Simposio “Ciencias e Inglés en la evaluación internacional”: PISA 2015 results and future developments
•Descargar como PPTX, PDF•
1 recomendación•324 vistas
Conferencia de Alfonso Echazarra, analista de la OCDE, sobre los resultados de PISA 2015 y el futuro de esta evaluación presentada dentro del Simposio Ciencias e Inglés en la evaluación internacional. La cultura de la evaluación en Ciencias e Inglés.
Recomendados
Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
La actualidad más candente
La actualidad más candente (20)
Destacado
Destacado (18)
Similar a Simposio “Ciencias e Inglés en la evaluación internacional”: PISA 2015 results and future developments
Similar a Simposio “Ciencias e Inglés en la evaluación internacional”: PISA 2015 results and future developments (20)
Más de Instituto Nacional de Evaluación Educativa
Más de Instituto Nacional de Evaluación Educativa (20)
Último
Último (20)
Simposio “Ciencias e Inglés en la evaluación internacional”: PISA 2015 results and future developments
- 1. Name of Speaker PISA 2015 results and future developments Alfonso Echazarra Analista PISA-OCDE
- 2. PISA 2015: A summary • Approximately 540 000 students… representing about 29 million 15-year-olds in the schools of the 72 participating countries and economies … took a computer-based test lasting a total of 2 hours… Not only evaluates if students can reproduce what they have learned at school… …assesses students’ capacity to apply creatively their knowledge and skills in a variety of situations …and answered questions about their schools, personal context and attitudes towards learning • Parents, principals, teachers and policy-makers provided information about … School policies, practices, resources and institutional factors that can explain the differences in performance
- 3. PISA 2015: A summary • New features Science as core subject Computer-based assessment in most education systems Log-file data Collaborative problem-solving Teacher questionnaire • A tool to learn and improve Collaboration between countries, experts and social agents sharing experiences, policies and best practices Data triangulation combining the perspectives from students, teachers, principals, parents and policy-makers Evidence-based and constructive dialogue
- 4. Map of PISA countries and economies
- 5. PISA 2015 reports • OECD Reports Volumen I: Excellence and Equity in Education Volumen II: Policies and Practices for Successful Schools Volumen III (Spring 2017): Students’ Well-Being Volumen IV (Spring 2017): Students’ Financial Literacy Volumen V (Autumn 2017): Collaborative Problem Solving Thematic reports (2018/2019): To be decided Options: Teaching and learning in science, rural and urban schools, out-of-school learning, … • National reports. PISA 2015. Programa para la evaluación internacional de alumnos: Informe español …
- 6. Performance in science Figure I.4.2 300 350 400 450 500 550 Singapore Japan Estonia ChineseTaipei Finland Macao(China) Canada VietNam HongKong(China) B-S-J-G(China) Korea NewZealand Slovenia Australia UnitedKingdom Germany Netherlands Switzerland Ireland Belgium Denmark Poland Portugal Norway UnitedStates Austria France Sweden OECDaverage-35 CzechRepublic Spain Latvia Russia Luxembourg Italy Hungary Lithuania Croatia CABA(Argentina) Iceland Israel Malta SlovakRepublic Greece Chile Bulgaria UnitedArabEmirates Uruguay Romania Moldova Albania Turkey TrinidadandTobago Thailand CostaRica Qatar Colombia Mexico Montenegro Georgia Jordan Indonesia Brazil Peru Lebanon Tunisia FYROM Kosovo Algeria DominicanRepublic Score points Mean science performance Confidence interval (95%)
- 7. 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 VietNam ChineseTaipei Estonia Japan Finland Slovenia Korea Singapore Canada Poland Moldova NewZealand Portugal Latvia Russia HongKong(China) UnitedKingdom Croatia Australia CzechRepublic Germany Spain Netherlands Belgium Hungary Denmark France OECDaverage Ireland Lithuania Georgia Sweden Switzerland Austria Italy Albania Bulgaria UnitedStates Macao(China) Norway SlovakRepublic Malta Israel Chile Greece Iceland Romania Colombia Uruguay CostaRica Indonesia Jordan Thailand Turkey Montenegro Mexico Peru Kosovo Luxembourg Tunisia Brazil TrinidadandTobago FYROM Lebanon Algeria UnitedArabEmirates DominicanRepublic Qatar Mean score Adjusted performance in science after accounting for per capita GDP Mean performance in science Mean science performance, after accounting for countries’/economies’ per capita GDP Table II.2.11
- 8. Mean performance in science, by international deciles of the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS) 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 VietNam76 Macao(China)22 B-S-J-G(China)52 Japan8 Singapore11 HongKong(China)26 ChineseTaipei12 Estonia5 Finland2 Korea6 Portugal28 Germany7 Canada2 Poland16 Spain31 UnitedKingdom5 Latvia25 Slovenia5 Switzerland8 Australia4 NewZealand5 Ireland5 CzechRepublic9 Denmark3 Hungary16 OECDaverage12 Netherlands4 France9 Italy15 Belgium7 Norway1 Sweden3 Austria5 Russia5 UnitedStates11 Croatia10 Lithuania12 CABA(Argentina)18 SlovakRepublic8 Chile27 Luxembourg14 Iceland1 Malta13 Uruguay39 Greece13 Romania20 Israel6 Turkey59 Indonesia74 Moldova28 Mexico53 Thailand55 Bulgaria13 Colombia43 CostaRica38 TrinidadandTobago14 Peru50 Jordan21 Montenegro11 UnitedArabEmirates3 Brazil43 Georgia19 Tunisia39 Lebanon27 FYROM13 Algeria52 Qatar3 Kosovo10 DominicanRepublic40 Scorepoints Bottom decile Second decile Middle decile Ninth decile Top decile Figure I.6.7 % of students in the bottom international deciles of ESCS OECD median student
- 9. Percentage of low-achievers in science Table II.2.2a 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 VietNam Macao(China) Estonia HongKong(China) Singapore Japan Canada Finland ChineseTaipei Korea Slovenia Ireland Denmark B-S-J-G(China) Poland Germany Latvia Portugal UnitedKingdom NewZealand Australia Russia Spain Switzerland Netherlands Norway Belgium UnitedStates CzechRepublic Austria OECDaverage-35 Sweden France CABA(Argentina) Italy Croatia Lithuania Iceland Luxembourg Hungary SlovakRepublic Israel Malta Greece Chile Bulgaria Romania Uruguay Albania UnitedArabEmirates Moldova Turkey TrinidadandTobago CostaRica Thailand Mexico Colombia Jordan Qatar Georgia Montenegro Indonesia Brazil Peru Lebanon FYROM Tunisia Kosovo Algeria DominicanRepublic % Percentage of students below proficiency level 2
- 10. Percentage of top performers in science Table II.2.2a 0 5 10 15 20 25 Singapore ChineseTaipei Japan Finland B-S-J-G(China) Estonia NewZealand Canada Australia Netherlands UnitedKingdom Korea Slovenia Germany Switzerland Macao(China) Belgium UnitedStates Sweden VietNam France Norway OECDaverage-35 Austria Malta Portugal HongKong(China) Poland CzechRepublic Ireland Denmark Luxembourg Israel Spain Hungary Lithuania Italy Croatia Latvia Iceland Russia SlovakRepublic Bulgaria UnitedArabEmirates CABA(Argentina) Greece Qatar TrinidadandTobago Uruguay Chile Georgia Moldova Romania Brazil Montenegro Thailand Lebanon Albania Colombia Turkey FYROM Jordan CostaRica Peru Mexico Indonesia Tunisia Algeria DominicanRepublic Kosovo % Percentage of students at proficiency levels 5 and 6
- 11. The global pool of top performers: A PISA perspective Figure I.2.18 United States; 21,7% B-S-J-G (China); 13,1% Japan; 12,6% Germany; 5,7% Viet Nam; 5,2% United Kingdom; 4,9% Korea; 4,4% France; 4,3% Russia; 3% Canada; 3% Chinese Taipei; 2,8% Australia; 2,1% Poland; 1,8% Netherlands; 1,5% Italy; 1,5% Spain; 1,4% Brazil; 1,2% Singapore; 0,8% Belgium; 0,7% Finland; 0,6% Switzerland; 0,6% Sweden; 0,6%Portugal; 0,5% New Zealand; 0,5% Israel; 0,5% Others; 4,9%
- 12. Performance in reading Figure I.4.2 300 350 400 450 500 550 Singapore HongKong(China) Canada Finland Ireland Estonia Korea Japan Norway NewZealand Germany Macao(China) Poland Slovenia Netherlands Australia Sweden Denmark France Belgium Portugal UnitedKingdom ChineseTaipei UnitedStates Spain Russia B-S-J-G(China) OECDaverage-35 Switzerland Latvia CzechRepublic Croatia VietNam Austria Italy Iceland Luxembourg Israel CABA(Argentina) Lithuania Hungary Greece Chile SlovakRepublic Malta Uruguay Romania UnitedArabEmirates Bulgaria Turkey CostaRica TrinidadandTobago Montenegro Colombia Mexico Moldova Thailand Jordan Brazil Albania Qatar Georgia Peru Indonesia Tunisia DominicanRepublic FYROM Algeria Kosovo Lebanon Score points Mean reading performance Confidence interval (95%)
- 13. Performance in mathematics Figure I.5.2 300 350 400 450 500 550 Singapore HongKong(China) Macao(China) ChineseTaipei Japan B-S-J-G(China) Korea Switzerland Estonia Canada Netherlands Denmark Finland Slovenia Belgium Germany Poland Ireland Norway Austria NewZealand VietNam Russia Sweden Australia France UnitedKingdom CzechRepublic Portugal OECDaverage-35 Italy Iceland Spain Luxembourg Latvia Malta Lithuania Hungary SlovakRepublic Israel UnitedStates Croatia CABA(Argentina) Greece Romania Bulgaria UnitedArabEmirates Chile Turkey Moldova Uruguay Montenegro TrinidadandTobago Thailand Albania Mexico Georgia Qatar CostaRica Lebanon Colombia Peru Indonesia Jordan Brazil FYROM Tunisia Kosovo Algeria Lebanon DominicanRepublic Score points Mean mathematics performance Confidence interval (95%)
- 14. Students’ career expectations Figure I.3.2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 DominicanRep.12 CostaRica11 Jordan6 UnitedArabEm.11 Mexico6 Colombia8 Lebanon15 Brazil19 Peru7 Qatar19 UnitedStates13 Chile18 Tunisia19 Canada21 Slovenia16 Turkey6 Australia15 UnitedKingdom17 Malaysia4 Kazakhstan14 Spain11 Norway21 Uruguay17 Singapore14 TrinidadandT.13 Israel25 CABA(Arg.)19 Portugal18 Bulgaria25 Ireland13 Kosovo7 Algeria12 Malta11 Greece12 NewZealand24 Albania29 Estonia15 OECDaverage19 Belgium16 Croatia17 FYROM20 Lithuania21 Iceland22 Russia19 HKG(China)20 Romania20 Italy17 Austria23 Moldova7 Latvia19 Montenegro18 France21 Luxembourg18 Poland13 Macao(China)10 ChineseTaipei21 Sweden21 Thailand27 VietNam13 Switzerland22 Korea7 Hungary22 SlovakRepublic24 Japan18 Finland24 Georgia27 CzechRepublic22 B-S-J-G(China)31 Netherlands19 Germany33 Indonesia19 Denmark48 % Percentage of students who expect to work in science-related professional and technical occupations when they are 30 Science-related technicians and associate professionals Information and communication technology professionals Health professionals Science and engineering professionals %ofstudentswith vagueormissing expectations
- 15. Boys and girls’ expectations of a science career, OECD average Figure I.3.5 0 5 10 15 20 ...science and engineering professionals ...health professionals ...information and communication technology (ICT) professionals ...science-related technicians or associate professionals % Girls Boys Students who expect to work as...
- 16. Student performance in science, by immigrant background Figure I.7.4 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 Greece CostaRica Jordan CABA(Argentina) Israel Sweden France Slovenia Austria Germany Netherlands Denmark Italy Norway Belgium OECDaverage Spain Croatia UnitedStates Luxembourg Switzerland Qatar Portugal Russia UnitedArabEmirates UnitedKingdom Ireland Australia Estonia HongKong(China) NewZealand Canada Macao(China) Singapore Score points Non-immigrant students Second-generation immigrant students First-generation immigrant students Only countries where the immigrant student population >6.25% are shown
- 18. 10% 28% 62% OECD countries Variation in science performance between systems, schools and students 22% 26% 53% All countries and economies Figure II.7.1 Education systems Schools Students
- 19. Higher-performing education systems in science-related outcomes ABOVE-AVERAGE SCIENCE PERFORMANCE STRONGER THAN AVERAGE EPISTEMIC BELIEFS ABOVE-AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS EXPECTING TO WORK IN A SCIENCE- RELATED OCCUPATION Norway Belgium B-S-J-G (China) Estonia Finland Germany Japan Korea Macao (China) Netherlands Poland Switzerland Viet Nam CABA (Argentina) Israel Spain United Arab Emirates United States Croatia Georgia Iceland Lithuania Malta Sweden Brazil Bulgaria Chile Colombia Costa Rica Dominican Republic Jordan Kosovo Lebanon Denmark Hong Kong (China) New Zealand Chinese Taipei Australia Canada Ireland Portugal Singapore Slovenia United Kingdom Mexico Peru Qatar Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Uruguay Figure II.2.2
- 20. Science-related extracurricular activities offered at school Figure II.2.9 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 HongKong(China) Korea B-S-J-G(China) Thailand Qatar UnitedArabEmirates ChineseTaipei Poland UnitedKingdom Russia Montenegro UnitedStates Macao(China) Romania Malta Algeria Bulgaria SlovakRepublic Japan Tunisia Indonesia Israel Portugal Canada Slovenia Croatia Hungary Kosovo Jordan DominicanRepublic CABA(Argentina) NewZealand Germany Albania CzechRepublic Italy Latvia VietNam Lebanon Estonia Turkey Singapore OECDaverage Georgia FYROM TrinidadandTobago Australia Switzerland Chile Uruguay Colombia Ireland Lithuania Luxembourg Mexico Peru France CostaRica Greece Netherlands Moldova Spain Finland Brazil Iceland Denmark Sweden Belgium Austria Norway % Percentage of students in schools offering: Science club Science competitions
- 21. UnitedKingdom Italy Australia Israel Malta Lebanon Spain Qatar Singapore UnitedStates Finland Norway UnitedArabEmirates Greece Canada HongKong(China) Russia Jordan NewZealand Macao(China) Portugal CABA(Argentina) Poland B-S-J-G(China) Georgia Moldova Luxembourg Ireland OECDaverage Iceland Uruguay Netherlands Thailand Mexico ChineseTaipei Germany France Croatia Switzerland Denmark Brazil Kosovo Austria Chile Romania Colombia TrinidadandTobago Hungary Sweden Latvia DominicanRepublic Belgium Tunisia VietNam Peru Japan Algeria FYROM Estonia CzechRepublic Turkey Lithuania SlovakRepublic CostaRica Bulgaria Montenegro Indonesia Korea -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Score-pointdifference After accounting for socio-economic status Before accounting for socio-economic status Teacher-directed instruction: explaining scientific ideas Table II.2.18 Students who reported that their science teacher explains scientific ideas in many lessons or every lesson perform better in science
- 22. Norway Netherlands UnitedArabEmirates Qatar Denmark Finland Singapore Australia Sweden UnitedKingdom Iceland Germany Bulgaria Portugal Latvia Israel Brazil Russia B-S-J-G(China) HongKong(China) Chile Canada Turkey OECDaverage CzechRepublic Ireland Colombia Poland NewZealand Macao(China) Estonia Lithuania Switzerland Thailand DominicanRepublic SlovakRepublic Uruguay UnitedStates CostaRica Korea Greece Montenegro Hungary Mexico Croatia Italy France Spain Belgium Tunisia Luxembourg Peru Japan Austria ChineseTaipei -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Score-pointdifference Score-point difference associated with the index of adaptive instruction Adaptive instruction and science performance Figure II.3.16 Students who reported that their science teacher adapts more frequently their lessons to students’ needs and knowledge perform better in science
- 23. Enquiry-based teaching practices and science performance, OECD average Figure II.2.20 -65 -50 -35 -20 -5 10 25 Theteacherexplainshowascience ideacanbeappliedtoanumberof differentphenomena Theteacherclearlyexplainsthe relevanceofscienceconceptsto ourlives Studentsaregivenopportunitiesto explaintheirideas Studentsareaskedtodraw conclusionsfromanexperiment theyhaveconducted Studentsarerequiredtoargue aboutsciencequestions Thereisaclassdebateabout investigations Studentsspendtimeinthe laboratorydoingpractical experiments Studentsareaskedtodoan investigationtotestideas Studentsareallowedtodesigntheir ownexperiments Score-pointdifference After accounting for students' and schools' socio- economic profile Before accounting for students' and schools' socio- economic profile The following happen in "most" or "all" science lessons“
- 24. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Montenegro Italy Uruguay SlovakRepublic Brazil Turkey Bulgaria Colombia Qatar Peru CostaRica UnitedStates Finland Israel Thailand Tunisia Australia Mexico UnitedKingdom NewZealand Latvia Spain Ireland Russia Estonia Lithuania UnitedArabEmirates Portugal Poland OECDaverage Greece Canada Denmark Singapore Norway Slovenia Croatia Luxembourg Austria France Switzerland Chile Sweden Germany Hungary CzechRepublic Belgium Macao(China) Netherlands Iceland HongKong(China) ChineseTaipei Korea Japan Percentageofstudents PISA 2015 PISA 2012 Change between 2012 and 2015 in student truancy Figure II.3.2
- 25. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% CzechRepublic Bulgaria Sweden SlovakRepublic Netherlands Latvia Estonia Lithuania Iceland Thailand UnitedKingdom Macao(China) Denmark Norway Russia HongKong(China) Georgia Australia NewZealand Poland Slovenia Israel Finland ChineseTaipei UnitedStates OECDaverage Switzerland Lebanon Indonesia Montenegro Belgium Qatar Chile Peru Canada Moldova FYROM Algeria UAE Spain Japan Malta Luxembourg Singapore Croatia Austria Trinidad/Tobago Ireland Albania Korea Colombia Hungary VietNam CABA(Argentina) France Germany DominicanRep. Mexico CostaRica Portugal Tunisia B-S-J-G(China) Jordan Brazil Kosovo Romania Italy Uruguay Greece Turkey Principal Teachers School governing board Local/regional education authority National education authority Distribution across the education system of responsibility for school resources Figure II.4.3
- 26. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Netherlands NewZealand CzechRepublic UnitedKingdom HongKong(China) Japan Iceland Estonia SlovakRepublic Australia Finland Korea Macao(China) Poland Thailand Indonesia ChineseTaipei Sweden Denmark Norway Ireland Israel Italy Lithuania France Belgium OECDaverage Latvia Austria Germany Colombia Canada Albania Trinidad/Tobago Georgia Romania Spain Slovenia CABA(Argentina) Chile UnitedStates Portugal Russia Brazil Hungary Luxembourg Peru Switzerland Croatia Lebanon Singapore Malta CostaRica UAE Qatar Moldova FYROM Bulgaria Uruguay Montenegro Mexico VietNam Algeria Kosovo B-S-J-G(China) DominicanRep. Jordan Turkey Tunisia Greece Principal Teachers School governing board Local/regional education authority National education authority Distribution across the education system of responsibility for the curriculum Figure II.4.4
- 27. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Japan Sweden HongKong(China) Netherlands Greece SlovakRepublic Indonesia Finland Iceland Poland Australia Malta CzechRepublic Korea CostaRica Germany Slovenia Algeria Macao(China) UnitedKingdom Switzerland Thailand Israel NewZealand Estonia Belgium OECDaverage Latvia Peru Ireland Chile Denmark Canada Hungary Norway Trinidad/Tobago Georgia Austria UnitedStates Lithuania Spain CABA(Argentina) Luxembourg France Lebanon Tunisia Qatar VietNam Uruguay FYROM Singapore UAE Portugal Croatia B-S-J-G(China) ChineseTaipei Romania Mexico Russia Moldova DominicanRep. Brazil Italy Kosovo Montenegro Albania Bulgaria Colombia Jordan Turkey Principal Teachers School governing board Local/regional education authority National education authority Distribution across the education system of responsibility for approving students for establishing student disciplinary policies Table II.4.2
- 28. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Japan Netherlands HongKong(China) SlovakRepublic Italy Indonesia CzechRepublic Poland Korea Iceland Sweden UnitedKingdom Australia Israel Finland Macao(China) NewZealand Estonia Thailand Latvia Slovenia Germany Belgium Malta Ireland Peru Austria OECDaverage CABA(Argentina) Lithuania Denmark Chile Trinidad/Tobago Switzerland Norway Hungary France Spain CostaRica Georgia FYROM Russia Lebanon Kosovo UAE ChineseTaipei Montenegro Canada UnitedStates Croatia Singapore B-S-J-G(China) Uruguay Romania Mexico Portugal Qatar DominicanRep. Albania Bulgaria Greece Brazil Colombia Luxembourg Algeria Moldova Jordan VietNam Tunisia Turkey Principal Teachers School governing board Local/regional education authority National education authority Distribution across the education system of responsibility for establishing student assessment policies Figure II.4.5
- 29. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% CzechRepublic Japan SlovakRepublic Netherlands Denmark Lithuania Russia Poland Australia Austria HongKong(China) Georgia CostaRica Korea Iceland Germany Greece Luxembourg NewZealand Estonia Macao(China) Bulgaria Indonesia Algeria Peru Italy Finland Thailand Hungary Canada OECDaverage Israel Belgium Sweden Lebanon CABA(Argentina) Albania Chile DominicanRep. Tunisia Jordan Latvia UAE Singapore UnitedKingdom Moldova Norway Colombia Slovenia Switzerland Brazil Ireland Qatar Uruguay France UnitedStates FYROM Portugal VietNam Kosovo Mexico ChineseTaipei Trinidad/Tobago Malta Croatia Spain B-S-J-G(China) Montenegro Romania Turkey Principal Teachers School governing board Local/regional education authority National education authority Distribution across the education system of responsibility for for approving students for admission to the school Figure II.4.6
- 30. -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 Turkey Singapore VietNam Japan Tunisia Italy ChineseTaipei Thailand Greece Switzerland CzechRepublic UnitedStates Estonia Uruguay France Austria CABA(Argentina) Kosovo Mexico HongKong(China) Indonesia Luxembourg Sweden Hungary Malta DominicanRepublic Latvia OECDaverage B-S-J-G(China) Portugal Slovenia Spain UnitedKingdom SlovakRepublic Norway Australia Croatia Denmark Peru Jordan CostaRica Colombia Chile Netherlands Korea NewZealand Canada Lithuania Ireland Georgia TrinidadandTobago FYROM Germany Finland Lebanon Belgium Poland Brazil UnitedArabEmirates Qatar Score-pointdifference After accounting for socio-economic status Before accounting for socio-economic status Public and private schools, and students’ science performance Figure II.4.14 Students in private schools perform better Students in public schools perform better
- 31. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Colombia Brazil Uruguay Tunisia Belgium Macao(China) TrinidadandTobago CostaRica Spain Portugal Luxembourg Peru Chile France Netherlands Switzerland Germany Qatar HongKong(China) Indonesia Mexico Austria Italy UnitedArabEmirates OECDaverage UnitedStates Turkey Hungary Israel Jordan Ireland Australia Malta SlovakRepublic Thailand Romania Canada Singapore Poland Latvia Greece NewZealand Bulgaria CzechRepublic Sweden Estonia Denmark Moldova Finland UnitedKingdom Albania Lithuania Slovenia Montenegro Croatia Russia Georgia Iceland ChineseTaipei % students PISA 2015 PISA 2009 Change between 2009 and 2015 in grade repetition rates Figure II.5.5
- 32. CABA (Argentina) Costa Rica Sweden Bulgaria Romania Viet Nam Uruguay United States Norway Chile Hungary B-S-J-G (China) Turkey Mexico Portugal Iceland Korea Albania Japan Trinidad and Tobago UAE Algeria Ireland Indonesia New Zealand Colombia Peru Macao (China) Spain Switzerland Lebanon Netherlands Slovak Republic UK Slovenia Brazil Kosovo Finland Thailand Latvia R² = 0.20 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Socio-economicinclusionacrossschools Academic inclusion across schools (%) OECD average OECD average High academic inclusion Low socio-economic inclusion Low academic inclusion High socio-economic inclusion Academic and social inclusion across schools Figure II.5.12
- 33. Firstageatselectioninthe educationsystem Recommendationoffeeder schoolsalwaysconsideredfor schooladmissions Student’srecordofacademic performancealwaysconsidered forschooladmission Percentageofstudentsin vocationalorpre-vocational programmes Meanscoreinscience Numberofschooltypesor educationalprogrammes Abilitygroupingbetweenclasses forallsubjects Variationinscienceperformance Graderepetition(atleastonce) -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Standardisedregressioncoefficients Factors associated with equity in science performance Figure II.5.13 More equity in science performance Less equity in science performance
- 34. Luxembourg Chile Australia Turkey Mexico Portugal Iceland Japan Greece New Zealand Spain Latvia Estonia Slovak Republic Canada United Kingdom Finland R² = 0.31 350 400 450 500 550 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 PISAsciencescore Equity in resource allocation Principals in disadvantaged schools more concerned about the material resources Principals in advantaged schools more concerned about the material resources OECD average OECDaverage Equity in resource allocation and science performance Based on Figure II.6.4
- 35. Learning time and science performance Figure II.6.23 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Finland Germany Switzerland Japan Estonia Sweden Netherlands NewZealand Australia CzechRepublic Macao(China) UnitedKingdom Canada Belgium France Norway Slovenia Iceland Luxembourg Ireland Latvia HongKong(China) OECDaverage ChineseTaipei Austria Portugal Uruguay Lithuania Singapore Denmark Hungary Poland SlovakRepublic Spain Croatia UnitedStates Israel Bulgaria Korea Russia Italy Greece B-S-J-G(China) Colombia Chile Mexico Brazil CostaRica Turkey Montenegro Peru Qatar Thailand UnitedArabEmirates Tunisia DominicanRepublic Scorepointsinscienceperhouroftotallearningtime Hours Intended learning time at school (hours) Study time after school (hours) Score points in science per hour of total learning time
- 36. Science performance and learning time Figure II.6.23 Finland Germany Switzerland Japan Estonia Sweden Netherlands New Zealand Macao (China) Iceland Hong Kong (China) Chinese Taipei Uruguay Singapore Poland Spain United States Israel Bulgaria Korea Russia Italy Greece B-S-J-G (China) Colombia Chile Mexico Brazil Costa Rica Turkey Montenegro Peru Qatar Thailand United Arab Emirates Tunisia Dominican Republic R² = 0.21 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 35 40 45 50 55 60 PISAsciencescore Total learning time in and outside of school OECD average OECD average OECDaverage
- 37. • PISA 2018 Global competences: assessment and questionnaire Students’ well-being questionnaire: initiative linked to the Better Life Initiative looking to offer a holistic view about the well-being of students (economic situation, housing, health, education, physical safety, sense of well-being, …) Overlap with TALIS survey about teachers Adaptive testing • PISA 2021 Creativity and critical thinking? • PISA 2024 Skills in foreign languages? Entrepreneurship? PISA 2018 and beyond: New developments and proposals
- 38. Learning strategies (2000) Problem-solving (2003) Embedding of attitudinal aspects in assessment (2006) Digital literacy (2009) Creative problem-solving (2012) Collaborative problem-solving (2015) Global competences (2018) Creativity and critical thinking (2021)? Developmental domains
- 39. Global competence is the capacity to analyse global and intercultural issues critically and from multiple perspectives, to understand how differences affect perceptions, judgments, and ideas of self and others, and to engage in open, appropriate and effective interactions with others from different backgrounds on the basis of a shared respect for human dignity. PISA definition of Global Competence
- 40. How well are students prepared for life and employment in culturally diverse societies and in a globalised world? How much are students exposed to global news and how do they understand and critically analyse intercultural and global issues? What approaches to multicultural, intercultural and global education are used at school? What approaches are used to educate culturally diverse students and how are schools leveraging this diversity to develop students’ global competence? What approaches are used to stimulate peer-to-peer learning between students from different cultures? How well are schools contesting cultural and gender biases and stereotypes, including their own? Some questions PISA seeks to answer
- 41. Schools can: provide opportunities for young people to learn about global developments that affect the world and their lives teach students how they can develop a fact-based and critical worldview of today equip students with the means to access and analyse a broad range of cultural practices and meanings engage students in experiences that facilitate international and intercultural relations promote the value of diversity, which in turn encourages sensitivity, respect and appreciation. Schools can make a difference
- 42. · Openness towards people from other cultures · Respect for other cultures · Global-mindedness · Knowledge of global issues · Intercultural knowledge ·Analytical and critical thinking ·Perspective taking · Respectful communication · Adaptability Components Skills Knowledge Attitudes Values · Valuing Human Dignity · Valuing Cultural Diversity GLOBAL COMPETENCE “Skills” are the capacities for carrying out a complex pattern of either thinking (in the case of a cognitive skill) or behaviour (in the case of a behavioural skill) in order to achieve a particular goal. Global Competence requires numerous skills, including the ability to: communicate in more than one language; communicate appropriately and effectively with people from other cultures or countries; comprehend other people’s thoughts, beliefs and feelings, and see the world from their perspectives; adjust one’s thoughts, feelings or behaviours to fit new contexts and situations; and analyse and think critically in order to scrutinise and appraise information and meanings An individual may have a large range of knowledge, understanding and skills, but lack the disposition to use them. An “attitude” may be defined as the overall mind-set which an individual adopts and typically consists of four components: a belief or opinion about the object, an emotion or feeling towards the object, an evaluation (either positive or negative) of the object, and a tendency to behave in a particular way towards that object. The dimensions of Global Competence
- 43. The cognitive test – from information to critical understanding of global and intercultural issues Analytical, critical and perspective taking skills · Select information · Assess claims · Explain issues · Recognize contexts and perspectives ·Understand implications Knowledge ·Knowledge of global issues · Intercultural knowledge Global and Intercultural Understanding Contexts Personal, Local, Global Attitudes ·Interest in other cultures ·Interest in global issues ·Global mindedness ·Respect The PISA test will assess how students can use their knowledge and critical thinking skills to understand issues of critical importance to the world (global issues) and issues that affect open and respectful interactions across cultures (intercultural issues).
- 44. Muchas gracias
Notas del editor
- Note: Belgium refers only to French and German-speaking communities
- Note: Belgium refers only to French and German-speaking communities
- Rural: fewer than 3 000 people; Town: 3 000 to 100 000 people; City: over 100 000 people
- Countries and economies that are not above-average in any of the three variables: Albania, Algeria, Austria, Czech Republic, France, FYROM, Greece, Hungary, Indonesia, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Moldova, Montenegro, Romania, Russia, Slovak Republic and Thailand.
- Repeated a grade at least once in primary, lower secondary or upper secondary
- Cross-country analysis. All variables included in the same regression model. R2: 44%.