HOME
The Info List - Programme For International Student Assessment


--- Advertisement ---



The Programme for International Student Assessment
Programme for International Student Assessment
(PISA) is a worldwide study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in member and non-member nations intended to evaluate educational systems by measuring 15-year-old school pupils' scholastic performance on mathematics, science, and reading.[1] It was first performed in 2000 and then repeated every three years. Its aim is to provide comparable data with a view to enabling countries to improve their education policies and outcomes. It measures problem solving and cognition in daily life.[2] The 2015 version of the test was published on 6 December 2016.[3]

Contents

1 Influence and impact

1.1 Creation of new knowledge 1.2 Changes in national assessment policy 1.3 External influence over national educational policy

2 Framework 3 Implementation 4 Method of testing

4.1 Sampling 4.2 Test 4.3 National add-ons 4.4 Data scaling

5 Results

5.1 PISA 2015

6 Previous years 7 Reception

7.1 China 7.2 Finland 7.3 India 7.4 Malaysia 7.5 Sweden 7.6 UK 7.7 US

8 Research on possible causes of PISA disparities in different countries 9 See also 10 References 11 External links

Influence and impact[edit] PISA, and similar international standardised assessments of educational attainment are increasingly used in the process of education policymaking at both national and international levels.[4] PISA was conceived to set in a wider context the information provided by national monitoring of education system performance through regular assessments within a common, internationally agreed framework; by investigating relationships between student learning and other factors they can "offer insights into sources of variation in performances within and between countries".[5] Until the 1990s, few European countries used national tests. In the 1990s, ten countries / regions introduced standardised assessment, and since the early 2000s, ten more followed suit. By 2009, only five European education systems had no national student assessments.[4] The impact of these international standardised assessments in the field of educational policy has been significant, in terms of the creation of new knowledge, changes in assessment policy, and external influence over national educational policy more broadly. Creation of new knowledge[edit] Data from international standardised assessments can be useful in research on causal factors within or across education systems.[4] Mons notes that the databases generated by large-scale international assessments have made possible the carrying out, on an unprecedented scale, of inventories and comparisons of education systems in more than 40 countries and on themes ranging from the conditions for learning in mathematics and reading, to institutional autonomy and admissions policies.[6] They allow typologies to be developed that can be used for comparative statistical analyses of education performance indicators, thereby identifying the consequences of different policy choices. They have generated new knowledge about education: PISA findings have challenged deeply embedded educational practices, such as the early tracking of students into vocational or academic pathways.[7] Barroso and de Carvalho find that PISA provides a common reference connecting academic research in education and the political realm of public policy, operating as a mediator between different strands of knowledge from the realm of education and public policy.[8] However, although the key findings from comparative assessments are widely shared in the research community[4] the knowledge they create does not necessarily fit with government reform agendas; this leads to some inappropriate uses of assessment data. Changes in national assessment policy[edit] Emerging research suggests that international standardised assessments are impacting upon national assessment policy and practice. PISA is being integrated in national policies and practices on assessment, evaluation, curriculum standards and performance targets; its assessment frameworks and instruments are being used as best-practice models for improving national assessments; many countries have explicitly incorporated and emphasise PISA-like competencies in revised national standards and curricula; others use PISA data to complement national data and validate national results against an international benchmark.[7] External influence over national educational policy[edit] More important than its influence on countries' policy of student assessment, is the range of ways in which PISA is influencing countries education policy choices. Policy-makers in most participating countries see PISA as an important indicator of system performance; PISA reports can define policy problems and set the agenda for national policy debate; policymakers seem to accept PISA as a valid and reliable instrument for internationally benchmarking system performance and changes over time; most countries - irrespective of whether they performed above, at, or below the average PISA score - have begun policy reforms in response to PISA reports.[7] Against this, it should be noted that impact on national education systems varies markedly. For example, in Germany, the results of the first PISA assessment caused the so-called 'PISA shock': a questioning of previously accepted educational policies; in a state marked by jealously guarded regional policy differences, it led ultimately to an agreement by all Länder to introduce common national standards and even an institutionalised structure to ensure that they were observed.[9] In Hungary, by comparison, which shared similar conditions to Germany, PISA results have not led to significant changes in educational policy.[10] Because many countries have set national performance targets based on their relative rank or absolute PISA score, PISA assessments have increased the influence of their (non-elected) commissioning body, the OECD, as an international education monitor and policy actor, which implies an important degree of 'policy transfer' from the international to the national level; PISA in particular is having "an influential normative effect on the direction of national education policies".[7] Thus, it is argued that the use of international standardised assessments has led to a shift towards international, external accountability for national system performance; Rey contends that PISA surveys, portrayed as objective, third-party diagnoses of education systems, actually serve to promote specific orientations on educational issues.[4] National policy actors refer to high-performing PISA countries to "help legitimise and justify their intended reform agenda within contested national policy debates".[11] PISA data can be are "used to fuel long-standing debates around pre-existing conflicts or rivalries between different policy options, such as in the French Community of Belgium".[12] In such instances, PISA assessment data are used selectively: in public discourse governments often only use superficial features of PISA surveys such as country rankings and not the more detailed analyses. Rey (2010:145, citing Greger, 2008) notes that often the real results of PISA assessments are ignored as policymakers selectively refer to data in order to legitimise policies introduced for other reasons.[13] In addition, PISA's international comparisons can be used to justify reforms with which the data themselves have no connection; in Portugal, for example, PISA data were used to justify new arrangements for teacher assessment (based on inferences that were not justified by the assessments and data themselves); they also fed the government's discourse about the issue of pupils repeating a year, (which, according to research, fails to improve student results).[14] In Finland, the country's PISA results (that are in other countries deemed to be excellent) were used by Ministers to promote new policies for 'gifted' students.[15] Such uses and interpretations often assume causal relationships that cannot legitimately be based upon PISA data which would normally require fuller investigation through qualitative in-depth studies and longitudinal surveys based on mixed quantitative and qualitative methods,[16] which politicians are often reluctant to fund. Recent decades have witnessed an expansion in the uses to which PISA and similar assessments are put, from assessing students' learning, to connecting "the educational realm (their traditional remit) with the political realm".[17] This raises the question whether PISA data are sufficiently robust to bear the weight of the major policy decisions that are being based upon them, for, according to Breakspear, PISA data have "come to increasingly shape, define and evaluate the key goals of the national / federal education system".[7] This implies that those who set the PISA tests – e.g. in choosing the content to be assessed and not assessed – are in a position of considerable power to set the terms of the education debate, and to orient educational reform in many countries around the globe.[7] Framework[edit] PISA stands in a tradition of international school studies, undertaken since the late 1950s by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). Much of PISA's methodology follows the example of the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS, started in 1995), which in turn was much influenced by the U.S. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The reading component of PISA is inspired by the IEA's Progress in International Reading Literacy Study
Progress in International Reading Literacy Study
(PIRLS). PISA aims at testing literacy in three competence fields: reading, mathematics, science on a 1000-point scale.[18] The PISA mathematics literacy test asks students to apply their mathematical knowledge to solve problems set in real-world contexts. To solve the problems students must activate a number of mathematical competencies as well as a broad range of mathematical content knowledge. TIMSS, on the other hand, measures more traditional classroom content such as an understanding of fractions and decimals and the relationship between them (curriculum attainment). PISA claims to measure education's application to real-life problems and lifelong learning (workforce knowledge). In the reading test, "OECD/PISA does not measure the extent to which 15-year-old students are fluent readers or how competent they are at word recognition tasks or spelling." Instead, they should be able to "construct, extend and reflect on the meaning of what they have read across a wide range of continuous and non-continuous texts."[19] Implementation[edit] PISA is sponsored, governed, and coordinated by the OECD, but paid for by participating countries. Method of testing[edit] Sampling[edit] The students tested by PISA are aged between 15 years and 3 months and 16 years and 2 months at the beginning of the assessment period. The school year pupils are in is not taken into consideration. Only students at school are tested, not home-schoolers. In PISA 2006, however, several countries also used a grade-based sample of students. This made it possible to study how age and school year interact. To fulfill OECD
OECD
requirements, each country must draw a sample of at least 5,000 students. In small countries like Iceland
Iceland
and Luxembourg, where there are fewer than 5,000 students per year, an entire age cohort is tested. Some countries used much larger samples than required to allow comparisons between regions. Test[edit]

PISA test documents on a school table (Neues Gymnasium, Oldenburg, Germany, 2006)

Each student takes a two-hour handwritten test. Part of the test is multiple-choice and part involves fuller answers. There are six and a half hours of assessment material, but each student is not tested on all the parts. Following the cognitive test, participating students spend nearly one more hour answering a questionnaire on their background including learning habits, motivation, and family. School directors fill in a questionnaire describing school demographics, funding, etc. In 2012 the participants were, for the first time in the history of large-scale testing and assessments, offered a new type of problem, i.e. interactive (complex) problems requiring exploration of a novel virtual device.[20][21] In selected countries, PISA started experimentation with computer adaptive testing. National add-ons[edit] Countries are allowed to combine PISA with complementary national tests. Germany
Germany
does this in a very extensive way: On the day following the international test, students take a national test called PISA-E (E=Ergänzung=complement). Test items of PISA-E are closer to TIMSS than to PISA. While only about 5,000 German students participate in the international and the national test, another 45,000 take only the latter. This large sample is needed to allow an analysis by federal states. Following a clash about the interpretation of 2006 results, the OECD
OECD
warned Germany
Germany
that it might withdraw the right to use the "PISA" label for national tests.[22] Data scaling[edit] From the beginning, PISA has been designed with one particular method of data analysis in mind. Since students work on different test booklets, raw scores must be 'scaled' to allow meaningful comparisons. Scores are thus scaled so that the OECD
OECD
average in each domain (mathematics, reading and science) is 500 and the standard deviation is 100.[23] This is true only for the initial PISA cycle when the scale was first introduced, though, subsequent cycles are linked to the previous cycles through IRT scale linking methods.[24] This generation of proficiency estimates is done using a latent regression extension of the Rasch model, a model of item response theory (IRT), also known as conditioning model or population model. The proficiency estimates are provided in the form of so-called plausible values, which allow unbiased estimates of differences between groups. The latent regression, together with the use of a Gaussian prior probability distribution of student competencies allows estimation of the proficiency distributions of groups of participating students.[25] The scaling and conditioning procedures are described in nearly identical terms in the Technical Reports of PISA 2000, 2003, 2006. NAEP and TIMSS use similar scaling methods. Results[edit] All PISA results are tabulated by country; recent PISA cycles have separate provincial or regional results for some countries. Most public attention concentrates on just one outcome: the mean scores of countries and their rankings of countries against one another. In the official reports, however, country-by-country rankings are given not as simple league tables but as cross tables indicating for each pair of countries whether or not mean score differences are statistically significant (unlikely to be due to random fluctuations in student sampling or in item functioning). In favorable cases, a difference of 9 points is sufficient to be considered significant.[citation needed] PISA never combines mathematics, science and reading domain scores into an overall score. However, commentators have sometimes combined test results from all three domains into an overall country ranking. Such meta-analysis is not endorsed by the OECD, although official summaries sometimes use scores from a testing cycle's principal domain as a proxy for overall student ability. PISA 2015[edit] PISA 2015 was presented on 6 December 2016, with results for around 540,000 participating students in 72 countries, with Singapore emerging as the top performer in all categories.[26]

Mathematics Science Reading

1  Singapore 564

2  Hong Kong 548

3  Macau 544

4  Taiwan 542

5  Japan 532

6  China 531

7  South Korea 524

8   Switzerland 521

9  Estonia 520

10  Canada 516

11  Netherlands 512

12  Denmark 511

13  Finland 511

14  Slovenia 510

15  Belgium 507

16  Germany 506

17  Poland 504

18  Ireland 504

19  Norway 502

20  Austria 497

21  New Zealand 495

22  Vietnam 495

23  Russia 494

24  Sweden 494

25  Australia 494

26  France 493

27  United Kingdom 492

28  Czech Republic 492

29  Portugal 492

30  Italy 490

31  Iceland 488

32  Spain 486

33  Luxembourg 486

34  Latvia 482

35  Malta 479

36  Lithuania 478

37  Hungary 477

38  Slovakia 475

39  Israel 470

40  United States 470

41  Croatia 464

42  Kazakhstan 460

43  Greece 454

44  Romania 444

46  Bulgaria 441

47  Cyprus 437

48  United Arab Emirates 427

49  Chile 423

50  Turkey 420

51  Moldova 420

52  Uruguay 418

53  Montenegro 418

54  Trinidad and Tobago 417

55  Thailand 415

56  Albania 413

57  Mexico 408

59  Georgia 404

60  Qatar 402

61  Costa Rica 400

62  Lebanon 396

63  Colombia 390

64  Peru 387

65  Indonesia 386

66  Jordan 380

67  Brazil 377

68  Macedonia 371

69  Tunisia 367

70  Kosovo 362

71  Algeria 360

72  Dominican Republic 328

1  Singapore 556

2  Japan 538

3  Estonia 534

4  Taiwan 532

5  Finland 531

6  Macau 529

7  Canada 528

8  Vietnam 525

9  Hong Kong 523

10  China 518

11  South Korea 516

12  New Zealand 513

13  Slovenia 513

14  Australia 510

15  United Kingdom 509

16  Germany 509

17  Netherlands 509

18   Switzerland 506

19  Ireland 503

20  Belgium 502

21  Denmark 502

22  Poland 501

23  Portugal 501

24  Norway 498

25  United States 496

26  Austria 495

27  France 495

28  Sweden 493

29  Czech Republic 493

30  Spain 493

31  Latvia 490

32  Russia 487

33  Luxembourg 483

34  Italy 481

35  Hungary 477

36  Lithuania 475

37  Croatia 475

38  Iceland 473

39  Israel 467

40  Malta 465

41  Slovakia 461

42  Kazakhstan 456

43  Greece 455

44  Chile 447

45  Bulgaria 446

46  United Arab Emirates 437

48  Uruguay 435

49  Romania 435

50  Cyprus 433

52  Moldova 428

53  Albania 427

54  Turkey 425

55  Trinidad and Tobago 425

56  Thailand 421

57  Costa Rica 420

58  Qatar 418

59  Colombia 416

60  Mexico 404

61  Montenegro 411

62  Georgia 411

63  Jordan 409

64  Indonesia 403

65  Brazil 401

66  Peru 397

67  Lebanon 386

68  Tunisia 386

69  Macedonia 384

70  Kosovo 378

71  Algeria 376

72  Dominican Republic 332

1  Singapore 535

2  Hong Kong 527

3  Canada 527

4  Finland 526

5  Ireland 521

6  Estonia 519

7  South Korea 517

8  Japan 516

9  Norway 513

10  New Zealand 509

11  Germany 509

12  Macau 509

13  Poland 506

14  Slovenia 505

15  Netherlands 503

16  Australia 503

17  Sweden 500

18  Denmark 500

19  France 499

20  Belgium 499

21  Portugal 498

22  United Kingdom 498

23  Taiwan 497

24  United States 497

25  Spain 496

26  Russia 495

27  China 494

28   Switzerland 492

29  Latvia 488

30  Czech Republic 487

31  Croatia 487

32  Vietnam 487

33  Austria 485

34  Italy 485

35  Iceland 482

36  Luxembourg 481

37  Israel 479

38  Lithuania 472

39  Hungary 470

40  Greece 467

41  Chile 459

42  Slovakia 453

43  Malta 447

44  Cyprus 443

45  Uruguay 437

46  Romania 434

47  United Arab Emirates 434

48  Bulgaria 432

49  Turkey 428

51  Costa Rica 427

52  Trinidad and Tobago 427

53  Kazakhstan 427

54  Montenegro 427

56  Colombia 425

57  Mexico 423

58  Moldova 416

59  Thailand 409

60  Jordan 408

61  Brazil 407

62  Albania 405

63  Qatar 402

64  Georgia 401

65  Peru 398

66  Indonesia 397

67  Tunisia 361

68  Dominican Republic 358

69  Macedonia 352

70  Algeria 350

71  Kosovo 347

72  Lebanon 347

Previous years[edit] Main article: Programme for International Student Assessment
Programme for International Student Assessment
(2000 to 2012)

Period Focus OECD
OECD
countries Partner countries Participating students Notes

2000 Reading 28 4 + 11 265,000 The Netherlands
Netherlands
disqualified from data analysis. 11 additional non- OECD
OECD
countries took the test in 2002.

2003 Mathematics 30 11 275,000 UK disqualified from data analysis. Also included test in problem solving.

2006 Science 30 27 400,000 Reading scores for US disqualified from analysis due to misprint in testing materials.[27]

2009[28] Reading 34 41 + 10 470,000 10 additional non- OECD
OECD
countries took the test in 2010.[29][30]

2012[31] Mathematics 34 31 510,000

Reception[edit] Further information: Programme for International Student Assessment (2000 to 2012) China[edit] China's participation in the 2012 test was limited to Shanghai, Hong Kong, and Macao as separate entities. In 2012, Shanghai participated for the second time, again topping the rankings in all three subjects, as well as improving scores in the subjects compared to the 2009 tests. Shanghai's score of 613 in mathematics was 113 points above the average score, putting the performance of Shanghai pupils about 3 school years ahead of pupils in average countries. Educational experts debated to what degree this result reflected the quality of the general educational system in China, pointing out that Shanghai has greater wealth and better-paid teachers than the rest of China.[32] Hong Kong
Hong Kong
placed second in reading and science and third in maths. China
China
is expected to participate in 2018 as an entire unit. In 2015, four provinces Jiangsu, Guangdong, Beijing, and Shanghai, with a total population of over 230 million, participated as a single entity.[33][34][35] The 2015 Beijing-Shanghai-Jiangsu- Guangdong
Guangdong
cohort scored a median 518 in science in 2015, while the 2012 Shanghai cohort scored a median 580. Critics of PISA counter that in Shanghai and other Chinese cities, most children of migrant workers can only attend city schools up to the ninth grade, and must return to their parents' hometowns for high school due to hukou restrictions, thus skewing the composition of the city's high school students in favor of wealthier local families. A population chart of Shanghai reproduced in The New York Times
The New York Times
shows a steep drop off in the number of 15-year-olds residing there.[36] According to Schleicher, 27% of Shanghai's 15-year-olds are excluded from its school system (and hence from testing). As a result, the percentage of Shanghai's 15-year-olds tested by PISA was 73%, lower than the 89% tested in the US.[37] Following the 2015 testing, OECD published in depth studies on the education systems of a selected few countries including China.[38] Finland[edit] Finland, which received several top positions in the first tests, fell in all three subjects in 2012, but remained the best performing country overall in Europe, achieving their best result in science with 545 points (5th) and worst in mathematics with 519 (12th) in which the country was outperformed by four other European countries. The drop in mathematics was 25 points since 2003, the last time mathematics was the focus of the tests. For the first time Finnish girls outperformed boys in the subject, but only narrowly. It was also the first time pupils in Finnish-speaking schools did not perform better than pupils in Swedish-speaking schools. Minister of Education and Science Krista Kiuru expressed concern for the overall drop, as well as the fact that the number of low-performers had increased from 7% to 12%.[39] India[edit] India participated in the 2009 round of testing but pulled out of the 2012 PISA testing, in August 2012, with the Indian government attributing its action to the unfairness of PISA testing to Indian students.[40] The Indian Express reported on 9/3/2012 that "The ministry (of education) has concluded that there was a socio-cultural disconnect between the questions and Indian students. The ministry will write to the OECD
OECD
and drive home the need to factor in India's "socio-cultural milieu". India's participation in the next PISA cycle will hinge on this".[41] The Indian Express also noted that "Considering that over 70 nations participate in PISA, it is uncertain whether an exception would be made for India". In June 2013, the Indian government, still concerned with the future prospect of fairness of PISA testing relating to Indian students, again pulled India out from the 2015 round of PISA testing.[42] Malaysia[edit] In 2015, the results from Malaysia were found by the OECD
OECD
to have not met the minimum response rate.[43] Opposition politician Ong Kian Ming said the education ministry tried to oversample high-performing students in rich schools.[44][45] Sweden[edit] Sweden's result dropped in all three subjects in the 2012 test, which was a continuation of a trend from 2006 and 2009. In mathematics, the nation had the sharpest fall in mathematic performance over 10 years among the countries that have participated in all tests, with a drop in score from 509 in 2003 to 478 in 2012. The score in reading showed a drop from 516 in 2000 to 483 in 2012. The country performed below the OECD
OECD
average in all three subjects.[46] The leader of the opposition, Social Democrat Stefan Löfven, described the situation as a national crisis.[47] Along with the party's spokesperson on education, Ibrahim Baylan, he pointed to the downward trend in reading as most severe.[47] UK[edit] In the 2012 test, as in 2009, the result was slightly above average for the United Kingdom, with the science ranking being highest (20).[48] England, Wales, Scotland
Scotland
and Northern Ireland
Northern Ireland
also participated as separated entities, showing the worst result for Wales which in mathematics was 43 of the 65 countries and economies. Minister of Education in Wales
Wales
Huw Lewis
Huw Lewis
expressed disappointment in the results, said that there were no "quick fixes", but hoped that several educational reforms that have been implemented in the last few years would give better results in the next round of tests.[49] The United Kingdom
United Kingdom
had a greater gap between high- and low-scoring students than the average. There was little difference between public and private schools when adjusted for socio-economic background of students. The gender difference in favour of girls was less than in most other countries, as was the difference between natives and immigrants.[48] Writing in the Daily Telegraph, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard warned against putting too much emphasis on the UK's international ranking, arguing that an overfocus on scholarly performances in East Asia might have contributed to the area's low birthrate, which he argued could harm the economic performance in the future more than a good PISA score would outweigh.[50] In 2013, the Times Educational Supplement
Times Educational Supplement
(TES) published an article, "Is PISA Fundamentally Flawed?" by William Stewart, detailing serious critiques of PISA's conceptual foundations and methods advanced by statisticians at major universities.[51] In the article, Professor Harvey Goldstein of the University of Bristol was quoted as saying that when the OECD
OECD
tries to rule out questions suspected of bias, it can have the effect of "smoothing out" key differences between countries. "That is leaving out many of the important things," he warned. "They simply don't get commented on. What you are looking at is something that happens to be common. But (is it) worth looking at? PISA results are taken at face value as providing some sort of common standard across countries. But as soon as you begin to unpick it, I think that all falls apart." Queen's University Belfast
Queen's University Belfast
mathematician Dr. Hugh Morrison stated that he found the statistical model underlying PISA to contain a fundamental, insoluble mathematical error that renders Pisa rankings "valueless".[52] Goldstein remarked that Dr. Morrison's objection highlights "an important technical issue" if not a "profound conceptual error". However, Goldstein cautioned that PISA has been "used inappropriately", contending that some of the blame for this "lies with PISA itself. I think it tends to say too much for what it can do and it tends not to publicise the negative or the weaker aspects." Professors Morrison and Goldstein expressed dismay at the OECD's response to criticism. Morrison said that when he first published his criticisms of PISA in 2004 and also personally queried several of the OECS's "senior people" about them, his points were met with "absolute silence" and have yet to be addressed. "I was amazed at how unforthcoming they were," he told TES. "That makes me suspicious." "Pisa steadfastly ignored many of these issues," he says. "I am still concerned."[53] Professor Kreiner[who?] agreed: "One of the problems that everybody has with PISA is that they don't want to discuss things with people criticising or asking questions concerning the results. They didn't want to talk to me at all. I am sure it is because they can't defend themselves.[53] US[edit] The American result of 2012 was average in science and reading, but lagged behind in mathematics compared to other developed nations. There was little change from the previous test in 2009.[54] The result was described as "a picture of educational stagnation" by Education Secretary Arne Duncan,[55] who said the result was not compatible with the American goal of having the world's best educated workers. Randi Weingarten of the American Federation of Teachers
American Federation of Teachers
stated that an overemphasis on standardised tests contributed to the lack of improvement in education performance.[56] Dennis Van Roekel of the National Education Association
National Education Association
said a failure to address poverty among students had hampered progress.[54] About 9% of the U.S. students scored in the top two mathematics levels compared to 13% in all countries and economies.[54] For the first time, three U.S. states participated in the tests as separate entities, with Massachusetts
Massachusetts
scoring well above both the American and international averages, particularly in reading.[56] An approximate corresponding OECD
OECD
ranking is shown along with the United States average.[57]

Maths Science Reading

16=  Massachusetts 514

18=  Connecticut 506

36 U.S. Average 481

41~  Florida 467

9~  Massachusetts 527

16=  Connecticut 521

28 U.S. Average 497

38=  Florida 485

6~  Massachusetts 527

10~  Connecticut 521

24 U.S. Average 498

26~  Florida 492

Research on possible causes of PISA disparities in different countries[edit] Although PISA and TIMSS officials and researchers themselves generally refrain from hypothesizing about the large and stable differences in student achievement between countries, since 2000, literature on the differences in PISA and TIMSS results and their possible causes has emerged.[58] Data from PISA have furnished several economists, notably Eric Hanushek, Ludger Woessmann, Heiner Rindermann, and Stephen J. Ceci, with material for books and articles about the relationship between student achievement and economic development,[59] democratization, and health;[60] as well as the roles of such single educational factors as high-stakes exams,[61] the presence or absence of private schools and the effects and timing of ability tracking.[62] See also[edit]

Teaching And Learning International Survey (TALIS) Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMSS) Gender gaps in mathematics and reading in PISA 2009 Progress in International Reading Literacy Study
Progress in International Reading Literacy Study
(PIRLS)

References[edit]

^ "About PISA". OECD
OECD
PISA. Retrieved 8 February 2018.  ^ Berger, Kathleen. Invitation to The Life Span (second ed.). worth. ISBN 978-1-4641-7205-2.  ^ "Launch of PISA 2015 Results". OECD
OECD
PISA. Retrieved 2016-08-12.  ^ a b c d e Rey O, 'The use of external assessments and the impact on education systems' in CIDREE Yearbook 2010, accessed January 2017 at http://www.cidree.org/publications/yearbook_2010?PHPSESSID=baip221utd9v77b89hov0s3al6 ^ McGaw, B (2008) 'The role of the OECD
OECD
in international comparative studies of achievement' Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 15:3, 223-243 ^ Mons N, (2008) 'Évaluation des politiques éducatives et comparaisons internationales', Revue française de pédagogie, 164, juillet-août-septembre 2008 5-13 ^ a b c d e f Breakspear S 'The Policy Impact of PISA: An Exploration of the Normative Effects of International Benchmarking in School System Performance', OECD
OECD
Education Working Paper number 71, 2012 ^ Barroso, J. and de Carvalho, L.M. (2008) 'Pisa: Un instrument de régulation pour relier des mondes', Revue française de pédagogie, 164, 77–80 ^ Ertl, H (2006). 'Educational standards and the changing discourse on education: the reception and consequences of the PISA study in Germany', Oxford Review of Education, 32, 5, 619-634. ^ Bajomi, I., Berényi, E., Neumann, E. and Vida, J. (2009). 'The Reception of PISA in Hungary' accessed January 2017 at http://www.knowandpol.eu/IMG/pdf/pisa.wp12.hungary.pdf ^ Breakspear S citing Steiner- Khamsi, 2003 in 'The Policy Impact of PISA: An Exploration of the Normative Effects of International Benchmarking in School System Performance', OECD
OECD
Education Working Paper number 71, 2012 ^ Mangez, Eric; Cattonar, Branka (September–December 2009). "The status of PISA in the relationship between civil society and the educational sector in French-speaking Belgium" (PDF). Sísifo: Educational Sciences Journal. Educational Sciences R&D Unit of the University of Lisbon (10): 15–26. ISSN 1646-6500. Retrieved 26 December 2017. CS1 maint: Date format (link) ^ Greger, D. (2008). 'Lorsque PISA importe peu. Le cas de la République Tchèque et de l'Allemagne', Revue française de pédagogie, 164, 91–98. cited in Rey O, 'The use of external assessments and the impact on education systems' in CIDREE Yearbook 2010, accessed January 2017 at http://www.cidree.org/publications/yearbook_2010?PHPSESSID=baip221utd9v77b89hov0s3al6 ^ Afonso, Natércio; Costa, Estela (September–December 2009). "The influence of the Programme for International Student Assessment
Programme for International Student Assessment
(PISA) on policy decision in Portugal: the education policies of the 17th Portuguese Constitutional Government" (PDF). Sísifo: Educational Sciences Journal. Educational Sciences R&D Unit of the University of Lisbon (10): 53–64. ISSN 1646-6500. Retrieved 26 December 2017. CS1 maint: Date format (link) ^ Rautalin M and Alasuutari:(2009): 'The uses of the national PISA results by Finnish officials in central government', Journal of Education Policy, 24:5, 539-556 ^ Egelund, N. (2008). 'The value of international comparative studies of achievement – a Danish perspective', Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 15, 3, 245–251 ^ Behrens, 2006 cited in Rey O, 'The use of external assessments and the impact on education systems' in CIDREE Yearbook 2010, accessed January 2017 at http://www.cidree.org/publications/yearbook_2010?PHPSESSID=baip221utd9v77b89hov0s3al6 ^ Hefling, Kimberly. "Asian nations dominate international test". Yahoo!.  ^ "Chapter 2 of the publication 'PISA 2003 Assessment Framework'" (pdf). Pisa.oecd.org.  ^ Keeley B. PISA, we have a problem… OECD
OECD
Insights, April 2014. ^ Poddiakov A.N. Complex Problem Solving at PISA 2012 and PISA 2015: Interaction with Complex Reality. // Translated from Russian. Reference to the original Russian text: Poddiakov, A. (2012.) Reshenie kompleksnykh problem v PISA-2012 i PISA-2015: vzaimodeistvie so slozhnoi real'nost'yu. Obrazovatel'naya Politika, 6, 34-53. ^ C. Füller: Pisa hat einen kleinen, fröhlichen Bruder. taz, 5.12.2007 [1] ^ Stanat, P; Artelt, C; Baumert, J; Klieme, E; Neubrand, M; Prenzel, M; Schiefele, U; Schneider, W (2002), PISA 2000: Overview of the study—Design, method and results, Berlin: Max Planck Institute for Human Development  ^ Mazzeo, John; von Davier, Matthias (2013), Linking Scales in International Large-Scale Assessments, chapter 10 in Rutkowski, L. von Davier, M. & Rutkowski, D. (eds.) Handbook of International Large-Scale Assessment: Background, Technical Issues, and Methods of Data Analysis., New York: Chapman and Hall/CRC.  ^ von Davier, Matthias; Sinharay, Sandip (2013), Analytics in International Large-Scale Assessments: Item Response Theory and Population Models, chapter 7 in Rutkowski, L. von Davier, M. & Rutkowski, D. (eds.) Handbook of International Large-Scale Assessment: Background, Technical Issues, and Methods of Data Analysis., New York: Chapman and Hall/CRC.  ^ Singapore
Singapore
tops latest OECD
OECD
PISA global education survey, OECD, 6 December 2016, retrieved 13 December 2016  ^ Baldi, Stéphane; Jin, Ying; Skemer, Melanie; Green, Patricia J; Herget, Deborah; Xie, Holly (2007-12-10), Highlights From PISA 2006: Performance of U.S. 15-Year-Old Students in Science and Mathematics Literacy
Literacy
in an International Context (PDF), NCES, retrieved 2013-12-14, PISA 2006 reading literacy results are not reported for the United States
United States
because of an error in printing the test booklets. Furthermore, as a result of the printing error, the mean performance in mathematics and science may be misestimated by approximately 1 score point. The impact is below one standard error.  ^ PISA 2009 Results: Executive Summary (PDF), OECD, 2010-12-07  ^ ACER releases results of PISA 2009+ participant economies, ACER, 2011-12-16  ^ Walker, Maurice (2011), PISA 2009 Plus Results (PDF), OECD, archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-12-22, retrieved 2012-06-28  ^ PISA 2012 Results in Focus (PDF), OECD, 3 December 2013, retrieved 4 December 2013  ^ Tom Phillips (3 December 2013) OECD
OECD
education report: Shanghai's formula is world-beating The Telegraph. Retrieved 8 December 2013 ^ Coughlan, Sean (26 August 2014). "Pisa tests to include many more Chinese pupils" – via www.bbc.com.  ^ Harvey Morris (2016-12-06). "Asia dominates world education rankings". China
China
Daily.  ^ Amy He (2016-12-07). "China's students fall in rank on assessment test". China
China
Daily.  ^ Helen Gao, "Shanghai Test Scores and the Mystery of the Missing Children", New York Times, January 23, 2014. For Schleicher's initial response to these criticisms see his post, "Are the Chinese Cheating in PISA Or Are We Cheating Ourselves?" on the OECD's website blog, Education Today, December 10, 2013. ^ William Stewart, "More than a quarter of Shanghai pupils missed by international Pisa rankings", Times Educational Supplement, March 6, 2014. ^ http://www.oecd.org/china/Education-in-China-a-snapshot.pdf ^ PISA 2012: Proficiency of Finnish youth declining University of Jyväskylä. Retrieved 9 December 2013 ^ Hemali Chhapia, TNN (3 August 2012). "India backs out of global education test for 15-year-olds". The Times of India.  ^ "Poor PISA score: Govt blames 'disconnect' with India". The Indian Express. 3 September 2012.  ^ "India chickens out of international students assessment programme again". The Times of India. 1 June 2013.  ^ "Ong: Did ministry try to rig results for Pisa 2015 report?". 8 December 2016.  ^ "Who's telling the truth about M'sia's Pisa 2015 scores?". 9 December 2016.  ^ "Malaysian PISA results under scrutiny for lack of evidence - School Advisor". 8 December 2016.  ^ Lars Näslund (3 December 2013) Svenska skolan rasar i stor jämförelse Expressen. Retrieved 4 December 2013 (in Swedish) ^ a b Jens Kärrman (3 December 2013) Löfven om Pisa: Nationell kris Dagens Nyheter. Retrieved 8 December 2013 (in Swedish) ^ a b Adams, Richard (2013-12-03), UK students stuck in educational doldrums, OECD
OECD
study finds, The Guardian, retrieved 2013-12-04  ^ Pisa ranks Wales' education the worst in the UK BBC. 3 December 2013. Retrieved 4 December 2013. ^ Ambrose Evans-Pritchard (3 December 2013) Ambrose Evans-Pritchard Telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved 4 December 2013. ^ William Stewart, "Is Pisa fundamentally flawed?" Times Educational Supplement, July 26, 2013. ^ Morrison, Hugh (2013). "A fundamental conundrum in psychology's standard model of measurement and its consequences for PISA global rankings" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 5 June 2013. Retrieved 13 July 2017.  ^ a b Stewart, "Is PISA fundamentally flawed?" TES (2013). ^ a b c Motoko Rich (3 December 2013) American 15-Year-Olds Lag, Mainly in Math, on International Standardized Tests New York Times. Retrieved 4 December 2013 ^ Simon, Stephanie (2013-12-03), PISA results show "educational stagnation" in US, Politico, retrieved 2013-12-03  ^ a b Vaznis, James (2013-12-03), Mass. students excel on global examinations, Boston Globe, retrieved 2013-12-14  ^ 2012 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) Results (PDF), Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Department of Education, retrieved 2014-12-11  ^ Hanushek, Eric A., and Ludger Woessmann. 2011. "The economics of international differences in educational achievement." In Handbook of the Economics of Education, Vol. 3, edited by Eric A. Hanushek, Stephen Machin, and Ludger Woessmann. Amsterdam: North Holland: 89–200. ^ Hanushek, Eric; Woessmann, Ludger (2008), "The role of cognitive skills in economic development" (PDF), Journal of Economic Literature, 46 (3): 607–668, doi:10.1257/jel.46.3.607  ^ Rindermann, Heiner; Ceci, Stephen J (2009), "Educational policy and country outcomes in international cognitive competence studies", Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4 (6): 551–577, doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01165.x  ^ Bishop, John H (1997), "The effect of national standards and curriculum-based exams on achievement", American Economic Review, 87 (2): 260–264  ^ Hanushek, Eric; Woessmann, Ludger (2006), "Does educational tracking affect performance and inequality? Differences-in-differences evidence across countries" (PDF), Economic Journal, 116 (510): C63–C76, doi:10.1111/j.1468-0297.2006.01076.x 

External links[edit]

OECD/PISA website

OECD
OECD
(1999): Measuring Student Knowledge and Skills. A New Framework for Assessment. Paris: OECD, ISBN 92-64-17053-7 [2] OECD
OECD
(2014): PISA 2012 results: Creative problem solving: Students' skills in tackling real-life problems (Volume V) [3]

OECD's Education GPS: Interactive data from PISA 2015 PISA Data Explorer Interactive world map of PISA results Interactive Visualization of 2012 PISA Math Results by Country Profiles

v t e

Lists of countries by population statistics

Global

Current population Current population (United Nations)

(Sub-)Continents

Africa Asia Europe North America

Caribbean

Oceania South America

Intercontinental

Americas Arab world Commonwealth of Nations Eurasia European Union Islands Latin America Middle East

Cities/urban regions

National capitals Cities proper Metropolitan areas Urban areas Megacities Megalopolises

Past and future

Past population (United Nations) Past and future population 1 1000 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 1907 1939 1989 2000 2005 2010 Future population

Population density

Current density Current real density based on food growing capacity

Growth indicators

Population growth rate Natural increase Birth rate Mortality rate Fertility rate

Other demographics

Age at first marriage Divorce rate Ethnic and cultural diversity level Foreign-born population Immigrant population Linguistic diversity Median age Net migration rate Number of households Sex ratio Urban population Urbanization

Health

Antiviral medications for pandemic influenza HIV/AIDS adult prevalence rate Infant and under-five mortality rates Life expectancy Percentage suffering from undernourishment Health
Health
expenditure covered by government Suicide rate Total health expenditure per capita Body Mass Index (BMI)

Education and innovation

Bloomberg Innovation Index Education Index International Innovation Index Innovation Union Scoreboard Literacy
Literacy
rate Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies Progress in International Reading Literacy
Literacy
Study Student skills Tertiary education attainment Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study Women's average years in school World Intellectual Property Indicators

Economic

Development aid given

Official Development Assistance received

Employment rate Irrigated land area Human Development Index

by country inequality-adjusted

Human Poverty Index Imports Income equality Job security Labour force Number of millionaires (US dollars) Number of billionaires (US dollars) Percentage living in poverty Public sector Sen social welfare function Unemployment rate

List of international rankings List of top international rankings by country Lists by country

Authority control

WorldCat Identities VIAF: 197684

.