PISA READING LITERACY PERFORMANCE AND READING ENGAGEMENT OF STATE

SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS IN SUKARAMI DISTRICT BASED ON GENDER

Emmelia Tiffany Barus

Advisor 1

Machdalena Vianty, M.Ed., M.Pd., Ed.D.

Advisor 2

Ida Rosmalina, S.Pd., M.Pd.

Abstract: This study investigated reading literacy and reading engagement of tenth graders of three
public schools in Sukarami districts based on gender. The sample of this study was 285 students selected by
using purposive sampling technique. To collect the data, PISA 2009 reading literacy test and reading
engagement questionnaire were distributed to the students. The data then were analyzed statistically.
Descriptive analyses showed that the students’ reading literacy mean score was 34.74 meaning that the mean
score was below the standard of national education score (KKM), and they were at level 3 based on PISA level.
Besides, both male and female students’ reading literacy were also at level 3. Statistical analyses showed that
students of Public School 2 significantly outperformed those of Public School 1 and 2 in reading literacy, and
students of Public School 1 also significantly outperformed those of Public School 3. However, there were no
gender differences in reading literacy. In terms of reading engagement, most of both male and female students
in Sukarami district spent their time reading for enjoyment only 30 minutes or less a day and had enough time
to read online, although they had negative attitudes toward reading and rarely spent time reading various books
in English. Statistically, students of Public School 2 significantly more engaged than those of Public School 1
and 2 in the four aspects of reading engagement (time spent reading for enjoyment, reading attitude, reading
diversity and online reading). The findings also showed that there was a significant gender differences in
reading attitude favoring female students.

Keywords: school differences, gender differences, Sukarami district, PISA reading literacy, PISA reading
engagement, English performance.

INTRODUCTION

Reading, one of the four major language skills which should be taught and mastered in English,
is important for a variety of reasons. Through reading, people are able to enrich their knowledge, to
understand signs or instructions, to develop their mind and to discover new things. In this modern era,
most of Indonesian students deal with reading online, books, magazines, comics, novels, or any
sources in which the materials are printed or provided only in English as their foreign language.
Therefore, having good reading ability is important to be started since a very young age. The
importance of reading for students in Indonesia is stated in Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan dan
Kebudayaan Number 23 Year 2015 (as cited in Kementrian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, 2016) that
every school should provide a time for the students to read continuously as a part of developing their
characters.
Reading is a main literacy skill for the purpose of obtaining knowledge for foreign language
learners (Abidin, Mohammadi & Ping, 2011). Therefore, a person should consider the importance of
reading literacy as a functional application of reading for various purposes. Reading literacy is the
ability to understand, use, reflect on and engage with written texts for the purpose of achieving
someone’s objective, evolving his/her knowledge and potential, and cooperating him/her effectively in
society (OECD, 2009). The word understanding above represents reading comprehension, which is
defined as the ability to process and comprehend the whole text. With this in mind, reading is not only
to consider the text but also to get something from the text. Building students’ habit in reading to
make them become literate in it is one of the aims of English subject existence.It is stated in
Permendikbud Number 68 and 69 year 2013 that English subject should be taught in schools in
Indonesia, especially in secondary schools as a mandatory subject.According to the Undang-Undang

1
Republik Indonesia Nomor 20 Tahun 2003 pada Bab 3, pasal 4, ayat 5, “Education is conducted by
developing culture for reading and writing and, arithmetic, for all members of the community.”
Despite of all the importance of reading and how someone needs to be literate in reading, it is
found that most high school students in Palembang still encounter difficulty in dealing with reading
English text, in which their mean scores of English performance are below the average. For instance,
the national examination’s average score of English subject of state senior high school students in
Palembang year 2017 is 48.61 (Kementrian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, n.d.). In detail, the results of
national examination of English subject of Public School 1, 2 and 3 or the schools where the writer
conducted the research were still below the average or below 75.00, in which Public School 1 students
got 42.39, Public School 2 students got 74.51, and Public School 3 students got 41.3 (Kementrian
Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, n.d.). Internationally, the result of English Proficiency Index (EPI)
organized by Education first in 2016 shows that Indonesia was in 32 nd place out of 72 countries
assessed with the average score 52.94 (Education First, 2017). EF EPI itself is an online test done
internationally to see the English ability in each country for young people and adults, since 2011 (EF,
2017). Furthermore, According to Dinas Pendidikan Provinsi Sumatera Selatan in 2008, (as cited in
Diem, 2011) in South Sumatra, there were 154.032 people or 3.16% who were illiterate in Bahasa
Indonesia. The writer then assumes that from the data above, Indonesians’ English proficiencies are
not even considered as the average ones and even there are still some people who are illiterate in their
own national language (Bahasa Indonesia).
Indonesian students’ reading literacy performance is also still low based on the results of a
survey done internationally. Program of International Students’ Assessment (PISA), a survey
conducted every three years since 2000 assessing reading literacy in native language, mathematics
and science of 15-year-old students in the OECD member countries and over 30 non-member partner
countries, showed that Indonesia students’ reading literacy score was low, and of all the five time
surveys, Indonesia’s mean score were always below OECD’s.For instances, the result of PISA 2009
showed that Indonesia’s mean score was 402 while OECD’s was 493 (OECD, 2010a), in 2012
Indonesia’s mean score was 396 while OECD’s was 496 (OECD, 2014), and in 2015 Indonesia’s
mean score was 397 while OECD’s was 493 (OECD, 2016a). These make Indonesia had ranked
respectively 57th and 60th of 65 countries assessed in 2009 and 2015, and 66 th of 72 countries assessed
in 2015, indicating Indonesia’s mean scores were not even considered as the average ones.These
conditions lead the writer to assume that reading is not a habit yet for Indonesian students.
It is concluded that Indonesian students’ reading performance in native language is low.
However, the results of PISA in reading literacy in Indonesia is not able to measure the students’
English reading proficiency in this global era, 21 st century world, since the language used in PISA to
measure Indonesian students is in Bahasa. The writer also assumes that the students’ result in reading
in English may not be better by looking from their results in Bahasa Indonesia as their own national
language. Having the complete information about the Indonesian students’ reading results in Bahasa
Indonesia from PISA, therefore, made the writer interested in measuring the students’ English reading
performance by using PISA 2009 test items in English as the measurement for the 15 year old
students in three schools of Sukarami sub district in Palembang. The schools of this sub district are
Public School 1, Public School 2 and Public School 3 in Sukarami district whose accreditations are A
(Kementrian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, n.d.). Public School 2 is considered excellent since it is the
superior state senior high school in Sukarami district (Kementrian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, n.d.).
PISA 2009 test item was used by the writer because it provides the complete items along with the
additional questions (reading engagement) which are not provided by the previous PISA test item, and
due to the reading literacy as a focus in PISA 2009.
The other reason for the writer to do this study is due to the Indonesian educational system in
this era. Higher order thinking skill (HOTS) is a crucial thing which is emphasized in Kurikulum 2013
(Kementrian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, n.d.). It includes creative, metacognitive, reflective, logical
and critical thinking (King, Goodson & Rohani, n.d.). In relation to this study, Reading literacy takes
into account the higher order thinking skill as what has been a main focus in Kurikulum 2013. Higher
order thinking skill’s measurement involves the unfamiliar questions for the students which need to be
solved by enabling and applying their higher order thinking skill (King et al., n.d.). Similarly, the
students’ assessment in PISA reading literacy 2009 includes the items asking the students to identify
and apply their knowledge in some unfamiliar situations, which lead them to use their higher order

2
cognitive processes (OECD, 2009). Therefore, it is reasonable to use the reading literacy test items
since they are relevant and related to the Indonesian educational system which relates to the HOTS.
The concerns of reading literacy are not only in terms of the students’ results in reading.
OECD (2009) mentions that besides the students’ skills and knowledge, the development of reading
literacy also includes the students’ motivation, attitude, and behavior called engagement in reading.
Based on PISA 2009, reading engagement is the combination of characteristics or activities that
describe time spent reading for enjoyment, reading attitude, reading diversity and online reading
(OECD, 2010b). PISA showed that there was a strong relationship between reading engagement and
reading performance (OECD, 2002; OECD, 2009). However, OECD (2002) adds that although being
good in reading engagement is associated with better results in reading literacy, it is not concluded
that it causes them. It is explained in OECD (2002) that there are possibilities in which the students
who are already good in reading tend to read more (being more engaged in reading), or their ability in
reading and their engagement in reading might be caused by other factors. Therefore, it is necessary to
see not only the cognitive component of reading of the students, but also how far their activities in
reading are (motivational component). In other words, this study takes into account both the students’
reading literacy performance and their reading engagement by doing a survey concerning those two
variables.
Another characteristic which is associated with the students’ performance in reading based on
PISA is gender (OECD, 2002). Gender is the term referring someone’s roles of being male or female
from his/her cultural establishment (Neff, 2015). In this study, the writer sees whether there are gender
differences in students’ reading literacy performance and reading engagement. Gender is considered
as a predictor of the students’ performance in reading literacy. It is supported by Oxford (1993) that
males tend to be less active than females in using reading strategy. In addition, PISA 2000 discovered
that at the age of 15, female students were more engaged in reading than male students—females read
more and they feel positive about it (OECD 2002). PISA 2012 also found that consistently, females
outperformed males in reading in all countries assessed (OECD, 2014). The same finding was also
found in PISA 2009 that there were gender differences favoring female students both in reading
engagement and reading literacy performance (OECD, 2010a). In Indonesia, the same as all countries
assessed, females performed better in English than males (EF EPI, 2017). Although most studies
found female students are superior over males in reading, Johnson in 1973-1974 found that male
students in England and Nigeria got better results in reading than girls. On the other hand, Asgarabadi,
Rouhi and Jafarigohar (2015) found that there was no significant difference in EFL students’ reading
comprehension based on gender. Hence, from the explanation above, it is concluded that gender
difference has an impact of students’ reading performance and engagement, in which the writer
assumes from most previous studies that female students are better readers than males, though there
are also studies saying that males outperform females in reading and that there is no significant
difference in reading based on gender. Due to the assumption based on the other previous studies, the
writer intends to see whether there are gender differences in the three schools of Sukarami district by
doing a research.
Based on the explanation in the previous paragraphs, therefore, makes the writer interested in
conducting a study entitled “PISA Reading Literacy Performance and Reading Engagement of
State Senior High School Students In Sukarami District Based on Gender.” The writer wants to
find the results of PISA reading literacy performance and reading engagement of students in Public
School 1, Public School 2 and Public School 3 and whether there are gender differences in their
reading literacy and reading engagement.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This study used a quantitative research. Quantitative research is a research in which the
researcher investigates the problem by exploring something occurs in the field and describing why it
happens (Creswell, 2012). The design used as a part of quantitative research was survey research
design. According to Creswell (2012), survey research design is a method used to describe the
attitudes, opinions, behaviors, or characteristics of the sample by administering a survey to them. In
this study, the writer described and compared the students reading literacy and reading engagement
based on their schools and gender. The schools chosen in this study were the state senior high schools

3
in Sukarami District in Palembang (Public School 1, Public School2 and Public School 3). There were
285 samples selected as the sample of the study.
To collect the data, the students were asked to do the PISA 2009 reading literacy test
consisting 39 questions (42 items) and to give their responses of the PISA 2009 reading engagement
questionnaire consisting of 4 aspects (time spent reading for enjoyment, reading attitude, reading
diversity and online reading) along with 25 questions.
Before collecting the data, the writer checked the validity and reliability of the instruments
first. The validity of reading test in this study had the strong appropriateness, as it is stated by OECD
(2009) that PISA 2009 uses high quality instruments which have high levels of validity and reliability
for improving students’ skills, attitudes and knowledge, and education systems by using steps of
strong quality measurement (OECD, 2009). In brief, PISA 2009 reading literacy test items were
considered valid. The writer then intended to see the evidence of the reading engagement
questionnaire based on the test content (content validity) and internal structure (construct validity).
Reading engagement questionnaire in this study is translated in order to avoid the confusion of the
students in getting the meaning of the items. Therefore, the writer checked the validity of the reading
engagement questionnaire to convince that the meaning of the translated one is the same as the
original (English) one. In this study, the reading engagement questionnaire was validated or checked
by two lecturers of English study program of Sriwijaya University. For estimating the construct
validity of the questionnaire, the writer tried it out to non sample students or the 10 th grade students of
SMA Xaverius 3 Palembang. There were 24 items that were tried out. The writer used Statistical
Package for Social and Science (SPSS) program version 23 for Windows, specifically the Pearson
Product Moment Correlation Coefficient at the significance level of (0.05). The item is valid if the r-
obtained is the same as or higher than r table (r-obtained ≥ r-table) (N=36, 0.291). The result showed
that all of the items were valid. Therefore, the writer used all items of the questionnaire to the sample
students.
Next, to get the evidence that the reading test and questionnaire used are reliable, the writer
checked the internal consistency reliability of the test by computing the Cronbach’s alpha (α) from
SPSS 23 for Windows.The writer used the reading test and reading engagement questionnaire adopted
from PISA 2009 instruments.The reliability of PISA 2009 reading test used in this study after being
tried out to non sample students (36 10 th graders of SMA Xaverius 3 Palembang) and being computed
is 0.844. Reading engagement itself has four main questions. The first main question, time spent
reading for enjoyment, is only in a form of a question asking the students to choose how long they
read in a period of time. The others are in form of giving response of four to five categories (more
detail explained in 3.5.2). After being tried out to non sample students, the reliabilities of reading
attitude, reading diversity and online reading items are 0.829, 0.951, and 0.945 respectively.
According to the criteria of Cronbach’s alpha, the reliability of PISA 2009 reading test and reading
attitude items are good (0.7<α<0.9), and the reading diversity and online reading items are excellent
(α>0.9) (George & Mallery, 2003). In brief, the reading test and the questionnaire used in this study
are reliable.
In analyzing the data, the writer described the students reading literacy and reading
engagement based on school and gender through the descriptive analyses in SPSS 23 for Windows.
For the reading literacy, the writer analyzed based on score ranging from 0-100, based on KKM (75)
and based on PISA level. Students who got the score 335 to 417 were in the level 1, score 408 to 480
in level 2, 481 to 552 in level 3, 553 to 625 to level 4, and those who got the score more than 625
were in level 5 (OECD, 2006).
In scoring the questionnaire, for question number 1, a response of “more than 2 hours a day”
indicates a very positive attitude and should receive a score of 5. For the rest responses, a response of
“1 to 2 hours a day” receives a 4, “more than 30 minutes to less than 60 minutes a day” receives a 3,
“30 minutes or less a day” receives a 2, and “I do not read for enjoyment” receives a 1. Therefore, the
possible score for question number 1 range from 1(lowest) to 5(highest).
For the part 2 of the questionnaire, there are 11 items. On items 3, 4, 6, 8, 11 and 12, a
response of “strongly agree” indicates a very positive attitude and should receive a score of 4. On the
remaining items, items 2, 5, 7, 9 and 10, a response of “strongly disagree” indicates a very positive
attitude and should receive a score of 4. Hence, on the positive items, “strongly agree” receives a 4,
“agree” receives a 3, “disagree” receives a 2, and “strongly disagree” receives a 1. The technique is

4
reversed on the negative items. Therefore, the possible score for question number 28 range from 11
(lowest) to 44 (highest) divided by 4. Scores ranging from 11 to 33 indicates the students’ negative
attitudes toward reading, while 34 to 47 indicates the positive attitudes toward reading.
For the part 3 of the questionnaire, there are 5 items. On items 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17, a
response of “several times a week” indicates a very positive attitude and should receive a score of 5.
For the rest responses, a response of “several times a month” receives 4, “about once a month”
receives 3, “a few times a year” receives 2, and “never or almost never” receives a 1. Therefore, the
possible score for questions on part 3 range from 5 (lowest) to 25 (highest) divided by 5. Scores
ranging from 5 to 15 indicates that the students do not spend or rarely spend their time reading various
types of books in English, while 16 to 25 indicates that they have enough time to read various types of
books in English.
For the part 4 of the questionnaire, the last items, it has the similar pattern as the questions on
part 3. There are 8 items. A response of “several times a day” receives a 5, a response of “several
times a week” receives 4, “several times a month” receives 3, “never or almost never” receives 2, and
“I don’t know what it is” receives a 1. Therefore, the possible score for questions on part 4 range from
8 (lowest) to 40 (highest) divided by 8. Scores ranging from 8 to 25 indicates that the students do not
spend or rarely spend their time reading online in English, while 25 to 40 indicates that they have
enough time to read online in English.
The writer then used One Way Anova and Kruskall Wallis to see whether or not there were
school differences in reading literacy and reading engagement, and Independent Sample t-Test and
Mann Whitney U Test to see whether or not there were gender differences in reading literacy and
reading engagement.There were three assumptions that needed to be checked before the writer tested
the mean differences for parametric tests (One Way Anova and Independent Sample t-Test). Park
(2003-2005) states that the researchers should check whether or not the samples are normally
distributed, whether or not the samples are independent, and whether or not the population variances
of the groups are equal. The samples in this study were independent since the students from a group
are not related to other groups. In relation to the other two assumptions, the writer checked the
normality and the equal variance assumption or homogeneity discussed in the following paragraphs.
Table 1
Normality and Homogeneity of PISA Reading Literacy Performance
Normality: Kolmogrov-
Variables Smirnov
Statistic Sig
Public School 1 students .104 .013
Public School 1 students (PISA level) .103 .015
Public School 2 students .083 .143
Public School 2 students (PISA level) .076 .200
Public School 3 students .157 .000
Public School 3 students (PISA level) .157 .000
Male students .122 .034
Male students (PISA level) .114 .001
Female students .122 .000
Female students (PISA level) .072 .034
Homogeneity
Levene Statistic Sig
Test based on school 29.188 .000
Test based on school (PISA level) 26.020 .000
Test based on gender 2.283 .132
Test based on gender (PISA level) 2.537 .112
Referred to Table 18, the result of Kolmogrov- Smirnov shows that the p-value of Public
School 2 students’ data set is 0.143. Since the p-value (.143) is higher than 0.05, the data set has the
normal distribution. It is also shown that the p-value of Public school 2 students’ data set based on
PISA level score is 0.200. Since the p-value (.200) is higher than 0.05, the data set has the normal

5
distribution. In addition, the results of Kolmogrov- Smirnov show that the rest data sets’ p-values are
not higher than 0.05, which indicates that the data sets do not have the normal distribution.
Alternatively, Glencross (1986) implies that in central limit theorem, the samples which are large
enough (more than 30 participants) have the normal distribution data sets. Since the samples in this
study are more than 30, hence, makes the data sets have nearly normal distributions.
Concurrently, the result of Levene test shows that the p-value of students’ reading test based
on gender is 0.132. Since the p-value (.132) is higher than 0.05, the two data sets have the same
distribution. It is also shown that the p-value of students’ reading test based on gender in PISA level
score is 0.112. Since the p-value (.112) is higher than 0.05, the two data sets have the same
distribution. Notwithstanding, the result of Levene test also shows that the p-value of students’
reading test based on school, either in range score 1-100 or PISA level, is lower than 0.05, which
indicates that the three data sets do not have the same distribution. However, Azwar (2000) states that
the data sets are considered having the same distribution as long as the data sets have the same
amount of samples. Hence, all of the data sets are considered homogeneous or have the same
distribution.

FINDINGS
Students’ Reading Literacy Performance based on School
This part first describes the results of students’ PISA reading literacy performance of three
public schools in Sukarami district which was analyzed based on the range of score 1-100 (see Table
2).

PISA Reading Literacy Result

100%
90%
80% 75.4% 75.4%
71.2%
70%67.4% 67.0%
60.7%
60% 54.7% 52.3% 52.3%
48.1%
50% 41.4% 43.2% 41.4%
Percent

40% 35.4% 37.2%

28.4% 25.3%
24.6%
30% 24.9% 24.9%
20.4% 20.7%
20% 13.7% 17.2%
9.5% 10.9%
10% 2.8%
0%
62.8% 23.5% 51.9%
40.7%
c 47.7%
43.9%
20.7%
36.5% 21.4% 16.8%
3.9%10.5%
5.6%
10.2%
16.5%
Q1 Q3 Q5 Q7 Q9 11a 11 Q13 Q15 Q17 Q19 Q21 22b Q24 Q26 Q28 Q30 Q32 Q34 Q36 Q38
Q Q Q

Items

Table 2
The Description of Students’Reading Literacy Performance based on School (Range of Score 1-100)
Public Sample Mean Minimum Maximum Standard
District
School (N) Score Score Score Deviation
1 95 36.54 11.90 83.33 9.91
Sukaram 2 95 46.17 9.52 80.95 14.78
i 3 95 21.50 9.52 40.48 6.97
Total 285 34.74 9.52 83.33 14.97
Table 2shows that the minimum score of the students who did the PISA reading literacy test
was 9.52 which were from Public School 2 and Public School 3, and the maximum score was 83.33
from Public School 1. Although the maximum score was obtained by a student of Public School 1, the
highest mean score, 46.17, was obtained by the students of Public School 2, followed by Public
School 1 and Public School 3. In conclusion, the students’ mean score of the three schools in

6
Sukarami district was 34.74 which was far below the standard of National Education in Indonesia
(75.00).
In order to find out whether or not there were significant differences in reading literacy
performance of students based on school, the writer analyzed their scores statistically by using One
Way Anova. The result of One Way Anova shows that the p-value is 0.000. Since the p-value (0.000)
is lower than 0.05, not all the three means (students of Public School 1, 2 and 3 reading literacy mean
scores) are equal.
Table 3
The Post Hoc Test of Students’ Reading Literacy Performance based on School
(I) School (J) School Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.
Public School 2 9.62766* 1.86668 .000
Public School 1 *
Public School 3 15.03705 1.24263 .000
Public School 2 Public School 3 24.66471* 1.72105 .000
The results of Scheffe’s test shows that there is a significant difference between students’
reading literacy performance of Public School 1 and Public School 2 (p-value 0.000 < 0.05), there is a
significant difference between students’ reading literacy performance of Public School 1 and Public
School 3 (p-value 0.000 < 0.05), and there is a significant difference between students’ reading
literacy performance of Public School 2 and Public School 3 (p-value 0.000 < 0.05).
Second, the students’ reading literacy performance of the three public schools in Sukarami
district was analyzed based on the standard score of national education in Indonesia which is 75.00
(see Table 4 ).
Table 4
Students’ Reading Literacy Performance Based on National Education Standard Score
N (%)
District Score Public School Public School Public School Total N (%)
1 2 3
≥75 1 (1.1) 2 (2.1) 0 3 (1.1)
Sukaram
≤74.
i 94 (98.9) 93 (97.9) 95 (100) 282 (98.9)
9
Table 4 shows that only 1.1% or 3 students whose scores were above the standard of national
education in Indonesia. In detail, one of them was from Public School 1, two were from Public School
2 while there were none from Public School 3.
Third, the students’ reading literacy performance of the three public schools in Sukarami
district was analyzed based on PISA level (see Table 5).
Table 5
Students’ Reading Literacy Performance Based on PISA Level
N (%)
Public Mean Lv.1 Lv.2 Lv.3 Lv.4
District N Lv.5
School (Level) (335- (408- (481- (553-
(>625)
407) 480) 552) 625)
1 95 512 (3) 4 (4) 22 (23) 39 (41) 29 (31) 1 (1)
Sukaram
2 95 576 (4) 1 (1) 18 (19) 18 (19) 25 (26) 33 (35)
i
3 95 412 (2) 46 (48) 40 (42) 9 (10) 0 0
28
Total 500 (3) 51 (18) 80 (28) 66 (23) 54 (19) 34 (12)
5
Table 5 shows that most students in Public School 1 were on the level 3 (41%), while Public
School 2 students mostly on the level 5 (35%) and those from Public School 3 mostly on the level 1
(48%). In total, students of all the three public school in Sukarami district were mostly on the second
level (28% or 80 students). Furthermore, the highest mean scorewas attained by Public School 2
whose PISA level was 4, followed by Public School 1 and 2 whose PISA levels were 3 and 2
respectively. Overall, the mean score of the three public schools in Sukarami district was 500, which
made it stand on the third PISA proficiency level.

7
 In order to find out whether or not there were significant school differences in reading literacy
performance based on PISA level, the writer analyzed their scores statistically by using One Way
Anova. The result of One Way Anova shows that the p-value is 0.000. Since the p-value (0.000) is
lower than 0.05, not all the three means (students of Public School 1, 2 and 3 reading literacy mean
scores) are equal.
Table 6
The Post Hoc Test of Students’ Reading Literacy Performance Based on PISA Level
(I) School (J) School Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.

Public School 2 64.24779* 10.69012 .000

Public School 1
Public School 3 100.45263* 10.69012 .000
Public School 2 Public School 3 164.70042* 10.69012 .000
The results of Scheffe’s test shows that there is a significant difference between students’
reading literacy performance of Public School 1 and Public School 2 (p-value 0.000 < 0.05), there is a
significant difference between students’ reading literacy performance of Public School 1 and Public
School 3 (p-value 0.000 < 0.05), and there is a significant difference between students’ reading
literacy performance of Public School 2 and Public School 3 (p-value 0.000 < 0.05).

Students’ Reading Literacy Performance based on Gender

This part first describes the results of male and female students’ PISA reading literacy
performance of three public schools in Sukarami district which was analyzed based on the range of
score 1-100 (see Table 7).
Table 7
The Description of Students’ Reading Literacy Performance based on Gender (Range of Score 1-100)

Score Score
Public Male Female
Mea SD Mea SD
School (N) Min Max (N) Min Max
n n
16.6 83.3 12.1 11.9 54.7
1 33 36.00 62 36.83 8.59
7 3 4 0 6
80.9 16.8 26.1 73.8 13.2
2 40 9.52 45.95 55 46.32
5 3 9 1 5
11.9 33.3 40.4
3 44 20.62 6.20 51 9.52 22.27 7.54
0 3 8
83.3 16.3 73.8 13.9
Total 117 9.52 33.62 168 9.52 35.52
3 8 1 1
Referred to Table 7, the maximum score (83.33) belonged to male student from Public School
1 while the minimum score (9.52) belonged to both male student from Public School 2 and female
student from Public School 3. Though the highest score of reading literacy was obtained by the male
student, all the mean scores of female students of Public School 1, Public School 2, and Public School
3 were higher than the male students’ mean scores. In total, female students in Sukarami district got
higher mean score (35.52) than male students (33.62).
In order to find out whether or not there were significant differences in reading literacy
performance based on gender, the writer analyzed their scores statistically by using Independent
Sample t-Test (see Table 8).
Table 8
The t-Test Analysis of Students’ Reading Literacy Performance based on Gender
t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error Interval of the
T Df Difference
tailed) Difference Difference
Lower Upper

8
 Equal
variances 1.222 280 .223 2.22396 1.81926 -1.35721 5.80514
assumed
Score
Equal
variances not 1.184 214.782 .238 2.22396 1.87881 -1.47930 5.92723
assumed
Referred to Table 8, the result of Independent Sample t-Test shows that the p-value is 0.223.
Since the p-value (0.223) is higher than 0.05, there is no significant difference between male and
female students in their reading literacy performance.
Second, the students’ reading literacy performance of the three public schools in Sukarami
district was analyzed based on the standard score of national education in Indonesia which is 75.00
(see Table 9).
Table 9
Male and Female Students’ Reading Literacy Performance Based on National Education Standard
Score
Total N
Male N (%) Female N (%)
Scor Total N (%)
District
e School School School (%) School School School
1 2 3 1 2 3
≥75 1 (3.03) 2 (5) 0 3 (2.56) 0 0 0 0
Sukaram
≤74. 32 44 114 62 55 51 168
i 38 (95)
9 (96.97) (100) (97.44) (100) (100) (100) (100)
Table 9 shows that there were 3 male students, one from Public School 1 and two from Public
School 2, whose scores were above the standard of national education in Indonesia. The rest of the
male students’ scores were below the standard score. In contrast, there were none of female students
whose scores were at least 75.00, which means that the scores of all of them were below the standard
score.
Third, the male and female students’ reading literacy performance of the three public schools
in Sukarami district was analyzed based on PISA level (see Table 10).
Table 10
Male and Female Students’ Reading Literacy Performance Based on PISA Level
Gende Mean N (%)
District N
r (Level) Lv.1 Lv.2 Lv.3 Lv.4 Lv.5
25 35 24 21 12
Male 492.52 (3) 117
Sukaram (21) (30) (21) (18) (10)
i Femal 16 26 45 42 32 23
505.21 (3)
e 8 (15) (27) (25) (19) (14)
Table 10 shows that most of both male and female students were on the level 2 (30% and
27%). However, based on the mean score of both genders, female students’ was slightly better than
male students, in which both of their PISA proficiency levels were on the third level.
In order to find out whether or not there were significant gender differences in reading
literacy performance based on PISA level, the writer analyzed their scores statistically by using
Independent Sample t-Test (see Table 11).
Table 11
The t-Test Analysis of Male and Female Students’ Reading Literacy Performance based on PISA
Level
t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error Interval of the
T Df Difference
tailed) Difference Difference
Lower Upper

9
 Equal
variances 1.054 283 .293 12.68505 12.03903 -11.01236 36.38246
assumed
Score
Equal
variances not 1.023 222.719 .307 12.68505 12.68505 -11.74141 37.11151
assumed
Referred to Table 11, the result of Independent Sample t-Test shows that the p-value is 0.293.
Since the p-value (0.293) is higher than 0.05, there is no significant difference between male and
female students in their reading literacy performance based on PISA level.

Students’ Reading Engagement

Students’ reading engagement as measured by PISA 2009 reading engagement questionnaire

focused on four aspects:Time Spent Reading for Enjoyment (1 items), Reading Attitude (11 items),
Reading Diversity (5 items) and Online Reading (8 items).

Students’ Time Spent Reading for Enjoyment

This part first describes the students’ time spent reading for enjoyment in Sukarami district
which is categorized based on their schools.
Figure 1
Students' Time Spent Reading for Enjoyment
10000%
9000%
8000%
7000%
6000%
5000% 48.07
4000%
3000% 27.72
2000% 18.6 3.86 1.75
1000%
0%
Percent

As shown in Figure 1, of the 285 students in Sukarami district, most of them, or 48.07% of
them spent their time reading in English around ‘30 minutes or less a day’. There were only 5 students
(1.75%) whose responses were ‘more than 2 hours a day’. The specific descriptions were described in
Table 12.
Table 12
The Description of Students’ Time Spent Reading for Enjoyment based on School

N (%)
Public Mea More than 30 minutes 1 to 2 More than
N I do not read for 30 minutes
School n to less than 60 minutes hours a 2 hours a
enjoyment or less a day
a day day day
1 1.93 95 30 (31.6) 50 (52.6) 9 (9.5) 4 (4.2) 2 (2.1)
2 2.32 95 16 (16.8) 44 (46.3) 27 (28.4) 5 (5.3) 3 (3.2)

10
 3 1.87 95 33 (34.7) 43 (45.3) 17 (17.9) 2 (2.1) 0
28
Total 2.04 79 (27.7) 137 (48.1) 53 (18.6) 11 (3.9) 5 (1.8)
5
As shown in Table 12, of all the three schools, most students’ responses (48.1%) were ’30
minutes or less a day’ followed by ‘I do not read for enjoyment’ and ‘more than 30 minutes to less
than 60 minutes a day’. Conversely, the second response that most of Public School 1 and 3 chose
was they do not read for enjoyment while most students of Public School 2 response was around an
hour a day. More importantly, only a few students of all the three schools who spent ‘1 to 2 hours a
day’ reading in English. Similarly, only few students of Public School 1 and Public School 2 spent
their time reading for ‘more than 2 hours a day’ and even none of Public School 3 students chose that
response.It is stated in OECD that students who read for enjoyment longer at least chose the response
between 1 to 2 hours per day (2010b). In other words, the condition of students’ time spent reading for
enjoyment in Sukarami district whose responses were mostly half an hour or less a day, did not meet
the OECD standard which is at least one to two hours per day.
In order to find out whether or not there were significant differences in students’ time spent
reading for enjoyment based on school, the writer analyzed their scores statistically by using Kruskal
Wallis test. The result of Kruskal Wallis test shows that the p-value is 0.001. Since the p-value (0.001)
is lower than 0.05, not all the three means (students of Public School 1, 2 and 3 time spent reading for
enjoyment mean scores) are equal. Therefore, the Mann Whitney U test is done to find out which
mean scores differ significantly (See Table 13).
Table 13
The Mann Whitney U test of Students’ Time Spent Reading for Enjoyment based on School
(I) School (J) School Mann Whitney U Asymp. Sig.
Public School 2 3346.500 .001
Public School 1
Public School 3 4478.500 .922
Public School 2 Public School 3 3326.500 .001
Referred to Table 13, there is a significant difference in time spent reading for enjoyment
between students of Public School 2 and Public School 3 (p-value 0.001). Similarly, there is also a
significant difference in time spent reading for enjoyment between students of Public School 2 and
Public School 1 (p-value 0.001). Conversely, there is no significant difference between students of
Public School 1 and Public School 3 (p-value 0.922).
Second, this part describes the students’ time spent reading for enjoyment based on gender
(see Table 14).
Table 14
Students’ Time Spent Reading for Enjoyment Based on Gender

Male N (%) Female N (%)

Public
Mea Mea
School N 1 2 3 4 5 N 1 2 3 4 5
n n
12 19 1 18 31 8 3 2
1 1.73 33 1 (3) 0 2.03 62
(36) (57) (3) (29) (50) (12) (4) (3)
8 19 9 1 3 8 25 18 4
2 2.30 37 2.33 55 0
(20) (47) (22) (2) (7) (14) (45) (32) (7)
15 22 5 2 18 21 12
3 1.86 44 0 1.88 51 0 0
(34) (50) (11) (4) (35) (41) (23)
35 60 15 4 3 16 44 77 38 7 2
Total 1.97 117 2.08
(29) (51) (12) (3) (2) 8 (26) (45) (22) (4) (1)
Note: 1. I do not read for enjoyment
2. 30 minutes or less a day
3. More than 30 minutes to less than 60 minutes a day
4. 1 to 2 hours a day
5. More than 2 hours a day
As shown in Table 14, both male and female students’ responses regarding their time spent
reading for enjoyment mostly were’30 minutes or less a day’. In the same way as mentioned in

11
previous paragraph, the second response that most of both males and females of Public School 1 and
Public School 3 chose was ‘I do not read for enjoyment’ while those of Public School 2 response was
‘more than 30 minutes to less than 60 minutes a day.’ Indeed, only a few male and female students
who read ‘1 to 2 hours a day’ and even none of the female students of Public School 3 chose that
response. Besides, only 3 male students of Public School 2 and 2 female students of Public School 1
who agreed that they spent time reading for enjoyment ‘more than 2 hours a day.’
In order to find out whether or not there were significant differences in students’ time spent
reading for enjoyment based on gender, the writer analyzed their scores statistically by using Mann
Whitney U test.
Table 15
The Mann Whitney U test of Students’ Time Spent Reading for Enjoyment based on Gender
Mann Whitney Asymp.
Gender
U Sig.
Male and Female
8971.000 .177
Students
Referred to Table 22, the result of Mann Whitney U test shows that the p-value is 0.177. Since
the p-value (.177) is higher than 0.05, there is no significant difference in students’ time spent reading
for enjoyment based on gender.

Students’ Reading Attitude

This part describes the students’ reading attitude in Sukarami district which is categorized
based on their schools and gender.
Figure 2
Students’ Reading Attitude
10000%
9000%
8000%
7000%
6000% 5544% 5579% 5579%
4982% 5263% 5158% 4667% 4842% 4912% 4807%
5000% 4281%
4000% 3754% 3895%3439% 3860% 3649% 3895%
3404%
2947%
3000% 2281%
2105% 1789%
2000% 1368%
1088% 1053%
702%702% 526% 561%632% 351% 702%
1000% 421% 211% 316%526% 281% 70%140% 351%316% 316%
Percent

0%
4211% s s s t y s 4526% s
to ie er ok en
e
ar ed te s
ve b th o s t m
b r
e d u o ok e nd
a b o b re f l i i n i
Ih ho h p o ne tb yf
r
if te i th n is s
a ste o ra o n w
m
ou m
y i w f a fe b
on
l or s a w re at a i th
fav o ok d
to
o ok s
a s to rm n
a
o n w
d y r i k o a i s
ea m tb ha
b g o nf th pi
n
oo
k
Ir of ou it ve
a in bo e ti re o b
b i d a g o y
on
e a nd ce ea to o rm m ng
e
ng If re ,r g l yt o s s a
is i I e
oi
n f e h
g lk f m on d pr ex
c
in ta pyi For yg a d rea ex o
d e j o t t
a ik ap n Ir
e n' to e
Re Il lh Ie ca ik
e ik
e e I I l Il
If

Di s agree strongl y Di s agree Agree Agree strongl y

As explained in previous section, there were 4 responses of reading attitude which were
strongly agree (4), agree (3), disagree (2) and strongly disagree (1).Moreover, there were 11 items or
statement in this aspect consisting of positive and negative statements, in which the negative
responses were reversed. Figure 2 shows the responses of the students in reading attitude
questionnaire. As shown in the figure, for example, 52% students agreed that it was hard for them to

12
finish reading books. However, 55% of them disagreed to the statement that reading is a waste of
time. Next, Table 16 explains the students’ attitudes toward reading based on school.
Table 16
The Description of Students’ Attitudes toward Reading based on School
Attitudes toward Reading N (%)
Public Mea
N Positive (34-
School n Negative (11-33)
47)
1 29.45 95 78 (82.11) 17 (17.89)
2 31.85 95 64 (67.37) 31 (32.63)
3 28.69 95 85 (89.47) 10 (10.53)
28
Total 30.00 227 (79.65) 58 (20.35)
5
Table 16 shows that most students of all the three schools had negative attitude toward
reading (79.65%), especially those from Public School 3 (85.26%).
In order to find out whether or not there were significant differences in students’ reading
attitude based on school, the writer analyzed their scores statistically by using Kruskal Wallis test. The
result of Kruskal Wallis test shows that the p-value is 0.000. Since the p-value (0.000) is lower than
0.05, not all the three means (students of Public School 1, 2 and 3 reading attitude) are equal.
Therefore, the Mann Whitney U test is done to find out which mean scores differ significantly (see
Table 17).
Table 17
The Mann Whitney U test of Students’ Reading Attitude based on School
(I) School (J) School Mann Whitney U Asymp. Sig.
Public School 2 3000.500 .000
Public School 1
Public School 3 4076.500 .248
Public School 2 Public School 3 2568.500 .000
Based on Table 17, there is a significant difference in reading attitude between students of
Public School 2 and Public School 3 (p-value 0.000). Similarly, there is also a significant difference in
time spent reading for enjoyment between students of Public School 2 and Public School 1 (p-value
0.000). Conversely, there is no significant difference between students of Public School 1 and Public
School 3 (p-value 0.248).
Next is the analysis of the students’ reading attitude based on gender.
Table 18
The Description of Students’ Attitudes toward Reading based on Gender
Public Male Attitudes toward Reading Female Attitudes toward Reading
School Mean N Negative Positive Mean N Negative Positive
(%) (%) (%) (%)
1 28.42 33 28 (84.85) 5 (15.15) 30.00 62 50 (80.65) 12 (19.35)
2 30.78 40 31 (77.5) 9 (22.5) 32.64 55 33 (60) 22 (40)
3 28.18 44 38 (86.36) 6 (13.64) 29.14 51 39 (76.47) 12 (23.53)
Total 29.14 117 97 (82.91) 20 (17.09) 30.60 168 122 (72.62) 46 (27.38)
Table 18 shows that most of the male students had negative attitude toward reading (82.91%)
and most female students, in the same way, also had negative attitude toward reading (72.62%).
Despite the fact showing that all male and female students had negative attitude toward reading, based
on the percentage level, there were more males and females from Public School 2 whose attitudes
toward reading were positive. Overall, still based on the percentage level, there were more female
students (27.38%) whose attitudes were positive rather than male students (17.09%).
In order to find out whether or not there were significant differences in students’ reading
attitude based on gender, the writer analyzed their scores statistically by using Mann Whitney U test.
Table 19
The Mann Whitney U test of Students’ Reading Attitude based on Gender
Gender Mann Whitney Asymp.

13
 U Sig.
Male and Female
8088.500 .011
Students
Based on Table 19, the result of Mann Whitney U test shows that the p-value is 0.011. Since
the p-value (.011) is lower than 0.05, there is a significant difference in students’ reading attitude
based on gender.

Students’ Reading Diversity

This part describes the students’ reading diversity in Sukarami district which also is
categorized based on their schools and gender.

Figure 3
Students’ Reading Diversity
10000%
9000%
8000%
7000%
6000%
Percent

5000%
4000% 3439% 3368%
2982% 3018% 3193% 2982%
3000% 2737% 2596%
2246% 2281% 2456%
2000% 1263% 1614% 1509% 1474% 1649% 1614%
1000% 386% 386%
70%
0%
Magazine
1930% Comic Ficton
456% Non-Ficton
491%5263%
Newspaper
596%
Never or almost never A few tmes a year About once a month
Several tmes a month Several tmes a week

Referred to Figure 4, most students in Sukarami district agreed to the response that they read
magazine, comic, fiction and non-fiction about once a month. On the other hand, 52% students or
more than half of the total sample agreed that they never or almost never read newspaper in English.
Nevertheless, there were only a few students who read those materials at least several times a month,
especially the newspaper. Next, table 20 describes the students’ reading diversity of all the three
schools based on two categories.
Table 20

14
 The Description of Students’ Reading Diversity Based on School
N (%)
Public Mea Students never or rarely spend time Students have enough time
N
School n reading various books in English (5- reading various books in English
15) (16-25)
11.4
1 95 83 (87.37) 12 (12.63)
6
13.0
2 95 76 (80) 19 (20)
4
12.0
3 95 81 (85.26) 14 (14.74)
2
12.1 28
Total 240 (84.21) 45 (15.79)
8 5
In this study, the writer categorized students who chose the response ‘never or almost never,’
‘a few times a year,’ and ‘about once a month’ into students do not spend or rarely spend time reading
various books in English, while those who chose the response either ‘several times a month’ or
‘several times a week’ were categorized as students have enough time reading various books in
English. These are in line with OECD (2010b) stating that the students who are categorized as reading
different materials regularly indicate that they read either several times a month or several times a
week.
Referred to Table 20, most students (more than 75%) of all the three schools indicated that
they do not spend or rarely spend time reading all the 5 types of reading material which are magazine,
comic, fiction, non-fiction and newspaper. There were only a few students who read those types of
reading materials regularly. In short, most students in Sukarami district do not read different materials
regularly.
In order to find out whether or not there were significant differences in students’ reading
diversity based on school, the writer analyzed their scores statistically by using Kruskal Wallis test.
The result of Kruskal Wallis test shows that the p-value is 0.010. Since the p-value (0.010) is lower
than 0.05, not all the three means (students of Public School1, 2 and 3 reading diversity) are equal.
Therefore, the Mann Whitney U test is done to find out which mean scores differ significantly (see
Table 21).
Table 21
The Mann Whitney U test of Students’ Reading Diversity based on School
(I) School (J) School Mann Whitney U Asymp. Sig.
Public School 2 3415.500 .004
Public School 1
Public School 3 4241.500 .473
Public School 2 Public School 3 3687.000 .029
Based on Table 21, there is a significant difference in reading diversity between students of
Public School 2 and Public School 3 (p-value 0.029). Likewise, there is also a significant difference in
reading diversity between students of Public School 2 and Public School 1 (p-value 0.004).
Conversely, there is no significant difference between students of Public School 1 and Public School 3
(p-value 0.473).
Next is the analysis of the students’ reading diversity based on gender
Figure 4
Male Students' Reading Diversity

15
 10000%
9000%
8000%
7000%
6000% 5385%
Percent

5000%
4000% 3504% 3333%
3333%
3077% 2821% 2991%
3000% 2735%
2393%
2222%
2000% 1453%
1111%
1000%
0%
0%
Magazine
1282% 1795%
342%1966%
Comic598%1453%
Ficton
427%2479%
2821%
Non-Ficton
1368%
342% Newspaper
769%
Never or almost never A few tmes a year About once a month
Several tmes a month Several tmes a week

Figure 5
Female Students' Reading Diversity
10000%
9000%
8000%
7000%
6000%
5179%
Percent

5000%
4000% 3393% 3393%
2917% 3155%
3095% 3095% 2976%
3000%
2262%
1964%
2000% 1488%
1250% 1071%
1000% 476%
238% 119%
0%
Magazine
2024%
417%2440%
Comic Ficton476%2143%
1548% 2440%
Non-Ficton
1845%
595% Newspaper
Never or almost never A few tmes a year About once a month
Several tmes a month Several tmes a week

16
 Referred to Figure 4 and 5, most of both male and female students agreed to the response that
they read magazine, comic, fiction and non-fiction books in English about once a month. However,
both of male and female students mostly chose never or almost never reading newspaper in English
(more than 50%). In detail, based on the percentage level, there were more female students who read
magazine (24%), fiction (20%) and non-fiction (24%) at least several times a month than male
students. On the other hand, there were more male students who read comic (30%) and newspaper
(8%) at least several times a week than female students. Next, table 22 describes the male and female
students’ reading diversity of all the three schools based on two categories.
Table 22
The Description of Students’ Reading Diversity Based on Gender
Male N (%) Female N (%)
Never or rarely Have enough Never or rarely Have enough
Public spend time time reading spend time time reading
Mea Mea
School N reading various various books N reading various various books
n n
books in in English (16- books in in English (16-
English (5-15) 25) English (5-15) 25)
1 11.82 33 28 (84.85) 5 (15.15) 11.27 62 55 (88.71) 7 (11.29)
2 12.88 40 32 (80) 8 (20) 13.16 55 44 (80) 11 (20)
3 11.84 44 35 (79.55) 9 (20.45) 12.18 51 46 (90.20) 5 (9.80)
16
Total 12.19 117 95 (81.20) 22 (18.80) 12.17 145 (86.31) 23 (13.69)
8
Referred to Table 22, most of both male and female students’ responses indicated that they
never or rarely spent time reading various books in English (more than 75%).
In order to find out whether or not there were significant differences in students’ reading
diversity based on gender, the writer analyzed their scores statistically by using Mann Whitney U test.
Table 23
The Mann Whitney U test of Students’ Reading Diversity based on Gender
Mann Whitney Asymp.
Gender
U Sig.
Male and Female
9768.500 .930
Students
Referred to Table 23, the result of Mann Whitney U test shows that the p-value is 0.930. Since
the p-value (.930) is higher than 0.05, there is no significant difference in students’ reading diversity
based on gender.

17
Students’ Online Reading
This part describes the students’ online reading in Sukarami district which also is categorized
based on their schools and gender.

Figure 6
Students’ Online Reading
10000%

9000%

8000%

7000%

6000%

5000% 4491%
3965% 3965%
4000%
3193% 3123% 3298%
3193% 3123%
3000% 2842% 2632% 2807% 2912%
2596% 2667%
2456%
2246% 2140%
1895% 1825% 1895%1965%
2000% 1544% 1614%
1123% 1123% 1228% 1123%
1000% 737%
Percent

246% 105% 105% 70% 211%281% 105%

0%
2351% 2070%
3088% e1754% ws1895% i a
ls ic s e ng
ai lin ne ed top r um lin a gi
m n e p fo n
e o
lin lo ar o
es
s
i ng ng n c yc c ul s or to n
-m
ad at go re
n rt io
n a
Tex
t
Re Ch d in o pa s o rm
s f
Re
a ry ta cu in
o na b ou d is cal I don’t know what it
i ct a u p c t is
d a rn ro p ra
e le g r Never or almost
lin to i ne fo
on n l g never
a n to on hi
n
a n c
in
g
rm ti ar Several tmes a
Us nfo p ar Se month
n ei i ng
li k Several tmes a week
on Ta
g
in Several tmes a day
rch
a
Se

Based on Figure 5, most students in Sukarami district indicated that they did the online
reading several times a month, unless taking part in online group discussions whose response mostly
was never or almost never and using an online dictionary or encyclopedia and text messaging in
English whose response mostly was several times a week. Next, the students’ responses were
categorized into two categories which are explained in the Table 24.
Table 24
The Description of Students’ Online Reading based on School
N (%)
Public Mea
N Students never or rarely have time Students have enough time to
School n
to read online (8-24) read online (25-40)
1 25.16 95 44 (46.32) 51 (53.68)
2 28.31 95 18 (18.95) 77 (81.05)
3 25.64 95 44 (46.32) 51 (53.68)
Total 26.37 28 106 (37.19) 179 (62.81)

18
 5
In this study, the writer categorized students who chose the response ‘I don’t know what it is,’
‘never or almost never,’ and ‘several times a month’ into students do not spend or rarely spend time to
read online, while those who chose the response either ‘several times a week’ or ‘several times a day’
were categorized as students have enough time to read online. These are in line with OECD (2011)
stating that students who are engaged in online reading activities at least do it several times a week.
Based on Table 16, more than half samples of Public School 1, Public School 2 and Public
School 3 were categorized as students have enough time to read online. Specifically, most of the 179
(62.81%) students who have enough time to read online, 77 of them were from Public School 2, in
which there were only 18 students of Public School 2 who never or rarely have time to read online in
English.
In order to find out whether or not there were significant differences in students’ online
reading based on school, the writer analyzed their scores statistically by using Kruskal Wallis test. The
result of Kruskal Wallis test shows that the p-value is 0.000. Since the p-value (0.000) is lower than
0.05, not all the three means (students of Public School 1, 2 and 3 online reading) are equal.
Therefore, the Mann Whitney U test is done to find out which mean scores differ significantly (see
Table 25).
Table 25
The Mann Whitney U test of Students’ Online Reading based on School
(I) School (J) School Mann Whitney U Asymp. Sig.
Public School 2 2947.000 .000
Public School 1
Public School 3 4373.500 .713
Public School 2 Public School 3 3359.500 .002
As shown in Table 25, there is a significant difference in online reading between students of
Public School 2 and Public School 3 (p-value 0.002). Likewise, there is also a significant difference in
online reading between students of Public School 2 and Public School 1 (p-value 0.000). On the other
hand, there is no significant difference between students of Public School 1 and Public School 3 (p-
value 0.713). Next is the analysis of students’ online reading based on gender.
Table 26
The Description of Students’ Online Reading based on Gender
Male N (%) Female N (%)
Never or Never or
Have enough Have enough
rarely spend rarely spend
Public time reading time reading
Mea time reading Mea time reading
School N online in N online in
n online in n online in
English (25- English (25-
English (8- English (8-
40) 40)
24) 24)
1 33 25.97 12 (36.36) 21 (63.64) 62 24.73 32 (51.61) 30 (48.39)
2 40 28.25 8 (20) 32 (80) 55 28.35 10 (18.18) 45 (81.82)
3 44 25.18 21 (47.73) 23 (52.27) 51 26.04 23 (45.10) 28 (54.90)
16
Total 114 26.45 41 (35.96) 73 (64.04) 26.31 65 (38.69) 103 (61.31)
8
Based on Table 26, more than half samples of both male and female students were categorized
as the students who had enough time to read online in English, even though there were a few more
female students of Public School 1 who never or rarely spend time reading online in English.
Particularly, of all the three schools, there were more than 80% of both male and female students of
Public School 2 who were categorized as those who had enough time reading online in English.
In order to find out whether or not there were significant differences in students’ online
reading based on gender, the writer analyzed their scores statistically by using Mann Whitney U test.
Table 27
The Mann Whitney U test of Students’ Online Reading based on Gender
Gender Mann Whitney Asymp.

19
 U Sig.
Male and Female
9617.500 .758
Students
As shown in Table 27, the result of Mann Whitney U test shows that the p-value is 0.758.
Since the p-value (.758) is higher than 0.05, there is no significant difference in students’ online
reading based on gender.

4.2 Interpretation

It is in line with OECD (2010b) stating that boys read newspaper and comic regularly more than girls,
while there were more girls who regularly read magazine, fiction and non-fiction books than boys.

There are several points related to the findings of this study which need to be discussed. The
question that is addressed in this study is: “Are there any significant differences in PISA English
reading literacy performance and reading engagement based on school and gender?” Therefore, the
writer here first will discuss the reading literacy and reading engagement based on school, followed
by based on gender. The discussions are in the following paragraphs.

The highest mean score of PISA reading literacy performance was attained by the students of
PUBLIC SCHOOL 2 (46.17) followed by PUBLIC SCHOOL 1 (36.54) and PUBLIC SCHOOL 3
(21.50). Still, the scores of reading literacy of those three schools are below the standard of the
national education which is 75.00. Looking at the low score of students in PISA in their national
language (Bahasa Indonesia) since year 2000 to 2015 becomes the proof that their reading literacy in
English was not better. At this point, though the mean scores of the three schools were low, this study
found that students of PUBLIC SCHOOL 2 significantly outperformed students of PUBLIC
SCHOOL 1 and PUBLIC SCHOOL 3, and students of PUBLIC SCHOOL 1 significantly
outperformed students of PUBLIC SCHOOL 3. This condition might be due to several reasons. First,
PUBLIC SCHOOL 2 is a superior school while the two others are not (Kementrian Pendidikan dan
Kebudayaan, n.d.). It means that English is often used as it is a must for the superior school to use
English in teaching and learning process (Depdiknas, 2007). Besides, it is also in line with the scores
of national examination in English subject mentioned in the background of this study, in which the
highest score was attained by students of PUBLIC SCHOOL 2, followed by PUBLIC SCHOOL 1 and
PUBLIC SCHOOL 3. Additionally, besides the students’ competence in English, this condition might
be due to the teacher’s qualification score of PUBLIC SCHOOL 2 that is 100, while PUBLIC
SCHOOL 1 is 96.03 and PUBLIC SCHOOL 3 is 96.23 (Kemendikbud, n.d.). Certainly, Guerriero
(n.d.) notes that the importance of education these years are improving the students’ outcomes as well
as improving the quality of educating manpower. Lastly, the fact where students of PUBLIC
SCHOOL 3 performed the lowest, might be due to the classroom’s condition, where PUBLIC
SCHOOL 3 classroom condition’s score was 0 out of 100 while the two others were 100
(Kemendikbud, n.d.).

Besides reading literacy, still based on school, this study found that students of PUBLIC
SCHOOL 2 were significantly more engaged than students of PUBLIC SCHOOL 1 and PUBLIC
SCHOOL 3 in all the four aspects of reading engagement which are time spent reading for enjoyment,
reading attitude, reading diversity and online reading. It means that students of PUBLIC SCHOOL 2,
approximately, spent more time to read in English, had more positive attitude in reading English, read
more types of reading material in English, and did the online reading in English more than students of
PUBLIC SCHOOL 1 and PUBLIC SCHOOL 3. The same as the explanation in the previous
paragraph, PUBLIC SCHOOL 2 is a superior school (Kemendikbud, n.d.) whose school uses English
besides the national language in the teaching and learning process (Depdiknas, 2007). Therefore, the
students of PUBLIC SCHOOL 2 tended to spend more time in reading English and did the online
reading since they are more engaged in English reading material in their school daily lives. They are
required to study in English resulting in the addition of time they spent to read especially in searching

20
for online material in English, and the changing of their attitudes toward reading which become more
positive. Moreover, based on Kemendikbud (n.d.), PUBLIC SCHOOL 2 has a language laboratory
which supports the efficiency of English teaching and learning process in order to make the students
become more engaged in reading. In contrast, the two other schools do not support the students with
the language laboratory. Furthermore, still based on Kemendikbud, PUBLIC SCHOOL 2 had at least
a better library. By having a cozy and comprehensive library, it widens the reading materials that the
students read and increases the students’ attitude toward it. Certainly, library is important in enhancing
the students’ reading literacy and in motivating them to read (Ikonen, 2015).

The second thing to be discussed is gender differences in reading literacy and reading
engagement of the senior high school students in Sukarami district. Based on the findings above, there
were no gender differences in reading literacy performance and there were also no gender differences
in the three aspects of reading engagement which are time spent reading for enjoyment, reading
attitude and online reading. It is in line with a study found that there was no significant difference in
reading based on sex or gender (Asgarabadi, et al., 2015). To conclude, it seems that nowadays both
male and female students’ ability in language especially the second language is approximately equal,
in which in this study the mean scores of both were categorized as very poor (33.62 for male students
and 35.52 for female students). The fact that there were no gender differences in time spent reading
for enjoyment and reading attitude were in line with a study by McGeown, Goodwin, Henderson and
Wright that there were no significant gender differences in reading skill and reading motivation(2011).
Without the motivation to read, both boys and girls will lose the interest to read which makes them
avoid the positive reading attitude. Moreover, students’ attitudes toward reading will determine the
time they spend for engaging in reading activities (Martinez, et al., 2008). Hence, this then support the
situation where both boys and girls gave the same responses that both of them equally did not spend
much time to read for enjoyment. The same as the findings of this study, OECD (2011) found that
there was no statistically significant gender difference in most participated countries in terms of the
online reading.

This study, on the other hand, found that there was only a gender differences in reading
diversity, which in detail (based on the findings of the study) means that girls read more diversely or
variously more than boys. It is in line with OECD (2010) that almost in all countries, girls were
reported to enjoy reading various books than boys. Similarly, Canadian Council on Learning (2009)
implies that girls tend to read for general interest than boys and tend to share and discuss about
reading materials to others than boys. In brief, there were no gender differences in reading literacy
and reading engagement except for the reading diversity.

CONCLUSIONS
There were several conclusions drawn from this study. In terms of the descriptive analyses,
first, the result shows that the students’ PISA reading literacy in English was categorized as very poor
score, either based on their schools and gender. Second, most students spent their time reading for
enjoyment only 30 minutes or less a day. Third, most students had positive attitude toward reading.
Fourth, most students rarely spent time reading various books in English. Last, most students rarely
had time to read online. In terms of the statistical analyses, first, students of PUBLIC SCHOOL 2
significantly outperformed those from PUBLIC SCHOOL 1 and PUBLIC SCHOOL 3 in both reading
literacy and the four aspects of reading engagement. Second, students of PUBLIC SCHOOL 1
significantly outperformed those from PUBLIC SCHOOL 3 in reading literacy. Third, there were no
gender differences in reading literacy and reading engagement except in reading diversity.

SUGGESTIONS
Referred to the conclusions of this study, there were some suggestions for the students,
teachers, schools and researchers. First, for the students, both boys and girls, either students from the
normal or superior school, should consider the importance of English reading literacy in this global

21
era so that they are able to follow and be accustomed to the modern era which requires them to
understand English as the international language. Second, the students need to be engaged more in
reading in English by starting to read more, being motivated in reading various books, joining online
forum or searching the learning materials on line, and so on. From those activities, the students then
will get used to read in English resulting the positive attitude toward reading and getting them to be
engaged more in reading. Thus, the more they are engaged in reading, the better their outcomes in
reading literacy. For the teachers’ side, it is hoped that they should facilitate the students with more
interesting teaching and learning processes and grow the situation where the students are highly
motivated in learning English through having a reading habit. For the school’s side, they should give
the cozy and comprehensive place for the students to study, especially the library. The more
interesting the library, the more the students’ excitement to read developed. Last, for the researchers in
the future, they are hoped to find out more ways to increase the students’ motivation to read in English
by developing new ways of interesting teaching and learning process.

22
23
24
25
26