2. PISA in brief - 2015
In 2015, over half a million students…
- representing 28 million 15-year-olds in 72 countries/economies
… took an internationally agreed 2-hour test…
- Goes beyond testing whether students can reproduce what they were taught to assess students’ capacity to
extrapolate from what they know and creatively apply their knowledge in novel situations
- Total of 390 minutes of assessment material
… and responded to questions on…
- their personal background, their schools, their well-being and their motivation
Parents, principals, teachers and system leaders provided data on:
- school policies, practices, resources and institutional factors that help explain performance differences
- 89,000 parents, 93,000 teachers and 17,500 principals responded
4. “the ability to engage with science-
related issues, and with the ideas of
science, as a reflective citizen”
Science in PISA
5. •Explain phenomena scientifically
•Evaluate and design scientific enquiry
•Interpret data and evidence scientifically
Competencies
Recognise, offer and
evaluate explanations for
a range of natural and
technological phenomena.
Describe and appraise
scientific investigations
and propose ways of
addressing questions
scientifically.
Analyse and evaluate
data, claims and
arguments in a variety of
representations and draw
appropriate scientific
conclusions.
6. Trends in science performance
2006 2009 2012 2015
OECD
450
470
490
510
530
550
570
OECD average
Studentperformance
7. Trends in science performance
450
470
490
510
530
550
570
2006 2009 2012 2015
OECD average
8. Singapore
JapanEstonia
Chinese Tapei FinlandMacao (China) Canada
Vietnam Hong Kong (China)
B-S-J-G (China) Korea
New Zealand Slovenia
Australia United KingdomGermany Netherlands
Switzerland IrelandBelgium DenmarkPoland PortugalNorway United StatesAustria FranceSweden Czech Rep.Spain Latvia
Russia
LuxembourgItaly
HungaryLithuania CroatiaCABA (Argentina)
Iceland
IsraelMalta
Slovak Rep.
Greece
Chile Bulgaria
United Arab Emirates UruguayRomania
Moldova AlbaniaTurkey Trinidad and TobagoThailand Costa RicaQatar ColombiaMexico MontenegroJordan
IndonesiaBrazil
Peru
Lebanon
Tunisia
FYROM
KosovoAlgeria
Dominican Rep. (332)350
400
450
500
550
0510152025
Meanscienceperformance
Higherperfomance
High performance
High equity
Low performance
Low equity
Low performance
High equity
High performance
Low equity
Science performance in PISA (2015)
More equity
9. Singapore
Japan
EstoniaChinese Tapei Finland
Macao (China)
CanadaViet Nam
Hong Kong (China)B-S-J-G (China) KoreaNew ZealandSlovenia
Australia United KingdomGermany
Netherlands
Switzerland
Ireland
Belgium DenmarkPolandPortugal NorwayUnited StatesAustriaFrance
Sweden
Czech Rep.
Spain Latvia Russia
Luxembourg Italy
Hungary LithuaniaCroatia Iceland
IsraelMalta
Slovak Rep.
Greece
Chile
Bulgaria
United Arab EmiratesUruguay
Romania
Moldova Turkey
Trinidad and Tobago ThailandCosta Rica QatarColombia Mexico
MontenegroJordan
Indonesia Brazil
Peru
Lebanon
Tunisia
FYROM
Kosovo
Algeria
Dominican Rep. (332)
350
400
450
500
550
Meanscienceperformance
Higherperfomance
Science performance and equity in PISA (2015)
Some countries
combine excellence
with equity
More equityMore equity
High performance
High equity
Low performance
Low equity
Low performance
High equity
High performance
Low equity
12. Poverty is not destiny - Science performance
by international deciles of the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS)
280
330
380
430
480
530
580
630
DominicanRepublic40
Algeria52
Kosovo10
Qatar3
FYROM13
Tunisia39
Montenegro11
Jordan21
UnitedArabEmirates3
Georgia19
Lebanon27
Indonesia74
Mexico53
Peru50
CostaRica38
Brazil43
Turkey59
Moldova28
Thailand55
Colombia43
Iceland1
TrinidadandTobago14
Romania20
Israel6
Bulgaria13
Greece13
Russia5
Uruguay39
Chile27
Latvia25
Lithuania12
SlovakRepublic8
Italy15
Norway1
Spain31
Hungary16
Croatia10
Denmark3
OECDaverage12
Sweden3
Malta13
UnitedStates11
Macao(China)22
Ireland5
Austria5
Portugal28
Luxembourg14
HongKong(China)26
CzechRepublic9
Poland16
Australia4
UnitedKingdom5
Canada2
France9
Korea6
NewZealand5
Switzerland8
Netherlands4
Slovenia5
Belgium7
Finland2
Estonia5
VietNam76
Germany7
Japan8
ChineseTaipei12
B-S-J-G(China)52
Singapore11
Scorepoints
Bottom decile Second decile Middle decile Ninth decile Top decile
Figure I.6.7
% of students
in the bottom
international
deciles of
ESCS
OECD median student
13. Percentage of resilient students
Figure I.6.10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
VietNam
Macao(China)
HongKong(China)
Singapore
Japan
Estonia
ChineseTaipei
B-S-J-G(China)
Finland
Korea
Spain
Canada
Portugal
UnitedKingdom
Latvia
Slovenia
Poland
Germany
Australia
UnitedStates
Netherlands
NewZealand
Ireland
OECDaverage
Switzerland
Denmark
Belgium
France
Italy
Norway
Austria
Russia
CzechRepublic
Sweden
Croatia
Lithuania
Turkey
Malta
Luxembourg
Hungary
Thailand
Greece
SlovakRepublic
Iceland
Israel
CABA(Argentina)
Chile
Uruguay
Bulgaria
Moldova
TrinidadandTobago
Mexico
Colombia
Romania
Indonesia
CostaRica
Brazil
Montenegro
UnitedArabEmirates
Jordan
Georgia
Algeria
Lebanon
Qatar
Tunisia
FYROM
Peru
Kosovo
DominicanRepublic
%
Resilient students come from the bottom 25% of the
ESCS index within their country/economy and
perform among the top 25% across all
countries/economies, after accounting for socio-
economic status
15. The global pool of top performers: A PISA perspective
Figure I.2.18
United States (8.5%);
300k
B-S-J-G (China)
(13.6%); 181k
Japan (15.3%); 174k
Germany (10.6%); 79k
Viet Nam (8.3%); 72k
United Kingdom
(10.9%); 68k
Korea (10.6%); 60k
France (8.0%); 59k
Russia (3.7%); 42k
Canada (12.4%); 41k
Chinese Taipei (15.4%);
39k
Australia (11.2%);
Poland (7.3%);
Netherlands (11.1%)
Italy (4.1%)
Spain (5.0%)
Brazil (0.7%)
Singapore
(24.2%)
Belgium (9.0%)
Finland (14.3%)
Switzerland (9.8%)
Sweden (8.5%)
Portugal (7.4%)
New Zealand (12.8%)
Israel (5.9%)
Others
Share of top performers
among 15-year-old
students:
Less than 1%
1 to 2.5%
2.5 to 5%
5% to 7.5%
7.5% to 10%
10% to 12.5%
12.5% to 15%
More than 15%
21. Students’ career expectations
Figure I.3.2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
DominicanRep.12
CostaRica11
Jordan6
UnitedArabEm.11
Mexico6
Colombia8
Lebanon15
Brazil19
Peru7
Qatar19
UnitedStates13
Chile18
Tunisia19
Canada21
Slovenia16
Turkey6
Australia15
UnitedKingdom17
Malaysia4
Kazakhstan14
Spain11
Norway21
Uruguay17
Singapore14
TrinidadandT.13
Israel25
CABA(Arg.)19
Portugal18
Bulgaria25
Ireland13
Kosovo7
Algeria12
Malta11
Greece12
NewZealand24
Albania29
Estonia15
OECDaverage19
Belgium16
Croatia17
FYROM20
Lithuania21
Iceland22
Russia19
HKG(China)20
Romania20
Italy17
Austria23
Moldova7
Latvia19
Montenegro18
France21
Luxembourg18
Poland13
Macao(China)10
ChineseTaipei21
Sweden21
Thailand27
VietNam13
Switzerland22
Korea7
Hungary22
SlovakRepublic24
Japan18
Finland24
Georgia27
CzechRepublic22
B-S-J-G(China)31
Netherlands19
Germany33
Indonesia19
Denmark48
%
Percentage of students who expect to work in science-related professional and
technical occupations when they are 30
Science-related technicians and associate professionals
Information and communication technology professionals
Health professionals
Science and engineering professionals
%ofstudentswith
vagueormissing
expectations
22. Boys and girls’ expectations of a science career
Figure I.3.5
0 5 10 15 20
...science and engineering
professionals
...health professionals
...information and communication
technology (ICT) professionals
...science-related technicians or
associate professionals
%
Girls Boys
Students who expect to work as...
23. Students’ enjoyment of learning science
Figure I.3.9
0 20 40 60 80
I like reading about <broad science>
I am happy working on <broad science>
topics
I generally have fun when I am learning
<broad science> topics
I am interested in learning about <broad
science>
I enjoy acquiring new knowledge in
<broad science>
%
Girls Boys
Percentage of students who reported that they "agree" or "strongly agree" with the following statements
24. 0
10
20
30
40
50
300 400 500 600 700
Percentageofstudentsexpectinga
careerinscience
Score points in science
Low enjoyment of science
Moderate enjoyment of science
High enjoyment of science
Students expecting a career in science
by performance and enjoyment of learning
Figure I.3.17
25. Singapore
Canada
Slovenia
Australia
United Kingdom
Ireland
Portugal
Chinese Taipei
Hong Kong (China)
New Zealand
Denmark
Japan
Estonia
Finland
Macao (China)
Viet Nam
B-S-J-G (China)
Korea
Germany
Netherlands
Switzerland
Belgium
Poland
Sweden
Lithuania
Croatia
Iceland
Georgia
Malta
United States
Spain
Israel
United Arab Emirates
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Dominican Republic
Jordan
Kosovo
Lebanon
Mexico
Peru
Qatar
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Uruguay
Above-average science
performance
Stronger than average
epistemic beliefs
Above-average percentage of students expecting
to work in a science-related occupation
Norway
Multipleoutcomes
26. LessonsfromPISA
Low impact on outcomes
High impact on outcomes
Low feasibility High feasibility
Money pits
Must haves
Low hanging fruits
Quick wins
27. LessonsfromPISA
Low impact on outcomes
High impact on outcomes
Low feasibility High feasibility
Money pits
Must haves
Low hanging fruits
Quick wins
Commitment to universal achievement
Gateways, instructional
systems
Capacity
at point of delivery
Incentive structures and
accountability
Resources
where they yield most
A learning systemCoherence
28. LessonsfromPISA
Low impact on outcomes
High impact on outcomes
Low feasibility High feasibility
Money pits
Must haves
Low hanging fruits
Quick wins
Commitment to universal achievement
Gateways, instructional
systems
Capacity
at point of delivery
Incentive structures and
accountability
Resources
where they yield most
A learning systemCoherence
A commitment to education and the belief that
competencies can be learned and therefore all
children can achieve
Universal educational standards and
personalization as the approach to heterogeneity
in the student body…
… as opposed to a belief that students have
different destinations to be met with different
expectations, and selection/stratification as the
approach to heterogeneity
Clear articulation who is responsible for ensuring
student success and to whom
29. CABA (Argentina)
Costa Rica
Sweden
Bulgaria Romania
Viet
Nam
Uruguay
United States
Norway
Chile
Hungary
B-S-J-G
(China)
Turkey
Mexico
Portugal
Iceland
Korea
Albania
Japan
Trinidad and
Tobago
UAE
Algeria Ireland
Indonesia
New
Zealand
Colombia
Peru
Macao (China) Spain
Switzerland
Lebanon
Netherlands
Slovak
Republic
UK
Slovenia
Brazil
Kosovo
Finland
Thailand
Latvia
R² = 0.20
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Socio-economicinclusionacrossschools
Academic inclusion across schools (%)
OECD average
OECD
average
Academic and social inclusion across schools
Figure II.5.12
30. LessonsfromPISA
Low impact on outcomes
High impact on outcomes
Low feasibility High feasibility
Money pits
Must haves
Low hanging fruits
Quick wins
Commitment to universal achievement
Gateways, instructional
systems
Capacity
at point of delivery
Incentive structures and
accountability
Resources
where they yield most
A learning systemCoherence
Investing resources where they can make most
of a difference
Alignment of resources with key challenges
(e.g. attracting the most talented teachers to
the most challenging classrooms)
Effective spending choices that prioritise high
quality teachers over smaller classes
31. Spending per student from the age of 6 to 15
and science performance
Figure II.6.2
Luxembourg
Switzerland
NorwayAustria
Singapore
United States
United Kingdom
Malta
Sweden
Belgium
Iceland
Denmark
Finland NetherlandsCanada
Japan
Slovenia
Australia
Germany
Ireland
France
Italy
Portugal
New Zealand
Korea
Spain
Poland
Israel
Estonia
Czech Rep.Latvia
Slovak Rep.
Russia
CroatiaLithuania
Hungary
Costa Rica
Chinese Taipei
Chile
Brazil
Turkey
Uruguay
Bulgaria
MexicoThailand
Montenegro
Colombia
Dominican Republic
PeruGeorgia
R² = 0.04
R² = 0.36
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Scienceperformance(scorepoints)
Average spending per student from the age of 6 to 15 (in thousands USD, PPP)
34. Variation in science performance between and within schools
Figure I.6.11
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
Netherlands114
B-S-J-G(China)119
Bulgaria115
Hungary104
TrinidadandTobago98
Belgium112
Slovenia101
Germany110
SlovakRepublic109
Malta154
UnitedArabEmirates110
Austria106
Israel126
Lebanon91
CzechRepublic101
Qatar109
Japan97
Switzerland110
Singapore120
Italy93
ChineseTaipei111
Luxembourg112
Turkey70
Brazil89
Croatia89
Greece94
Chile83
Lithuania92
OECDaverage100
Uruguay84
CABA(Argentina)82
Romania70
VietNam65
Korea101
Australia117
UnitedKingdom111
Peru66
Colombia72
Thailand69
HongKong(China)72
FYROM80
Portugal94
DominicanRepublic59
Indonesia52
Georgia92
Jordan79
NewZealand121
UnitedStates108
Montenegro81
Tunisia47
Sweden117
Mexico57
Albania69
Kosovo57
Macao(China)74
Algeria54
Estonia88
Moldova83
CostaRica55
Russia76
Canada95
Poland92
Denmark91
Latvia75
Ireland88
Spain86
Norway103
Finland103
Iceland93
Between-school variation Within-school variation
Total variation as a
proportion of the OECD
average
OECD average 69%
OECD average 30%
%
35. Differences in educational resources
between advantaged and disadvantaged schools
Figure I.6.14
-3
-2
-2
-1
-1
0
1
1
CABA(Argentina)
Mexico
Peru
Macao(China)
UnitedArabEmirates
Lebanon
Jordan
Colombia
Brazil
Indonesia
Turkey
Spain
DominicanRepublic
Georgia
Uruguay
Thailand
B-S-J-G(China)
Australia
Japan
Chile
Luxembourg
Russia
Portugal
Malta
Italy
NewZealand
Croatia
Ireland
Algeria
Norway
Israel
Denmark
Sweden
UnitedStates
Moldova
Belgium
Slovenia
OECDaverage
Hungary
ChineseTaipei
VietNam
CzechRepublic
Singapore
Tunisia
Greece
TrinidadandTobago
Canada
Romania
Qatar
Montenegro
Kosovo
Netherlands
Korea
Finland
Switzerland
Germany
HongKong(China)
Austria
FYROM
Poland
Albania
Bulgaria
SlovakRepublic
Lithuania
Estonia
Iceland
CostaRica
UnitedKingdom
Latvia
Meanindexdifferencebetweenadvantaged
anddisadvantagedschools
Index of shortage of educational material Index of shortage of educational staff
Disadvantaged schools have more
resources than advantaged schools
Disadvantaged schools have fewer
resources than advantaged schools
37. 200
300
400
500
600
700
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
PISA index of economic, social and cultural status
Public schools
Private schools
Below
1b
Level
1b
Level
1a
Level
2
Level
3
Level
4
Level
5
Lev
6
Brazil: School performance and schools’ socio-economic profile
Scorepoints
38. 200
300
400
500
600
700
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
PISA index of economic, social and cultural status
Public schools
Private schools
Below
1b
Level
1b
Level
1a
Level
2
Level
3
Level
4
Level
5
Lev
6
Scorepoints
Viet Nam: School performance and schools’ socio-economic profile
39. 200
300
400
500
600
700
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
PISA index of economic, social and cultural status
Public schools
Private schools
Below
1b
Level
1b
Level
1a
Level
2
Level
3
Level
4
Level
5
Lev
6
Brazil: School performance and schools’ socio-economic profile
Scorepoints
41. Student performance in science
by immigrant background
Figure I.7.4
350
400
450
500
550
600
Greece
CostaRica
Jordan
CABA(Argentina)
Israel
Sweden
France
Slovenia
Austria
Germany
Netherlands
Denmark
Italy
Norway
Belgium
OECDaverage
Spain
Croatia
UnitedStates
Luxembourg
Switzerland
Qatar
Portugal
Russia
UnitedArabEmirates
UnitedKingdom
Ireland
Australia
Estonia
HongKong(China)
NewZealand
Canada
Macao(China)
Singapore
Score points Non-immigrant students Second-generation immigrant students First-generation immigrant students
42. Percentage of immigrant students and education systems'
average performance in science
OECD average
CABA (Argentina)
Costa Rica
Sweden
Jordan
Luxembourg
United States
Denmark
Italy
Australia
Portugal
Russia
Hong Kong (China)
Qatar
Belgium
Israel
Croatia
United Arab Emirates
Ireland
Greece
New Zealand
Macao-China
Spain
Switzerland
Estonia
1.8, 332
Netherlands
Germany
Singapore
Austria
Canada
United Kingdom
Slovenia
France
R² = 0.09
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Meanscienceperformance
Percentage of immigrant students
Figure I.7.3
43. Immigrant students’ performance in science
by country of origin and destination
Figure I.7.9
400 420 440 460 480 500
Netherlands
Switzerland
Germany
Belgium
Austria
Denmark
Students from Turkey in:
400 450 500 550 600
Australia
New Zealand
Hong Kong (China)
Macao (China)
Netherlands
Mean science performance
Students from mainland China in:
Second-generation immigrant students' score after
accounting for socio-economic status
First-generation immigrant students' score after
accounting for socio-economic status
350 400 450 500
Netherlands
United Arab Emirates
Finland
Denmark
Qatar
Students from Arabic-speaking countries in:
44. LessonsfromPISA
Low impact on outcomes
High impact on outcomes
Low feasibility High feasibility
Money pits
Must haves
Low hanging fruits
Quick wins
Commitment to universal achievement
Gateways, instructional
systems
Capacity
at point of delivery
Incentive structures and
accountability
Resources
where they yield most
A learning systemCoherence
Capacity at the point of delivery
Attracting, developing and retaining high quality
teachers and school leaders and a work
organisation in which they can use their potential
Instructional leadership and human resource
management in schools
Keeping teaching an attractive profession
System-wide career development …
45. Student-teacher ratios and class size
Figure II.6.14
CABA (Argentina)
Jordan
Viet Nam
Poland
United States
Chile
Denmark
Hungary
B-S-G-J
(China)
Turkey
Georgia
Chinese
Taipei
Mexico
Russia
Albania
Hong Kong
(China)
Japan
Belgium
Algeria
Colombia
Peru
Macao
(China)
Switzerland
Malta
Dominican Republic
Netherlands
Singapore
Brazil
Kosovo
Finland
Thailand
R² = 0.25
5
10
15
20
25
30
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Student-teacherratio
Class size in language of instruction
High student-teacher ratios
and small class sizes
Low student-teacher ratios
and large class sizes
OECD
average
OECDaverage
49. First age at selection in the education system and
index of teacher support in science lessons
Figure II.3.11
10
Austria
Belgium
8
4
Czech Republic
Demark
Estonia
12
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
5
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea Latvia
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
9
Norwy
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
11
3
Albania
Brazil
B-S-G-J (China)
Bulgaria
Colombia
Costa Rica
Croatia
Dominican Rep.
FYROM
Georgia
Hong Kong
Indonesia
1
Lithuania
Macao (China)
7
Montenegro
2
6
Romania
Russia
Singapore
Chinese Taipei
Thailand
United Arab Emirates
Uruguay
Viet Nam
R² = 0.36
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Indexofteachersupportinsciencelessons
First age at selection in the education system
1. Jordan
2. Peru
3. United States
4. Chile
5. Iceland
6. Qatar
7. Malta
8. Canada
9. New Zealand
10. Australia
11. United Kingdom
12. Finland
In education systems with early
tracking students are less likely to
report that their science teachers
support students in their learning
51. LessonsfromPISA
Low impact on outcomes
High impact on outcomes
Low feasibility High feasibility
Money pits
Must haves
Low hanging fruits
Quick wins
Commitment to universal achievement
Gateways, instructional
systems
Capacity
at point of delivery
Incentive structures and
accountability
Resources
where they yield most
A learning systemCoherence
Clear ambitious goals that are shared across the
system and aligned with high stakes gateways
and instructional systems
Well established delivery chain through which
curricular goals translate into instructional
systems, instructional practices and student
learning (intended, implemented and achieved)
High level of metacognitive content of instruction
52. Quality time
Making learning time productive so that students
can build their academic, social and emotional
skills in a balanced way
53. Learning time and science performance
Figure II.6.23
Finland
Germany Switzerland
Japan Estonia
Sweden
Netherlands
New Zealand
Macao
(China)
Iceland
Hong Kong
(China) Chinese Taipei
Uruguay
Singapore
Poland
United States
Israel
Bulgaria
Korea
Russia Italy
Greece
B-S-J-G (China)
Colombia
Chile
Mexico
Brazil
Costa
Rica
Turkey
Montenegro
Peru
Qatar
Thailand
United
Arab
Emirates
Tunisia
Dominican
Republic
R² = 0.21
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
35 40 45 50 55 60
PISAsciencescore
Total learning time in and outside of school
OECD average
OECD average
OECDaverage
54. Learning time and science performance
Figure II.6.23
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Finland
Germany
Switzerland
Japan
Estonia
Sweden
Netherlands
NewZealand
Australia
CzechRepublic
Macao(China)
UnitedKingdom
Canada
Belgium
France
Norway
Slovenia
Iceland
Luxembourg
Ireland
Latvia
HongKong(China)
OECDaverage
ChineseTaipei
Austria
Portugal
Uruguay
Lithuania
Singapore
Denmark
Hungary
Poland
SlovakRepublic
Spain
Croatia
UnitedStates
Israel
Bulgaria
Korea
Russia
Italy
Greece
B-S-J-G(China)
Colombia
Chile
Mexico
Brazil
CostaRica
Turkey
Montenegro
Peru
Qatar
Thailand
UnitedArabEmirates
Tunisia
DominicanRepublic
Scorepointsinscienceperhouroftotallearningtime
Hours Intended learning time at school (hours) Study time after school (hours) Score points in science per hour of total learning time
56. Overall science
scale, 532
Content
knowledge, 538
Procedural and
epistemic
knowledge, 528
480 490 500 510 520 530 540 550 560
ChineseTaipei
Score points
Comparing countries and economies on the
different science knowledge subscales
Figure I.2.30
57. Overall science scale, 556
Overall science scale, 532
Content knowledge, 553
Content knowledge, 538
Procedural and epistemic
knowledge, 558
Procedural and epistemic
knowledge, 528
480 490 500 510 520 530 540 550 560
SingaporeChineseTaipei
Score points
Comparing countries and economies on the
different science knowledge subscales
Figure I.2.30
58. Overall science scale, 556
Overall science scale, 532
Overall science scale, 495
Content knowledge, 553
Content knowledge, 538
Content knowledge, 501
Procedural and epistemic
knowledge, 558
Procedural and epistemic
knowledge, 528
Procedural and epistemic
knowledge, 490
480 490 500 510 520 530 540 550 560
Singapore
Chinese
TaipeiAustria
Score points
Comparing countries and economies on the
different science knowledge subscales
Figure I.2.30
59. LessonsfromPISA
Low impact on outcomes
High impact on outcomes
Low feasibility High feasibility
Money pits
Must haves
Low hanging fruits
Quick wins
Commitment to universal achievement
Gateways, instructional
systems
Capacity
at point of delivery
Incentive structures and
accountability
Resources
where they yield most
A learning systemCoherence
Governance, incentives, accountability, knowledge management
Aligned incentive structures
For students
How gateways affect the strength, direction, clarity and nature of the incentives
operating on students at each stage of their education
Degree to which students have incentives to take tough courses and study hard
Opportunity costs for staying in school and performing well
For teachers
Make innovations in pedagogy and/or organisation
Improve their own performance
and the performance of their colleagues
Pursue professional development opportunities
that lead to stronger pedagogical practices
A balance between vertical and lateral accountability
Effective instruments to manage and share knowledge and spread
innovation – communication within the system and with
stakeholders around it
A capable centre with authority and legitimacy to act
60. Governance
Across the OECD, 70% of students attend schools whose principals have
considerable responsibility for hiring teachers, and in half the cases also over
budget allocations within the school
63. Public and private schools
Across OECD countries, 84% of students attend public schools,
12% government-dependent private schools and 4% independent private schools
PISA generally observes no systematic net performance differences
65. Student assessments and teacher
appraisals are widely used
In five out of six school systems, students are assessed at least once a year
with mandatory standardised tests
81% of students are in schools where tests and principal or senior staff
observations of lessens are used to monitor teacher practice
66. Frequency of mandatory standardised tests at school
Figure II.4.21
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Sweden
UnitedKingdom
Latvia
Ireland
Russia
Malta
Iceland
Moldova
Algeria
Chile
Singapore
Poland
FYROM
Italy
Albania
Luxembourg
B-S-J-G(China)
Indonesia
Qatar
UnitedStates
Jordan
Denmark
Thailand
Tunisia
ChineseTaipei
Canada
CABA(Argentina)
Kosovo
Estonia
Romania
Macao(China)
UnitedArabEmirates
Israel
Lebanon
Finland
OECDaverage
Greece
Colombia
Hungary
Georgia
SlovakRepublic
Norway
Korea
France
Bulgaria
Peru
Brazil
Austria
Switzerland
Turkey
Mexico
VietNam
HongKong(China)
Portugal
TrinidadandTobago
Spain
Croatia
Slovenia
Lithuania
Belgium
Germany
Uruguay
Montenegro
DominicanRepublic
CostaRica
%
Percentage of students in schools where mandatory standardised tests are used:
Never 1-2 times a year 3-5 times a year Monthly More than once a month
67. LessonsfromPISA
Low impact on outcomes
High impact on outcomes
Low feasibility High feasibility
Money pits
Must haves
Low hanging fruits
Quick wins
Commitment to universal achievement
Gateways, instructional
systems
Capacity
at point of delivery
Incentive structures and
accountability
Resources
where they yield most
A learning systemCoherence
Coherence of policies and practices
Alignment of policies
across all aspects of the system
Coherence of policies
over sustained periods of time
Consistency of implementation
Fidelity of implementation
(without excessive control)
68. 0 20 40 60 80 100
Total time per week in regular lessons
Index of teacher support
School is located in a city
Index of shortage of educational material
School offers a science club
School offers science competitions
Academic performance considered for school admission
Index of science-specific resources
Class size
Student's socio-economic profile, squared
Student has no immigrant background
Index of school disciplinary climate
Student is enrolled in a general programme
Student speaks at home the test language
Index of disciplinary climate in science lessons
Requirement to attend at least one science course
School's socio-economic profile
Index of teacher-directed instruction
Index of adaptive instruction
Student's socio-economic profile
Level of confidence that a relationship exists (z-scores)
All countries and economies
OECD countries
Factors associated with a higher science performance
Figure II.7.2
Positive association with science performance
69. -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0
Ability grouping within schools
Teachers' participation in professional development
Index of educational leadership
Residence considered for school admission
Student attends a private school
Index of student behaviour hindering learning
Student skipped a school day
Student arrived late for classes
Index of enquiry-based instruction
Student is a girl
After-school study time
Index of perceived feedback
Student had repeated a grade at least once
Level of confidence that a relationship exists (z-scores)
All countries and economies
OECD countries
Factors associated with a lower science performance
Figure II.7.2
Negative association with science performance
70. Find out more about our work at www.oecd.org/pisa
– All publications
– The complete micro-level database
Email: Andreas.Schleicher@OECD.org
Twitter: SchleicherOECD
Wechat: AndreasSchleicher
Thank you