PISA 2018 Results - OECD
PISA 2018 ResultsCOMBINED EXECUTIVE SUMMARIESVOLUME I, II & IIIPISAProgrammeforInternationalStudentAssessment
This work is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed andarguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of OECD member countries.This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty overany territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use ofsuch data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements inthe West Bank under the terms of international law.Note by TurkeyThe information in this document with reference to “Cyprus” relates to the southern part of the Island. There is no singleauthority representing both Turkish and Greek Cypriot people on the Island. Turkey recognises the Turkish Republic ofNorthern Cyprus (TRNC). Until a lasting and equitable solution is found within the context of the United Nations, Turkeyshall preserve its position concerning the “Cyprus issue”.Note by all the European Union Member States of the OECD and the European UnionThe Republic of Cyprus is recognised by all members of the United Nations with the exception of Turkey. Theinformation in this document relates to the area under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus.Photo credits: Cover LuminaStock/iStock Dean Mitchell/iStock bo1982/iStock karandaev/iStock IA98/Shutterstock Tupungato/ShutterstockCorrigenda to publications may be found on line at: www.oecd.org/about/publishing/corrigenda.htm. OECD 2019The use of this work, whether digital or print, is governed by the Terms and Conditions to be found at http://www.oecd.org/termsandconditions.
Executive SummaryVOLUME IReading proficiency is essential for a wide variety of human activities – from following instructions in a manual; to finding outthe who, what, when, where and why of an event; to communicating with others for a specific purpose or transaction. PISArecognises that evolving technologies have changed the ways people read and exchange information, whether at home, atschool or in the workplace. Digitalisation has resulted in the emergence and availability of new forms of text, ranging from theconcise (text messages; annotated search-engine results) to the lengthy (tabbed, multipage websites; newly accessible archivalmaterial scanned from microfiches). In response, education systems are increasingly incorporating digital (reading) literacy intotheir programmes of instruction.Reading was the main subject assessed in PISA 2018. The PISA 2018 reading assessment, which was delivered on computer inmost of the 79 countries and economies that participated, included new text and assessment formats made possible throughdigital delivery. The test aimed to assess reading literacy in the digital environment while retaining the ability to measuretrends in reading literacy over the past two decades. PISA 2018 defined reading literacy as understanding, using, evaluating,reflecting on and engaging with texts in order to achieve one’s goals, to develop one’s knowledge and potential, and toparticipate in society.WHAT STUDENTS KNOW AND CAN DO: MAIN FINDINGSIn reading Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu and Zhejiang (China) and Singapore scored significantly higher in reading than all other countries/economies that participated in PISA 2018. Estonia, Canada, Finland and Ireland were the highest-performing OECD countriesin reading. Some 77% of students, on average across OECD countries, attained at least Level 2 proficiency in reading. At a minimum, thesestudents are able to identify the main idea in a text of moderate length, find information based on explicit, though sometimescomplex, criteria, and reflect on the purpose and form of texts when explicitly directed to do so. Over 85% of students inBeijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu and Zhejiang (China), Canada, Estonia, Finland, Hong Kong (China), Ireland, Macao (China), Polandand Singapore performed at this level or above. Around 8.7% of students, on average across OECD countries, were top performers in reading, meaning that they attainedLevel 5 or 6 in the PISA reading test. At these levels, students are able to comprehend lengthy texts, deal with concepts thatare abstract or counterintuitive, and establish distinctions between fact and opinion, based on implicit cues pertaining to thecontent or source of the information. In 20 education systems, including those of 15 OECD countries, over 10% of 15-year-oldstudents were top performers.In mathematics and science On average across OECD countries, 76% of students attained Level 2 or higher in mathematics. At a minimum, thesestudents can interpret and recognise, without direct instructions, how a (simple) situation can be represented mathematically(e.g. comparing the total distance across two alternative routes, or converting prices into a different currency). However,in 24 countries and economies, more than 50% of students scored below this level of proficiency. Around one in six 15-year-old students in Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu and Zhejiang (China) (16.5%), and about one in sevenstudents in Singapore (13.8%), scored at Level 6 in mathematics, the highest level of proficiency that PISA describes. Thesestudents are capable of advanced mathematical thinking and reasoning. On average across OECD countries, only 2.4% ofstudents scored at this level. On average across OECD countries, 78% of students attained Level 2 or higher in science. At a minimum, these studentscan recognise the correct explanation for familiar scientific phenomena and can use such knowledge to identify, in simplecases, whether a conclusion is valid based on the data provided. More than 90% of students in Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu andZhejiang (China) (97.9%), Macao (China) (94.0%), Estonia (91.2%) and Singapore (91.0%) achieved this benchmark.Trends in performance On average across OECD countries, mean performance in reading, mathematics and science remained stable between 2015and 2018.PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do » OECD 201915
Executive Summary There were large differences between individual countries and economies in how their performance changed between 2015and 2018. For example, mean performance in mathematics improved in 13 countries/economies (Albania, Iceland, Jordan,Latvia, Macao [China], Montenegro, Peru, Poland, Qatar, the Republic of North Macedonia, the Slovak Republic, Turkey andthe United Kingdom), declined in 3 countries/economies (Malta, Romania and Chinese Taipei), and remained stable in theremaining 47 participating countries/economies. Seven countries/economies saw improvements, on average, in the reading, mathematics and science performance oftheir students throughout their participation in PISA: Albania, Colombia, Macao (China), the Republic of Moldova, Peru,Portugal and Qatar. Seven countries saw declining mean performance across all three subjects: Australia, Finland, Iceland,Korea, the Netherlands, New Zealand and the Slovak Republic. Between 2003 and 2018, Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Turkey and Uruguay enrolled many more 15-year-olds in secondaryeducation without sacrificing the quality of the education provided.Around the world, the share of 15-year-old students, in grade 7 and above, who reached a minimum level of proficiency inreading (at least Level 2 on the PISA scale) ranged from close to 90% in Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu and Zhejiang (China), Estonia,Macao (China) and Singapore, to less than 10% in Cambodia, Senegal and Zambia (countries that participated in the PISA forDevelopment assessment in 2017). The share of 15-year-old students who attained minimum levels of proficiency in mathematics(at least Level 2) varied even more – between 98% in Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu and Zhejiang (China) and 2% in Zambia. On averageacross OECD countries, around one in four 15-year-olds did not attain a minimum level of proficiency in reading or mathematics.These numbers show that all countries still have some way to go towards reaching the global goals for quality education,as defined in the UN Sustainable Development Goal for education, by 2030.16 OECD 2019 » PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do
Executive SummaryTable I.1 [1/2] Snapshot of performance in reading, mathematics and scienceCountries/economies with a mean performance/share of top performers above the OECD averageCountries/economies with a share of low achievers below the OECD averageCountries/economies with a mean performance/share of top performers/share of low achieversnot significantly different from the OECD averageCountries/economies with a mean performance/share of top performers below the OECD averageCountries/economies with a share of low achievers above the OECD averageOECDMean score in PISA 2018OECD averageLong-term trend: Average rateof change in performance,per three-year-periodShort-term changein performance(PISA 2015 to PISA 2018)Top-performingand low-achievingstudentsShare of topperformersin at leastone subject(Level 5 or 6)Shareof low achieversin allthree subjects(below Level ceReadingMathematicsScienceMeanMeanMeanScore dif.Score dif.Score dif.Score dif.Score dif.Score 8619.410.5New Zealand506494508-4-7-6-4-1-520.210.912.6United States5054785020-1289617.1United 2.5Portugal492492492464-61-915.212.6Czech 82463733436.617.1Slovak 31-21.539.9m481483m0-1m-4-10mmSpainNotes: Values that are statistically significant are marked in bold (see Annex A3).Long-term trends are reported for the longest available period since PISA 2000 for reading, PISA 2003 for mathematics and PISA 2006 for science.Results based on reading performance are reported as missing for Spain (see Annex A9). The OECD average does not include Spain in these cases.Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the mean reading score in PISA 2018.Source: OECD, PISA 2018 Database, Tables I.B1.10, I.B1.11, I.B1.12, I.B1.26 and I.B1.27.12 https://doi.org/10.1787/888934028140.PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do » OECD 201917
Executive SummaryTable I.1 [2/2] Snapshot of performance in reading, mathematics and scienceCountries/economies with a mean performance/share of top performers above the OECD averageCountries/economies with a share of low achievers below the OECD averageCountries/economies with a mean performance/share of top performers/share of low achieversnot significantly different from the OECD averageCountries/economies with a mean performance/share of top performers below the OECD averageCountries/economies with a share of low achievers above the OECD averagePartnersMean score in PISA 2018Long-term trend: Average rateof change in performance,per three-year-periodShort-term changein performance(PISA 2015 to PISA ienceReadingMathematicsScienceMeanMeanMeanScore dif.Score dif.Score dif.Score dif.Score dif.Score dif.OECD average4874894890-1-2B-S-J-Z (China)555591590mmSingapore54956955161Macao (China)5255585446Hong Kong (China)524551517Chinese nd low-achievingstudentsShare of topShareperformers of low achieversin at leastin allone subject three subjects(Level 5 or 6) (below Level osta 43.2Brunei snia and i 16342.734.6North Macedonia393394413123294123291.739.0Baku 0.166.0Dominican 48United Arab Emirates432RomaniaNotes: Values that are statistically significant are marked in bold (see Annex A3).Long-term trends are reported for the longest available period since PISA 2000 for reading, PISA 2003 for mathematics and PISA 2006 for science.Results based on reading performance are reported as missing for Spain (see Annex A9). The OECD average does not include Spain in these cases.Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the mean reading score in PISA 2018.Source: OECD, PISA 2018 Database, Tables I.B1.10, I.B1.11, I.B1.12, I.B1.26 and I.B1.27.12 https://doi.org/10.1787/88893402814018 OECD 2019 » PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do
Executive Summary600 000 studentsrepresenting about 32 million 15-year-oldsin the schools of the 79 participatingcountries and economies sat the 2-hourPISA test in 2018Mean performance in the followingsubjects did not change over the past 2 decadesBetween 2003 and 2018, Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico,Turkey and Uruguay enrolled many more15-year-olds in secondary educationwithout sacrificing the quality of theeducation providedREADINGMATHSSCIENCEBut Albania, Estonia, Macao (China),Peru and Poland saw improvementsin at least 2 subjects110students masteredcomplex reading tasks,such as distinguishing betweenfact and opinion whenreading about an unfamiliartopic1 in 4students had difficulty withbasic aspects of reading,such as identifying the main ideain a text of moderate length orconnecting pieces ofinformation provided bydifferent sourcesAll data refer to OECD average unless otherwise indicatedPISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do » OECD 201919
Executive SummaryVOLUME IIThe principle that every person has a fair chance to improve his or her life, whatever his or her personal circumstances, lies at theheart of democratic political and economic institutions. Ensuring that all students have access to the best education opportunitiesis also a way of using resources effectively, and of improving education and social outcomes in general.Equity in education is a central and long-standing focus of PISA and a major concern of countries around the world. The UnitedNations Sustainable Development Goals for 2030 advocate for “ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education and promotinglifelong learning opportunities for all” (United Nations, 2015).Equity does not mean that all students have equal outcomes; rather it means that whatever variations there may be in educationoutcomes, they are not related to students’ background, including socio-economic status, gender or immigrant background.PISA measures equity by whether education outcomes, such as access to schooling, student performance, students’ attitudes andbeliefs, and students’ expectations for their future, are related to student’s personal background. The weaker the relationship, themore equitable the school system, as all students can flourish in such a system, regardless of their background.WHERE ALL STUDENTS CAN SUCCEED: MAIN FINDINGSEquity related to socio-economic status In 11 countries and economies, including the OECD countries Australia, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Japan, Korea,Norway and the United Kingdom, average performance was higher than the OECD average while the relationship betweensocio-economic status and reading performance was weaker than the OECD average. In spite of socio-economic disadvantage, some students attain high levels of academic proficiency. On average across OECDcountries, one in ten disadvantaged students was able to score in the top quarter of reading performance in their countries(known as academic resilience), indicating that disadvantage is not destiny. In Australia, Canada, Estonia, Hong Kong (China),Ireland, Macao (China) and the United Kingdom, all of which score above the OECD average, more than 13% of disadvantagedstudents were academically resilient. Disadvantaged students are more or less likely to attend the same schools as high achievers, depending on the school system.In Argentina, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel, Luxembourg, Peru, Romania, the Slovak Republic,the United Arab Emirates and Switzerland, a typical disadvantaged student has less than a one-in-eight chance of attendingthe same school as high achievers (those who scored in the top quarter of reading performance in PISA. By contrast, in Baku(Azerbaijan), Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Kosovo, Macao (China), Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden,disadvantaged students have at least a one-in-five chance of having high-achieving schoolmates. On average across OECD countries, 40% of teachers in disadvantaged schools compared with 48% of teachers in advantagedschools had at least a master’s degree. In 42 countries and economies, principals of disadvantaged schools were significantly more likely than those of advantagedschools to report that their school’s capacity to provide instruction is hindered by a shortage of education staff. In 46 countriesand economies, principals of disadvantaged schools were also more likely to report that a lack or inadequacy of educationalmaterial and physical infrastructure hinders instruction. Many students, especially disadvantaged students, hold lower ambitions than would be expected given their academicachievement. On average across OECD countries, only seven in ten high-achieving disadvantaged students reported that theyexpect to complete tertiary education, while nine in ten high-achieving advantaged students reported so. In Austria, Finland,Germany, Hungary, Italy, Kazakhstan, Latvia, the Republic of Moldova, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Sweden and Switzerland,the difference between the two groups was larger than 25 percentage points. On average across OECD countries, more than two in five disadvantaged students reported that they do not know how to findinformation about student financing (e.g. student loans or grants).PISA 2018 Results (Volume I
Reading Mathematics Science Reading Mathematics Science Reading Mathematics Science Share of top performers in at least one subject (Level 5 or 6) Share of low achievers in all three subjects (below Level 2) Mean Mean Mean Score dif. Score dif. Score dif. Score dif. Score dif. Score dif. % %
PISA 2018 U.S. Results PISA results for reading, mathematics, and science literacy are in! The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) is a study of 15-year-old students’ performance in reading, mathematics, and science literacy conducted every 3 years. The PISA 20
PISA 2018 Reading Literacy Results Explore How U.S. Reading Performance Compared Internationally in 2018 Reading literacy was the . major domain in PISA 2018, as it was in 2000 and 2009. For 2018, the PISA reading literacy framework was updated to reflect the evolution and g
The Leaning Tower of Pisa The Leaning Tower of Pisa (Torre pendente di Pisa) took almost 200 years to complete and has stood beside the Cathedral of Pisa for over 600 years. Thanks to its famous tilt, it has become one of the world’s most recognizable
PISA questions for the reading, mathematics and science tests, respectively. Each chapter presents an overview of what exactly the questions assess. The second section of each chapter presents questions which were used in the PISA 2000, 2003 and 2006 surveys, that is, the actual PISA tests for which results were published. The third section presents questions used in trying out the assessment .
The Indian Plan for PISA CBSE & NCERT -- part of the process & activities leading to the actual test. Field Trial(FT) --to be conducted in March-May 2020. 25 schools x 36 students each 900 students to be assessed PISA 2021 --officially called Main Survey--to be conducted in April 2021. PISA 2021 the following subjects:-
PISA dilaksanakan setiap tiga tahun sekali, yaitu pada tahun 2000, 2003, 2006, 2009, 2012, 2015 dan seterusnya. Sejak tahun 2000 Indonesia mulai sepenuhnya berpartisipasi paPada tahun 2000 da PISA. sebanyak 41 negara bertisipasi sebagarpa i peserta sedangkan pada tahun 2003 menurun menjadi 40 negara dan pada tahun 2006
butir soal latihan, 131 butir soal uji kompetensi dan 29 butir soal ulangan akhir semester I terdapat 155 butir soal atau 34,60% yang sesuai dengan model PISA dan 293 butir soal tidak serupa PISA atau 65,40% dari jumlah keseluruhan soal. Soal serupa PISA banyak terdapat dalam bab I, III dan IV dengan materi pokok bilangan,
PISA 2021 MATHEMATICS FRAMEWORK (SECOND DRAFT) For Official Use Introduction 1. The assessment of mathematics has particular significance for PISA 2021, as mathematics is again the major domain assessed. Although mathematics was assessed by PISA in 2000, 2003, 2006
