PIAAC: SOME THINGS IT TELLS US ABOUT HIGHER EDUCATIONNew England Association of Colleges Conference 2014William ThornSenior Analyst, OECD

• Briefly describe PIAAC• Give an overview of some of the

results that are relevant to higher education

Objectives

• International assessment of adults skills in ‘literacy’, ‘numeracy’ and ‘problem solving in technology-rich environments’.

• Target population: adults aged 16-65 years (i.e. born between 1946 and 1996)

• Data collection: 2011-12• 24 countries in first round (including

USA)

What is PIAAC?

Literacy

The ability to...Understand, evaluate, use and engage with written texts.

In order to..Achieve one’s goals, and to develop one’s knowledge and potential.Literacy encompasses a range of skills from..The decoding of written words and sentences The comprehension, interpretation and evaluation of complex texts.

Numeracy

The ability to…Access, use, interpret and communicate mathematical information and ideas

In order to.. Engage in and manage the mathematical demands of a range of situations in adults. Numeracy involves Managing a situation or solving a problem in a real context, by responding to mathematical content/information/ideas represented in multiple ways.

Problem SolvingIn Technology-rich Environments

The ability to…Use digital technology communication tools and networks to acquire and evaluate information, communicate with others and perform practical tasks.

The assessment focuses on the abilities to…Solve problems for personal, work and civic purposes by setting up appropriate goals and plans, and accessing and making use of information through computers and computer networks.

4

The skills assessed

Section Content

A Basic demographics (age, sex)B Educational attainment and participationC Labour Force status and work historyD Characteristics of current jobE Characteristics of last job (if unemployed and worked in

last 5 years)F Skill use at work (generic skills)G Skill use at work (literacy, numeracy and ICTs)H Skill use in everyday life (literacy, numeracy and ICTs)I ‘Social outcomes’ and learning strategiesJ Background characteristics (social, linguistic and

migration background and family composition)

The background questionnaire

Percentage of adults by level of educational attainment and age

16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 640

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Lower than upper secondary Upper secondaryTertiary

Age

%

Literacy mean scores by age (25-65) and educational attainment

25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65200

220

240

260

280

300

320

Lower than upper secondary Upper secondaryTertiary

Age

Mean score

Finla

nd

Nethe

rland

s

Japa

n

Fland

ers

Austria

Sweden

Norway

Germ

any

Czech

Rep

ublic

Eston

ia

Unite

d Sta

tes

Avera

ge

Franc

e

Austral

ia

Canad

a

Polan

d

Slova

k Rep

ublic

Irela

nd

Engla

nd

North

ern

Irela

nd

Korea

Denm

ark

Italy

Spain

260.0

270.0

280.0

290.0

300.0

310.0

320.0

330.0

340.0

25-2930-34

Average literacy proficiency of higher education graduates aged 25-29 and 30-34 years

Literacy proficiency by proficiency levels and educational attainment: 25-29 year olds

less than upper sec

upper sec

Isced 5-6

less than upper sec

upper sec

Isced 5-6

Unit

ed S

tate

sO

EC

D a

vera

ge

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

below lev 1 %

lev 1 %

lev 2 %

lev 3 %

lev 4/5 %

Characteristics of graduates: literacy levels 2 and below and level 3 and above

less

than u

pper

sec.

Upper

sec.

Isce

d 5

/6

Nati

ve-b

orn

and n

ati

ve-language

Nati

ve-b

orn

and f

ore

ign-language

Fore

ign-b

orn

and n

ati

ve-language

Fore

ign-b

orn

and f

ore

ign-language

less

than u

pper

sec.

Upper

sec.

Isce

d 5

/6

Nati

ve-b

orn

and n

ati

ve-language

Nati

ve-b

orn

and f

ore

ign-language

Fore

ign-b

orn

and n

ati

ve-language

Fore

ign-b

orn

and f

ore

ign-language

Male Parental educ origins Male Parental educ originsUnited States OECD average

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

below level 3 level 3 and above

Japa

n

Fland

ers (B

elgi

um)

Czech

Rep

ublic

Korea

Net

herla

nds

Slova

k Rep

ublic

Franc

e

Finla

nd

Austr

ia

Germ

any

OECD a

vera

ge

Uni

ted

State

s

Nor

ther

n Ir

elan

d (U

K)

Eston

ia

Spain

Nor

way

Swed

en

Denm

ark

Irel

and

Polan

dItal

y

Austr

alia

Canad

a

Engla

nd (U

K)1.15

1.20

1.25

1.30

1.35

1.40

1.45

1.50

Variation in literacy scores (90th/10th percentile): 25-34 year old tertiary graduates

• The literacy proficiency of higher education graduates represent the cumulative outcome of participation in education (schooling as well as higher education) as well as the impact of a range of other factors (the home environment, work, reading practices, etc.)

• Isolating the effect of participation in HE is difficult

The performance of higher education systems?

• Young people entering higher education are likely to have higher average literacy scores than their peers– Access to HE is selective on the basis of

academic performance– Students also ‘self-select’ on the basis

of interests, perceived ability, etc.

Selection effects

Selection effects

less than upper sec.

Upper secondary Isced 5/6 less than upper sec.

Upper secondary Isced 5/6

United States OECD average

200.0

220.0

240.0

260.0

280.0

300.0

320.0

340.0

Mean literacy proficiency by educational attainment and student status: adults completing highest qualification in

the previous 5 years

still student not a student

Selection effects

level 2 level 3 level 4/5 par. Educ=upp sec par. Educ=Isced 5-6lit perf (ref =1 and below) Parental education (ref=less than upper sec)

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

0.900Conditioned probability of access to higher edu-

cation (24-29 years)

United States OECD average

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29260

265

270

275

280

285

290

Mean literacy score by age: 16-29 years

Proficiency growth?

• Respondents aged between 16 and 26/27 belong to PISA cohorts. – Can compare the performance of cohorts in

PISA (in 2000, 2003, 2006 and 2009) and in PIAAC in 2011/12

– Performance in PISA a reasonable predictor of performance in PIAAC (at cohort level)

• Suggests that there is less variation between countries in learning gain occurring from age 15 than up to age 15.

Proficiency gain in post-secondary education

250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320450

470

490

510

530

550

570

R² = 0.354850945908059

PISA score

Survey of Adult Skills score

Relationship between the literacy proficiency of a cohort at age 15 in 2000 and age 26/27 in 2011/12

• PIAAC provides some information on:– Cognitive style

• interest in new ideas, extent to which new information is related to what is already known

– Use of some generic skills at work• Co-operation • Planning • Influencing• Learning • Physical skills

Non-cognitive skills

Cognitive style: 25-34 year olds who completed their highest qualification less than 5 years ago

less than uppe...

upper sec

Isced 5-6

less than uppe...

upper sec

Isced 5-6

Un

ited

Sta

tes

OE

CD

ave

rag

e

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Curiosity by educational attainment

very low low high very high

less than upper ...

upper sec

Isced 5-6

less than upper ...

upper sec

Isced 5-6

Un

ited

Sta

tes

OE

CD

ave

rag

e

Contextualisation by educational attainment

very low low high very high

Use of generic skills at work (25-34 year olds who completed their highest qualification less than 5 years ago)

less than upper sec.

upper sec

Isced 5-6

less than upper sec.

upper sec

Isced 5-6

Unit

ed S

tate

sO

EC

D a

vera

ge

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Time cooperating with co-workers

None of the time Up to a quarter of the time Up to half of the time More than half of the time All of the time

Use of generic skills at work: 25-34 year workers who completed their highest qualification less than 5 years

ago

less than uppe...

upper sec

Isced 5-6

less than uppe...

upper sec

Isced 5-6

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

OE

CD

ave

rage

Use of planning skills at work

very low low high very high

less than upper ...

upper sec

Isced 5-6

less than upper ...

upper sec

Isced 5-6

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

OE

CD

ave

rage

Use of influencing skills at work

very low low high very high

Find Out More About PIAAC at:

www.oecd.org/site/piaac All national and international publications

The complete micro-level database

Emailwilliam.thorn@oecd.org

Thank you