Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research

ISSN: 0031-3831 (Print) 1470-1170 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/csje20

Skilled Students and Effective Schools: Reading

Achievement in Denmark, Sweden, and France

Patrícia Costa & Luísa Araújo

To cite this article: Patrícia Costa & Luísa Araújo (2018) Skilled Students and Effective Schools:
Reading Achievement in Denmark, Sweden, and France, Scandinavian Journal of Educational
Research, 62:6, 850-864, DOI: 10.1080/00313831.2017.1307274

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2017.1307274

© European Union 2017. Published by

Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor &
Francis Group

Published online: 27 Apr 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2779

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=csje20
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
2018, VOL. 62, NO. 6, 850–864
https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2017.1307274

Skilled Students and Effective Schools: Reading Achievement

in Denmark, Sweden, and France
Patrícia Costa and Luísa Araújo
Human Capital and Employment Unit, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This study investigates how reading achievement relates to student and Received 14 April 2016
school characteristics in countries with different reading scores at the Accepted 1 February 2017
fourth grade level. Data comes from the Progress in International
KEYWORDS
Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) 2011 for Denmark, Sweden, and France Reading achievement; PIRLS;
and the multilevel analysis includes two levels: student/home and home literacy model; school
schools. The school effectiveness and the home literacy models effectiveness
informed the selection of the independent variables. Results show that
students’ early literacy skills, home literacy practices and resources, and
reading behavior are associated with reading scores in all countries.
Furthermore, across different countries there are student/home
universals and school particulars that explain variation in reading
achievement. Educational policies should address home and school
literacy skills and practices, school climate, and school composition to
improve students’ reading ability.

Introduction
Recent research with data from the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) has shown
that effective schools contribute to boosting students’ achievement in literacy (Martin, Foy, Mullis, &
O’Dwyer, 2013). Nonetheless, student and home characteristics explain a significant source of variance
in the achievement of students within schools (Martin et al., 2013). Large-scale surveys such as PIRLS,
which counts many participating countries and has run on a 5-year cycle since 2001, offer the possibility
to investigate how the variability in the school environment and in the home background of students is
related to reading achievement (Lenkeit, Chan, Hopfenbeck, & Baird, 2016).
Mullis, Kennedy, Martin, and Sainsbury (2006) claimed that PIRLS provides “a wealth of infor-
mation that can be used not only to improve the reading curriculum and instruction for younger
students, but also help in interpreting the results for 15-year-olds in Programme for International
Student Assessment (PISA)” (p. 102). Although some researchers have pointed out that there is little
evidence that students’ achievement in PIRLS is related to literacy instruction (Shiel & Eivers, 2009),
others have found links between teacher/school instruction and students’ reading outcomes. For
example, Cheung, Kam Tse, Lam, and Ka Yee Loh (2009) found that in Hong Kong teachers’ instruc-
tional strategies and choice of reading materials were related to students’ reading achievement.
Conversely, Stancel-Piatak, Mirazchiyski, and Desa (2013) found that in three PIRLS participat-
ing European countries—Denmark, Germany, and France—a school’s emphasis on supporting
understanding of a text was not significantly associated with achievement. Importantly, the findings

CONTACT Patrícia Costa patricia.costa@ec.europa.eu European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Human Capital and
Employment Unit, Via E. Fermi, 2749, I-21027 Ispra, Italy
© European Union 2017. Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
 SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 851

of this study showed that schools’ cultural capital was one of the most relevant variables in explaining
variation in reading scores. For example, the higher the socioeconomic composition of a school in
Denmark, France, and Germany the higher the students’ achievement in reading. The same ubiqui-
tous effect was not found with respect to the emphasis a school places on academic success, with a
higher emphasis corresponding to higher achievement only in France, which suggests that school
effects may be country specific. Research by Myrberg and Rosén (2006) also found that in PIRLS
2001 students’ cultural capital accounted for a great part of reading score differences between inde-
pendent and public schools. Taken together, these findings suggest that any investigation of the
relation between home and school characteristics and reading achievement needs to take into
account schools’ cultural capital (Caro, Sandoval-Hernández, & Lüdtke, 2014).
Regarding home cultural capital, findings from studies that use PIRLS have reached similar con-
clusions. Myrberg and Rosén (2009) found that parental book reading and storytelling prior to
school entry made a positive contribution to reading achievement and that book reading was
mediated by cultural capital, as measured by the number of books at home. Additionally, this
study showed that Swedish students’ early literacy skills positively impacted reading attainment,
without any mediating effect of cultural capital, or number of books at home.
The studies by Martin et al. (2013) and Stancel-Piatak et al. (2013) confirm that early literacy skills
in conjunction with other characteristics of effective schools have a positive influence on achieve-
ment. Thus, studies that use a school effectiveness framework suggest that early literacy skills posi-
tively impact the PIRLS reading score, but have not addressed the contribution of early home literacy
practices or, specifically, of parental book reading. Although evidence indicates that both early lit-
eracy skills and early literacy practices are strong predictors of reading ability (Sénéchal, 2012), in
research that uses PIRLS data only Myrberg and Rosén’s studies (2008, 2009) and Alivernini
(2013) considered the influence of these factors on PIRLS 2001 reading achievement. Their findings
confirm that both early skills and practices are associated with reading achievement in different ways,
or that only one of these is associated. However, these studies did not include parental book reading
as a specific early literacy predictor and, as such, evidence is lacking on whether this practice is
associated with reading achievement when school variables are also considered.
The present study uses the PIRLS 2011 reading score to investigate how student background vari-
ables and school factors may be related to achievement. Specifically, it explores how the two levels of
analysis—students and schools—may be associated with achievement and whether similar associ-
ations are present in different school systems. For this purpose, this study considers parental
book reading and students’ ability to name letters of the alphabet as predictors of reading achieve-
ment in three European countries with different achievement levels. These two student/home back-
ground factors have been shown to explain more variance in students’ achievement in PIRLS than
aggregate measures of more general early literacy practices and skills (Araújo & Costa, 2012, 2015).
The multilevel model used also includes students’ engagement in reading, as research indicates that
motivation for reading is associated with reading achievement (Guthrie & Humenick, 2004; OECD,
2010). At the school level, this study incorporates school effectiveness factors to understand how the
school “has an effect on student achievement over and above” (Martin et al., 2013, p. 111) student/
home predictors.

Home and School Factors and Reading Achievement

According to the home literacy model proposed by Sénéchal (2012), when parents engage in book
reading with their kindergarten children they informally teach them vocabulary because interactions
during storybook reading revolve around discussing the meaning of print. When parents call their
children’s attention to the printed words (e.g., find all the A’s on the page), formal learning of the
written code takes place. As Sénéchal and LeFréve (2002) found, it is not that all parents engage
in both practices; some may focus on the formal and informal aspects while others may focus on
only one or the other. Children whose parents teach them literacy skills and read to them frequently
852 P. COSTA AND L. ARAÚJO

have higher reading achievement in fourth grade (Araújo & Costa, 2015; Sénéchal, 2012). In contrast,
children whose parents report low shared reading and low formal teaching of the written language
have lower reading scores and those whose parents engage in only one of the practices exhibit com-
parable medium achievement (Sénéchal, 2012).
The findings of Myrberg and Rosén’s (2009) study with PIRLS data lend support to the home lit-
eracy model. However, whereas they found a mediating effect of early literacy practices and of early
literacy skills on achievement, the latter were not associated with the number of books at home.
Thus, early literacy skills acquired before the start of compulsory education mediated reading
achievement independently of the presence of books at home. In a similar cross-country comparative
study, these authors also found that in six European countries—Bulgaria, France, Hungary, Italy,
Norway, and Sweden—the direct effects of books at home on students’ achievement were insignif-
icant (Myrberg & Rosén, 2008). Nonetheless, these studies indicate that parents’ educational level is a
significant predictor of, and has a direct effect on, reading achievement. The extent to which its
impact is mediated by books at home, early literacy practices, such as book reading and storytelling,
and early literacy skills, such as the ability to name letters of the alphabet, is what differs among
countries.
These findings suggest that there is great variation among countries regarding the direct effect of
socioeconomic background on achievement and variation also with regard to the positive influence
high socioeconomic parents exert through the provision of supporting literacy environments (Park,
2008). This influence of home literacy environments on achievement has been found to be stronger
in more developed countries that participate in PIRLS (Park, 2008). Nonetheless, in the great
majority of European countries early literacy practices are associated with a gain in reading scores
larger than that associated with the number of books at home or with parental attitudes toward read-
ing (e.g., I like to read). In a similar vein, but for OECD countries, Alivernini (2013) found that
knowing the letters of the alphabet very well before the start of compulsory education was associated
with a higher percentage of students from less economically affluent homes reaching higher PIRLS
2006 scores.
Regarding early literacy skills, but following a school effectiveness framework, Martin et al. (2013)
combined both early literacy and early numerical1 skills in a PIRLS study as a predictor of reading
achievement. Results indicate that Swedish students improved their reading score as a result of hav-
ing good literacy and numerical skills. Araújo and Costa (2012) also report a positive relationship
linking children’s ability to recognize most of the alphabet and frequency of parental book reading
with reading achievement. Importantly, these studies show that such gains occurred in conjunction
with the inclusion of other home and school background variables.
In PIRLS, children’s early literacy skills are measured in The Could Do Early Literacy Tasks When
Began Primary School (ELT) scale, which includes the ability to recognize most of the alphabet, read
some words, read sentences, and write letters and words before the start of compulsory education.
Research indicates that, among these, children’s ability to name letters of the alphabet before formal
reading instruction begins is one of the strongest predictors of children’s reading ability (Bond &
Dykstra, 1967; Piasta & Wagner, 2010; Riley, 1996). This is the case because alphabet knowledge
shares a reciprocal relation with phonological awareness (Adams, 1990; Verhoeven, van Leeuwe,
Irausquin, & Segers, 2016), which is a universal predictor of reading across different alphabetical
languages (Seymour, Aro, & Erskine, 2003; Ziegler et al., 2010). In other words, some letter
names also include their sounds (Ehri, 1983) and knowledge about letter–sound relationships facili-
tates reading acquisition in alphabetic languages (Seymour et al., 2003; Vaessen et al., 2010).
Several studies show that children acquire reading faster in transparent orthographies such as Fin-
nish and Spanish which have writing systems with a one-to-one mapping between phonemes and
graphemes. As Seymour et al. (2003) found, English and Danish first graders take longer than Span-
ish and Finnish children to master word decoding. A consistent finding across languages is that this

1
Fourth grade TIMSS—The Third International Mathematics and Science Study 2011.
 SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 853

happens because in opaque languages like English different graphemes can correspond to the same
phoneme and vice versa (Vaessen et al., 2010). Ziegler et al. (2010) show that phonological awareness
tested in different alphabetic languages is a predictor of reading ability in grade 2, but that its influ-
ence is weaker in transparent orthographies. A more recent study with Finnish kindergartners cor-
roborates this; phonological awareness and letter knowledge were found to be the best predictors of
reading fluency development in grade 2 (Mägi et al., 2013). However, when comparing similarly
transparent languages—Estonian and Finnish—there seems to be no advantage in teaching Estonian
kindergarten children the letters of the alphabet in terms of reading attainment at the end of first
grade (Soodla et al., 2015).
Different results across studies might be due to both the nature of the measures used and the time
of testing. For example, whereas speed in letter naming is more predictive of reading ability in trans-
parent writing systems, accuracy in naming letters is a better predictor in deep or opaque languages
(Caravolas, Volin, & Hulme, 2005). Similarly, while some studies test students’ reading ability at the
end of first grade, others do so at the end of second grade or later. Moreover, some studies use cloze,
or fill in the blank tests, and others use reading comprehension questions to assess reading ability
(Araújo, Costa, & Morais, 2013). These differences can produce different results because the auto-
maticity in word reading that results from phonological awareness will boost students’ ability to
acquire vocabulary knowledge through reading in later grades (Perfetti, 1992; Ziegler et al., 2010).
Reading comprehension relies on, among other aspects, knowledge of the words in a text and voca-
bulary knowledge takes many years to acquire (Catts, 2009).
In short, even though overreliance on the importance of phonological awareness in English
(Share, 2008) can produce an overestimation of its predicting power in more transparent languages,
it remains a universal predictor of reading ability in alphabetic scripts. As Ziegler et al. (2010) state,
its “precise weight varies systematically as a function of script transparency” (p. 557).
In the PIRLS data collection it is not possible to ascertain whether students acquired early literacy
skills, and specifically letter knowledge, in pre-primary school or at home. Parents are merely asked
about how well their children mastered the different early literacy skills before the start of compul-
sory education. In contrast, when parents report on early literacy practices, including singing songs,
telling stories, playing word games, playing with alphabet toys, talking about things they had done,
talking about what they had read, writing letters or words, reading aloud signs and labels, and book
reading, they are asked about their frequency. Specifically, they are asked how frequently they or
someone in the household engaged children in these literacy practices prior to the start of compul-
sory education.
Convergent research results clearly indicate that home book reading contributes to boosting pri-
mary students’ reading achievement (Kalb & van Ours, 2014) and that code instruction may have
more impact when done at school than at home (Mol & Bus, 2011; Piasta & Wagner, 2010). Across
different studies in different countries, frequent exposure to home shared reading during preschool
and kindergarten has been found to be positively related to children’s oral expressive vocabulary
skills. Importantly, home book reading explains about 7% of the variation in their reading compre-
hension in later grades (Sénéchal, Pagan, Lever, & Ouellette, 2008). When preschool-age children are
exposed to book reading, they develop their understanding of vocabulary that is not commonly used
in daily oral interactions (Sénéchal, 2012). This is a distinctive characteristic of the verbal inter-
actions that evolve around books.
Research conducted with Australian children (Kalb & van Ours, 2014) shows that children who
are read to in the home frequently, 3–5 days a week and 6–7 days a week, obtain higher scores in
literacy and numeracy by the equivalent of 6 to 12 months at 8/9 years of age. When interactions
between vocabulary skills and school instruction have been explored, children with high vocabulary
skills at the beginning of first grade benefited from implicit classroom instruction on decoding. That
is, strong vocabulary skills seem to support children’s encounters of new words when engaging in
child-initiated silent reading (Connor, Morrison, & Katch, 2004). This finding suggests that strong
854 P. COSTA AND L. ARAÚJO

vocabulary supports end of first grade reading abilities. More specifically, vocabulary knowledge
facilitates the recognition of unknown words (Stanovich, 2000).
In sum, learning to crack the alphabetical code facilitates decoding ability in alphabetical
languages with different degrees of transparency and vocabulary knowledge sustains reading com-
prehension (Whitehurst, 2001). Moreover, these two skills complement each other in the develop-
ment of reading ability (Perfetti, 1992; Stanovich, 2000).
As children progress through primary education, the positive relationship between the frequency
of independent reading for pleasure and reading outcomes is also clear. Students who read indepen-
dently for recreational purposes score higher on achievement tests, have better vocabulary, and have
greater world knowledge (Cullinan, 1992; Krashen, 2004). This happens because in the process of
reading for pleasure outside of school, children infer the meaning of new words and integrate the
information read (Sénéchal, 2012, p. 47). Indeed, reading for enjoyment has been found to be sig-
nificantly associated with reading comprehension from infancy through adulthood (Mol & Bus,
2011). Moreover, reading for enjoyment is related to children’s early literacy skills. For example,
Silinskas et al. (2013) observed that Finnish mothers whose children had average and high reading
skills reported that their first grade children read independently more often than low-skilled chil-
dren. These findings are in accord with Perfetti’s (1992) verbal efficiency theory and with Stano-
vitch’s (2000) findings, namely that children with good beginning reading skills are more likely to
become independent readers and thus reinforce their reading skills. Less is known about how
being read to in the home during infancy may be related to children’s engagement in independent
reading, but parental book reading is thought to positively influence children’s reading habits during
subsequent school years (Cullinan, 1992).
The school environment is also thought to influence children’s motivation for and engagement in
reading. School resources, such as well-equipped libraries, may promote interest in reading and help
bridge the gap between more and less advantaged peers (European Commission, 2012). Children
that come from high socioeconomic backgrounds have more access to reading material not only
at home but also in their community and at school (Krashen, 2004). School effectiveness research
further suggests that besides school resources, school climate is a factor that explains variance in stu-
dents’ achievement in reading (Mullis, Martin, Foy, & Drucker, 2012; OECD, 2013). More specifi-
cally, not only are material resources and adequacy of facilities thought to affect attainment
(Dompnier, Patisu, & Bressoux, 2006; Teddlie, Stringfield, & Reynolds, 2000), but also teachers’
instruction and their expectations of students’ performance (Creemers & Kyriakides, 2008).
Although PIRLS does not follow a specific theoretical model, its assessment framework includes
many of the factors that operate at the classroom and school levels that Creemers and Kyriakides’
(2008) dynamic model of school effectiveness considers. In particular, the PIRLS framework includes
aspects related to: (1) Resources for teaching reading, (2) Climate—school discipline and safety, (3)
Emphasis on academic success, and (4) Characteristics of instructional practices for teaching
reading. Research using PIRLS data indicates that a school’s emphasis on academic success, its
emphasis on reading skills, and adequate resources contribute positively to boosting students’
achievement (Martin et al., 2013). Moreover, the studies with PIRLS data that are based on a school
effectiveness model also suggest that motivational factors, such as students’ enjoyment of reading, are
positively related to achievement (Stancel-Piatak et al., 2013). Nonetheless, students’ lack of interest
in their teachers’ choice of reading materials, as measured in PIRLS, has been found to be both
negatively and positively associated with their reading score (Martin et al., 2013; Stancel-Piatak
et al., 2013).
Regarding the school environment, the socioeconomic composition of schools has been repeat-
edly shown to be related to students’ achievement and included as a school variable in PIRLS studies
(Martin et al., 2013; Stancel-Piatak et al., 2013). In particular, in what regards compositional effects,
students’ reading attainment is lower in schools with a high percentage of students with few econ-
omic resources or with a large percentage of students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds
(Cortina, Carlisle, & Zeng, 2008). Taken together, these findings suggest that resources for teaching
 SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 855

reading, school climate, a school’s emphasis on academic achievement, and the socioeconomic com-
position of schools are related to achievement.

Objectives of the Study

The purpose of this study is to investigate how reading achievement relates to home and school
characteristics. It builds on the findings of previous studies with PIRLS data that were informed
by a school effectiveness framework while also accounting for student background factors. An
important feature of our study is that the school effectiveness factors are included with student/
home predictors according to the home literacy model. The main hypothesis is that these predictors
are associated with students’ achievement across different countries. Given that their predicting
quality has been found to be universal across languages, we expect their effect to be present across
countries, irrespective of country variations in reading performance levels in PIRLS. This assumption
is tested with a multilevel model and educational policy is discussed in light of the results. Particular
focus is on how early literacy skills and practices need to be taken into account to improve students’
learning.

Educational System Characteristics and Reading Curricula

In order to investigate the home factors and the school variables that have an effect on students’
achievement in high, medium, and low achieving countries we selected Denmark (high-performing,
554 reading score), Sweden (medium-performer, 542 reading score), and France (low-performer,
520 reading score) (Mullis, Martin, Foy, & Drucker, 2012). These countries share similarities and
differences in terms of system-level variables, such as school curricula and autonomy (Eurydice,
2013). All of them have compulsory schooling from the age of 6 to 16 and a centralized school cur-
riculum. However, in Denmark local schools have partial autonomy (schools develop their own cur-
ricula) and in Sweden the system is decentralized and allows for school choice (parents’ and students’
own choices). In Denmark recruitment of teachers is done by local authorities, in Sweden the respon-
sibility for employing teachers varies depending on the category of school, and in France the central
government is responsible for hiring (Eurydice, 2013).
With respect to reading curricula goals, in Denmark students should be able to use simple reading
comprehension strategies and demonstrate an understanding of what they read. In Sweden, students
are expected to be able to discuss their experiences from reading and to reflect on texts by the end of
fifth grade. In France, students should understand explicitly stated information, find answers to
simple questions, and find the subject of a literary text (Mullis, Martin, Minnich, Drucker, &
Ragan, 2012).

Methods
We used the PIRLS 2011 data-set. PIRLS is an international large-scale assessment conducted by the
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) and designed to
measure trends in reading achievement at the fourth grade level. Accordingly, its target population
consists of students enrolled in the fourth grade of compulsory primary education. The survey
includes the student achievement data as well as the student, parent, teacher, school, and curricular
background data. Specifically, PIRLS collects information about the home literacy environment, the
school curriculum and curriculum implementation, instructional practices, and school resources in
each participating country. Regarding the PIRLS sample design, first schools are randomly selected
(with a probability proportional to the estimated number of students enrolled in the target grade)
and then one or two classrooms are randomly selected within each school. PIRLS is administered
as a pencil-and-paper assessment and includes both multiple choice and constructed response test
items. The PIRLS scaling of achievement data is based on item response theory (IRT) with the scores
856 P. COSTA AND L. ARAÚJO

scaled to have an international average of 500 and a standard deviation of 100 points. The first cycle
of PIRLS was carried out in 2001 and it has been administered every 5 years since then. In 2011, 48
countries participated in PIRLS.

Participants
For the selected countries in this study, the PIRLS 2011 sample was composed of 4,594 students in
Denmark, 4,707 in Sweden, and 4,438 students in France with 232, 152, and 174 schools in Denmark,
Sweden, and France, respectively.

Methods of Analysis
Due to the hierarchical structure of the data (students within schools), multilevel regression analysis
(Goldstein, 2003) including information from the student, home, and school questionnaires was
used. A two-level analysis was performed using MLWIN version 2.3 (Rasbash, Charlton, Browne,
Healy, & Cameron, 2009) with students at level 1 and schools at level 2. The missing values were
excluded from the analysis. The variance components model was used and the model was then esti-
mated using iterative generalized least squares (Goldstein, 1986). The regression coefficients of the
multilevel models indicate the estimated effect of each student/home and school variable (predictor)
on the outcome variable (students’ reading achievement). In particular, the magnitude and the direc-
tion of the coefficients as well as the significance of the difference from zero show the relationship
between the predictor and achievement, keeping all the other predictors in the model constant.

Variables
Our dependent variable is the students’ reading scores—with an international mean of 500 and a
standard deviation of 100. This standardized PIRLS measure reflects the reading ability of fourth
grade students. The independent variables are those associated with the home literacy and with
the school effectiveness models. The two-level multilevel regression models for Denmark, France,
and Sweden included the student/home variables in level 1 and the school variables in level 2. At
the student/home level, the variables were: (1) Home resources for learning, (2) Parental book read-
ing, (3) Knowledge of the letters of the alphabet, (4) Students like reading scale, and (5) Students’
engagement in reading lessons. At the school level the variables were: (1) School average of home
resources for learning, (2) School average of students’ engagement in reading lessons, (3) School
emphasis on academic success, (4) School discipline and safety, (5) Emphasis in early grades on read-
ing skills, and (6) Shortage of reading resources. The five plausible values in reading were used in the
analysis, as well as student and school weights.
Table 1 presents a description of the variables included in the multilevel model as well as the num-
ber of response categories for each item and the source/questionnaire where the information was
collected. The model includes single items and some scales constructed by IEA. The scales were con-
structed using IRT scaling methods, namely the Rasch partial credit model (Masters and Wright,
1997).

Analysis
First, we estimated the fully unconditional model (or null model). The null model doesn’t include
covariates other than a constant and allows us to obtain the proportion of variability, calculated
using the variances estimated for the errors between students and between schools. We obtained
the amount of variance explained at each level in the model for the three countries: Denmark, France,
and Sweden. Comparing these estimates with the final model determines the amount of variance
explained by adding the variables related with the home literacy model and the school effectiveness
framework.
 SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 857

Table 1. Scales and Variables Included in the Student/Home and School Levels.
No. of
Name of the variable Items categories Questionnaire
Student/home-level variables
Home resources for learning scale Number of books in the home 5 Student
(HRL) Number of children’s books in the home 5 Home
Number of home study supports 3 Student
Highest level of education of either parent 5 Home
Highest level of occupation of either parent 4 Home
Students like reading scale (SLR)a – What do you think about reading? Tell how much you agree
with each of these statements
I read only if I have to1 4 Student
I like talking about what I read with other people 4 Student
I would be happy if someone gave me a book as a present 4 Student
I think reading is boring1 4 Student
I would like to have more time for reading 4 Student
I enjoy reading1 4 Student
– How often do you do these things outside of school?
I read for fun 4 Student
I read things that I choose myself 4 Student
Letters of the alphabeta 3 Home
Parental book readinga 4 Home
Students engaged in reading – Think about the reading you do for school. How much do
lessons scale (ERL)a you agree with these statements about your reading lessons?
I like what I read about in school 4 Student
My teacher gives me interesting things to read 4 Student
I know what my teacher expects me to do 4 Student
I think of things not related to the lesson 4 Student
My teacher is easy to understand 4 Student
I am interested in what my teacher says 4 Student
My teacher gives me interesting things to do 4 Student
School characteristics
Instruction affected by reading How much is your school’s capacity to provide instruction Principal
resource shortages scale (RRS)a affected by a shortage or inadequacy of the following?
A. General school resources
(1) Instructional materials (e.g., textbooks) 4 Principal
(2) Supplies (e.g., papers, pencils) 4 Principal
(3) School buildings and grounds 4 Principal
(4) Heating/cooling and lighting systems 4 Principal
(5) Instructional space (e.g., classrooms) 4 Principal
(6) Technologically competent staff – 4 Principal
(7) Computers for instruction 4 Principal
B. Resources for reading instruction 4 Principal
(1) Teachers with a specialization in reading 4 Principal
(2) Computer software for reading instruction 4 Principal
(3) Library books 4 Principal
(4) Audio-visual resources for reading instruction 4 Principal
School discipline and safety scale
(DAS)a
To what degree is each of the following a problem among Principal
fourth grade students in your school?
(1) Arriving late at school 4 Principal
(2) Absenteeism (i.e., unjustified absences) 4 Principal
(3) Classroom disturbance 4 Principal
(4) Cheating 4 Principal
(5) Profanity 4 Principal
(6) Vandalism 4 Principal
(7) Theft 4 Principal
(8) Intimidation or verbal abuse among students (including 4 Principal
texting, emailing, etc.)
(9) Physical fights among students 4 Principal
(10) Intimidation or verbal abuse of teachers or staff 4 Principal
(including texting, emailing, etc.)
School emphasis on academic
success scale (EAS–T)a
How would you characterize each of the following within your school? Teacher

(Continued)
858 P. COSTA AND L. ARAÚJO

Table 1. Continued.
No. of
Name of the variable Items categories Questionnaire
(1) Teachers’ understanding of the school’s curricular goals 5 Teacher
(2) Teachers’ degree of success in implementing the school’s 5 Teacher
curriculum
(3) Teachers’ expectations for student achievement – 5 Teacher
(4) Parental support for student achievement 5 Teacher
(5) Students’ desire to do well in school 5 Teacher
Emphasis in early grades on
reading skills scale (RSS)a
At which grade do the following reading skills and strategies Principal
first receive a major emphasis in instruction in your
school?
(1) Reading isolated sentences 5 Principal
(2) Reading connected text – 5 Principal
(3) Locating information within the text 5 Principal
(4) Identifying the main idea of a text – 5 Principal
(5) Explaining or supporting understanding of a text – 5 Principal
(6) Comparing a text with personal experience 5 Principal
(7) Comparing different texts 5 Principal
(8) Making predictions about what will happen next in a text 5 Principal
(9) Making generalizations and drawing inferences based on 5 Principal
a text
(10) Describing the style or structure of a text 5 Principal
(11) Determining the author’s perspective or intention 5 Principal
School average of HRL 5 Principal
Notes: – The Cronbach’s alpha reliability of all the scales used for Denmark, France, and Sweden is equal to or greater than 0.7 for all
scales, except for France in the EAS-T scale (0.57). More detailed information about the scales used in this paper can be found in
the PIRLS 2011 report at http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/methods/t-context-q-scales.html
a
stands for reverse coding.

Results
Table 2 presents the estimates of the multilevel regressions for each country and for the three differ-
ent models. In model (1) we present the estimates for the null model. The null model shows that the
percentage of the variance in the dependent variable at the student level is 87.5% in Denmark, 83.7%
in Sweden, and 83% in France. The between-school differences are 12.5% in Denmark, 16.3% in Swe-
den, and 17% in France of the total variance in reading. These results show that there are consider-
able differences among schools in Denmark, Sweden, and France in the achievement of their
students and they can be explained by school differences. Model (2) includes control variables at
the student/home level and at the school level and model (3) incorporates also the variables related
with the home literacy model, namely, “parental book reading” and “knowledge of letters of the
alphabet before primary school”. For the coefficients presented, reverse coding was converted. For
example, a high frequency of parental book reading corresponds to the highest value of the category.
Comparing the null (1) with the full model (3), there is a clear reduction of the deviance. Also, the
inclusion of the school effectiveness variables in model (2) results in a decrease in the variance com-
ponent representing variation between countries. The variance component between schools dimin-
ished significantly in all countries. Finally, there is also a reduction of the deviance when comparing
model (2) and model (3). In addition, the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) index confirms that
model (3) is the best-fit model to explain students’ performance.
The fixed effects estimates of model (3) show that the student/home level variables associated with
the home literacy model are statistically significant in the three countries, ranging from a 13- to 21-
point increase in reading scores. The difference between the level 1 variance components of model
(3) and the previous model indicates that the proportion of variance in students’ achievement
explained by these variables is 7.3% in Denmark, 7% in France, and 8.3% in Sweden. These results
show that primary school students whose parents read more often to them and students who knew
Table 2. Multilevel Coefficients for the Relationship Between Student/Home and School Characteristics and Students’ Reading Achievement.
Reading (1) Null (2) (3)
Denmark France Sweden Denmark France Sweden Denmark France Sweden
Fixed part (constant) 554.14 521.64 538.23 471.54 466.78 460.25 530.71 490.92 502.73
Student/home characteristics
Home resources for learning scale (HRL) 29.35* (1.90) 35.38* (2.19) 31.85* (2.31) 21.20* (1.88) 27.33* (2.12) 23.18* (2.24)
Students like reading scale 18.74* (1.63) 23.35* (1.70) 23.12* (1.66) 15.63* (1.58) 20.16* (1.59) 18.84* (1.62)
Letters of the alphabet 21.04* (1.42) 19.26* (1.54) 19.80* (1.50)
Parental book reading 13.28* (1.83) 14.98* (1.86) 17.31* (1.94)
Students engaged in reading lessons (ERL) −1.24 −1.73 −6.37* −2.54 −1.75 −6.35*
(1.90) (1.95) (2.14) (1.89) (1.84) (2.04)
School characteristics
Instruction affected by reading resource shortages −0.54 3.64 −4.51 −0.13 2.91 −4.65
(1.33) (4.29) (4.00) (1.34) (4.05) (3.79)

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

School discipline and safety 3.60 2.13 0.15 3.34 1.26 0.29
(2.73) (3.17) (3.17) (2.66) (3.07) (3.04)
School emphasis on academic success −0.27 7.66 1.19 1.05 6.13* −0.21
(2.68) (2.38) (2.84) (2.65) (2.40) (2.73)
Emphasis in early grades on reading skills 0.85 1.71 3.97 0.28 1.44 2.64
(3.27) (3.78) (3.29) (3.10) (3.67) (3.17)
School average of HRL 14.63* (1.98) 15.77* (1.88) 15.83* (1.75) 12.51* (2.01) 15.04* (1.87) 14.10* (1.75)
School average of ERL 1.15 1.78 −0.81 0.51 2.64 −0.39
(2.29) (2.46) (2.87) (2.19) (2.46) (2.43)
Random part (school level) 540.62 800.11 790.40 222.56 186.83 173.37 210.04 171.96 157.62
Random part (student/home level) 3,769.32 3,912.29 4,061.73 3,327.83 3,360.12 3,446.28 3,085.57 3,126.19 3,159.70
Deviance 50,944.76 49,485.58 52,319.55 44,826.75 41,984.51 34637.36 42,935.61 40,902.56 33,893.78
AIC 50,944 49,486 52,320 44,836 41,994 34,646 42,937 40,904 33,895
School variance expl. % 12.5 17 16.3 – – – – – –
Student variance expl. % 87.5 83 83.7 – – – – – –
Notes: Multilevel regression of students’ performance in reading. Model (1) is the null model; model (2) includes student/home- and school-level control variables; model (3) adds the home literacy
model variables at the student level. Standard errors in parenthesis p-value: *p ≤ 0.05. The bold values indicate statistically significant coefficients.

859
860 P. COSTA AND L. ARAÚJO

the letters of the alphabet before primary school present better results in reading. Additionally, stu-
dents’ literacy knowledge (alphabet) and practices (book reading) acquired and experienced prior to
school entry present similar coefficients in the three countries. In what regards the coefficients of
other individual and school variables included in the regression that are statistically significant,
we found that home resources for learning and reading for enjoyment are positively related with
achievement. In all countries there is a very strong relationship between home resources for learning
and students’ achievement in reading, with regression coefficients ranging from 21 to 27 points.
Additionally, students that report they like reading perform better in reading (increase from 16 to
20 score points). At the school level, the average of home resources for learning is also a significant
predictor of students’ achievement, with regression coefficients ranging from a 13- to 15-point
increase in reading scores. Students’ engagement in reading lessons was statistically significant
only in Sweden and school emphasis on academic success is positively related with students’ reading
achievement only in France. Unexpectedly, in Sweden being in a school where students report higher
engagement in reading lessons has a negative relationship with students’ reading achievement. In
France being in a school where there is a higher emphasis on academic success benefits students’
achievement. All other school-level variables were not significantly associated with reading
achievement.
Overall, our model accounts for 24–32% of the total variability in reading scores. More specifi-
cally, we found that 24% of variance in Denmark, 30% in France, and 32% in Sweden was explained
by school, home literacy, and home background control variables.

Discussion
Results indicate that factors associated with the home literacy model—book reading and alphabet
knowledge—are strongly associated with students’ achievement in the three countries. Reading
for enjoyment, as measured by the students like reading scale, is also related with reading attainment
in all countries. At the school level, there is a compositional effect whereby students in schools with a
higher socioeconomic intake, measured by home resources for learning, have higher reading achieve-
ment. In Sweden, students’ report of classroom engagement in reading lessons, capturing whether
they like what they read in school and think their teachers give them interesting materials to
read, is negatively related to achievement; lower interest relates to higher achievement. This is in
line with findings by Stancel-Piatak et al. (2013) for Germany, France, and Denmark. In their
study in all of these countries there was a negative association between the students’ report of class-
room instruction and students’ achievement. This finding is surprising as one would expect more
interested students to have better attainment, especially in a country like Sweden where parents
can choose the school their children attend.
Our study also shows that socioeconomic status both at the student level and at the school level is
similarly related to achievement in Denmark, France, and Sweden. As such, although equity may be
compromised, results suggest that it is no more compromised in systems that have school choice
than in the ones without school choice, at least at the fourth grade level. This seems to contrast
with the finding that social selection, explored with PIRLS 2006 data, characterizes independent
schools in Sweden (Myrberg & Rosén, 2006). However, our study uses a more recent data-set—
PIRLS 2011—and addresses the relationship between socioeconomic status and achievement across
countries, not within the same country. In this sense, it is reasonable to assume that cross-country
comparisons suggest, as analyses of PISA 2012 show, that school choice does not improve students’
learning outcomes and may compromise equity (OECD, 2013). The other statistically significant
effect related to school effectiveness was found in France. More specifically, the emphasis a school
places on academic success, with a higher emphasis corresponding to higher achievement, was sig-
nificant only in France. Taken together, these findings suggest that school effects are country specific,
whereas student/home variables have a similar relationship with achievement in all three countries.
 SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 861

Using PIRLS 2011 data, this study identifies home background and school variables that are
related to reading achievement at a time when students have moved from learning to read to reading
to learn (Chall, 1996). The effect of student/home variables is ubiquitous and significant in the
countries under analysis whereas the effect of school level factors differs by country. This study is,
to our knowledge, the first to consider how letter knowledge and parental book reading are related
to PIRLS achievement. Previous studies used only letter knowledge (Alivernini, 2013) or letter
knowledge and book reading and storytelling together as a latent construct (Myrberg & Rosén,
2009). Thus, and because PIRLS measures the comprehension of authentic texts, this study adds
new evidence to previous findings. Existing studies have investigated the relationship between read-
ing predictors and the ability to read isolated word lists as outcome measure (Ziegler et al., 2010). As
such, this study adds to our understanding of the relationship between reading predictors—letter
knowledge and parental book reading before compulsory school starts—and reading comprehension
of authentic texts.
Importantly, this study shows that comparable literacy knowledge and skills in different European
countries are positively associated with reading achievement and this has implications for practice.
The findings corroborate those of Sénéchal (2012) with Canadian children and support the notion
that book reading in the home should be encouraged prior to the start of compulsory education. The
positive difference this practice can make in reading achievement offsets the influence of family
social background, as it was also found in Australia (Kalb & van Ours, 2014). Additionally, the find-
ings of this study support the notion that pre-primary school curricula should encompass the teach-
ing of the alphabet. As was the case in the study by Alivernini (2013) with PIRLS data, knowing the
letters of the alphabet is clearly associated with higher reading scores. These can be taught at school;
alphabet teaching during kindergarten has been found to boost reading comprehension in later
grades (Piasta & Wagner, 2010) and can be part of a balanced reading curriculum that promotes
children’s interest in letters and written texts during pre-primary education (Soodla et al., 2015).
In short and according to Shager et al. (2013), “achievement-based skills such as early reading,
early math, and letter recognition skills appear to be more sensitive to Head Start attendance than
cognitive skills such as IQ, vocabulary, and attention which are less sensitive to classroom instruc-
tion” (p. 90). This study cannot determine if children learned the alphabet at home or at school, but it
clearly suggests that both alphabet skills and the knowledge acquired from home book reading are
positively related to reading achievement. As evidence from other studies suggests, in the case of
book reading the knowledge accrued is associated with vocabulary knowledge (Perfetti, Landi, &
Oakhill, 2005).
Finally, this study offers compelling evidence of the ubiquitous importance, in different European
countries, of specific student/home predictors and of the influence of particular school factors in the
development of reading ability. Moreover, the results for the predictors hold in countries with differ-
ent levels of reading achievement and with diverse system-level characteristics. Therefore, it adds
converging evidence that initiatives to encourage home book reading, alphabet knowledge, and rec-
reational reading should be considered in the different European countries analyzed. This is one
advantage of using PIRLS: the opportunity to provide comparative indicators on the basis of the
theoretical constructs integrated in the assessment framework (Lenkeit et al., 2016).
Although the PIRLS survey follows a cross-sectional design, other longitudinal studies point in
the same direction, namely those investigating the influence of book reading and alphabet knowledge
on reading achievement (Kalb, & van Ours, 2013; Sénéchal & LeFréve, 2002). Importantly, Sénéchal’s
(2012) longitudinal research confirms that early teaching of the alphabet may facilitate basic skills
and reading fluency (Catts, 2009), but this advantage may not extend to eventual success in reading
comprehension without the additional support provided by early home reading. The early develop-
ment of reading skills and the exposure to home reading may also result in a greater desire to read for
pleasure. In essence, this encapsulates the Mathew effect (Stanovich, 2000) and the reciprocal caus-
ality between reading ability and reading for pleasure. Those that are more able read more and, as a
result, become more and more able readers. Future studies might want to focus on how children
862 P. COSTA AND L. ARAÚJO

develop different reading profiles. For example, are children who have been read to frequently more
likely to read more for enjoyment once they acquire reading skills? Research clearly shows that good
readers read more and thus become even better readers (Stanovich, 2000). However, empirical evi-
dence on how frequency of home book reading during the preschool years might be related to future
frequency of reading for enjoyment is lacking.
Some possible limitations of the present analysis need, however, to be mentioned. As previously
noted, PIRLS follows a cross-sectional study and this raises questions about causal inferences.
Although this remains a limitation, when considering the theoretical background that informs
this study we also considered empirical convergent evidence (Stanovich, 2000) from longitudinal
studies. Another limitation concerns the retrospective nature of the parental responses to the
home questionnaire. It is possible that social desirability might have influenced parents’ indication
of the frequency of early literacy practices and of their children’s ability to recognize the letters of the
alphabet. Still, the advantage of using PIRLS is that the data collected for different countries allows
for cross-country comparisons across different time waves. Importantly, previous studies using the
different waves of PIRLS (2001, 2006, 2011) data have used the same (Alivernini, 2013) or similar
measures from the home questionnaire (Myrberg & Rosén, 2009) as predicting variables of students’
achievement and have obtained similar results (Araújo & Costa, 2012). The stability of results over
time reduces potential social desirability, or at least keeps that factor constant over time as a country-
specific characteristic.
In the case of the present study, the comprehensive nature of the data-set allowed for the inves-
tigation of which student/home characteristics and school factors are related to reading achievement.
More specifically, this study identifies what is unique in different school systems and what are the
common home background factors associated with reading attainment that are observed in varying
contexts. In this sense, this study adds to our understanding of the contribution of home and school
environments to reading literacy achievement in different countries.

Disclaimer
The views expressed are purely those of the writers and may not in any circumstances be regarded as
stating an official position of the European Commission.

Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID
Patrícia Costa http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2943-4270
Luísa Araújo http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6491-5777

References
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Alivernini, F. (2013). An exploration of the gap between highest and lowest ability readers across 20 countries.
Educational Studies, 39(4), 399–417.
Araújo, L., & Costa, P. (2012). Reading Literacy in PIRLS 2006: What explains achievement in 20 EU countries?. EUR
66894 EN. Retrieved from http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/111111111/25703/1/
lbna24949enn.pdf
Araújo, L., & Costa, P. (2015). Home book reading and reading achievement in EU countries: The Progress in
International Reading Literacy Study 2011 (PIRLS). Educational Research and Evaluation: from Theory to
Practice, 21, 422–438. 10.1080/13803611.2015.1111803
Araújo, L., Costa, A., & Morais, J. (2013). Assessments of reading comprehension: Different measures, different expla-
natory variables and achievement. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 13, 1–21.
 SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 863

Bond, G. L., & Dykstra, R. (1967). The cooperative research program in first-grade reading instruction. Reading
Research Quarterly, 2, 10–141. 10.2307/746948
Caravolas, M., Volin, J., & Hulme, C. (2005). Phoneme awareness is a key component of alphabetic literacy skills in
consistent and inconsistent orthographies: Evidence from Czech and English children. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 92, 107–139.
Caro, D. H., Sandoval-Hernández, A., & Lüdtke, O. (2014). Cultural, social, and economic capital constructs in inter-
national assessments: An evaluation using exploratory structural equation modelling. School effectiveness and School
Improvement, 25, 433–450. doi:10.1080/0924343453.2013.812568
Catts, H. W. (2009). The narrow view of reading promotes a broad view of comprehension. Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in the Schools, 40, 178–183.
Chall, J. (1996). Learning to read: The great debate (revised). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Cheung, W. M., Kam Tse, S., Lam, J. W. I., & Ka Yee Loh, E. (2009). Progress in International Reading Literacy Study
2006 (PIRLS): Pedagogical correlates of fourth-grade students in Hong Kong. Journal of Research in Reading, 32(3),
293–308. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01395.x
Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., & Katch, L. E. (2004). Beyond the reading wars: Exploring the effect of child–instruc-
tion interaction on growth in early reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8, 305–336.
Cortina, K., Carlisle, J., & Zeng, J. (2008). Context effects on students’ gains in reading comprehension in Reading First
Schools in Michigan. Zeitschrift Für Erziehungswissenschaft, 11, 47–66.
Creemers, B. P. M., & Kyriakides, L. (2008). The dynamics of educational effectiveness: A contribution to policy, practice
and theory in contemporary schools. London: Routledge.
Cullinan, B. E. (1992). Read to me: Raising kids who love to read. New York: Scholastic.
Dompnier, B., Patisu, P., & Bressoux, P. (2006). An integrative model of scholastic judgments: Pupils’ characteristics,
class context, halo effect and internal attributions. European Journal of Psychology of Education,, 21(2), 119–133.
Ehri, L. C. (1983). A critique of five studies related to letter-name and learning to read. In L. M. Gentile, M. L. Kamil, &
J.S. Blanchard, (Eds.), Reading Research Revisited (pp. 131–153). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
European Commission. (2012). EU high level group of experts on literacy (Final report, September 2012). Luxembourg:
Publications office of the European Union. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/school/doc/
literacy-report_en.pdf
Eurydice. (2013). Key data on tTeachers and school leaders in Europe. (Eurydice Report). Luxembourg: Publications
Office of the European Union.
Goldstein, H. (1986). Multilevel mixed linear model analysis using iterative generalized least squares. Biometrika, 73,
43–56. doi:10.1093/biomet/73.1.43
Goldstein, H. (2003). Multilevel statistical models (3rd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
Guthrie, J. T., & Humenick, N. M. (2004). Motivating students to read: Evidence for classroom practices that increase
reading motivation and achievement. In P. McCardle, & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research
(pp. 329–354). Baltimore: Brookes.
Kalb, G., & van Ours, J. C. (2014). Reading to young children: A head-start in life? Economics of Education Review, 40,
1–24.
Krashen, S. (2004). The power of reading: Insights from the research. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Lenkeit, J., Chan, J., Hopfenbeck, T. N., & Baird, J. (2016). A review of the representation of PIRLS related research in
scientific journals. Educational Research Review, 16, 102–115.
Mägi, K., Torppa, M., Lerkkanen, M. K., Poikkeus, A. M., Puttonen, H. R., & Nurmi, J. E. (2013). Developmental pro-
files of task-avoidant behaviour and reading skills in Grades 1 and 2. Learning and Individual Differences, 23, 22–31.
Martin, M. O., Foy, P., Mullis, I. V. S., & O’Dwyer, L. M. (2013). Effective schools in reading, mathematics, and science
at the fourth grade. In M.O. Martin, & I.V.S. Mullis (Eds.), TIMSS and PIRLS 2011: Relationships among reading,
mathematics, and science achievement at the fourth grade—Implications for early learning (pp. 109–178). Chestnut
Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
Masters, G. N., & Wright, B. D. (1997). The partial credit model. In W.J. van der Linden, & R.K. Hambleton (Eds.),
Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory (pp. 101–122). New York: Springer.
Mol, S. E., & Bus, A. G. (2011). To read or not to read: A meta-analysis of print exposure from infancy to early adult-
hood. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 267–296. doi:10.1037/a0021890
Mullis, I.V.S., Kennedy, A. M., Martin, M.O., & Sainsbury, M. (2006). PIRLS 2006 Assessment framework and speci-
fication (2nd ed.). Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center Lynch School of Education,
Boston College.
Mullis, V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Drucker, K. T. (2012). PIRLS 2011 International Results in Reading. Chestnut
Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Minnich, C. A., Drucker, K. T., & Ragan, M. A. (2012). PIRLS 2011 encyclopedia:
Education policy and curriculum in reading. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center,
Boston College.
864 P. COSTA AND L. ARAÚJO

Myrberg, E., & Rosén, M. (2006). Reading achievement and social selection into independent schools in Sweden -
Results from IEA PIRLS 2001. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50(2), 185–205. doi:10.1080/
00313830600576005
Myrberg, E., & Rosén, M. (2008). A path model with mediating factors of parents’ education on reading achievement in
seven countries. Educational Research and Evaluation: From Theory to Practice, 14(6), 507–520. doi:10.1080/
1380610802576742
Myrberg, E., & Rosén, M. (2009). Direct and indirect effects of parents’ education on reading achievement among third
graders in Sweden. British Journal of Education Psychology, 79, 695–711. doi:10.1348/000709909X453031
OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 Results: Learning to Learn – Student Engagement, Strategies and Practices (Volume III).
Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264083943-en
OECD. (2013). PISA 2012 Results: Ready to Learn: Students’ Engagement, Drive and Self-Beliefs (Volume III). PISA:
OECD Publishing. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264201170-en
Park, H. (2008). Home literacy environments and children’s reading performance: A comparative study of 25
countries. Educational Research and Evaluation, 14, 489–505. doi:10.1080/13803610802576734
Perfetti, C. A. (1992). The representation problem in reading acquisition. In P. B. Gough, L. C. Ehri, & R. Trieman
(Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 145–174). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Perfetti, C. A., Landi, N., & Oakhill, J. (2005). The acquisition of reading comprehension skills. In M. J. Snowling, & C.
Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 227–274). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Piasta, S. B., & Wagner, K. (2010). Developing early literacy skills: A meta-analysis of alphabet learning and instruc-
tion. Reading Reasearch Quarterly, 45(1), 8–38. doi:10.1598/RRQ.45.1.2
Rasbash, J., Charlton, C., Browne, W. J., Healy, M., & Cameron, B. (2009). MLwiN Version 2.1. Centre for Multilevel
Modelling. Bristol: University of Bristol.
Riley, J. (1996). The teaching of reading: The development of literacy in the early years of school. London: Sage
Publications.
Sénéchal, M. (2012). Child language and literacy development at home. In B. Wasik (Eds.), Handbook of Family
Literacy (pp. 38–50). London: Taylor and Francis.
Sénéchal, M., & LeFréve, J. A. (2002). Parental involvement in the development of children’s reading skill: A five-year
longitudinal study. Child Development, 73, 445–460. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00417
Sénéchal, M., Pagan, S., Lever, R., & Ouellette, G. P. (2008). Relations among the frequency of shared reading and 4-
year-old children’s vocabulary, morphological and syntax comprehension, and narrative skills. Early Education and
Development, 19, 27–44. doi:10.1080/10409280701838710
Seymour, P., Aro, M., & Erskine, J. M. (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British
Journal of Psychology, 94, 143–174.
Silinskas, G., Kiuru, N., Tolvanen, A., Niemi, P., Lerkkanen, M. K., & Nurmi, J. E. (2013). Maternal teaching of reading
and children’s reading skills in Grade 1: Patterns and predictors of positive and negative associations. Learning and
Individual Differences, 27, 54–66.
Shager, H. M., Schindler, H. S., Magnuson, K. A., Duncan, G. J., Yoshikawa, H., & Hart, C. M. (2013). Meta-Analysis of
cognitive and achievement outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35, 76–95. doi:10.3102/
0162373712462453
Share, D. L. (2008). On the Anglocentricities of current reading research and practice: The perils of overreliance of on
an “outlier” orthography. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 584–615.
Shiel, G., & Eivers, E. (2009). International comparisons of reading literacy: What can they tell us? Cambridge Journal
of Education, 39(3), 345–360. doi:10.1080/03057640903103736
Soodla, P., Lerkkanen, M., Niemi, P., Kikas, E., Silinskas, G., & Nurmi, J. (2015). Does early reading instruction pro-
mote the rate of acquisition? A comparison of two transparent orthographies. Learning and Instruction, 38, 14–23.
Stancel-Piatak, A., Mirazchiyski, P., & Desa, D. (2013). Promotion of reading and early literacy skills in schools: A
comparison of three European Countries. European Journal of Education, 48, 449–510. doi:10.1111/ejed.12050
Stanovich, K. E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and new frontiers. New York:
Guilford Press.
Teddlie, C., Stringfield, S., & Reynolds, D. (2000). Context issues within school effectiveness research. In C. Teddlie, &
D. Reynolds (Eds.), The international handbook of school effectiveness research (pp. 160–185). London and new
York: Falmer Press.
Vaessen, A., Bertrand, D., Toth, D., Csepe, V., Faisca, L., Reis, A., & Blomert, L. (2010). Cognitive development of flu-
ent word reading does not qualitatively differ between transparent and opaque orthographies. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 102(4), 827–842. doi:10.1037/a0019465
Verhoeven, L., van Leeuwe, J., Irausquin, R., & Segers, E. (2016). The unique role of lexical accessibility in predicting
kindergarten emergent literacy. Reading and Writing, 29 (4), 591–608. doi:10.1007/s11145-015-9614-8
Whitehurst, G. J. (2001). Emergent literacy: Development from prereaders to readers. In S. B. Neuman & D. K.
Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 1, pp. 11–29). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Ziegler, J. C., Bertrand, D., Tóth, D., Csépe, V., Reis, A., Faísca, L., & Blomert, L. (2010). Orthographic depth and its
impact on universal predictors of reading: A cross-language investigation. Psychological Science, 21(4), 551–559.