simposio “ciencias e inglés en la evaluación internacional”: pisa 2015 results and future...
TRANSCRIPT
Name of Speaker
PISA 2015 results and future developments
Alfonso Echazarra Analista PISA-OCDE
PISA 2015: A summary
• Approximately 540 000 students… representing about 29 million 15-year-olds in the schools of the 72 participating
countries and economies… took a computer-based test lasting a total of 2 hours…
Not only evaluates if students can reproduce what they have learned at school… …assesses students’ capacity to apply creatively their knowledge and skills in a
variety of situations…and answered questions about their schools, personal context and attitudes towards learning
• Parents, principals, teachers and policy-makers provided information about … School policies, practices, resources and institutional factors that can explain the
differences in performance
PISA 2015: A summary
• New features Science as core subject Computer-based assessment in most education systems
Log-file data Collaborative problem-solving Teacher questionnaire
• A tool to learn and improve Collaboration between countries, experts and social agents sharing experiences,
policies and best practices Data triangulation combining the perspectives from students, teachers,
principals, parents and policy-makers Evidence-based and constructive dialogue
Map of PISA countries and economies
PISA 2015 reports
• OECD Reports Volumen I: Excellence and Equity in Education Volumen II: Policies and Practices for Successful Schools Volumen III (Spring 2017): Students’ Well-Being Volumen IV (Spring 2017): Students’ Financial Literacy Volumen V (Autumn 2017): Collaborative Problem Solving Thematic reports (2018/2019): To be decided
Options: Teaching and learning in science, rural and urban schools, out-of-school learning, …
• National reports. PISA 2015. Programa para la evaluación internacional de alumnos:
Informe español …
Performance in scienceFigure I.4.2
Singa
poreEst
oniaFin
land
Canad
a
Hong K
ong (C
hina)Ko
rea
Slove
nia
United
King
dom
Netherl
andsIre
land
Denmark
Portug
al
United
State
sFra
nce
OECD av
erage
-35SpainRu
ssia
Italy
Lithuan
ia
CABA (A
rgenti
na)Israel
Slova
k Rep
ublic
Chile
United
Arab Em
irates
Romani
a
Albani
a
Trinid
ad an
d Toba
go
Costa
Rica
Colom
bia
Monten
egroJor
danBra
zil
Leban
onFYR
OMAlg
eria
300
350
400
450
500
550Mean science performa...Score points Confidence interval (95%)
Viet
Nam
Esto
nia
Finla
ndKo
rea
Cana
daMo
ldov
aPo
rtuga
lRu
ssia
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
mAu
stra
liaGe
rman
yNe
ther
land
sHu
ngar
yFr
ance
Irela
ndGe
orgi
aSw
itzer
land
Italy
Bulg
aria
Maca
o (C
hina
)Sl
ovak
Rep
ublic
Israe
lGr
eece
Rom
ania
Urug
uay
Indo
nesia
Thai
land
Mont
eneg
roPe
ruLu
xem
bour
gBr
azil
FYRO
MAl
geria
Dom
inica
n Re
publ
ic300350400450500550600650 Adjusted performance in science after accounting for per capita GDPMean score
Mean science performance,after accounting for countries’/economies’ per capita GDP
Table II.2.11
Mean performance in science, by international deciles of the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS)
Viet N
am 7
6
B-S-J-G
(Chin
a) 52
Singa
pore
11
Chine
se Ta
ipei 1
2
Finlan
d 2
Portug
al 28
Cana
da 2
Spain
31
Latvia
25
Switze
rland
8
New Zea
land
5
Czech
Republi
c 9
Hunga
ry 16
Netherl
ands 4
Italy
15
Norway
1
Austr
ia 5
United
State
s 11
Lithuan
ia 12
Slova
k Rep
ublic
8
Luxem
bourg
14
Malta 1
3
Greece
13
Israel
6
Indon
esia
74
Mexico
53
Bulga
ria 1
3
Costa
Rica 3
8
Peru
50
Monten
egro
11
Brazil
43
Tunisia
39
FYROM 13
Qatar 3
Domini
can Re
public
40250300350400450500550600650 Bottom decile Second decile Middle decile Ninth decile
Scor
e po
ints
Figure I.6.7
% of students in the bottom international deciles of ESCS
OECD median student
Percentage of low-achievers in scienceTable II.2.2a
Viet
Nam
Esto
nia
Sing
apor
eCa
nada
Chin
ese
Taip
eiSl
oven
iaDe
nmar
kPo
land
Latv
iaUn
ited
King
dom
Aust
ralia
Spai
nNe
ther
land
sBe
lgiu
mCz
ech
Repu
blic
OECD
ave
rage
-35
Fran
ceIta
lyLit
huan
iaLu
xem
bour
gSl
ovak
Rep
ublic
Malta
Chile
Rom
ania
Alba
nia
Mold
ova
Trin
idad
and
Tob
ago
Thai
land
Colo
mbi
aQa
tar
Mont
eneg
roBr
azil
Leba
non
Tuni
siaAl
geria
0102030405060708090 Percentage of students below proficiency level 2%
Percentage of top performers in scienceTable II.2.2a
Sing
apor
eJa
pan
B-S-
J-G (C
hina
)Ne
w Ze
alan
dAu
stra
liaUn
ited
King
dom
Slov
enia
Switz
erla
ndBe
lgiu
mSw
eden
Fran
ceOE
CD a
vera
ge-3
5Ma
ltaHo
ng K
ong
(Chi
na)
Czec
h Re
publ
icDe
nmar
kIsr
ael
Hung
ary
Italy
Latv
iaRu
ssia
Bulg
aria
CABA
(Arg
entin
a)Qa
tar
Urug
uay
Geor
gia
Rom
ania
Mont
eneg
roLe
bano
nCo
lom
bia
FYRO
MCo
sta
Rica
Mexi
coTu
nisia
Dom
inica
n Re
publ
ic0
5
10
15
20
25 Percentage of students at proficiency levels 5 and 6%
The global pool of top performers: A PISA perspectiveFigure I.2.18
United States; 21,7%
B-S-J-G (China); 13,1%
Japan; 12,6%Germany; 5,7%
Viet Nam; 5,2%
United Kingdom; 4,9%
Korea; 4,4%
France; 4,3%
Russia; 3%
Canada; 3%
Chinese Taipei; 2,8%
Australia; 2,1%Poland; 1,8%
Netherlands; 1,5%
Italy; 1,5%Spain; 1,4%
Brazil; 1,2%Singapore; 0,8%
Belgium; 0,7%Finland; 0,6%
Switzerland; 0,6%
Sweden; 0,6% Portugal; 0,5%New Zealand; 0,5%
Israel; 0,5% Others; 4,9%
Performance in readingFigure I.4.2
Singa
pore
Cana
daIre
landKo
rea
Norway
German
yPol
and
Netherl
ands
Swede
nFra
nce
Portug
al
Chine
se Ta
ipeiSpa
in
B-S-J-G
(Chin
a)
Switze
rland
Czech
Republi
c
Viet N
am Italy
Luxem
bourg
CABA (A
rgenti
na)
Hunga
ryCh
ileMalt
a
Romani
a
Bulga
ria
Costa
Rica
Monten
egroMex
ico
Thailan
dBra
zilQata
rPer
uTun
isiaFYR
OMKo
sovo
300
350
400
450
500
550Mean reading performanceScore points Confidence interval (95%)
Performance in mathematicsFigure I.5.2
Singa
pore
Macao (
China)
Japan
KoreaEst
onia
Netherl
ands
Finlan
d
Belgiu
mPol
and
Norway
New Zea
landRu
ssia
Austr
alia
United
King
dom
Portug
alIta
lySpa
inLat
via
Lithuan
ia
Slova
k Rep
ublic
United
State
s
CABA (A
rgenti
na)
Roman
ia
United
Arab Em
iratesTur
key
Urugua
y
Trinid
ad an
d Toba
go
Albani
a
Georgi
a
Costa
Rica
Colom
bia
Indon
esiaBra
zil
Tunisia
Algeri
a
Domini
can Re
public
300
350
400
450
500
550
Mean mathematics perform...Score points Confidence interval (95%)
Students’ career expectationsFigure I.3.2
Dom
inica
n Re
p. ..
.Jo
rdan
6
Mexi
co
6Le
bano
n 1
5Pe
ru
7Un
ited
Stat
es
13Tu
nisia
19
Slov
enia
16
Aust
ralia
15
Mala
ysia
4
Spai
n 1
1Ur
ugua
y 1
7Tr
inid
ad a
nd T
. 1
3CA
BA (A
rg.)
19
Bulg
aria
25
Koso
vo
7Ma
lta
11Ne
w Ze
alan
d 2
4Es
toni
a 1
5Be
lgiu
m
16FY
ROM
20
Icela
nd
22HK
G (C
hina
) 2
0Ita
ly
17Mo
ldov
a
7Mo
nten
egro
18
Luxe
mbo
urg
18
Maca
o (C
hina
) 1
0Sw
eden
21
Viet
Nam
13
Kore
a
7Sl
ovak
Rep
ublic
...
Finla
nd
24Cz
ech
Repu
blic
22
Neth
erla
nds
19
Indo
nesia
19
05
101520253035404550
Percentage of students who expect to work in science-related professional and technical occupations when they are 30Science-related technicians and associate pro-
fessionalsInformation and communication technology pro-fessionalsHealth professionals
%
% o
f stu
dent
s with
va
gue
or m
issin
g ex
pect
ation
s
Boys and girls’ expectations of a science career, OECD averageFigure I.3.5
...science and engineering professionals
...health professionals
...information and commu-nication technology (ICT)
professionals
...science-related techni-cians or associate pro-
fessionals
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Boys Girls
%
Students who expect to work as...
Student performance in science, by immigrant background
Figure I.7.4Gr
eece
Cost
a Ri
caJo
rdan
CABA
(Arg
entin
a)Isr
ael
Swed
enFr
ance
Slov
enia
Aust
riaGe
rman
yNe
ther
land
sDe
nmar
kIta
lyNo
rway
Belg
ium
OECD
ave
rage
Spai
nCr
oatia
Unite
d St
ates
Luxe
mbo
urg
Switz
erla
ndQa
tar
Portu
gal
Russ
iaUn
ited
Arab
Em
irate
sUn
ited
King
dom
Irela
ndAu
stra
liaEs
toni
aHo
ng K
ong
(Chi
na)
New
Zeal
and
Cana
daMa
cao
(Chi
na)
Sing
apor
e300350400450500550600650
Non-immigrant students Second-generation immigrant studentsScore points
Only countries where the immigrant student population >6.25% are shown
Belgium
United St
ates
Israe
l
Costa Rica
Switz
erlan
d
Iceland
Estonia
Austria
Cyprus
France
Jord
an
Malaysia
Colombia
Viet Nam
Russia
Argentina
Qatar
Sweden
Latvia
Chile
Lithuan
ia
Mexico
Indonesia
Czech Rep
ublic
Thail
and
Peru
Romania
Turke
y
B-S-J-G
(China)
Hungary
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600Rural area or village City
Scie
nce
scor
e
Science performance by school location
10%
28%62%
OECD countries
Variation in science performance between systems, schools and students
22%
26%
53%
All countries and economies
Figure II.7.1
Education systemsSchools Students
Higher-performing education systems in science-related outcomes
ABOVE-AVERAGE SCIENCEPERFORMANCE
STRONGER THAN
AVERAGE EPISTEMIC
BELIEFS
ABOVE-AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF
STUDENTS EXPECTING TO WORK IN A SCIENCE-
RELATED OCCUPATION
Norway
Belgium B-S-J-G (China)
Estonia Finland
Germany JapanKorea
Macao (China) Netherlands
Poland Switzerland
Viet Nam
CABA (Argentina)Israel Spain
United Arab Emirates United States
Croatia Georgia Iceland
Lithuania Malta
Sweden
BrazilBulgaria
Chile Colombia Costa Rica
Dominican Republic Jordan Kosovo
Lebanon
DenmarkHong Kong
(China) New Zealand
Chinese Taipei
Australia Canada Ireland
Portugal Singapore Slovenia
United Kingdom
Mexico Peru
Qatar Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia Turkey
Uruguay
Figure II.2.2
Science-related extracurricular activities offered at schoolFigure II.2.9
Hong
Kon
g (C
hina
)B-
S-J-G
(Chi
na)
Qata
rCh
ines
e Ta
ipei
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
mMo
nten
egro
Maca
o (C
hina
)Ma
ltaBu
lgar
iaJa
pan
Indo
nesia
Portu
gal
Slov
enia
Hung
ary
Jord
anCA
BA (A
rgen
tina)
Germ
any
Czec
h Re
publ
icLa
tvia
Leba
non
Turk
eyOE
CD a
vera
geFY
ROM
Aust
ralia
Chile
Colo
mbi
aLit
huan
iaMe
xico
Fran
ceGr
eece
Mold
ova
Finla
ndIce
land
Swed
enAu
stria
0102030405060708090
100
Percentage of students in schools offering:
Science club Science competitions%
-100
10203040506070
After accounting for socio-economic status Before accounting for socio-economic status
Scor
e-po
int d
iffer
ence
Teacher-directed instruction: explaining scientific ideasTable II.2.18
Students who reported that their science teacher explains scientific ideas in many lessons or every lesson perform
better in science
Norway
United
Arab Em
irates
Denmark
Singa
pore
Swede
nIce
land
Bulga
riaLat
viaBra
zil
B-S-J-G
(Chin
a)Ch
ileTur
key
Czech
Republi
c
Colom
bia
New Zea
landEst
onia
Switze
rland
Domini
can Re
public
Urugua
y
Costa
RicaGree
ce
Hunga
ryCro
atiaFra
nce
Belgi
um
Luxem
bourg Jap
an
Chine
se Ta
ipei
-202468
1012141618
Score-point difference associated with the index of adaptive instruction
Scor
e-po
int d
iffer
ence
Adaptive instruction and science performanceFigure II.3.16
Students who reported that their science teacher adapts more frequently their lessons to students’ needs and knowledge
perform better in science
Enquiry-based teaching practices and science performance, OECD average
Figure II.2.20
The
teac
her e
xplai
ns h
ow a
scien
ce id
ea c
an ..
.
The
teac
her c
learly
exp
lains
the
relev
ance
of s
...
Stud
ents
are
give
n op
portu
nitie
s to
expl
ain th
e...
Stud
ents
are
ask
ed to
dra
w co
nclu
sions
from
...
Stud
ents
are
requ
ired
to a
rgue
abo
ut sc
ience
...
Ther
e is
a cla
ss d
ebat
e ab
out i
nves
tigat
ions
Stud
ents
spen
d tim
e in
the
labor
ator
y do
ing
p...
Stud
ents
are
ask
ed to
do
an in
vest
igat
ion to
te...
Stud
ents
are
allo
wed
to d
esig
n th
eir o
wn e
xp...
-65
-50
-35
-20
-5
10
25 After accounting for students' and schools' socio-eco-nomic profile
Before accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profileSc
ore-
poin
t diff
eren
ce
The following happen in "most" or
"all" science lessons“
Mont
eneg
roIta
lyUr
ugua
ySl
ovak
Rep
ublic
Braz
ilTu
rkey
Bulg
aria
Colo
mbi
aQa
tar
Peru
Cost
a Ri
caUn
ited
Stat
esFin
land
Israe
lTh
aila
ndTu
nisia
Aust
ralia
Mexi
coUn
ited
King
dom
New
Zeal
and
Latv
iaSp
ain
Irela
ndRu
ssia
Esto
nia
Lithu
ania
Unite
d Ar
ab E
mir.
..Po
rtuga
lPo
land
OECD
ave
rage
Gree
ceCa
nada
Denm
ark
Sing
apor
eNo
rway
Slov
enia
Croa
tiaLu
xem
bour
gAu
stria
Fran
ceSw
itzer
land
Chile
Swed
enGe
rman
yHu
ngar
yCz
ech
Repu
blic
Belg
ium
Maca
o (C
hina
)Ne
ther
land
sIce
land
Hong
Kon
g (C
hina
)Ch
ines
e Ta
ipei
Kore
aJa
pan
0
10
20
30
40
50
60PISA 2015 PISA 2012
Perc
enta
ge o
f stu
dent
s
Change between 2012 and 2015 in student truancyFigure II.3.2
Czech Republic
Sweden
Netherlands
Estonia
Iceland
United Kingdom
DenmarkRussi
a
Georgia
New Zealand
Slovenia
Finland
United States
Switzerla
nd
Indonesia
Belgium
Chile
Canada
FYROM UAEJapan
Luxembourg
Croatia
Trinidad / T
obago
Albania
Colombia
Viet Nam
France
Dominican Rep.
Costa Rica
TunisiaJordan
KosovoIta
ly
Greece0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%Principal Teachers School governing board Local/regional education authority National education authority
Distribution across the education system of responsibility for school resources
Figure II.4.3
Netherlands
Czech Republic
Hong Kong (China)
Iceland
Slovak Republic
Finland
Macao (China)
Thailand
Chinese Taipei
Denmark
Ireland
Italy
France
OECD average
Austria
Colombia
Albania
GeorgiaSpain
CABA (Argentina)
United States
Russia
HungaryPeru
Croatia
Singapore
Costa Rica
Qatar
FYROM
Uruguay
Mexico
Algeria
B-S-J-G (C
hina)
Jordan
Tunisia0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%Principal Teachers School governing board Local/regional education authority National education authority
Distribution across the education system of responsibility for the curriculum
Figure II.4.4
Japan
Hong Kong (China)
Greece
Indonesia
Iceland
Australia
Czech Republic
Costa Rica
Slovenia
Macao (China)
Switzerla
ndIsr
ael
Estonia
OECD averagePeru
Chile
Canada
Norway
Georgia
United States
Spain
Luxembourg
LebanonQatar
Uruguay
Singapore
Portugal
B-S-J-G (C
hina)
RomaniaRussi
a
Dominican Rep.
Italy
Montenegro
Bulgaria
Jordan0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%Principal Teachers School governing board Local/regional education authority National education authority
Distribution across the education system of responsibility for approving students for establishing student disciplinary policies
Table II.4.2
Japan
Hong Kong (China)
Italy
Czech Republic
Korea
Sweden
Australia
Finland
New Zealand
Thailand
Slovenia
Belgium
Ireland
Austria
CABA (Argentina)
Denmark
Trinidad / T
obago
Norway
France
Costa Rica
FYROM
LebanonUAE
Montenegro
United States
Singapore
Uruguay
Mexico
Qatar
Albania
Greece
Colombia
AlgeriaJordan
Tunisia0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%Principal Teachers School governing board Local/regional education authority National education authority
Distribution across the education system of responsibility for establishing student assessment policies
Figure II.4.5
Czech Republic
Slovak Republic
DenmarkRussi
a
Australia
Hong Kong (China)
Costa Rica
Iceland
Greece
New Zealand
Macao (China)
Indonesia Peru
Finland
Hungary
OECD average
Belgium
Lebanon
Albania
Dominican Rep.
JordanUAE
United Kingdom
Norway
Slovenia
BrazilQatar
France
FYROM
Viet Nam
Mexico
Trinidad / T
obago
Croatia
B-S-J-G (C
hina)
Romania0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%Principal Teachers School governing board Local/regional education authority National education authority
Distribution across the education system of responsibility for for approving students for admission to the school
Figure II.4.6
Turk
eyVi
et N
amTu
nisia
Chin
ese
Taip
eiGr
eece
Czec
h Re
publ
icEs
toni
aFr
ance
CABA
(Arg
entin
a)Me
xico
Indo
nesia
Swed
enMa
ltaLa
tvia
B-S-
J-G (C
hina
)Sl
oven
iaUn
ited
King
dom
Norw
ayCr
oatia
Peru
Cost
a Ri
caCh
ileKo
rea
Cana
daIre
land
Trin
idad
and
Tob
ago
Germ
any
Leba
non
Pola
ndUn
ited
Arab
Em
irate
s-100-80-60-40-20
0204060
After accounting for socio-economic status Before accounting for socio-economic status
Scor
e-po
int d
iffer
ence
Public and private schools, and students’ science performance
Figure II.4.14
Students in private schools perform better
Students in public schools perform better
Colo
mbi
aBr
azil
Urug
uay
Tuni
siaBe
lgiu
mMa
cao
(Chi
na)
Trin
idad
and
Tob
ago
Cost
a Ri
caSp
ain
Portu
gal
Luxe
mbo
urg
Peru
Chile
Fran
ceNe
ther
land
sSw
itzer
land
Germ
any
Qata
rHo
ng K
ong
(Chi
na)
Indo
nesia
Mexi
coAu
stria
Italy
Unite
d Ar
ab E
mir.
..OE
CD a
vera
geUn
ited
Stat
esTu
rkey
Hung
ary
Israe
lJo
rdan
Irela
ndAu
stra
liaMa
ltaSl
ovak
Rep
ublic
Thai
land
Rom
ania
Cana
daSi
ngap
ore
Pola
ndLa
tvia
Gree
ceNe
w Ze
alan
dBu
lgar
iaCz
ech
Repu
blic
Swed
enEs
toni
aDe
nmar
kMo
ldov
aFin
land
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
mAl
bani
aLit
huan
iaSl
oven
iaMo
nten
egro
Croa
tiaRu
ssia
Geor
gia
Icela
ndCh
ines
e Ta
ipei
05
101520253035404550
PISA 2015 PISA 2009% students
Change between 2009 and 2015 in grade repetition ratesFigure II.5.5
40 50 60 70 80 90 10040
50
60
70
80
90
100
CABA (Argentina)
Costa Rica
Sweden
Bulgaria Romania
VietNam
Uruguay
United States
Norway
Chile
Hungary
B-S-J-G(China)
Turkey
Mexico
Portugal
Iceland
Korea
Albania
Japan
Trinidad and TobagoUAE
Algeria Ireland
Indonesia
NewZealand
Colombia
Peru
Macao (China) Spain
Switzerland
Lebanon
Netherlands
SlovakRepublic
UK
Slovenia
Brazil
Kosovo
Finland
Thailand
LatviaR² = 0.20443386862099
Academic inclusion across schools (%)
Soci
o-ec
onom
ic in
clus
ion
acro
ss sc
hool
s
OECD average
OEC
D av
erag
e
High academic inclusion Low socio-economic inclusion
Low academic inclusion High socio-economic inclu-
sion
Academic and social inclusion across schoolsFigure II.5.12
First
age
at s
elec
tion
in th
e ed
ucat
ion
sy...
Reco
mm
enda
tion
of fe
eder
scho
ols a
lway
s...
Stud
ent’s
reco
rd o
f aca
dem
ic pe
rform
ance
...
Perc
enta
ge o
f stu
dent
s in
voca
tiona
l or .
..
Mean
scor
e in
scie
nce
Num
ber o
f sch
ool t
ypes
or e
duca
tiona
l ...
Abili
ty g
roup
ing
betw
een
class
es fo
r all
su...
Varia
tion
in sc
ienc
e pe
rform
ance
Grad
e re
petit
ion
(at l
east
onc
e)
-0.4-0.3-0.2-0.10.00.10.20.30.40.5
Stan
dard
ised
regr
essio
n co
efficie
nts
Factors associated with equity in science performanceFigure II.5.13
More equity in science performance
Less equity in science performance
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5350
400
450
500
550
Luxembourg
Chile
Australia
TurkeyMexico
Portugal
Iceland
Japan
Greece
NewZealand
Spain Latvia
Estonia
SlovakRepublic
Canada UnitedKingdom
Finland
R² = 0.305426290490751
Equity in resource allocation
PISA
sci
ence
sco
re
Principals in disadvantaged schools more concerned about the material re-sources
Principals in advantaged schools more
concerned about the ma-
terial resources
OECD average
OE
CD
ave
rage
Equity in resource allocation and science performanceBased on Figure
II.6.4
Learning time and science performanceFigure II.6.23
Finla
ndGe
rman
ySw
itzer
land
Japa
nEs
toni
aSw
eden
Neth
erla
nds
New
Zeal
and
Aust
ralia
Czec
h Re
publ
icMa
cao
(Chi
na)
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
mCa
nada
Belg
ium
Fran
ceNo
rway
Slov
enia
Icela
ndLu
xem
bour
gIre
land
Latv
iaHo
ng K
ong
(Chi
na)
OECD
ave
rage
Chin
ese
Taip
eiAu
stria
Portu
gal
Urug
uay
Lithu
ania
Sing
apor
eDe
nmar
kHu
ngar
yPo
land
Slov
ak R
epub
licSp
ain
Croa
tiaUn
ited
Stat
esIsr
ael
Bulg
aria
Kore
aRu
ssia
Italy
Gree
ceB-
S-J-G
(Chi
na)
Colo
mbi
aCh
ileMe
xico
Braz
ilCo
sta
Rica
Turk
eyMo
nten
egro
Peru
Qata
rTh
aila
ndUn
ited
Arab
Em
ir...
Tuni
siaDo
min
ican
Repu
...
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
678910111213141516
Intended learning time at school (hours) Study time after school (hours) Score points in science per hour of total learning timeHours
Scor
e po
ints
in sc
ienc
e pe
r hou
r of t
otal
lear
ning
tim
e
Science performance and learning timeFigure II.6.23
35 40 45 50 55 60300
350
400
450
500
550
600
Finland
Germany Switzerland
Japan Estonia
Sweden
NetherlandsNew Zealand
Macao(China)
Iceland
Hong Kong(China) Chinese Taipei
Uruguay
Singapore
PolandSpain
United States
IsraelBulgaria
Korea
Russia ItalyGreece
B-S-J-G (China)
Colombia
Chile
Mexico
BrazilCostaRica
TurkeyMontenegroPeru
QatarThailand
UnitedArab
Emirates
Tunisia
Dominican Republic
R² = 0.205109930113565
Total learning time in and outside of school
PISA
sci
ence
sco
re
OECD average
OECD average
OE
CD
ave
rage
• PISA 2018 Global competences: assessment and questionnaire Students’ well-being questionnaire: initiative linked to the Better
Life Initiative looking to offer a holistic view about the well-being of students (economic situation, housing, health, education, physical safety, sense of well-being, …)
Overlap with TALIS survey about teachers Adaptive testing
• PISA 2021 Creativity and critical thinking?
• PISA 2024 Skills in foreign languages? Entrepreneurship?
PISA 2018 and beyond: New developments and proposals
Learning strategies (2000) Problem-solving (2003) Embedding of attitudinal aspects in assessment (2006) Digital literacy (2009) Creative problem-solving (2012) Collaborative problem-solving (2015) Global competences (2018) Creativity and critical thinking (2021)?
Developmental domains
Global competence is the capacity to analyse global and intercultural issues critically and from multiple perspectives, to understand how differences affect perceptions, judgments, and ideas of self and others, and to engage in open, appropriate and effective interactions with others from different backgrounds on the basis of a shared respect for human dignity.
PISA definition of Global Competence
How well are students prepared for life and employment in culturally diverse societies and in a globalised world?
How much are students exposed to global news and how do they understand and critically analyse intercultural and global issues?
What approaches to multicultural, intercultural and global education are used at school?
What approaches are used to educate culturally diverse students and how are schools leveraging this diversity to develop students’ global competence?
What approaches are used to stimulate peer-to-peer learning between students from different cultures?
How well are schools contesting cultural and gender biases and stereotypes, including their own?
Some questions PISA seeks to answer
Schools can: provide opportunities for young people to learn about global developments
that affect the world and their lives teach students how they can develop a fact-based and critical worldview of
today equip students with the means to access and analyse a broad range of
cultural practices and meanings engage students in experiences that facilitate international and intercultural
relations promote the value of diversity, which in turn encourages sensitivity, respect
and appreciation.
Schools can make a difference
· Openness towards people from other cultures · Respect for other cultures · Global-mindedness
· Knowledge of global issues
· Intercultural knowledge
·Analytical and critical thinking
·Perspective taking· Respectful communication· Adaptability Components
Skills Knowledge Attitudes
Values· Valuing Human Dignity
· Valuing Cultural Diversity
GLOBAL COMPETENCE
“Skills” are the capacities for carrying out a complex pattern of either thinking (in the case of a cognitive skill) or behaviour (in the case of a behavioural skill) in order to achieve a particular goal. Global Competence requires numerous skills, including the ability to: communicate in more than one language; communicate appropriately and effectively with people from other cultures or countries; comprehend other people’s thoughts, beliefs and feelings, and see the world from their perspectives; adjust one’s thoughts, feelings or behaviours to fit new contexts and situations; and analyse and think critically in order to scrutinise and appraise information and meanings
An individual may have a large range of knowledge,understanding and skills, but lack the disposition to use them. An “attitude” may be defined as the overall mind-set which an individual adopts and typically consists of four components: a belief or opinion about the object, an emotion or feeling towards the object, an evaluation (either positive or negative) of the object, and a tendency to behave in a particular way towards that object.
The dimensions of Global Competence
The cognitive test – from information to critical understanding of global and intercultural issues
Analytical, critical and perspective taking skills
· Select information· Assess claims· Explain issues
· Recognize contexts and perspectives
·Understand implications
Knowledge
·Knowledge of global issues
· Intercultural knowledge
Global and Intercultural
Understanding
Contexts
Personal, Local, Global
Attitudes · Interest in other cultures· Interest in global issues· Global mindedness· Respect
The PISA test will assess how students can use their knowledge and critical thinking skills to understand
issues of critical importance to the world (global issues) and issues that affect open and respectful
interactions across cultures (intercultural issues).
Muchas gracias