The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) is a triennial international survey which aims to evaluate education systems worldwide by testing the skills and knowledge of 15-year-old students.
In 2015 over half a million students, representing 28 million 15-year-olds in 72 countries and economies, took the internationally agreed two-hour test. Students were assessed in science, mathematics, reading, collaborative problem solving and financial literacy.
The results of the 2015 assessment were published on 6th December 2016.
Python Notes for mca i year students osmania university.docx
Teacher Policy and Practice - Insights from PISA
1. Teacher policy and practice
Insights from PISA
Andreas Schleicher
Director for Education and Skills
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. 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
5. The ‘productivity’ puzzle
Making learning time productive so that students
can build their academic, social and emotional
skills in a balanced way
6. 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
7. 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
9. 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%
%
10. 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
11. 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
24. Teachers Self-Efficacy and Professional Collaboration
11.40
11.60
11.80
12.00
12.20
12.40
12.60
12.80
13.00
13.20
13.40
Never
Onceayearorless
2-4timesayear
5-10timesayear
1-3timesamonth
Onceaweekormore
Teacherself-efficacy(level)
Teach jointly as a
team in the same class
Observe other
teachers’ classes and
provide feedback
Engage in joint
activities across
different classes
Take part in
collaborative
professional learning
Less
frequently
More
frequently
25. External forces
exerting pressure and
influence inward on
an occupation
Internal motivation and
efforts of the members
of the profession itself
25 Professionalism
Professionalism is the level of autonomy and
internal regulation exercised by members of an
occupation in providing services to society
26. Policy levers to teacher professionalism
Knowledge base for teaching
(initial education and incentives for
professional development)
Autonomy: Teachers’ decision-
making power over their work
(teaching content, course offerings,
discipline practices)
Peer networks: Opportunities for
exchange and support needed
to maintain high standards of
teaching (participation in induction,
mentoring, networks, feedback from direct
observations)
Teacher
professionalism
27. Teacher professionalism
Knowledge base for teaching
(initial education and incentives for
professional development)
Autonomy: Teachers’ decision-
making power over their work
(teaching content, course offerings,
discipline practices)
Peer networks: Opportunities for
exchange and support needed
to maintain high standards of
teaching (participation in induction,
mentoring, networks, feedback from direct
observations)
29. Status of the
profession
Teachers’
perception of
the extent to
which teaching
is valued as a
profession
Satisfaction with
the profession
Teachers’ report
on the extent
to which
teachers are
happy with
their decision
to become a
teacher.
Satisfaction with
work
environment
Teachers’ report
on the extent
to which
teachers are
happy with
their current
schools.
Self-efficacy
Teachers’
perception of
their
capabilities (e.g.
controlling
disruptive
behaviour, use
a variety of
assessment
strategies, etc.).
2
2929 Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after
accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3
2929 Teacher outcomes
30. 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Low professionalism
High professionalism
Mean mathematics performance, by school location, after
accounting for socio-economic status Fig II.3.3
3030 Teacher professionalism index and teacher outcomes
Perceptions of
teachers’ status
Satisfaction with
the profession
Satisfaction with the
work environment
Teachers’
self-efficacy
Predicted percentile
31. 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