Pisa Math and Reading Scores Adjusted to Us Far Weights

Programme for International Student Assessment

Abbreviation	PISA
Formation	1997
Purpose	Comparing of education attainment across the globe
Headquarters	OECD Headquarters
Location	2 rue André Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16
Region served	World
Membership	79 authorities instruction departments
Official language	English and French
Head of the Early on Babyhood and Schools Partition	Yuri Belfali
Main organ	PISA Governing Body (Chair – Michele Bruniges)
Parent organization	OECD
Website	oecd.org/pisa

PISA average Mathematics scores (2018)

PISA average Science scores (2018)

Scholastic performance written report by the OECD

PISA boilerplate Reading scores (2018)

The Programme for International Student Cess (PISA) is a worldwide study past the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in member and non-member nations intended to evaluate educational systems by measuring 15-yr-erstwhile schoolhouse pupils' scholastic performance on mathematics, science, and reading.^[1] It was first performed in 2000 and so repeated every iii years. Its aim is to provide comparable data with a view to enabling countries to improve their education policies and outcomes. Information technology measures problem solving and knowledge.^[2]

The results of the 2018 information collection were released on 3 December 2019.^[three]

Influence and touch [edit]

PISA, and like international standardised assessments of educational attainment are increasingly used in the procedure of education policymaking at both national and international levels.^[4]

PISA was conceived to set in a wider context the data provided by national monitoring of education system performance through regular assessments within a mutual, internationally agreed framework; by investigating relationships between student learning and other factors they can "offer insights into sources of variation in performances within and betwixt countries".^[5]

Until the 1990s, few European countries used national tests. In the 1990s, x countries / regions introduced standardised assessment, and since the early 2000s, x more followed suit. By 2009, only v 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 noesis, changes in assessment policy, and external influence over national educational policy more than broadly.

Creation of new knowledge [edit]

Data from international standardised assessments can be useful in research on causal factors inside or across education systems.^[iv] 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 weather for learning mathematics and reading, to institutional autonomy and admissions policies.^[6] They allow typologies to exist developed that tin can be used for comparative statistical analyses of education performance indicators, thereby identifying the consequences of unlike policy choices. They have generated new knowledge about educational activity: PISA findings accept challenged securely embedded educational practices, such as the early tracking of students into vocational or academic pathways.^[7]

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

Barroso and de Carvalho find that PISA provides a common reference connecting bookish enquiry in educational activity and the political realm of public policy, operating as a mediator betwixt dissimilar strands of knowledge from the realm of didactics and public policy.^[viii] Yet, although the cardinal findings from comparative assessments are widely shared in the research customs^[4] the knowledge they create does not necessarily fit with regime reform agendas; this leads to some inappropriate uses of cess information.

Changes in national assessment policy [edit]

Emerging research suggests that international standardised assessments are having an touch on national cess policy and do. PISA is being integrated into national policies and practices on cess, evaluation, curriculum standards and performance targets; its cess 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 information and validate national results against an international criterion.^[7]

External influence over national educational policy [edit]

More than important than its influence on countries' policy of educatee assessment, is the range of ways in which PISA is influencing countries education policy choices.

Policy-makers in about participating countries see PISA equally an of import indicator of organization performance; PISA reports can define policy problems and set the agenda for national policy argue; policymakers seem to have PISA as a valid and reliable instrument for internationally benchmarking system performance and changes over time; nearly countries—irrespective of whether they performed above, at, or beneath the boilerplate PISA score—have begun policy reforms in response to PISA reports.^[seven]

Against this, impact on national didactics systems varies markedly. For example, in Germany, the results of the get-go PISA assessment caused the so-called 'PISA stupor': a questioning of previously accustomed educational policies; in a state marked by jealously guarded regional policy differences, information technology led ultimately to an agreement by all Länder to introduce mutual national standards and even an institutionalised construction to ensure that they were observed.^[9] In Hungary, by comparing, which shared similar weather to Frg, PISA results have not led to meaning changes in educational policy.^[ten]

Because many countries have set national performance targets based on their relative rank or accented PISA score, PISA assessments have increased the influence of their (not-elected) commissioning torso, 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 detail is having "an influential normative effect on the management 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 organization performance; Rey contends that PISA surveys, portrayed equally objective, tertiary-party diagnoses of education systems, really serve to promote specific orientations on educational issues.^[4]

National policy actors refer to loftier-performing PISA countries to "aid legitimise and justify their intended reform agenda within contested national policy debates".^[11] PISA data can be "used to fuel long-continuing debates effectually pre-existing conflicts or rivalries between different policy options, such as in the French Community of Kingdom of belgium".^[12] In such instances, PISA assessment data are used selectively: in public discourse governments often merely use superficial features of PISA surveys such as country rankings and not the more than detailed analyses. Rey (2010:145, citing Greger, 2008) notes that frequently the real results of PISA assessments are ignored every bit policymakers selectively refer to information in order to legitimise policies introduced for other reasons.^[13]

In add-on, PISA'due south international comparisons can be used to justify reforms with which the information themselves have no connection; in Portugal, for example, PISA data were used to justify new arrangements for instructor assessment (based on inferences that were not justified by the assessments and information themselves); they likewise fed the government's soapbox about the issue of pupils repeating a year, (which, according to research, fails to improve pupil results).^[14] In Finland, the state'due south PISA results (that are in other countries deemed to be first-class) 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 crave fuller investigation through qualitative in-depth studies and longitudinal surveys based on mixed quantitative and qualitative methods,^[xvi] which politicians are ofttimes 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 information are sufficiently robust to bear the weight of the major policy decisions that are being based upon them, for, co-ordinate to Breakspear, PISA data take "come to increasingly shape, define and evaluate the key goals of the national / federal instruction 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 pedagogy debate, and to orient educational reform in many countries around the globe.^[7]

Framework [edit]

PISA stands in a tradition of international schoolhouse studies, undertaken since the belatedly 1950s by the International Clan for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). Much of PISA's methodology follows the example of the Trends in International Mathematics and Scientific discipline Written report (TIMSS, started in 1995), which in turn was much influenced by the U.Due south. National Cess of Educational Progress (NAEP). The reading component of PISA is inspired by the IEA'south Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS).

PISA aims to examination literacy the competence of students in three fields: reading, mathematics, science on an indefinite scale.^[eighteen]

The PISA mathematics literacy test asks students to utilize their mathematical knowledge to solve problems set in real-world contexts. To solve the problems students must actuate a number of mathematical competencies as well as a wide range of mathematical content knowledge. TIMSS, on the other manus, measures more traditional classroom content such as an agreement of fractions and decimals and the relationship between them (curriculum attainment). PISA claims to measure education's awarding to real-life problems and lifelong learning (workforce cognition).

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 reverberate on the pregnant of what they have read across a wide range of continuous and non-continuous texts."^[xix]

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

Implementation [edit]

PISA is sponsored, governed, and coordinated by the OECD, merely paid for by participating countries.^{[ citation needed ]}

Method of testing [edit]

Sampling [edit]

The students tested by PISA are aged between 15 years and iii months and sixteen years and 2 months at the beginning of the assessment period. The school yr pupils are in is not taken into consideration. Only students at schoolhouse are tested, not domicile-schoolers. In PISA 2006, nonetheless, several countries also used a course-based sample of students. This made it possible to written report how age and school twelvemonth interact.

To fulfill OECD requirements, each state must draw a sample of at least v,000 students. In modest countries like Iceland and Grand duchy of luxembourg, where at that place are fewer than v,000 students per yr, an entire historic period cohort is tested. Some countries used much larger samples than required to allow comparisons between regions.

Test [edit]

PISA test documents on a schoolhouse tabular array (Neues Gymnasium, Oldenburg, Germany, 2006)

Each student takes a two-hour figurer based examination. Part of the examination is multiple-choice and part involves fuller answers. There are six and a one-half hours of assessment material, but each student is not tested on all the parts. Following the cerebral test, participating students spend about i more than hr answering a questionnaire on their groundwork including learning habits, motivation, and family. School directors fill in a questionnaire describing school demographics, funding, etc. In 2012 the participants were, for the commencement fourth dimension in the history of big-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 estimator adaptive testing.

National add-ons [edit]

Countries are immune to combine PISA with complementary national tests.

Frg does this in a very extensive way: On the twenty-four hour period following the international examination, students have a national test called PISA-East (E=Ergänzung=complement). Test items of PISA-E are closer to TIMSS than to PISA. While simply about 5,000 High german students participate in the international and the national test, another 45,000 take the national test only. This big sample is needed to let an analysis by federal states. Following a clash about the interpretation of 2006 results, the OECD warned Germany that information technology might withdraw the right to apply the "PISA" characterization for national tests.^[22]

Data scaling [edit]

From the outset, PISA has been designed with 1 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 scientific discipline) is 500 and the standard difference is 100.^[23] This is truthful only for the initial PISA cycle when the calibration was first introduced, though, subsequent cycles are linked to the previous cycles through IRT calibration linking methods.^[24]

This generation of proficiency estimates is washed using a latent regression extension of the Rasch model, a model of particular response theory (IRT), also known as conditioning model or population model. The proficiency estimates are provided in the course of then-called plausible values, which allow unbiased estimates of differences betwixt groups. The latent regression, together with the utilise 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 nigh identical terms in the Technical Reports of PISA 2000, 2003, 2006. NAEP and TIMSS use like scaling methods.

Ranking results [edit]

All PISA results are tabulated past country; contempo PISA cycles have separate provincial or regional results for some countries. Most public attending concentrates on but one outcome: the mean scores of countries and their rankings of countries against ane some other. In the official reports, nevertheless, country-by-country rankings are given non as simple league tables but every bit cross tables indicating for each pair of countries whether or non mean score differences are statistically significant (unlikely to be due to random fluctuations in student sampling or in detail functioning). In favorable cases, a difference of 9 points is sufficient to exist considered significant.^{[ commendation needed ]}

PISA never combines mathematics, science and reading domain scores into an overall score. Nevertheless, commentators accept sometimes combined exam results from all three domains into an overall country ranking. Such meta-assay is non endorsed past the OECD, although official summaries sometimes employ scores from a testing cycle'due south principal domain as a proxy for overall student power.

PISA 2018 ranking summary [edit]

The results of PISA 2018 were presented on iii December 2019, which included data for around 600,000 participating students in 79 countries and economies, with Communist china's economic expanse of Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu and Zhejiang emerging as the top performer in all categories. Note that this does not stand for the entirety of mainland China.^[26] Reading results for Spain were not released due to perceived anomalies. ^[27]

Mathematics	Science	Reading
1 Mainland china (B-S-J-Z)[a] 591 2 Singapore 569 3 Macau (China) 558 iv Hong Kong (People's republic of china) 551 5 Taiwan 531 half-dozen Japan 527 7 South korea 526 8 Republic of estonia 523 9 Netherlands 519 10 Poland 516 eleven Switzerland 515 12 Canada 512 13 Denmark 509 xiii Slovenia 509 xv Kingdom of belgium 508 xvi Republic of finland 507 17 Sweden 502 17 United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland 502 19 Norway 501 twenty Germany 500 xx Republic of ireland 500 22 Czechia 499 22 Republic of austria 499 24 Latvia 496 24 Vietnam 496 26 France 495 26 Iceland 495 28 New Zealand 494 29 Portugal 492 thirty Australia 491 31 Russia 488 32 Italia 487 33 Slovakia 486 34 Grand duchy of luxembourg 483 35 Republic of lithuania 481 35 Spain 481 35 Hungary 481 38 United States 478 39 Belarus 472 39 Republic of malta 472 41 Republic of croatia 464 42 Israel 463 43 Turkey 454 44 Ukraine 453 45 Cyprus 451 45 Greece 451 47 Serbia 448 48 Malaysia 440 49 Albania 437 50 Bulgaria 436 51 United Arab Emirates 435 52 Brunei 430 52 Montenegro 430 52 Romania 430 55 Republic of kazakhstan 423 56 Moldova 421 57 Republic of azerbaijan 420 58 Thailand 419 59 Uruguay 418 60 Republic of chile 417 61 Qatar 414 62 Mexico 409 63 Bosnia and Herzegovina 406 64 Costa Rica 402 65 Hashemite kingdom of jordan 400 65 Republic of peru 400 67 Georgia 398 68 North Macedonia 394 69 Lebanon 393 70 Colombia 391 71 Brazil 384 72 Argentina 379 72 Indonesia 379 74 Saudi Arabia 373 75 Kingdom of morocco 368 76 Kosovo 366 77 Panama 353 77 Philippines 353 79 Dominican Republic 325	1 China (B-S-J-Z)[a] 590 2 Singapore 551 3 Macau (Communist china) 544 4 Vietnam 543 five Estonia 530 six Nippon 529 7 Finland 522 8 Southward Korea 519 9 Canada 518 10 Hong Kong (China) 517 11 Taiwan 516 12 Poland 511 xiii New Zealand 508 14 Slovenia 507 15 United Kingdom 505 16 Commonwealth of australia 503 xvi Germany 503 sixteen Netherlands 503 nineteen United states of america 502 20 Kingdom of belgium 499 20 Sweden 499 22 Czech Republic 497 23 Republic of ireland 496 24 Switzerland 495 25 Denmark 493 25 France 493 27 Portugal 492 28 Austria 490 28 Norway 490 30 Republic of latvia 487 31 Espana 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 xl Italy 468 40 Turkey 468 42 Slovakia 464 43 Israel 462 44 Republic of malta 457 45 Greece 452 46 Republic of chile 444 47 Serbia 440 48 Cyprus 439 49 Malaysia 438 fifty United Arab Emirates 434 51 Brunei 431 52 Hashemite kingdom of jordan 429 53 Moldova 428 54 Romania 426 54 Thailand 426 54 Uruguay 426 57 Republic of bulgaria 424 58 Mexico 419 58 Qatar 419 60 Albania 417 61 Costa Rica 416 62 Montenegro 415 63 Colombia 413 63 Northward Macedonia 413 65 Argentina 404 65 Brazil 404 65 Peru 404 68 Azerbaijan 398 68 Bosnia and herzegovina 398 lxx Kazakhstan 397 71 Republic of indonesia 396 72 Kingdom of saudi arabia 386 73 Lebanon 384 74 Georgia 383 75 Kingdom of morocco 377 76 Kosovo 365 76 Panama 365 78 Philippines 357 79 Dominican Republic 336	i China (B-S-J-Z)[a] 555 2 Singapore 549 iii Macau (Mainland china) 525 4 Hong Kong (Cathay) 524 v Estonia 523 6 Canada 520 vi Finland 520 8 Republic of ireland 518 ix S Korea 514 ten Poland 512 11 New Zealand 506 11 Sweden 506 xiii Us 505 thirteen Vietnam 505 15 Nippon 504 15 United Kingdom 504 17 Australia 503 17 Taiwan 503 19 Denmark 501 20 Norway 499 21 Germany 498 22 Slovenia 495 23 Kingdom of belgium 493 23 France 493 25 Portugal 492 26 Czech republic 490 27 Netherlands 485 28 Austria 484 28 Switzerland 484 xxx Republic of croatia 479 30 Latvia 479 30 Russia 479 33 Hungary 476 33 Italy 476 33 Lithuania 476 36 Republic of belarus 474 36 Iceland 474 38 State of israel 470 38 Luxembourg 470 xl Turkey 466 xl Ukraine 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 Republic of costa rica 426 51 Cyprus 424 51 Moldova 424 53 Montenegro 421 54 Republic of bulgaria 420 54 United mexican states 420 56 Jordan 419 57 Malaysia 415 58 Brazil 413 59 Colombia 412 60 Brunei 408 61 Qatar 407 62 Republic of albania 405 63 Republic of bosnia and herzegovina 403 64 Argentina 402 65 Peru 401 66 Kingdom of saudi arabia 399 67 North Macedonia 393 67 Thailand 393 69 Azerbaijan 389 70 Kazakhstan 387 71 Georgia 380 72 Panama 377 73 Indonesia 371 74 Morocco 359 75 Kosovo 353 75 Lebanese republic 353 77 Dominican Republic 342 78 Philippines 340

Rankings comparison 2003–2015 [edit]

Mathematics
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	xiii	520	12	524	ten
Austria	497	20	506	16	496	22	505	17	506	18
China B-Due south-J-Yard[b]	531	6	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Belgium	507	15	515	13	515	12	520	11	529	7
Brazil	377	68	389	55	386	51	370	l	356	39
Bulgaria	441	47	439	43	428	41	413	43	—	—
Argentine republic CABA[c]	456	43	418	49	—	—	—	—	—	—
Canada	516	10	518	xi	527	eight	527	7	532	half-dozen
Republic of chile	423	l	423	47	421	44	411	44	—	—
Taiwan	542	4	560	three	543	4	549	ane	—	—
Republic of colombia	390	64	376	58	381	52	370	49	—	—
Republic of costa rica	400	62	407	53	—	—	—	—	—	—
Republic of 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	twenty	503	17	513	14	514	xiv
Dominican Commonwealth	328	73	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Republic of estonia	520	nine	521	9	512	15	515	xiii	—	—
Finland	511	thirteen	519	10	541	v	548	ii	544	two
France	493	26	495	23	497	20	496	22	511	15
Macedonia	371	69	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Georgia	404	lx	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Federal republic of germany	506	16	514	xiv	513	14	504	19	503	19
Hellenic republic	454	44	453	forty	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
Republic of 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	xxx	483	33	462	36	466	31
Japan	532	5	536	vi	529	seven	523	9	534	v
Jordan	380	67	386	57	387	50	384	48	—	—
Kazakhstan	460	42	432	45	405	48	—	—	—	—
South Korea	524	7	554	4	546	three	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	ten	525	8	527	eight
Malaysia	446	45	421	48	—	—	—	—	—	—
Malta	479	35	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
United mexican states	408	59	413	fifty	419	46	406	45	385	36
Moldova	420	52	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Montenegro	418	54	410	51	403	49	399	46	—	—
Netherlands	512	11	523	eight	526	9	531	v	538	4
New Zealand	495	21	500	21	519	11	522	10	523	11
Kingdom of norway	502	19	489	28	498	nineteen	490	28	495	22
Republic of 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	i	573	one	562	1	—	—	—	—
Slovakia	475	38	482	33	497	21	492	25	498	21
Slovenia	510	14	501	19	501	eighteen	504	18	—	—
Kingdom of spain	486	32	484	31	483	32	480	31	485	26
Sweden	494	24	478	36	494	24	502	20	509	sixteen
Switzerland	521	eight	531	seven	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	xl	423	33
United Arab Emirates	427	49	434	44	—	—	—	—	—	—
Uk	492	27	494	24	492	26	495	23	508	17
U.s.a.	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	xv	—	—	—	—	—	—

Science
Country	2015		2012		2009		2006
	Score	Rank	Score	Rank	Score	Rank	Score	Rank
International Average (OECD)	493	—	501	—	501	—	498	—
Republic of albania	427	54	397	58	391	54	—	—
Algeria	376	72	—	—	—	—	—	—
Argentina	432	52	—	—	—	—	—	—
Australia	510	xiv	521	fourteen	527	ix	527	8
Republic of austria	495	26	506	21	494	28	511	17
Cathay B-South-J-G[b]	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	xl
Argentina CABA[c]	475	38	425	49	—	—	—	—
Canada	528	7	525	9	529	seven	534	iii
Chile	447	45	445	44	447	41	438	39
Taiwan	532	4	523	11	520	11	532	four
Republic of colombia	416	sixty	399	56	402	50	388	fifty
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 Democracy	332	73	—	—	—	—	—	—
Estonia	534	3	541	5	528	8	531	5
Finland	531	5	545	four	554	ane	563	1
France	495	27	499	24	498	25	495	24
Macedonia	384	70	—	—	—	—	—	—
Georgia	411	63	—	—	—	—	—	—
Deutschland	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	two
Hungary	477	35	494	thirty	503	20	504	20
Iceland	473	39	478	37	496	26	491	26
Indonesia	403	65	382	60	383	55	393	48
Ireland	503	xix	522	13	508	18	508	19
Israel	467	40	470	39	455	39	454	38
Italy	481	34	494	31	489	33	475	35
Nihon	538	2	547	three	539	4	531	6
Jordan	409	64	409	54	415	47	422	43
Kazakhstan	456	43	425	48	400	53	—	—
Republic of 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	fifteen	511	16	511	sixteen
Malaysia	443	47	420	l	—	—	—	—
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	sixteen	532	6	530	seven
Norway	498	24	495	29	500	23	487	32
Republic of peru	397	67	373	61	369	57	—	—
Poland	501	22	526	viii	508	17	498	22
Portugal	501	23	489	34	493	xxx	474	36
Qatar	418	59	384	59	379	56	349	52
Romania	435	l	439	46	428	43	418	45
Russia	487	32	486	35	478	37	479	34
Singapore	556	ane	551	2	542	3	—	—
Slovakia	461	42	471	38	490	32	488	29
Slovenia	513	thirteen	514	xviii	512	15	519	11
Kingdom of spain	493	30	496	27	488	34	488	30
Sweden	493	28	485	36	495	27	503	21
Switzerland	506	xviii	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	—	—	—	—
U.k.	509	xv	514	19	514	14	515	13
U.s.a.	496	25	497	26	502	21	489	28
Uruguay	435	49	416	51	427	44	428	41
Vietnam	525	8	528	vii	—	—	—	—

Reading
Country	2015		2012		2009		2006		2003		2000
	Score	Rank	Score	Rank	Score	Rank	Score	Rank	Score	Rank	Score	Rank
International Boilerplate (OECD)	493	—	496	—	493	—	489	—	494	—	493	—
Republic of albania	405	63	394	58	385	55	—	—	—	—	349	39
People's democratic republic of algeria	350	71	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Argentina	425	56	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Australia	503	sixteen	512	12	515	viii	513	7	525	iv	528	4
Austria	485	33	490	26	470	37	490	21	491	22	492	19
Mainland china B-S-J-Yard[b]	494	27	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Belgium	499	20	509	xvi	506	10	501	eleven	507	xi	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[c]	475	38	429	48	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Canada	527	3	523	seven	524	5	527	iv	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	—	—	—	—
Republic of costa rica	427	52	441	45	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Croatia	487	31	485	33	476	34	477	29	—	—	—	—
Republic of cyprus	443	45	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Czech republic	487	xxx	493	24	478	32	483	25	489	24	492	20
Denmark	500	xviii	496	23	495	22	494	xviii	492	19	497	16
Dominican Republic	358	69	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Estonia	519	6	516	x	501	12	501	12	—	—	—	—
Republic of finland	526	4	524	5	536	ii	547	2	543	1	546	1
France	499	19	505	19	496	xx	488	22	496	17	505	14
Macedonia	352	lxx	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	373	37
Georgia	401	65	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Frg	509	11	508	18	497	eighteen	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
Republic of 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	vi	496	nineteen	517	half-dozen	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	fourteen	498	14	522	9
Hashemite kingdom of jordan	408	61	399	55	405	51	401	44	—	—	—	—
Republic of kazakhstan	427	54	393	59	390	54	—	—	—	—	—	—
Republic of korea	517	7	536	four	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	—	—	—	—
Grand duchy of luxembourg	481	36	488	thirty	472	36	479	28	479	27	441	thirty
Macau	509	12	509	xv	487	26	492	20	498	15	—	—
Malaysia	431	l	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	thirteen	508	9	507	10	513	viii	‡	‡
New Zealand	509	10	512	eleven	521	6	521	5	522	v	529	three
Kingdom of norway	513	9	504	20	503	11	484	24	500	12	505	xiii
Peru	398	66	384	61	370	57	—	—	—	—	327	xl
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	sixty	372	56	312	51	—	—	—	—
Romania	434	47	438	46	424	45	396	45	—	—	428	33
Russia	495	26	475	twoscore	459	40	440	38	442	32	462	27
Singapore	535	1	542	two	526	4	—	—	—	—	—	—
Slovakia	453	43	463	41	477	33	466	33	469	31	—	—
Slovenia	505	14	481	36	483	29	494	xix	—	—	—	—
Kingdom of 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	x
Switzerland	492	28	509	14	501	13	499	13	499	13	494	17
Thailand	409	sixty	441	44	421	46	417	xl	420	35	431	31
Trinidad and Tobago	427	53	—	—	416	47	—	—	—	—	—	—
Tunisia	361	68	404	53	404	52	380	fifty	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. ^ ^{a b c} Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, Zhejiang
2. ^ ^{a b c} Shanghai (2009, 2012); Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, Guangdong (2015)
3. ^ ^{a b c} Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires

Previous years [edit]

Period	Focus	OECD countries	Partner countries	Participating students	Notes
2000	Reading	28	four + 11	265,000	Kingdom of the netherlands disqualified from information analysis. 11 additional not-OECD countries took the exam in 2002.
2003	Mathematics	30	11	275,000	UK disqualified from information analysis. Also included examination in problem solving.
2006	Science	30	27	400,000	Reading scores for U.s. disqualified from assay due to misprint in testing materials.[28]
2009[29]	Reading	34	41 + ten	470,000	10 additional non-OECD countries took the test in 2010.[30] [31]
2012[32]	Mathematics	34	31	510,000

Reception [edit]

(Red china) China's participation in the 2012 examination was limited to Shanghai, Hong Kong, and Macau every bit separate entities. In 2012, Shanghai participated for the 2d time, over again topping the rankings in all three subjects, besides every bit improving scores in the subjects compared to the 2009 tests. Shanghai'southward score of 613 in mathematics was 113 points above the boilerplate score, putting the performance of Shanghai pupils virtually 3 school years ahead of pupils in average countries. Educational experts debated to what degree this issue 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 3rd in maths.

Andreas Schleicher, PISA sectionalisation 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 inquiry, he said, "We have actually done Pisa in 12 of the provinces in People's republic of china. Even in some of the very poor areas yous get performance close to the OECD boilerplate."^[34] Schleicher believes that China has besides expanded school access and has moved abroad 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] The 2015 Beijing-Shanghai-Jiangsu-Guangdong cohort scored a median 518 in science in 2015, while the 2012 Shanghai accomplice scored a median 580.

Critics of PISA counter that in Shanghai and other Chinese cities, most children of migrant workers tin simply nourish city schools upward to the 9th class, and must return to their parents' hometowns for high school due to hukou restrictions, thus skewing the limerick of the metropolis's loftier 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 xv-year-olds residing there.^[37] According to Schleicher, 27% of Shanghai's 15-yr-olds are excluded from its schoolhouse system (and hence from testing). Every bit a result, the per centum of Shanghai's xv-year-olds tested past PISA was 73%, lower than the 89% tested in the U.s..^[38] Following the 2015 testing, OECD published in depth studies on the educational activity systems of a selected few countries including China.^[39]

In 2014, Liz Truss, the British Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Section for Didactics, led a fact-finding visit to schools and instructor-grooming centres in Shanghai.^[xl] U.k. increased exchanges with Chinese teachers and schools to detect out how to improve quality. In 2014, lx teachers from Shanghai were invited to the UK to help share their education methods, support pupils who are struggling, and assistance to train other teachers.^[41] In 2016, U.k. invited 120 Chinese teachers, planning to prefer Chinese styles of teaching in 8,000 aided schools.^[42] By 2019, approximately 5,000 of Britain's 16,000 principal schools had adopted the Shanghai's teaching methods.^[43] The performance of British schools in PISA improved after adopting Cathay'due south teaching styles.^{[44] [45]}

Finland [edit]

Republic of finland, which received several superlative positions in the offset tests, fell in all three subjects in 2012, just 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 fourth dimension mathematics was the focus of the tests. For the commencement fourth dimension Finnish girls outperformed boys in mathematics, simply only narrowly. Information technology was also the get-go fourth dimension pupils in Finnish-speaking schools did non perform amend than pupils in Swedish-speaking schools. Minister of Education and Science Krista Kiuru expressed concern for the overall drop, as well every bit the fact that the number of low-performers had increased from 7% to 12%.^[46]

India [edit]

Bharat participated in the 2009 round of testing only pulled out of the 2012 PISA testing, with the Indian government attributing its activeness to the unfairness of PISA testing to Indian students.^[47] The Indian Limited reported, "The ministry building (of pedagogy) has concluded that there was a socio-cultural disconnect between the questions and Indian students. The ministry volition write to the OECD and drive domicile the demand to factor in India's "socio-cultural milieu". Republic of india's participation in the next PISA cycle will swivel on this".^[48] The Indian Express as well noted that "Considering that over lxx nations participate in PISA, it is uncertain whether an exception would be fabricated for Republic of india".

India did not participate in the 2012, 2015 and 2018 PISA rounds.^[49]

A Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) committee as well every bit a group of secretaries on education constituted by the Prime number Minister of India Narendra Modi recommended that India should participate in PISA. Accordingly, in Feb 2017, the Ministry of Human Resource Evolution 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, information technology was reported that the OECD volition update some questions. For instance, the word avocado in a question may be replaced with a more popular Indian fruit such every bit mango.^[50]

Malaysia [edit]

In 2015, the results from Malaysia were plant by the OECD to take not met the maximum response charge per unit.^[51] Opposition politician Ong Kian Ming said the didactics ministry building tried to oversample loftier-performing students in rich schools.^{[52] [53]}

Sweden [edit]

Sweden's result dropped in all iii subjects in the 2012 test, which was a continuation of a tendency from 2006 and 2009. Information technology saw the sharpest fall in mathematics performance 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 3 subjects.^[54] The leader of the opposition, Social Democrat Stefan Löfven, described the situation as a national crunch.^[55] Along with the political party's spokesperson on teaching, Ibrahim Baylan, he pointed to the downward trend in reading as most astringent.^[55]

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 non been tested.^[56]

United Kingdom [edit]

In the 2012 test, as in 2009, the effect was slightly above average for the Great britain, with the science ranking being highest (20).^[57] England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland likewise participated as separated entities, showing the worst result for Wales which in mathematics was 43rd of the 65 countries and economies. Minister of Educational activity 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 final few years would give improve results in the next round of tests.^[58] The United Kingdom had a greater gap between loftier- and low-scoring students than the average. There was little difference betwixt 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.^[57]

Writing in the Daily Telegraph, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard warned against putting besides much emphasis on the UK'due south international ranking, arguing that an overfocus on scholarly performances in East asia might have contributed to the expanse's low birthrate, which he argued could damage the economic performance in the future more than a practiced PISA score would outweigh.^[59]

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 past statisticians at major universities.^[60]

In the article, Professor Harvey Goldstein of the Academy of Bristol was quoted as maxim that when the OECD tries to rule out questions suspected of bias, information technology tin have the effect of "smoothing out" cardinal differences between countries. "That is leaving out many of the important things," he warned. "They simply don't get commented on. What y'all are looking at is something that happens to be common. Simply (is it) worth looking at? PISA results are taken at confront 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".^[61] Goldstein remarked that Dr. Morrison's objection highlights "an important technical issue" if not a "profound conceptual error". All the same, Goldstein cautioned that PISA has been "used inappropriately", contending that some of the blame for this "lies with PISA itself. I call up information technology tends to say besides 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'southward response to criticism. Morrison said that when he start published his criticisms of PISA in 2004 and too personally queried several of the OECD's "senior people" about them, his points were met with "absolute silence" and have still to be addressed. "I was amazed at how unforthcoming they were," he told TES. "That makes me suspicious." "Pisa steadfastly ignored many of these bug," he says. "I am still concerned."^[62]

Professor Svend Kreiner, of the University of Copenhagen, agreed: "I of the issues that everybody has with PISA is that they don't want to hash out things with people criticising or asking questions concerning the results. They didn't want to talk to me at all. I am certain information technology is because they can't defend themselves.^[62]

U.s. [edit]

Since 2012 a few states take participated in the PISA tests as split up entities. Only the 2012 and 2015 results are bachelor on a state basis. Puerto Rico participated in 2015 as a separate US entity likewise.

2012 U.s. Land results

Mathematics	Science	Reading
Massachusetts 514 Connecticut 506 US Boilerplate 481 Florida 467	Massachusetts 527 Connecticut 521 US Average 497 Florida 485	Massachusetts 527 Connecticut 521 US Average 498 Florida 492

2015 United states State results

Mathematics	Science	Reading
Massachusetts 500 Northward Carolina 471 US Average 470 Puerto Rico 378	Massachusetts 529 N 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 past race and ethnicity.

Mathematics
Race	2018[63]	2015	2012	2009	2006	2003
	Score	Score	Score	Score	Score	Score
Asian	539	498	549	524	494	506
White	503	499	506	515	502	512
U.s. Average	478	470	481	487	474	483
More than one race	474	475	492	487	482	502
Hispanic	452	446	455	453	436	443
Other	—	423	436	460	446	446
Black	419	419	421	423	404	417

Scientific discipline
Race	2018[63]	2015	2012	2009	2006
	Score	Score	Score	Score	Score
Asian	551	525	546	536	499
White	529	531	528	532	523
US Average	502	496	497	502	489
More than 1 race	502	503	511	503	501
Hispanic	478	470	462	464	439
Other	—	462	439	465	453
Black	440	433	439	435	409

Reading
Race	2018[63]	2015	2012	2009	2006	2003	2000
	Score	Score	Score	Score	Score	Score	Score
Asian	556	527	550	541	—	513	546
White	531	526	519	525	—	525	538
US Average	505	497	498	500	—	495	504
More than i race	501	498	517	502	—	515	—
Hispanic	481	478	478	466	—	453	449
Black	448	443	443	441	—	430	445
Other	—	440	438	462	—	456	455

Research on possible causes of PISA disparities in different countries [edit]

Although PISA and TIMSS officials and researchers themselves generally refrain from hypothesizing about the large and stable differences in student achievement between countries, since 2000, literature on the differences in PISA and TIMSS results and their possible causes has emerged.^[64] 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 human relationship between pupil achievement and economical development,^[65] democratization, and health;^[66] every bit well equally the roles of such single educational factors equally loftier-stakes exams,^[67] the presence or absence of private schools and the furnishings and timing of ability tracking.^[68]

[edit]

David Spiegelhalter of Cambridge wrote: "Pisa does present the incertitude in the scores and ranks - for example the United Kingdom rank in the 65 countries is said to exist between 23 and 31. It's unwise for countries to base of operations education policy on their Pisa results, as Federal republic of germany, Norway and Denmark did after doing desperately in 2001."^[69]

According to a Forbes opinion article, some countries such as China, Hong Kong, Macau, and Argentina select PISA samples from merely the best-educated areas or from their superlative-performing students, slanting the results. ^[seventy]

According to an open up letter to Andreas Schleicher, managing director of PISA, various academics and educators argued that "OECD and Pisa tests are damaging education worldwide".^[71]

Co-ordinate to O Estado de São Paulo, Brazil shows a great disparity when classifying the results betwixt public and individual schools, where public schools would rank worse than Peru, while private schools would rank ameliorate than Republic of finland.^[72]

Run across also [edit]

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

Explanatory notes [edit]

References [edit]

1. ^ "Virtually PISA". OECD PISA . Retrieved 8 February 2018.
2. ^ Berger, Kathleen (3 March 2014). Invitation to The Life Bridge (second ed.). worth. ISBN978-i-4641-7205-2.
3. ^ "PISA 2018 Results". OECD. 3 December 2019. Archived from the original on 3 December 2019. Retrieved 3 December 2019.
4. ^ ^{a b c d e} "Rey O, 'The employ of external assessments and the touch on education systems' in CIDREE Yearbook 2010, accessed January 2017". Archived from the original on 3 February 2017. Retrieved 22 Nov 2019.
5. ^ McGaw, B (2008) 'The office of the OECD in international comparative studies of achievement' Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, fifteen:3, 223–243
6. ^ Mons North, (2008) 'Évaluation des politiques éducatives et comparaisons internationales', Revue française de pédagogie, 164, juillet-août-septembre 2008 v–13
7. ^ ^{a b c d eastward f} Breakspear, S. (2012). "The Policy Bear upon of PISA: An Exploration of the Normative Effects of International Benchmarking in Schoolhouse System Operation". OECD Education Working Paper. OECD Pedagogy Working Papers. 71. doi:ten.1787/5k9fdfqffr28-en.
8. ^ Barroso, J. and de Carvalho, 50.M. (2008) 'Pisa: Un musical instrument de régulation pour relier des mondes', Revue française de pédagogie, 164, 77–80
9. ^ Ertl, H. (2006). "Educational standards and the irresolute discourse on teaching: the reception and consequences of the PISA report in Germany". Oxford Review of Didactics. 32 (v): 619–634. doi:10.1080/03054980600976320. S2CID 144656964.
10. ^ Bajomi, I., Berényi, Due east., Neumann, Due east. and Vida, J. (2009). 'The Reception of PISA in Republic of hungary' accessed January 2017
11. ^ Steiner-Khamsi (2003), cited by Breakspear, S. (2012). "The Policy Bear on 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–Dec 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 measurement of the University of Lisbon (ten): xv–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 didactics systems' in CIDREE Yearbook 2010, accessed Jan 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 Ramble Authorities" (PDF). Sísifo: Educational Sciences Periodical. Educational Sciences R&D Unit of the University of Lisbon (ten): 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:x.1080/02680930903131267. S2CID 154584726.
16. ^ Egelund, N. (2008). 'The value of international comparative studies of achievement – a Danish perspective', Cess in Pedagogy: Principles, Policy & Practice, 15, 3, 245–251
17. ^ "Behrens, 2006 cited in Rey O, 'The utilize of external assessments and the bear on on education systems in CIDREE Yearbook 2010, accessed January 2017". Archived from the original on iii February 2017. Retrieved 22 November 2019.
18. ^ Hefling, Kimberly. "Asian nations dominate international test". Yahoo!.
19. ^ "Affiliate 2 of the publication 'PISA 2003 Assessment Framework'" (PDF). Pisa.oecd.org.
20. ^ Keeley B. PISA, we have a trouble… OECD Insights, April 2014.
21. ^ Poddiakov, Alexander 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 then slozhnoi real'nost'yu. Obrazovatel'naya Politika, six, 34–53.
22. ^ C. Füller: Pisa hat einen kleinen, fröhlichen Bruder. taz, 5.12.2007 [i]
23. ^ Stanat, P; Artelt, C; Baumert, J; Klieme, East; Neubrand, M; Prenzel, M; Schiefele, U; Schneider, W (2002), PISA 2000: Overview of the written report—Blueprint, 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 x in Rutkowski, L. von Davier, M. & Rutkowski, D. (eds.) Handbook of International Large-Calibration 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, 50. von Davier, M. & Rutkowski, D. (eds.) Handbook of International Large-Scale Cess: Groundwork, Technical Issues, and Methods of Data Assay., New York: Chapman and Hall/CRC.
26. ^ PISA 2018: Insights and Interpretations (PDF), OECD, iii December 2019, retrieved iv December 2019
27. ^ PISA 2018 in Spain (PDF), OECD, xv Nov 2019, retrieved 28 February 2021
28. ^ Baldi, Stéphane; Jin, Ying; Skemer, Melanie; Light-green, Patricia J; Herget, Deborah; Xie, Holly (10 Dec 2007), Highlights From PISA 2006: Performance of U.S. 15-Year-Old Students in Scientific discipline and Mathematics Literacy in an International Context (PDF), NCES, retrieved 14 December 2013, PISA 2006 reading literacy results are non reported for the United States considering of an error in printing the examination booklets. Furthermore, as a result of the printing error, the mean performance in mathematics and science may be misestimated by approximately i score point. The bear upon is below ane standard fault.
29. ^ PISA 2009 Results: Executive Summary (PDF), OECD, 7 Dec 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, iii Dec 2013, retrieved 4 Dec 2013
33. ^ Tom Phillips (3 December 2013) OECD education report: Shanghai's formula is world-beating The Telegraph. Retrieved 8 Dec 2013
34. ^ ^{a b} Cook, Chris (7 December 2010), "Shanghai tops global state school rankings", Fiscal Times , retrieved 28 June 2012
35. ^ Mance, Henry (7 December 2010), "Why are Chinese schoolkids so good?", Fiscal Times , retrieved 28 June 2012
36. ^ Coughlan, Sean (26 Baronial 2014). "Pisa tests to include many more Chinese pupils". BBC News.
37. ^ Helen Gao, "Shanghai Examination 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 Adulterous in PISA Or Are We Cheating Ourselves?" on the OECD'southward website blog, Education Today, December x, 2013.
38. ^ "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 xv March 2014. Retrieved 7 March 2014.
39. ^ http://www.oecd.org/china/Didactics-in-China-a-snapshot.pdf
40. ^ Howse, Patrick (18 February 2014). "Shanghai visit for minister to acquire maths lessons". BBC News . Retrieved 19 July 2014.
41. ^ Coughlan, Sean (12 March 2014). "Shanghai teachers flown in for maths". BBC News . Retrieved 11 August 2020.
42. ^ "Britain invites 120 Chinese Maths teachers for aided schools". Republic of india Today. 20 July 2016. Retrieved 12 August 2020.
43. ^ "Scores bolster case for Shanghai math in British schools | The Star". world wide web.thestar.com.my . Retrieved eleven August 2020.
44. ^ Turner, Camilla (three December 2019). "Great britain jumps up international maths rankings following Chinese-style teaching". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved 11 Baronial 2020.
45. ^ Starkey, Hannah (five December 2019). "United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland Boost International Maths Ranking After Adopting Chinese-Fashion Teaching". True Education Partnerships . Retrieved eleven August 2020.
46. ^ PISA 2012: Proficiency of Finnish youth declining University of Jyväskylä. Retrieved 9 December 2013
47. ^ Hemali Chhapia, TNN (three August 2012). "India backs out of global education test for 15-year-olds". The Times of India. Archived from the original on 29 April 2013.
48. ^ "Poor PISA score: Govt blames 'disconnect' with Republic of india". The Indian Limited. 3 September 2012.
49. ^ "Republic of india chickens out of international students assessment plan once more". The Times of India. 1 June 2013.
50. ^ "PISA Tests: India to take part in global teen learning exam in 2021". The Indian Express. 22 February 2017. Retrieved 19 May 2018.
51. ^ "Ong: Did ministry try to rig results for Pisa 2015 report?". viii December 2016.
52. ^ "Who'due south telling the truth about Yard'sia'due south Pisa 2015 scores?". nine December 2016.
53. ^ "Malaysian PISA results nether scrutiny for lack of show – School Counselor". viii December 2016.
54. ^ Lars Näslund (three December 2013) Svenska skolan rasar i stor jämförelse Expressen. Retrieved 4 December 2013 (in Swedish)
55. ^ ^{a b} Jens Kärrman (three December 2013) Löfven om Pisa: Nationell kris Dagens Nyheter. Retrieved viii December 2013 (in Swedish)
56. ^ "Sveriges PISA-framgång bygger på falska siffror".
57. ^ ^{a b} Adams, Richard (3 December 2013), "Britain students stuck in educational doldrums, OECD written report finds", The Guardian , retrieved 4 December 2013
58. ^ Pisa ranks Wales' education the worst in the UK BBC. 3 Dec 2013. Retrieved 4 Dec 2013.
59. ^ Ambrose Evans-Pritchard (3 December 2013) Ambrose Evans-Pritchard Telegraph.co.u.k.. Retrieved 4 December 2013.
60. ^ "William Stewart, "Is Pisa fundamentally flawed?" Times Educational Supplement, July 26, 2013". Archived from the original on 23 August 2013. Retrieved 26 July 2013.
61. ^ Morrison, Hugh (2013). "A central conundrum in psychology's standard model of measurement and its consequences for PISA global rankings" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on five June 2013. Retrieved 13 July 2017.
62. ^ ^{a b} Stewart, "Is PISA fundamentally flawed?" TES (2013).
63. ^ ^{a b c} "Highlights of U.S. PISA 2018 Results Web Written report" (PDF). {{cite spider web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
64. ^ Hanushek, Eric A., and Ludger Woessmann. 2011. "The economics of international differences in educational achievement." In Handbook of the Economic science of Teaching, Vol. three, edited by Eric A. Hanushek, Stephen Machin, and Ludger Woessmann. Amsterdam: North The netherlands: 89–200.
65. ^ Hanushek, Eric; Woessmann, Ludger (2008), "The role of cerebral skills in economic development" (PDF), Periodical of Economical Literature, 46 (3): 607–668, doi:10.1257/jel.46.three.607
66. ^ 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:ten.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01165.10, PMID 26161733, S2CID 9251473
67. ^ Bishop, John H (1997). "The issue of national standards and curriculum-based exams on achievement". American Economic Review. Papers and Proceedings. 87 (two): 260–264. JSTOR 2950928.
68. ^ Hanushek, Eric; Woessmann, Ludger (2006), "Does educational tracking bear upon performance and inequality? Differences-in-differences prove beyond countries" (PDF), Economical Journal, 116 (510): C63–C76, doi:x.1111/j.1468-0297.2006.01076.x
69. ^ Alexander, Ruth (10 December 2013). "How authentic is the Pisa test?". BBC News . Retrieved 22 November 2019.
70. ^ Flows, Capital. "Are The PISA Pedagogy Results Rigged?". Forbes . Retrieved 22 November 2019.
71. ^ Guardian Staff (vi May 2014). "OECD and Pisa tests are damaging educational activity worldwide – academics". Retrieved 22 Nov 2019 – via www.theguardian.com.
72. ^ Cafardo, Rafael (4 December 2019). "Escolas privadas de elite practise Brasil superam Finlândia no Pisa, rede pública vai pior do que o Peru". Retrieved 4 December 2019 – via www.estadao.com.br.

External links [edit]

• OECD/PISA website
  • OECD (1999): Measuring Student Knowledge and Skills: A New Framework for Assessment. Paris: OECD, ISBN 92-64-17053-vii
  • OECD (2014): PISA 2012 results: Creative problem solving: Students' skills in tackling real-life issues (Volume 5) [ii]
• OECD's Teaching GPS: Interactive data from PISA 2015
• PISA Data Explorer
• Gunda Tire: "Estonians believe in education, and this belief has been essential for centuries"—Interview of Gunda Tire, OECD PISA National Projection Manager, for Caucasian Journal

mcgregorexperwas.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_International_Student_Assessment

Share this post