OR

GA

NI

SA

TI

ON

F

OR

E

CO

NO

MI

C

CO

-O

PE

RA

TI

ON

A

ND

D

EV

EL

OP

ME

NT

Programme for International Student Assessment

RESULTS FROM PISA 2000

Student Engagementat SchoolA SENSE OF BELONGING AND PARTICIPATION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ENGAGEMENT AT SCHOOL • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

2

• A three-yearly survey, starting in 2000,of knowledge, skills and othercharacteristics of 15-year-olds in theprincipal industrialised countries and inother countries around the world.Around 315,000 students in 43 countrieshave completed pencil-and-paper tests intheir schools, and filled outquestionnaires about themselves. Schoolsalso provided background informationthrough questionnaires.

• A new way of looking at studentperformance, assessing young people’scapacity to use knowledge and skills tomet real-life challenges. PISA assessesliteracy in reading, mathematics andscience, as well as asking students abouttheir attitudes and approaches tolearning.

What is PISA?

• A unique collaboration amongcountries to monitor educationaloutcomes. Co-ordinated by theparticipating governments through theOECD, the survey drew on leadingexpertise throughout the world toimprove information on studentoutcomes and give countries benchmarksfor improvement.

Participating in PISA 2000: 43 countries(see list on next page) – 32 in a first waveand a further 11 administering the samesurvey in 2001. The results reported hereare on 42 countries. Romanian resultsare excluded due to delayed submissionof data. In the Netherlands, the schoolresponse rate was too low to ensureinternational comparability, but theNetherlands results are reported here.

The PISA survey not only measures the knowledge and skills of 15-year-olds, butalso asks them about whether they feel they fit in at school, and about their classand school attendance.

The Programme for InternationalStudent Assessment (PISA) is a powerfultool for measuring internationally theoutcomes of education systems.The firstthree-yearly survey was conducted in2000 with results first published in2001 (see box below).

The countries that collaborate in thisprogramme want to provide comparableevidence on a range of characteristics ofstudents approaching the end ofcompulsory education.This means notjust assessing their literacy in reading,mathematics and science, but also usinga questionnaire to examine some of thewider attributes of students, their

attitudes and their activities. Thesecharacteristics can have a bearing onstudents’ current performance as well astheir longer-term development aslifelong learners.

This report looks at what PISA 2000found out about the engagement atschool of 15-year-old students.Specifically, it looks at two measures:their sense of belonging in terms ofwhether they feel they fit in at school,and their participation in terms of theirclass and school attendance.These arenot the only possible measures ofschool engagement: students who aredisengaged or disaffected might also be

identified for example as those who donot do their homework, are involved indisruptive activities or display negativeattitudes to teachers and other students.However, research shows that thequestions on belonging andparticipation posed to students in thePISA questionnaire give usefulindications about the degree to whichstudents are more generally engaged andable to benefit from their schooling.PISA makes it possible, for the first timein such a large international survey, tolook at these characteristics alongsidethe actual performance of students inacquiring knowledge and skills.

A measure of engagement at school

PISA AND STUDENT ENGAGEMENT

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

School is central to the daily life of most15-year-olds.They view schooling asessential to their long-term well-being.Yet not all young people feel that theybelong at school, and some show a lackof engagement in terms of theirattitudes and behaviours. Researchershave recently identified the importanceof these twin aspects of engagement.

On the one hand, a psychologicalelement of engagement refers forexample to what students think aboutschool, about teachers and aboutthemselves in the school environment.This can be examined with measures ofstudents’ “sense of belonging”.

On the other, a behavioural element of

engagement refers for example toschool and class attendance, completinghomework, paying attention andinvolvement in extra-curricularactivities. This is examined withmeasures of student “participation”.

Students who are not engaged in schoolmay under perform and leave schoolwith inadequate qualifications. Muchresearch on engagement has focused onthis link with academic performance.However, this report treats belongingand participation as important schooloutcomes in their own right. Evidencepoints to the likelihood that studentswho are not engaged at school willcontinue to experience difficulties inadulthood, with a lower chance of

3

For secondary education to have satisfactory outcomes, students need to feel thatthey belong, and participate, at school.

participating in further educationbeyond secondary school and greaterchance of experiencing furtherpsychological and social difficulties.Thus meeting the needs of youngpeople who have become or riskbecoming disaffected with school is oneof the biggest challenges facing teachersand school administrators.

Analysis of the results

The following pages summarise theOECD’s analysis of PISA’s key findingson engagement (presented in full inStudent Engagement at School – ASense of Belonging and Participation -order details on the back cover), interms of:

� the extent of students’ sense ofbelonging at school, in differentcountries and among schools withineach country (pages 4-5);

� the extent to which studentsparticipate by attending school andclasses, in different countries andamong schools within each country(pages 6-7);

� the relationship between students’sense of belonging, theirparticipation and their performanceat school (pages 8-10);

� the relationship between the twoaspects of students’ engagement andtheir family backgrounds and othercharacteristics (pages 11-13);

� the relationship between students’engagement and characteristics oftheir schools (pages 14-15).

� Conclusions from the study andpolicy implications are consideredon pages 16-17.

The countries taking part

OECD member countries (all OECDmembers except the SlovakRepublic and Turkey):

Australia Austria Belgium Canada Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy

Non-OECD members:

Albania Argentina Brazil Bulgaria Chile Hong Kong-ChinaIndonesia Israel Latvia Liechtenstein FYR Macedonia Peru RomaniaRussian FederationThailand

Japan Korea LuxembourgMexico NetherlandsNew Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland United KingdomUnited States

TWO KEY ASPECTS OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • STUDENT ENGAGEMENT: RESULTS • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Students’ sense of belonging wasmeasured by asking them about theirfeelings about school as a place.Thequestions are shown opposite.

Students’ answers are likely to dependon their own social confidence as wellas on their feelings about school.However, research evidence onengagement supports the use of theoverall response to these questions as anindicator of whether students feel thatthey belong in the school environment,and as a consequence are well placed todevelop personally and academically.Those students with the most negativeresponses risk becoming disaffected.

The findings show major variationsamong students within countries interms of their sense of belonging (seepage 5), with significant proportions ineach country reporting that it is low.Most countries were strikingly similar inthis respect, with between a fifth and aquarter of 15-year-olds having low

4

On average nearly a quarter of students aged 15 express negative views about howwell they fit in at school. Within each country, and within most schools, a significantproportion of students have a low sense of belonging.

sense of belonging in the majority ofOECD countries, and the average scorefor sense of belonging (not shown)being similar across countries. Howeverin three countries, Japan, Korea andPoland, the average is much lower, andwell over a third of students have a lowsense of belonging.

To what extent are students who feelthat they do not belong at schoolconcentrated in particular schoolswithin each country? This question isimportant for education policy, since ithelps establish the extent to whichdisaffection is associated with featuresof the school system itself or the way itinteracts with students and schools inparticular circumstances.

The table to the right of the graph onpage 5 gives an indication of between-school differences in each country. Itshows the proportion of students withlow sense of belonging in twocontrasting schools in each country,

HOW STRONG IS STUDENTS’ SENSE OF BELONGING?

based on their ranking in terms of howmany students have low sense ofbelonging.The first column is the “5thpercentile” school - only 5% of schoolshave fewer students who express lowsense of belonging than this one. Thesecond is the “95th percentile” – wheremore students show low sense ofbelonging than in 95% of schools.

In some countries there are widebetween-school differences. In Polandfor example, well over half of studentsin some schools and only just over aquarter in others have low sense ofbelonging. In Portugal the range isfrom 13% to 31% . In other countriessuch as New Zealand and Sweden thereis almost no difference. Importantly,there are few schools in any country inwhich fewer than about 10% to 15% ofstudents have low sense of belonging.Therefore, no school is immune fromthis problem, and a strategy that is onlytargeted at certain schools will not beable to address it fully.

School is a place where:a. I feel like an outsider (or left out of things)b. I make friends easilyc. I feel like I belongd. I feel awkward and out of place e. Other students seem to like mef. I feel lonely

A score for each student’s sense of belonging was calculated based on their answers. Students who feel that they “belong” can be expected on average at least to “agree” with the positive statements and “disagree” with the negative ones. Those with a lower average score are classified as having a “low sense of belonging”. This does not mean that they express negative attitudes overall, but they do in at least one respect.

Percentage of students in each OECD country who have a low sense of belonging

% 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

41

38

32

30

28

25

24

23

23

23

22

22

21

21

21

21

21

21

21

21

20

19

19

18

17

30

OECD countries

%

32

28

30

24

26

23

18

20

18

17

18

19

21

15

19

15

20

17

15

16

13

15

17

16

14

17

14

In one of the schools with the fewest

such students*

In one of the schools with

the most such students*

CA

Average - in all schools

%

52

59

47

39

36

39

39

30

32

31

28

27

25

31

25

29

23

26

30

26

31

27

24

24

26

19

21

Students were asked whether they strongly agree, agree, disagree or disagree strongly, in each case, that:

"Sense of belonging"

41

B

*B shows the 5th percentile school: in only 5% of schools do fewer students have a low sense of belonging. C is the 95th percentile: more students have a low sense of belonging than in 95% of other schools.

% 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

5

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • STUDENT ENGAGEMENT: RESULTS • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

PISA measured student participationusing a self-reported measure ofabsenteeism, described opposite.This isan imperfect measure. Its accuracy maybe affected by whether students replyhonestly and the fact that some absentstudents do not answer the survey – inboth cases this makes it likely that PISAunder-estimates the rate of lowparticipation. On the other hand, someabsence may be caused by legitimatereasons like illness, rather thandisaffection. Another imperfection isthat non-participation has many facets,and students may start out not doinghomework or participating in class andend up playing truant regularly.Absenteeism measures the latter, moreserious end of this sequence.Thus thePISA measure shows relevant andvaluable comparative information aboutparticipation, without claiming tomeasure it comprehensively.

The findings show that significantnumbers of students have recentlyexperienced multiple episodes ofmissing school or classes, or lateness. Inmost countries at least 15% report this;in six countries it is over 25%,including Spain, where it is around a

On average one 15-year-old student in five has recently been missing school, beenarriving late or been skipping classes. The rate varies widely across countries, andamong different schools within countries.

third of students. On the other hand,only a tiny minority of Korean andJapanese students report such absences –only 8% and 4% respectively.Interestingly, these are countries wheresome of the highest proportions ofstudents report low sense of belongingat school, while Sweden has relativelyhigh absenteeism but fewer studentswho do not feel they belong.

Overall, students in countries withlower participation levels tend to haveon average a higher sense of belonging,and vice versa: there is a significantnegative association between these twovariables at the country level. Howeverthis does not mean that an individualstudent who scored well on onemeasure was likely to have a low scoreon the other (see page 8). Rather, itsuggests that the general conditions thatare favourable to students attendingschool in a particular country are notnecessarily favourable to them feelingpositive about being at school.

Absentee rates typically vary more thanlow sense of belonging rates acrossdifferent schools within a country. Thetable to the right of the diagram givesan idea of the range – showing the ratesfor schools at the 5th and 95thpercentiles in each country (seeexplanation on page 4). Although inmost countries the great majority ofschools have at least 10% of “absentee”students, the problem tends to besubstantially greater in certain schoolsthan in others. For example in Belgium,some schools have over a third ofstudents reporting absence, while othershave only 4%. In some Spanish schoolsover half of students are absentees, inothers fewer than one in five. Only inSweden is this difference very narrow,with 90% of schools within about threepercentage points of the averageabsentee rate of 24%.

HOW GOOD IS STUDENT ATTENDANCE OF SCHOOL AND CLASSES?6

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

- missed school- skipped classes- arrived late

Students have "low participation" if they report a frequency of at least:

• "1 or 2 times" to all three items, OR• "3 or 4 times" to "missed school", OR• "3 or 4 times" to both "skipped classes" and "arrived late for school".

Percentage of students in each OECD country with low participation at school

% 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

29

29

26

26

24

23

22

21

21

20

20

18

18

18

18

16

15

15

15

14

13

13

8

4

27

OECD countries

%

19

14

18

19

17

17

21

16

11

13

12

10

16

12

14

13

10

7

8

8

10

4

7

7

4

1

In one of the schools with the fewest

such students*

In one of the schools with

the most such students*

CA

Average - in all schools

%

51

49

41

37

39

37

27

33

38

33

32

38

26

28

23

25

37

32

28

29

19

37

22

22

18

15

Students' participation is measured according to how many times in the past two weeks they say that they:

"Participation"

34

B

*B shows the 5th percentile school: in only 5% of schools do fewer students have low participation.C is the 95th percentile: more students have low participation than in 95% of other schools.

% 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

7

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ENGAGEMENT AND PERFORMANCE • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

PISA identified wide variation in thereading, mathematical and scientificliteracy levels of students within eachcountry.To what extent can this beattributed to the fact that some studentsare more engaged at school than others?

The diagram above shows that there isonly a very weak association betweenstudents who have a stronger sense ofbelonging and those who perform betterin the PISA assessments. (The results formathematical and scientific literacyperformance are very similar to thoseshown for reading in the diagram.) Thereis a more distinct, but still weakassociation between participation andperformance among individuals.However, in both cases there is amoderately strong association betweenschools in which students are engaged

and those with good overall studentresults.

These findings do not show the directionof causation, and it cannot therefore beinferred, for example, that efforts toincrease school engagement are likely tolead to better academic performance.However, they do provide strong evidencethat an emphasis on engagement ofstudents at a school – ensuring that theyfeel that they belong and that theyparticipate in school activities – isunlikely to be at the expense of academicperformance, or vice versa. Positiveattitudes among students appear to becomplementary to school success.

Another notable feature of the diagramis that relationships between the twoaspects of student engagement – sense

of belonging and participation – are notin general strong. In other words,different students tend to havedifficulties in these two respects. Acloser analysis of groups of students istherefore helpful, to identify different“clusters” of students with various setsof characteristics. The results, shown inthe diagram on page 10, have beenobtained by creating a typology ofstudents using “cluster analysis”, atechnique to classify a population groupaccording to similarities in terms of arange of characteristics.

� “Top students” comprise a group ofhigh performers in reading andmathematical literacy, who also haveabove-average levels of engagement(ie high participation and sense ofbelonging).

Students who are not engaged at school perform on average somewhat below theirpeers, but the main benefit of engaging students is unlikely to be a dramaticimprovement in their performance.

Students with stronger

sense of belonging

Students with stronger

literacy performance

Students who participate more in school

Associations between engagement and performance

a. Among individual students

.06

.07

.14

Schools whose students

have a stronger senseof belonging

Schools whose students have stronger

literacy performance

b. Among schools

Schools whose students

participate more in school

.51.48

.37

The width of the arrows, and thenumbers adjacent to them, areproportional to the strength ofassociation between each pair ofcharacteristics. The numbers arecorrelation coefficients. A “perfect”correlation of 1.0, for examplebetween the top two blue circles,would mean that one could predictprecisely from a student’sparticipation level how strong wastheir “sense of belonging”. Acorrelation of zero means nodiscernible association.

HOW DOES STUDENT ENGAGEMENT RELATE TO ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE?8

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

These findings contradict certainconceptions about disengagement fromschool.The feeling that one does notbelong at school is not simply anattitude that feeds poor performance,but one that can be felt by students at allperformance levels. Moreover, whilestudents from more advantaged socialbackgrounds are much more likely todo well academically (more likely to bein the first and less likely to be in lastgroup shown in the diagram - page 10),social background is more weaklyassociated with engagement than it iswith performance (see page 11). Inparticular, the chance of being in one ofthe clusters of students characterised bylow engagement (the third and fourthgroups shown - page 10) is similaracross socio-economic groups.

Two particular messages for policy arisefrom this picture. One is that differentkinds of school intervention are neededto help people with different kinds ofproblem – those just targeted at lower-performing students, for example, willnot reach most of those students wholack a sense of belonging or who areregularly absent.The other is that effortsto increase school engagement may notresult in large gains in academicperformance. Rather, the justification forsuch interventions needs to derive fromthe benefit of school engagement as anoutcome in its own right – and one thatwill affect students’ futures as adults.

� Another group of students is also“engaged”, but has only averageliteracy performance. Note that thereare about as many students in thiscategory as “top students”, forwhom high engagement and highperformance goes together.

� Many of the most disengagedstudents fall in the next two groups,with respectively a low sense ofbelonging and a high absentee rate.However, in each case they are notnecessarily weak in the other aspectof engagement or in performance.Conversely, the weakest performers,characterised as “non-academic”, arenot always disengaged.

� Most students with a low sense ofbelonging (as defined on page 4)are in the “students feeling isolated”cluster. On average they do not havedifficulties in the other respects.

� About half of the students with lowparticipation fall in the “Absentstudents” group; they tend to under-perform academically, although not bya huge amount. Many of these studentsmay already have decided upon a post-secondary destination that does notrequire high secondary school grades.It is important to note that moststudents who have very low academicperformance at age 15 are not absentfrom school or class on a regular basis.

9

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ENGAGEMENT AND PERFORMANCE • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

10

Five types of student

Characterised by their engagement and performance(relative to an OECD average of 500*)

"TOP STUDENTS"are a group with high reading literacy and

mathematical literacy. They have aboveaverage sense of belonging and participation.

"ENGAGED STUDENTS"are a group having a high sense

of belonging and above-average participation. Their literacy scores are close to average.

"STUDENTS FEELING ISOLATED"are a group with a low sense of belonging. Their participation and literacy scores are on average above the norm.

"ABSENT STUDENTS"are a group with very low participation.Their literacy scores are low but their sense of belonging is close to average.

"NON-ACADEMIC STUDENTS"are a group with very low reading literacy. Their sense of belonging is below average but their participation is about average

26%

27%20%

10%

17%

"TOPSTU

DEN

TS"

"NON-A

CADEMIC STUDENTS"

"ENGAGEDST

UDEN

TS"

"AB

SEN

TST

UD

ENTS

"

"STUD

ENTS

FEELING

ISOLATED"

MATH LITERACY

PARTICIPATION

BELONGING

READING LITERACY

449

271

49045

4

366

509

472

369 610

530

531

609

575

529

491

488

387

526

521

522

Key

AROUND

ABOVE

WELL ABOVE

BELOW

WELL BELOW

OEC

D A

VER

AGE

* The numbers shown here indicate, as an average score for each cluster, theliteracy performance and engagement of students relative to others from OECDcountries participating in PISA 2000. They are calculated on scales for which 500is the OECD average and two-thirds of OECD s t u d e n t s s c o r e between 400and 600.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • GROUP DIFFERENCES • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Students with certain back-grounds are more likely tobe disengaged, but the differ-ences are often modest.

who are disengaged are not fromdisadvantaged homes, so it would bemisguided to tackle disengagementonly by concentrating on studentsfrom certain backgrounds.

Nevertheless, the extra difficulties facedby some disadvantaged groups less likelyto be engaged in school are significantand should not be ignored.The graphsbelow show that students with threetypes of characteristic are on averagebetween a quarter and over a third more

To what extent do students who areregularly absent from school or class, orwho have a low sense of belonging atschool, come from less advantagedfamily backgrounds? The findings fromthis study show a degree of associationbetween certain family factors anddisengagement. However it is importantto note

a) that this effect is not as great as theassociation between familybackground and student performance– and thus it would be wrong toclaim that students with homedisadvantages perform worse mainlybecause they are not engaged at school;

b) that a large proportion of students

1. Having a disadvantaged social backgroundThe quarter of students with least favourable backgrounds, measured by parental occupation and education, are:

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

76%64%

62%

58%55%

48%47%

46%41%

39%

60%

84% more likely

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

70%63%

61%

55%52%

52%50%

48%31%

57%

74% more likely

27%27%

� 38% more likely than students of medium socialbackground to have low sense of belonging, onaverage in OECD countries; and more so in:

� 26% more likely than students of mediumsocial background to have low participation,on average in OECD countries; and more so in:

In the other OECDcountries surveyedthere is a smaller,significant effect inthis direction,except in Finlandwhere there is nosignificantdifference

There is a smallereffect in thisdirection in Canada,Germany, Mexicoand Norway; but nosignificant effect inother OECDcountries surveyed.

11ENGAGEMENT AND STUDENT BACKGROUND

likely to have low participation, lowsense of belonging, or both. Studentsfrom less advantaged socio-economicand from foreign-born backgroundsare particularly more likely to feel theydo not belong, while those with asingle parent are more likely than theirpeers to have high absence rates. Notehowever that only in the case of socio-economic background is a significantdifference noted in most countries forboth sense of belonging andparticipation.

Three student characteristics associated with sense of belonging and participation

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • GROUP DIFFERENCES • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Students with certain backgrounds are more likely to be disengaged, but thedifferences are often modest.

In the case of students with singleparents or who are foreign-born,which in some countries are quitesmall groups of students for whichsample sizes are therefore limited, it isoften impossible to say withconfidence whether this associationexists.

The results also show that:

� Students from the quarter ofstudents with the highest socio-economic status are about 14% lesslikely to feel they do not belong atschool than students from averagesocial backgrounds.This is a

Three student characteristics associated with sense of belonging and participation

2. Being foreign-bornForeign-born students are:

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130

87%63%

59%

55%51%

50%49%

41%39%

59%

129% more likely

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

98%67%

51%46%

100% more likely

� 37% more likely than native-born students to have lowsense of belonging, on average in OECD countries, andmore so in:

� 30% more likely than native-born studentsto have low participation, on average inOECD countries, and more so in:

In Switzerland theyare 37% more likely;in no other OECDcountry is there asignificant difference

In no other OECDcountry is there asignificant difference

12

The graphs above show those associations found to be strongest, on average in OECD countries, and identify the individual countries that exceedthese averages.

ENGAGEMENT AND STUDENT BACKGROUND

significant difference, but muchsmaller than the disadvantageexperienced by the least advantagedstudents compared to the average (a38% greater chance of low sense ofbelonging).The most advantagedgroup is, on average across theOECD, no less likely to have lowparticipation; although in somecountries they are significantly lessso, in three countries, Poland,Sweden and Switzerland, privilegedstudents are significantly more likelyto report absences.Thus overall,there is not a continuous increase inthe likelihood of being engagedamong students with progressively

higher socio-economic status, butrather a particular risk factor for thestudents from the worst-off families.

� The compounded effect of multipledisadvantages on the chance ofhaving low engagement can beconsiderable. For example a foreign-born student whose parents havelow socio-economic status can beestimated to be nearly 90% morelikely on average to have a low senseof belonging.

� Girls are 7% less likely on average tohave low participation than boys.There is no overall difference in the

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

3. Having a single parentStudents with single parents are:

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

56%55%55%

51%50%50%44%44%

51%

63% more likely

43%

� 40% more likely than other students to havelow participation, on average in OECDcountries, and more so in:

In seven otherOECD countriesthere is a smallereffect in the samedirection; in theremaining eightsurveyed there isno significantdifference

NB: Thefigures in thisdiagram andthose on twoprecedingpages represent“relative odds”.For example if20% of girlsand 30% ofboys have acertainattribute, boysare said to be50% (not 10%)more likely tohave it thangirls.

13

chances of boys and girls having lowsense of belonging, but significantdifferences in some countries. InKorea girls are 40% more likely; inthe United States 25% less likelythan boys to feel they do not fit in.There are also considerabledifferences within countries in therelative chance of boys and girlshaving this characteristic in differentschools. These variations in therelative degree to which boys andgirls have a sense of belonging in aschool environment points to a needfor deeper analysis within countriesof underlying causes of schooldisaffection.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • SCHOOL DIFFERENCES • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

The chance of students not feeling that they belong at school or being absent isgreater in schools with certain features.

The PISA study has shown that whereone goes to school makes a difference topredicted performance. An importantfinding of the first report on PISA 2000(Knowledge and Skills for Life, OECD,2001) was that student literacy levels areclosely associated with socio-economicbackground, not just of the individualstudent but of his or her peers. Otherthings being equal, students do better ifthey go to school with people from moreadvantaged homes, and this isparticularly true for individuals fromlower socio-economic backgrounds.Student performance is also associatedwith a wide range of characteristics ofschools relating to resources, schoolpractices and climate. No one such factorhas a decisive influence.

Does where you go to school also make adifference to predicted levels ofengagement? The graphs on pages 5 and7 above show considerable variation inthe proportion of students with lowengagement in different schools withineach country. Further analysis, whoseresults are summarised in the graphopposite, identifies characteristics ofschools associated with studentengagement. In each case, the effect onthe probability of a student having lowengagement is shown for each factor. Awide range of characteristics wereconsidered, including student-teachingstaff ratios, quality of schoolinfrastructure and teacher morale, butonly the results where substantialdifferences were observed are shown.(These calculations “control” in each

case for the interaction with otherfactors: they show, for example, theseparate effect of good student relationson the chance of low participation, aftertaking account of the fact that in schoolswhere students get on with theirteachers, there may also be a strongerdisciplinary climate which couldcontribute to student attendance.)

These results reinforce the importanceof student background at the schoollevel. They show that students attendingschools where many other students arein the bottom quarter by socio-economic status are more likely thanthose at other schools to feel that theydo not belong and to miss school orlessons. However, it is notable that theconverse was not observed: schoolswith more students in the top quartersocio-economically do notsystematically have fewer disengagedstudents.

Only a small number of characteristicsof school life are clearly associated withengagement levels across countries, butthe nature of these characteristics isinteresting. None of them reflect directlythe resources being spent on a school;rather, three factors relating to schooland classroom climate are significant.This shows that there are things thatschools can do to help keep studentsengaged that do not necessarily requirespending more money – maintain astrong disciplinary climate, goodteacher relations and high expectationsfor student success.

14 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ENGAGEMENT AND SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •15

The most pronounced school effects

The indicator that was used: percentage of students in the school whose parents are in the bottom quarter of the socio-economic distribution

• Student-teacher relations are relatively strong

Certain characteristics of schools are associated with a reduced risk of students experiencing a low sense of belonging or low participation. Fewer students show these characteristics in schools where:

Indicator: ranking of school, internationally, according to scores showing the extent to which students say they get on with teachers and find them helpful and fair

Indicator: ranking of school, internationally, according to scores showing whether or not students feel their classes are disrupted

Indicator: ranking of school internationally, according to whether students say that teachers want them to work hard and do well

• The disciplinary climate is relatively strong

• Students feel greater pressure to achieve

• The social profile of the school is more favourable

The effects observed: In a school where the proportion of less-advantaged students is 10 percentage points lower than another school (eg 30% rather than 40% are in the bottom quarter), students are:

5 per cent less likely to have low sense of belonging, and

7 per cent less likely to have low participation

Effects: In a school that is 10 percentage points higher up these rankings than another school, students are: 2 percent less likely to have low sense of belonging; and

5 per cent less likely to have low participation.

Effects: In a school that is 10 percentage points higher up these rankings than another school, students are:

No less likely to have a low sense of belonging, but

3 per cent less likely to have low participation.

Effects: In a school that is 10 percentage points higher up these rankings than another school (e.g. scores better than 50% of schools rather than 40%), students are:

5 per cent less likely to have low sense of belonging; and

4 per cent less likely to have low participation

Student engagement at school can beseen as a disposition that allows one tolearn, work and function in a socialinstitution.The PISA survey found thatsignificant proportions of students havelow levels of engagement at age 15,which limit their capacity to benefitfrom school and constrain their potentialin the future. One in four students feelthat they do not belong in a schoolenvironment in at least one respect, andabout one in five report being regularlyabsent from school. On the other hand,this should not hide the fact that justover half of students, as classified onpage 10 above, belong to groups thatcombine high engagement in schoolwith average or high performance.

Seven key findings of this report are that:

� The prevalence of disaffectedstudents (with low sense ofbelonging or low participation)varies significantly across schools ineach country.This is only weaklylinked to students’ socialbackground; there is thus scope forschool policy and practice to helpengage more students.

� Students in schools with stronglevels of engagement tend toperform well, showing thatacademic performance and engagingstudents are complementary ratherthan alternatives.

� However, for individual students,performance and engagement do notalways go hand in hand. While aquarter of students are both highlyengaged and high achievers, asimilar proportion are highlyengaged but have averageachievement. Students with lowerlevels of engagement are spreadamong those with high, low andmedium literacy performance.

� The quarter of students fromfamilies with the lowest socio-economic status, students from loneparent families and foreign-bornstudents are more likely to bedisaffected. However, those from thequarter of families with the highestsocio-economic status are not muchless likely than average to show lowlevels of engagement.

� Students attending schools wherethere is a concentration of studentsfrom families with low socio-economic status are more likely tobe disaffected, suggesting probablepeer effects.

� In schools with a strong disciplinaryclimate, good student-teacherrelations and high expectations ofstudents, engagement is on averagehigher.This suggests that the cultureof schools plays a key role.

Implications for public policy

When looking at student engagementat age 15, it could be argued that onegets a distorted picture of students atthe peak of disaffection as a normalpart of adolescent development. Doesengagement at this age thereforematter? One reason it may do is thatdisaffection at this age can potentiallybe a precursor to the onset of moreserious problems among vulnerableyoung people. If family and schoolinterventions can at least dampen therise of disaffection at this stage,subsequent benefits can result.Moreover, the last few years ofsecondary school comprise a criticaltransition stage in which young peopleprepare for entry into furthereducation or the labour market.Engagement at this age is likely toinfluence young people’s futuresgreatly. Furthermore, other researchsuggests that feeling included andbeing engaged in one’s socialenvironment are essential to people’shealth and well-being.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • CONCLUSIONS • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

KEY FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY 16

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Can schools influence studentengagement? This study shows clearlythat many schools have indeed managedto engage their students, and that insome countries there are widedifferences in the performance ofdifferent schools in this respect. Thefindings suggest that the climate ofschools, more than resources, can makea significant difference. However,individual countries need to study moreclosely what factors lie behind thesedifferences and what school policies andpractices are helping to engage students.

More generally, reforms acrosseducation systems need to find ways ofdesigning and targeting effectiveinterventions to engage disaffectedstudents. This is not easy, given that thefindings show a surprisingly largenumber of students who lack a sense ofbelonging or have low levels ofparticipation even though they cannotbe identified by low achievement orsocial disadvantage.This suggests thatprogrammes in schools to meetparticular needs of disaffected students

will have to pay considerable attentionto access and selection. Some suchprogrammes might aim to enhanceknowledge of post-secondary educationand employment opportunities; othersmight focus more on building socialskills.

Some educators argue that only awholesale restructuring of schools cantoday succeed in engaging the mostdisaffected teenagers. PISA cannotprovide a blueprint for suchrestructuring, but suggests some keycharacteristics that it might aim tofoster. In particular, it points to theimportance of an orderly and positive

school climate in keeping studentsengaged, and the potentially damagingeffect of policies that lead to aconcentration of students from the leastadvantaged backgrounds in particularschools.

Thus PISA has shown that there is asignificant minority of students who aredisaffected from school in each country,and identified some of the tools totackle the task of raising studentengagement. However, it provides only abroad understanding, and challengescountries to study more closely thenature of the problem locally, alongwith which solutions work best.

17

Further information and on-line ordering:

To order the Report (OECD code: 96 2003 13 1 P)www.oecd.org

Data underlying the Reportwww.pisa.oecd.org

All OECD books and periodicals arenow available on-linewww.SourceOECD.org

Student Engagement at SchoolA SENSE OF BELONGING AND PARTICIPATION

RESULTS FROM PISA 2000

How widespread is student disaffection with school in different educationsystems? What policies and practices are most effective in fostering students’sense of belonging and participation in school? These questions are of greatconcern to educators in many countries, not only because of the interrelationshipbetween student engagement at school and learning outcomes, but also becausestudent engagement represents a valued outcome in itself.

The OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) offers aunique opportunity to study student engagement within an internationallycomparative framework as students approach the end of compulsory schooling.PISA provides not only information on students’ literacy skills, but also on theirattitudes and values, their social backgrounds, and on important features of theschools they attend.

This report examines several aspects of student engagement at school. Theresults indicate that the prevalence of disaffected students varies considerablyboth within and among schools in most countries, and that this variation is notattributable solely to students’ family backgrounds. The analyses also identifysome of the school factors related to student engagement and provide evidencethat achieving strong student engagement at school does not have to be at theexpense of academic performance.

The OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)PISA is a collaborative process among the 43 participating countries, bringingtogether scientific expertise from the participating countries and steered jointly bytheir governments on the basis of shared, policy-driven interests. PISA is anunprecedented attempt to measure student performance across countries, as isevident from some of its features: The literacy approach: PISA aims to define each domain (reading, mathematicsand science) not merely in terms of mastery of the school curriculum, but in termsof the knowledge and skills needed for full participation in society.A long-term commitment: Over the decade to come, it will enable countriesregularly and predictably to monitor their progress in meeting key learningobjectives.The age-group covered: By assessing 15-year-olds, i.e. young people near theend of their compulsory education, PISA provides a good indication of the overallperformance of school systems.The relevance to lifelong learning: PISA does not limit itself to assessingstudents’ knowledge and skills but also asks them to report on their own, self-regulated learning, their motivation to learn and their preferences for differenttypes of learning situations.