A Federal Project Measuring Achievement in Reading, Mathematics, and Other Subjects Is the:

Program for International Student Assessment

Abridgement	PISA
Germination	1997
Purpose	Comparison of teaching attainment across the world
Headquarters	OECD Headquarters
Location	2 rue André Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex xvi
Region served	World
Membership	79 government education departments
Official language	English and French
Head of the Early Childhood and Schools Division	Yuri Belfali
Main organ	PISA Governing Body (Chair – Michele Bruniges)
Parent organization	OECD
Website	oecd.org/pisa

PISA average Mathematics scores (2018)

PISA boilerplate Science scores (2018)

Scholastic performance study past the OECD

PISA average Reading scores (2018)

The Program for International Student Cess (PISA) is a worldwide report past the Organisation for Economical Co-operation and Evolution (OECD) in member and not-fellow member nations intended to evaluate educational systems by measuring 15-year-onetime schoolhouse pupils' scholastic performance on mathematics, science, and reading.^[1] It was kickoff performed in 2000 and so repeated every three years. Its aim is to provide comparable information with a view to enabling countries to improve their educational activity policies and outcomes. It measures problem solving and knowledge.^[2]

The results of the 2022 data collection were released on 3 Dec 2019.^[3]

Influence and impact [edit]

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

PISA was conceived to set up in a wider context the information provided by national monitoring of pedagogy system functioning through regular assessments within a common, internationally agreed framework; by investigating relationships between student learning and other factors they can "offering insights into sources of variation in performances within and between countries".^[v]

Until the 1990s, few European countries used national tests. In the 1990s, 10 countries / regions introduced standardised assessment, and since the early 2000s, ten more than followed suit. By 2009, only five European education systems had no national pupil 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 cess policy, and external influence over national educational policy more than broadly.

Creation of new knowledge [edit]

Information from international standardised assessments can be useful in research on causal factors within or across education systems.^[iv] Mons notes that the databases generated by large-scale international assessments have fabricated information technology possible to comport out inventories and comparisons of education systems on an unprecedented scale* on themes ranging from the conditions for learning mathematics and reading, to institutional autonomy and admissions policies.^[6] They allow typologies to be developed that tin can be used for comparative statistical analyses of teaching functioning indicators, thereby identifying the consequences of unlike policy choices. They take generated new cognition about didactics: PISA findings take challenged securely embedded educational practices, such equally the early on tracking of students into vocational or academic pathways.^[7]

• 79 countries and economies participated in the 2022 information collection.

Barroso and de Carvalho find that PISA provides a common reference connecting academic research in education and the political realm of public policy, operating as a mediator betwixt different strands of cognition from the realm of didactics and public policy.^[8] However, although the central findings from comparative assessments are widely shared in the research customs^[iv] the knowledge they create does not necessarily fit with authorities reform agendas; this leads to some inappropriate uses of assessment data.

Changes in national assessment policy [edit]

Emerging research suggests that international standardised assessments are having an impact on national assessment policy and practice. PISA is beingness integrated into national policies and practices on cess, evaluation, curriculum standards and performance targets; its assessment frameworks and instruments are being used as best-practise models for improving national assessments; many countries have explicitly incorporated and emphasise PISA-like competencies in revised national standards and curricula; others apply PISA data to complement national data and validate national results against an international benchmark.^[vii]

External influence over national educational policy [edit]

More than of import than its influence on countries' policy of educatee cess, is the range of means in which PISA is influencing countries instruction policy choices.

Policy-makers in near participating countries come across PISA as an important indicator of arrangement performance; PISA reports can ascertain policy problems and set the agenda for national policy debate; policymakers seem to take PISA equally a valid and reliable instrument for internationally benchmarking organisation functioning and changes over fourth dimension; most countries—irrespective of whether they performed above, at, or below the boilerplate PISA score—have begun policy reforms in response to PISA reports.^[vii]

Against this, touch on national education systems varies markedly. For example, in Frg, the results of the first PISA assessment acquired the then-called 'PISA daze': a questioning of previously accepted educational policies; in a state marked by jealously guarded regional policy differences, it led ultimately to an understanding by all Länder to innovate common national standards and even an institutionalised structure to ensure that they were observed.^[ix] In Hungary, by comparison, which shared similar conditions to Germany, PISA results have not led to significant changes in educational policy.^[x]

Considering many countries take set national functioning targets based on their relative rank or absolute PISA score, PISA assessments have increased the influence of their (non-elected) commissioning torso, the OECD, every bit an international education monitor and policy actor, which implies an important degree of 'policy transfer' from the international to the national level; PISA in particular is having "an influential normative outcome on the management of national didactics policies".^[7] Thus, it is argued that the use of international standardised assessments has led to a shift towards international, external accountability for national system functioning; Rey contends that PISA surveys, portrayed as objective, third-party diagnoses of didactics systems, actually serve to promote specific orientations on educational issues.^[iv]

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

In addition, PISA's international comparisons can be used to justify reforms with which the information themselves have no connectedness; in Portugal, for case, PISA information were used to justify new arrangements for teacher cess (based on inferences that were not justified by the assessments and data themselves); they too fed the government's discourse virtually the issue of pupils repeating a year, (which, according to research, fails to improve student results).^[14] In Republic of finland, the state's PISA results (that are in other countries deemed to be first-class) were used past Ministers to promote new policies for 'gifted' students.^[15] Such uses and interpretations often presume causal relationships that cannot legitimately be based upon PISA data which would usually crave fuller investigation through qualitative in-depth studies and longitudinal surveys based on mixed quantitative and qualitative methods,^[16] which politicians are often reluctant to fund.

Recent decades accept witnessed an expansion in the uses of PISA and similar assessments, from assessing students' learning, to connecting "the educational realm (their traditional remit) with the political realm".^[17] This raises the question of whether PISA data are sufficiently robust to conduct the weight of the major policy decisions that are being based upon them, for, according to Breakspear, PISA information have "come to increasingly shape, define and evaluate the central goals of the national / federal educational activity arrangement".^[7] This implies that those who set the PISA tests – eastward.k. in choosing the content to exist assessed and not assessed – are in a position of considerable power to set the terms of the education debate, and to orient educational reform in many countries around the globe.^[vii]

Framework [edit]

PISA stands in a tradition of international school studies, undertaken since the tardily 1950s past the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). Much of PISA'due south methodology follows the case of the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS, started in 1995), which in plough was much influenced by the U.Due south. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The reading component of PISA is inspired past the IEA's Progress in International Reading Literacy Written report (PIRLS).

PISA aims to examination literacy the competence of students in iii fields: reading, mathematics, science on an indefinite calibration.^[18]

The PISA mathematics literacy test asks students to apply their mathematical knowledge to solve bug ready in real-world contexts. To solve the problems students must activate a number of mathematical competencies also equally a broad range of mathematical content knowledge. TIMSS, on the other hand, measures more traditional classroom content such as an understanding of fractions and decimals and the human relationship between them (curriculum attainment). PISA claims to measure education's application to existent-life problems and lifelong learning (workforce cognition).

In the reading test, "OECD/PISA does not measure the extent to which 15-year-onetime students are fluent readers or how competent they are at give-and-take recognition tasks or spelling." Instead, they should be able to "construct, extend and reflect on the pregnant of what they take read beyond a wide range of continuous and not-continuous texts."^[nineteen]

PISA also assesses students in innovative domains. In 2012 and 2022 in addition to reading, mathematics and science, they were tested in collaborative problem solving. In 2022 the additional innovative domain was global competence.

Implementation [edit]

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

Method of testing [edit]

Sampling [edit]

The students tested by PISA are aged between fifteen years and 3 months and xvi years and 2 months at the beginning of the assessment catamenia. The school year pupils are in is not taken into consideration. Only students at school are tested, not home-schoolers. In PISA 2006, however, several countries too used a grade-based sample of students. This fabricated it possible to study how age and schoolhouse twelvemonth interact.

To fulfill OECD requirements, each country must draw a sample of at least v,000 students. In pocket-sized countries like Iceland and Luxembourg, where in that location are fewer than 5,000 students per year, an unabridged age accomplice is tested. Some countries used much larger samples than required to allow comparisons between regions.

Test [edit]

PISA test documents on a school tabular array (Neues Gymnasium, Oldenburg, Deutschland, 2006)

Each student takes a ii-hour computer based test. Office of the test is multiple-choice and part involves fuller answers. There are six and a half hours of assessment material, simply each student is non tested on all the parts. Following the cognitive test, participating students spend nearly one more than hr answering a questionnaire on their background including learning habits, motivation, and family. School directors fill in a questionnaire describing school demographics, funding, etc. In 2012 the participants were, for the starting time fourth dimension in the history of large-calibration testing and assessments, offered a new type of trouble, i.eastward. 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.

Deutschland does this in a very extensive mode: On the day following the international test, students take a national exam called PISA-E (E=Ergänzung=complement). Test items of PISA-E are closer to TIMSS than to PISA. While only about v,000 German students participate in the international and the national test, another 45,000 take the national test merely. This large sample is needed to allow an analysis past federal states. Following a clash about the interpretation of 2006 results, the OECD warned Deutschland that it might withdraw the correct to utilise the "PISA" characterization for national tests.^[22]

Data scaling [edit]

From the kickoff, PISA has been designed with 1 item method of data assay in heed. Since students work on different test booklets, raw scores must exist 'scaled' to permit meaningful comparisons. Scores are thus scaled so that the OECD average in each domain (mathematics, reading and science) is 500 and the standard departure is 100.^[23] This is true only for the initial PISA wheel when the scale was first introduced, though, subsequent cycles are linked to the previous cycles through IRT scale linking methods.^[24]

This generation of proficiency estimates is washed using a latent regression extension of the Rasch model, a model of item response theory (IRT), also known every bit conditioning model or population model. The proficiency estimates are provided in the form of so-chosen plausible values, which permit unbiased estimates of differences between groups. The latent regression, together with the use of a Gaussian prior probability distribution of student competencies allows estimation of the proficiency distributions of groups of participating students.^[25] The scaling and conditioning procedures are described in well-nigh identical terms in the Technical Reports of PISA 2000, 2003, 2006. NAEP and TIMSS use similar scaling methods.

Ranking results [edit]

All PISA results are tabulated by country; contempo PISA cycles have divide provincial or regional results for some countries. Most public attention concentrates on just one outcome: the mean scores of countries and their rankings of countries against one some other. In the official reports, however, land-by-state rankings are given not as simple league tables but equally cross tables indicating for each pair of countries whether or not mean score differences are statistically significant (unlikely to exist due to random fluctuations in educatee sampling or in item functioning). In favorable cases, a difference of nine points is sufficient to be considered significant.^{[ citation needed ]}

PISA never combines mathematics, science and reading domain scores into an overall score. However, commentators have sometimes combined test results from all three domains into an overall country ranking. Such meta-assay is not endorsed by the OECD, although official summaries sometimes apply scores from a testing cycle's principal domain as a proxy for overall student ability.

PISA 2022 ranking summary [edit]

The results of PISA 2022 were presented on 3 Dec 2019, which included data for effectually 600,000 participating students in 79 countries and economies, with China's economical area of Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu and Zhejiang emerging as the top performer in all categories. Notation that this does non stand for the entirety of mainland China.^[26] Reading results for Spain were not released due to perceived anomalies. ^[27]

Mathematics	Science	Reading
i China (B-South-J-Z)[a] 591 2 Singapore 569 iii Macau (People's republic of china) 558 4 Hong Kong (Red china) 551 5 Taiwan 531 6 Nippon 527 seven Republic of korea 526 eight Estonia 523 9 Netherlands 519 ten Poland 516 11 Switzerland 515 12 Canada 512 13 Kingdom of denmark 509 13 Slovenia 509 15 Kingdom of belgium 508 xvi Finland 507 17 Sweden 502 17 United Kingdom 502 nineteen Norway 501 20 Germany 500 20 Ireland 500 22 Czechia 499 22 Austria 499 24 Republic of latvia 496 24 Vietnam 496 26 French republic 495 26 Republic of iceland 495 28 New Zealand 494 29 Portugal 492 xxx Australia 491 31 Russia 488 32 Italy 487 33 Slovakia 486 34 Luxembourg 483 35 Republic of lithuania 481 35 Kingdom of spain 481 35 Hungary 481 38 Us 478 39 Belarus 472 39 Malta 472 41 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 l 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 Chile 417 61 Qatar 414 62 United mexican states 409 63 Bosnia and Herzegovina 406 64 Costa Rica 402 65 Jordan 400 65 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 Kingdom of saudi arabia 373 75 Morocco 368 76 Kosovo 366 77 Panama 353 77 Philippines 353 79 Dominican Democracy 325	1 China (B-Southward-J-Z)[a] 590 2 Singapore 551 3 Macau (China) 544 4 Vietnam 543 v Estonia 530 6 Nihon 529 7 Finland 522 8 Republic of korea 519 9 Canada 518 10 Hong Kong (People's republic of china) 517 11 Taiwan 516 12 Poland 511 xiii New Zealand 508 fourteen Slovenia 507 xv Great britain 505 16 Australia 503 16 Germany 503 xvi Netherlands 503 xix United States 502 xx Belgium 499 xx Sweden 499 22 Czech Democracy 497 23 Ireland 496 24 Switzerland 495 25 Kingdom of denmark 493 25 France 493 27 Portugal 492 28 Austria 490 28 Norway 490 thirty Latvia 487 31 Spain 483 32 Lithuania 482 33 Hungary 481 34 Russia 478 35 Grand duchy of luxembourg 477 36 Republic of iceland 475 37 Republic of croatia 472 38 Republic of belarus 471 39 Ukraine 469 twoscore Italia 468 40 Turkey 468 42 Slovakia 464 43 Israel 462 44 Republic of malta 457 45 Greece 452 46 Chile 444 47 Serbia 440 48 Republic of cyprus 439 49 Malaysia 438 50 United Arab Emirates 434 51 Brunei 431 52 Jordan 429 53 Moldova 428 54 Romania 426 54 Thailand 426 54 Uruguay 426 57 Bulgaria 424 58 Mexico 419 58 Qatar 419 threescore Albania 417 61 Costa Rica 416 62 Montenegro 415 63 Colombia 413 63 North Macedonia 413 65 Argentine republic 404 65 Brazil 404 65 Peru 404 68 Azerbaijan 398 68 Bosnia and Herzegovina 398 70 Kazakhstan 397 71 Indonesia 396 72 Saudi Arabia 386 73 Lebanese republic 384 74 Georgia 383 75 Morocco 377 76 Kosovo 365 76 Panama 365 78 Philippines 357 79 Dominican Republic 336	1 China (B-S-J-Z)[a] 555 2 Singapore 549 3 Macau (China) 525 4 Hong Kong (Prc) 524 5 Estonia 523 6 Canada 520 half dozen Finland 520 viii Ireland 518 9 South Korea 514 x Poland 512 11 New Zealand 506 11 Sweden 506 13 Usa 505 xiii Vietnam 505 fifteen Nihon 504 xv 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 30 Croatia 479 30 Latvia 479 30 Russian federation 479 33 Hungary 476 33 Italy 476 33 Lithuania 476 36 Belarus 474 36 Iceland 474 38 Israel 470 38 Luxembourg 470 40 Turkey 466 40 Ukraine 466 42 Slovakia 458 43 Hellenic republic 457 44 Republic of chile 452 45 Malta 448 46 Serbia 439 47 United Arab Emirates 432 48 Romania 428 49 Uruguay 427 l Costa rica 426 51 Cyprus 424 51 Moldova 424 53 Montenegro 421 54 Bulgaria 420 54 Mexico 420 56 Jordan 419 57 Malaysia 415 58 Brazil 413 59 Colombia 412 60 Brunei 408 61 Qatar 407 62 Albania 405 63 Republic of bosnia and herzegovina 403 64 Argentine republic 402 65 Republic of 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 comparing 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	—	—	—	—
People's democratic republic of algeria	360	72	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Argentina	409	58	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Australia	494	25	504	17	514	13	520	12	524	10
Austria	497	xx	506	16	496	22	505	17	506	xviii
China B-South-J-G[b]	531	6	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Belgium	507	15	515	xiii	515	12	520	eleven	529	seven
Brazil	377	68	389	55	386	51	370	50	356	39
Bulgaria	441	47	439	43	428	41	413	43	—	—
Argentina CABA[c]	456	43	418	49	—	—	—	—	—	—
Canada	516	10	518	xi	527	8	527	7	532	vi
Chile	423	l	423	47	421	44	411	44	—	—
Taiwan	542	four	560	iii	543	iv	549	i	—	—
Colombia	390	64	376	58	381	52	370	49	—	—
Costa Rica	400	62	407	53	—	—	—	—	—	—
Croatia	464	41	471	38	460	38	467	34	—	—
Cyprus	437	48	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Czech Commonwealth	492	28	499	22	493	25	510	15	516	12
Kingdom of denmark	511	12	500	20	503	17	513	14	514	xiv
Dominican Republic	328	73	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Estonia	520	9	521	9	512	15	515	13	—	—
Republic of finland	511	xiii	519	10	541	5	548	2	544	2
France	493	26	495	23	497	20	496	22	511	fifteen
Macedonia	371	69	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Georgia	404	lx	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Germany	506	16	514	14	513	fourteen	504	19	503	xix
Greece	454	44	453	40	466	37	459	37	445	32
Hong Kong	548	2	561	two	555	ii	547	3	550	1
Hungary	477	37	477	37	490	27	491	26	490	25
Iceland	488	31	493	25	507	16	506	16	515	thirteen
Indonesia	386	66	375	sixty	371	55	391	47	360	37
Ireland	504	eighteen	501	18	487	thirty	501	21	503	xx
State of israel	470	39	466	39	447	39	442	38	—	—
Italy	490	30	485	xxx	483	33	462	36	466	31
Japan	532	v	536	6	529	7	523	9	534	5
Jordan	380	67	386	57	387	50	384	48	—	—
Kazakhstan	460	42	432	45	405	48	—	—	—	—
Republic of korea	524	7	554	four	546	3	547	4	542	iii
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	five	525	10	525	viii	527	viii
Malaysia	446	45	421	48	—	—	—	—	—	—
Malta	479	35	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Mexico	408	59	413	fifty	419	46	406	45	385	36
Moldova	420	52	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Montenegro	418	54	410	51	403	49	399	46	—	—
Netherlands	512	eleven	523	8	526	9	531	5	538	four
New Zealand	495	21	500	21	519	11	522	x	523	eleven
Norway	502	nineteen	489	28	498	19	490	28	495	22
Peru	387	65	368	61	365	57	—	—	—	—
Poland	504	17	518	12	495	23	495	24	490	24
Portugal	492	29	487	29	487	31	466	35	466	30
Qatar	402	61	376	59	368	56	318	52	—	—
Romania	444	46	445	42	427	42	415	42	—	—
Russia	494	23	482	32	468	36	476	32	468	29
Singapore	564	1	573	1	562	1	—	—	—	—
Slovakia	475	38	482	33	497	21	492	25	498	21
Slovenia	510	14	501	xix	501	eighteen	504	18	—	—
Spain	486	32	484	31	483	32	480	31	485	26
Sweden	494	24	478	36	494	24	502	twenty	509	16
Switzerland	521	8	531	7	534	half-dozen	530	half dozen	527	9
Thailand	415	56	427	46	419	45	417	41	417	35
Trinidad and Tobago	417	55	—	—	414	47	—	—	—	—
Tunisia	367	70	388	56	371	54	365	51	359	38
Turkey	420	51	448	41	445	40	424	40	423	33
United Arab Emirates	427	49	434	44	—	—	—	—	—	—
United Kingdom	492	27	494	24	492	26	495	23	508	17
The states	470	40	481	34	487	29	474	33	483	28
Uruguay	418	53	409	52	427	43	427	39	422	34
Vietnam	495	22	511	fifteen	—	—	—	—	—	—

Science
State	2015		2012		2009		2006
	Score	Rank	Score	Rank	Score	Rank	Score	Rank
International Average (OECD)	493	—	501	—	501	—	498	—
Albania	427	54	397	58	391	54	—	—
People's democratic republic of algeria	376	72	—	—	—	—	—	—
Argentine republic	432	52	—	—	—	—	—	—
Australia	510	fourteen	521	14	527	9	527	8
Austria	495	26	506	21	494	28	511	17
Prc B-S-J-One thousand[b]	518	ten	—	—	—	—	—	—
Kingdom of belgium	502	xx	505	22	507	19	510	18
Brazil	401	66	402	55	405	49	390	49
Bulgaria	446	46	446	43	439	42	434	40
Argentina CABA[c]	475	38	425	49	—	—	—	—
Canada	528	7	525	9	529	7	534	3
Chile	447	45	445	44	447	41	438	39
Taiwan	532	4	523	11	520	11	532	4
Colombia	416	60	399	56	402	fifty	388	50
Costa Rica	420	58	429	47	—	—	—	—
Croatia	475	37	491	32	486	35	493	25
Cyprus	433	51	—	—	—	—	—	—
Czech Commonwealth	493	29	508	xx	500	22	513	14
Denmark	502	21	498	25	499	24	496	23
Dominican Republic	332	73	—	—	—	—	—	—
Estonia	534	iii	541	5	528	8	531	five
Republic of finland	531	five	545	iv	554	1	563	one
France	495	27	499	24	498	25	495	24
Macedonia	384	70	—	—	—	—	—	—
Georgia	411	63	—	—	—	—	—	—
Germany	509	16	524	x	520	12	516	12
Greece	455	44	467	twoscore	470	38	473	37
Hong Kong	523	9	555	1	549	2	542	two
Republic of hungary	477	35	494	30	503	20	504	xx
Iceland	473	39	478	37	496	26	491	26
Indonesia	403	65	382	60	383	55	393	48
Ireland	503	19	522	13	508	18	508	nineteen
State of israel	467	twoscore	470	39	455	39	454	38
Italy	481	34	494	31	489	33	475	35
Japan	538	2	547	iii	539	four	531	6
Hashemite kingdom of jordan	409	64	409	54	415	47	422	43
Kazakhstan	456	43	425	48	400	53	—	—
Southward Korea	516	11	538	6	538	5	522	x
Kosovo	378	71	—	—	—	—	—	—
Latvia	490	31	502	23	494	29	490	27
Lebanon	386	68	—	—	—	—	—	—
Republic of lithuania	475	36	496	28	491	31	488	31
Luxembourg	483	33	491	33	484	36	486	33
Macau	529	6	521	fifteen	511	sixteen	511	16
Malaysia	443	47	420	50	—	—	—	—
Republic of 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	x	525	nine
New Zealand	513	12	516	sixteen	532	6	530	vii
Norway	498	24	495	29	500	23	487	32
Peru	397	67	373	61	369	57	—	—
Poland	501	22	526	8	508	17	498	22
Portugal	501	23	489	34	493	30	474	36
Qatar	418	59	384	59	379	56	349	52
Romania	435	50	439	46	428	43	418	45
Russia	487	32	486	35	478	37	479	34
Singapore	556	1	551	2	542	3	—	—
Slovakia	461	42	471	38	490	32	488	29
Slovenia	513	xiii	514	18	512	15	519	11
Spain	493	xxx	496	27	488	34	488	thirty
Sweden	493	28	485	36	495	27	503	21
Switzerland	506	18	515	17	517	thirteen	512	15
Thailand	421	57	444	45	425	45	421	44
Trinidad and Tobago	425	56	—	—	410	48	—	—
Tunisia	386	69	398	57	401	52	386	51
Turkey	425	55	463	41	454	40	424	42
United Arab Emirates	437	48	448	42	—	—	—	—
United Kingdom	509	15	514	19	514	14	515	thirteen
U.s.a.	496	25	497	26	502	21	489	28
Uruguay	435	49	416	51	427	44	428	41
Vietnam	525	viii	528	7	—	—	—	—

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	—
Albania	405	63	394	58	385	55	—	—	—	—	349	39
Algeria	350	71	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Argentina	425	56	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Australia	503	16	512	12	515	8	513	7	525	four	528	4
Republic of austria	485	33	490	26	470	37	490	21	491	22	492	19
China B-Due south-J-G[b]	494	27	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Belgium	499	20	509	16	506	x	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
Argentine republic CABA[c]	475	38	429	48	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Canada	527	3	523	7	524	5	527	4	528	three	534	2
Chile	459	42	441	43	449	41	442	37	—	—	410	35
Taiwan	497	23	523	8	495	21	496	15	—	—	—	—
Colombia	425	57	403	54	413	48	385	49	—	—	—	—
Costa Rica	427	52	441	45	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Croatia	487	31	485	33	476	34	477	29	—	—	—	—
Republic of cyprus	443	45	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Czechia	487	thirty	493	24	478	32	483	25	489	24	492	20
Denmark	500	18	496	23	495	22	494	18	492	19	497	16
Dominican Republic	358	69	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Republic of estonia	519	six	516	10	501	12	501	12	—	—	—	—
Finland	526	four	524	5	536	2	547	two	543	i	546	i
France	499	nineteen	505	nineteen	496	20	488	22	496	17	505	14
Macedonia	352	seventy	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	373	37
Georgia	401	65	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Germany	509	11	508	18	497	18	495	17	491	21	484	22
Greece	467	41	477	38	483	30	460	35	472	xxx	474	25
Hong Kong	527	two	545	1	533	iii	536	3	510	nine	525	6
Republic of hungary	470	xl	488	28	494	24	482	26	482	25	480	23
Iceland	482	35	483	35	500	15	484	23	492	xx	507	12
Republic of indonesia	397	67	396	57	402	53	393	46	382	38	371	38
Ireland	521	five	523	6	496	19	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	viii	538	3	520	vii	498	14	498	xiv	522	9
Jordan	408	61	399	55	405	51	401	44	—	—	—	—
Republic of kazakhstan	427	54	393	59	390	54	—	—	—	—	—	—
South Korea	517	vii	536	4	539	one	556	1	534	2	525	vii
Kosovo	347	72	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Latvia	488	29	489	27	484	28	479	27	491	23	458	28
Lebanon	347	73	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Lithuania	472	39	477	37	468	38	470	31	—	—	—	—
Luxembourg	481	36	488	30	472	36	479	28	479	27	441	30
Macau	509	12	509	15	487	26	492	xx	498	fifteen	—	—
Malaysia	431	50	398	56	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Malta	447	44	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
United mexican states	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	xiii	508	ix	507	ten	513	8	‡	‡
New Zealand	509	ten	512	11	521	vi	521	5	522	v	529	3
Norway	513	nine	504	xx	503	11	484	24	500	12	505	thirteen
Peru	398	66	384	61	370	57	—	—	—	—	327	40
Poland	506	13	518	9	500	xiv	508	8	497	16	479	24
Portugal	498	21	488	31	489	25	472	xxx	478	28	470	26
Qatar	402	64	388	60	372	56	312	51	—	—	—	—
Romania	434	47	438	46	424	45	396	45	—	—	428	33
Russia	495	26	475	40	459	40	440	38	442	32	462	27
Singapore	535	1	542	two	526	4	—	—	—	—	—	—
Slovakia	453	43	463	41	477	33	466	33	469	31	—	—
Slovenia	505	fourteen	481	36	483	29	494	19	—	—	—	—
Spain	496	25	488	29	481	31	461	34	481	26	493	xviii
Sweden	500	17	483	34	497	17	507	9	514	seven	516	10
Switzerland	492	28	509	14	501	thirteen	499	13	499	xiii	494	17
Thailand	409	lx	441	44	421	46	417	40	420	35	431	31
Trinidad and Tobago	427	53	—	—	416	47	—	—	—	—	—	—
Tunisia	361	68	404	53	404	52	380	50	375	39	—	—
Turkey	428	51	475	39	464	39	447	36	441	33	—	—
United Arab Emirates	434	48	442	42	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
United Kingdom	498	22	499	21	494	23	495	sixteen	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	4 + xi	265,000	The Netherlands disqualified from data analysis. 11 additional non-OECD countries took the exam in 2002.
2003	Mathematics	30	eleven	275,000	UK disqualified from data analysis. Besides included exam in problem solving.
2006	Science	30	27	400,000	Reading scores for US butterfingers from analysis due to misprint in testing materials.[28]
2009[29]	Reading	34	41 + 10	470,000	ten additional not-OECD countries took the test in 2010.[30] [31]
2012[32]	Mathematics	34	31	510,000

Reception [edit]

(Communist china) China's participation in the 2012 test was limited to Shanghai, Hong Kong, and Macau every bit separate entities. In 2012, Shanghai participated for the second time, again topping the rankings in all three subjects, as well every bit improving scores in the subjects compared to the 2009 tests. Shanghai'south score of 613 in mathematics was 113 points above the boilerplate score, putting the performance of Shanghai pupils about iii school years alee of pupils in average countries. Educational experts debated to what caste this result reflected the quality of the general educational system in Red china, pointing out that Shanghai has greater wealth and better-paid teachers than the balance of China.^[33] Hong Kong placed second in reading and scientific discipline and third in maths.

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

In 2022 the Chinese provinces that participated were Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu and Zhejiang. In 2015, the participating provinces were Jiangsu, Guangdong, Beijing, and Shanghai.^[36] The 2022 Beijing-Shanghai-Jiangsu-Guangdong accomplice scored a median 518 in science in 2015, while the 2012 Shanghai cohort scored a median 580.

Critics of PISA counter that in Shanghai and other Chinese cities, most children of migrant workers tin can only attend city schools upward to the 9th form, and must render to their parents' hometowns for high school due to hukou restrictions, thus skewing the composition of the city'southward high school students in favor of wealthier local families. A population chart of Shanghai reproduced in The New York Times shows a steep drop off in the number of 15-twelvemonth-olds residing at that place.^[37] According to Schleicher, 27% of Shanghai's 15-year-olds are excluded from its schoolhouse system (and hence from testing). As a event, the percentage of Shanghai'due south fifteen-yr-olds tested by PISA was 73%, lower than the 89% tested in the US.^[38] Post-obit the 2022 testing, OECD published in depth studies on the teaching systems of a selected few countries including China.^[39]

In 2014, Liz Truss, the British Parliamentary Nether-Secretarial assistant of State at the Department for Education, led a fact-finding visit to schools and teacher-grooming centres in Shanghai.^[40] Britain increased exchanges with Chinese teachers and schools to notice out how to improve quality. In 2014, sixty teachers from Shanghai were invited to the Uk to help share their educational activity methods, support pupils who are struggling, and help to train other teachers.^[41] In 2016, Britain invited 120 Chinese teachers, planning to prefer Chinese styles of instruction in 8,000 aided schools.^[42] By 2019, approximately v,000 of United kingdom'southward sixteen,000 primary schools had adopted the Shanghai's didactics methods.^[43] The operation of British schools in PISA improved later on adopting Mainland china'southward instruction styles.^{[44] [45]}

Finland [edit]

Republic of finland, which received several superlative positions in the first tests, cruel in all three subjects in 2012, just remained the best performing country overall in Europe, achieving their all-time event in science with 545 points (5th) and worst in mathematics with 519 (12th) in which the state 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 first time Finnish girls outperformed boys in mathematics, merely only narrowly. It was also the get-go fourth dimension pupils in Finnish-speaking schools did not perform amend than pupils in Swedish-speaking schools. Minister of Education and Scientific discipline Krista Kiuru expressed concern for the overall driblet, as well as the fact that the number of low-performers had increased from seven% to 12%.^[46]

India [edit]

India participated in the 2009 round of testing but pulled out of the 2012 PISA testing, with the Indian government attributing its action to the unfairness of PISA testing to Indian students.^[47] The Indian Limited reported, "The ministry (of pedagogy) has ended that there was a socio-cultural disconnect between the questions and Indian students. The ministry volition write to the OECD and bulldoze home the need to cistron in India's "socio-cultural milieu". India's participation in the next PISA cycle will hinge on this".^[48] The Indian Express also noted that "Considering that over lxx nations participate in PISA, it is uncertain whether an exception would exist made for India".

India did non participate in the 2012, 2022 and 2022 PISA rounds.^[49]

A Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) commission equally well equally a group of secretaries on education constituted by the Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi recommended that Republic of india should participate in PISA. Appropriately, in February 2017, the Ministry of Man Resources Development under Prakash Javadekar decided to cease the boycott and participate in PISA from 2020. To accost the socio-cultural disconnect betwixt the test questions and students, it was reported that the OECD will update some questions. For example, the word avocado in a question may be replaced with a more popular Indian fruit such as mango.^[l]

Malaysia [edit]

In 2015, the results from Malaysia were establish past the OECD to have not met the maximum response rate.^[51] Opposition politician Ong Kian Ming said the teaching ministry tried to oversample high-performing students in rich schools.^{[52] [53]}

Sweden [edit]

Sweden'due south result dropped in all three subjects in the 2012 test, which was a continuation of a trend from 2006 and 2009. It 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 driblet from 516 in 2000 to 483 in 2012. The state performed below the OECD average in all three subjects.^[54] The leader of the opposition, Social Democrat Stefan Löfven, described the situation equally a national crisis.^[55] Along with the party's spokesperson on teaching, Ibrahim Baylan, he pointed to the downward trend in reading as almost astringent.^[55]

In 2020, Swedish newspaper Expressen revealed that Sweden had inflated their score in PISA 2022 by not conforming to OECD standards. Co-ordinate to professor Magnus Henrekson a large number of strange-born students had not been tested.^[56]

Great britain [edit]

In the 2012 test, as in 2009, the issue was slightly to a higher place average for the United Kingdom, with the scientific discipline ranking being highest (xx).^[57] England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Republic of ireland also participated as separated entities, showing the worst result for Wales which in mathematics was 43rd of the 65 countries and economies. Government minister of Didactics in Wales Huw Lewis expressed thwarting in the results, said that in that location were no "quick fixes", but hoped that several educational reforms that have been implemented in the last few years would give improve results in the next round of tests.^[58] The United Kingdom had a greater gap between high- and low-scoring students than the average. There was picayune divergence between public and private schools when adjusted for socio-economical groundwork 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 also much emphasis on the U.k.'s international ranking, arguing that an overfocus on scholarly performances in East Asia might accept contributed to the surface area'due south low birthrate, which he argued could harm the economic performance in the future more a skillful PISA score would outweigh.^[59]

In 2013, the Times Educational Supplement (TES) published an commodity, "Is PISA Fundamentally Flawed?" by William Stewart, detailing serious critiques of PISA's conceptual foundations and methods advanced by statisticians at major universities.^[sixty]

In the commodity, Professor Harvey Goldstein of the Academy of Bristol was quoted as saying that when the OECD tries to rule out questions suspected of bias, it can have the effect of "smoothing out" primal differences betwixt countries. "That is leaving out many of the important things," he warned. "They simply don't get commented on. What you are looking at is something that happens to be common. But (is it) worth looking at? PISA results are taken at face value every bit providing some sort of common standard beyond countries. Simply equally soon as you begin to unpick it, I think that all falls apart."

Queen's University Belfast mathematician Dr. Hugh Morrison stated that he institute the statistical model underlying PISA to contain a key, insoluble mathematical error that renders Pisa rankings "valueless".^[61] Goldstein remarked that Dr. Morrison's objection highlights "an important technical upshot" if not a "profound conceptual error". However, Goldstein cautioned that PISA has been "used inappropriately", contending that some of the arraign for this "lies with PISA itself. I think it tends to say as well much for what it can do and it tends not to publicise the negative or the weaker aspects." Professors Morrison and Goldstein expressed dismay at the OECD's response to criticism. Morrison said that when he first published his criticisms of PISA in 2004 and also personally queried several of the OECD'south "senior people" nearly them, his points were met with "accented silence" and have yet to exist addressed. "I was amazed at how unforthcoming they were," he told TES. "That makes me suspicious." "Pisa steadfastly ignored many of these problems," he says. "I am still concerned."^[62]

Professor Svend Kreiner, of the University of Copenhagen, agreed: "1 of the problems that everybody has with PISA is that they don't want to talk over things with people criticising or request questions concerning the results. They didn't want to talk to me at all. I am sure it is because they can't defend themselves.^[62]

United States [edit]

Since 2012 a few states have participated in the PISA tests every bit separate entities. Only the 2012 and 2022 results are bachelor on a state footing. Puerto Rico participated in 2022 as a separate Usa entity as well.

2012 United states State results

Mathematics	Science	Reading
Massachusetts 514 Connecticut 506 U.s.a. Average 481 Florida 467	Massachusetts 527 Connecticut 521 U.s. Average 497 Florida 485	Massachusetts 527 Connecticut 521 Us Average 498 Florida 492

2015 US State results

Mathematics	Science	Reading
Massachusetts 500 Due north Carolina 471 US Average 470 Puerto Rico 378	Massachusetts 529 N Carolina 502 US Average 496 Puerto Rico 403	Massachusetts 527 Northward Carolina 500 U.s.a. Average 497 Puerto Rico 410

PISA results for the U.s. by 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
US 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
U.s.a. Average	502	496	497	502	489
More than i 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 one 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 by and large refrain from hypothesizing almost the large and stable differences in pupil achievement between countries, since 2000, literature on the differences in PISA and TIMSS results and their possible causes has emerged.^[64] Data from PISA take furnished several researchers, notably Eric Hanushek, Ludger Wößmann, Heiner Rindermann, and Stephen J. Ceci, with material for books and articles about the relationship between student achievement and economic development,^[65] democratization, and health;^[66] as well as the roles of such unmarried educational factors as high-stakes exams,^[67] the presence or absence of individual schools and the effects and timing of ability tracking.^[68]

[edit]

David Spiegelhalter of Cambridge wrote: "Pisa does present the dubiety in the scores and ranks - for example the United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland rank in the 65 countries is said to be between 23 and 31. It's unwise for countries to base educational activity policy on their Pisa results, equally Federal republic of germany, Norway and Denmark did later doing badly in 2001."^[69]

According to a Forbes stance article, some countries such equally Mainland china, Hong Kong, Macau, and Argentine republic select PISA samples from just the best-educated areas or from their top-performing students, slanting the results. ^[70]

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

According to O Estado de São Paulo, Brazil shows a swell disparity when classifying the results between public and individual schools, where public schools would rank worse than Peru, while individual schools would rank better than Finland.^[72]

See too [edit]

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

Explanatory notes [edit]

References [edit]

1. ^ "Almost PISA". OECD PISA . Retrieved 8 Feb 2018.
2. ^ Berger, Kathleen (3 March 2014). Invitation to The Life Span (second ed.). worth. ISBN978-one-4641-7205-two.
3. ^ "PISA 2022 Results". OECD. 3 December 2019. Archived from the original on iii Dec 2019. Retrieved iii December 2019.
4. ^ ^{a b c d e} "Rey O, 'The use of external assessments and the impact on education systems' in CIDREE Yearbook 2010, accessed January 2017". Archived from the original on three Feb 2017. Retrieved 22 November 2019.
5. ^ McGaw, B (2008) 'The part of the OECD in international comparative studies of achievement' Assessment in Educational activity: Principles, Policy & Practice, 15:3, 223–243
6. ^ Mons N, (2008) 'Évaluation des politiques éducatives et comparaisons internationales', Revue française de pédagogie, 164, juillet-août-septembre 2008 v–13
7. ^ ^{a b c d e f} Breakspear, S. (2012). "The Policy Touch of PISA: An Exploration of the Normative Furnishings of International Benchmarking in School System Performance". OECD Instruction Working Paper. OECD Education Working Papers. 71. doi:ten.1787/5k9fdfqffr28-en.
8. ^ Barroso, J. and de Carvalho, Fifty.M. (2008) 'Pisa: Un instrument de régulation pour relier des mondes', Revue française de pédagogie, 164, 77–80
9. ^ Ertl, H. (2006). "Educational standards and the changing discourse on teaching: the reception and consequences of the PISA report in Federal republic of germany". Oxford Review of Education. 32 (5): 619–634. doi:ten.1080/03054980600976320. S2CID 144656964.
10. ^ Bajomi, I., Berényi, East., Neumann, East. and Vida, J. (2009). 'The Reception of PISA in Hungary' accessed January 2017
11. ^ Steiner-Khamsi (2003), cited by Breakspear, Southward. (2012). "The Policy Impact of PISA: An Exploration of the Normative Effects of International Benchmarking in School Organization Functioning". OECD Education Working Paper. OECD Pedagogy 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 lodge and the educational sector in French-speaking Belgium". Sísifo: Educational Sciences Journal. Educational Sciences R&D Unit of the University of Lisbon (ten): 15–26. ISSN 1646-6500. Retrieved 26 December 2017.
13. ^ "Greger, D. (2008). 'Lorsque PISA importe peu. Le cas de la République Tchèque et de l'Allemagne', Revue française de pédagogie, 164, 91–98. cited in Rey O, 'The use of external assessments and the impact on didactics systems' in CIDREE Yearbook 2010, accessed January 2017". Archived from the original on iii February 2017. Retrieved 22 Nov 2019.
14. ^ Afonso, Natércio; Costa, Estela (September–December 2009). "The influence of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) on policy conclusion in Portugal: the education policies of the 17th Portuguese Constitutional Regime" (PDF). Sísifo: Educational Sciences Journal. Educational Sciences R&D Unit of measurement of the University of Lisbon (x): 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 primal government". Journal of Pedagogy Policy. 24 (v): 539–556. doi:ten.1080/02680930903131267. S2CID 154584726.
16. ^ Egelund, N. (2008). 'The value of international comparative studies of achievement – a Danish perspective', Assessment in Didactics: Principles, Policy & Practise, 15, 3, 245–251
17. ^ "Behrens, 2006 cited in Rey O, 'The use of external assessments and the impact on didactics systems in CIDREE Yearbook 2010, accessed January 2017". Archived from the original on 3 February 2017. Retrieved 22 November 2019.
18. ^ Hefling, Kimberly. "Asian nations dominate international test". Yahoo!.
19. ^ "Affiliate ii of the publication 'PISA 2003 Assessment Framework'" (PDF). Pisa.oecd.org.
20. ^ Keeley B. PISA, we have a problem… OECD Insights, April 2014.
21. ^ Poddiakov, Alexander Complex Trouble Solving at PISA 2012 and PISA 2015: Interaction with Circuitous Reality. // Translated from Russian. Reference to the original Russian text: Poddiakov, A. (2012.) Reshenie kompleksnykh problem v PISA-2012 i PISA-2015: vzaimodeistvie so slozhnoi real'nost'yu. Obrazovatel'naya Politika, half dozen, 34–53.
22. ^ C. Füller: Pisa hat einen kleinen, fröhlichen Bruder. taz, 5.12.2007 [1]
23. ^ Stanat, P; Artelt, C; Baumert, J; Klieme, E; Neubrand, M; Prenzel, 1000; Schiefele, U; Schneider, W (2002), PISA 2000: Overview of the study—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, affiliate 10 in Rutkowski, L. von Davier, M. & Rutkowski, D. (eds.) Handbook of International Big-Calibration Assessment: Background, Technical Issues, and Methods of Information Assay., New York: Chapman and Hall/CRC.
25. ^ von Davier, Matthias; Sinharay, Sandip (2013), Analytics in International Large-Calibration Assessments: Particular Response Theory and Population Models, chapter seven in Rutkowski, L. von Davier, Chiliad. & Rutkowski, D. (eds.) Handbook of International Big-Scale Cess: Background, Technical Issues, and Methods of Information Analysis., New York: Chapman and Hall/CRC.
26. ^ PISA 2018: Insights and Interpretations (PDF), OECD, 3 December 2019, retrieved 4 December 2019
27. ^ PISA 2022 in Spain (PDF), OECD, 15 November 2019, retrieved 28 February 2021
28. ^ Baldi, Stéphane; Jin, Ying; Skemer, Melanie; Green, Patricia J; Herget, Deborah; Xie, Holly (ten December 2007), Highlights From PISA 2006: Performance of U.S. 15-Year-Old Students in Science and Mathematics Literacy in an International Context (PDF), NCES, retrieved 14 Dec 2013, PISA 2006 reading literacy results are not reported for the United States because of an error in press the test booklets. Furthermore, as a issue of the press error, the mean operation in mathematics and science may be misestimated past approximately ane score bespeak. The impact is beneath one standard error.
29. ^ PISA 2009 Results: Executive Summary (PDF), OECD, 7 Dec 2010
30. ^ ACER releases results of PISA 2009+ participant economies, ACER, xvi 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 Dec 2011, retrieved 28 June 2012
32. ^ PISA 2012 Results in Focus (PDF), OECD, 3 Dec 2013, retrieved 4 December 2013
33. ^ Tom Phillips (3 Dec 2013) OECD education report: Shanghai'south formula is globe-beating The Telegraph. Retrieved 8 Dec 2013
34. ^ ^{a b} Cook, Chris (7 Dec 2010), "Shanghai tops global state school rankings", Financial Times , retrieved 28 June 2012
35. ^ Mance, Henry (vii December 2010), "Why are Chinese schoolkids so practiced?", Financial Times , retrieved 28 June 2012
36. ^ Coughlan, Sean (26 August 2014). "Pisa tests to include many more Chinese pupils". BBC News.
37. ^ Helen Gao, "Shanghai Test Scores and the Mystery of the Missing Children", New York Times, January 23, 2014. For Schleicher'southward initial response to these criticisms see his post, "Are the Chinese Adulterous in PISA Or Are We Cheating Ourselves?" on the OECD's website blog, Education Today, December 10, 2013.
38. ^ "William Stewart, "More than than a quarter of Shanghai pupils missed past international Pisa rankings", Times Educational Supplement, March half-dozen, 2014". Archived from the original on xv March 2014. Retrieved 7 March 2014.
39. ^ http://www.oecd.org/china/Education-in-Prc-a-snapshot.pdf
40. ^ Howse, Patrick (18 February 2014). "Shanghai visit for government 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 xi Baronial 2020.
42. ^ "Britain invites 120 Chinese Maths teachers for aided schools". India Today. 20 July 2016. Retrieved 12 August 2020.
43. ^ "Scores eternalize case for Shanghai math in British schools | The Star". www.thestar.com.my . Retrieved 11 August 2020.
44. ^ Turner, Camilla (3 December 2019). "Great britain jumps up international maths rankings following Chinese-manner teaching". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved eleven August 2020.
45. ^ Starkey, Hannah (5 December 2019). "United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland Boost International Maths Ranking Later on Adopting Chinese-Style Teaching". Truthful Education Partnerships . Retrieved 11 August 2020.
46. ^ PISA 2012: Proficiency of Finnish youth declining University of Jyväskylä. Retrieved 9 Dec 2013
47. ^ Hemali Chhapia, TNN (iii August 2012). "Bharat backs out of global teaching test for fifteen-year-olds". The Times of India. Archived from the original on 29 Apr 2013.
48. ^ "Poor PISA score: Govt blames 'disconnect' with Bharat". The Indian Express. iii September 2012.
49. ^ "Republic of india chickens out of international students assessment programme once again". The Times of India. i June 2013.
50. ^ "PISA Tests: India to take function in global teen learning test in 2021". The Indian Express. 22 February 2017. Retrieved 19 May 2018.
51. ^ "Ong: Did ministry try to rig results for Pisa 2022 report?". 8 December 2016.
52. ^ "Who'southward telling the truth near M'sia's Pisa 2022 scores?". 9 Dec 2016.
53. ^ "Malaysian PISA results nether scrutiny for lack of evidence – School Advisor". eight December 2016.
54. ^ Lars Näslund (3 December 2013) Svenska skolan rasar i stor jämförelse Expressen. Retrieved iv Dec 2013 (in Swedish)
55. ^ ^{a b} Jens Kärrman (3 December 2013) Löfven om Pisa: Nationell kris Dagens Nyheter. Retrieved 8 Dec 2013 (in Swedish)
56. ^ "Sveriges PISA-framgång bygger på falska siffror".
57. ^ ^{a b} Adams, Richard (3 December 2013), "United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland students stuck in educational doldrums, OECD study finds", The Guardian , retrieved 4 Dec 2013
58. ^ Pisa ranks Wales' education the worst in the UK BBC. 3 December 2013. Retrieved 4 December 2013.
59. ^ Ambrose Evans-Pritchard (iii 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 Baronial 2013. Retrieved 26 July 2013.
61. ^ Morrison, Hugh (2013). "A central conundrum in psychology'south standard model of measurement and its consequences for PISA global rankings" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 5 June 2013. Retrieved 13 July 2017.
62. ^ ^{a b} Stewart, "Is PISA fundamentally flawed?" TES (2013).
63. ^ ^{a b c} "Highlights of U.S. PISA 2022 Results Web Written report" (PDF). {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
64. ^ Hanushek, Eric A., and Ludger Woessmann. 2011. "The economic science of international differences in educational accomplishment." In Handbook of the Economic science of Instruction, Vol. three, edited by Eric A. Hanushek, Stephen Machin, and Ludger Woessmann. Amsterdam: North Holland: 89–200.
65. ^ Hanushek, Eric; Woessmann, Ludger (2008), "The office of cognitive skills in economic development" (PDF), Journal of Economic Literature, 46 (three): 607–668, doi:10.1257/jel.46.3.607
66. ^ Rindermann, Heiner; Ceci, Stephen J (2009), "Educational policy and country outcomes in international cognitive competence studies", Perspectives on Psychological Science, iv (6): 551–577, doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01165.x, PMID 26161733, S2CID 9251473
67. ^ Bishop, John H (1997). "The effect of national standards and curriculum-based exams on achievement". American Economic Review. Papers and Proceedings. 87 (ii): 260–264. JSTOR 2950928.
68. ^ Hanushek, Eric; Woessmann, Ludger (2006), "Does educational tracking impact operation and inequality? Differences-in-differences evidence across countries" (PDF), Economic Journal, 116 (510): C63–C76, doi:10.1111/j.1468-0297.2006.01076.ten
69. ^ Alexander, Ruth (10 December 2013). "How accurate is the Pisa exam?". BBC News . Retrieved 22 Nov 2019.
70. ^ Flows, Capital. "Are The PISA Educational activity Results Rigged?". Forbes . Retrieved 22 Nov 2019.
71. ^ Guardian Staff (6 May 2014). "OECD and Pisa tests are damaging education worldwide – academics". Retrieved 22 November 2019 – via www.theguardian.com.
72. ^ Cafardo, Rafael (four December 2019). "Escolas privadas de aristocracy do Brasil superam Finlândia no Pisa, rede pública vai pior exercise 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 Cess. Paris: OECD, ISBN 92-64-17053-7
  • OECD (2014): PISA 2012 results: Creative problem solving: Students' skills in tackling real-life problems (Volume 5) [2]
• OECD's Teaching GPS: Interactive information from PISA 2015
• PISA Data Explorer
• Gunda Tire: "Estonians believe in education, and this conventionalities has been essential for centuries"—Interview of Gunda Tire, OECD PISA National Project Manager, for Caucasian Journal

tilleyderfe1962.blogspot.com

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

Share this post