriner, D. S. (2012). Transnationalism and literacy: Investigating the mobility of people, languages, texts, and practices in contexts of migration. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(2), 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Meyer, H. D., & Benavot, A. (2013). PISA, power, and policy: The emergence of global educational governance. Oxford: Syposium Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Meyer, J. W., Kamens, D. H., & Benavot, A. (1992). School knowledge for the masses: World models and national primary curricular categories in the twentieth century. Washington, DC: Falmer.Google Scholar
  17. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2013a). OECD skills outlook 2013: First results from the survey of adult skills. Paris: OECD. Retrieved 7 November 2017 from https://www.oecd.org/skills/piaac/Skills%20volume%201%20(eng)–full%20v12–eBook%20(04%2011%202013).pdf.
  18. OECD. (2013a). The survey of adult skills: Reader’s companion. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  19. OECD. (2013b). Technical report of the survey of adult skills (PIAAC). Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  20. Pellizzari, M., & Fichen, A. (2013). A new measure of skills mismatch: Theory and evidence from the survey of adult skills (PIAAC). Paris: OECD Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rammstedt, B., Danner, D., & Lechner, C. (2017). Personality, competencies, and life outcomes: results from the German PIAAC longitudinal study. Large-scale Assessments in Education, 5(1), 2.Google Scholar
  22. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (vol. 1). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Richmond, M., Robinson, C., & Sachs-Israel, M. (Eds.). (2008). The global literacy challenge: A profile of youth and adult literacy at the mid-point of the united nations literacy decade 2003–2012. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  24. Robinson, C. (2005). Aspects of literacy assessment: Topics and issues from the UNESCO Expert Meeting [in Paris 10–12 June]. ED-2005NVW23. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved 7 November 2017 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001401/140125eo.pdf.
  25. Robinson, G. K. (1991). That BLUP is a good thing: The estimation of random effects. Statistical Science, 6(1), 15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Roma, F., & Bastianelli, M. (2017). Skills, non-cognitive dimensions and job complexity: A new framework for analysis from the “PIAAC Italy Survey”. Paper presented on 5 April at the International Conference on PIAAC and PIAAC-Longitudinal in Mannheim. Germany.Google Scholar
  27. Roosmaa, E.-L., & Saar, E. (2012). Participation in non-formal learning in EU-15 and EU-18 countries: Demand and supply side factors. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 31(4), 477–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Singh, M. (2015). Global perspectives on recognizing non-formal and informal learning: Why recognition matters. Technical and Vocational Education and Training: Issues, Concerns and Prospects, 21. Heidelberg/Hamburg: Springer Open/UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning.Google Scholar
  29. St. Clair, R. (2012). The limits of levels: Understanding the international adult literacy surveys (IALS). International Review of Education, 58(6), 759–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tuijnman, A., & Boudard, E. (2001). Adult education participation in North America: International perspectives. Adult education and literacy monograph series. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada.Google Scholar
  31. UIL (UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning). (2010). Confintea VI: Belém Framework for Action: Harnessing the power and potential of adult learning and education for a viable future. Hamburg: UIL. Retrieved 11 December 2017 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001877/187789m.pdf.
  32. UIL. (2013). 2nd Global Report on Adult Learning and Education: Rethinking literacy. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (UIL).Google Scholar
  33. UIL. (2015). UNESCO Guidelines for the recognition, validation and accreditation of the outcomes of non-formal and informal learning. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (UIL). Retrieved 7 November 2017 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002163/216360e.pdf.
  34. UIL. (2016). 3rd Global Report on Adult Learning and Education: The impact of adult learning and education on health and well-being; employment and the labour market; and social, civic and community life. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (UIL).Google Scholar
  35. UIS (UNESCO Institute for Statistics) (2016). Sustainable development data digest: Laying the foundation to measure sustainable development goal 4. Montreal: UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS). Retrieved 7 November 2017 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002455/245559e.pdf.
  36. UIS. (2017). Literacy rates continue to rise from one generation to the next. Montreal: UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS). Retrieved 31 December 2017 from http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/fs45-literacy-rates-continue-rise-generation-to-next-en-2017_0.pdf.
  37. UNESCO (2006). Literacy for life. Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2006. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved 7 November 2017 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001416/141639e.pdf.
  38. UNESCO. (2014). Skills for holistic human development. UNESCO Asia-Pacific Education Policy Brief, vol. 2. Paris/Bangkok: UNESCO/UNESCO Bangkok. Retrieved 2 January 2018 from http://www.unescobkk.org/fileadmin/user_upload/epr/PDF/Policy_Brief_Vol2-28_Nov.pdf.
  39. UNESCO. (2015a). Education 2030: Incheon declaration and Framework for action for the implementation of sustainable development goal 4. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved 7 November 2017 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002456/245656e.pdf.
  40. UNESCO. (2015b). Global meeting on literacy and sustainable societies [UNESCO Headquarters, Paris, 8–9 September]. ED/PLS/YLS/2015/ME/1. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved 8 November 2017 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002344/234483E.pdf.
  41. UNESCO. (2017 [2016]). Unpacking Sustainable Development Goal 4, Education 2030: Guide. Revised. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved 15 November 2017 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002463/246300E.pdf.
  42. Werquin, P. (2010). Recognition of non-formal and informal learning: Country practices. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Retrieved 15 November 2017 from https://www.oecd.org/edu/skills-beyond-school/44600408.pdf.
  43. World Bank (2014). STEP Skills measurement surveys: Innovative tools for assessing skills. Washington, DC: Word Bank Group. Retrieved 1 January 2018 from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/19985/897290NWP0P132085290B00PUBLIC001421.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
  44. Yang. J. (2015). Recognition, validation and accreditation of non-formal and informal learning in UNESCO Member States. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (UIL). Retrieved 15 November 2017 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002326/232656e.pdf.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature, and UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Melbourne Graduate School of EducationUniversity of MelbourneVictoriaAustralia

Personalised recommendations