1 78 	 JOURN AL	OF	C ONTEMPORAR Y	EDUC A TION AL	S TUDIES	2/20 1 1	 M.	Štr aus,	N .	Mar k el j
Mojca Štraus, Neja Markelj
A tt ainment	of	Baseline	and	Highes t	Le v els	
of	Lit er acy	Among	Slo v ene	S tudents	
A ccor ding	t o	PIS A	S tudy	R esults
1
Abstract: T h e 	 r e c e n t 	 P I S A 	 r e s u l t s 	 p u b l i s h e d 	 i n 	 D e c e m b e r 	 2 0 1 0 	 o p e n e d 	 u p 	 a 	 d e b a t e 	 o n 	 S l o v e n e 	 s t u d e n t s ’	
pr of iciency	 in	 r eading,	 and	 mathematical	 and	 scientif ic	 lit er acy .	 The	 s tudy	 sho w ed	 that	 the	 1 5-y ear -
old	 Slo v ene	 childr en	 had	 lo w er	 than	 a v er age	 r eading	 scor es	 in	 com parison	 t o	 their	 count er par ts	 in	
the	 OE CD	 and	 the	 EU .	 In	 this	 paper ,	 dat a	 fr om	 2006	 and	 2009	 ar e	 used	 t o	 identify	 the	 per cent age	 of	
1 5-y ear -old	 Slo v ene	 s tudents	 in	 the	 f ir s t	 gr ade	 of	 upper -secondar y	 education	 in	 Slo v enia	 who	 ar e	 pr o-
f icient	 at	 the	 highes t	 le v els	 of	 lit er acy	 as	 w ell	 as	 the	 per cent age	 of	 s tudents	 no t	 r eaching	 the	 baseline	
le v els.	 As	 e xpect ed,	 the	 highes t	 le v els	 of	 pr of iciency	 w er e	 att ained	 mos tly	 b y	 s tudents	 on	 academic	
pr ogr ams	 and	 a	 v er y	 small	 per cent age	 of	 s tudents	 on	 pr of essional	 pr ogr ams.	 A tt ainment	 of	 baseline	
pr of iciency	 w as	 a	 pr oblem	 at	 leas t	 in	 one	 ar ea	 f or	 a	 q uar t er	 of	 the	 s tudents	 on	 pr of essional	 pr ogr ams,	
thr ee	 q uar t er s	 of	 s tudents	 on	 the	 middle	 le v el	 v ocational	 pr ogr ams,	 and	 f or	 almos t	 all	 s tudents	 on	
the	 lo w er	 le v el	 v ocational	 pr ogr ams.	 Mor eo v er ,	 in	 the	 lo w er	 v ocational	 pr ogr ams,	 mor e	 than	 60	 %	 of	
s tudents	f ailed	t o	att ain	baseline	pr of iciencies	in	an y	of	the	thr ee	ar eas.
Keywords:	PIS A ,	lit er acy	le v els,	upper	secondar y	pr ogr ams,	gender
UDC :	3 7 .09 1 .2 79.7 :3 73.5
Scientif ic	r e vie w	paper	
Mojca Štraus, Ph.D., Education Research Institute, Gerbičeva 62, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia; 
e-mail: neja.markelj@pei.si
Neja Markelj, Ph.D., Education Research Institute, Gerbičeva 62, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia; 
e-mail: neja.markelj@pei.si
JOURN AL	OF	C ONTEMPORAR Y	EDUC A TION AL	S TUDIES	2/20 1 1 ,	1 78–1 98

A tt ainment	of	Baseline	and	Highes t	Le v els	of	Lit er acy	Among	Slo v ene	S tudents	…	 1 79
Introduction
1
One	 of	 the	 conseq uences	 of	 t echnological	 de v elopment	 in	 the	 las t	 f e w	 de-
cades	 is	 that	 in	 or der	 f or	 y oung	 people	 t o	 become	 successful	 adults,	 the y	 need	 t o	
att ain	 or	 de v elop	 ne w	 kno wledge	 and	 s kills.	 The	 under s t anding	 that	 y oungs t er s	
do	 no t	 att ain	 kno wledge	 and	 s kills	 only	 at	 school	 or	 thr ough	 schoolw or k	 has	 been	
em p hasiz ed.	 In	 thi s	 r eg ar d, 	 a	 con cep tu al	 tr a nsiti on	 in	 the 	 per cep ti on	 of	 kn o w -
ledge	 in	 int er national	 s tudies	 is	 obser v ed,	 fr om	 e v aluating	 the	 kno wledge	 and 	
under s t anding	 of	 t opics	 in	 the	 cur ricula	 (e.g.,	 the	 TIMSS	 s tudy),	 t o	 e v aluating	
t h e 	 u n d e r s t a n d i n g 	 o f 	 b a s i c 	 p r i n c i p l e s 	 a n d 	 p r o c e s s e s 	 a n d 	 t h e 	 u s e 	 o f 	 k n o w l e d g e 	 a n d	
s k i l l s 	 i n 	 v a r i o u s 	 e v e r y - d a y 	 s i t u a t i o n s 	 ( e . g . , 	 t h e 	 P I S A 	 s t u d y ) 	 ( c f . 	 A s s e s s i n g 	 S c i e n t i f i c	
…	 2006;	 Co tič	 e t	 al.	 20 1 0;	 Def inition	 and	 Selection	 …	 2005;	 Mar k el j	 20 1 0).	 In	 the	
PIS A	 s tudy ,	 conduct ed	 b y	 the	 OE CD,	 lit er acy	 is	 no t	 under s t ood	 sim ply	 as	 being	
able	 t o	 r ead	 and	 writ e	 (Measuring	 S tudent	 Kno wledge	 …	 2000)	 and	 also	 no t	 as	 a	
q ualit y	 that	 an	 individual	 possesses	 or	 no t,	 but	 as	 a	 q ualit y	 that	 is	 de v eloped	 in	
v ar ying	 degr ees	 and	 whose	 incr ease	 can	 be	 assessed	 and	 measur ed	 fr om	 lo w	 t o	
high	lit er acy	(Salganik	200 1).
Inadeq uat e	 lit er acy	 is,	 on	 a	 social	 le v el,	 gener ally	 per ceiv ed	 as	 an	 obs t acle	 t o	
social	 and	 economic	 de v elopment,	 and	 w ar nings	 about	 the	 signif icance	 of	 lit er acy	
f o r 	 p e r s o n a l 	 d e v e l o p m e n t 	 a n d 	 t h e 	 s u c c e s s 	 o f 	 s o c i e t y 	 a r e 	 h i g h l i g h t e d 	 i n 	 t h e 	 f i n d i n g s	
o f 	 i n t e r n a t i o n a l 	 s t u d i e s 	 o n 	 i n a d e q u a t e 	 l i t e r a c y 	 ( G r o s m a n 	 2 0 1 0 ,	 p . 	 1 7 ; 	 c f . 	 T h e 	 H i g h	
Cos t	 …	 20 1 0).	 Hanushek	 and	 W oessmann	 f ind	 that	 int er national	 s tudies	 that 	
include	 dat a	 on	 the	 q ualit y	 of	 the	 lear ning	 achie v ements	 of	 a	 population	 r e v eal	
much	 lar ger	 s kill	 def icits	 in	 de v eloping	 countries	 than	 in	 de v eloped	 countries 	
than	 gener ally	 deriv ed	 fr om	 the	 number	 of	 y oungs t er s	 enr olled	 in	 education	 pr o-
gr ams	 and	 the	 number	 of	 y ear s	 a	 cer t ain	 population	 s pends	 att aining	 education	
(Hanushek	 and	 W oessmann	 2008,	 p.	 60 7).	 Of	 cour se,	 it	 is	 no t	 only	 im por t ant	 t o	
r each	 baseline	 pr of iciency ,	 it	 is	 also	 im por t ant	 t o	 att ain	 the	 highes t	 le v els.	 While	
1
	 Pr epar ation	 of	 this	 ar ticle	 w as	 a	 par t	 of	 the	 activities	 of	 the	 pr o ject	 “E v aluation	 and	 assur ance	 of	
the	 q ualit y	 in	 education	 and	 tr aining	 –	 E v aluation	 of	 the	 education	 on	 the	 basis	 of	 the	 int er nationally	
r ecogniz ed	 me thodologies”,	 that	 is	 cof inanced	 b y	 the	 Eur opean	 Social	 F und	 of	 the	 Eur opean	 U nion	
and	the	Minis tr y	of	Education	and	Spor ts	of	the	R epublic	of	Slo v enia.

1 80	 JOURN AL	OF	C ONTEMPORAR Y	EDUC A TION AL	S TUDIES	2/20 1 1	 M.	Štr aus,	N .	Mar k el j
the	 baseline	 le v el	 of	 lit er acy	 is	 per ceiv ed	 as	 im por t ant	 f or	 successful	 accep t ance	
and	 use	 of	 ne w	 t echnologies,	 a	 highly	 de v eloped	 lit er acy	 is	 cr ucial	 f or	 cr eating	
ne w	 kno wledge,	 t echnologies	 and	 inno v ations,	 and	 this	 is	 es pecially	 im por t ant	
f or	 countries	 wishing	 t o	 lead	 the	 w a y	 in	 t echnological	 de v elopment	 (T op	 of	 the	
Class	…	2009,	p.	1 8).
Of	 cour se	 w e	 canno t	 e xpect	 a	 1 5-y ear -old	 t o	 ha v e	 mas t er ed	 e v er ything	 he	 or	
she	 will	 need	 as	 an	 adult,	 since	 att aining	 lit er acy	 is	 a	 lif elong	 pr ocess	 (Measuring	
S tudent	 Kno wledge	 …	 2000).	 Ho w e v er ,	 it	 mak es	 sense	 t o	 e xpect	 some	 baseline	
kno wledge	 and	 s kills	 in	 ar eas	 such	 as	 r eading,	 mathematics	 and	 science,	 in	 or der	
t o	 incr ease	 kno wledge	 in	 these	 ar eas	 and	 help	 s tudents	 use	 this	 kno wledge	 in	
situations	 outside	 the	 cont e xt	 of	 the	 school	 cur riculum	 (cf.	 Assessing	 Scientif ic	 …	
2006;	 PIS A	 2009	 Assessment	 …	 2009).	 It	 is	 r easonable	 t o	 e xpect	 that	 kno wledge	
a n d 	 s k i l l s 	 a r e 	 n o t 	 o n l y 	 a t t a i n e d 	 i n 	 s c h o o l 	 o r 	 i n 	 o t h e r 	 f o r m s 	 o f 	 f o r m a l 	 e d u c a t i o n , 	 b u t	
ar e	 also	 att ained	 outside	 the	 school	 en vir onment	 thr ough	 cont acts	 within	 f amily ,	
p e e r s 	 a n d 	 s o c i e t y 	 i n 	 g e n e r a l . 	 H o w e v e r , 	 t h e 	 e d u c a t i o n 	 s y s t e m 	 c e r t a i n l y 	 r e m a i n s 	 t h e	
p r i m a r y 	 m e c h a n i s m 	 w i t h 	 w h i c h 	 w e 	 t r y 	 t o 	 i m p r o v e 	 t h e 	 l e v e l 	 o f 	 l i t e r a c y 	 i n 	 y o u n g s t e r s	
thr ough	 se tting	 goals,	 s t andar ds	 and	 appr oaches	 t o	 t eaching.	 In	 this	 r egar d,	 the	
r esults	 of	 lit er acy	 s tudies,	 such	 as	 PIS A ,	 can	 in	 a	 par ticular	 segment	 be	 vie w ed	
as	 achie v ements	 that	 ar e	 signif icantly	 co-de t er mined	 b y	 the	 education	 sy s t em.
T h e r e 	 a r e 	 m a n y 	 d i f f e r e n t 	 p e r c e p t i o n s 	 o f 	 e d u c a t i o n a l 	 a c h i e v e m e n t s , 	 w h i c h 	 d e r i v e	
f r o m 	 d i f f e r e n t 	 p e r c e p t i o n s 	 o f 	 t h e 	 a i m s 	 a n d 	 g o a l s 	 o f 	 e d u c a t i o n 	 s y s t e m s . 	 V a r i o u s 	 s k i l l s	
and	 kno wledge	 ar e	 of t en	 pr esent ed	 as	 achie v ements,	 the	 under s t anding	 of	 which	
changes	 cons t antly	 –	 fr om	 tr aditional	 t o	 cons tr uctivis t	 per cep tions	 of	 kno wledge	
(Ul jens	 1 99 7).	 Education	 sy s t ems	 ha v e	 alw a y s	 s triv ed	 t o	 f or m	 o ther	 q ualities	 in	
s tudents: 	 fr om	 lear ning 	 habits, 	 mo tiv ation, 	 attitude, 	 mor al	 and	 e thical 	 princi -
ples	 t o	 the	 de v elopment	 of	 per sonalit y	 (e.g.	 Gogala	 1 966;	 P ol jak	 1 99 1;	 S tr mčnik	
200 1;	 Šilih	 1 96 1).	 Ther e	 has	 been	 an	 under s t anding	 in	 r ecent	 e xper t	 lit er atur e	
of	 achie v ements	 as	 a	 par tial	 int egr ation	 of	 kno wledge	 with	 all,	 or	 at	 leas t	 some,	
of	 the	 af or ementioned	 char act eris tics	 of	 an	 individual	 under	 the	 common	 t er m	
of	 com pe t ence	 (e.g.,	 Laf ont aine	 200 4;	 Mar k el j	 20 1 0;	 Medv eš	 200 4;	 P eschar	 200 4;	
R y chen	200 4;	R y chen	and	Salganik	2003;	Salganik	200 1).
The	 tr ansf er	 of	 em phasis	 fr om	 kno wledge	 t o	 com pe t ence	 is	 e vident	 when	 w e	
com pare	 the	 assessment	 designs	 and	 operationalization	 of	 the	 signif icance	 of	 educa-
t i o n a l 	 a c h i e v e m e n t s 	 i n 	 t h e 	 T I M S S 	 a n d 	 P I S A 	 s t u d i e s . 	 T h e 	 T I M S S 	 2 0 0 7 	 f r a m e w o r k s	
(Mullis	 e t	 al.	 2005,	 pp.	 4-5)	 em phasiz e	 the	 connection	 with	 pr e vious	 s tudies,	 the	
f ir s t	of	which	w as	FIMS	(Fir s t	Int er national	Mathematics	S tudy)	(Hus én	1 96 7).	
In	 TIMSS,	 the	 cur riculum	 in	 its	 br oader	 sense	 r epr esents	 the	 basic	 concep tual	
fr ame w or k	 t o	 help	 us	 decide	 ho w	 oppor tunities	 f or	 education	 ar e	 r elat ed	 t o	 o ther	
f act or s	 and	 ho w	 s tudents	 t ak e	 adv ant age	 of	 these	 oppor tunities.	 TIMSS	 achie v e-
ment	 t es ts	 ar e	 ther ef or e	 f or med	 in	 close	 connection	 with	 the	 national	 cur ricula	 of	
the	 par ticipating	 countries.	 On	 the	 o ther	 hand,	 the	 PIS A	 s tudy’ s	 f ocus	 is	 no t	 on	
the	 assessment	 of	 att ainment	 of	 the	 national	 cur ricula	 goals	 but	 the	 kno wledge	
and	 s kills	 that	 1 5-y ear -olds	 need	 f or	 the	 futur e	 and	 att em p ts	 t o	 collect	 dat a	 on	
ho w	 y oungs t er s	 use	 this	 kno wledge	 and	 s kills	 (Assessing	 Scientif ic	 …	 2006,	 p.	 7).	
E v aluations	 of	 kno wledge	 and	 s kills	 ar e	 supposed	 sho w	 the	 abilit y	 of	 y oungs t er s	

A tt ainment	of	Baseline	and	Highes t	Le v els	of	Lit er acy	Among	Slo v ene	S tudents	…	 181
t o	 continue	 per manent	 lear ning,	 ho w	 the y	 use	 the	 kno wledge	 acq uir ed	 in	 school	
in	 a	 non-school	 en vir onment,	 and	 e v aluat e	 their	 com pe t ency	 t o	 mak e	 decisions.	
Ther ef or e,	 dat a	 collection	 f or	 the	 PIS A	 s tudy	 is	 no t	 limit ed	 b y	 the	 national	 cur ri-
cula	 of	 the	 par ticipating	 countries	 and	 the	 t er m	 lit er acy	 is	 used	 f or	 the	 e v aluat ed	
kno wledge	and	s kills.
The definition of the research problem and research questions
The	 r ecent	 publication	 of	 the	 PISA	 2009	 s tudy	 r esults,	 which	 point	 t o	 signif i-
cantly	 lo w er	 r esults	 in	 r eading	 lit er acy	 of	 1 5-y ear -old	 Slo v ene	 s tudents	 com par ed	
with	 1 5-y ear -olds	 fr om	 o ther	 countries	 (OE CD	 PIS A	 …	 20 1 0),	 opened	 a	 debat e	 in	
v arious	 daily	 ne w s paper s	 (e.g.,	 Iv el ja	 20 1 0;	 Žis t	 20 1 0;	 Žolnir	 and	 Kr amžar	 20 1 0).	
While	 the	 a v er age	 achie v ements	 of	 1 5-y ear -old	 Slo v ene	 s tudents	 in	 the	 areas 	
of	 mathematical	 and	 scientif ic	 lit er acy	 w er e	 abo v e	 the	 a v er age	 of	 the	 OE CD	 in	
2006	 as	 w ell	 as	 in	 2009,	 and	 achie v ements	 in	 the	 ar ea	 of	 r eading	 lit er acy	 in	 2006	
w er e	 abo v e	 the	 a v er age	 of	 the	 OE CD	 in	 2006.	 In	 2009,	 when	 r eading	 lit er acy	 w as	
mor e	 thor oughly	 e v aluat ed	 with	 tw o	 thir ds	 of	 it ems	 being	 r eading	 lit er acy	 it ems,	
a c h i e v e m e n t s 	 w e r e 	 b e l o w 	 t h e 	 a v e r a g e 	 o f 	 t h e 	 O E C D 	 ( P I S A 	 2 0 0 6 	 … 	 2 0 0 7 , 	 P I S A 	 2 0 0 9	
R esults	 …	 20 1 0).	 The	 r esults	 in	 2009	 ar e	 the	 conseq uence	 of	 lo w er	 achie v ements	
com par ed	 with	 r esults	 in	 2006	 in	 it ems	 that	 w er e	 pr esent	 in	 bo th	 r eading	 lit er acy	
achie v ement	 t es ts,	 as	 w ell	 as	 lo w er	 achie v ements	 of	 1 5-y ear -old	 Slo v ene	 s tudents	
in	 com parison	 with	 peer s	 fr om	 o ther	 countries	 in	 a	 higher	 number	 of	 ne w	 it ems	
in	2009	(PIS A	2006	Dat abase	…	200 7;	PIS A	2009	Dat abase	…	20 1 0).
Ther ef or e,	 it	 mak es	 sense	 t o	 pa y	 additional	 att ention	 t o	 the	 achie v ements	 of	
S l o v e n e 	 s t u d e n t s , 	 e s p e c i a l l y 	 i n 	 t h e 	 a r e a 	 o f 	 r e a d i n g 	 l i t e r a c y . 	 I n 	 t h i s 	 a r t i c l e , 	 r e a d i n g	
lit er acy	 is	 tr eat ed	 in	 connection	 with	 mathematical	 and	 scientif ic	 lit er acy .	 F or	
a	 mor e	 thor ough	 under s t anding	 of	 att aining	 the	 baseline	 and	 highes t	 le v els	 of	
lit er acy	 in	 Slo v enia,	 it	 is	 im por t ant	 t o	 r esear ch	 the	 int er connect edness	 of	 r eading	
l i t e r a c y 	 w i t h 	 m a t h e m a t i c a l 	 a n d 	 s c i e n t i f i c 	 l i t e r a c y 	 f o r 	 a t 	 l e a s t 	 t w o 	 r e a s o n s . 	 F i r s t l y ,	
although	 the	 r ole	 of	 language	 in	 scientif ic	 lit er acy	 is	 assessed	 on	 under s t anding	
science	 q ues tions,	 cr eating	 and	 att aining	 ne w	 science	 kno wledge,	 making	 e xpla-
nations	 and	 e vidence	 based	 decision	 making	 is	 of t en	 no t	 e xplicitly	 em phasiz ed,	
the	 cor r elation	 be tw een	 scientif ic	 lit er acy	 and	 mathematical	 and	 r eading	 lit e-
r acy	 is	 e vident	 (Y or e	 e t	 al.	 200 7).	 Similar ly ,	 M.	 Co tič,	 F elda	 and	 A .	 Žak el j	 s t at e	
that	 without	 a	 highly	 de v eloped	 r eading	 lit er acy ,	 s tudents	 f ind	 it	 im possible,	 or	
v er y	 har d,	 t o	 demons tr at e	 their	 mathematic	 abilities	 (Co tič	 e t	 al.	 20 1 0,	 p.	 2 78).	
Similar	 r esults	 can	 be	 f ound	 in	 the	 PIS A	 s tudy ,	 when	 in	 2009,	 f or	 e xam ple,	 the	
cor r elation	 be tw een	 r eading	 and	 mathematical	 lit er acy	 in	 the	 achie v ements	 of	
1 5-y ear -old	 Slo v ene	 s tudents	 w as	 0.8 4,	 and	 the	 cor r elation	 be tw een	 r eading	 and	
scientif ic	 lit er acy	 and	 mathematical	 and	 scientif ic	 lit er acy	 w as	 0.88	 (PIS A	 2009	
D a ta b a s e 	 … 	 2 0 1 0 ) . 	 S e c o n d l y , 	 b a s i c 	 n a t i o n a l 	 a c h i e v e m e n t 	 r e s u l t s 	 i n 	 t h e 	 P I S A 	 2 0 0 9	
s tudy	sho w	that	1 5-y ear -old	Slo v ene	s tudents	who	ar e	high-achie v er s	in	r eading	
l i t e r a c y 	 a r e 	 a l s o 	 h i g h l y 	 m a t h e m a t i c a l l y 	 a n d 	 s c i e n t i f i c a l l y 	 l i t e r a t e 	 ( O E C D 	 P I S A …	
20 1 0,	p.	39).	

1 82	 JOURN AL	OF	C ONTEMPORAR Y	EDUC A TION AL	S TUDIES	2/20 1 1	 M.	Štr aus,	N .	Mar k el j
In	 gener al,	 the	 q ues tion	 of	 the	 def inition	 and	 w a y s	 of	 att aining	 high	 le v els	 of	
l i t e r a c y 	 i n 	 u p p e r - s e c o n d a r y 	 e d u c a t i o n 	 p r o g r a m s 	 i n 	 S l o v e n i a 	 h a s 	 n o 	 d i r e c t 	 o r 	 s i m p l e	
answ er	 and	 the	 PIS A	 s tudy	 has	 r eceiv ed	 some	 criticism	 (Bonder upDohn	 200 7;	
Mur ph y	 20 1 0;	 T opping	 e t	 al.	 2003).	 Ho w e v er ,	 due	 t o	 the	 int er national	 att ention	
it	 r eceiv ed,	 the	 PIS A	 s tudy	 pr esents	 an	 im por t ant	 s t ar ting	 point	 f or	 r esear ching	
the	 achie v ements	 of	 s tudents	 and	 f or	 sear ching	 f or	 w a y s	 of	 im pr o ving	 the	 q ualit y	
of	 the	 education	 sy s t em.	 PIS A	 is	 the	 only	 s tudy	 in	 Slo v enia	 that	 enables	 int er -
national	 com par abilit y	 of	 the	 population	 ent ering	 the	 Slo v ene	 upper -secondar y	
e d u c a t i o n 	 s y s t e m 	 a n d 	 g y m n a s i a 	 p r o g r a m s , 	 s i n c e 	 t h e 	 v a s t 	 m a j o r i t y 	 ( a p p r o x i m a t e l y	
9 0 % ) 	 o f 	 1 5 - y e a r - o l d s 	 i n 	 S l o v e n i a 	 a r e 	 e n r o l l e d 	 i n 	 t h e 	 f i r s t 	 g r a d e 	 o f 	 u p p e r - s e c o n d a r y	
e d u c a t i o n 	 p r o g r a m s . 	 A t 	 t h e 	 s a m e 	 t i m e , 	 t h e 	 s t u d y 	 c o v e r s 	 t h r e e 	 d o m a i n s 	 o f 	 l i t e r a c y ,	
so	that	w e	can	in v es tigat e	their	int er connect edness	in	de t ail.
The	 dat a	 on	 att aining	 baseline	 and	 highes t	 le v els	 of	 lit er acy	 among	 1 5-y ear -
old	 Slo v ene	 s tudents	 in	 the	 PIS A	 s tudy	 at	 the	 national	 le v el,	 and	 in	 com parison	
with	 o ther	 countries,	 can	 be	 f ound	 in	 int er national	 and	 national	 r epor ts	 (PIS A	
2006	 …	 200 7a;	 PIS A	 2009	 R esults	 …	 20 1 0;	 OE CD	 PIS A	 …	 20 1 0).	 In	 this	 ar ticle,	
w e	 will	 analyz e 	 the	 dat a	 in	 mor e	 de t ail	 accor ding	 t o	 v arious 	 upper -secondar y 	 edu-
cation	 pr ogr ams	 in	 Slo v enia.	 W e	 ar e	 int er es t ed	 in	 the	 per cent age	 of	 1 5-y ear -old	
s tudents	 who	 att ained	 the	 highes t	 le v els	 of	 r eading,	 scientif ic	 and	 mathematical	
lit er acy ,	 individually	 or	 in	 se v er al	 domains	 simult aneously ,	 and	 the	 per cent age	
of	 1 5-y ear -old	 s tudents	 who	 did	 no t	 r each	 the	 baseline	 pr of iciency	 le v els	 in	 those	
domains.	W e	shall	in v es tigat e	the	f ollo wing	r esear ch	q ues tions:
1 .	 A t t a i n i n g 	 t h e 	 h i g h e s t 	 l e v e l s : 	 W h a t 	 p e r c e n t a g e 	 o f 	 1 5 - y e a r - o l d 	 S l o v e n e 	 s t u d e n t s	
in	 the	 f ir s t	 gr ade	 of	 upper -secondar y	 education	 pr ogr ams	 att ain	 the	 highes t	
le v els	 of	 r eading,	 mathematical	 and	 scientif ic	 lit er acy	 in	 the	 PIS A	 2006	 and	
PIS A	2009	s tudies?	Ar e	ther e	signif icant	gender	dif f er ences?
2.	 A tt aining	 baseline	 le v els:	 What	 per cent age	 of	 1 5-y ear -old	 Slo v ene	 s tudents	
in	 the	 f ir s t	 gr ade	 of	 upper -secondar y	 education	 pr ogr ams	 did	 no t	 att ain	 the	
baseline	 le v els	 of	 r eading,	 mathematical	 and	 scientif ic	 lit er acy	 in	 the	 PIS A	
2006	and	PIS A	2009	s tudies?	Ar e	ther e	signif icant	gender	dif f er ences?
O n e 	 c o n s e q u e n c e 	 o f 	 t h e 	 d i f f e r e n t 	 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 	 a n d 	 g o a l s 	 o f 	 u p p e r - s e c o n d a r y	
education	 pr ogr ams	 is	 that	 ther e	 ar e	 dif f er ent	 e xpect ations	 about	 att aining	 the	
l e v e l s 	 o f 	 s t u d e n t 	 l i t e r a c y 	 i n 	 t h o s e 	 p r o g r a m s . 	 I t 	 i s 	 r e a s o n a b l e 	 t o 	 e x p e c t 	 t h a t 	 s t u d e n t s	
of	 gymnasia	 pr ogr ams	 will	 att ain	 the	 highes t	 le v els	 in	 a	 bigger	 pr opor tion	 than	
s tudents	 enr olled	 in	 o ther	 pr ogr ams.	 It	 is	 also	 r easonable	 t o	 e xpect	 that	 a	 higher	
p r o p o r t i o n 	 o f 	 s t u d e n t s	 e n r o l l e d 	 i n 	 v o c a t i o n a l 	 p r o g r a m s 	 w i l l 	 n o t 	 r e a c h 	 t h e 	 b a s e l i n e	
le v els	 of	 lit er acy ,	 com par ed	 with	 s tudents	 enr olled	 in	 o ther	 education	 pr ogr ams,	
accor ding	 t o	 the	 PISA	 s tudy .	 In	 the	 process	 of	 tr ansition	 from	 elementar y	 t o	 upper -
s e c o n d a r y 	 e d u c a t i o n , 	 s t u d e n t s 	 e n r o l l 	 i n t o 	 p r o g r a m s 	 p r i m a r i l y 	 o n 	 t h e 	 b a s i s 	 o f 	 t h e i r	
o wn	 choice.	 W e	 can	 assume	 that	 these	 choices	 ar e	 made	 within	 a	 com ple x	 sy s t em	
of	 back gr ound	 f act or s,	 that	 includes,	 f or	 e xam ple,	 s tudents’	 gr ades	 in	 element ar y	
s c h o o l , 	 t h e i r 	 h o m e 	 b a c k g r o u n d , 	 t h e i r 	 a t t i t u d e s 	 t o 	 i n d i v i d u a l 	 s u b j e c t s 	 a n d 	 t o 	 s c h o o l	
w or k	 in	 gener al,	 and	 o ther	 similar	 f act or s.	 Ther ef or e	 it	 mak es	 sense	 t o	 look	 at	

A tt ainment	of	Baseline	and	Highes t	Le v els	of	Lit er acy	Among	Slo v ene	S tudents	…	 1 83
the	 e xpect ations	 of	 att aining	 baseline	 and	 the	 highes t	 le v els	 of	 lit er acy	 in	 light	
of	 the	 dat a	 fr om	 bo th	 PIS A	 assessment	 s tudies	 in	 which	 Slo v enia	 par ticipat ed,	
PIS A	2006	and	PIS A	2009.
The	 r esults	 of	 the	 analy sis	 of	 r eading,	 scientif ic	 and	 mathematical	 lit er acy	
of	 1 5-y ear -old	 Slo v ene	 s tudents	 at	 the	 beginning	 of	 upper -secondar y	 education	
can	 of f er	 an	 im por t ant	 basis	 f or	 planning	 pedagogical	 appr oaches	 t o	 their	 fur ther	
education.	 The	 r esults	 of	 the	 analy sis	 cer t ainly	 do	 no t	 solv e	 all	 the	 intricat e	 pr o-
b l e m s 	 o f 	 l i t e r a c y 	 d e v e l o p m e n t , 	 h o w e v e r , 	 t h e y 	 d o 	 o f f e r 	 a 	 f r a m e w o r k , 	 w h i c h 	 h e l p s 	 u s	
i n v e s t i g a t e 	 t h e 	 p o p u l a t i o n 	 e n t e r i n g 	 S l o v e n e 	 u p p e r - s e c o n d a r y 	 e d u c a t i o n 	 p r o g r a m s .	
It	 is	 per haps	 im por t ant	 t o	 em phasiz e	 that	 the	 achie v ements	 of	 1 5-y ear -old	 Slo-
v ene	 s tudents	 on	 the	 achie v ement	 scale	 in	 the	 PIS A	 s tudy	 do	 no t	 r ef lect	 the	 (un)
successfulness	 of	 pedagogical	 w or k	 of	 the	 upper -secondar y	 pr ogr ams	 that	 those	
1 5 - y e a r - o l d s 	 a t t e n d , 	 a s 	 m u c h 	 a s 	 t h e y 	 r e f l e c t 	 t h e 	 ( u n ) s u c c e s s f u l n e s s 	 o f 	 t h e i r 	 f o r m e r	
f or mal	 or	 non-f or mal	 education,	 t oge ther	 with	 o ther	 f act or s	 that	 ar e	 connect ed	
with	the	de v elopment	of	lit er acy .
Description of data and methods of work
T o	 analyz e	 the	 att ainment	 of	 baseline	 and	 highes t	 le v els	 of	 lit er acy	 among	
1 5-y ear -old	 Slo v ene	 s tudents	 w e	 will	 use	 the	 dat abase	 in	 the	 int er national	 PIS A	
s tudies	 fr om	 2006	 and	 2009,	 when	 Slo v enia	 also	 par ticipat ed	 in	 the	 s tudies.	 The	
e x e c u t i o n 	 o f 	 P I S A 	 s t u d i e s 	 a d h e r e s 	 t o 	 s t r i c t 	 i n t e r n a t i o n a l 	 t e c h n i c a l 	 s t a n d a r d s	
t h a t 	 t h e 	 P I S A 	 i n t e r n a t i o n a l 	 c e n t e r 	 m o n i t o r s 	 w i t h 	 v a r i o u s 	 q u a l i t y 	 a s s u r a n c e	
mechanisms,	 such	 as	 an	 independent	 v erif ication	 of	 tr anslation,	 the	 high	 le v el	 of	
sam ple	 r es ponse,	 on-sit e	 int er national	 monit oring	 of	 assessment	 and	 it em-bias	
analy sis.	 The	 pr epar ation	 pr ocedur es	 and	 the	 scope	 of	 v alidit y	 of	 the	 PIS A	 s tudy	
dat a	 ar e	 described	 in	 de t ail	 in	 int er national	 documents	 such	 as	 the	 r epor t	 of	 the	
pr o ject	 “Def inition	 and	 Selection	 of	 Com pe t encies”	 (Def inition	 and	 Selection …	
2005),	 the	 T echnical	 R epor t	 (PIS A	 2006	 T echnical	 …	 2009)	 and	 the	 Assessment	
F r ame w or ks	(Assessing	Scientif ic	…	2006).	
Int er national	 t echnical	 s t andar ds	 s pecify	 that	 the	 sam ple	 of	 1 5-y ear -olds	 in	
each	 countr y	 needs	 t o	 be	 r epr esent ativ e	 of	 the	 t o t al	 population	 of	 1 5-y ear -olds	
included	 in	 education,	 r egar dless	 of	 their	 gr ade	 or	 education	 pr ogr am.	 The	 Slo-
v ene	 sam ples	 of	 1 5-y ear -old	 s tudents	 in	 PIS A	 2006	 and	 2009	 com ply	 with	 these	
s t andar ds,	 which	 is	 e vident	 fr om	 the	 f act	 that	 the	 achie v ements	 of	 the	 Slo v ene	
s tudents	 ar e	 included	 in	 the	 int er national	 r epor ts	 (PIS A	 2006	 …	 200 7a,	 PIS A	
2009	 R esults	 …	 20 1 0).	 Because	 the	 majorit y	 of	 1 5-y ear -old	 s tudents	 in	 Slo v enia	
att end	 upper -secondar y	 education	 pr ogr ams	 that	 dif f er	 in	 design	 and	 ob jectiv es,	
the	 sam ple	 w as	 designed	 t o	 be	 represent ativ e	 within	 subgroups	 of	 1 5-y ear -old	 s tu-
dents	 in	 the	 individual	 education	 pr ogr ams.	 S tudents	 who	 att end	 the	 f ir s t	 gr ade	
o f 	 u p p e r - s e c o n d a r y 	 p r o g r a m s 	 a n d 	 a r e 	 n o t 	 1 5 - y e a r s - o l d 	 a r e 	 n o t 	 i n c l u d e d 	 i n 	 t h e	
PIS A	 s tudy	 (the	 per cent age	 of	 such	 s tudents	 is	 r elativ ely	 lo w ,	 e.g.,	 9.4%	 in	 2006).	
O n 	 t h e 	 o t h e r 	 h a n d , 	 1 5 - y e a r - o l d 	 s t u d e n t s 	 w h o 	 e i t h e r 	 s t i l l 	 a t t e n d 	 e l e m e n t a r y - s c h o o l	
pr ogr ams,	 pr ogr ams	 f or	 y ouths	 or	 pr ogr ams	 f or	 adults	 ar e	 also	 included	 in	 the	

18 4 	 JOURN AL	OF	C ONTEMPORAR Y	EDUC A TION AL	S TUDIES	2/20 1 1	 M.	Štr aus,	N .	Mar k el j
s t u d y . 	 T h o s e 	 t w o 	 g r o u p s 	 o f 	 1 5 - y e a r - o l d s 	 a r e 	 r e l a t i v e l y 	 s m a l l 	 ( i n 	 2 0 0 6 	 t h e y 	 t o g e t h e r	
r epr esent ed	 3.7%	 of	 the	 population	 of	 1 5-y ear -olds)	 and	 ar e	 no t	 r epr esent ativ e	 of	
the	 t o t al	 population	 of	 s tudents	 in	 element ar y	 school	 pr ogr ams	 f or	 y ouths	 and	
adults,	 and	 ar e	 ther ef or e	 no t	 par t	 of	 a	 mor e	 de t ailed	 analy sis	 pr esent ed	 in	 this	
a r t i c l e . 	 A n a l y s i s 	 a n d 	 r e s u l t s 	 i n 	 t h i s 	 a r t i c l e 	 t h e r e f o r e 	 o n l y 	 r e f e r 	 t o 	 1 5 - y e a r - o l d s	
att ending	the	f ir s t	gr ade	of	upper -secondar y	pr ogr ams.	
Characteristics of the sample
U p p e r - s e c o n d a r y 	 e d u c a t i o n 	 p r o g r a m s 	 i n 	 S l o v e n i a 	 a r e 	 s t r u c t u r e d 	 i n t o 	 s e v e r a l	
pr ogr ams	 (Seznam	 ja vno	 v el ja vnih	 …	 2009).	 Ho w e v er ,	 in	 this	 ar ticle	 w e	 only	 look	
a t 	 a 	 n a r r o w 	 s e l e c t i o n 	 o f 	 t h e s e 	 p r o g r a m s , 	 n a m e l y 	 t h o s e 	 i n t o 	 w h i c h 	 1 5 - y e a r - o l d s 	 a r e	
enr olled:	 lo w er	 v ocational	 pr ogr ams	 (NPI),	 secondar y	 v ocational	 pr ogr ams	 (SPI),	
s e c o n d a r y 	 t e c h n i c a l 	 a n d 	 p r o f e s s i o n a l 	 p r o g r a m s 	 ( S T S I ) , 	 p r o f e s s i o n a l 	 g y m n a s i a	
pr ogr ams	 (S TR OK	 GIM)	 and	 gener al	 and	 classical	 gymnasia	 pr ogr ams	 (GIM).	
A f t e r 	 t h e 	 e x c l u s i o n 	 o f 	 t h o s e 	 s t u d e n t s 	 f r o m 	 t h e 	 s a m p l e 	 w h o 	 d i d 	 n o t 	 f i t 	 t h e 	 d e s c r i b e d	
c r i t e r i a , 	 6 , 2 2 4 	 s t u d e n t s 	 w e r e 	 i n c l u d e d 	 i n 	 t h e 	 d a ta 	 a n a l y s i s 	 o f 	 t h e 	 P I S A 	 2 0 0 6 	 s t u d y	
(45.7%	 f emale	 s tudents	 and	 5 4.3%	 male	 s tudents),	 out	 of	 which	 2 1 .4%	 of	 s tudents	
att ended	 gener al	 and	 classical	 gymnasia	 pr ogr ams,	 1 2.6%	 att ended	 pr of essional	
gymnasia	 pr ogr ams,	 35.7%	 att ended	 secondar y	 t echnical	 and	 pr of essional	 pr o-
gr ams,	 26.9%	 att ended	 secondar y	 v ocational	 pr ogr ams	 and	 3.3%	 att ended	 lo w er	
v ocational	 pr ogr ams.	 Ther e	 w er e	 5,799	 s tudents	 who	 w er e	 included	 in	 the	 PIS A	
2009	 s tudy	 (45.5%	 f emale	 s tudent s	 and	 5 4.5%	 male	 s tudent s),	 out	 of	 whic h	 23.4%	
of	 s tudents	 att ended	 gener al	 and	 classical	 gymnasia	 pr ogr ams,	 1 1 .5%	 att ended	
prof essional	 gymnasia	 progr ams,	 38.4%	 att ended	 secondar y	 t echnical	 and	 prof es-
s i o n a l 	 p r o g r a m s , 	 2 4 . 0 % 	 a t t e n d e d 	 s e c o n d a r y 	 v o c a t i o n a l 	 p r o g r a m s 	 a n d 	 2 . 7 % 	 a t t e n d e d	
lo w er	v ocational	pr ogr ams.
Statistical analysis
The	 ar ticle	 f ocuses	 on	 the	 char act eris tics	 of	 att aining	 the	 baseline	 (Le v el	 2)	
and	 highes t	 le v els	 (Le v els	 5	 and	 6)	 of	 pr of iciency	 on	 the	 scales	 of	 r eading,	 mathe-
matics	 and	 scientif ic	 pr of iciency	 in	 the	 PIS A	 s tudy	 among	 1 5-y ear -old	 Slo v ene	
s tudents.	 F or	 an	 easy	 o v er vie w ,	 w e	 pr esent	 the	 r esults	 of	 the	 pr of iciency	 scales	 of	
the	 PIS A	 s tudy	 in	 thr ee	 cat egories:	 a	 lo w	 achie v ement	 is	 an	 achie v ement	 belo w	
the	 baseline	 le v el	 (Le v el	 2)	 of	 lit er acy ,	 a	 high	 achie v ement	 is	 Le v els	 5	 or	 6,	 and	
the	r emaining	achie v ements	ar e	t er med	a v er age	achie v ements.	
T o	 analyz e	 the	 dat a,	 w e	 used	 the	 SPSS	 application	 and	 a	 s pecial	 module,	
“R eplicat es”	 that	 enabled	 the	 calculation	 of	 s t atis tical	 par ame t er s	 and	 their	 po-
pulation	es timat es	with	the	analy sis	of	plausible	v alues.

A tt ainment	of	Baseline	and	Highes t	Le v els	of	Lit er acy	Among	Slo v ene	S tudents	…	 1 85
Results
2
In	 this	 section,	 w e	 pr esent	 r esults	 of	 the	 achie v ement	 analy sis	 of	 1 5-y ear -
o l d 	 S l o v e n e 	 s t u d e n t s 	 e n r o l l e d 	 i n 	 t h e 	 f i r s t 	 g r a d e 	 o f 	 u p p e r - s e c o n d a r y 	 e d u c a t i o n	
progr ams	 accor ding	 t o	 individual	 education	 progr ams	 f or	 all	 thr ee	 domains	 of 	
lit er acy .	 T able	 1	 pr esents	 the	 per cent ages	 of	 s tudents	 in	 the	 thr ee	 cat egories	 of	
a c h i e v e m e n t s 	 ( l o w , 	 a v e r a g e 	 a n d 	 h i g h ) 	 a n d 	 t h e 	 i n d i v i d u a l 	 i n t e r s e c t i o n s 	 o f 	 t h e 	 t h r e e	
lit er acy	domains.
On	 the	 basis	 of	 bo th	 PIS A	 s tudies	 (2006	 and	 2009),	 w e	 conclude	 that	 mor e	
than	 half	 of	 Slo v ene	 upper -secondar y	 pr ogr am	 s tudents	 att ain	 a v er age	 r esults	
in	 all	 thr ee	 domains	 combined	 (58. 1%	 in	 2006	 and	 55.2%	 in	 2009;	 T able	 1).	 The	
h i g h e s t 	 l e v e l s 	 o f 	 l i t e r a c y 	 i n 	 a t 	 l e a s t 	 o n e 	 d o m a i n 	 w e r e 	 a t t a i n e d 	 b y 	 1 7 . 2 % 	 o f 	 s t u d e n t s	
in	 2006	 and	 1 6.4%	 in	 2009.	 The	 highes t	 le v els	 in	 r eading	 lit er acy	 w er e	 att ained	
b y	 be tw een	 4	 and	 5%	 of	 s tudents	 (4.8%	 in	 2006	 and	 4.2%	 in	 2009),	 in	 mathematic	
l i t e r a c y 	 b y 	 b e t w e e n 	 1 2 	 a n d 	 1 4 % 	 o f 	 s t u d e n t s 	 ( 1 2 . 6 % 	 i n 	 2 0 0 6 	 a n d 	 1 4 . 0 % 	 i n 	 2 0 0 9 ) , 	 a n d	
in	 scientif ic	 lit er acy	 b y	 be tw een	 9	 and	 1 3%	 of	 s tudents	 (1 2.4%	 in	 2006	 and	 9.8%	
in	 2009).
3
	 It	 is	 e vident	 that	 be tw een	 the	 tw o	 assessments,	 the	 per cent ages	 did	 no t	
signif icantly	 change	 in	 r eading	 lit er acy ,	 wher eas	 in	 mathematical	 and	 scientif ic	
lit er acy ,	 one	 can	 no tice	 a	 s t atis tically	 signif icant	 decr ease	 in	 the	 per cent age	 of	
s tudents	att aining	the	highes t	le v els.
On	 the	 o ther	 hand,	 appr o ximat ely	 one	 sixth	 of	 1 5-y ear -old	 Slo v ene	 s tudents	
did	 no t	 att ain	 the	 baseline	 le v els	 of	 r eading,	 mathematical	 and	 scientif ic	 lit er acy	
and	 the	 bes t	 r esults	 can	 be	 f ound	 in	 the	 domain	 of	 scientif ic	 lit er acy	 (1 6.0%	 of	
s t u d e n t s 	 i n 	 2 0 0 6 	 a n d 	 2 1 . 4 % 	 i n 	 2 0 0 9 	 i n 	 r e a d i n g 	 l i te r a c y , 	 1 7 . 1 % 	 i n 	 2 0 0 6 	 a n d 	 2 0 . 0 % 	 i n	
2009	 in	 mathematical	 lit er acy ,	 and	 1 3. 1%	 in	 2006	 and	 1 5.0%	 in	 2009	 in	 scientif ic	
lit er acy).	 Appr o ximat ely	 a	 q uar t er	 of	 s tudents	 (2 4.6%	 in	 2006	 and	 28.4%	 in	 2009)	
had	pr oblems	att aining	the	baseline	le v el	in	at	leas t	one	domain.	
Ther e	 w as	 a	 s t atis tically	 signif icant	 incr ease	 fr om	 2006	 t o	 2009	 of	 1 5-y ear -
olds	 who	 did	 no t	 att ain	 the	 baseline	 le v el	 in	 all	 thr ee	 lit er acy	 domains,	 with	 the	
bigges t	 incr ease	 in	 r eading	 lit er acy ,	 a	 smaller	 incr ease	 in	 mathematical	 lit er acy	
and	 the	 smalles t	 incr ease	 in	 scientif ic	 lit er acy .	 Ho w e v er ,	 these	 incr eases	 did	 no t	
r e f l e c t 	 i n 	 t h e 	 a v e r a g e 	 a c h i e v e m e n t s 	 o f 	 1 5 - y e a r - o l d 	 S l o v e n e 	 s t u d e n t s 	 b e t w e e n 	 2 0 0 6	
and	 2009.	 In	 the	 a v er age	 assessment	 achie v ements	 in	 mathematical	 lit er acy	 in	
2 0 0 6 	 a n d 	 2 0 0 9 	 r e s p e c t i v e l y , 	 t h e r e 	 i s 	 n o 	 s t a t i s t i c a l l y 	 s i g n i f i c a n t 	 d i f f e r e n c e , 	 h o w e v e r ,	
in	 scientif ic	 lit er acy	 the	 a v er age	 achie v ement	 w as	 7	 scor e	 points	 lo w er	 than	 the	
a v er age	 assessment	 achie v ement	 in	 2006,	 and	 the	 r eading	 lit er acy	 assessment	
achie v ement	w as	1 1	points	lo w er	(OE CD	PIS A	…	20 1 0).
2
	 In	 the	 section,	 w e	 pr esent	 s t atis tically	 signif icant	 r esults	 based	 on	 a	 r epr esent ativ e	 sam ple	 of	
1 5-y ear -old	 s tudents	 enr olled	 in	 the	 f ir s t	 gr ade	 of	 upper -secondar y	 pr ogr ams.	 T o	 mak e	 the	 t e xt	 shor -
t er ,	 w e	 do	 no t	 s t at e	 s t andar d	 er r or s	 and	 w e	 do	 no t	 em phasiz e	 that	 the	 dif f er ences	 ar e	 s t atis tically	
signif icant.	De t ails	of	analy sis	of	s t atis tical	signif icance	ar e	a v ailable	fr om	the	author s.
3
	 Those	 v alues	 r elat e	 t o	 the	 o v er all	 per cent ages	 of	 s tudents	 accor ding	 t o	 individual	 assessment	
domains	 r egar dless	 of	 their	 achie v ement	 in	 o ther	 domains;	 e.g.,	 the	 r eader	 can	 ge t	 the	 per cent age	 of	
s tudents	 att aining	 the	 highes t	 le v els	 in	 mathematic	 lit er acy	 b y	 adding	 the	 percent ages	 in	only MATH,	
MATH and REA,	MATH and SCI	and	all three domains.	 Minor	 de viations	 t o	 the	 t o t al	 v alues	 fr om	
T able	1	ar e	due	t o	r ounding.

1 86	 JOURN AL	OF	C ONTEMPORAR Y	EDUC A TION AL	S TUDIES	2/20 1 1	 M.	Štr aus,	N .	Mar k el j
In	 att aining	 the	 highes t	 le v els	 of	 lit er acy ,	 ther e	 ar e	 some	 unusual	 r eading	
lit er acy	 achie v ement	 r esults	 among	 the	 thr ee	 lit er acy	 domains.	 While	 the	 per -
cent ages	 of	 s tudents	 who	 att ain	 the	 highes t	 le v els	 in	 mathematical	 and	 scien-
tif ic	 lit er acy	 ar e	 q uit e	 similar	 (be tw een	 1 0	 and	 1 4%),	 the	 per cent age	 in	 r eading	
l i t e r a c y 	 i s 	 c o n s i d e r a b l y 	 l o w e r 	 ( a p p r o x i m a t e l y 	 4 % ) . 	 T h i s 	 d i s c r e p a n c y 	 i s 	 f u r t h e r	
e vident	 when	 the	 per cent ages	 of	 s tudents	 accor ding	 t o	 o v er lapping	 domains	 ar e	
com par ed	 (T able	 1).	 High	 assessment	 scor es	 in	 all	 thr ee	 domains	 simult aneously	
w er e	 achie v ed	 b y	 appr o ximat ely	 3%	 of	 s tudents	 (2.9%	 in	 2006	 and	 3. 1%	 in	 2009).	
Among	 the	 r emaining	 domains,	 the	 highes t	 common	 per cent age	 of	 s tudents	 with	
high	 achie v ement	 r esults	 can	 be	 f ound	 in	 mathematics	 and	 science	 (5.4%	 in	 2006	
and	 4.7%	 in	 2009),	 which	 is	 r oughly	 similar	 t o	 the	 per cent age	 of	 s tudents	 with	
high	 achie v ement	 r esults	 in	 mathematical	 lit er acy	 only	 (4. 1%	 in	 2006	 and	 5.6%	
in	 2009).	 W e	 can	 conclude	 that	 the	 cr oss-sectional	 per cent ages	 of	 mathematical	
and	 scientif ic	 lit er acies	 combined	 with	 r eading	 lit er acy ,	 as	 w ell	 as	 the	 per cent age	
of	 s tudents	 successful	 in	 r eading	 lit er acy	 only ,	 ar e	 signif icantly	 lo w er ,	 which	 ma y	
p o i n t 	 t o 	 t h e 	 p o s s i b i l i t y 	 t h a t 	 s t u d e n t s ’ 	 r e a d i n g 	 l i t e r a c y 	 f a l l s 	 b e h i n d 	 w h e n 	 c o m p a r e d	
t o	 the	 o ther	 tw o	 domains.	 This	 can	 also	 b y	 subs t antiat ed	 b y	 com paring	 the	 per -
cent ages	 of	 s tudents	 att aining	 the	 highes t	 le v els	 of	 r eading	 lit er acy	 in	 the	 OE CD,	
w h e r e 	 t h e 	 p e r c e n t a g e s 	 a r e 	 a l s o 	 s m a l l , 	 b u t 	 s o m e w h a t 	 h i g h e r 	 t h a n 	 i n 	 S l o v e n i a	
(OE CD	PIS A	…	20 1 0,	p.	39).
LOW ACHIEVEMENT
(does	no t	att ain	Le v el	2)
AVERAGE 
ACHIE-
VEMENT
in	all	thr ee
domains
HIGH ACHIEVEMENT
(att ains	at	leas t	Le v el	5)
all
thr ee	
domains
MA TH	
and	
SCI
SCI	
and	
REA
MA TH	
and	
REA
only	
SCI
only	
REA
only	
MA TH
only	
SCI
only	
REA
only	
MA TH
MA TH	
and	
REA
SCI	
and	
REA
MA TH	
and	SCI
all
thr ee	
domains
2006 	 7. 6 2.4 1. 9 2 .1 1. 2 4.4 5.0 58. 1 2.9 0.6 4 .1 0.2 1 .1 5.4 2.9
2009 1 0.5 1. 5 2.0 3.5 1. 0 5.4 4.5 55.2 1. 8 0.4 5.6 0.5 0.2 4.7 3 .1
T able	 1: Percentages of students attaining the highest and lowest levels according to intersections of 
reading, mathematical and scientific literacy in PISA 2006 and PISA 2009.
D a t a 	 o n 	 a t t a i n i n g 	 t h e 	 b a s e l i n e 	 l e v e l s 	 i n 	 T a b l e 	 1 	 s h o w 	 t h a t 	 m o s t 	 s t u d e n t s 	 w i t h	
lo w	 scor es	 ha v e	 pr oblems	 in	 all	 thr ee	 domains	 simult aneously ,	 f ollo w ed	 b y	 those	
s tudents	 who	 did	 no t	 att ain	 the	 baseline	 le v el	 in	 mathematical	 lit er acy	 only	 or	
in	 r eading	 lit er acy	 only .	 The	 f act	 that	 one	 t enth	 of	 s tudents	 enr olled	 in	 the	 f ir s t	
gr ade	 of	 upper -secondar y	 education	 did	 no t	 r each	 the	 baseline	 le v els	 of	 lit er acy	
in	 an y	 of	 the	 thr ee	 domains	 in	 the	 2009	 s tudy ,	 is	 sur ely	 w or th y	 of	 att ention.	 W e	
can	 claim	 that	 these	 s tudents	 sho w	 def icient	 le v els	 of	 lit er acy	 and	 will	 pr obably	
ha v e	pr oblems	continuing	their	education	successfully .
S tudents	 enr oll	 in	 the	 f ir s t	 y ear	 of	 an	 education	 pr ogr am	 accor ding	 t o	 their	
a c h i e v e m e n t s 	 i n 	 e l e m e n t a r y 	 e d u c a t i o n 	 p r o g r a m s 	 a n d 	 w e 	 c a n 	 t h e r e f o r e 	 e x p e c t	
s tudents	 of	 dif f er ent	 pr ogr ams	 t o	 att ain,	 on	 a v er age,	 dif f er ent	 scor es	 in	 the	 thr ee	
l i t e r a c y 	 d o m a i n s 	 i n 	 t h e 	 P I S A 	 s t u d y . 	 T h e 	 a s s e s s m e n t 	 r e s u l t s 	 o f 	 t h i s 	 s t u d y 	 c o n f i r m e d	
these	 e xpect ations,	 as	 s tudents	 in	 gener al	 and	 classical	 gymnasia	 pr ogr ams,	 on	
a v e r a g e , 	 a t ta i n e d 	 s ta t i s t i c a l l y 	 s i g n i f i c a n t l y 	 h i g h e r 	 a c h i e v e m e n t s 	 t h a n 	 s t u d e n t s 	 i n	

A tt ainment	of	Baseline	and	Highes t	Le v els	of	Lit er acy	Among	Slo v ene	S tudents	…	 187
p r o f e s s i o n a l 	 g y m n a s i a 	 p r o g r a m s , 	 a n d 	 s t u d e n t s 	 i n 	 p r o f e s s i o n a l 	 g y m n a s i a 	 p r o g r a m s	
att ained	 s t atis tically	 signif icantly	 higher	 r esults	 than	 s tudents	 in	 t echnical	 and	
pr of essional	 upper -secondar y	 pr ogr ams;	 the	 latt er	 att ained	 s t atis tically	 signif i-
cantly	 higher	 r esults	 than	 the	 s tudents	 of	 secondar y	 v ocational	 pr ogr ams,	 and	
t h e 	 s t u d e n t s 	 o f 	 s e c o n d a r y 	 v o c a t i o n a l 	 p r o g r a m s 	 a t t a i n e d 	 s t a t i s t i c a l l y 	 s i g n i f i c a n t l y	
higher	 r esults	 than	 the	 s tudents	 of	 lo w er	 v ocational	 pr ogr ams.	 W e	 pr esent	 these	
r esults	in	mor e	de t ail	fur ther	on	in	this	ar ticle.
A l t h o u g h 	 t h e 	 m a j o r i t y 	 o f 	 s t u d e n t s 	 e n r o l l e d 	 i n 	 g e n e r a l 	 a n d 	 c l a s s i c a l 	 g y m n a s i a	
pr ogr ams	 (5 7 .0%	 in	 2006	 and	 59.7%	 in	 2009)	 att ained	 a v er age	 le v els	 in	 all	 thr ee	
domains	 simult aneously ,	 mor e	 than	 one	 thir d	 of	 s tudents	 att ained	 the	 highes t	
le v el	 in	 at	 leas t	 one	 domain	 (4 1 .8%	 in	 2006	 and	 3 7 .6%	 in	 2009)	 and	 ther e	 w er e	 f e w	
s tudents	 who	 did	 no t	 r each	 the	 baseline	 le v el	 in	 at	 leas t	 one	 ar ea	 (1 . 1%	 in	 2006	
and	 2.7%	 in	 2009).	 The	 situation	 in	 pr of essional	 gymnasia	 pr ogr ams	 w as	 similar :	
m o r e	 t h a n 	 t h r e e	 q u a r t e r s 	 o f 	 s t u d e n t s 	 a t t a i n e d 	 a v e r a g e 	 l e v e l s 	 i n 	 a l l 	 t h r e e 	 d o m a i n s	
simult aneously	 (7 7 .6%	 in	 2006	 and	 75. 1%	 in	 2009),	 slightly	 less	 than	 one	 sixth	
of	 s tudents	 att ained	 the	 highes t	 le v els	 in	 at	 leas t	 one	 lit er acy	 domain	 (1 5.6%	 in	
2006	 and	 1 5. 1	 %	 in	 2009),	 and	 a	 small	 per cent age	 of	 s tudents	 did	 no t	 att ain	 the	
baseline	le v el	in	at	leas t	one	domain	(6.9%	in	2006	and	9.8%	in	2009).
Ho w e v er ,	 these	 r elationships	 w er e	 r e v er sed	 in	 the	 4-y ear	 t echnical	 and	 pr o-
f e s s i o n a l 	 p ro g r a m s , 	 s e c o n d a r y 	 v o c a t i o n a l 	 a n d 	 l o w e r 	 v o c a t i o n a l 	 p ro g r a m s 	 – 	 t h e	
p e r c e n t a g e s 	 o f 	 s t u d e n t s 	 w h o 	 d i d 	 n o t 	 a t t a i n 	 t h e 	 b a s e l i n e 	 l e v e l s 	 o f 	 l i te r a c y 	 i n 	 a t 	 l e a s t	
one	 domain	 w as	 v er y	 high	 in	 these	 pr ogr ams.	 Jus t	 a	 f e w	 per cent	 of	 s tudents	 in	
the	 4-y ear	 t echnical	 and	 pr of essional	 pr ogr ams	 (3.0%	 in	 2006	 and	 3.9%	 in	 2009)	
att ained	 the	 highes t	 le v els	 in	 at	 leas t	 one	 lit er acy	 domain,	 while	 mos t	 s tudents	
(70.2%	 in	 2006	 and	 6 1 .5%	 in	 2009)	 att ained	 a v er age	 le v els	 in	 all	 thr ee	 domains	
and	 mor e	 than	 a	 q uar t er	 of	 s tudents	 (26.8%	 in	 2006	 and	 3 4.6%	 in	 2009)	 did	 no t	
att ain	 the	 baseline	 le v el	 in	 at	 leas t	 one	 domain.	 Ther e	 w er e	 har dly	 an y	 s tudents	
in	 secondar y	 v ocational	 pr ogr ams	 who	 att ained	 the	 highes t	 le v els	 (0.2%	 in	 2006	
and	 0. 1%	 in	 2009),	 a	 q uar t er	 or	 f e w er	 s tudents	 (2 7 .8%	 in	 2006	 and	 1 9. 1%	 in	 2009)	
att ained	 a v er age	 le v els	 in	 all	 thr ee	 domains,	 and	 appr o ximat ely	 thr ee	 q uar t er s	
of	 s tudents	 did	 no t	 r each	 the	 baseline	 le v el	 in	 at	 leas t	 one	 domain	 (72. 1%	 in	 2006	
and	 80.6%	 in	 2009).	 This	 r atio	 is	 e v en	 lo w er	 in	 lo w er	 v ocational	 pr ogr ams,	 wher e	
v e r y 	 f e w 	 s t u d e n t s 	 r e a c h e d 	 t h e 	 b a s e l i n e 	 l e v e l s 	 i n 	 a l l 	 t h r e e 	 d o m a i n s 	 s i m u l ta n e o u s l y	
(2.0	 %	 in	 2006	 and	 3.9	 %	 in	 2009).	 Ther ef or e,	 mor e	 than	 90%	 of	 s tudents	 enr olled	
in	these	pr ogr ams	ha v e	pr oblems	r eaching	the	baseline	le v el.
Attaining the highest levels of literacy in the upper-secondary programs 
Figur e	 1	 pr esents	 in	 de t ail	 the	 per cent ages	 of	 s tudents	 in	 gener al,	 classical	
and	 pr of essional	 gymnasia	 pr ogr ams	 who	 att ained	 the	 highes t	 le v els	 in	 at	 leas t	
one	 domain	 of	 lit er acy .	 W e	 can	 see	 that	 s tudents	 enr olled	 in	 gener al	 and	 classical	
gymnasia	 pr ogr ams	 att ained	 the	 highes t	 le v els	 of	 lit er acy	 in	 an	 individual	 lit e-
r acy	 or	 a	 combination	 of	 tw o	 or	 all	 thr ee	 domains	 of	 lit er acy	 in	 2006	 as	 w ell	 as	 in	
2009	 in	 a	 higher	 per cent age	 than	 s tudents	 enr olled	 in	 pr of essional	 gymnasia	 pr o-
g r a m s . 	 H o w e v e r , 	 i t 	 i s 	 t r u e 	 o f 	 b o t h 	 p r o g r a m s 	 o f 	 g e n e r a l 	 a n d 	 c l a s s i c a l 	 g y m n a s i a 	 a n d	

1 88	 JOURN AL	OF	C ONTEMPORAR Y	EDUC A TION AL	S TUDIES	2/20 1 1	 M.	Štr aus,	N .	Mar k el j
pr ogr am	 s	 of	 pr of essional	 gymnasia	 that	 a	 higher	 per cent age	 of	 s tudents	 att ained	
the	 highes t	 le v els	 in	 mathematical	 lit er acy	 or	 in	 a	 combination	 of	 mathematical	
and	 scientif ic	 lit er acies,	 r ather	 than	 in	 o ther	 domains	 (appr o ximat ely	 one	 t enth	
of	 s tudents	 of	 pr of essional	 gymnasia	 pr ogr ams	 and	 appr o ximat ely	 one	 q uar t er	 of	
s tudents	 of	 gener al	 and	 classical	 gymnasia	 pr ogr ams).	 It	 is	 q uit e	 the	 opposit e	 in	
the	 r eading	 lit er acy	 domain,	 wher e	 the	 per cent age	 of	 s tudents	 who	 att ained	 the	
h i g h e s t 	 l e v e l s 	 ( i n d i v i d u a l l y 	 o r 	 i n 	 a 	 c o m b i n a t i o n 	 w i t h 	 a n o t h e r 	 d o m a i n ) 	 i s 	 e s p e c i a l l y	
lo w	 (less	 than	 5%	 in	 gener al	 and	 classical	 gymnasia	 pr ogr ams	 and	 about	 1%	 in	
pr of essional	pr ogr ams).
Figur e	 1:	The percentages of students in general and classical gymnasia programs and students of 
professional gymnasia programs who achieved the highest levels in reading, mathematical and scien-
tific literacy in PISA 2006 and PISA 2009 with gender comparisons. 
T h e 	 p r o f i l e 	 o f 	 a t t a i n i n g 	 t h e 	 h i g h e s t 	 l ev e l s 	 d o e s 	 n o t 	 o n l y 	 d i f f e r 	 b e t w e e n	
g y m n a s i a 	 p r o g r a m s , 	 b u t 	 a l s o 	 b e t w e e n 	 g e n d e r s . 	 A p p r o x i m a t e l y 	 h a l f 	 t h e 	 m a l e	
s tudents	 in	 gener al	 and	 classical	 gymnasia	 pr ogr ams	 att ained	 the	 highes t	 le v els	
of	 lit er acy	 in	 at	 leas t	 one	 domain	 (5 1 . 1%	 in	 2006	 and	 45.2%	 in	 2009)	 and	 only	
a p p r o x i m a t e l y 	 o n e 	 t h i r d 	 o f 	 f e m a l e 	 s t u d e n t s 	 a t t a i n e d 	 t h e 	 s a m e 	 ( 3 1 . 1 % 	 i n 	 2 0 0 6	
and	 32.5%	 in	 2009).	 A	 higher	 per cent age	 of	 f emale	 s tudents	 than	 male	 s tudents	
r egular ly	 att ained	 the	 highes t	 le v els	 in	 all	 thr ee	 domains	 simult aneously	 (8.0%	
of	 f emale	 s tudents	 com par ed	 with	 6.7%	 of	 male	 s tudents	 in	 2006	 and	 1 0.0%	 of	
f emale	 s tudents	 com par ed	 with	 5.5%	 of	 male	 s tudents	 in	 2009),	 wher eas	 a	 higher	
per cent age	 of	 male	 s tudents	 than	 f emale	 s tudents	 r egular ly	 att ained	 the	 highes t	
le v els	 in	 mathematical	 lit er acy	 only	 (1 3.6%	 of	 male	 s tudents	 com par ed	 with	 7 .0%	
of	 f emale	 s tudents	 in	 2006	 and	 1 8.6%	 of	 male	 s tudents	 in	 2009	 com par ed	 with	

A tt ainment	of	Baseline	and	Highes t	Le v els	of	Lit er acy	Among	Slo v ene	S tudents	…	 1 89
8.4%	 of	 f emale	 s tudents),	 and	 mathematical	 and	 scientif ic	 lit er acy	 assessment	
c o m b i n e d 	 ( 2 2 . 7 % 	 o f 	 m a l e 	 s t u d e n t s 	 i n 	 2 0 0 6 	 c o m p a r e d 	 w i t h 	 8 . 6 % 	 o f 	 f e m a l e 	 s t u d e n t s	
a n d 	 1 7 . 3 % 	 o f 	 m a l e 	 s t u d e n t s 	 i n 	 2 0 0 9 	 c o m p a r e d 	 w i t h 	 6 . 2 % 	 o f 	 f e m a l e 	 s t u d e n t s ) . 	 F r o m	
this	 w e	 can	 deduct	 that	 male	 s tudents	 outper f or m	 f emale	 s tudents	 in	 mathema-
t i c a l 	 l i t e r a c y 	 ( 4 5 . 3 % 	 o f 	 m a l e 	 s t u d e n t s 	 i n 	 2 0 0 6 	 c o m p a r e d 	 w i t h 	 2 4 . 6 % 	 o f 	 f e m a l e	
s tudents	 and	 42.3%	 of	 male	 s tudents	 com par ed	 with	 26.3%	 of	 f emale	 s tudents)	
and	 scientif ic	 lit er acy	 (26. 1%	 of	 f emale	 s tudents	 in	 2006	 com par ed	 with	 36.7%	 of	
male	 s tudents	 and	 1 9%	 of	 f emale	 s tudents	 in	 2009	 com par ed	 with	 25.8%	 of	 male	
s t u d e n t s ) , 	 w h e r e a s 	 f e m a l e 	 s t u d e n t s 	 o u t p e r f o r m e d 	 m a l e 	 s t u d e n t s 	 i n 	 r e a d i n g 	 l i t e r a c y	
(1 5%	 of	 f emale	 s tudents	 in	 2006	 com par ed	 with	 7 .5%	 of	 male	 s tudents	 and	 1 4.7%	
o f 	 f e m a l e 	 s t u d e n t s 	 i n 	 2 0 0 9 	 c o m p a r e d 	 w i t h 	 5 . 4 % 	 o f 	 m a l e 	 s t u d e n t s ) . 	 T h e 	 d i f f e r e n c e s	
ar e	s t atis tically	signif icant.
Appr o ximat ely ,	 a	 f if th	 of	 male	 s tudents	 in	 pr of essional	 gymnasia	 pr ogr ams	
att ained	 the	 highes t	 le v els	 in	 at	 leas t	 one	 lit er acy	 domain	 (23.4%	 in	 2006	 and	
1 9.9%	 in	 2009)	 while	 a	 mer e	 t enth	 of	 f emale	 s tudents	 in	 pr of essional	 gymnasia	
p r o g r a m s 	 a t t a i n e d 	 t h e 	 h i g h e s t 	 l e v e l s 	 i n 	 a t 	 l e a s t 	 o n e 	 l i t e r a c y 	 d o m a i n 	 ( 7 . 9 % 	 i n 	 2 0 0 6	
a n d 	 1 0 . 1 % 	 i n 	 2 0 0 9 ) . 	 T h e 	 h i g h e s t 	 p e r c e n t a g e 	 o f 	 m a l e 	 s t u d e n t s 	 a t t a i n e d 	 t h e 	 h i g h e s t	
le v els	 in	 mathematical	 lit er acy	 (8. 1%	 in	 2006	 and	 1 1 .8%	 in	 2009),	 in	 2006	 also	 in	
c o m b i n a t i o n 	 w i t h 	 m a t h e m a t i c s 	 a n d 	 s c i e n c e 	 ( 7 . 5 % ) . 	 W h e r e a s	 a 	 s m a l l e r	 p e r c e n ta g e	
of	 f emale	 s tudents	 than	 male	 s tudents	 att ained	 the	 highes t	 le v els,	 some	 f emale	
s tudents	 did	 att ain	 them	 in	 mathematics	 individually	 (2.2%	 in	 2006	 and	 4. 1%	 in	
2009)	 and	 in	 2006,	 in	 scientif ic	 lit er acy	 individually	 (4.6%).	 Also,	 in	 pr of essional	
g y m n a s i a 	 p r o g r a m s , 	 m a l e 	 s t u d e n t s 	 o u t p e r f o r m e d 	 f e m a l e 	 s t u d e n t s 	 i n 	 m a t h e m a t i c a l	
lit er acy	 (1 8.6%	 of	 male	 s tudents	 in	 2006	 com par ed	 with	 4%	 of	 f emale	 s tudents,	
and	 1 6.7%	 of	 male	 s tudents	 in	 2009	 com par ed	 with	 8.9%	 f emale	 s tudents)	 and	 in	
scientif ic	 lit er acy	 (6. 1%	 of	 f emale	 s tudents	 in	 2006	 com par ed	 with	 1 5.3%	 of	 male	
s tudents,	 and	 5.4%	 of	 f emale	 s tudents	 in	 2009	 com par ed	 with	 8.3%	 of	 male	 s tu-
d e n t s ) . 	 T h e 	 d i f f e r e n c e s 	 b e t w e e n 	 g e n d e r s 	 i n 	 s c i e n t i f i c 	 l i t e r a c y 	 w e r e 	 n o t 	 s t a t i s t i c a l l y	
signif icant	 in	 2009.	 On	 the	 o ther	 hand,	 the	 dif f er ences	 be tw een	 the	 gender s	 w er e	
small	 in	 r eading	 lit er acy	 and	 w er e	 no t	 s t atis tically	 signif icant	 in	 2006	 (2.7%	 of	
f emale	 s tudents	 in	 2006	 com par ed	 with	 2.8%	 of	 male	 s tudents),	 wher eas	 in	 2009	
the y	w er e	2.7%	of	f emale	s tudents	com par ed	with	0. 1	%	of	male	s tudents.
T h e 	 b a s i c 	 r e s u l t s 	 o f 	 t h e 	 P I S A 	 2 0 0 6 	 a n d 	 P I S A 	 2 0 0 9 	 s t u d i e s 	 s h o w 	 t h a t 	 t h e r e 	 a r e	
g e n d e r 	 d i f f e r e n c e s 	 a t 	 t h e 	 n a t i o n a l 	 l e v e l 	 i n 	 a v e r a g e 	 a c h i e v e m e n t s ; 	 f e m a l e 	 s t u d e n t s	
o u t p e r f o r m e d 	 m a l e 	 s t u d e n t s 	 i n 	 r e a d i n g 	 l i t e r a c y 	 ( f e m a l e 	 s t u d e n t s 	 a t t a i n e d 	 5 4 	 s c o r e	
points	 mor e	 than	 male	 s tudents	 in	 2006	 and	 55	 scor e	 points	 mor e	 in	 2009)	 and	
in	 scientif ic	 lit er acy ,	 f emale	 s tudents	 att ained	 8	 scor e	 points	 mor e	 in	 2006	 and	
1 4	 scor e	 points	 mor e	 in	 2009,	 while	 ther e	 w as	 no	 signif icant	 gender	 dif f er ence	 in	
mathematical	 lit er acy	 (PIS A	 2006	 …	 200 7b,	 PIS A	 2009	 R esults	 …	 20 1 0).	 A	 mor e	
de t ailed	 analy sis	 of	 the	 PIS A	 2006	 s tudy	 sho w ed	 that	 gender	 dif f er ences	 at	 the	
national	 le v el	 ar e	 no t	 r ef lect ed	 e v enly	 in	 individual	 upper -secondar y	 education	
pr ogr ams,	 since	 the	 adv ant age	 of	 f emale	 s tudents	 in	 r eading	 lit er acy	 decr eased	
w i t h i n 	 p r o g r a m s 	 a n d 	 m a l e 	 s t u d e n t s 	 a c t u a l l y 	 o u t p e r f o r m e d 	 f e m a l e 	 s t u d e n t s 	 i n	
s c i e n t i f i c 	 l i t e r a c y 	 ( Š t r a u s 	 2 0 0 9 ) . 	 O n e 	 e x p l a n a t i o n 	 f o r 	 t h e s e 	 s e e m i n g l y 	 c o n t r a d i c t o r y	
r esults,	 is	 the	 dif f er ence	 in	 per cent ages	 of	 f emale	 and	 male	 s tudents	 in	 v arious	

1 90	 JOURN AL	OF	C ONTEMPORAR Y	EDUC A TION AL	S TUDIES	2/20 1 1	 M.	Štr aus,	N .	Mar k el j
education	 pr ogr ams	 and	 the	 f act	 that	 mor e	 successful	 male	 s tudents	 than	 f emale	
s t u d e n t s 	 d e c i d e d 	 t o 	 e n r o l l 	 i n 	 e d u c a t i o n 	 p r o g r a m s 	 o t h e r 	 t h a n 	 t h e 	 p r o g r a m s 	 o f	
gener al	 and	 classical	 gymnasia	 pr ogr ams	 (ibid.,	 p.	 60).	 Similar ly ,	 in	 the	 analy sis	
pr esent ed	 her e,	 gender	 dif f er ences	 at	 the	 national	 le v el	 sho w	 dif f er ent	 r esults.	 In	
r eading	 lit er acy ,	 the	 gender	 dif f er ences	 in	 the	 per cent ages	 of	 s tudents	 att aining	
the	 highes t	 le v els	 ar e	 small	 and	 inconsis t ent,	 and	 in	 mathematical	 and	 scientif ic	
lit er acies,	 male	 s tudents	 of	 bo th	 gymnasia	 pr ogr ams	 outper f or m	 f emale	 s tudents	
in	att aining	the	highes t	le v els.	
Attaining baseline levels of literacy in the upper-secondary education programs
In	 this	 section	 w e	 pr esent	 de t ails	 of	 the	 r esults	 of	 baseline	 lit er acy	 achie-
v ements	 of	 1 5-y ear -old	 Slo v ene	 s tudents	 enrolled	 in	 the	 f irs t	 gr ade	 of	 upper -
secondar y	 pr ogr ams	 fr om	 the	 dat abase	 of	 the	 PIS A	 2006	 and	 PIS A	 2009	 s tudies.	
As	 w e	 ha v e	 alr eady	 mentioned,	 s tudents	 enr olled	 in	 bo th	 gymnasia	 pr ogr ams,	 in	
a	 gr eat	 majorit y ,	 att ained	 at	 leas t	 baseline	 le v els	 in	 all	 thr ee	 domains	 of	 lit er acy .	
T h e r e f o r e	 w e 	 s h a l l ,	 i n 	 t h e 	 c o n t i n u a t i o n , 	 p r e s e n t	 r e s u l t s 	 o n l y	 o f 	 v o c a t i o n a l 	 a n d	
t echnical	 and	 pr of essional	 pr ogr ams,	 wher e	 att aining	 baseline	 le v els	 of	 lit er acy	
is	less	e xpect ed.
I n 	 F i g u r e 	 2 	 w e 	 p r e s e n t 	 t h e 	 r e l a t i o n s h i p s 	 b e t w e e n 	 t h e 	 p e r c e n t a g e s 	 o f 	 s t u d e n t s	
enr olled	 in	 t echnical	 and	 pr of essional	 upper -secondar y	 pr ogr ams,	 secondar y	 v o-
cational	 pr ogr ams	 and	 lo w er	 v ocational	 pr ogr ams	 who	 did	 no t	 att ain	 the	 baseline	
l e v e l 	 o f 	 l i t e r a c y 	 i n 	 a t 	 l e a s t 	 o n e 	 d o m a i n 	 o f 	 l i t e r a c y . 	 W e 	 c a n 	 s e e	 t h a t 	 t h e 	 p e r c e n t a g e s	
of	 s tudents	 who	 did	 no t	 att ain	 the	 baseline	 le v els	 of	 lit er acy	 in	 all	 thr ee	 domains	
ar e	 signif icantly	 dif f er ent	 accor ding	 t o	 the	 pr ogr am.	 Wher eas	 in	 t echnical	 and	
pr of essional	 pr ogr ams,	 this	 per cent age	 is	 s till	 lo w er	 than	 one	 t enth	 (4. 1%	 in	 2006	
a n d 	 7 . 7 % 	 i n 	 2 0 0 9 ) , 	 i t 	 s i g n i f i c a n t l y 	 i n c r e a s e s 	 t o 	 a p p r o x i m a t e l y 	 a 	 t h i r d 	 i n 	 s e c o n d a r y	
v ocational	 pr ogr ams	 (30.4%	 in	 2006	 and	 43.5%	 in	 2009).	 Ho w e v er ,	 the	 per cent age	
is	 e v en	 mor e	 w or r ying	 in	 lo w er	 v ocational	 pr ogr ams,	 wher e	 as	 man y	 as	 be tw een	
60	 and	 70%	 of	 s tudents	 enr olled	 in	 these	 pr ogr ams	 did	 no t	 att ain	 baseline	 le v els	
in	 an y	 of	 the	 assessed	 domains	 (63. 1%	 in	 2006	 and	 70. 1%	 in	 2009).	 W e	 also	 f ind	
t h a t 	 s t u d e n t s 	 e n r o l l e d 	 i n t o 	 p r o g r a m s 	 o f 	 s e c o n d a r y 	 v o c a t i o n a l 	 a n d 	 l o w e r 	 v o c a t i o n a l	
u p p e r - s e c o n d a r y 	 e d u c a t i o n 	 h a d 	 p r o b l e m s 	 e s p e c i a l l y 	 i n 	 r e a d i n g 	 l i t e r a c y 	 a n d 	 a	
combination	 of	 r eading	 lit er acy	 with	 o ther	 domains.	 E v en	 if	 w e	 t ak e	 int o	 account	
the	 mor e	 f a v or able	 r esults	 fr om	 2006	 and	 2009,	 w e	 can	 see	 that	 in	 the	 domain	 of	
r eading	 lit er acy	 (individually	 or	 combined	 with	 ano ther	 domain),	 mor e	 than	 90%	
of	 s tudents	 of	 lo w er	 v ocational	 pr ogr ams	 (96. 1%	 in	 2006	 or	 94.4%	 in	 2009)	 did	
no t	 att ain	 the	 baseline	 le v els.	 The	 r esults	 ar e	 also	 w or r ying	 in	 the	 r emaining	 tw o	
domains,	 since	 thr ee	 q uar t er s	 of	 the	 s tudents	 and	 mor e	 did	 no t	 att ain	 the	 base-
line	 le v els	 in	 scientif ic	 lit er acy	 (80. 1%	 of	 s tudents	 in	 2006	 and	 8 7 .8%	 of	 s tudents	
in	 2009)	 and	 in	 mathematical	 lit er acy	 (70.7%	 in	 2006	 and	 73.0%	 in	 2009).	 The	
r esults	 of	 s tudents	 of	 secondar y	 v ocational	 schools	 ar e	 also	 a	 cause	 f or	 concer n,	
since	 mor e	 than	 half	 of	 the	 s tudents	 did	 no t	 att ain	 the	 baseline	 le v els	 of	 r eading	
lit er acy	 (53.8%	 in	 2006	 and	 72.6%	 in	 2009),	 and	 appr o ximat ely	 half	 in	 mathema-
t i c a l 	 ( 54 % 	 i n 	 2 0 0 6 	 a n d 	 6 2 . 4 % 	 i n 	 2 0 0 9 ) 	 a n d 	 i n 	 s c i e n t i f i c 	 l i t e r a c y 	 ( 4 4 . 8 % 	 i n 	 2 0 0 6 	 a n d	

A tt ainment	of	Baseline	and	Highes t	Le v els	of	Lit er acy	Among	Slo v ene	S tudents	…	 1 91
52. 1%	 in	 2009).	 The	 pr esent ed	 r esults	 ar e	 w or r ying	 because	 the	 baseline	 le v els	
i n 	 a l l 	 t h r e e 	 d o m a i n s 	 o f 	 l i t e r a c y 	 p r e s e n t 	 t h e 	 s t a g e 	 o f 	 l i t e r a c y 	 d e v e l o p m e n t 	 t h a t	
an	 individual	 r eq uir es	 t o	 com pr ehend	 signif icant	 activities	 in	 their	 priv at e	 and	
social	 liv es	 and	 that	 he/she	 needs	 t o	 function	 w ell	 in	 e v er y -da y	 situations.	 The	
per cent ages	 of	 s tudents	 no t	 att aining	 the	 baseline	 le v el	 of	 lit er acy	 ar e	 some what	
lo w er	 among	 s tudents	 of	 t echnical	 and	 pr of essional	 upper -secondar y	 pr ogr ams,	
ho w e v er ,	 the y	 ar e	 s till	 dissatisf act or y :	 1 3.7%	 of	 s tudents	 in	 2006	 and	 22.6%	 in	
2009	 did	 no t	 att ain	 the	 baseline	 le v els	 of	 r eading	 lit er acy ,	 1 6.9%	 of	 s tudents	 in	
2006	 and	 22.3%	 in	 2009	 in	 mathematical	 lit er acy ,	 and	 1 0.9%	 of	 s tudents	 in	 2006	
and	1 4.2%	in	2009	in	scientif ic	lit er acy .
Figur e	 2: The percentages of students of technical and professional upper-secondary programs (STSI), 
secondary vocational programs (SPI) and lower vocational programs (NPI) who did not attain baselin e 
levels in reading, mathematical and scientific literacy in PISA 2006 and PISA 2009 with a gender 
comparison. 
Gender	 dif f er ences	 ar e	 e vident	 in	 all	 thr ee	 upper -secondar y	 pr ogr ams.	 The	
per cent ages	 of	 male	 and	 f emale	 s tudents	 in	 lo w er	 v ocational	 schools	 who	 did	 no t	
att ain	 the	 baseline	 le v el	 in	 at	 leas t	 one	 domain	 of	 lit er acy	 ar e	 similar ,	 ho w e v er ,	
ther e	 ar e	 gender	 dif f er ences	 within	 individual	 domains	 and	 their	 combinations.	
T h r e e 	 q u a r t e r s 	 o f 	 f e m a l e 	 s t u d e n t s 	 i n 	 l o w e r 	 v o c a t i o n a l 	 s c h o o l s 	 c o m p a r e d 	 w i t h	
slightly	 less	 than	 tw o	 thir ds	 of	 male	 s tudents	 did	 no t	 att ain	 the	 baseline	 le v els	
i n 	 a l l 	 t h re e 	 d o m a i n s 	 s i m u l t a n e o u s l y 	 ( 7 7 . 0 % 	 o f 	 f e m a l e 	 s t u d e n t s 	 c o m p a re d 	 w i t h	
5 9 . 3 % 	 o f 	 m a l e 	 s t u d e n t s 	 i n 	 2 0 0 6 	 a n d 	 8 6 . 6 % 	 o f 	 f e m a l e 	 s t u d e n t s 	 c o m p a r e d 	 w i t h	
65.2%	 of	 male	 s tudents	 in	 2009).	 Ano ther	 dif f er ence	 is	 the	 higher	 per cent age	 of	
f emale	 s tudents	 com par ed	 with	 male	 s tudents	 who	 did	 no t	 att ain	 the	 baseline	
le v el	 in	 mathematical	 assessment	 (5. 1%	 of	 f emale	 s tudents	 com par ed	 with	 0. 1%	
of	 male	 s tudents	 in	 2006,	 and	 only	 1 .9%	 of	 f emale	 s tudents	 com par ed	 with	 0%	 of	
m a l e 	 s t u d e n t s 	 i n 	 2 0 0 9 ) . 	 M e a n w h i l e , 	 a 	 h i g h e r 	 p e r c e n t a g e 	 o f 	 m a l e 	 s t u d e n t s 	 i n 	 l o w e r	

1 92	 JOURN AL	OF	C ONTEMPORAR Y	EDUC A TION AL	S TUDIES	2/20 1 1	 M.	Štr aus,	N .	Mar k el j
v ocationa	 l	 progr ams	 did 	 n o t 	 r e a c h 	 b a s e l i n e 	 l e v e l s 	 i n 	 t h e 	 d o m a i n 	 o f 	 r e a d i n g 	 l i te r a c y	
(1 2. 1%	 of	 male	 s tudents	 com par ed	 with	 4.7%	 of	 f emale	 s tudents	 in	 2006	 and	 7 .5%	
o f 	 m a l e 	 s t u d e n t s 	 c o m p a r e d 	 w i t h 	 0 % 	 o f 	 f e m a l e 	 s t u d e n t s 	 i n 	 2 0 0 9 ) , 	 i n 	 t h e 	 c o m b i n a t i o n	
of	 r eading	 lit er acy	 with	 scientif ic	 lit er acy	 (1 8.3%	 of	 male	 s tudents	 com par ed	 with	
8.5%	 of	 f emale	 s tudents	 in	 2006,	 and	 1 9.6%	 of	 male	 s tudents	 com par ed	 with	 5.6%	
of	 f emale	 s tudents	 in	 2009),	 and	 in	 combination	 with	 mathematical	 lit er acy	 only	
in	2006	(7 . 1%	of	male	s tudents	com par ed	with	2.5%	of	f emale	s tudents).
T h e 	 p e r c e n t a g e 	 o f 	 m a l e 	 s t u d e n t s 	 ( 2 9 . 6 % 	 i n 	 2 0 0 6 	 a n d 	 4 4 . 0 % 	 i n 	 2 0 0 9 ) 	 a n d 	 f e m a l e	
s tudents	 (32.0%	 in	 2006	 and	 42.3%	 in	 2009)	 in	 secondar y	 v ocational	 pr ogr ams	
who	 did	 no t	 att ain	 baseline	 le v els	 in	 an y	 of	 the	 thr ee	 domains	 is,	 as	 e xpect ed,	
lo w er	 than	 in	 lo w er	 v ocational	 schools,	 ho w e v er ,	 the	 per cent ages	 ar e	 s till	 high.	
T h e r e 	 i s	 a l s o	 a 	 g e n d e r 	 d i f f e r e n c e 	 i n 	 a t t a i n i n g 	 t h e 	 b a s e l i n e 	 l e v e l s 	 i n	 i n d i v i d u a l	
d o m a i n s 	 i n 	 s e c o n d a r y 	 v o c a t i o n a l 	 s c h o o l s . 	 F e m a l e 	 s t u d e n t s 	 m a i n l y 	 p e r f o r m 	 p o o r e r	
i n 	 a s s e s s m e n t s 	 o f 	 m a t h e m a t i c a l 	 l i t e r a c y 	 a n d 	 m a l e 	 s t u d e n t s 	 p e r f o r m 	 p o o re r 	 i n	
assessments	 of	 r eading	 lit er acy .	 If	 w e	 ar e	 mor e	 pr ecise,	 a	 higher	 per cent age	 of	
f emale	 s tudents	 com par ed	 with	 male	 s tudents	 did	 no t	 att ain	 the	 baseline	 le v els	
in	 mathematical	 lit er acy	 assessments	 (1 6.5%	 of	 f emale	 s tudents	 com par ed	 with	
5.4%	 of	 male	 s tudents	 in	 2006	 and	 1 3.0%	 of	 f emale	 s tudents	 com par ed	 with	 1 .6%	
of	 male	 s tudents	 in	 2009)	 and	 in	 a	 combination	 of	 mathematical	 and	 scientif ic	
lit er acy	 assessments	 (1 5.7%	 of	 f emale	 s tudents	 com par ed	 with	 2.0%	 of	 male	 s tu-
dents	 in	 2006	 and	 6.0%	 of	 f emale	 s tudents	 com par ed	 with	 0.5%	 of	 male	 s tudents	
in	 2009).	 A	 higher	 per cent age	 of	 male	 s tudents	 com par ed	 with	 f emale	 s tudents	
d i d 	 n o t 	 a t t a i n 	 t h e 	 b a s e l i n e 	 l e v e l 	 i n 	 t h e 	 r e a d i n g 	 l i t e ra c y 	 a s s e s s m e n t 	 ( 1 4 . 8 % 	 o f	
male	 s tudents	 com par ed	 with	 2.2%	 f emale	 s tudents	 in	 2006	 and	 1 5.5%	 of	 male	
s tudents	 com par ed	 with	 2.4%	 of	 f emale	 s tudents	 in	 2009)	 and	 in	 the	 combination	
of	 r eading	 and	 mathematical	 lit er acy	 (9.7%	 of	 male	 s tudents	 com par ed	 with	 3.9%	
of	 f emale	 s tudents	 in	 2006,	 and	 1 3.0%	 of	 male	 s tudents	 com par ed	 with	 9.0%	 of	
f emale	 s tudents	 in	 2009)	 and	 scientif ic	 lit er acy	 (6.6%	 of	 male	 s tudents	 com par ed	
with	 2.9%	 of	 f emale	 s tudents	 in	 2006,	 and	 7 . 1%	 of	 male	 s tudents	 com par ed	 with	
2.2%	of	f emale	s tudents	in	2009).
T h e 	 r a t i o s 	 i n 	 t e c h n i c a l 	 a n d 	 p r o f e s s i o n a l 	 p r o g r a m s 	 a r e 	 s i m i l a r	 t o 	 t h o s e 	 i n	
secondar y	 v ocational	 pr ogr ams.	 The	 per cent age	 of	 male	 s tudents	 (4.2%	 in	 2006	
and	 8.0%	 in	 2009)	 and	 f emale	 s tudents	 (4.0%	 in	 2006	 and	 4.7%	 in	 2009)	 who	 did	
n o t 	 a t t a i n 	 t h e 	 b a s e l i n e 	 l e v e l s 	 i n 	 a l l 	 t h r e e 	 d o m a i n s 	 s i m u l t a n e o u s l y 	 i s 	 l o w e r 	 i n 	 l o w e r	
a n d 	 s e c o n d a r y	 v o c a t i o n a l 	 p r o g r a m s . 	 T h e 	 p e r c e n t a g e s 	 a c c o r d i n g 	 t o 	 g e n d e r 	 a r e ,	
in	 that	 pr ogr am,	 similar .	 Gender	 dif f er ences	 accor ding	 t o	 individual	 domains	 do	
e xis t.	 A	 higher	 per cent age	 of	 f emale	 s tudents	 com par ed	 with	 male	 s tudents	 did	
no t	 att ain	 the	 baseline	 le v els	 in	 mathematical	 lit er acy	 (1 4.4%	 of	 f emale	 s tudents	
c o m p a r e d 	 w i t h 	 2 . 9 % 	 o f 	 m a l e 	 s t u d e n t s 	 i n 	 2 0 0 6 , 	 a n d 	 1 3 . 7 % 	 o f 	 f e m a l e 	 s t u d e n t s	
com par ed	 with	 2.8%	 of	 male	 s tudents	 in	 2009)	 and	 in	 a	 combination	 of	 mathe-
matical	 and	 scientif ic	 lit er acy	 (5.5%	 of	 f emale	 s tudents	 com par ed	 with	 1 .0%	 of	
male	 s tudents	 in	 2006,	 and	 4.7%	 of	 f emale	 s tudents	 com par ed	 with	 0.6%	 of	 male	
s tudents	 in	 2009).	 Ho w e v er ,	 a	 higher	 per cent age	 of	 male	 s tudents	 com par ed	 with	
f emale	 s tudents	 did	 no t	 att ain	 the	 baseline	 le v els	 in	 r eading	 lit er acy	 (1 0.4%	 of	
male	 s tudents	 com par ed	 with	 0.9%	 of	 f emale	 s tudents	 in	 2006,	 and	 1 3.9%	 of	 male	
s tudents	com par ed	with	2. 1%	of	f emale	s tudents	in	2009).

A tt ainment	of	Baseline	and	Highes t	Le v els	of	Lit er acy	Among	Slo v ene	S tudents	…	 1 93
G e n d e r 	 d i f f e r e n c e s 	 a t 	 t h e 	 n a t i o n a l 	 l e v e l 	 a r e 	 o n l y 	 p a r t i a l l y 	 r e f l e c t e d 	 i n 	 g e n d e r	
dif f er ences	 in	 all	 thr ee	 pr ogr ams	 consider ed.	 In	 the	 domain	 of	 r eading	 lit er acy ,	
male	 s tudents	 on	 a	 national	 le v el	 att ained	 s t atis tically	 signif icant	 lo w er	 a v er age	
scor es	 than	 f emale	 s tudents.	 In	 secondar y	 pr of essional	 and	 v ocational	 pr ogr ams	
ther e	ar e	dif f er ences	in	a	higher	per cent age	of	male	s tudents	who	did	no t	att ain	
the	 baseline	 le v els.	 In	 mathematical	 lit er acy	 ther e	 ar e	 no	 s t atis tically	 signif icant	
g e n d e r 	 d i f f e r e n c e s 	 i n 	 a v e r a g e 	 s c o r e s , 	 h o w e v e r , 	 t h e r e 	 i s 	 a 	 h i g h e r 	 p e r c e n t a g e 	 o f 	 f e m a l e	
s tudents	 than	 male	 s tudents	 in	 secondar y	 pr of essional	 and	 v ocational	 pr ogr ams	
who	 did	 no t	 att ain	 the	 baseline	 le v els	 in	 this	 domain.	 In	 scientif ic	 lit er acy ,	 ther e	
a r e 	 s o m e 	 s m a l l , 	 b u t 	 s t a t i s t i c a l l y 	 s i g n i f i c a n t 	 g e n d e r 	 d i f f e r e n c e s 	 i n 	 a v e r a g e 	 s c o r e s 	 a t	
the	 national	 le v el	 in	 f a v or	 of	 f emale	 s tudents,	 ho w e v er ,	 in	 secondar y	 pr of essional	
and	 v ocational	 pr ogr ams,	 dif f er ences	 in	 no t	 att aining	 the	 baseline	 le v els	 in	 this	
domain	ar e	e vident,	but	inconsis t ent.
Conclusion
T h e 	 r e s u l t s 	 o f 	 t h e 	 m o s t 	 r e c e n t 	 P I S A 	 s t u d y , 	 p u b l i s h e d 	 i n 	 D e c e m b e r 	 2 0 0 9 ,	
opened	 a	 debat e	 on	 Slo v ene	 s tudents	 attaining	 adeq uat e	 le v els	 of	 prof iciency , 	
es pecially	 in	 the	 r eading	 lit er acy	 domain.	 The	 s tudy	 sho w ed	 lo w er	 than	 a v er age	
r eading	 scor es	 of	 1 5-y ear -old	 Slo v ene	 s tudents	 in	 com parison	 with	 their	 count er -
par ts	 in	 the	 OE CD	 and	 the	 EU .	 E v en	 though	 the	 r esults	 in	 the	 f or m	 of	 national	
a v er ages	 contribut e	 im por t ant	 inf or mation,	 the y	 do	 no t	 giv e	 de t ailed	 answ er s	 t o	
the	 q ues tions	 about	 the	 dif f er ences	 in	 assessment	 achie v ements	 of	 Slo v ene	 s tu-
d e n t s 	 c o m p a r e d 	 w i t h 	 s t u d e n t s 	 f r o m 	 o t h e r 	 c o u n t r i e s 	 o r 	 w i t h i n 	 t h e 	 c o u n t r y . 	 I n 	 o r d e r	
t o	 es t ablish	 those	 dif f er ences,	 w e	 mus t	 analyz e	 the	 dat a	 in	 the	 br oader	 cont e xt	
of	 under s t anding	 the	 cor r elation	 be tw een	 int er r elat ed	 f act or s	 in	 the	 pr ocess	 of	
t eaching	and	lear ning.
In	 this	 ar ticle,	 r esults	 of	 the	 analy sis	 of	 the	 le v els	 of	 r eading,	 mathematical	
and	 scientif ic	 lit er acy	 of	 1 5-y ear -old	 Slo v ene	 s tudents	 at	 the	 beginning	 of	 upper -
s e c o n d a r y 	 e d u c a t i o n 	 p r o g r a m s 	 o f f e r 	 a 	 f r a m e w o r k 	 o f 	 t h i n k i n g 	 a b o u t 	 t h e 	 p o p u l a t i o n	
e n ro l l i n g 	 i n t o 	 t h e s e 	 e d u c a t i o n 	 p ro g r a m s 	 a n d 	 t h e 	 p o s s i b i l i t i e s 	 o f 	 i m p ro v i n g 	 t h e	
pedagogical	 base	 and	 t eaching	 appr oaches	 in	 their	 fur ther	 educational	 pr ocess.	
W e 	 u s e d 	 t h e 	 d a t a 	 f r o m 	 t h e 	 P I S A 	 i n t e r n a t i o n a l 	 s t u d i e s 	 f r o m 	 2 0 0 6 	 a n d 	 2 0 0 9 , 	 w h e r e	
w e	 f ound	 the	 dat a	 on	 1 5-y ear -old	 Slo v ene	 s tudents’	 lit er acy	 f or	 all	 education	 pr o-
g r a m s 	 c o m b i n e d , 	 a n d 	 t h e n 	 w e 	 a n a l y z e d 	 t h e 	 e d u c a t i o n 	 p r o g r a m s 	 i n d i v i d u a l l y . 	 T h e	
r e s u l t s 	 w e r e 	 m a i n l y 	 a s 	 e x p e c t e d , 	 s i n c e 	 i t 	 i s 	 u n d e r s ta n d a b l e 	 t h a t 	 t h e 	 h i g h e s t 	 l e v e l s	
of	 lit er acy	 w er e	 gener ally	 att ained	 b y	 s tudents	 of	 gener al	 and	 classical	 gymnasia	
pr ogr ams	 and	 the	 baseline	 le v els	 w er e	 gener ally	 no t	 att ained	 b y	 s tudents	 of	 v oca-
t i o n a l 	 p r o g r a m s . 	 H o w e v e r , 	 s o m e 	 s t u d e n t s 	 o f 	 g y m n a s i a 	 p r o g r a m s 	 d i d 	 n o t 	 a t t a i n 	 t h e	
baseline	 le v el	 in	 at	 leas t	 one	 domain	 and	 the	 utmos t	 att ention	 should	 be	 paid	 t o	
t h e 	 d a t a 	 t h a t 	 s h o w 	 t h a t 	 i n 	 t e c h n i c a l 	 a n d 	 p r o f e s s i o n a l 	 p r o g r a m s , 	 a t 	 l e a s t 	 a 	 q u a r t e r	
of	 s tudents	 did	 no t	 att ain	 baseline	 le v els,	 and	 the	 r atios	 ar e	 e v en	 less	 f a v or able	
in	 secondar y	 v ocational	 and	 lo w er	 v ocational	 pr ogr ams	 wher e	 v er y	 f e w	 s tudents	
att ained	 baseline	 le v els	 of	 lit er acy	 in	 the	 assessed	 domains.	 In	 lo w er	 v ocational	

1 94	 JOURN AL	OF	C ONTEMPORAR Y	EDUC A TION AL	S TUDIES	2/20 1 1	 M.	Štr aus,	N .	Mar k el j
pr ogr ams,	 f or	 e xam ple,	 60	 t o	 70%	 of	 s tudents	 did	 no t	 att ain	 baseline	 le v els	 in	 an y	
of	the	thr ee	assessed	domains.
Gender	 dif f er ences	 become	 e v en	 mor e	 pr onounced	 within	 individual	 educa-
tion	 pr ogr ams.	 F emale	 s tudents	 r egular ly	 att ain	 the	 highes t	 le v els	 in	 all	 thr ee	
domains	 of	 lit er acy	 combined,	 which	 pr obably	 r ef lects	 their	 signif icantly	 higher	
r eading	 achie v ements,	 since	 male	 s tudents	 of	 gymnasia	 pr ogr ams	 r egular ly ,	 and	
in	 a	 higher	 percentage	 than	 f emale	 s tudents,	 attained	 the	 highes t	 le v els	 in	 mathe-
matical	 lit er acy	 and	 in	 a	 combination	 of	 mathematical	 and	 scientif ic	 lit er acies.	
E v en	 though	 the	 gener al	 adv ant age	 of	 f emale	 s tudents	 o v er	 male	 s tudents	 in	 the	
t echnical	 and	 pr of essional	 pr ogr ams	 and	 v ocational	 pr ogr ams	 is	 due	 t o	 the	 f act	
that	 a	 higher	 per cent age	 of	 f emale	 s tudents	 att ained	 baseline	 le v els	 in	 r eading	
l i t e r a c y , 	 g e n e r a l l y 	 m o r e 	 f e m a l e 	 s t u d e n t s 	 t h a n 	 m a l e 	 s t u d e n t s 	 i n 	 t h e s e 	 p r o g r a m s 	 d i d	
no t	 att ain	 baseline	 le v els	 of	 mathematical	 lit er acy	 and	 a	 combination	 of	 mathe-
matical	and	scientif ic	lit er acies.
These	 f indings	 cer t ainly	 of f er	 mor e	 q ues tions	 than	 answ er s.	 Ther e	 ar e	 q ue-
s tions	 about	 the	 functions	 and	 goals	 of	 upper -secondar y	 pr ogr ams	 in	 Slo v enia,	
which	 s t em	 fr om	 the	 initial	 discussion	 on	 education	 or	 thinking	 about	 the	 im por -
t ance	 of	 gener al	 education	 and	 s pecif ic	 kno wledge	 within	 the	 socie t y	 and	 f or	 an	
individual.	 The	 PIS A	 s tudy ,	 with	 its	 lat er al	 appr oach	 t o	 dat a	 collection,	 does	 no t	
of f er	 immediat e	 r easons	 f or	 the	 pr esent ed	 r esults	 and	 little	 inf or mation	 on	 the	
mechanisms	 that	 w ould	 enable	 us	 t o	 im pr o v e	 those	 r esults	 in	 a	 shor t	 period.	 Ho-
w e v e r , 	 a 	 c l e a r 	 d a t a b a s e , 	 a c q u i r e d 	 w i t h 	 t h e 	 h e l p 	 o f 	 m e t i c u l o u s l y - b u i l t 	 m e c h a n i s m s ,	
w h i c h 	 e n s u r e 	 i n t e r n a t i o n a l 	 c o m p a r a b i l i t y 	 a n d 	 a n a l y s i s 	 o f 	 s t u d e n t s ’ 	 a c h i e v e m e n t s	
and	 f act or s	 fr om	 the	 school	 and	 home	 en vir onment,	 pr esents	 an	 im por t ant	 basis	
f or	dat a-based	decision	making	f or	fur ther	educational	pr ocesses.
C h a n g i n g 	 e d u c a t i o n 	 s y s t e m s 	 t o 	 i m p r o v e 	 s t u d e n t s ’ 	 a c h i e v e m e n t s 	 i s 	 a 	 d i f f i c u l t	
t as k .	 H o w e v e r , 	 s om e	 c as e s	 s ho w	 t ha t 	 i t	 i s	 n o t	 a n	 i m p o ss i bl e 	 o ne .	 T he	 O E C D 	 f ou n d	
t h a t 	 P o l a n d , 	 f o r 	 e x a m p l e , 	 w h e n 	 i t 	 r e s t r u c t u r e d 	 i t s 	 e d u c a t i o n 	 s y s t e m 	 a n d 	 a b o l i s h e d	
upper -secondar y	 education	 pr ogr ams	 f or	 s tudents	 with	 lo w er	 education	 e xpect a-
tions,	 achie v ed	 a	 signif icant	 progr ess	 in	 the	 r eading	 achie v ements	 of	 s tudents 	
be tw een	 2000	 and	 2003	 (S tr ong	 P er f or mer s	 …	 20 1 0,	 p.	 230).	 The	 r epor t	 also	 giv es	
d e t a i l s 	 o n 	 o t h e r 	 e x a m p l e s 	 o f 	 s u c c e s s f u l 	 c o u n t r i e s , 	 s u c h 	 a s 	 C a n a d a , 	 J a p a n , 	 F i n l a n d	
and	 Ger man y ,	 in	 or der	 t o	 pr epar e	 the	 fr ame w or k	 f or	 an	 education	 r ef or m,	 which	
s t ar t ed	in	20 1 0	in	the	U nit ed	S t at es	of	America	entitled	“Race	t o	the	T op”.
I n 	 a n 	 a r t i c l e 	 o n 	 p r o v i d i n g 	 a d e q u a t e 	 l e v e l s 	 o f 	 v a r i o u s 	 f o r m s 	 o f 	 l i t e r a c y 	 o f	
Slo v ene	 pupils,	 s tudents	 and	 people	 in	 gener al,	 M.	 Grosman	 s tr esses	 f indings 	
on	 the	 cr ucial	 signif icance	 of	 language	 ap titude	 on	 a	 per son’ s	 lit er acy ,	 wher e	 a	
higher	 le v el	 of	 lit er acy	 and	 v arious	 f or ms	 of	 lit er acy	 can	 only	 be	 achie v ed	 with	
m o r e 	 c l o s e l y 	 c o n t r o l l e d 	 a n d 	 m o r e 	 c a r e f u l 	 l a n g u a g e 	 u s a g e 	 a n d 	 l a n g u a g e 	 a w a r e n e s s	
( G r o s m a n 	 2 0 1 0 , 	 p . 	 2 2 ) . 	 F u r t h e r 	 o n , 	 t h e 	 a u t h o r 	 w r i t e s 	 t h a t 	 a 	 p e r s o n 	 m u s t 	 b e 	 a w a r e	
of	 the	 possibilities	 of	 language	 choice,	 kno w	 the	 language	 sy s t em	 and	 be	 capable	
of	 using	 v arious	 s tr at egies	 and	 f ollo w	 cont e xtual	 f act or s,	 in	 or der	 t o	 use	 language	
s u c c e s s f u l l y 	 ( i b i d , 	 p . 	 2 3 ) . 	 G a b e r 	 a n d 	 L . 	 M a r j a n o v i č 	 U m e k 	 s t u d i e d 	 t h e 	 r e s u l t s 	 o f 	 t h e	
“Progress	 in	 Int er national	 R eading	 Lit er acy	 S tudy	 2006”	 (PIRLS	 2006)	 and	 disco-
v er ed	 that	 the	 inclusion	 of	 childr en	 int o	 kinder gar t ens	 has	 a	 positiv e	 cor r elatio	 n	

A tt ainment	of	Baseline	and	Highes t	Le v els	of	Lit er acy	Among	Slo v ene	S tudents	…	 1 95
w i t h 	 t h e 	 a c h i e v e m e n t 	 o f 	 c h i l d r e n 	 i n 	 r e a d i n g 	 l i t e r a c y 	 ( G a b e r 	 a n d 	 M a r j a n o v i č 	 U m e k	
2 0 0 9 ,	 p . 	 1 3 6 ) . 	 L . 	 M a r j a n o v i č 	 U m e k 	 a l s o 	 w r i t e s 	 t h a t 	 t h e 	 l a t e s t 	 c o n c e p t s 	 a n d 	 m o d e l s	
o f 	 l i t e r a c y 	 a n d 	 t h e 	 f i n d i n g s 	 o f 	 m a n y 	 s t u d i e s 	 w h e r e 	 a u t h o r s 	 c o n f i r m e d 	 t h a t 	 c h i l d r e n	
with	 highly	 de v eloped	 s peech	 com pe t ency	 achie v e	 high	 r esults	 in	 assess	 ments	 of	
emer ging	 lit er acy ,	 and	 that	 emer ging	 lit er acy	 is	 a	 good	 pr ediction	 f or	 lit er acy	 in	
t i m e 	 o f 	 s c h o o l i n g , 	 s h o w 	 t h a t 	 i t 	 i s 	 s c i e n t i f i c a l l y 	 f o u n d e d 	 t h a t 	 e m e r g i n g 	 l i t e r a c y	
(and	 s peech)	 should	 be	 encour aged	 in	 Slo v ene	 kindergar tens,	 and	 w e	 should 	
t each	 f ir s t	 gr ade	 element ar y	 school	 pupils	 t o	 r ead	 and	 writ e	 using	 dif f er entiat ed	
t e a c h 	 i n g , 	 w h i c h 	 r e q u i r e s 	 s e t t i n g 	 i n i t i a l 	 s t a n d a r d s 	 o f 	 l i t e r a c y 	 a n d 	 t h e 	 c o r r e s p o n d 	 i n g	
im plementation	 in	 the	 whole	 of	 the	 f irs t	 triennium	 (Marjano vič	 U mek	 20 1 0).
An	 analy sis	 done	 b y	 S.	 P ečjak ,	 N .	 Bucik ,	 M.	 P eš t aj,	 A .	 P odlesek	 and	 T .	 Pir c	
of	 gender	 dif f er ences	 in	 the	 f act or s	 of	 r eading	 lit er acy	 or	 r eading	 com pr ehension	
at	 the	 end	 of	 element ar y	 school	 that	 ar e	 im por t ant	 f or	 achie ving	 higher	 le v els	 of	
l i t e r a c y 	 i n 	 S l o v e n e 	 p u p i l s 	 a n d 	 s t u d e n t s 	 ( P e č j a k 	 e t 	 a l . 	 2 0 1 0 ) . 	 T h e 	 a u t h o r s 	 d i s c o v e r e d	
t h a t 	 t h e s e 	 f a c t o r s 	 h a v e 	 s o m e 	 c o m m o n 	 f e a t u r e s , 	 s u c h 	 a s 	 v a r i a b l e s 	 o f 	 v o c a b u l a r y 	 a n d	
me t a-cognitiv e	 a w ar eness,	 and	 at	 the	 same	 time	 that	 mo tiv ational	 v ariables	 ar e	
mor e	 im por t ant	 f or	 male	 pupils	 and	 s tudents	 than	 f or	 f emale	 pupils	 or	 s tudents	
when	 tr ying	 t o	 under s t and	 a	 t e xt	 (ibid.,	 p.	 94).	 T aking	 int o	 account	 the	 models	
o f 	 r e a d i n g 	 l i t e r a c y , 	 t h e y 	 i n f e r 	 p e d a g o g i c a l 	 a p p l i c a t i o n s 	 t o 	 i n c r e a s e 	 t h e 	 r e a d i n g	
p r e p a r e d n e s s	 o f 	 b o y s . 	 M . 	 C o t i č , 	 F e l d a 	 a n d 	 A . 	 Ž a k e l j 	 d i s c o v e r e d 	 t h a t 	 w i t h 	 a d e q u a t e	
t eaching	 and	 lear ning	 w e	 can	 de v elop	 mathematical	 lit er acy	 and	 enable	 childr en	
t o	 solv e	 r ealis tic	 pr oblems	 and	 use	 mathematics	 in	 e v er y -da y	 situations	 (Co tič	 e t	
al.	 20 1 0,	 p.	 2 7 7).	 the	 author s	 also	 s t at e	 that	 t eaching	 mathematics	 at	 a	 science	
lesson,	 es pecially	 at	 a	 ph y sics	 lesson,	 dif f er s	 fr om	 t eaching	 mathematics	 at	 a	 ma-
thematics	 lesson,	 and	 that	 mathematics	 and	 science	 ar e	 usually	 no t	 connect ed	 in	
the	 minds	 of	 pupils,	 upper -secondar y	 s tudents,	 univ er sit y	 s tudents	 or	 t eacher s	
(ibid.,	 p.	 2 78).	 This	 f act	 might	 help	 us	 f ind	 w a y s	 t o	 im pr o v e	 the	 le v els	 of	 lit er acy	
in	Slo v ene	pupils	and	upper	secondar y	s tudents.
References
Assessing Scientific, Reading and Mathematical Literacy: A Framework for PISA 2006.	
(2006).	P aris:	OE CD	Publishing.
Bonder up	 Dohn,	 N .	 (200 7).	 Kno wledge	 and	 Skills	 f or	 PIS A	 –	 Assessing	 the	 Assessment.	
Journal of Philosophy of Education,	4 1 ,	Issue	1 ,	pp.	1–1 6.
Co tič,	 M.,	 F elda,	 D.	 and	 Žak el j,	 A .	 (20 1 0).	 Razvi jan je	 mat ematične	 pismenos ti	 na	 r azr edni	
s t opn ji.	Sodobna pedagogika, 6 1 ,	Issue	1 ,	pp.	26 4–282.
Definition and Selection of Key Competencies. Executive Summary.	 (2005).	 R e trie v ed	 fr om: 	
http://www .deseco.admin.ch/bf s/deseco/en/inde x/02.parsy s.43469.do wnloadLis t.2296.
Do wnloadFile.tm p/2005.ds k ce x ecutiv esummar y .en.pdf	(A ccessed	on	25.	7 .	2009).
Gaber ,	 S.	 and	 Marjano vič	 U mek ,	 L.	 (2009).	Študije (primerjalne) neenakosti. Znanstveno 
poročilo Pedagoškega inštituta.	 L jubl jana:	 P edagoš ki	 inš titut.	 R e trie v ed	 fr om:	 http://
www .pei.si/UserFilesU pload/f ile/zalozba/Znanstv enaP orocila/2 1_09_studi je(primerjalne)
neenak os ti.pdf	(A ccessed	on	20.	1 .	20 1 1).

1 96	 JOURN AL	OF	C ONTEMPORAR Y	EDUC A TION AL	S TUDIES	2/20 1 1	 M.	Štr aus,	N .	Mar k el j
Gogala,	S.	(1 996).	Obča metodika.	L jubl jana:	Dr ža vna	zalo žba	Slo v eni je.
Gr osman,	 M.	 (20 1 0).	 K akšne	 pismenos ti	 po tr ebu jemo	 za	 2 1 .	 s t ole tje.	Sodobna pedagogika, 
6 1 ,	Issue	1 ,	pp.	1 6–2 7 .
Hanushek ,	 E.	 A .	 and	 W oessmann,	 L.	 (2008).	 The	 r ole	 of	 cognitiv e	 s kills	 in	 economic	 de v e-
lop	 ment.	Journal of economic literature,	 46,	 Issue	 3,	 pp.	 60 7–668.	 R e trie v ed	 fr om:	
http://edpro.s tanf ord.edu/hanushek/admin/pages/f iles/uploads/Hanushek_W oess -
mann_2008_JEL_46.pdf	(A ccessed	on	25.	1 .	20 1 1).
Hus én,	 T .	 (ed.).	 (1 96 7).	International study of achievement in mathematics: a comparison 
of twelve countries	(V ols.	I	and	II).	N e w	Y or k:	W ile y .
Iv el ja,	 R.	 (20 1 0).	Raziskava znanja PISA 2009: Na vrhu Šanghaj in Finska, Slovenci v 
sredini.	 R e trie v ed	 from:	 http://www .dne vnik.si/tis kane_izdaje/dne vnik/1 0 42 40868 1 	
(A ccessed	on	8.	1 2.	20 1 0).
Laf ontaine,	 D.	 (200 4).	 F rom	 com prehension	 t o	 lit er acy :	 Thir t y	 y ears	 of	 reading	 assessment. 	
In:	 J.	 H.	 Mos k o witz	 and	 M.	 S t ephens	 (eds.).	Comparing learning outcomes: internatio-
nal assessment and education policy.	 London:	 R outledge	 F almer ,	 pp.	 2 4–45.	 R e trie v ed 	
from:	 http://books.google.com/books?id=2W_UUzm3iggC&source=gbs_na vlinks_s	
(A ccessed	on	1 8.	6.	2009).
Marjano vič	 U mek,	 L.	 (20 1 0).	 Go v or na	 k om pe t entnos t	 malčk o v	 in	 o trok	 k o t	 napo v ednik 	
zgod	 n je	in	k asne jše	pismenos ti.	Sodobna pedagogika,	6 1 ,	Issue	1 ,	pp.	28–45.
Mar k el j,	 N .	 (20 1 0).	Zasnovanost mednarodnih raziskav znanja z vidika teorij učenja.	 Dokt or -
s k a	diser t aci ja.	L jubl jana:	U niv er za	v	L jubl jani,	Filoz of s k a	f ak ult e t a.	
Measuring Student Knowledge and Skills: The PISA 2000 Assessment of Reading, Mathe-
matical and Scientific Literacy.	(2000).	P aris:	OE CD	Publishing.
Medv eš,	 Z .	 (2004).	 Kom pe t ence	 –	 r azmislek	 o	 r azv o ju	 k oncep ta	 s plošne	 iz obr azbe.	 In: 	
Zbornik prispevkov mednarodnega posveta o splošni izobrazbi.	 L jubl jana:	 Za v od	 RS	
za	šols tv o,	pp.	9–1 4.
Mullis,	 I.	 V .	 S.,	 Mar tin,	 M.	 O .,	 R uddock ,	 G .	 J.,	 O’Sulliv an,	 C .	 Y .,	 Ar or a,	 A .	 and	 Er ber ber ,	
E.	 (2005).	TIMSS 2007 Assessment Frameworks.	 Ches tnut	 Hill:	 TIMSS	 &	 PIRLS 	
Int er national	S tudy	Cent er ,	Bos t on	College.
Mur ph y ,	 S.	 (20 1 0).	 The	 Pull	 of	 PISA:	 U ncer t aint y ,	 Inf luence,	 and	 Ignor ance.	Interamerican 
Journal of Education for Democracy,	 3,	 Issue	 1 ,	 pp.	 28–4 4.	 R e trie v ed	 fr om:	 http://
scholar w or ks.iu.edu/jour nals/inde x.php/ried/ar ticle/vie wFile/6 1 6/7 12	 ( A c c e s s e d 	 o n	
20.	1 .	20 1 1).
OECD PISA 2009 Prvi rezultati.	 (20 1 0).	 R e trie v ed	 from:	 http://www .pei.si/UserFilesU pload/
f ile/r azis k o v alna_de ja vnos t/PISA/PISA2009/PISA2009_pr viR ezult ati.pdf	 (A ccessed 	
on	8.	1 2.	20 1 0).
P ečjak ,	 S.,	 Bucik ,	 N .,	 P eš t aj,	 M.,	 P odlesek,	 A .	 and	 Pir c,	 T .	 (20 1 0).	 Br alna	 pismenos t	 ob 	
k oncu	 osno vne	 šole	 –	 ali	 f antje	 ber e jo	 dr ugač e	 k o t	 dekle t a?	Sodobna pedagogika,	 6 1 ,	
Issue	1 ,	pp.	86–1 02.
P eschar ,	 J.	 L.	 (2004).	 Cross-cur ricularcom pe tencies:	 de v elopments	 in	 a	 ne w	 area	 of	 education 	
out come	 indicat or s.	 In:	 J.	 H.	 Mos k o witz	 and	 M.	 S t ephens	 (eds.).	Comparing learning 
outcomes: international assessment and education policy.	 London:	 R outledge	 F almer ,	 pp. 	
59–80.	 R e trie v ed	 from:	 http://books.google.com/books?id=2W_UUzm3iggC&source=gbs_
na vlinks_s	(A ccessed	on	1 8.	6.	2009).
PISA 2006 – Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World. Vol 1: Analysis.	 (200 7a).	 P aris:	
OE CD.

A tt ainment	of	Baseline	and	Highes t	Le v els	of	Lit er acy	Among	Slo v ene	S tudents	…	 19 7
PISA 2006 – Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World. Vol 2: Data.	 (200 7b).	 P aris: 	
OE CD.
PISA 2006 Database.	 (200 7).	 R e trie v ed	 from:	 http://pisa2006.acer .edu.au/inde x.php	 (Accesse	 d 	
on	1 0.	1 2.	200 7).
PISA 2006 Technical Report.	(2009).	P aris:	OE CD.
PISA 2009 Assessment Framework. Key competencies in reading, mathematics and science.	
(2009).	P aris:	OE CD	Publishing.
PISA 2009 Database.	 (20 1 0).	 R e trie v ed	 from:	 http://pisa2009.acer .edu.au	 (Accessed	 on 	
1 0. 1 2. 20 1 0).
PISA 2009 Results: What students know and can do. Vol 1.	(20 1 0).	P aris:	OE CD.
P ol jak ,	V .	(1 99 1).	Didaktika.	Zagr eb:	Šk ols k a	kn jiga.
R y chen,	 D.	 S.	 (200 4).	 Ke y	 com pe t encies	 f or	 all:	 an	 o v er aching	 concep tual	 fr ame	 of	 ref erence. 	
In:	 D.	 S.	 R y chen	 and	 A .	 T iana	 (eds.).	Developing key competencies in education: Some 
lessons from international and national experience.	P aris:	UNESC O ,	pp.	5–3 4.
R y chen,	 D.	 S.	 and	 Salganik ,	 L.	 H.	 (eds.).	 (2003).	Key competencies for a successful life and 
well-functioning society.	Gö ttingen:	Hogr ef e	&	Huber	Publisher s.
Salganik ,	 L.	 S.	 (200 1).	 Com pe t encies	 f or	 lif e:	 A	 concep tual	 and	 em pirical	 challenge.	 In: 	
D. S.	 R y chen	 and	 L.	 S.	 Salganik	 (eds.).	Defining and selecting key competencies.	 Ber n: 	
Hogr ef e	&	Huber ,	pp.	1 7–32.
Seznam javno veljavnih izobraževalnih programov za pridobitev srednješolske izobrazbe 	
(s t an je	 v	 šols k em	 le tu	 2009/20 1 0).	 (2009).	 R e trie v ed	 fr om:	 http://por t al.mss.edus.si/
msswww/progr ami2009/progr ami/ja vno_v el ja vni_pr g/seznam_ja vno_v el ja vnih_pro -
gr amo v .htm	(A ccessed	on	3.	1 2.	2009).
S tr mčnik ,	F .	(200 1).	Didaktika. Osrednje didaktične teme.	L jubl jana:	Razpr a v e	Filoz of s k e	
f ak ult e t e.
Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education: Lessons from PISA for the 
United States.	 (20 1 0).	 R e trie v ed	 from:	 http://dx.doi.or g/1 0. 1 78 7/9 78926 4096660-en 	
(A ccessed	on	20.	1 .	20 1 1).
Šilih,	G .	(1 96 1).	Očrt splošne didaktike.	L jubl jana:	Dr ža vna	zalo žba	Slo v eni je.
Štr aus,	 M.	 (2009).	 So	 di jakin je	 us pešne jše	 od	 di jak o v?	 Razlik e	 med	 s poloma	 v	 br alni,	 mat e-
matični	 in	 nar a v oslo vni	 pismenos ti	 iz	 r azis ka v e	 PISA	 2006	 na	 zače tku	 sredn jes t open j-
s k ega	iz obr až e v an ja.	Sodobna pedagogika, 60,	Issue	5,	pp.	60–85.
The high cost of low educational performance.	 (20 1 0).	 P aris:	 OECD	 Publishing.	 R e trie v ed	 from: 	
http://www .pisa.oecd.or g/dat aoecd/1 1/28/4 4 4 1 782 4.pdf	(A ccessed	on	1 2.	5.	20 1 0).
Top of the class. High performers in science in PISA 2006.	 (2009).	 P aris:	 OE CD	 Publish	 ing.
T opping,	 K.,	 V altin,	 R.,	 R oller ,	 C .,	 Br oz o,	 W .	 and	 Lour des	 Dionisio,	 M.	 (2003).	Policy and 
practice implications of the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) 
2000. Report for the International Reading Association. PISA Task Force.	 R e trie v ed	
fr om:	 http://www .r eading.or g/Libr aries/R epor ts_and_S t andar ds/pisa.sf lb.ashx	 ( Ac -
cessed	on	20.	1 .	20 1 1).
Ul jens,	 M.	 (1 997).	School didatctics and learning. A school didacitc model framing ananalysis 
of pedagogical implications of learning theory.	Ho v e:	Psy chology	Pr ess,	Ltd.
Y or e,	 L.	 D.,	 Pimm,	 D.	 and	 T uan	 H.-L.	 (200 7).	 The	 lit er acy	 com ponent	 of	 mathematical	 and	
scientif ic	 lit er acy .	International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,	 5,	
Issue	4,	pp.	559–589.

1 98	 JOURN AL	OF	C ONTEMPORAR Y	EDUC A TION AL	S TUDIES	2/20 1 1	 M.	Štr aus,	N .	Mar k el j
Žis t,	 F .	 (20 1 0).	Bodo učenci vedno manj bralno pismeni?	 R e trie v ed	 from:	 http://w eb0 1 .
v ecer .com/por tali/v ecer/v1/def ault.as p?kaj=3&id=20 1 0 1208055995 1 8	 (Accessed	 on 	
8.	1 2.	20 1 0).
Žolnir ,	 N .	 and	 Kr amžar ,	 B.	 (20 1 0).	Bralna pismenost učencev vsako leto slabša.	 R e trie v ed	
fr om:	http://www .delo.si/clanek/1 3 1 820	(A ccessed	on	8.	1 2.	20 1 0).