Programme for International Student Assessment

The 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.[2]

"PISA" redirects here. For other uses, see Pisa (disambiguation).

Programme for International Student Assessment
AbbreviationPISA
Formation1997
PurposeComparison of education attainment across the world
HeadquartersOECD Headquarters
Location
Region served
World
Membership
79 government education departments
Official language
English and French
Head of the Early Childhood and Schools Division
Yuri Belfali
Main organ
PISA Governing Body (Chair – Michele Bruniges)
Parent organization
OECD
Websiteoecd.org/pisa

The results of the 2018 data collection were released on Tuesday 3 December 2019.[3]

Influence and impact

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

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 it possible to carry out inventories and comparisons of education systems on an unprecedented scale* on themes ranging from the conditions for learning 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]

  • 79 countries and economies participated in the 2018 data collection.

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

Emerging research suggests that international standardised assessments are having an impact on national assessment policy and practice. PISA is being integrated into 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

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, 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 "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 of PISA and similar assessments, from assessing students' learning, to connecting "the educational realm (their traditional remit) with the political realm".[17] This raises the question of 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

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 (PIRLS).

PISA aims to test literacy the competence of students in three fields: reading, mathematics, science on an indefinite 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]

PISA also assesses students in innovative domains. In 2012 and 2015 in addition to reading, mathematics and science, they were tested in collaborative problem solving. In 2018 the additional innovative domain was global competence.

Implementation

PISA is sponsored, governed, and coordinated by the OECD, but paid for by participating countries.

Method of testing

Sampling

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 requirements, each country must draw a sample of at least 5,000 students. In small countries like 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
PISA test documents on a school table (Neues Gymnasium, Oldenburg, Germany, 2006)

Each student takes a two-hour computer based 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

Countries are allowed to combine PISA with complementary national tests.

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 the national test only. This large sample is needed to allow an analysis by federal states. Following a clash about the interpretation of 2006 results, the OECD warned Germany that it might withdraw the right to use the "PISA" label for national tests.[22]

Data scaling

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 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.

Ranking results

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.

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 2018 ranking summary

The results of PISA 2018 were presented on 3 December 2019, which included data for around 600,000 participating students in 79 countries and economies, with China's economic area of Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu and Zhejiang emerging as the top performer in all categories. Note that this does not represent the entirety of mainland China.[26]

Mathematics Science Reading
1  China (B-S-J-Z)[note 1] 591
2  Singapore 569
3  Macau 558
4  Hong Kong 551
5  Taiwan 531
6  Japan 527
7  Korea 526
8  Estonia 523
9  Netherlands 519
10  Poland 516
11   Switzerland 515
12  Canada 512
13  Denmark 509
14  Slovenia 509
15  Belgium 508
16  Finland 507
17  Sweden 502
18  United Kingdom 502
19  Norway 501
20  Germany 500
21  Ireland 500
22  Czech Republic 499
23  Austria 499
24  Vietnam 496
25  Latvia 496
26  France 495
27  Iceland 495
28  New Zealand 494
29  Portugal 492
30  Australia 491
31  Russia 488
32  Italy 487
33  Slovakia 486
34  Luxembourg 483
35  Spain 481
36  Lithuania 481
37  Hungary 481
38  United States 478
39  Belarus 472
40  Malta 472
41  Croatia 464
42  Israel 463
43  Turkey 454
44  Ukraine 453
45  Greece 451
46  Cyprus 451
47  Serbia 448
48  Malaysia 440
49  Albania 437
50  Bulgaria 436
51  United Arab Emirates 435
52  Brunei 430
53  Romania 430
54  Montenegro 430
55  Kazakhstan 423
56  Moldova 421
57  Azerbaijan 420
58  Thailand 419
59  Uruguay 418
60  Chile 417
61  Qatar 414
62  Mexico 409
63  Bosnia and Herzegovina 406
64  Costa Rica 402
65  Peru 400
66  Jordan 400
67  Georgia 398
68  North Macedonia 394
69  Lebanon 393
70  Colombia 391
71  Brazil 384
72  Argentina 379
73  Indonesia 379
74  Saudi Arabia 373
75  Morocco 368
76  Kosovo 366
77  Panama 353
78  Philippines 353
79  Dominican Republic 325
1  China (B-S-J-Z)[note 1] 590
2  Singapore 551
3  Macau 544
4  Vietnam 543
5  Estonia 530
6  Japan 529
7  Finland 522
8  Korea 519
9  Canada 518
10  Hong Kong 517
11  Taiwan 516
12  Poland 511
13  New Zealand 508
14  Slovenia 507
15  United Kingdom 505
16  Netherlands 503
17  Germany 503
18  Australia 503
19  United States 502
20  Sweden 499
21  Belgium 499
22  Czech Republic 497
23  Ireland 496
24   Switzerland 495
25  France 493
26  Denmark 493
27  Portugal 492
28  Norway 490
29  Austria 490
30  Latvia 487
31  Spain 483
32  Lithuania 482
33  Hungary 481
34  Russia 478
35  Luxembourg 477
36  Iceland 475
37  Croatia 472
38  Belarus 471
39  Ukraine 469
40  Turkey 468
41  Italy 468
42  Slovakia 464
43  Israel 462
44  Malta 457
45  Greece 452
46  Chile 444
47  Serbia 440
48  Cyprus 439
49  Malaysia 438
50  United Arab Emirates 434
51  Brunei 431
52  Jordan 429
53  Moldova 428
54  Thailand 426
55  Uruguay 426
56  Romania 426
57  Bulgaria 424
58  Mexico 419
59  Qatar 419
60  Albania 417
61  Costa Rica 416
62  Montenegro 415
63  Colombia 413
64  North Macedonia 413
65  Peru 404
66  Argentina 404
67  Brazil 404
68  Bosnia and Herzegovina 398
69  Azerbaijan 398
70  Kazakhstan 397
71  Indonesia 396
72  Saudi Arabia 386
73  Lebanon 384
74  Georgia 383
75  Morocco 377
76  Kosovo 365
77  Panama 365
78  Philippines 357
79  Dominican Republic 336
1  China (B-S-J-Z)[note 1] 555
2  Singapore 549
3  Macau 525
4  Hong Kong 524
5  Estonia 523
6  Canada 520
6  Finland 520
8  Ireland 518
9  Korea 514
10  Poland 512
11  Sweden 506
12  New Zealand 506
13  Vietnam 505
14  United States 505
15  United Kingdom 504
16  Japan 504
17  Australia 503
18  Taiwan 503
19  Denmark 501
20  Norway 499
21  Germany 498
22  Slovenia 495
23  Belgium 493
24  France 493
25  Portugal 492
26  Czech Republic 490
27  Netherlands 485
28  Austria 484
29   Switzerland 484
30  Croatia 479
31  Latvia 479
32  Russia 479
33  Italy 476
34  Hungary 476
35  Lithuania 476
36  Iceland 474
37  Belarus 474
38  Israel 470
39  Luxembourg 470
40  Ukraine 466
41  Turkey 466
42  Slovakia 458
43  Greece 457
44  Chile 452
45  Malta 448
46  Serbia 439
47  United Arab Emirates 432
48  Romania 428
49  Uruguay 427
50  Costa Rica 426
51  Cyprus 424
52  Moldova 424
53  Montenegro 421
54  Mexico 420
55  Bulgaria 420
56  Jordan 419
57  Malaysia 415
58  Brazil 413
59  Colombia 412
60  Brunei 408
61  Qatar 407
62  Albania 405
63  Bosnia and Herzegovina 403
64  Argentina 402
65  Peru 401
66  Saudi Arabia 399
67  Thailand 393
68  North Macedonia 393
69  Azerbaijan 389
70  Kazakhstan 387
71  Georgia 380
72  Panama 377
73  Indonesia 371
74  Morocco 359
75  Lebanon 353
76  Kosovo 353
77  Dominican Republic 342
78  Philippines 340
     

PISA 2015 ranking summary

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.[27]

Maths Science Reading
1  Singapore 564
2  Hong Kong 548
3  Macau 544
4  Taiwan 542
5  Japan 532
6  China (B-S-J-G)[note 2] 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  Malaysia 446
45  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  Argentina 409
58  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 (B-S-J-G)[note 2] 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  Malaysia 443
47  United Arab Emirates 437
48  Uruguay 435
49  Romania 435
50  Cyprus 433
51  Argentina 432
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 (B-S-J-G)[note 2] 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  Malaysia 431
50  Turkey 428
51  Costa Rica 427
52  Trinidad and Tobago 427
53  Kazakhstan 427
54  Montenegro 427
55  Argentina 425
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

Rankings comparison 2003–2015
Maths
Country 2015 2012 2009 2006 2003
Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank
International Average (OECD) 490 — 494 — 495 — 494 — 499 —
 Albania 413 57 394 54 377 53 — — — —
 Algeria 360 72 — — — — — — — —
 Argentina 409 58 — — — — — — — —
 Australia 494 25 504 17 514 13 520 12 524 10
 Austria 497 20 506 16 496 22 505 17 506 18
 China B-S-J-G[lower-alpha 1] 531 6 — — — — — — — —
 Belgium 507 15 515 13 515 12 520 11 529 7
 Brazil 377 68 389 55 386 51 370 50 356 39
 Bulgaria 441 47 439 43 428 41 413 43 — —
 Argentina CABA[lower-alpha 2] 456 43 418 49 — — — — — —
 Canada 516 10 518 11 527 8 527 7 532 6
 Chile 423 50 423 47 421 44 411 44 — —
 Taiwan 542 4 560 3 543 4 549 1 — —
 Colombia 390 64 376 58 381 52 370 49 — —
 Costa Rica 400 62 407 53 — — — — — —
 Croatia 464 41 471 38 460 38 467 34 — —
 Cyprus 437 48 — — — — — — — —
 Czech Republic 492 28 499 22 493 25 510 15 516 12
 Denmark 511 12 500 20 503 17 513 14 514 14
 Dominican Republic 328 73 — — — — — — — —
 Estonia 520 9 521 9 512 15 515 13 — —
 Finland 511 13 519 10 541 5 548 2 544 2
 France 493 26 495 23 497 20 496 22 511 15
 Macedonia 371 69 — — — — — — — —
 Georgia 404 60 — — — — — — — —
 Germany 506 16 514 14 513 14 504 19 503 19
 Greece 454 44 453 40 466 37 459 37 445 32
 Hong Kong 548 2 561 2 555 2 547 3 550 1
 Hungary 477 37 477 37 490 27 491 26 490 25
 Iceland 488 31 493 25 507 16 506 16 515 13
 Indonesia 386 66 375 60 371 55 391 47 360 37
 Ireland 504 18 501 18 487 30 501 21 503 20
 Israel 470 39 466 39 447 39 442 38 — —
 Italy 490 30 485 30 483 33 462 36 466 31
 Japan 532 5 536 6 529 7 523 9 534 5
 Jordan 380 67 386 57 387 50 384 48 — —
 Kazakhstan 460 42 432 45 405 48 — — — —
 South Korea 524 7 554 4 546 3 547 4 542 3
 Kosovo 362 71 — — — — — — — —
 Latvia 482 34 491 26 482 34 486 30 483 27
 Lebanon 396 63 — — — — — — — —
 Lithuania 478 36 479 35 477 35 486 29 — —
 Luxembourg 486 33 490 27 489 28 490 27 493 23
 Macau 544 3 538 5 525 10 525 8 527 8
 Malaysia 446 45 421 48 — — — — — —
 Malta 479 35 — — — — — — — —
 Mexico 408 59 413 50 419 46 406 45 385 36
 Moldova 420 52 — — — — — — — —
 Montenegro 418 54 410 51 403 49 399 46 — —
 Netherlands 512 11 523 8 526 9 531 5 538 4
 New Zealand 495 21 500 21 519 11 522 10 523 11
 Norway 502 19 489 28 498 19 490 28 495 22
 Peru 387 65 368 61 365 57 — — — —
 Poland 504 17 518 12 495 23 495 24 490 24
 Portugal 492 29 487 29 487 31 466 35 466 30
 Qatar 402 61 376 59 368 56 318 52 — —
 Romania 444 46 445 42 427 42 415 42 — —
 Russia 494 23 482 32 468 36 476 32 468 29
 Singapore 564 1 573 1 562 1 — — — —
 Slovakia 475 38 482 33 497 21 492 25 498 21
 Slovenia 510 14 501 19 501 18 504 18 — —
 Spain 486 32 484 31 483 32 480 31 485 26
 Sweden 494 24 478 36 494 24 502 20 509 16
  Switzerland 521 8 531 7 534 6 530 6 527 9
 Thailand 415 56 427 46 419 45 417 41 417 35
 Trinidad and Tobago 417 55 — — 414 47 — — — —
 Tunisia 367 70 388 56 371 54 365 51 359 38
 Turkey 420 51 448 41 445 40 424 40 423 33
 United Arab Emirates 427 49 434 44 — — — — — —
 United Kingdom 492 27 494 24 492 26 495 23 508 17
 United States 470 40 481 34 487 29 474 33 483 28
 Uruguay 418 53 409 52 427 43 427 39 422 34
 Vietnam 495 22 511 15 — — — — — —
Science
Country 2015 2012 2009 2006
Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank
International Average (OECD) 493 — 501 — 501 — 498 —
 Albania 427 54 397 58 391 54 — —
 Algeria 376 72 — — — — — —
 Argentina 432 52 — — — — — —
 Australia 510 14 521 14 527 9 527 8
 Austria 495 26 506 21 494 28 511 17
 China B-S-J-G[lower-alpha 1] 518 10 — — — — — —
 Belgium 502 20 505 22 507 19 510 18
 Brazil 401 66 402 55 405 49 390 49
 Bulgaria 446 46 446 43 439 42 434 40
 Argentina CABA[lower-alpha 2] 475 38 425 49 — — — —
 Canada 528 7 525 9 529 7 534 3
 Chile 447 45 445 44 447 41 438 39
 Taiwan 532 4 523 11 520 11 532 4
 Colombia 416 60 399 56 402 50 388 50
 Costa Rica 420 58 429 47 — — — —
 Croatia 475 37 491 32 486 35 493 25
 Cyprus 433 51 — — — — — —
 Czech Republic 493 29 508 20 500 22 513 14
 Denmark 502 21 498 25 499 24 496 23
 Dominican Republic 332 73 — — — — — —
 Estonia 534 3 541 5 528 8 531 5
 Finland 531 5 545 4 554 1 563 1
 France 495 27 499 24 498 25 495 24
 Macedonia 384 70 — — — — — —
 Georgia 411 63 — — — — — —
 Germany 509 16 524 10 520 12 516 12
 Greece 455 44 467 40 470 38 473 37
 Hong Kong 523 9 555 1 549 2 542 2
 Hungary 477 35 494 30 503 20 504 20
 Iceland 473 39 478 37 496 26 491 26
 Indonesia 403 65 382 60 383 55 393 48
 Ireland 503 19 522 13 508 18 508 19
 Israel 467 40 470 39 455 39 454 38
 Italy 481 34 494 31 489 33 475 35
 Japan 538 2 547 3 539 4 531 6
 Jordan 409 64 409 54 415 47 422 43
 Kazakhstan 456 43 425 48 400 53 — —
 South Korea 516 11 538 6 538 5 522 10
 Kosovo 378 71 — — — — — —
 Latvia 490 31 502 23 494 29 490 27
 Lebanon 386 68 — — — — — —
 Lithuania 475 36 496 28 491 31 488 31
 Luxembourg 483 33 491 33 484 36 486 33
 Macau 529 6 521 15 511 16 511 16
 Malaysia 443 47 420 50 — — — —
 Malta 465 41 — — — — — —
 Mexico 416 61 415 52 416 46 410 47
 Moldova 428 53 — — — — — —
 Montenegro 411 62 410 53 401 51 412 46
 Netherlands 509 17 522 12 522 10 525 9
 New Zealand 513 12 516 16 532 6 530 7
 Norway 498 24 495 29 500 23 487 32
 Peru 397 67 373 61 369 57 — —
 Poland 501 22 526 8 508 17 498 22
 Portugal 501 23 489 34 493 30 474 36
 Qatar 418 59 384 59 379 56 349 52
 Romania 435 50 439 46 428 43 418 45
 Russia 487 32 486 35 478 37 479 34
 Singapore 556 1 551 2 542 3 — —
 Slovakia 461 42 471 38 490 32 488 29
 Slovenia 513 13 514 18 512 15 519 11
 Spain 493 30 496 27 488 34 488 30
 Sweden 493 28 485 36 495 27 503 21
  Switzerland 506 18 515 17 517 13 512 15
 Thailand 421 57 444 45 425 45 421 44
 Trinidad and Tobago 425 56 — — 410 48 — —
 Tunisia 386 69 398 57 401 52 386 51
 Turkey 425 55 463 41 454 40 424 42
 United Arab Emirates 437 48 448 42 — — — —
 United Kingdom 509 15 514 19 514 14 515 13
 United States 496 25 497 26 502 21 489 28
 Uruguay 435 49 416 51 427 44 428 41
 Vietnam 525 8 528 7 — — — —
Reading
Country 2015 2012 2009 2006 2003 2000
Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank
International Average (OECD) 493 — 496 — 493 — 489 — 494 — 493 —
 Albania 405 63 394 58 385 55 — — — — 349 39
 Algeria 350 71 — — — — — — — — — —
 Argentina 425 56 — — — — — — — — — —
 Australia 503 16 512 12 515 8 513 7 525 4 528 4
 Austria 485 33 490 26 470 37 490 21 491 22 492 19
 China B-S-J-G[lower-alpha 1] 494 27 — — — — — — — — — —
 Belgium 499 20 509 16 506 10 501 11 507 11 507 11
 Brazil 407 62 407 52 412 49 393 47 403 36 396 36
 Bulgaria 432 49 436 47 429 42 402 43 — — 430 32
 Argentina CABA[lower-alpha 2] 475 38 429 48 — — — — — — — —
 Canada 527 3 523 7 524 5 527 4 528 3 534 2
 Chile 459 42 441 43 449 41 442 37 — — 410 35
 Taiwan 497 23 523 8 495 21 496 15 — — — —
 Colombia 425 57 403 54 413 48 385 49 — — — —
 Costa Rica 427 52 441 45 — — — — — — — —
 Croatia 487 31 485 33 476 34 477 29 — — — —
 Cyprus 443 45 — — — — — — — — — —
 Czech Republic 487 30 493 24 478 32 483 25 489 24 492 20
 Denmark 500 18 496 23 495 22 494 18 492 19 497 16
 Dominican Republic 358 69 — — — — — — — — — —
 Estonia 519 6 516 10 501 12 501 12 — — — —
 Finland 526 4 524 5 536 2 547 2 543 1 546 1
 France 499 19 505 19 496 20 488 22 496 17 505 14
 Macedonia 352 70 — — — — — — — — 373 37
 Georgia 401 65 — — — — — — — — — —
 Germany 509 11 508 18 497 18 495 17 491 21 484 22
 Greece 467 41 477 38 483 30 460 35 472 30 474 25
 Hong Kong 527 2 545 1 533 3 536 3 510 9 525 6
 Hungary 470 40 488 28 494 24 482 26 482 25 480 23
 Iceland 482 35 483 35 500 15 484 23 492 20 507 12
 Indonesia 397 67 396 57 402 53 393 46 382 38 371 38
 Ireland 521 5 523 6 496 19 517 6 515 6 527 5
 Israel 479 37 486 32 474 35 439 39 — — 452 29
 Italy 485 34 490 25 486 27 469 32 476 29 487 21
 Japan 516 8 538 3 520 7 498 14 498 14 522 9
 Jordan 408 61 399 55 405 51 401 44 — — — —
 Kazakhstan 427 54 393 59 390 54 — — — — — —
 South Korea 517 7 536 4 539 1 556 1 534 2 525 7
 Kosovo 347 72 — — — — — — — — — —
 Latvia 488 29 489 27 484 28 479 27 491 23 458 28
 Lebanon 347 73 — — — — — — — — — —
 Lithuania 472 39 477 37 468 38 470 31 — — — —
 Luxembourg 481 36 488 30 472 36 479 28 479 27 441 30
 Macau 509 12 509 15 487 26 492 20 498 15 — —
 Malaysia 431 50 398 56 — — — — — — — —
 Malta 447 44 — — — — — — — — — —
 Mexico 423 58 424 49 425 44 410 42 400 37 422 34
 Moldova 416 59 — — — — — — — — — —
 Montenegro 427 55 422 50 408 50 392 48 — — — —
 Netherlands 503 15 511 13 508 9 507 10 513 8 ‡ ‡
 New Zealand 509 10 512 11 521 6 521 5 522 5 529 3
 Norway 513 9 504 20 503 11 484 24 500 12 505 13
 Peru 398 66 384 61 370 57 — — — — 327 40
 Poland 506 13 518 9 500 14 508 8 497 16 479 24
 Portugal 498 21 488 31 489 25 472 30 478 28 470 26
 Qatar 402 64 388 60 372 56 312 51 — — — —
 Romania 434 47 438 46 424 45 396 45 — — 428 33
 Russia 495 26 475 40 459 40 440 38 442 32 462 27
 Singapore 535 1 542 2 526 4 — — — — — —
 Slovakia 453 43 463 41 477 33 466 33 469 31 — —
 Slovenia 505 14 481 36 483 29 494 19 — — — —
 Spain 496 25 488 29 481 31 461 34 481 26 493 18
 Sweden 500 17 483 34 497 17 507 9 514 7 516 10
  Switzerland 492 28 509 14 501 13 499 13 499 13 494 17
 Thailand 409 60 441 44 421 46 417 40 420 35 431 31
 Trinidad and Tobago 427 53 — — 416 47 — — — — — —
 Tunisia 361 68 404 53 404 52 380 50 375 39 — —
 Turkey 428 51 475 39 464 39 447 36 441 33 — —
 United Arab Emirates 434 48 442 42 — — — — — — — —
 United Kingdom 498 22 499 21 494 23 495 16 507 10 523 8
 United States 497 24 498 22 500 16 — — 495 18 504 15
 Uruguay 437 46 411 51 426 43 413 41 434 34 — —
 Vietnam 487 32 508 17 — — — — — — — —
  1. Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, Guangdong
  2. Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires

Previous years
Main article: Programme for International Student Assessment (2000 to 2012)
Period Focus OECD countries Partner countries Participating students Notes
2000 Reading 28 4 + 11 265,000 The Netherlands disqualified from data analysis. 11 additional non-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.[28]
2009[29] Reading 34 41 + 10 470,000 10 additional non-OECD countries took the test in 2010.[30][31]
2012[32] Mathematics 34 31 510,000

Reception
Further information: Programme for International Student Assessment (2000 to 2012)

China

China's participation in the 2012 test was limited to Shanghai, Hong Kong, and Macau 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.[33] Hong Kong placed second in reading and science and third in maths.

Andreas Schleicher, PISA division head and co-ordinator, stated that PISA tests administered in rural China have produced some results approaching the OECD average. Citing further as-yet-unpublished OECD research, he said, "We have actually done Pisa in 12 of the provinces in China. Even in some of the very poor areas you get performance close to the OECD average."[34] Schleicher believes that China has also expanded school access and has moved away from learning by rote,[35] performing well in both rote-based and broader assessments.[34]

In 2018 the Chinese provinces that participated were Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu and Zhejiang. In 2015, the participating provinces were Jiangsu, Guangdong, Beijing, and Shanghai.[36][37][38] The 2015 Beijing-Shanghai-Jiangsu-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 shows a steep drop off in the number of 15-year-olds residing there.[39] 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.[40] Following the 2015 testing, OECD published in depth studies on the education systems of a selected few countries including China.[41]

In 2014, Liz Truss, the British Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Education, led a fact-finding visit to schools and teacher-training centres in Shanghai.[42] Britain increased exchanges with Chinese teachers and schools to find out how to improve quality. In 2014, 60 teachers from Shanghai were invited to the UK to help share their teaching methods, support pupils who are struggling, and help to train other teachers.[43] In 2016, Britain invited 120 Chinese teachers, planning to adopt Chinese styles of teaching in 8,000 aided schools.[44] By 2019, approximately 5,000 of Britain's 16,000 primary schools had adopted the Shanghai's teaching methods.[45] The performance of British schools in PISA improved after adopting China's teaching styles.[46][47]

Finland

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 mathematics, 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%.[48]

India

India participated in the 2009 round of testing but pulled out of the 2012 PISA testing, with the Indian government attributing its action to the unfairness of PISA testing to Indian students.[49] The Indian Express reported, "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 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".[50] 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".

India did not participate in the 2012, 2015 and 2018 PISA rounds.[51]

A Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) committee as well as a group of secretaries on education constituted by the Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi recommended that India should participate in PISA. Accordingly, in February 2017, the Ministry of Human Resource Development under Prakash Javadekar decided to end the boycott and participate in PISA from 2020. To address the socio-cultural disconnect between the test questions and students, it was reported that the OECD will update some questions. For example, the word avocado in a question may be replaced with a more popular Indian fruit such as mango.[52]

Malaysia

In 2015, the results from Malaysia were found by the OECD to have not met the maximum response rate.[53] Opposition politician Ong Kian Ming said the education ministry tried to oversample high-performing students in rich schools.[54][55]

Sweden

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 mathematics 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 average in all three subjects.[56] The leader of the opposition, Social Democrat Stefan Löfven, described the situation as a national crisis.[57] Along with the party's spokesperson on education, Ibrahim Baylan, he pointed to the downward trend in reading as most severe.[57]

In 2020, Swedish newspaper Expressen revealed that Sweden had inflated their score in PISA 2018 by not conforming to OECD standards. According to professor Magnus Henrekson a large number of foreign-born students had not been tested.[58]

United Kingdom

In the 2012 test, as in 2009, the result was slightly above average for the United Kingdom, with the science ranking being highest (20).[59] England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland also participated as separated entities, showing the worst result for Wales which in mathematics was 43rd of the 65 countries and economies. Minister of Education in Wales 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.[60] The 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.[59]

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.[61]

In 2013, the 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.[62]

In the article, Professor Harvey Goldstein of the University of Bristol was quoted as saying that when the 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 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".[63] 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 OECD'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."[64]

Professor Svend Kreiner, of the University of Copenhagen, 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.[64]

United States

Since 2012 a few states have participated in the PISA tests as separate entities. Only the 2012 and 2015 results are available on a state basis. Puerto Rico participated in 2015 as a separate US entity as well.

2012 US State results
Math Science Reading
 Massachusetts 514
 Connecticut 506
US Average 481
 Florida 467
 Massachusetts 527
 Connecticut 521
US Average 497
 Florida 485
 Massachusetts 527
 Connecticut 521
US Average 498
 Florida 492
2015 US State results
Math Science Reading
 Massachusetts 500
 North Carolina 471
US Average 470
 Puerto Rico 378
 Massachusetts 529
 North Carolina 502
US Average 496
 Puerto Rico 403
 Massachusetts 527
 North Carolina 500
US Average 497
 Puerto Rico 410

PISA results for the United States by race and ethnicity.

Math
Race 2015 2012 2009 2006 2003
Score Score Score Score Score
US Average 470 481 487 474 483
White 499 506 515 502 512
Black 419 421 423 404 417
Hispanic 446 455 453 436 443
Asian 498 549 524 494 506
Other 423 436 460 446 446
More than one race 475 492 487 482 502
Reading
Race 2015 2012 2009 2006 2003 2000
Score Score Score Score Score Score
US Average 497 498 500 — 495 504
White 526 519 525 — 525 538
Black 443 443 441 — 430 445
Hispanic 478 478 466 — 453 449
Asian 527 550 541 — 513 546
Other 440 438 462 — 456 455
More than one race 498 517 502 — 515 —
Science
Race 2015 2012 2009 2006
Score Score Score Score
US Average 496 497 502 489
White 531 528 532 523
Black 433 439 435 409
Hispanic 470 462 464 439
Asian 525 546 536 499
Other 462 439 465 453
More than one race 503 511 503 501

Research on possible causes of PISA disparities in different countries

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.[65] Data from PISA have furnished several researchers, notably Eric Hanushek, Ludger Wößmann, Heiner Rindermann, and Stephen J. Ceci, with material for books and articles about the relationship between student achievement and economic development,[66] democratization, and health;[67] as well as the roles of such single educational factors as high-stakes exams,[68] the presence or absence of private schools and the effects and timing of ability tracking.[69]

Comments on accuracy

David Spiegelhalter of Cambridge wrote: "Pisa does present the uncertainty in the scores and ranks - for example the United Kingdom rank in the 65 countries is said to be between 23 and 31. It's unwise for countries to base education policy on their Pisa results, as Germany, Norway and Denmark did after doing badly in 2001."[70]

According to Forbes, in some countries PISA selects a sample from only the best-educated areas or from their top-performing students, slanting the results. China, Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, Singapore and Argentina were only some of the examples.[71]

According to an open letter to Andreas Schleicher, director of PISA, various academics and educators argued that "OECD and Pisa tests are damaging education worldwide".[72]

According to O Estado de São Paulo, Brazil shows a great disparity when classifying the results between public and private schools, where public schools would rank worse than Peru, while private schools would rank better than Finland.[73]

gollark: Great?
gollark: I like DNS, okay.
gollark: OÖÖÖoöÖ, I just realized that I could abuse my hypothetical domain and osmarksDNSplatform™ to build a DNS-based URL shortener for no particular reason.
gollark: I also have a script which finds them.
gollark: I know, right?

See also

Notes
  1. Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, Zhejiang
  2. Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, Guangdong

References
  1. "About PISA". OECD PISA. Retrieved 8 February 2018.
  2. Berger, Kathleen. Invitation to The Life Span (second ed.). worth. ISBN 978-1-4641-7205-2.
  3. "PISA 2018 Results". OECD. 3 December 2019. Archived from the original on 3 December 2019. Retrieved 3 December 2019.
  4. "Rey O, 'The use of external assessments and the impact on education systems' in CIDREE Yearbook 2010, accessed January 2017". Archived from the original on 3 February 2017. Retrieved 22 November 2019.
  5. McGaw, B (2008) 'The role of the OECD in international comparative studies of achievement' Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 15:3, 223–243
  6. Mons N, (2008) 'Évaluation des politiques éducatives et comparaisons internationales', Revue française de pédagogie, 164, juillet-août-septembre 2008 5–13
  7. Breakspear, S. (2012). "The Policy Impact of PISA: An Exploration of the Normative Effects of International Benchmarking in School System Performance". OECD Education Working Paper. OECD Education Working Papers. 71. doi:10.1787/5k9fdfqffr28-en.
  8. Barroso, J. and de Carvalho, L.M. (2008) 'Pisa: Un instrument de régulation pour relier des mondes', Revue française de pédagogie, 164, 77–80
  9. 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. doi:10.1080/03054980600976320.
  10. Bajomi, I., Berényi, E., Neumann, E. and Vida, J. (2009). 'The Reception of PISA in Hungary' accessed January 2017
  11. Steiner-Khamsi (2003), cited by Breakspear, S. (2012). "The Policy Impact of PISA: An Exploration of the Normative Effects of International Benchmarking in School System Performance". OECD Education Working Paper. OECD Education Working Papers. 71. doi:10.1787/5k9fdfqffr28-en.
  12. 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". Sísifo: Educational Sciences Journal. Educational Sciences R&D Unit of the University of Lisbon (10): 15–26. ISSN 1646-6500. Retrieved 26 December 2017.
  13. "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". Archived from the original on 3 February 2017. Retrieved 22 November 2019.
  14. Afonso, Natércio; Costa, Estela (September–December 2009). "The influence of the 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.
  15. Rautalin, M.; Alasuutari (2009). "The uses of the national PISA results by Finnish officials in central government". Journal of Education Policy. 24 (5): 539–556. doi:10.1080/02680930903131267.
  16. Egelund, N. (2008). 'The value of international comparative studies of achievement – a Danish perspective', Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 15, 3, 245–251
  17. "Behrens, 2006 cited in Rey O, 'The use of external assessments and the impact on education systems in CIDREE Yearbook 2010, accessed January 2017". Archived from the original on 3 February 2017. Retrieved 22 November 2019.
  18. Hefling, Kimberly. "Asian nations dominate international test". Yahoo!.
  19. "Chapter 2 of the publication 'PISA 2003 Assessment Framework'" (PDF). Pisa.oecd.org.
  20. Keeley B. PISA, we have a problem… OECD Insights, April 2014.
  21. 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.
  22. C. Füller: Pisa hat einen kleinen, fröhlichen Bruder. taz, 5.12.2007
  23. 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
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  26. PISA 2018: Insights and Interpretations (PDF), OECD, 3 December 2019, retrieved 4 December 2019
  27. Singapore tops latest OECD PISA global education survey, OECD, 6 December 2016, retrieved 13 December 2016
  28. Baldi, Stéphane; Jin, Ying; Skemer, Melanie; Green, Patricia J; Herget, Deborah; Xie, Holly (10 December 2007), Highlights From PISA 2006: Performance of U.S. 15-Year-Old Students in Science and Mathematics Literacy in an International Context (PDF), NCES, retrieved 14 December 2013, PISA 2006 reading literacy results are not reported for the 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.
  29. PISA 2009 Results: Executive Summary (PDF), OECD, 7 December 2010
  30. ACER releases results of PISA 2009+ participant economies, ACER, 16 December 2011, archived from the original on 14 December 2013
  31. Walker, Maurice (2011), PISA 2009 Plus Results (PDF), OECD, archived from the original (PDF) on 22 December 2011, retrieved 28 June 2012
  32. PISA 2012 Results in Focus (PDF), OECD, 3 December 2013, retrieved 4 December 2013
  33. Tom Phillips (3 December 2013) OECD education report: Shanghai's formula is world-beating The Telegraph. Retrieved 8 December 2013
  34. Cook, Chris (7 December 2010), "Shanghai tops global state school rankings", Financial Times, retrieved 28 June 2012
  35. Mance, Henry (7 December 2010), "Why are Chinese schoolkids so good?", Financial Times, retrieved 28 June 2012
  36. Coughlan, Sean (26 August 2014). "Pisa tests to include many more Chinese pupils" – via www.bbc.com.
  37. Harvey Morris (6 December 2016). "Asia dominates world education rankings". China Daily.
  38. Amy He (7 December 2016). "China's students fall in rank on assessment test". China Daily.
  39. 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.
  40. "William Stewart, "More than a quarter of Shanghai pupils missed by international Pisa rankings", Times Educational Supplement, March 6, 2014". Archived from the original on 15 March 2014. Retrieved 7 March 2014.
  41. http://www.oecd.org/china/Education-in-China-a-snapshot.pdf
  42. Howse, Patrick (18 February 2014). "Shanghai visit for minister to learn maths lessons". BBC News. Retrieved 19 July 2014.
  43. Coughlan, Sean (12 March 2014). "Shanghai teachers flown in for maths". BBC News. Retrieved 11 August 2020.
  44. "Britain invites 120 Chinese Maths teachers for aided schools". India Today. 20 July 2016. Retrieved 12 August 2020.
  45. "Scores bolster case for Shanghai math in British schools | The Star". www.thestar.com.my. Retrieved 11 August 2020.
  46. Turner, Camilla (3 December 2019). "Britain jumps up international maths rankings following Chinese-style teaching". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved 11 August 2020.
  47. Starkey, Hannah (5 December 2019). "UK Boost International Maths Ranking After Adopting Chinese-Style Teaching". True Education Partnerships. Retrieved 11 August 2020.
  48. PISA 2012: Proficiency of Finnish youth declining University of Jyväskylä. Retrieved 9 December 2013
  49. Hemali Chhapia, TNN (3 August 2012). "India backs out of global education test for 15-year-olds". The Times of India.
  50. "Poor PISA score: Govt blames 'disconnect' with India". The Indian Express. 3 September 2012.
  51. "India chickens out of international students assessment programme again". The Times of India. 1 June 2013.
  52. "PISA Tests: India to take part in global teen learning test in 2021". The Indian Express. 22 February 2017. Retrieved 19 May 2018.
  53. "Ong: Did ministry try to rig results for Pisa 2015 report?". 8 December 2016.
  54. "Who's telling the truth about M'sia's Pisa 2015 scores?". 9 December 2016.
  55. "Malaysian PISA results under scrutiny for lack of evidence – School Advisor". 8 December 2016.
  56. Lars Näslund (3 December 2013) Svenska skolan rasar i stor jämförelse Expressen. Retrieved 4 December 2013 (in Swedish)
  57. Jens Kärrman (3 December 2013) Löfven om Pisa: Nationell kris Dagens Nyheter. Retrieved 8 December 2013 (in Swedish)
  58. https://www.expressen.se/nyheter/qs/sveriges-pisa-framgang-bygger-pa-falska-siffror/
  59. Adams, Richard (3 December 2013), "UK students stuck in educational doldrums, OECD study finds", The Guardian, retrieved 4 December 2013
  60. Pisa ranks Wales' education the worst in the UK BBC. 3 December 2013. Retrieved 4 December 2013.
  61. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard (3 December 2013) Ambrose Evans-Pritchard Telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved 4 December 2013.
  62. "William Stewart, "Is Pisa fundamentally flawed?" Times Educational Supplement, July 26, 2013". Archived from the original on 23 August 2013. Retrieved 26 July 2013.
  63. 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.
  64. Stewart, "Is PISA fundamentally flawed?" TES (2013).
  65. 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.
  66. 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
  67. 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, PMID 26161733
  68. Bishop, John H (1997). "The effect of national standards and curriculum-based exams on achievement". American Economic Review. Papers and Proceedings. 87 (2): 260–264. JSTOR 2950928.
  69. 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
  70. Alexander, Ruth (10 December 2013). "How accurate is the Pisa test?". Retrieved 22 November 2019 – via www.bbc.com.
  71. Flows, Capital. "Are The PISA Education Results Rigged?". Forbes. Retrieved 22 November 2019.
  72. Staff, Guardian (6 May 2014). "OECD and Pisa tests are damaging education worldwide – academics". Retrieved 22 November 2019 – via www.theguardian.com.
  73. Cafardo, Rafael (4 December 2019). "Escolas privadas de elite do Brasil superam Finlândia no Pisa, rede pública vai pior do que o Peru". Retrieved 4 December 2019 – via www.estadao.com.br.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.