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