Downloaded 19 times
![OECD average
340
350
360
370
380
390
400
410
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
490
500
510
520
530
540
550
560
Reading literacy in PISAStudentperformance
2009 2012 20152006 20182000 2003
36% enrolled
73% enrolled
55% enrolled
65% enrolled
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANG[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRA[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/firstresultsfrompisa2018-200219122314/75/First-results-from-PISA-2018-3-2048.jpg)
![OECD average
340
350
360
370
380
390
400
410
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
490
500
510
520
530
540
550
560
2009 2012 20152006 20182000 2003
36% enrolled
73% enrolled
Poverty need not be destinyStudentperformance
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANG[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRA[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/firstresultsfrompisa2018-200219122314/75/First-results-from-PISA-2018-4-2048.jpg)
![[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
R² = 0.47
330
380
430
480
530
25 35 45 55 65 75 85
Averagereadingscore
Percentage of students who disagreed or strongly disagreed that their intelligence cannot change very much (%)
OECDaverage
OECD average
Growth mindset
and reading performance
Fig II.14.3
More students holding a growth mindset
Higherperformance
Similar relationship
within most countries
(Figure III.14.2)](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/firstresultsfrompisa2018-200219122314/75/First-results-from-PISA-2018-8-2048.jpg)
![[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
420
440
460
480
500
520
540
560
0510152025
Readingperformance(inscorepoints)
Percentage of variation in performance explained by social-economic statusGreater equity
HigherPerformance
Low performance
Low equity
High performance and
high equity](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/firstresultsfrompisa2018-200219122314/75/First-results-from-PISA-2018-26-2048.jpg)
Uploaded byEduSkills OECD
First results from PISA 2018
The PISA 2018 report presents international assessments focusing on students' reading literacy and factors affecting performance across countries. It emphasizes the role of teacher enthusiasm, school climate, and students' socio-economic backgrounds in shaping educational outcomes. The data highlights discrepancies in performance and participation, showcasing the importance of addressing disparities to improve educational equity.
More Related Content
Similar to First results from PISA 2018
![2011 c-oslo [english] - rev 1.1](https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/2011-c-osloenglish-rev1-1-110330055917-phpapp02-thumbnail.jpg?width=640&height=640&fit=bounds)
First results from PISA 2018
- 1. PISA 2018 Results Programmefor International Student Assessment First results from PISA 2018 Andreas Schleicher
- 2. OECD average readingscore 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 410 420 430 440 450 460 470 480 490 500 510 520 530 540 550 560 Reading literacy in PISAStudentperformance 2009 2012 20152006 20182000 2003 9%…can distinguish between fact and opinion, based on implicit cues pertaining to the content or source of the information 7% 2000
- 3. OECD average 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 410 420 430 440 450 460 470 480 490 500 510 520 530 540 550 560 Reading literacyin PISAStudentperformance 2009 2012 20152006 20182000 2003 36% enrolled 73% enrolled 55% enrolled 65% enrolled [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANG[CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRA[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
- 4. OECD average 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 410 420 430 440 450 460 470 480 490 500 510 520 530 540 550 560 2009 201220152006 20182000 2003 36% enrolled 73% enrolled Poverty need not be destinyStudentperformance [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANG[CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRA[CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE]
- 5. 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 Finland Iceland Baku(Azerbaijan) Norway Ireland Denmark Canada Portugal NewZealand Estonia Poland Sweden UnitedKingdom Kosovo Latvia Albania Mexico Georgia UnitedStates BosniaandHerzegovina SaudiArabia Malaysia Australia Kazakhstan CostaRica Belarus Philippines Jordan Montenegro Morocco Chile Indonesia Macao(China) Moldova Russia Thailand DominicanRepublic Ukraine Greece Colombia France Korea ChineseTaipei Lithuania Panama Croatia B-S-J-Z(China) Uruguay Malta Brazil HongKong(China) Peru BruneiDarussalam NorthMacedonia Singapore Luxembourg Japan Switzerland Argentina Slovenia Romania Serbia Belgium Italy Qatar Turkey CzechRepublic Hungary SlovakRepublic Germany Bulgaria UnitedArabEmirates Netherlands Lebanon Israel Between-school variation Within-schoolvariation PercentageofthetotalvariationinperformanceacrossOECDcountries Can the closest school be always the best school? Variation in reading performance between and within schools Fig II.4.1 Performance variation between schools Performance variation within schools
- 6. Learning time ≠learning outcomes 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Finland Germany Switzerland Sweden Estonia NewZealand Japan CzechRepublic Macao(China) Netherlands Ireland France UnitedKingdom Australia Norway Iceland Canada Belgium Slovenia HongKong(China) Latvia OECDaverage Lithuania Uruguay Luxembourg Portugal SlovakRepublic Denmark Poland Hungary Singapore Austria UnitedStates ChineseTaipei Israel Croatia Korea Russia Bulgaria Greece Italy Turkey Chile Brazil Colombia Mexico CostaRica Montenegro Peru Qatar UnitedArabEmirates Thailand DominicanRepublic Scorepointsinreadingperhouroflearningtime Hours Time in school Learning out of school Productivity Note: Learning time is based on reports by 15-year-old students in the same country/economy in response to the PISA 2015 questionnaire, Productivity is measured by score points in reading per hour of total learning time
- 7. Beyond reading, mathand science Growth mindset
- 8. [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] R² =0.47 330 380 430 480 530 25 35 45 55 65 75 85 Averagereadingscore Percentage of students who disagreed or strongly disagreed that their intelligence cannot change very much (%) OECDaverage OECD average Growth mindset and reading performance Fig II.14.3 More students holding a growth mindset Higherperformance Similar relationship within most countries (Figure III.14.2)
- 9. -0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 Motivation to master tasks Self-efficacyFear of failure Learning goals Value of school Changeintheindex Growth mindset and student attitudes Change in the following indices when students disagreed or strongly disagreed that "your intelligence is something about you that you can’t change very much“: Fig III.14.5 All linear regression models account for students' and schools' socio-economic profile
- 10. What school lifemeans for students’ life
- 11. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 It was clearto me that the teacher liked teaching us The enthusiasm of the teacher inspired me It was clear that the teacher likes to deal with the topic of the lesson The teacher showed enjoyment in teaching Score-pointdifferenceinreading compared to students who reported “strongly disagree” Disagree Agree Strongly agree Teacher enthusiasm and reading performance Fig III.5.3
- 12. 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 CzechRepublic Jordan Russia Israel Georgia UnitedKingdom Albania UnitedArabEmirates Belarus Hungary Qatar Bulgaria Poland B-S-J-Z(China) Ukraine Ireland Portugal Latvia Kosovo SlovakRepublic Serbia Australia HongKong(China) Malta Italy Luxembourg ChineseTaipei France BosniaandHerzegovina Singapore Montenegro Austria Lithuania Romania OECDaverage Morocco Germany Greece Sweden NewZealand UnitedStates Finland Switzerland Netherlands Turkey SaudiArabia Moldova Denmark Croatia Kazakhstan Belgium VietNam Korea Spain Slovenia Malaysia Estonia Thailand Norway Brazil Iceland Macao(China) Philippines BruneiDarussalam Baku(Azerbaijan) Japan CostaRica Chile Indonesia Mexico Peru Uruguay DominicanRepublic Colombia Argentina Panama Change in indexassociated with a one-unit increase in the index of teacher enthusiasm Index of disciplinary climate Index of motivation to master tasks Changeinindex Students reported a better disciplinary climate/more perseverance when their teacher showed more enthusiasm Fig III.5.4
- 13. R² = 0.09 R²= 0.10 R² = 0.03 R² = 0.12 R² = 0.18 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Averagereadingscore Percentage of students in schools whose principal reported that the above behaviours hinder student learning "a lot" Teacher behaviour hindering learning and average reading performance Fig III.7.4 Based on country-level analysis Teachers not meeting indiviudal students‘ needs Teacher absenteeism Staff resisting change Teachers not being well prepared for classes Teachers being too strict with students
- 14. -0.60 -0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 Index of disciplinary climate Index of exposureto bullying Index of sense of belonging at school Index of teacher support Index of teacher feedback Index of student co-operation Index of student competition Changeinstudents’averagelifesatisfactionassociatedwith aone-unitincreaseintheschool-levelindices After accounting for student and school characteristics Before accounting for student and school characteristics Students' life satisfaction and school climate Change in the school-level index associated with a one-point change on the student life-satisfaction scale Fig III.11.7 GreaterLifeSatisfaction
- 15. -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Netherlands Denmark Japan Germany Georgia Austria Croatia CzechRepublic Switzerland Kazakhstan Ukraine Belgium Indonesia Iceland VietNam Kosovo Belarus Norway Estonia NorthMacedonia Israel Slovenia Lithuania Malaysia Luxembourg Russia Hungary Greece Moldova Albania B-S-J-Z(China) OECDaverage Finland Uruguay Romania Thailand Mexico ChineseTaipei Philippines Spain UnitedArabEmirates Italy Serbia Macao(China) SlovakRepublic Panama Latvia Chile Sweden Argentina Montenegro Poland Lebanon France Baku(Azerbaijan) BosniaandHerzegovina CostaRica Peru DominicanRepublic Qatar Colombia Portugal Australia Bulgaria HongKong(China) Turkey BruneiDarussalam Jordan NewZealand Korea SaudiArabia Ireland Singapore Morocco UnitedKingdom Brazil Malta UnitedStates Index of studentco-operation Index of student competition Meanindex Student co-operation and competition Fig III.8.1 Student competition is relatively higher than student co-operation Student co-operation is relatively higher than student competition
- 16. -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 Students seem to valueco- operation It seems that students are co- operating with each other Students seem to share the feeling that co- operating with each other is important Students feel that they are encouraged to co-operate with others Students seem to value competition It seems that students are competing with each other Students seem to share the feeling that competing with each other is important Students feel that they are being compared with others Score-pointdifferenceinreading Score-point difference when students reported that the below statements are "very true" or "extremely true" After accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile Before accounting for students' and schools' socio-economic profile Student co-operation and competition, and reading performance Fig III.8.3 OECD average Student co-operation Student competition
- 17. Inclusion The right tobe equal The right to be different Social background GenderLocation Immigration
- 18. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Thailand UnitedStates Mexico Korea Turkey Singapore Greece Serbia Ireland Canada BosniaandHerzegovina UnitedArabEmirates Qatar Chile Romania Portugal Lithuania Montenegro Brazil B-S-J-Z(China) Argentina Belarus ChineseTaipei Albania NorthMacedonia CzechRepublic SlovakRepublic HongKong(China) Sweden Jordan Belgium Australia Malaysia Spain Norway Japan Bulgaria Kazakhstan France Hungary Macao(China) OECDaverage Estonia UnitedKingdom BruneiDarussalam Slovenia Poland Malta Latvia Netherlands Israel Russia Baku(Azerbaijan) Moldova Uruguay Ukraine Italy NewZealand Denmark Croatia Finland Luxembourg Iceland Switzerland Austria Germany % Percentage ofstudents amongst those who have attained at least minimum proficiency (Level 2) in the three core PISA subjects and are high performers (Level 4) in at least one subject High performers among all students Disadvantaged students Advantaged students High performers who do not expect to complete higher education Fig II.6.5
- 19. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Argentina Lebanon Greece Albania Chile Qatar Turkey Sweden Brazil UnitedKingdom NorthMacedonia Australia BruneiDarussalam Montenegro Serbia France Denmark Ireland Hungary Croatia Belgium UnitedArabEmirates Israel Estonia Portugal Malaysia Malta Luxembourg Slovenia Thailand NewZealand OECDaverage-36 Kazakhstan Iceland Canada Lithuania Baku(Azerbaijan) Italy Germany Russia Latvia Singapore Poland Norway Bulgaria Romania Switzerland Jordan Moldova Belarus SlovakRepublic UnitedStates B-S-J-Z(China) Finland Austria ChineseTaipei Netherlands CzechRepublic Macao(China) Korea HongKong(China) Ukraine Indonesia Japan Percentageoftopperformerswhoexpectacareerinthefield Expect to workas science or engineering professionals Top performers among all students Girls Boys Gender gap in career expectations amongst top performers High performers in mathematics and/or science who aspire to science and engineering professionals Fig II.8.8
- 20. Students with disadvantaged social background Studentswith advantaged social background Growth mindset Positive feeling Life satisfaction Sense of belonging Bullying Discipline Teacher enthusiasm Teacher support Co-operation Compounding disadvantage
- 21. -5 0 5 10 15 20 Colombia Mexico Morocco NewZealand Malta Baku(Azerbaijan) Uruguay Kazakhstan BruneiDarussalam CostaRica Iceland Kosovo Lithuania Thailand Indonesia Brazil Argentina Chile Australia Ukraine UnitedStates Sweden Latvia BosniaandHerzegovina DominicanRepublic Denmark Romania Albania Russia Ireland Moldova Israel Slovenia Georgia UnitedArabEmirates Malaysia SaudiArabia Canada Qatar Belarus Finland UnitedKingdom OECDaverage Italy Greece Singapore Serbia Peru France Croatia Hungary Jordan Netherlands Turkey SlovakRepublic Montenegro Philippines Portugal Austria Poland Japan Bulgaria Luxembourg Belgium(Flemish) Switzerland Germany ChineseTaipei Lebanon Estonia Korea Macao(China) NorthMacedonia CzechRepublic Panama HongKong(China) B-S-J-Z(China) Percentage-pointdifference Difference in theshare of academically resilient between those who exhibited a growth mindset and those who did not Against the odds: Growth mindset and student resilience Fig II.3.5
- 22. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Parents' emotional support Teacher support Teacher enthusiasm Self-efficacy Disciplinary climate Student co- operation Student competition Agrowth mindset All countries and economies average Bottom quarter Second quarter Third quarter Top quarter Do not exhibit Exhibit % Percentage of academically resilient immigrant students Fig II.9.10
- 23. Beyond the average Inclusionin school systems
- 24. 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 Finland Norway Macao(China) Baku(Azerbaijan) Canada Iceland Denmark Kosovo Sweden Portugal Estonia Ireland Malta NewZealand Jordan UnitedKingdom Australia BosniaandHerzegovina Kazakhstan Poland UnitedStates SaudiArabia Montenegro Korea Greece Croatia Russia Georgia France Latvia HongKong(China) OECDaverage NorthMacedonia ChineseTaipei Albania Ukraine Qatar Turkey Brazil Malaysia DominicanRepublic Singapore Indonesia Switzerland Morocco BruneiDarussalam Mexico Serbia Moldova Lithuania Belarus Italy B-S-J-Z(China) Germany Belgium Japan Netherlands Philippines Lebanon Uruguay CostaRica Panama Thailand Slovenia Chile Luxembourg Colombia Israel Romania SlovakRepublic CzechRepublic Argentina UnitedArabEmirates Hungary Peru Bulgaria Isolation index Isolation ofdisadvantaged students from high-achieving students in reading Fig II.4.4 Lower probability for disadvantaged students to attend a school that enrols high-achieving students
- 25. -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 Peru Uruguay UnitedArabEmirates Thailand Australia HongKong(China) Turkey Luxembourg Brazil SaudiArabia Colombia Panama Philippines Argentina B-S-J-Z(China) Israel UnitedStates NewZealand Slovenia Malta DominicanRepublic Macao(China) Indonesia Jordan Morocco Canada UnitedKingdom Belgium Switzerland Ireland Spain Denmark Germany Lebanon BruneiDarussalam Sweden Korea Baku(Azerbaijan) OECDaverage SlovakRepublic Greece Mexico Russia Norway VietNam Japan Chile Malaysia Hungary Qatar Kazakhstan Estonia Serbia CzechRepublic ChineseTaipei BosniaandHerzegovina Iceland France Albania Netherlands Belarus Singapore Montenegro Georgia Italy CostaRica Portugal Ukraine Poland Kosovo Croatia Latvia Finland Bulgaria Moldova Lithuania Romania NorthMacedonia Meanindexdifferencebetweenadvantagedand disadvantagedschools Index of shortageof education staff Index of shortage of educational material Few systems align resources with needs Fig II.5.5 Disadvantaged schools have more resources than advantaged schools Disadvantaged schools have fewer resources than advantaged schools Based on principals’ reports
- 26. [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 0510152025 Readingperformance(inscorepoints) Percentageof variation in performance explained by social-economic statusGreater equity HigherPerformance Low performance Low equity High performance and high equity
- 27. Find out moreabout our work at www.oecd.org/pisa PISA 2018: Insights and Implications PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do PISA 2018 Results (Volume II): Where All Students Can Succeed PISA 2018 Results (Volume III): What School Life Means for Students’ Lives Take the test: www.oecd.org/pisa/test FAQs: www.oecd.org/pisa/pisafaq PISA indicators on Education GPS: http://gpseducation.oecd.org PISA Data Explorer: www.oecd.org/pisa/data Email: Andreas.Schleicher@OECD.org Thank you